<p>I should note that I would agree in general that Caltech is more theoretical than say, MIT, I just think that the word theoretical holds a different meaning for me than it does for many students applying to college. I would agree that our math and science classes tend to be more theory focused than at most schools in their teaching, but that is because (or it seems to me this way) that Caltech has the attitude of "If you can do the theory, you can apply it to practice". For example, one of the classes freshmen and sophomore EEs take here is called EE52, where the students create one of four projects (VOIP phone, MP3 Player, MP3/OGG player, FPGA-based digital oscilloscope) over the course of the term. There is a lecture, but it's pretty general and not targeted to any of the projects specifically. Students are expected, with the help of TAs, to figure out how to do a lot of the work on their own. (Of course, only about one third of students finish this course on time, the rest take extensions into the summer!)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I should note that I would agree in general that Caltech is more theoretical than say, MIT, I just think that the word theoretical holds a different meaning for me than it does for many students applying to college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, my dad has a colleague who complained about this -- he went to Caltech at age 15 and in the end just decided he wanted a less than very theoretical job in industry. I meant, though, that maybe Caltech isn't any less engineering (vs. pure science) centered. Maybe.</p>
<p>This may be a little off topic, but what's the quality of life there? My sister's in CALTECH grad school and she HATES it there. She's very unhappy and doesn't like the students there. Of course, this could be just her;; but how is it? :S</p>
<p>The quality of life depends on you mostly. I'd like to mention that grad school is completely different from undergrad. Your sister probably slaves away in a lab 60 hours a week doing research on things that refuse to work (but hey, that's grad school for you). Undergrads have the house system, classes to take, and homework sets to complete. Usually it's your friends that make this place bearable, and the work that makes it almost unbearable.</p>
<p>Your quality of life is entirely dependent on how smart you are, how well you adapt to the stress of truly challenging work for the first time in your life, what major you're in, and to some degree how much you like the house you're in or involved with. </p>
<p>I'm not going to sugarcoat it. You're coming to Caltech to do work and learn science, not party. However, I've felt through the house system you can have quite a bit of fun with the traditions and soc and ath events. If you're a harder major such as EE, physics, or ChemE, you're probably going to be working on most friday and saturday nights some terms. But even as a sophomore ChemE in the thick of it, I've still found time to have fun. I still play soccer for Tech and for the GSC league, and go to several rock concerts every term. I've regrettably had to drop band, but sometimes things just pile up on one day of the week, and you have to drop whatever is lowest priority.</p>
<p>As for the whole theory vs practical debate, I'd like to add that first and foremost Caltech is a research institution. So it therefore seems natural that this would contribute more to the research oriented pure-science majors over the potentially more practical majors such as in engineering. However, this doesn't mean engineering is weaker necessarily, just that it's much more theoretical and research oriented in nature, over the more practical approach that would focus on preparing you for industry.</p>
<p>The point I was trying to get at in my post #36, Dauntless, is that what many people consider "engineering" (at least the fun type) IS engineering research, whether it be R&D at a major company, work at a government lab, or consulting/academia. If you're not doing research in industry you're most likely either not doing engineering at all (say, management) or you're doing drone work. The exception to this is very small companies, like startups, where you need to design a product from the ground up and market it (you'll take on many different hats in a position like that).</p>
<p>And I completely agree with you. I guess I should clarify that when I say "the more practical approach that would focus on preparing you for industry", I meant for entry level "drone" jobs as you put it. I'll probably graduate without understanding how to use a standard industrial chemical reactor, but I'll know the theory and math well enough to design one from it's basic chemical principles and understand exactly what's going on inside and how to control it chemically.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This may be a little off topic, but what's the quality of life there? My sister's in CALTECH grad school and she HATES it there. She's very unhappy and doesn't like the students there. Of course, this could be just her;; but how is it? :S
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Graduate student quality of life is probably a bit lower than that of undergrads here at Caltech. One of Caltech's biggest selling points to prospective grad students was free health insurance. Two years ago it became a $50 a term program. Last year it became $150 a term. Next year they're telling us we're going to expect to see a $1500-$2000 increase in living expenses with our stipends staying constant. Most programs here tend to be undergrad-centric, especially with the house system reinforcing that mindset.</p>
<p>I believe Tom Mannion also just became the head of graduate student affairs/life which I'm not really that excited about. I remember the first time I met him was at a Caltech Y barbecue where he was sitting with a bunch of undergrads and undergrad alumni. They were just badmouthing grad students and saying how we're pretty much a waste. About thirty minutes later they started talking about how they have serious problems raising money from grad student alumni. Hmm, I wonder why.</p>
<p>I think in general grad student quality of life is below undergrad quality of life at most schools, at least if you look at it from a work/fun perspective. In any case, I think quality of life depends a lot more on your department/lab than your school--I find most of the grad students in my lab are happier than the average undergrad, but then again, my lab is awesome.</p>
<p>Edit: I'd be very, very surprised if Tom Mannion said anything like that, at least seriously (he tends to have a relatively sarcastic sense of humor). If anything, it's the other way around--we're an institution that has traditionally put research first. Undergrads often feel like grad students are more focused on because they contribute more to that product; although that's been changing lately. For example, it used to be that teaching was not nearly as important as doing research, but both undergrads and grads complained about this enough that it will become more prevalent in the hiring process than it was.</p>
<p>OK, posting is really messed up for me. Sorry for the confusing weirdly formatted post.</p>
<p>I find it extremely hard to believe that the grad students would be less happy on average than the undergrads. The undergrads are loaded up on tons of courses while grad students tend to get more manageable course loads.
