Caltech for MIT rejects?

<p>Geomom- I really don't know anything about how polished MIT students are, but I will give you my opinion on "polish" as I understand it at Caltech.</p>

<p>First, conveying your ideas clearly becomes almost a necessity for many people at Caltech through problem sets. The sets here are designed with collaboration in mind, and most people do collaborate heavily. (I would guess that Caltech is one of the most teamwork-oriented schools in existence based on my visits to other schools). But this isn't really to the level you're talking about, I think.</p>

<p>The next level of polish comes through conveying your research to other people through papers or talks. I think that in most cases, students at Caltech are not forced to become more polished in doing these things, but mechanisms exist to make them more polished if they wish to be. For example, our Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (a very common summer research opportunity here) requires a written paper as well as a talk. Although you could slack off if you wanted to, there are competitions to pick the best papers and talks. These competitions motivate the people who care to make their presentation the best it can be (if they weren't intrinsically motivated enough already). In addition, workshops are often held on writing SURF papers and giving talks.</p>

<p>I've been following this thread for a while now, and so far I've refrained from posting--in the beginning because I saw the initial premise of this thread as a worthless troll. Now, though, I find the discussion of 'polish' interesting. I'd like to speak to this discussion, and offer an example of polish at Caltech.</p>

<p>Geomom, I think you're right that the average Techer doesn't get as much polish from his education as the average Harvard student. However, I think that there's an interesting sort of polish that you can acquire at Caltech that almost noone from Harvard will ever experience from their education (mind you, though, that my opinions of Harvard are almost entirely speculatory).</p>

<p>Caltech has a great advantage over every other school because of the combination of the very small student body, small student to faculty ratio, and the very high respect that students are afforded by both faculty and the administration. This presents a unique opportunity for Techers (especially those in student government) to gain a 'polish' not through classes, but through their interactions with the faculty and administration. This has been my experience.</p>

<p>I've been involved in student government at Caltech since my sophomore year. Now, I'm a graduating senior, and I'll be replaced in all of my positions through the elections in the coming months. As the elected chairman of the IHC (Interhouse Committee - the most active student government organization at Caltech) this past year, and as the IHC Secretary (effectively a vice-chair of sorts) the year before that, I've put in 20-30 hour work weeks, on average, solely for the student government, before counting time spent even touching upon problem sets. I've had the chance to negotiate housing and alcohol policies with Caltech's Vice President for Student Affairs (in fact, over my four years, I've interacted with three different such Vice Presidents), I've successfully defended controversial actions and decisions made by the IHC under my watch from opposed students and Faculty Board Committees alike, and I've had the opportunity to interact on a regular basis with school officials, from the President of the Institute, Jean-Lou Chameau, and trustees like Gordon Moore (founder of Intel) to faculty members and the head of campus maintenance.</p>

<p>I think that developing and upkeeping the sort of rapport with Caltech's administration and faculty that has allowed me to run what I believe has been a successful student government is an experience that has provided me with the sort of 'polish' you refer to. I'd place a bet that because of Caltech's very small size and the respect awarded to its students by the faculty and administration, that in my position in the student government at Caltech, I've had more experience dealing with the administration at a high level than my counterparts at Harvard, Princeton, or Yale. Through these connections, and those of Caltech's trustees, I've even dealt and worked with numerous CEOs.</p>

<p>But that's all a result of my experience as a student leader. I learned leadership skills as a student volunteer, in charge of orchestrating campus parties. One thing you have to understand about Caltech is that our parties are not like the parties you'll find anywhere else. We spend a month planning, and three months building, painting, and laying preparations for four hours of song, food, drink, and dance. I've been in charge of two parties (and held other leadership positions for two others) at Caltech, and it was those experiences that taught me what it means to lead by example, to mediate disagreements, to manage people in order to head off personality conflicts before they happen, and to lay plans, contingency plans, and further contingency plans for those contingencies in order to pull off a successful event. I've learned how to set out and follow a schedule and a budget, how to raise funds and how to spend them in the most efficient manner (the second party I was in charge of was arguably one of the biggest and most ambitious in the school's history, and had a running budget in excess of $10,000, with money raised beyond the school's donations by our own fundraising work). I've learned how to motivate people to swing a hammer and drill screws through twelve hour work days during winter break, and I've learned how vital proper communication and oversight is when you have 100 people working on a massive project, all at the same time.</p>

<p>I never learned any of the above from classes, and I certainly wasn't assigned any reading or problem sets in order to cement my understanding. For me, it was all a 'trial by fire' of sorts, with lots of learning, and adapting, on the spot. I don't know what Harvard and Yale are like--I've never been there, but I'd be surprised if they have any more opportunities to gain 'polish' than I've had.</p>

<p>So, yes, students at Caltech can gain all the polish they want, they just have to want it, to look for it, and to go after it.</p>

