Caltech for MIT rejects?

<p>^^lalaloo6, lol, Re: Feynman being an MIT undergrad. Yep! Though I wasn't being so subtle--I actually meant that I think he exemplifies a Caltech "ideal."</p>

<p>QuantMech -- the statement you alluded to is, of course, an error. You are not going nuts.</p>

<p>Anyone who wishes to learn these stuffs without mistakes is encouraged to speak with Walter Rudin, "Principles of Mathematical Analysis".</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Did the East Coast types lose out on business, or did the guys in flip-flops lose out on valuable advice? Wouldn't we all be doing a little better without the antagonism?</p>

<p>This attitude strikes me as similar to the cavalier attitude toward Caltech's low yield, which seems to me to be essentially "Most admitted students still wouldn't fit here, because they couldn't hack it anyway. Their loss." That is one hypothesis. The other hypotheses are that other institutions offer more fluff benefits (dating ambassador's daughters) or more real benefits (equal access to academic rigor but more training in making your ideas become a reality). Or other explanations...</p>

<p>It seems to me that the admissions office must have a sense of whether they are losing most of the top of the class, or mostly the weakest students in the 60+% that decide not to enroll. In any case, the difference between Caltech's yield and those of similar institutions (yes, yes, I know there are no truly comparable institutions...) is a strong signal, and one that makes this mom curious. So thank you for the discussion so far.</p>

<p>I have my anecdotes from Silicon Valley in the 90's, too. The people I know who ended up retired with 8-9 figures of net worth were in 1) real estate 2) marketing for a start-up. My friend in marketing told me: During the gold rush, it's the guy selling the picks and shovels that gets rich. The people I know who had the actual technical ideas have 1) just finished digging themselves out from under debt or 2) made only a very modest amount after many rounds of refinancing to keep the company going. However, anecdotes are just anecdotes. :)</p>

<p>^^The people attending Caltech would see getting rich over selling picks and shovels to the people who actually use their brains as a complete waste of time. Yes, there are easier ways to make money, but the super-techies can make a lot if they follow their ideas to fruition. I know a guy who founded a software startup and is now worth in excess of 300 million dollars, and he is not yet 30.</p>

<p>Morale here varies a lot from person to person - some people think Caltech is the best thing that ever happened to them. Others feel overworked and inadequate. It seems that the people who do things outside of academics are the happy ones. The popular theory is that this is because taking a break from academics helps you relax. There's certainly truth in that, but I wonder also if it is because those who are able to take a break from academics are those who are struggling less with the coursework. There are ample opportunities to do things other than study - the issue is finding the time. I find that if I can be organized about getting things done then I have plenty of spare time, but I'm still a frosh.</p>

<p>collegealum - I'm glad your friend made a lot of money. But that wasn't my point.</p>

<p>I was wondering about learning about teamwork and polish as well as technical virtuosity. Of course I understand the intrinsic satisfaction in having the creative ideas. I also understand the intrinsic satisfaction in making a team work successfully. When you refer to the super-techies as the guys "actually using their brains" as opposed to those in the rest of the business, well, I just start to think that maybe... Well, maybe I shouldn't assume I understood what you were trying to say.</p>

<p>phlogistonfreak - My question as a parent would be: when others feel overworked and inadequate, what does the group or the culture of Caltech do to help them find more discipline, confidence and enthusiasm? You refer to morale as varying from person to person, but the word "morale" is perhaps more commonly used to refer to a group condition.</p>

<p>Also, it's good to hear you are finding Caltech a healthy place to be.</p>

<p>^^Well, I don't think that you learn about teamwork more at MIT than at Caltech. As for polish, I'm not convinced the MIT student body is really that much more polished anyway than the Caltech student body.</p>

<p>Additionally, being a polished scientist is something different than being a polished, smooth salesman/politician. Salesman don't have to be right--it's a good thing if they sell you a muffler that doesn't work. The most important thing for appearing polished in the future is to be in an environment where your academic growth is maximized because this gives you confidence. If you can speak confidently about your subject area, then this is the most important thing for appearing polished.</p>

<p>Well said. Furthermore, I'd rather work with the scientist/techie who knows their stuff and is a little rough, than the smooth and talkative scientist who is winging it when it comes to the details. Still, you seem to be saying that solid academics leads to true confidence, leads to becoming a polished scientist. I think becoming well-spoken (even by the admittedly slightly different standard in the scientific community) might require a little more focussed effort than that.</p>

<p>One reason I really like MIT so far is that I find people who are extremely good at one thing in particular once in a while. These kids didn't ace all of their exams in high school, and they didn't get stellar SAT's and didn't do well at math competitions and what not. But they maybe did XYZ thing. And they are damn good at XYZ. Even the professors here respect them for their mastery of XYZ, and hire them to do XYZ for them since they can do it better anyway. </p>