The fact that Caltech is a research institution means that grad students are more important than the undergrads. The house system is the one thing that's exclusively for the undergrad population. Most clubs and extracurriculars seemed to have plenty of grad students involved. While it's not great that health insurance is going up, when I checked CoL at Caltech, I think the average grad student would have more disposable income than someone living at UC-B or at MIT, unless the person was willing to take a sizable commute. Health insurance should probably be negotiated into the tuition that your PI pays for, to be honest. When I see a number for a stipend, I want that to be net of all fees, so it's clear what I will be taking home.</p>
<p>lizzard, I agree a lot of it does depend on your lab. One of the reasons I picked my lab is that most of the people in my group are relatively happy and we're not expected to work 60+ hour weeks. My advisor told me when I started here I was responsible for getting my work done, and if I wanted to just disappear for a few weeks for a vacation that I didn't even need to tell him. I'm really happy when I'm working in my lab here, I'm just very unsatisfied with the quality of my classes and just in general how the school seems to treat grad students.</p>
<p>I guess it isn't necessarily quality of life that's lower for grad students (it certainly picks up after candidacy and such is over and you move into the more research-centric portion of your program), it's more of the level of satisfaction with what Caltech is doing for them. I also think grad student satisfaction here is really really dependent upon which option you're associated with. Here in Materials Science we're required to take 15 courses (of which most of us haven't had the pre-reqs for, since they're outside of our department). In ones like Chemistry only four or five classes are required in the first two years, giving them a lot more flexibility and freedom from the start. Heh, I'm actually in Ch125b right now, and almost all of the chemistry students have dropped because the class is so poor. I think right now we have 5 materials and 3 other students in the class.</p>
<p>webhappy, while I agree I am getting a slightly higher stipend than students at UCB or MIT, they also have the advantage of living a bit more of city living. I was fine in Pittsburgh for four years without a car since there were lots of city busses that could get me wherever I wanted to go. I can't imagine trying to get by out here not having a car unless I'd be living in Avery paying out the nose (and not really being able to cook my own meals) for food (and a smaller room). One of the perks Caltech actually told us about was the relatively high standard stipend they offered (it was about the same as what UCSB offered me and significantly less than what Cornell, somewhere with much lower COL, offered).</p>
<p>And it's not so much just the fact that our health insurance is going up, but that Caltech told us this was going to happen without any input into the decision of restructuring from the GSC. I don't have the edition of the Tech infront of me, but it had the stat that the predicted savings for undergrads was going to be around $400,000 a year, while it was going to cost grad students from $300,000 to $600,000 a year.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When I see a number for a stipend, I want that to be net of all fees, so it's clear what I will be taking home.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sadly it isn't that way anywhere, as you're always going to have some sort of association fees, in addition to the taxes you'll have to pay on it.</p>
<p>You mean the numbers from Evans Boney that were based on unverified assumptions?</p>
<p>It's hard to verify assumptions when you're being kept out of the administrative loop. :)</p>
<p>(Also, if our health insurance rates go up in a similar manner to what they did the previous year, that works out to roughly $350,000 total more over all grad students. If they increase our health insurance fee and decrease coverage, which we've been told is being done, I think it's fairly safe to assume it's going to be an even bigger hit than the previous one.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Random Person: Where do you / did you go to college?