<p>Lizzardfire - Thanks for pointing out these opportunities to practice writing and speaking. This I’m-speaking-in-front-of-the-world’s-experts!! kind of polish might be different from but certainly no less than the I-need-to-look-good-in-front-of-the-camera kind of polish.</p>

<p>Beautifully, beautifully, said, Michael Woods. You’ve actually hit on one of my main concerns about campus life, which is that students are excessively managed these days, compared to when I was in school. There has arisen a whole new profession “Residential Life Administrators”, whose job seems to be to keep students entertained, out of the hair of the faculty, and to prevent them from doing things stupid enough to end up in the newspapers.</p>

<p>From Binge, by Barrett Seaman:

[quote]
“It takes kids four years to figure out that they didn’t have any power,” observes Larry Sabato, the U-VA political scientitst and a popular professor among Virginia undergrads. “It isn’t just power they lack. Despite all the activities and time they have at their disposal, they lack freedom.</p>

<p>“Most of the students I met didn’t recognize they weren’t free. As far as they could tell, they were. They could stay up all night, have sex pretty much when they wanted, study as much or almost as little as they wanted, eat whenever they wanted, and take part in a wide range of activities that provided great entertainment.</p>

<p>Few recognized that all these ostensible acts of free will are taking place within carefully prescribed boundaries….

[/quote]

This layer of annoying bureaucratic meddling appears to be absent at Caltech, and the students have a direct access to the faculty and real administration that is unparalleled elsewhere (well, OK, there’s Deep Springs, but that’s not really an option). This, I think, is hugely important.</p>

<p>For example, when I went to that technical institute on the other coast many years ago, I worked for dormphone, the student operated and maintained campus phone system that was in operation from the 1940’s – 1987. (I'm pretty sure MIT wouldn't let students run a campus utility these days.) This was different from your usual internship, as the buck stopped with us, the handful of students who worked there. I personally grew a lot from that responsibility. So that is similar to some of the experiences you’ve had, Michael, managing projects at Caltech where the outcome really is up to the students.</p>

<p>Any other Techer opinions? What I've heard so far is pretty persuasive...</p>

<p>Going back to the Caltech vs MIT yield issue; I think one reason MIT gets a larger yield is that the student body seems to display a "don't tell me what to do!" attitude, which I think a lot of students find very attactive. There is a huge amount of flexibility, letting you be as hardcore as you want to be, as diverse as you want to be, as social as you want to be, etc. Don't want to study Quantum Mechanics? Don't study quantum mechanics. Not too interested in studying analysis? You don't have to! Have very little interest in theory? You can do get away without doing too many theory courses! Interested only in theory? So are tons of people, and they study theory all day! </p>

<p>You can exempt almost all of your GIR's (save the humanities) before you even walk through the doors of MIT your first time. This lets you concentrate on what you want to concentrate on. This may be a good thing, this may be a bad thing. I feel personally that this is an extremely good thing.</p>

<p>If you're a student who has been admitted to both MIT and Caltech, then you should choose carefully based on academic philosophies, the type of college experience you have, whether you want a big student body or a small one, etc etc etc. But making claims that Caltech is for MIT rejects and vice versa is just absurd, because both schools clearly have many very very smart people. If you're attacted to the "purity" of Caltech's admissions process, then apply to Caltech! MIT's admissions do have seemed to have changed significantly over the last 50 years, but I believe that the faculty would have pointed out if over night the student body because extraordinarily stupid. Instead they seem to be rather happy the way things are going.</p>

<p>^^yeah, except MIT has become a little less flexible lately. From what I understand, you can't place out of physics I and II, single-variable calculus, chem, or bio if you get 5's on the AP. You have to take an Advanced Standing Exam now. Personally, it would have been really annoying to study for those exams, especially since I took the basic stuff years before. Also, didn't they get rid of the second semester of pass/fail? I'm sure that was driven by the faculty.</p>

<p>The faculty are pretty out-of-touch with what's going on and I don't get the feeling that they especially care about the undergrads. I wouldn't use them as a measuring stick for what should or should not change.</p>

<p>Geomom, I didn't realize you were a MIT alum. What do you think about all the changes? Personally, I think selecting heavily for personality over performance is the wrong way to go, although I'm guessing the vast majority of MIT students probably would have gotten in under the old system. And I'm not sure why we've started to win the war for the super-math geniuses in the early 2000's. My theory is that it doesn't have anything to do with the changing admissions philosophy. One of the guys on the US math olympics team in ~2001 was really into computers and had been working in the MIT media lab since he was 12. He chose MIT presumably because of his computer science interest, and then after that it became more in vogue for the American elite in mathematics to choose MIT. Anyway, that's my theory.</p>