<p>If you hang out with this kid who knows XYZ, you'll inevitably start learning things from him/her. And the types of things you learn are the types of things you would never learn in a classroom, or even a laboratory class. They are those word of mouth tricks that aren't in any book.</p>

<p>I find it more intriguing to hang out with people who have gone incredibly deep in one particular area, rather than be just really good at a lot of different things. The person who knows lots of things will be able to tell you all sorts of facts and things that they have learned. The person who went really deep can tell you things you won't ever find in books. (Obviously I hang out with both types...)</p>

<p>I don't go to Caltech, but from what I understand, students have to perform top-notch in High School to get in. I don't have a problem with Caltech doing this, but personally I don't feel like I would be getting a real MIT/Caltech-caliber education if I didn't come in contact with enough narrow minded people like the type I described above, and if you've got 200 spots for all around excellency, you can't admit these types who may not have done as well in school as they should have.</p>

<p>Other than programmers and people who are good with their hands (say, like a mechanical engineer with unusual talent for building stuff,) most technical disciplines are conducive to being a star in school. So I'm sure that Caltech has its own variety of skills. Like, I'd guess most of the chem majors at Caltech didn't make it to USAMO. But they probably were still advanced mathematically and crushed a bunch of advanced math classes in high school, in addition to further exploration in chemistry perhaps.</p>

<p>I have to seriously agree with the points raised by geomom, she is kind of voicing the core of my concerns about the Caltech culture that I gather from these boards. Don't get me wrong, I think Caltech kids are truly fine people, the elitism and aggrandizement I sense sometimes is probably a byproduct of the environment. But she is making her points just fine, she doesn't need my help.</p>

<p>EDIT: One thing I have to ask though is, from my experience, difficult material isn't a problem, given enough time, the human brain is probably capable of learning anything on the college level, but I find the difficulty comes from the overall level of your classmates, since most classes are curved to a B or a C as average. This has led me to notice that the GIRs at MIT (the core, if you will) tend to be by far the easiest classes I've taken here simply because everyone, regardless of their aptitude in a particular field, needs to take these classes, thereby reducing the averages on assignments and tests and limiting the depth of the course. This was not true for computer science courses that I've taken, or higher math, or higher physics courses. Caltech students, do you find this to be true for Quantum Mechanics? People's talents lie all over the place, even at Caltech, I imagine. Since everyone, regardless of major, needs to take this course, do physics majors have an inherent advantage and are able to do well in the course with (relatively) little effort? Are there more rigorous versions of the course for those who wish to pursue higher level physics?</p>

<p>Amb3r wrote:
Out of the USAMOers and MOPers I know, all but 1 chose MIT (and a minority HYP) over Caltech. </p>

<p>In the freshman class, I know of four ex-moppers who chose Caltech over MIT. There may be more. There is at least one IMOer there.</p>

<p>Correction - I asked my son, and he said there were six Moppers in the freshman class at Caltech, that he knows of.</p>

<p>@pebbles: Geomom hasn't said anything about aggrandizement or elitism in Caltech culture. Maybe she hinted at it. </p>

<p>I don't know. As for the specific point of becoming a good speaker, couldn't you do that through your humanities classes? </p>

<p>There are people without polish at Caltech and MIT, but a lot of them are like that because they don't value it at all. I'm sure the vast majority of people at both schools would put a suit on to meet a potential venture capitalist. It doesn't mean they have to practice this every day by dressing up for class. I just think when people consider the Caltech/MIT population they go overboard on giving them advice on how to become more well-rounded as people. If you come off like a regular person in a non-academic setting, then you really don't have much to worry about. You don't need to worry about networking while you're an undergrad--a fair amount will happen as you meet and work with people on problem sets and projects.</p>

<p>pebbles, for the second year of physics, there are two different classes available. Ph 12 is the more in depth one and covers the same topics as Ph 2 but in 3 terms rather than 2. It is meant especially for physics majors, but math and engineering majors will also often take it. Ph 1, Ma 1, and Ma 2 don't really split people apart. Although the phys and math majors (respectively) probably have an easier time than some other people, I don't think that these classes were exactly a walk in the park for them.</p>

<p>heh... yeah all of the people I was talking about either do programming or mech eng or EE. Ok, so sciences like chemistry, physics, etc you had better crush in HS if you're going near those fields in your major. I'm not saying MIT should just admit anybody who spends all day programming. But I think MIT does a good job in reserving a small section of the class for these types of people.</p>

<p>Also, I just realized that CS has no real classes at the HS level. I wouldn't count AP CompSci AB, since really the data structures and algorithms you have to learn are very easy, and anybody who does a decent bit of coding should have scored an easy 5 if they took it. Perhaps MIT admits these people then believing that they will excel in the EECS/etc dept?</p>

<p>collegealum - I don't think they have to practice wearing suits on other campuses, either, to figure out how to wear a suit. But perhaps being persuasive enough to get somebody to hand over some money to fund your research or build your dream might be a little more involved than just wearing the suit. </p>

