<p>
</p>
<p>Say what? </p>
<p>What has anything in my posts have to do with “getting advance permission” to post? Firstly, all that was meant is that this forum’s main focus has always been about college education, as in undergraduate education. Secondly, I wrote about the relevance of the RANKING, not the relevance of what people do post. Thirdly, thank you for the gratuitous ad hominem!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did Asians choose Caltech over MIT or were they not admitted at MIT? Lots of Asians in CA, so they may prefer west than east.</p>
<p>Or the Asians don’t care for a graduation requirement that includes a lap in the pool. :p</p>
<p>
Nobody, least of all someone who’s posted on CC for 8 years, should be surprised in the slightest that posting a ranking thread generates page upon page of dissent and controversy, silly or otherwise. In fact, that outcome is as predictable as a thread starter’s chosen school doing well in the ranking posted. </p>
<p>On a different note, UCLA placing much better than Duke for teaching merits a huge laugh of derision. I am rather fond of UCLA, but I doubt there is any school with a more cavalier attitude toward teaching. (Poor Dartmouth, the most undergraduate-focused of all top schools, receiving a 44.8/100 for teaching also prompts a highly arched eyebrow of incredulity.)</p>
<p>QM, I would not claim that the admission statistics from one school are representative of the overall situation. I only provided the details in answer to texaspg’s question.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the situation with the 1600 SATs tends to support the conventional wisdom about the relative importance of stats at MIT and CalTech: a 2400 with a decent GPA got you a very high probability of admission to CalTech but only about 50/50 to MIT.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t speculate on the reason for the racial disparity, other than to say that I doubt the racial makeup of California-vs.-Massachusetts has much to do with where these Midwestern kids choose to go to school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree somewhat. However, it is worth noting that the GPA at your d’s high school is a marker which is easier to separate top-end people than are stats from a more typical high school. And stats extend to AMC scores. I’m sure Caltech would prefer someone with a 110 AMC score and a 740 math SAT over someone who got a 90 AMC and 800 on the math SAT. From talking to Caltech students, some of whom have participated in admissions, the Caltech philosophy toward math/science SATs is that it is a remedial test and you better not get anything more than a couple of stupid mistakes on it. </p>
<p>And I’m not sure what you mean by “decent GPA.” If you get a single “B” in math or science, regardless of whether it’s in number theory in a classroom full of MOSPers at a magnet high school, you are really behind the eight ball. Maybe they might tolerate a “B” in a lower-level class.</p>
<p>Except that at my D’s school, there is major grade deflation. Typically 2% graduate with 4.0 (UW, school does not rank or weight) GPAs, and this at a school with an average ACT between 31 and 32. Most selective schools realize this; the average GPAs of admits to MIT was 3.84 (range 3.3 to 4.0), to CalTech 3.85 (3.3 to 4.0). There are several science courses (molecular and cellular biology, org chem II, modern physics) that have the reputation as GPA-killers, yet all the top students line up to take them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have no experience with magnet schools, and the courses sound really hard. Are they much harder than AP courses, e.g., either Physics Cs? If so, the students probably easily get 5s on AP exams and 800s on SAT IIs.</p>
<p>I’d interpret the admissions outcomes at your daughter’s school to indicate that Caltech admissions respects the school and thinks that performance there is a good indicator of the ability to handle Caltech. </p>
<p>You noted that there was at least one student with 1450 CR+M who was admitted to Caltech. Such as student must be in the bottom 25% on either CR or M (my guess: CR). The student with 1350 who was admitted is a fairly significant outlier (possibly not a native English speaker). </p>
<p>I think that geography has some bearing on the choice of schools, and a magnet school west of the Rockies might have a different MIT/Caltech split.</p>
<p>The courses listed seem ahead of anything offered by AP. Org chemistry is above AP, org chemistry II sounds two levels above?</p>
<p>@lake42ks, the school teaches no AP courses and prides itself on that. Actually the AB Calc and BC Calc courses started out years ago as AP courses, but then had material added to them so that the only vestige of their heritage is in their names. Even though the students take no AP courses, they take an average of 4 AP exams each and do very well on them. Some take far more; a friend of my D who graduated last spring started college with 52 AP credits, all of which were accepted by her public university.</p>
<p>As far as are they harder than AP courses, I don’t know, but I suspect they are. This is completely anecdotal: a parent who has an entering sophomore this year (it’s a three-year school) told me that his older daughter, who graduated in 2007 and went on to Northwestern as a bio major - and is starting a dual MD/PhD program this year - told him that her science courses at Northwestern were less challenging than her science classes in HS. FWIW.</p>
<p>@QM, you interpret the admissions outcome correctly. Some highly selective colleges routinely admit a high percentage of our kids. Others (a very few, i.e. Harvard and WashU) seem not to look past the raw GPAs. CalTech in particular is very fond of our applicants; it must be, since 2% of its freshman class this year is from this 200-student Midwestern high school, albeit that’s a bit more than in most years. And you are probably right that the outlier had a low CR score; there are a number of non-native speakers at the school, although all must be fluent enough to handle the rigorous non-STEM curriculum.</p>
<p>@texaspg, org chemistry II is the second semester of a two-semester sequence.</p>
<p>There are some high schools that offer classes above AP level.</p>
<p>I took Organic Chemistry in my junior year and Modern Physics in my senior year.
