Another Caltech Nobel :)

Colleges and Universities A-Z California Institute of Technology
21

<p>
[quote]
But since we're doing this, I disagree strongly that the glory days of Caltech were solely before the war. The output of physicists in the 60's and 70's, when Feynman was here, was just phenomenal.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never said that Caltech only had prewar glory and nothing else. </p>

<p>What I said is that the Caltech faculty was one of the very first, if not the first American school faculty to the party, and was therefore scientifically prominent decades before MIT, Princeton, Stanford, Berkeley or almost anybody else with the possible exception of Harvard, and even that's debatable. There is also no doubt that the Caltech physics department was great in the postwar period, particularly the 60's and 70's. However, the physics department of many other US schools also became great during that time. Hence, nowadays Caltech is just one of many, whereas before, Caltech was THE one. </p>

<p>An analogy would be the Notre Dame football team, which is still a very good football team is still a strong championship contender. And I have no doubt that today's Notre Dame football team would soundly defeat the old Notre Dame football teams from decades ago, mostly due to superior athletes, superior training methods, and superior tactics. However, there is little dispute that Notre Dame football of the old days (i.e. the 20's to the 40's) was far more dominant than it is today. That doesn't make today's Notre Dame team bad (in fact, today's team is very good), but it does mean that other teams got better. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But does the presence of a few Nobel Prizes make an institution extremely prestigious? 3 is an awfully small sample size.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's not the number "3" that I'm necessarily interested in. What it illustrates is that Caltech was viewed as a great, perhaps THE great American tech school of the prewar period. Caltech was the first to arrive at the party. At that time, MIT was still largely seen as a glorified trade and vocational school, Stanford was a nearly financially bankrupt school of little consequence that was still trying to find its footing, Berkeley was just beginning to build a strong research faculty, and the Ivies were still gentlemen's finishing schools. It was only later, especially because of defense spending, that these other schools grew up to become the science powerhouses that they were. Caltech didn't need to grow up, it already was one.</p>

<p>What that also means, if nothing else, is that we shouldn't be banging the drum too much about Caltech's total Nobel production or whatnot, relative to that of the other schools. A lot of that Caltech Nobel production was prewar production during which the other schools hadn't even started playing the game yet. Like I said, the past is the past, the past is not destiny. Just because Notre Dame was completely dominant in football in the past doesn't mean that Notre Dame is completely dominant today. Like I said, MIT didn't really blossom until the war. The same is true of Stanford, Berkeley, and Princeton. Harvard was strong before the war, but became a lot stronger after the war. Hence, what I'm saying is that we need to be looking at postwar comparisons, when everybody finally arrived at the party, for comparisons to be meaningful.</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
Hence, what I'm saying is that we need to be looking at postwar comparisons, when everybody finally arrived at the party, for comparisons to be meaningful.

[/quote]
This is pretty funny -- Caltech being knocked for being established comparitively early. Princeton, MIT, Harvard, and Chicago, at the very least, had physics and chemistry departments long before Caltech even existed. The fact that Caltech came onto the scene and beat them up is not supposed to detract from Caltech's accomplishment. And the fact that, in terms of total Nobels (alums and faculty), Caltech still has proportionately the most of any of them (even <em>without</em> factoring in length of existence, on which it loses to all of them), means something about the Caltech of today, too.</p>

23

<p>"when Feynman was here"</p>

<p>I think that just about says it all....</p>

<p>Long live Feynman.....</p>

24

<p>
[quote]
This is pretty funny -- Caltech being knocked for being established comparitively early.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nobody's knocking anybody for being early. You don't have to be so sensitive about your school. Caltech deserves praise for being the first to the game, just like Notre Dame, Alabama, and Army deserve praise for dominating college football back in the early days of football. </p>

<p>But my point is the past is the past, the past is not destiny. Like it or not, a lot of Caltech's accomplishments were in the deep past. That's undeniable. Does that mean that Caltech is bad now? Of course not. Caltech is very good now. But it means that Caltech's accomplishments have to be looked at in its entirety, and with the proper chronological perspective.</p>

25

<p>sakky, as usual you and I are arguing over nothing. I agree with you that Not quite old was probably reaching when he said that Caltech had even fewer undergrads before the war. Everyone did. So that doesn't make Caltech special.</p>

<p>What does make Caltech special is that it still has, over history, proportionally more Nobels than anybody else. It seems odd to change the count by counting from a more recent date to equalize matters in favor of older schools. If anything, we should ignore Nobels by won other schools before Caltech existed, which I don't do in my comparisons.</p>

<p>Still, I do care about the present. Which is why I point out that Caltech <em>today</em> has more Nobel faculty, pound for pound, than any competitor. And my point in all of this wasn't some sort of abstract quality comparison, but merely the observation that undergraduates, if they want to learn from/work with Nobelists, have the best chance at Caltech, since there are way more Nobelists per student here than anywhere.</p>

26

<p>I didn't want to get involved in this because the disputation is becoming unseemly.</p>