<p>I'm not trying to change anyone or force them to be "well-rounded". But making your great, clever ideas have an impact in the world takes a little more than just having the ideas. There's all sorts of practical work that goes on: communication, funding, logistics, legal issues, sometimes international negotiation, depending on the project. The reality of it is that if you can't do these things or work with and respect the people that do, your ideas may not become reality, and even if they do, much of the financial rewards and even recognition may flow to others. So that is why I aspire for my kid to learn some savoir faire.</p>

<p>I started out two pages ago saying that MIT is better at marketing the message: You're smart! You have great ideas! Well teach you the technical stuff, and we'll teach you how to get it done! You'll have an impact!</p>

<p>Do they actually do a better job at this? I don't know. I'm curious.</p>

<p>"There's all sorts of practical work that goes on: communication, funding, logistics, legal issues, sometimes international negotiation, depending on the project. "</p>

<p>Well, it depends on what type of company you are starting up. Software startups are a lot easier to start up out of thin air. With other technology, generally MIT/Caltech kids really aren't at the point of coming up and realizing an idea until the first year of grad school. With either place, though, there is so much funding flowing around that you could get money to try your idea. Although I haven't gone through it myself (yet,) a typical progression is to patent your idea and then startup a company around it. I've heard of a lot of guys that went to grad school to research some academic topic, came up with an idea (typically with their advisor,) patented it, and then either graduated or dropped out of grad school to found a company based on this technology. Or alternatively, they sold the patent's rights to an existing company. As for attracting venture capitalists (VCs), the students get help to do that. And frankly, VC's know that they should visit places like MIT and Caltech. But it's not like you prepare for that before it happens. There are people to guide you when you come to that point. But the main thrust of my argument is that you shouldn't put the cart before the horse. </p>

<p>All the social skills you mention might be necessary at a place less esteemed than MIT or Caltech. I actually did take some business seminars at MIT during the independent activities period, and learned how to write a business plan. We also have a 50K competition where you write a business plan and compete for $50,000. MIT does have a bit of a more entrepeneurial spirit than Caltech because MIT has more of an engineering mentality. However, even if you aspire to found a company based on technology, I think most people would be better served to just get super-involved in their classes and research as an undergrad. </p>

<p>Also, if you do really well in classes and research, you can get a prestigious consulting position like McKinsey. Typically, after working at one of these places for a few years you meet a lot of other ambitious people. Some of these people end up getting really influential and non-technical high-paying positions. Others found technology-driven companies. </p>

<p>Except for the software types, I think the best advice is just to buckle down and try to learn your discipline so well that you can recognize if you could make a quantum leap forward by changing a variable. You don't really need to practice teamwork at that point.</p>

<p>Just a few quick comments to add to the discussion (though not so eloquent as collegealum314 or geomom):</p>

<p>1) For the applicants: If you've read I, Woz, or know its content, would you rather be Steve Wozniak or Steve Jobs? For myself, I'd rather be Wozniak.</p>

<p>2) When I was a post-doc at MIT (30 years ago), there was a lot of concern that many MIT grads wound up working for Harvard grads. This may be less common now--in fact, I suspect that it is less common, due to changes at MIT. But I have the impression that for the most part, Caltech grads would have been and would now be much less concerned, because--often--they aren't interested in careers of that sort.</p>

<p>3) I suspect that most scientists of my age know a few other scientists who've founded start-ups based on a really good idea (or ideas), become CEO's of the start-ups, and then had control of the company wrested from them by the MBA/JD's they had to bring in. Some of those who lost control are as polished as anyone I know--of course, my sample is biased toward the technical side. So, geomom, if you are picking up any dislike for MBA/JD's from me, it's a result of tactics that I personally consider underhanded, used by a few people who have those credentials. I don't mean to stereotype based on degrees, though! Self-defense--(or a really excellent lawyer) to construct air-tight agreements and enforce them against some smooth operators--might be needed more than polish or persuasiveness.</p>

<p>4) In most parts of the country, it's possible to be very happy with 7-figure net worth, or even less. Nothing I own has ever made me remotely as happy as what little I've discovered (and I didn't even have the benefit of Caltech).</p>

<p>Also, thanks, Ben. Actually, I am going nuts (!), but it's problems a bit harder than introductory delta-epsilon proofs that are driving me there.</p>

<p>(Finally, please substitute "Don't" for "Dont' " in one of my earlier threads--no excuse, it wasn't even late. Gaaah. 800 Sat II Writing, old-style, means little when you're typing fast.)</p>

<p>Pebbles, you said "I think Caltech kids are truly fine people, the elitism and aggrandizement I sense sometimes is probably a byproduct of the environment."</p>

<p>What are you basing this off of? The posts of the maybe ten or fifteen Caltech students/alums who frequent this board? If anything, I think the environment here is one of the most egalitarian I've ever encountered.</p>

<p>In any case, I don't think making generalizations about Caltech's students serves your purpose in this discussion--if anything, it makes you look petty.</p>