<p>Why do you think my question was sarcastic? I could not see any relation betweeen your statement and the rankings’ outcome. For that reason, I asked for a clarification and a reader should need to make additional assumptions or inferences to understand the post. </p>
<p>For what is worth, I am very happy to see Caltech being recognized as a leading university and its prowess in research being applauded. This could be from knowing that the closest undergraduate school and undergraduate teaching is found a school that is located a few miles up the road. On the other hand, the fact that this type of ranking (the THE) would never, ever come close to recognize that a school such as Harvey Mudd EXISTS reinforces how entirely irrelevant the ranking is for anyone making a decision on where to study as an undergraduate, and how utterly ridiculous and preposterous the claim by the THE is that it measures … teaching.</p>
<p>I didn’t say that was the faculty’s opinion, or the guidance staff’s. But almost everybody who applies to one applies to both. Those who are admitted to both almost invariably head east, not west. FWIW, those going to CalTech are typically mostly Asian males; those going to MIT are a mixed group.You can draw your own conclusions from that. </p>
<p>The admit percent from our school is also much higher at Caltech than MIT - this year, 36% vs. 16%…Edit: I misspoke. Almost everyone who applies to Caltech also applies to MIT; the reverse is not necessarily true.</p>
<p>This year, 38 applied to MIT, 6 were admitted, all enrolled. 22 applied to CalTech, 8 were admitted, 5 enrolled. I don’t know about HM - I only have access to the stats for the top 25 in terms of number of applicants.</p>
<p>Do you think the 3 that did not go to Caltech were cross admits to MIT? Your school must have a really good science and math program if this many kids are getting into MIT and Caltech.</p>
<p>“On the other hand, the fact that this type of ranking (the THE) would never, ever come close to recognize that a school such as Harvey Mudd EXISTS”</p>
<p>HMudd is not a university xiggi. There are no graduate students there. It IS a top STEM college- #1 in Engineering according to USNWR.</p>
<p>"how utterly ridiculous and preposterous the claim by the THE is that it measures … teaching.
really?? really???
graduate students and UG’s at CalTech are taught. a LOT. by CT professors, not by adjuncts, used by so many colleges and universities these days as a cost savings measure.
DS will be taking 3 hard classes /qtr for the next 2 years, in addition to doing research, getting ready for his quals[ which are held after only 1 year of grad school] and doing TAing.
grad students arent just drones used as slave labor for professors pet projects.</p>
<p>OK, just looked up the 2009-11 data on Naviance. Harvey Mudd, 35 applied, 14 admitted, 4 enrolled. CalTech, 75 applied, 21 admitted, 9 enrolled. MIT, 122 applied, 19 admitted, 16 enrolled. (I was wrong about this year; only 5 of the 6 admitted enrolled.)</p>
<p>A quick look at the scattergrams shows that at MIT, almost all the admits had SAT1600s >1500; at Caltech, there were more in the 1450-1500 range than at MIT. At both schools, there were a few outliers; at MIT one that looks like about 1280 and one 1350, at CalTech one 1350. At each school, all the admits save one had GPAs >=3.5 (the HS is known for significant grade deflation). At Harvey Mudd, everybody who applied with a GPA >=3.5 got admitted (mostly) or waitlisted (not the case at MIT or CalTech). Only a couple with lower GPAs got in. Likewise, everybody with a SAT >=1550 got in at Harvey, but not at MIT or CalTech. At MIT, about half the 1600s got in; at Harvey and CalTech, 2 of 3 did, and the third was waitlisted.</p>
<p>I don’t know for certain about this year’s cross admits, although the urban legend is that almost everybody who applies to CalTech also applies to MIT. EDIT: according to the Naviance overlap data, of the 75 who applied to CalTech, 59 also applied to MIT.</p>
<p>The school is widely recognized as the top math and science school in the state and one of the top ones in the nation.</p>
