<p>Did anybody here get into Caltech but not MIT? or vice versa?</p>
<p>I know somebody got into MIT but got wait listed for Caltech.</p>
<p>I know several people who got into Harvard but not MIT. I also know a few people who got into MIT but didn't get into UChicago. I got rejected from MIT, and I get my Caltech decision in a few hours. Then again, I didn't put any enthusiasm into my MIT application and put a heck of a lot of it into my Caltech application, so that's probably the cause if I do get into Caltech.</p>
<p>I got into Caltech, rejected from MIT.</p>
<p>I think there's usually a fair number of people who get into Caltech but not MIT.</p>
<p>Hey guys - I got accepted by MIT but rejected by Caltech. For me, Caltech is 2nd to MIT anyway, so I definitely don't mind the rejection.. Very happy about MIT now!</p>
<p>In at Caltech, waitlisted by MIT.</p>
<p>which is harder to get into? wouldnt caltech be more difficult because of the smaller class size?</p>
<p>MIT and Caltech look for slightly different types of people, so one may be harder than the other to get into for different people.</p>
<p>I think it's easier for Asian and white males to get into Caltech. For everyone else, it seems to be easier to get into MIT. I do, however, acknowledge that for certain types of people, this isn't the case.</p>
<p>"I think it's easier for Asian and white males to get into Caltech."
It's not easier for them to get in; just a disproportionate number apply.</p>
<p>I think you misinterpreted what I said. I'm not saying that Caltech gives an advantage to white and asian males. I'm saying that a qualified white or asian male would have a better chance at getting into Caltech IN COMPARISON WITH MIT because MIT would rather have a slightly underqualified member of a minority than a qualified member of the majority. Caltech admits whoever is more qualified, regardless of race or gender. Naturally, the majority has a better chance at getting into a place with no affirmative action policies and even if you consider the sizes of the classes admitted (Caltech's ~600 to MIT's ~1500), do the math and see how it comes out when 45% of MIT's class is reserved for women and about 20-25% is reserved for minorities. Then compare the number of Asian/white male applicants of MIT to Caltech's. I'm too lazy to do the math, but if you'll do it yourself, you'll see how things become.</p>
<p>(MIT says it has no quotas, but I call BS.)</p>
<p>In general, MIT values more than Caltech the diversity an applicant will bring to the school (and not just racial or gender diversity.) More importantly though, I think MIT likes well-roundedness in applicants. Caltech would probably like to see intense dedication in a select few subjects rather than just being good in all subjects. Caltech cares a lot about scientific research and science extracurriculars... and not so much about humanities grades or how good you are at soccer.</p>
<p>"(and not just racial or gender diversity)"</p>
<p>Not just, sure. But I believe a large percentage of it is just racial and gender diversity. I tutored an African-American who got into MIT, and he was similar to everyone else. He really had no diversity in thinking whatsoever, and he was from a rich family, so I don't think he would provide anything but diversity in race compared to the other applicants.</p>
<p>(How does the tutor get rejected and the tutee get in, anyway?!?!)</p>
<p>"More importantly though, I think MIT likes well-roundedness in applicants. Caltech would probably like to see intense dedication in a select few subjects rather than just being good in all subjects. Caltech cares a lot about scientific research and science extracurriculars... and not so much about humanities grades or how good you are at soccer."</p>
<p>I'd disagree with your statement on well-roundedness. On the blogs, they've explicitly said that it's a myth that well-roundedness will benefit your application. I think they really want to see concentration in a particular area. The pitfall here is that at MIT, the concentration doesn't have to be science, like it has to be at Caltech. If you look at stats of some accepted applicants to MIT, you'll see three groups for the SAT Is: superb in both math and reading; superb in math, but not in reading; superb in reading, but not in math. The latter group just doesn't exist at Caltech. Caltech seems to only value concentration in SCIENCE, whereas MIT seems to value concentration in other subject areas.</p>
<p>I didn't get into either...I only applied to MIT.</p>
<p>I am admitted to both Caltech and MIT. I am an international student from Belgium who really likes to study physics but is also interested in music and philosophy. I play tennis at a very competitive level (even the coaches of Yale and Princeton cannot wait to have me in the varsity team), but sports is not a huge priority in my undergraduate education. Which of the two institutes do you advise for me? Or should I go for Princeton, Stanford or Harvard if admitted at the end of this month?</p>
<p>
Not just, sure. But I believe a large percentage of it is just racial and gender diversity. I tutored an African-American who got into MIT, and he was similar to everyone else. He really had no diversity in thinking whatsoever, and he was from a rich family, so I don't think he would provide anything but diversity in race compared to the other applicants.
"Increasing diversity" is a good guise for a lot of things, whether or not they all actually make MIT any more of an intellectually stimulating place. I personally don't feel like I'm missing out on a whole lot just because I'm going to a school without people who major just in humanities...</p>
<p>
I'd disagree with your statement on well-roundedness. On the blogs, they've explicitly said that it's a myth that well-roundedness will benefit your application. I think they really want to see concentration in a particular area. The pitfall here is that at MIT, the concentration doesn't have to be science, like it has to be at Caltech. If you look at stats of some accepted applicants to MIT, you'll see three groups for the SAT Is: superb in both math and reading; superb in math, but not in reading; superb in reading, but not in math. The latter group just doesn't exist at Caltech. Caltech seems to only value concentration in SCIENCE, whereas MIT seems to value concentration in other subject areas.
I think MIT is more willing to dismiss applicants that are focused in math and science but bad at humanities as "too one sided" as a way of bettering their gender ratio and gaining more respect amongst non-tech schools.</p>
<p>I got accepted to Caltech but rejected from MIT. I was surprised because I thought Caltech would be more difficult to get in to (it has a more rigorous core and seems slightly more intense all around). I wish the process seemed less random. If I'm qualified to attend Caltech I'm certainly qualified to attend MIT, but I'm guessing that I was rejected for diversity reasons (I'm a white male).</p>
<p>Into Caltech, rejected at MIT.</p>
<p>I think being an international REALLY hurt me at MIT (where they're really not that into internationals vs. domestic applicants). Not that Caltech is easy for internationals, but I don't know...</p>
<p>Im in at caltech and was waitlisted at MIT. Yeah, it just seems like they are harder for different types of people.</p>