<p>Now, please pour your thoughts. I know Caltech is comparable to MIT on a research and faculty basis, but are its students as top notch as its east coast counterpart? And for those of you who chose Caltech over MIT (if any) please share your reasons.</p>
<p>They're better.</p>
<p>My thought is that you are flame.</p>
<p>I refer you to the chapter on Caltech in Golden's Price of Admission for an explanation of why Caltech's undergraduate admissions process is unique among the elite research universities.</p>
<p>But does a unique admissions process mean better students? I understand that Caltech is relatively unbiased and looks solely at academic talent, but are the most talented students really going there? After all, it's yield rate is only 37% (i.e. only 37% of those accepted choose to attend). </p>
<p>And Charlie, by saying better are you referring to Caltech students or MIT students?</p>
<p>OP ?: I know Caltech is comparable to MIT on a research and faculty basis, but are its students as top notch as its east coast counterpart?
Answer: They're better.</p>
<p>Based on the only measures we have, objective ones.</p>
<p>Agreed. Caltech students are better than MIT. We are less made of concrete. <em>drizzles other thoughts about liberally</em></p>
<p>Don't worry. There are plenty of Caltech rejects at MIT.</p>
<p>But why the 37% yield rate? Where are the Caltech's admits going? I can't help but feel that Caltech is losing a vast majority of its talent pool.</p>
<p>If you end up being in the position of considering Caltech as one of your options, you can come visit and see whether the students are up to your standards. Or you can look at the objective indicators and see how Caltech students stack up. </p>
<p>It is definitely true that most people choosing between Caltech and MIT choose MIT. While this is something we should fix, I think the students at Caltech are still on average smarter than MIT students, and the education is better and more rigorous. But, if you are lucky enough, the choice is (or will be) up to you, and you shouldn't look too much to market statistics or other people for advice -- just do what seems like the best fit for you.</p>
<p>Well, I applied to Caltech, got in EA, and was too lazy to apply anywhere else. Besides, my parents really wanted me to come. And Caltech gave me good financial aid. :)</p>
<p>Having never attended MIT I can't say which is better than the other, but here are some salient things about Caltech:</p>
<p>1) We're on the quarter system, meaning we get three ten-week terms instead of two semesters. Ordinarily this would be fine and dandy, but at Caltech they kind of abuse the system and try to cram a semester's worth of material into a quarter. So we end up learning six years' worth of stuff in four years. (which may be why some Techers take six years to graduate :p) But it also means we get a lot less time to learn stuff and actually have it sink into our brains than you'd get at a semester-school like MIT. Meaning we have to work harder (but probably aren't actually smarter).</p>
<p>2) If MIT seems more attractive to more people, better students will go. (Probably.)</p>
<p>3) I would write more, but it's 3:05 and I have two problem sets due tomorrow.</p>
<p>This is a well-known problem, but you need to understand why people turn down Caltech. Some do it because they genuinely feel MIT or Harvard or whatever is an "academically" better school. Others do because it is better for them to go elsewhere even if they think Caltech is academically superior.</p>
<p>Example, I counseled a student who turned down Caltech for Princeton. He was absolutely persuaded that Caltech was better than P. But he was also interested in Med school. He thought that getting a 3.7 (for example) at Caltech might well be more valuable than a 3.7 at P. But he felt the odds of the latter were higher than at Caltech.</p>
<p>Others may feel a larger student body or a wider choice of majors are more desirable. Others feel external prestige of other schools is greater. This would lead good students to turn down C for M.</p>
<p>Some of these factors argue for, some against Caltech.</p>
<p>I will also add a claim that I can't prove but is plausible: Virtually all admits to Caltech were in the "possible" pool at all the other top colleges and might have been accepted with a different non-academic hook. Conversely, I would wager that the (objective) bottom 10% at all other universities were almost certain rejects at Caltech and would not have been helped by coming from a different region, being a minority, having a well-connected relative, or wanting to major in an obscure subject. Moreover, many of those students would have difficulty even passing Core.</p>
<p>I have known many people from Caltech who have transferred or did grad work or taught at HYPSM and other top schools. Almost all agree that Caltech was more rigorous and academically challenging than brand X.</p>
<p>You are joking, right, pisforphysics? If I were looking for a scientist, and I had to select someone knowing only the undergraduate university from which he/she graduated, I'd pick the Caltech grad every time. The students are plenty smart--I mean plenty smart!--there. </p>
<p>As for why students might select another university if accepted to both, Not quite old has identified several likely reasons. However, I'd qualify the comment about prestige to say that while Harvard probably has more prestige in US society in general--ask random people at the grocery store--in the scientific community, many people would give the edge to Caltech (depending somewhat on field).</p>
<p>The cross-admits Caltech loses are not necessarily its best admits--there's probably not a lot of range in the objective qualifications, but the personal factors that go into choosing Caltech are different from the personal factors that go into opting for Princeton pre-med. Academically, there's no place to hide at Caltech. Ben Golub mentioned a "kinder, gentler" grading policy in another thread, but in the olden days, Caltech had a reputation for "flunking students in," that is, giving sufficiently low grades that transfer was almost impossible.</p>
<p>The chief factor that prevented me (long ago) from going to Caltech was distance. My family concluded that they could afford to fly me out once at the beginning of each academic year, and fly me back once at the end. That was it. All East Coast universities and many other good ones were in driving distance.</p>
