CalTech chances...bad grades but a burning passion for science?

Colleges and Universities A-Z California Institute of Technology
1

<p>Hi</p>

<p>My stats will seem probably very different from other Tech applicants...in both good and bad ways. I would greatly appreciate it if you guys could chance me.</p>

<p>I know almost all Tech applicants are passionate about science, but if you read on I think you'll find that I'm somewhat different...</p>

<p>Ok first off, I'll start out on the good aspects of my high school career.
-I was a Siemens Westinghouse semisfinalist (AKA Siemens' Competition)
-I am wrote a book, currently in the process of publication, about quantum physics
-I won synopsys science fair
-I did research at SLAC (Stanford Linear Acceler.)
-I may or may not get a patent, depending on how it goes</p>

<p>The problem with me is that I'm really really passionate about science. Passionate enough to petition for money from the student government and build my own laboratory in my house from scratch (not a joke.) But sometimes I forget about grades completely. I have horrible stats... so here goes:</p>

<p>Freshman year uw gpa: 3.857
Freshman weighted gpa: 3.857
Sophomore year uw gpa: 3.667
Sophomore year w gpa: 3.857
Junior year uw. gpa: 3.857
Junior year weighted: 4.33
Senior year: tba</p>

<p>So my overall uw gpa is about 3.7 and weighed is 4.3ish (I took many, many classes on physics, math, and science at my community college.)</p>

<p>However, the part I most fear about my app is that I got a C in my sophomore year in computer science. The grading system was almost arbitrary; several people ended up with Cs like me. I feel that this will seriously scar my app. Also, my transcript is speckled with Bs. I think this further dents my chances.</p>

<p>Ok, going on:
SAT 1:
took it once during sophomore year (with no prep at all): 1810 (550 V, 500 W, 760 M)
again during junior year (after actually studying): 2210 (800 M, 700 V, 710 W)</p>

<p>SAT IIs: Math 780, bio 780, lit 750</p>

<p>I've wanted to get into CalTech since 8th grade, but I'm afraid my grades and numbers won't reflect this. I am really passionate about science, I derived Schrodinger's equation in 10th grade, my room is adorned with posters of Einstein, Feynman, etc. and I do experiments in my free time and record results, etc. but once again, my grades say a completely different thing.</p>

<p>I think the Admissions officers of Tech may believe that I can't cope with Tech's difficult classes due to my grades...</p>

<p>Chances are my book will be published before I have to submit my app. I think my chances are getting in are bleak at best, but once again, I would greatly appreciate it if you could chance me.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

2

<p>I think you belong to Caltech.</p>

3

<p>I agree with inverse. One C will not kill your case, especially because CS is not as key as, say, math or physics. What is your book called? It it really is good, I would send a published copy or at least the manuscript. I think the postage will probably pay for itself in higher probability of admission.</p>

<p>If you present all the good sides of your application persuasively, your passion will be clear enough that admissions people will be willing to forgive quite a lot. </p>

<p>One caution. Make sure to avoid creating the impression that you think you are Schrodinger, since people don't have too much patience for that. Your accomplishments are very impressive, but make sure to cast them in a humble (though honest and positive) light.</p>

4

<p>Wow.</p>

<p>Your stats are a classic example of the person who knows that he's intelligent and who realizes that schools are not the best means through which one can channel his obvious intelligence. It's a risk, but a risk that is extremely respectable. Anyways, with your level of self-motivation, you'll be successful where-ever you go. good luck!</p>

<p>
[quote]
derived Schrodinger's equation in 10th grade,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Um, is it possible to derive Schrodinger's equation? I thought that it was just inspired, but not really derived,at least from more fundamental principles.</p>

<p>btw, your post reminds me of a post i read on physicsforums a while back</p>

5

<p>
[quote]
</p>

<p>Your stats are a classic example of the person who knows that he's intelligent and who realizes that schools are not the best means through which one can channel his obvious intelligence. It's a risk, but a risk that is extremely respectable. Anyways, with your level of self-motivation, you'll be successful where-ever you go. good luck!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah...the way I look at it (I don't if it's the right way) is that school is just something I do if I have time later. When I come home, the first thing I do isn't homework, but read the latest science article, Wiki article, etc. Then I write papers for my SLAC internship. Then if I have time, I do schoolwork...my bad grades are evidence of this.</p>

<p>
[quote]

I thought that it was just inspired, but not really derived,at least from more fundamental principles.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But don't you have to start with an equation for propagation in one time step and then derive from there? but there's a decent chance I'm wrong...</p>

6

<p>
[quote]
Yeah...the way I look at it (I don't if it's the right way) is that school is just something I do if I have time later. When I come home, the first thing I do isn't homework, but read the latest science article, Wiki article, etc. Then I write papers for my SLAC internship. Then if I have time, I do schoolwork...my bad grades are evidence of this.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ah, I see. Does the SLAC internship care about grades?
And just out of curiosity - do you read papers during class?</p>

<p>Ideally, your extra-curricular accomplishments will be able to demonstrate both (a) talent and (b) willpower/self-discipline outside of school. the question is, will the adcoms take this as such? it's hard to say. there was a homeschooled student with VERY strong stats (zeta(3)) who got waitlisted in last year's round of applications.</p>

<p>I know that Olo was also in a similar situation (low grades, but significant self-studying out of MIT OCW)- he ultimately got rejected from Caltech and into MIT. </p>

<p>===</p>

<p>Yeah, so you can derive the Schrodinger's Equation by assuming some things</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger%27s_equation%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger%27s_equation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>But apparently not from more fundamental principles</p>

<p><a href="http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=61647%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=61647&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>===
hmm, I did some searching on this and came up with this:
<a href="http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0610/0610121v1.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0610/0610121v1.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
After several lectures motivating the
need for quantum mechanics by illustrating the new observations at the turn of the twentieth
century, usually the lecture begins with: “Here is the Schr¨odinger equation.” Sometimes,
similarities to the classical Hamiltonian are pointed out, but no effort is made to derive the
Schr¨odinger equation in a physically meaningful way. This shortcoming is not remedied in
the standard quantum mechanics textbooks either1,2,3. Most students and professors will
tell you that the Schr¨odinger equation cannot be derived. Beyond the standard approaches
in modern textbooks there have been several noteworthy attempts to derive the Schr¨odinger
equation from different principles4,5,6,7, including a very compelling stochastic method8, as
well as useful historical expositions9.
In this paper, we illustrate a simple derivation of the Schr¨odinger equation, which requires
only knowledge of the electromagnetic wave equation and the basics of Einstein’s special
theory of relativity. These prerequisites are usually covered in courses taken prior to an
undergraduate’s first course in quantum mechanics.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I guess I was perpetuating some often-mentioned memes then. :p</p>