<p>I miss Caltech. I took my son to Caltech couple times and every time I walked on the campus I was thrilled by its imposing buildings. To me, Caltech is tiny in undergraduate population but it is a huge institution. I was sad that my son did not choose Caltech.</p>
<p>The question for me is, what do these rankings mean for me?</p>
<p>If they exist to measure the quality of research at each institution, then great, we have most of the top research universities in the world, so everyone please stop complaining about how uncompetitive America is in that arena!!!</p>
<p>If the rankings exist to evaluate how good the education offered by each institution is, then great, America wins in offering the best education in the world, so everyone please stop complaining about how bad our educational system is!!!</p>
<p>If the rankings exist to help my high schooler figure out where to go to college, then it fails, because my D loves history,… but is also really good in math and science,… but thinks she really wants to go into business… and CalTech won’t help her figure that out.</p>
<p>Annasdad, what an amazing school you have! My son was first from his school to apply to Caltech. The principal asked why he would go west to a CA state school, his godFA still thinks he went to CalPoly, etc. Caltech is just not known in SE area.</p>
<p>PS. People reading CC for years will recall how many times Caltech came thru for the worm. The House system, the Deans, the health service, the Honors system, and the profs who created a research tech job for him after his first job was a disaster. He had NO rejections from grad schools.</p>
<p>For the record, I have nothing against H. I worked for H for 14 years, and it was my best job ever.</p>
<p>Yes, and that is simply reinforcing the point I have been making for quite a while, and is not contradicting my last statement:</p>
<p>"On the other hand, the fact that this type of ranking (the THE) would never, ever come close to recognize that a school such as Harvey Mudd EXISTS reinforces how entirely irrelevant the ranking is for anyone making a decision on where to study as an undergraduate, and how utterly ridiculous and preposterous the claim by the THE is that it measures … teaching. "</p>
<p>Again, the THE ranking does not evaluate any students’ metrics nor is it capable to measure teaching. It only pretends to do it by relying on a poor substitutes such as faculty output and recognition.</p>
<p>Fwiw, the THE ranking does present interesting comparison datapoints. Unfortunately, its relevance to THIS forum is minimal, and just slightly more relevant to the CC graduate school.</p>
<p>There is NOTHING wrong with the THE ranking per se; only the misrepresentation of the meaning of its results is. As a lot of research in higher education, it is meant to satisfy a very small number of insiders … and mislead the rest of us.</p>
<p>annasdad, i would fire the guidance counselor at your D’s magnet school if he is so ignorant to think caltech is secondary to MIT in the UG education. I hope he is so misinformed by the size (MIT class size is between x4 and 4.5x larger than that of caltech) and think that MIT must be that much more attractive On the other hand, if I were sending kids from home in California, between caltech and MIT, I would seriously consider sending to MIT, just because it is on the other coast [with a plan to send to caltech or stanford for the grad school.] From east coast, however, I would prefer caltech way over MIT. this has nothing to do with the quality of UG education at either college, it is because of my experience during grad school nearly 30 years ago when I experienced classmates in both situations and seeing how their eventual careers evolved differently. There was a strong arguments in support of this in the premed forum also. for the quality of UG education itself, there is the degree of attention and intensity at caltech, coming from the small size and the huge advantage of low faculty:student ratio, even secretaries know every student in the department. Caltech has the surroundings of LAC for a STEM school.</p>
<p>"Unfortunately, their relevance to THIS forum is minimal. "
EXCUSE ME?
