<p>I believe MIT does better in the cross-admit battle because they do a better job marketing themselves. First, they just have a higher profile. MIT is more in the news. Technology Review magazine is quite a nice advertisement for MIT, too. Not only does MIT have higher visibility, the tone of the publicity shouts out FUN!, INNOVATIVE! Not that anyone thinks going to MIT is a trip to Disney World, but there is a sense that MIT places a high value on courage and creativity, as well as technical competence.</p>
<p>Secondly, and perhaps relatedly, we parents are worried that Caltech students come out a little less polished. It may be unfair, but that is the impression many people have. This impression comes partly from the way MIT emphasizes the need for teamwork in its undergraduate culture, and partly from the requirement for communication-intensive courses at MIT. The longer you've been in the working world the more you can see that the ability to write clearly and speak comfortably to a variety of audiences easily trumps proof-writing as a skill. Does Caltech develop these capabilities? I'm not sure.</p>
<p>Thirdly, there is OpenCourseWare, which is not only a great advertisement but if you use it and come to appreciate it, it creates a kind of "brand loyalty". So that gives MIT a leg up.</p>
<p>I'm not sure any of these are real advantages of an MIT education; I'm just relating the perception people have.</p>
<p>If you read the weblog cited, part way down the page, you'll find the comment:
"The limit above exists if and only if for each delta > 0, there exists epsilon > 0 such that . . ."
Caveat lector.</p>
<p>This reminds me of the joke, "How do you identify a mathematician at a party?
Say loudly, "Let epsilon be less than zero . . ."</p>
<p>DS did D/E proofs in soph year, too. :) Ben, I had seen a MIT article at one point that ranked math programs into bands, and said that the top six, "in no particular order," were H, P, Chicago, Stanford, Berkeley, and MIT. Next band was Caltech, NYU, UCLA, Cornell and UMich. </p>
<p>I had it bookmarked, but I'm not at home to find it. </p>
<p>As far as DS is concerned, bring on the proofs!</p>
<p>I never quite understood OCW. Perhaps it's changed since I checked it out, but when I saw it, it looked basically like the course websites for all the classes. If you poke around, you can find these for Caltech too. Though I suppose OCW is a bit more organized. I've never really found it to be all that useful.</p>
<p>I have a different parent's opinion. My son graduated from Caltech not long ago (choosing it over MIT) and is now a grad student at MIT.</p>
<p>I agree with several of your points but not with others. MIT certainly has name recognition among a much larger number of people, even those that are involved in the college admissions process. This is particularly true here in the East Coast but, as my son likes to say, Caltech has plenty of recognition among the people that matter the most: employers and grad students.</p>
<p>I believe the "less polished" label for Caltech students is not fair, particularly at the individual level, but I will grant you they are a different bunch. As for valuing creativity and courage there is no question that is a missperception, particularly regarding courage. Likewise if people don't understand that teamwork is not only valued at Caltech but practically a requirement, then to your point, they definitely do not know the school.</p>
<p>I have not read all the posts in this tread but to me the explanation about the cross-admit loses and low yield at Caltech is simply due to the fact that Caltech is a match for a much smaller segment of the population, even among the elite few that also get admitted to MIT or other equally highly selective schools. Many students, perhaps the lucky ones, find that out during the admissions process and go elsewhere. I really don't know how that could be changed, or even if it needs to be changed given the small size of the school. In fact I find it pretty amazing, and a testament to the caliber of the Institute, that it garners as much attention in this forum as it does.</p>
<p>What I know through my son, and this has been said by other people in this board, is that there is a non-zero risk of failure at Caltech and that is not attractive to even those that are qualified to do the work. It also demands a lot more than raw talent or even passion for math and science. I really believe my son succeeded at the school not only because he has those two qualities but he also has a pretty thick skin and high degree of stubbornness. I know for a fact he felt overwhelmed in more than one occasion but he dug deep, drew strength from the community, and pulled himself out of tough situations. As I reward he now knows he can takle almost anything that is put in front of him. I imagine this is a common experience among Caltech students. I also believe some students at other schools will put themselves in similarly challenging situations but it is not the norm.</p>
<p>When I said the MIT does a better job marketing itself I wasn't talking about name recognition (which I agree is there for Caltech among the people that count). I was talking about developing these other qualities that you refer to:</p>
<p>"As for valuing creativity and courage there is question that is a miss-perception, particularly regarding courage. Likewise if people don't understand that teamwork is not only valued at Caltech but practically a requirement, then to your point, they definitely do not know the school."</p>
<p>If I don't know these things, it is because Caltech hasn't communicated these values to me. Hence my statement that MIT is doing a better job in their marketing. If the label of less polish for Caltech students is not fair, I would love to be convinced. I just am relaying what I have heard other parents worry about when their kids have made the choice between Caltech and other schools.</p>