<p>You can get out of Calc I with a 5 on AP Calc BC. You can get out of Physics I with a 5 on both mech and E&M AP Phys C. For the others there are advanced standing exams. Was it annoying to study for advanced standing exams? Yeah... but you can't have everything, and if the faculty think the AP exams aren't representative of what you'd learn at MIT, then I'll take their word for it. I also took the stuff a few years ago, but I found it really interesting to study everything afresh (I suddenly understood things in ways I hadn't before, and was able to connect different subjects together).</p>

<p>^^well, that's not so bad. Still, I heard chem was not particularly worthwhile.</p>

<p>differential, DID you place out of all of the GIRs before getting to MIT? how successful were you/did you use open courseware or something? Maybe I should ask about that on the MIT board... </p>

<p>also, about the math elite... it seems that a lot of the posters leaned towards saying MIT's math department is a little bit better than Caltech's when that question came up. wouldn't that be a good reason for math people to choose MIT over Caltech? though yes, there are always schools like Harvard and Princeton with awesome math departments, if you were referring more to those schools...</p>

<p>^^I don't really feel that the slight difference in the rating of the math department should make a difference to the undergrads, especially as the difference might be wholely due to size. Also, when I said MIT was winning the war for the math elite, I didn't mean that we were stealing people from Caltech. It's more like we started getting the top Americans who used to go to Harvard. I don't think the number of top math people that go to Caltech has really changed in the past 10 years.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Geomom, I didn't realize you were a MIT alum. What do you think about all the changes? Personally, I think selecting heavily for personality over performance is the wrong way to go, although I'm guessing the vast majority of MIT students probably would have gotten in under the old system.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Here is MIT’s website’s version of fit to MIT:

[quote]
1) Alignment with MIT's mission to make the world a better place.
2) Collaborative & cooperative spirit.
3) Initiative.
4) Risk-taking.
5) Hands-on creativity.
6) Intensity, curiosity, and excitement.
7) The character of the MIT community. Our community is comprised of good people.
8) The ability to prioritize balance.<br>
9) Last but not least, remember that no one profile - no matter how impressive - represents "the perfect match."

[/quote]

These are all wonderful qualities. But the problem with MIT’s statement is not just that you could substitute “my Girl Scout troop” for “MIT” and it would still work pretty well. The problem with this statement, to my ears, is that it sounds just like the pronouncements of K-12 educators. That makes me very nervous, because (in my view) K-12 education in this country is, in general, a disaster for very smart kids. Choosing applicants because they are “good people”, “cooperative”, or have “excitement” is very nice of the admissions office. I’m not impressed, though, because those are the things administrators said were important in middle school and that was an educational wasteland. This statement of fit makes me feel, at the very least, that the faculty do not have their hands on the steering wheel of admissions at MIT. </p>

<p>Compare Ben Golub’s (heavily edited, I hope you don’t mind) version of Caltech fit:

[quote]
Since Caltech is so focused in both its offerings and the people there, to get the most out of Caltech you should be in one of two categories:</p>

<p>(i) quite committed to a techie career (scientist or engineer), focused. happiest around very nerdy, very smart people and wanting a place where "no politically correct compromise" is a founding principle. </p>

<p>(ii) Wanting to take a four year break from the rest of life to experience the world's most intense academic bootcamp. </p>

<p>Caltech is just a bit more pure and intense than anywhere else, and you have to have extreme preferences to value that very highly.

[/quote]

Or if you prefer an official version from the Caltech website

[quote]
Who’s a Techer?</p>

<p>Caltech is a scholarly and creative community where history and tradition coexist with a passion for innovation, intense intellectual curiosity, and a healthy amount of craziness, where it's relatively easy to find your niche, be known for yourself, and connect with people as colleagues and friends.</p>

<p>Techers are by definition ardent scientists or engineers,…

[/quote]

Definitely a different focus.</p>

<p>I'm confused. I was always under the impression that Caltech was way more exclusive and hard-core than Caltech, which is why I was totally expecting to be rejected from it. At least, MIT is far bigger and has a more diverse group of students, as well as a balanced girl to guy ratio. I'm a girl and sexism has nothing to do with the following discussion, but this was my reasoning:
Assuming Caltech and MIT are comparable (admitting only the brightest of students) and assuming Caltech is not sexist
We know that Caltech has a 1:3 girl:guy ratio
Thus, we can say that more (brilliant) guys interested in science are applying than (brilliant) girls interested in science are applying to tech schools.
However, we know that MIT has a 1:1 girl:guy ratio (=><=) if more (brilliant) guys interested in science are applying than (brilliant) girls.
Thus, either Caltech is sexist (which I doubt), or MIT and Caltech are NOT comparable. So MIT has to be admitting less than only the brightest and most brilliant of all its applicants.
At least, this was my reasoning. I mean, there are a bunch of flaws in it (the assumption that the same girl:guy ratio of people are applying to the schools etc.), but think about it.</p>

