<p>I'm only a freshman in high school, but I know that I want to go into astrophysics and cosmology. I'm intelligent, I teach myself on my own. I read quantum physics books on my own time. I go to an average public high school, with all a's or the occasional b+ retaining high honors. I do many MANY extracurricular activities, next year I will be captain of the science team. I still retain a social life too. I know the stakes for getting into either of these schools is hard, but what school has better astronomy and physics programs for an undergrad?</p>
<p>MIT.
10char</p>
<p>The only problem with MIT is that I live near Boston and my parents would make me live at home. Is there much of a difference between the two schools?</p>
<p>Your first year you are required to live in MIT dorms. There may be an exception for people living in the area, but I am not sure.</p>
<p>BTW, as a hs freshman, it’s too early to think about this. Just enjoy hs, get good grades, find an extra-curricular you are passionate about (this is super important for admissions!) and don’t obsess about college yet. When you’re a junior, then this is a good thing to think about. Also, note that you can apply to both, but you should apply to other schools that are easier to get in to.</p>
<p>Now, both schools are academically strong, so differentiating here is useless. You need to focus on the social environment. MIT is much bigger than Caltech; in fact, Caltech is so small that I would not go there (but that’s me). MIT is in the Boston, which you are familiar with while Caltech is in Pasadena. Note, MIT is more connected to Boston (the T!) than Caltech is to LA (you need a car) if that is important to you. I don’t know much more than that, but you would need to focus on the social atmosphere of the schools to pick rather than academics.</p>
<p>
There isn’t. All first-year students are required to live on-campus. MIT thinks it’s an integral part of the college experience (and I agree). They probably enforced this rule to all first-year students precisely because Boston kids would end up living with their parents otherwise. And even after first-year, most undergraduates (above 90% I think) live on-campus.</p>
<p>MIT has a better college experience, if you ask me. Bot hcolleges give excellent opportunities for education, so you can’t go wrong there, but Boston is the college town to beat, and it’s pretty amazing, and then you have advantages over Caltech, namely an even male:female ratio (almost, anyway), and cross-registering with Harvard, and the openness of the administration, the support, the unique opportunities MIT offers (UROP, for example), the bigger size, the ECAs, etc. There are so many more I can’t even remember, but it’s an amazing place.
I suggest you apply to both and choose later, but MIT for me is the clear winner.</p>
<p>^ I think it’s something like 70% live on campus, going up to 90% if you count FSILGs.</p>
<p>You should start thinking about which school is better when you actually get in these schools.</p>
<p>“You should start thinking about which school is better when you actually get in these schools.” - collegealum314</p>
<p>Yeah, really. I remember when I was a HS frosh with a 4.0 and reading whatever the hell I could get my hands on. Now I only have time to read ancient British books for class that put me to sleep. OP, it seems like you’re an intelligent kid who really has things going for him. However, don’t get ahead of yourself. I know Seniors this year at my school who were up to 400-level math analysis classes at the local university with 4.0s and all the ECs you can think of who didn’t get into MIT or Caltech. You need to make sure you make yourself an individual in the crowd, not someone who fits right in. </p>
<p>Just FYI, no matter how smart you are, that social life will probably drop a bit by the end of your HS career if you are working hard enough to get into these schools. It’ll all pay off though once you get in. </p>
<p>By the way I’m a HS Junior who hasn’t applied to either school (yet) but I see a lot of similarities between you and myself so I thought I’d comment.</p>
<p>From someone who spent two years at Caltech and is looking to transfer to MIT:</p>