<p>As an alum these discussions really resonate with me.</p>
<p>There are two kinds of things Caltech could do, one I approve of, one I don't.</p>
<p>In the former category, I would include better marketing, outreach, improved living conditions, student activities.</p>
<p>In the latter, I would definitely be against: less academic focus, easier grading, fewer/softer core requirements, AA, athletics, "balance," or emphasizing social ecs.</p>
<p>Several alums from my house were talking about this over Xmas. One Techer said she met a Caltech prof (not an alum) who was arguing for reducing/easing core requirements in Physics and Math so that Premeds and Business/Econ students could start their specializations early and take more courses. All of us leaned forward and screamed "Are they insane!!?"</p>
<p>So a lot of it is "fit" -- of a very peculiar sort.</p>
<p>It would be a tragedy if the US had no place for a school like Caltech.</p>
<p>Of course I cannot speak for Caltech but I am pretty sure they are trying to market themselves. It may just be that they are marketing themselves to a different audience. As I said in my previous post I am not even sure they need to do anything differently. They only need to attract a bit over 200 students per year and they don't seem to have any problem doing that.</p>
<p>Regarding the concerns parents have about their students choosing Caltech I think that is actually a good thing but alleviating those concerns cannot be achieved through marketing or mass communications. I have stated in older posts that I strongly encourage admitted students, and to the extent possible or necessary their parents, to take a very close look at the school. I believe a majority of the students that get accepted to HYPM or similarly competitive schools will likely do well in any of those schools. Sure, there will be one that is a better fit for them, but if they end of at a different school chances are they will do equally as well. The same cannot be said about Caltech so the decision to attend should not be made lightly.</p>
<p>I don't know a large enough set of Caltech grads or MIT grads to make a fair comparison. But I will say that when I think of Richard Feynman, "polished" is one of the adjectives that just doesn't come to mind. </p>
<p>Since this is the Caltech forum, would someone else please look at Bobobobo's Weblog and my post #65? Unless the Weblog was just a joke to begin with? (Surely you're joking, Mr. Bobobobo?)</p>
<p>When my kid thinks about what schools he wants to apply to, he reads and compares the course catalogs. He asks "where can I learn the most, the fastest, and in the best company," so if he gets into Caltech, I would have a hard time talking him out of it. But as I mom I think about other things, too. How is the morale? Is it a healthy place? Will he have the management skills to be successful at the start-up he's always dreamed of? Will he be able to speak well, and persuade? These are not in conflict with rigor, high standards, and a core that makes it clear that Caltech knows what it is trying to accomplish academically.</p>
<p>I'm not sure I understand what Feynman has to do with it?</p>
<p>Well, as the Caltech recruiting material one year informed QuantMechPrime, "Feynman is dead." But in my opinion, Feynman, who was for many years a professor at Caltech, taught the introductory physics sequence for a few years, represents the absolute pinnacle of what Caltech might hope its students will become. And he had a very significant influence on the spirit of the place, which, I imagine, is still felt at Caltech.</p>
<p>I'll just add a request for more knowledgeable people to respond to geomom's concerns. I'm not sure whether the idealistic, "Dont' worry; your son's ideas will speak for him, to venture capitalists," is true or not.</p>
<p>Lol. Feynman went to MIT for undergrad; that might have been what the comment about Feynman not necessarily being "polished" was referring to. Or maybe he was being used as a representative of Caltech? Which makes sense, but is still rather ironic...</p>
<p>No one can make guarantees. But I think you'll be surprised at how easy it is for someone at Tech to "try out" different versions of themselves.</p>
<p>I remember someone I knew who transferred to Berkeley. He said he was surprised by the fact that it was <em>easier</em> to just hang out with fellow engineers and science geeks at Cal than at Tech, despite the much wider range of individuals at the school. Of course, you could do anything, but it was easy to fall into habits dictated by your peer group.</p>
<p>Because of the small size, your natural peer group at Tech is going to be those in your House and not just your major.</p>
<p>Certainly, it will probably be easier for the average Techer to act in a play, get on the fencing team, take a small seminar from a distinguished poet, or find consulting gigs with prominent local business moguls than for most students at most schools -- especially science students at most other schools. You're less likely to room with a son of a prime minister or future ambassador, but you also won't be shut out of an eating club that mostly builds connections for those who already have connections.</p>
<p>And this is purely anecdotal, but if you talk or listen to many of the startup founders from the early days of Silicon Valley out of Stanford or Cal, you get a real sense of a mild antagonism between the technical sorts and the more polished JD/MBA sorts. I can still remember when big shots from back East lost out on business in California because they made the mistake of wearing suits and ties to a meeting. In contrast, my old roommate, who is retired with eight figures from a company buyout, made Feynman seem as polished as Cary Grant, and rarely wore shoes for the first decade of his professional life.</p>