<p>However let me make the following tangential point: Being a small school, Caltech does have to work harder to attract a large number of star faculty. Since star faculty need a certain number of good colleagues to function, Caltech gambles by choosing to concentrate on a smaller fraction of areas of study. The unevenness in winning Nobels -- Sakky's point about the prewar physics jump -- speaks to Caltech's prescience in picking the "hot" fields. Many of the top schools hire big names after they've been well established. Harvard has thousands of faculty and can afford to keep hiring big names in almost all fields all the time.</p>

<p>But Caltech has seen other amazing spurts which show up in other ways and will continue to show up in the Nobel column. The 60s particle theorists are one example. But so was the hiring of Politzer and the support for Schwarz in the 70s. I think the rise of string theory means Schwarz probably wins it in the future. The biology group will probably see more payoff as well.</p>

<p>Even in Econ, I think it was bad judgment that Charlie Plott did not share the Nobel with Vernon Smith as experimental econ received more development at Caltech in the 1970s than at any other school.</p>

<p>Poli sci -- which won't (unless they share in Econ) produce Nobelists -- was an example of a great bet. Caltech -- along with Rochester and Wash U -- pioneered modern rational choice political economy and cultivated the faculty and students -- Ferejohn, Fiorina, Noll, Weingast, Bates, etc. who now play such a large role in the departments of Stanford and Harvard.</p>

<p>This means that it's not surprising that you get a certain feast and famine syndrome. What is amazing is that the Nobels keep on coming. I remember when people were saying there was a drought of Nobel winning faculty in the 70s and that Tech was resting on its laurels -- just before the string of Nobels which included Willie Fowler, Roger Sperry, Marcus, Zewail, Politzer and now Grubbs. </p>

<p>Judging undergrads is even harder because you have nothing except raw test scores and limited research aptitude to draw on. Nonetheless the proportion of hits stays amazingly high. So much so that MIT alums would have to win a few dozen Nobels to match Caltech's per student productivity.</p>

<p>So, to reinforce Ben's point. Caltech is unique. It has uniquely high ratios of Nobelists to faculty, grad and undergrad alums. Is that "better"?</p>

<p>Yes, in the narrow sense that the meritocracy seems to pay off, despite its lower prestige in the general population, its lack of social cachet, its lack of professional schools, and its almost brutal academic core and low graduation rate. Yet somehow it continues to do well by any reasonable measure of the output of academic superstars. Moreover, it will probably continue to do well.</p>

<p>The formula is not especially secret, but somehow, most schools don't want to follow in this path. Given Caltech's multitudinous disadvantages -- which Sakky is quick to emphasize in other posts -- it is worth remembering at a happy time like this why many of us feel the <em>pain</em> was worthwhile.</p>

27

<p>Not quite old, as usual you speak the truth. I will second what you said and bow gracefully out of this discussion.</p>

<p>Long live Feynman, long live Caltech. : )</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
It seems odd to change the count by counting from a more recent date to equalize matters in favor of older schools

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not saying that you don't consider the stuff that Caltech did in the 1920's at all. But at the same time, that has to be recognized as past accomplishment that says little about what Caltech is like today, except in terms of enduring reputation.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If anything, we should ignore Nobels by won other schools before Caltech existed, which I don't do in my comparisons

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know that that would really affect anything. Caltech was founded in 1891. Nobels didn't even start being awarded until 1901, and in the early years, most of the Nobels won by Americans were Peace Nobels (Americans seemed to be really good at winning Peace Prizes back then). I haven't talked about Peace Prizes here at all, as I don't think they're relevant.</p>

<p>As far as science Nobels are concerned, I believe that before Millikan won his Caltech Nobel, the only other American science Nobels were Alexis Carrel (born and educated in France, and won his Nobel while working at the Rockefeller Institute), Albert Michelson (Prussian-born Jew who graduated from Navy and won his Nobel while at Chicago), and Richards (American educated at Harvard, won the prize while a prof at Harvard). Chicago was founded in 1890, 1 year before Caltech, Rockefeller was founded in 1901, a decade after Caltech. So it's not like Chicago or Rockefeller had any serious advantage in age over Caltech. That really only leaves one guy at one school - Richards at Harvard. Even if you take away that one guy, that doesn't really change much. </p>

<p>Look, again, my point is that yes, other schools are older. But at the same time, those schools weren't even really schools in the sense that we understand them today. Let's face it. For centuries, the Ivy League was just a bunch of gentlemen's finishing schools for the Eastern establishment. They weren't elite science research powerhouses, nor were they trying to be. They didn't really admit people based on academic merit, or on any merit at all, but rather whether you had the right social connections, and nor did they really try to admit based on merit. They certainly weren't research universities in the way we understand them today. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Given Caltech's multitudinous disadvantages -- which Sakky is quick to emphasize in other posts -- it is worth remembering at a happy time like this why many of us feel the <em>pain</em> was worthwhile.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The only reason why I point it out is because I maintain that Caltech can do something about its students who are not doing well, and in particular, for those students who want to transfer out or do not want to pursue a career in science/engineering. For example, if a guy hates Caltech so much that he wants to transfer to some other school, then what's the harm in giving him a cleansed transcript that expunges all his bad grades in order to maximize his chances of transferring to a strong school? The guy isn't going to get a Caltech degree anyway, so what does it matter?</p>