<p>"But the problem with MIT’s statement is not just that you could substitute “my Girl Scout troop” for “MIT” and it would still work pretty well."</p>

<p>Actually I think that's a pretty big problem right there- the lack of specificity sets off my alarm bells. But I agree that the statement's similarity to the pronouncements of K-12 educators makes it all the more worrisome.</p>

<p>Multiferroic, you can some answers from here for last year from MIT</p>

<p>MIT</a> Office of the Provost, Institutional Research</p>

<p>The admission rate for male applicants is 9.7% and for female applicants is about 22.3%.</p>

<p>Dose Caltech provide the similar data? I can't find Caltech's common data. Not sure what's the male/female ratio in Caltech's applicants pool?</p>

<p>@anotherNJmom</p>

<p>These seem to be the most recent statistics that caltech has released:
<a href="http://finance.caltech.edu/budget/cds2005.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://finance.caltech.edu/budget/cds2005.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Obviously it is a bit different now, with nearly a 1K jump in applicants, but in 2004-2005 the admit rate for girls was about 30% while the males was 17%. I'm sure both of those percentages have gone down since then, considering overall admission rate this year was about 17%.</p>

<p>Thanks. Encryption.</p>

<p>Now I have a clear picture.
The Caltech applicants ratio (female/male): 0.302
The MIT applicants ratio (female/male): 0.365</p>

<p>Caltech admitted % (female vs male) : 30% vs 17.6%
MIT admitted % (female vs male) : 27.4% vs 11.7%</p>

<p>The difference of these ratios is not as big as I original thought. If you compares the female vs male ratio in SAT top scores section (top 99%, where number of male score higher Math than famel is not that much) you may say in both cases female pool to Caltech and MIT are much more self selected than male applicants, thus yield high femal addmission rate. MIT might slightly in favore of female. ... It could be boys apply to MIT and Caltech just because they think they are good at math/sciens because they have better result in math/science subjects than in huminity subjects in HS. While girls who applys to these school, they do love math/science subjects. This could explain why much higher number of male applicants than female applicants. jmo.</p>

<p>Caltech 2004-2005:
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who applied <strong>2,120</strong>_
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who applied <strong><em>641</em></strong>
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who were admitted _<strong><em>374</em></strong>
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who were admitted _<strong><em>192</em></strong>
Total full-time, first-time, first-year (freshman) men who enrolled _
<em>148</em>_
Total part-time, first-time, first-year (freshman) men who enrolled __
______
Total full-time, first-time, first-year (freshman) women who enrolled <strong><em>59</em></strong>__
Total part-time, first-time, first-year (freshman) women who enrolled __________</p>

<p>MIT 2004-2005:
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who applied 7669
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who applied 2797 </p>

<p>Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who were admitted 898
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who were admitted 767 </p>

<p>Total full-time, first-time, first-year (freshman) men who enrolled 620
Total part-time first-time, first-year (freshman) men who enrolled 0 </p>

<p>Total full-time, first-time, first-year (freshman) women who enrolled 457
Total part-time first-time, first-year (freshman) women who enrolled 0</p>

<p>Here is some more recent information:</p>

<p>College</a> Navigator - California Institute of Technology</p>

<p>Undergraduate Admissions: Fall 2007</p>

<p>Number of applicants<br>
Total 3,597<br>
Men 2,791 Women 806 </p>

<p>Percent admitted<br>
Total 16.9%<br>
Men 13.3% Women 29.4%</p>

<p>i'd also say a decent number of admitted students turn down Caltech because they are afraid they won't be smart enough to do well here. as far as workload and difficulty goes, Caltech is a lot tougher than MIT</p>

<p>After getting through all ten pages, I'm not sure if this is relevant anymore, but I'll offer myself as an example of a slightly different focus in admissions. Whether or not these differences are reflected in any quality of the student body is up to other people to figure out. I was admitted to CalTech, rejected from MIT, with:</p>

<p>2400 SAT I, three 800's on II's (Math2, Physics, Lit)
Most difficult courseload, straight A's (4.87 by HS calculation)
No AP tests (We're an IB School)
IB Tests: Spanish SL - 6, Physics SL - 7
An EC list that is probably what shifted the balance in both cases - president of speech and debate, coach of a 7th grade Odyssey of the Mind (creative thinking) team, and a few other random things, but nothing else particularly significant, except perhaps attending Boy's State.</p>

<p>So this is pretty anecdotal, and only a single data-point, but it's at least some sort of an example of the difference in policies. Gotta say I'm just a wee bit bitter, but that's life. w00t for CalTech!</p>

<p>nocloud, I definitely agree with you because I am hesitating whether to go to Caltech myself. This might sound weird because Caltech has been my dream school since freshman year, but now I have the acceptance letter in my hand, I feel kind of scared. :P</p>