<p>Culture-wise, they’re very similar places - each of the niches at MIT maps very closely to a specific house at Caltech. Academically, I’d say that the quality of the teaching is slightly higher at MIT, but not by much. Where Caltech truly shines is research, due to the student-faculty ratio - I believe something like 50% of students stay each summer to do SURF ([Summer</a> Undergraduate Research Fellowships … S U R F … <caltech> …](<a href=“http://surf.caltech.edu%5DSummer”>http://surf.caltech.edu)). However, some departments are individually weaker or stronger (for example, Caltech has had neither an OS nor a compilers course in computer science for the past few years since one assistant professor left). Caltech’s core is the most difficult thing I’ve done academically, but it was extremely rewarding. Having everyone have a grounding in 5 quarters of math, 5 of physics, 3 of chemistry, etc. means everyone is well-rounded scientifically. Where the culture diverges: nearly all assignments at Caltech are take-home and <em>require</em> collaboration. You will fail out of Caltech if you try to study alone unless you are extremely talented. It takes a group of 3-5 Caltech students to productively work a problem set, and people won’t take off until the last person is done. Staying up with my friends working on sets was a bonding experience, and helped me learn extremely effectively (see one, do one, teach one, etc.). MIT feels a little bit less collaborative in that aspect. The other aspect that’s different is the Honor Code - exams at MIT are proctored the regular way, and there just isn’t the same atmosphere of trust that Caltech has where all exams are take-home.</caltech></p>
<p>Ultimately, I left Caltech for personal reasons, but I still think very highly of it. I like MIT too though :)</p>
<p>You may also want to read <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/california-institute-technology/577759-why-caltech-different-open-letter.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/california-institute-technology/577759-why-caltech-different-open-letter.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am going to take a different stance on this question than others are - but it will come down to roughly the same.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But he / she could be utterly certain and have terrific reasons he / she wants to study physics / cosmology at CalTech or MIT. …and may even be certain of getting into both, and perhaps the best course for this individual is to work tirelessly for 4 years in h.s. tailoring the ultimate college application towards the school of choice (decided upon based on this thread).</p>
<p>So I ask the OP: before your question is answered, how do you know you want to study these things, and even if you do, what are your specific interests within those fields? If you are choosing colleges based on field, not college experience, you will find that you’re making the choice what grad school to go to, not what undergrad school to go to, in a certain sense. So the question is almost meaningless unless you tell us what specifically in those fields makes you tick. What do you want out of your academics? </p>
<p>Based on this, Caltech or MIT can be recommended. Generically, it could be the case that there are many schools aside from either these schools that would serve the needs of a top physics student - but you may know more about what you want out of study than all of the rest; if you tell us what you know, we’ll tell you where to go (that rhymes).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I imagine people here think very highly of MIT’s UROP, so that might not be a distinguishing factor (though perhaps you didn’t intend it to be).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My experience has been that MIT students / alumni here suggest collaboration is integral to the MIT culture. </p>
<p>But apparently MIT doesn’t trust its students not to cheat as much as Caltech does. 
(I’m just kidding around on this one.)</p>
<p>Thank you, and specifically I’m planning on studying string theory. I’m pretty certain I’m going to go into these fields too, I’ve had a passion for it my whole life. And yes, I might be a freshman, but I’m just trying to set myself up to get into these good schools. So, thank you!</p>
<p>Right, but I think it’s unfair to characterize UROP as unique to MIT when it’s functionally equivalent to SURF. Both are excellent programs :)</p>
<p>While SURF and UROP are both excellent programs, UROP is not just a summer program. It is essentially built in to the curriculum of a number of departments. Our D has had a UROP every semester since sophomore year in neuroscience. This has allowed her to develop continuity into her research (which was very useful during MD/PhD interviews) and participate in long term projects. It is very rare for a research project to conclude in a single semester or even a year. She has become a full member of the research team together with graduate students and postdocs and even get her name on a paper published by the team. That would simply not have been possible during a summer or single semester UROP.</p>
<p>Agreed that having longer projects is a good thing. I did the same thing at Caltech (SURF summer after freshman year, research credit fall/winter/spring terms, then SURF again the next summer continuing on the same topic, all in the same lab), but it’s interesting to hear that MIT pushes doing it more strongly in the curriculum rather than simply offering it as an option.</p>