<p>I've read a lot of comments about Caltech being more theoretical than other engineering schools like MIT. What does this actually mean? How does it affect instruction and where people end up after school?</p>
<p>From my experiences here as a first-year engineering grad student, I've found the program to be much more physics and math based than what I covered in undergrad. There's more emphasis in proving things from first principles than necessarily what you can do with the things you've shown.</p>
<p>Of course, I'm in Materials, which doesn't even have an undergrad program here (I take mostly physics courses for my degree), so my opinion might be a bit biased.</p>
<p>"I've read a lot of comments about Caltech being more theoretical than other engineering schools like MIT. What does this actually mean? How does it affect instruction and where people end up after school?"</p>
<p>I don't buy that the actual engineering curriculum is any more theoretical at MIT than at Caltech. However, they do require you to take quantum mechanics at Caltech regardless of major and do require you to take the Kolenkow/Purcell version of intro physics. (It is an option at MIT, but not required.)</p>
<p>Also, people at Caltech I think have more of a scientific bent than an entrepeneurial/engineering bent, so this is reflected in the culture.</p>
<p>I think the engineering curriculum at MIT and Caltech are far and above most other schools. Maybe Berkeley is close, but my opinion is that MIT and Caltech are unique in the rigor and difficulty of their curricula.</p>