My goodness xiggi, since when did you become the CC parents forum “relevance” monitor? Did I need to get advance permission from someone, like you, to post on this forum? First I’ve heard of that in 8 years on CC…
Me thinks you’ve gotten a little too full of yourself . </p>
<p>@toughyear, You must not have read my post when I said that to my knowledge, neither the faculty nor the guidance staff have a position on which school is better. (Though individual faculty members may, I wouldn’t know.) To the contrary, the philosophy of the guidance staff is that every student needs to develop an individualized list of colleges based on academic preparedness, cost, and “fit.” I’ve heard a number of presentations by the head of the guidance staff; I’ve heard her talk about the relative difficulty of admission to various schools and about some of the frustrations of working with the admissions staff at a few schools; I’ve never heard her express an opinion on the comparative quality of any school. Nor, AFAIK, has my D’s GC ever expressed such an opinion to her.</p>
<p>annasdad, I think the Naviance data from your daughter’s school could be misleading about the standardized test scores of students in general who are admitted to Caltech and MIT. (Please note, I am not claiming that anything should be decided on the basis of standardized test scores, in this thread. I am just providing some facts.)</p>
<p>From the Common Data Set for Caltech, for first-time freshman admits, the 25%ile-75%iles on the SAT were:
CR 700-780
M 770-800
W 710-780</p>
<p>For MIT they were:
CR 670-760
M 740-800
W 670-770</p>
<p>At Caltech, 99.0% of the incoming freshman scored in the range from 700-800 on the SAT M, while at MIT, the corresponding number was 92.5%. At Caltech, 78.64% scored in the range from 700-800 on the SAT CR, while at MIT, it was 61.6%. At Caltech, 82.5% scored from 700-800 on the SAT W, while at MIT, it was 63.7%.</p>
<p>The 25%ile-75%ile of ACT composites was 34-35 at Caltech, and 32-35 at MIT. For ACT math, the 25%ile-75%ile of ACT scores was 34-36 at Caltech, and 33-35 at MIT. In ACT English, the range was 33-35 at Caltech, and 32-35 at MIT.</p>
<p>I understand that MIT considers many facets of the application besides scores (and Caltech considers some facets besides scores), but the Naviance data from the particular magnet are not representative of the student groups, overall.</p>
<p>I can’t imagine that anyone would feel slighted going to Caltech vs. MIT, any more than one might feel slighted going to Yale rather than Harvard. Distinctions at that level are ridiculous unless one is truly choosing a professor or a Dept. rather than a university. If prestige is still an issue, that would be sad. </p>
<p>The first person in my family to go to finish college, my uncle, transferred to Caltech, following a professor he knew who was going there from a state university, and stayed for his PhD in genetics in the 60’s. He loved it and the people there. For that reason, i have paid attention to it though I never had the requisite skills to attend it or MIT. For an undergraduate, the choice between them (and Harvey Mudd) should be based on personal preference, not some overall “prestige” factor, which really should be irrelevant to STEM students at that level. I am sure that there are other STEM schools in the same rarified air at least in certain areas which I am not intending to dis. </p>
<p>As Bay noted, these are great schools for STEM majors, not so much for budding constitutional law scholars, musicians, writers, politicians, etc. Regardless, I admire the intellectual horsepower of anyone qualified for admission to schools like Caltech and its ilk.</p>
<p>Regarding cross-admits, when 16 out of 19 admits decide to enroll at MIT, it means that the cross-admit with Caltech and Mudd is close to non-existing.</p>
<p>Xiggi - My cross admit question was to this year’s 3 caltech admits that chose to go elsewhere from anna’s school.</p>
<p>OTOH, I am not sure you are interpreting this correctly. Most people are choosing to go to MIT but does it mean they were not also admitted to Caltech/HM or both?</p>
On the other hand, if I were sending kids from home in California, between caltech and MIT, I would seriously consider sending to MIT, just because it is on the other coast [with a plan to send to caltech or stanford for the grad school.] From east coast, however, I would prefer caltech way over MIT. this has nothing to do with the quality of UG education at either college, it is because of my experience during grad school nearly 30 years ago when I experienced classmates in both situations and seeing how their eventual careers evolved differently. There was a strong arguments in support of this in the premed forum also. for the quality of UG education itself, there is the degree of attention and intensity at caltech, coming from the small size and the huge advantage of low faculty:student ratio, even secretaries know every student in the department. Caltech has the surroundings of LAC for a STEM school.</p>