Techer: Caltech
Random Person: Cal Poly?
Techer: No, the California Institute of Technology
Random Person: Oh. Is that like ITT Tech?
Techer: No.
Random Person: Oh. Cool.
[/quote]
hahaha. This is the exact conversation that goes on when I tell people I got into Caltech :)</p>
<p>a fun look at Caltech from an Obie–look at Oberlin’s blogs: [Oberlin</a> Blogs | Blog Entry: “Cross-College Comparisons: Caltech”](<a href=“http://blogs.oberlin.edu/crosscollege_co.shtml]Oberlin”>http://blogs.oberlin.edu/crosscollege_co.shtml)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That link was wrong so I posed the correct one. Nothing really new in the article.</p>
<p>[Oberlin</a> Blogs | Blog Entry: “Cross-College Comparisons: Caltech”](<a href=“http://blogs.oberlin.edu/community/life_culture/crosscollege_co.shtml]Oberlin”>http://blogs.oberlin.edu/community/life_culture/crosscollege_co.shtml)</p>
<p>I met a friend of a friend (mutual friend) briefly and he asked me where my son was going to college </p>
<p>Friend of a Friend: To which college is your son going to?
Me: Caltech
Friend of a Friend: Oh</p>
<p>Later “Friend of a Friend” remarks to my Friend
“I thought X’s son was good student. I am surprised that he is going to CalPoly?”</p>
<p>I have to admit, I thought that I didn’t really care about prestige, but the "Caltech? What’s that?"s are really starting to bother me haha… half the people I meet are really impressed, the other half have either a confused or sort of pitying expression on their face. But on the bright side, I’m on the East coast - a lot of people haven’t heard of Cal Poly either. </p>
<p>The Oberlin post is interesting. I really love this comment: “I can’t believe Caltech has a ball pit in a dorm lounge and Oberlin doesn’t. (Or did you mean to type “pit bull?”)”
Is that ball pit still there?</p>
<p>For me, I was pretty set on MIT for a good while until after both of the preview weekends. But before that I would always go out with my friend going to Columbia and people would always know MIT and stare at him when he said Columbia. Now its the opposite when I say Caltech and he says Columbia. People either say “WOW…” or “oh, ok”. </p>
<p>The polarizing effect gets quite irritating. I know after flaunting my MIT acceptance for 5 months that people treat you MUCH better when they think you are very intelligent. I don’t like that people pretty much ignore conversation with you after you state Caltech as your school. That’s the East Coast for you…</p>
<p><<"Caltech? What’s that?"s are really starting to bother me haha>></p>
<p>In some way, shouldn’t you feel MORE elitist and smug inside, given your school is so elite that it doesn’t feel its need to advertise itself to any but the most mathematically/scientifically inclined …</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Many people here in Los Angeles aren’t familiar with Caltech either. For most people colleges like MIT, Harvard, etc. are only ever mentioned in things like movies and TV. A lot of it is just regional awareness as well. What school do you think of when I say UT and UA? How about Tech?</p>
<p>I went to Carnegie Mellon for my undergrad and met plenty of people in Pittsburgh that had never heard of the school. Does it matter? Not at all. The graduate schools I applied to and the government labs and companies I interviewed with for internships were well aware of CMU’s reputation. You can expect the same thing with a degree from Caltech.</p>
<p><<i don’t=“” like=“” that=“” people=“” pretty=“” much=“” ignore=“” conversation=“” with=“” you=“” after=“” state=“” caltech=“” as=“” your=“” school.=“” that’s=“” the=“” east=“” coast=“” for=“” you…=“”>></i></p><i don’t=“” like=“” that=“” people=“” pretty=“” much=“” ignore=“” conversation=“” with=“” you=“” after=“” state=“” caltech=“” as=“” your=“” school.=“” that’s=“” the=“” east=“” coast=“” for=“” you…=“”>
<p>Battle ignorant elitism with knowing elitism. That is, feel free to look down on these people (since they seem arrogant anyway, and worse yet, ignorantly so), and enjoy your elite math/science circle which, likely, respects your actual abilities, and as a bonus, respects Caltech.</p>
</i>