<p>Considering the elite level of these schools, you might want to consider how well the two schools prepare undergrads for research. (courtesy of interesteddad)</p>
<p>Top 10 (13 due to ties) in Physics/Astronomy</p>
<p>PhDs and Doctoral Degrees: ten years (1994 to 2003) from NSF database<br>
Number of Undergraduates: ten years (1989 to 1998) from IPEDS database </p>
<p>Formula: Total PhDs divided by Total Grads, multiplied by 1000 </p>
<p>Note: Does not include colleges with less than 1000 graduates over the ten year period </p>
<p>1 California Institute of Technology 96
2 Harvey Mudd College 64
3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 29
4 New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology 20
5 Reed College 13
6 Carleton College 13
7 Princeton University 13
8 University of Chicago 13
9 Rice University 13
10 Case Western Reserve University 9
11 Harvard University 9
12 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 9
13 Swarthmore College 9</p>
<p>^^Wait, they take into account the TOTAL number of undergraduates, but then ONLY PhDs in physics/astronomy? That seems like a silly way to judge a school- All those numbers tell you is that a higher percentage of Caltech's undergrads study physics as graduates. Doesn't necessarily say Caltech is better at physics. Also, could be skewed if a school's class size changed drastically or something, no? Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not sure the above statistic is the best measure of a school. Also, Not trying to say that my argument implies anything about the quality of the two schools either (it does not); just commenting that the above does not necessarily even imply that Caltech is better than MIT in terms of physics/astronomy...</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is definitely true that most people choosing between Caltech and MIT choose MIT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I feel that this is true. From personal experience and a relatively large sample size, I find that people often go to caltech when they are rejected from MIT. if accepted to both they seem to almost always choose MIT. Though this doesn't mean caltech is a worse school than MIT, I feel that there is some kind of significance behind the undeniable preference. Here on the east coast, MIT wins in terms of prestige. There are also other factors like caltech's extremely small size and MIT's proximity to harvard and other boston-area colleges, plus the town itself, that often makes it more attractive to cross-admits (according to people i've spoken with who had to make the decision between the two)</p>
<p>Correct, the numbers favor schools with a high percentage of physics/astronomy undergrads, which, for some, might be an additional reason to choose those schools. As I said, these are just available statistics someone might want to consider. However, I suppose it's obvious that the reason I post them is that they fit my view of CalTech as the number one physics institution in the country; just MHO.</p>
<p>I think the cross admit stats have also changed to favor MIT. I was accepted at both and strongly preferred Caltech many years ago. That was true for many I knew at the time as well.</p>
<p>MIT is definitely ahead in this regard today. But it is complicated to understand all the reasons for this. Consider that MIT loses most cross-admit battles with Harvard. Yet overall, I would say MIT's student body is stronger than H, and its minimum coursework and grading more rigorous. I think many of the points I made re: C vs M, apply re: M vs H.</p>
<p>I don't mean to be too harsh on the Princeton pre-med--it's not his fault that pre-med students are virtually forced to be cautious about GPA's. But you do have a different group of students if, as at Caltech, you wind up with students who are so deeply interested in science or math that they're willing to throw caution to the wind.</p>
<p>One reason Caltech is more appealing: The annual TED (Technology, Entertainment, and Design) Conference is moving to Long Beach, CA starting in 2009. That's only 30 miles from Caltech!</p>
<p>But for some reason, few people seem know about the conference. :( </p>
<p>Also. I'm in the east coast, so people I know definitely tended to choose MIT over Caltech. (I know the acceptance pools are different sizes, but I know 2 Techers vs 12+ MIT people.) I imagine the bias is less extreme as we traverse that nation westward.</p>
<p>Ben Golub: "If you end up being in the position of considering Caltech as one of your options, you can come visit and see whether the students are up to your standards. Or you can look at the objective indicators and see how Caltech students stack up. </p>
<h2>It is definitely true that most people choosing between Caltech and MIT choose MIT. While this is something we should fix, I think the students at Caltech are still on average smarter than MIT students, and the education is better and more rigorous. But, if you are lucky enough, the choice is (or will be) up to you, and you shouldn't look too much to market statistics or other people for advice -- just do what seems like the best fit for you."</h2>
<p>I agree with this for the most part, except the part about a Caltech education being more rigorous. I think Ben doesn't really have a basis for saying this. It's true that Caltech's requirements are more stringent, inasmuch as they require quantum mechanics and I've heard they require you to study a theoretical version of math and physics. However, MIT does have a separate core classes (8.012 and 8.022, 18.014, 18.024, 18.034) which are super-theoretical and well-attended in addition to the regular track. These theoretical classes use the same textbooks as Caltech (purcell, kolenkow, apostol.) You can get through MIT a little bit easier by taking the normal classes and by majoring in management or political science. However, the mean in the normal classes is much higher because it is more straightforward. Also, it's not like a management major from MIT gets the same respect as someone who had a technical major. </p>
<p>As a separate point, I wouldn't look at the admissions percentage to figure out who has the better students. MIT is a little bit more mainstream, and a little bit more well-known worldwide. Also, the fact that MIT now admits some people with sub-stellar stats encourages more applications. I mean, Columbia has a much lower admissions percentage than Caltech--you don't really think they are better students, do you?</p>