I wish I had AP Calculus. It could have been really “nice” and “easy”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe you’ve already mentioned which magnet school you are talking about in another thread, and I looked it up. I have no doubt about the grade deflation or the quality of the student body. A 3.85/4.00 in 3 years with 4 classes per semester means 3 B’s. These could be in english, history, or foreign language classes… I am going to guess that the Caltech contingent managed to get into the A range in the math/science classes you mentioned, and slipped up in one or two humanities classes (which are equally hard.) Typically, it’s the same small group that rises to the top in all the math or science classes. Also, just curious, do the GPAs listed include 2nd semester senior year? You can guess where I am going with that…</p>
<p>Anyway, given how hard it is to do well at this magnet school, it makes sense that Caltech is automatic to the top people.</p>
<p>annasdad, depending on your state, the acceptance may be a function of the applications they receive. – that is about caltech stats vs. mit stats etc.</p>
<p>They do have a full range of options, contrary to the prevailing notion here.
[Office</a> of the Registrar - Office Information](<a href=“http://www.registrar.caltech.edu/Undergraduate%20Option%20Representatives.htm]Office”>http://www.registrar.caltech.edu/Undergraduate%20Option%20Representatives.htm)</p>
<p>Astrophysics</p>
<p>Bioengineering**** </p>
<p>Biology******* </p>
<p>Business Economics & Management******** </p>
<p>Chemical Engineering** </p>
<p>Chemistry***** </p>
<p>Computer Science</p>
<p>Economics</p>
<p>Electrical Engineering</p>
<p>Engineering and Applied Science (ESE)</p>
<p>Engineering and Applied Science (MS)</p>
<p>English</p>
<p>Geology</p>
<p>Geobiology</p>
<p>Geochemistry</p>
<p>Geophysics</p>
<p>History</p>
<p>History of Philosophy and Science</p>
<p>Mathematics</p>
<p>Mechanical Engineering</p>
<p>Philosophy</p>
<p>Physics</p>
<p>Planetary Science</p>
<p>Political Science</p>
<p>Aerospace Engineering(Minor) </p>
<p>Control and Dynamical Systems (Minor) </p>
<p>English (Minor)</p>
<p>Geological & Planetary Science (Minor)</p>
<p>History (Minor)</p>
<p>History of Philosophy and Science (Minor)</p>
<p>Philosophy (Minor)</p>
<p>Structural Mechanics (Minor)</p>
<p>No, the Naviance GPAs only include sophomore and junior years. And the students typically take 6-7 academic courses per year (English, history, language, 1-2 math, 1-2 science). </p>
<p>As far as breakdown of GPAs, the school’s profile includes the grades earned in some representative junior year classes. Here are the number of A and A- grades out of the total number of students taking each class:</p>
<p>Precalc IV 7/35 (most students start at an advanced stage, i.e. not with PreCalc I)
BC I 16/55
BC II 18/49
Advanced (inorganic) Chem I 60/121
Advanced (inorganic) Chem II 41/127
Applied Mechanics 13/39
Light and Sound 18/34
MCB 9/34
English elective 16/64
World History 89/186</p>
<p>Uh … that’s 6-7 academic courses per semester.</p>
<p>Annasdad - as you know, my D considered your school. In hindsight, I’m glad she didn’t go. It sounds entirely too intense. She can learn all that in college; it’s not a race.</p>