<p>If say I come to Caltech for EE grad school, can I still do stuff in say, physics? Or, say I major in EE, can I come to Caltech grad solely for physics? I know this is certainly possible, I just want to know how often it happens. And does UG admission correlate at all with grad admission?</p>
<p>Undergrad admissions is much harder than grad admissions. Grad adlmissions is fairly straightforward. For CalTech, pretty much get an extremely high GPA (3.9+) and a high GRE Subject and General tests. Also get a publication if you can; as long as you have at least a summer of research experience that will be ok as long as you have high GPA/GRE scores. You may still get in if you have a somewhat lower GPA from an extremely rigorous school (e.g., MIT).</p>
<p>One division of EE is basically applied physics, so yeah they definitely would take a physics major. As for the reverse (EE undergrad major going into physics,) I think they would look at what classes you took in the physics department. If you ace the physics GRE (90 percentile+), then they will assume you know your fundamentals. Still, you would be in better shape if you had at least taken quantum mechanics while an undergrad. </p>
<p>In my opinion, if you are leaning toward physics but still want EE as your degree as a back-up degree, I would recommend going hardcore as a physics major for 2 years. Then change majors to EE. They will probably give you credit for your physics classes as electives. Even though EE and physics offer the same classes, they are still taught from a different perspective.</p>
<p>I don't know whether there are two versions of freshman physics at CalTech (theoretical vs. regular), but if you take the theoretical version make sure you go through the "regular" book on your own. I forget its name, but I'm you probably know what I'm talking about. It's the same book that high schools use. The theoretical versions probably use Kolenkow and Purcell for mechanics and E&M, respectively. The bottom line is that for EE especially you should know E&M backwards and forwards. Everything is based on that.</p>
<p>Is going to Caltech as an undergrad an advantage or a disadvantage as far as graduate admission at Caltech?</p>
<p>A disadvantage, usually, and that's the way it should be. Going to the same program, no matter how outstanding, for both undergrad and grad harms you seriously in your professional life, since you get to know a much narrower circle of people and generally don't see a broad enough range of research and ways of looking at the field.</p>
<p>^^That's the attitude in math and the pure sciences, but not in engineering. In engineering, it could be an advantage.</p>
<p>For US News Graduate School Rankings, you can check it for free at:
<a href="http://web.mit.edu/cheme/news/includes/engineering%20USNEWS%202007.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/cheme/news/includes/engineering%20USNEWS%202007.pdf</a></p>
<p>Based on this ranking alone, I think the quality of Caltech grad school is not as superb as the quality of its undergrad education. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
On the other hand, (also based on this ranking alone), Berkeley offers far more superb quality in its grad school education than its undergrad education.</p>
<p>A CalTech undergrad would be considered top-of-the-line by any grad school regardless of the ranking of the particular major. As for the academic rigor of the undergrad education in engineering, only MIT rivals CalTech.</p>
<p>collegealum314 wrote:
[quote]
In engineering, it could be an advantage.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How do you figure? I think this is wrong. Do you have examples in mind?</p>
<p>Well, first of all, the culture is different in engineering. The whole idea that you need to expand your horizons by going to different schools is not a concept which is part of the culture in engineering, although I've seen this idea in science. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense why there would be a difference, but there is definitely a difference. I know at MIT, there is a GPA cut-off for EECS and ChemE to get into the masters program (only 4.3/5.0) so obviously in that case undergrads are favored.</p>
<p>Obviously I'm not familiar with CalTech specifically and I'm not implying I think there is a GPA cut-off to get in, but I don't think they frown on you attending the same undergrad as grad school in engineering. A large chunk of MIT's engineering faculty have 3 degrees from MIT. Yet, the science people advise their students that they should go somewhere else. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, considering that there is nothing fundamentally different about engineering research as opposed to science.</p>
<p>The reason why I think it could be an advantage to go to Caltech undergrad is that you can get a research recommendation from someone you want to work for as a grad student. If a prof thinks your pretty good and wants you in his group then you are likely to get in.</p>
<p>I definitely see what you are saying... but probably a bigger factor in this is school policy. MIT engineering departments seem to really love taking their own -- as indicated by the ChemE GPA cutoff for the master's program. On the other hand, ChemE at Caltech has a strict rule that they will not accept their own undergrads into the graduate program. So I think some schools are more open to lifers than others. With that said, there are definitely people with 3 degrees from Caltech, and anecdotally more of them seem to be in engineering than science.</p>
<p>Staying at Caltech for a Masters in EE is pretty easy, but I think that's more to protect the undergrads who weren't able to get in other places.</p>
<p>ganiyen, I'm curious, do you have the rankings for areas other than engineering?</p>