Caltech vs MIT for engineering

Colleges and Universities A-Z California Institute of Technology
221

<p>sakky and ben: the "generals" at the Institute know that there is an approximate 15% casualty rate. They have created a gauntlet that all must run; those that don't make it are by definition "expendable" on the way to the Institute achieving its goal of running a rigorous program. It is a cold way of viewing your troops, but that's what all general do.</p>

<p>I really don't have a problem with this attitude so long as prospective students are clearly aware of the high risk of being blown out of the program. I suspect the viewbooks and presentations to Prefrosh do not adequately inform the eager new recruits of the dangers, instead couching it in terms of being a "challenging and rigorous program."</p>

<p>Maybe before a freshman recruit is allowed to sign on, they should have to read and sign a statement that details CalTech's high flunk-out, burn-out, blow-out rate. That way, there are no "innocents."</p>

<p>What do you think?</p>

<p>By the way, I've always wondered--If 15% or so actually leave CalTech, how many more would like to, but don't. Another 10%? Another 15%?</p>

222

<p>I agree it's sad when people fail out, but sakky lied by saying that was our purpose, and it just isn't, so I thought I would call him on that. Now I will paste my response from a parallel debate on the MIT board that takes care of sakky's other points:</p>

<p>sakky --</p>

<p>You make me out to be far more heartless than I am. First, I personally know one person and know of several others who have failed (miserably <em>failed</em>) out of Caltech and transfered to Duke. Duke isn't so terrible! I must say I don't feel all that bad for them. So your assumption that Caltech leaves these people screwed and dead is just ridiculous. I do empathize those whose lives are severely disrupted by not doing well here, and I wish it didn't have to be that way.</p>

<p>But it <em>does</em> have to be that way, unless we want to give up the mission of Caltech (I'll just use that example because it's were I go; lots of what I say, especially toward the end, applies very well to MIT, too). You have said before, "screen out those who will fail with stricter admissions" to fix the problem. I told you (truly): that's impossible; no institution as hard as Caltech can use high school data to screen out nearly all the students who might fail. When you brought up MIT as an alleged counterexample, I pointed out the requirements are not as hard (no required quantum mechanics, e.g.). You have, since then, been arguing "get rid of the QM requirements for econ majors, it doesn't make sense, etc."</p>

<p>But THAT's exactly the point where you start telling us to change the education. The very idea of Caltech is that everyone here understands quantum mechanics. It's our quirky little idea, and it's what gives the Caltech name a special unique something (not necessarily better) that nobody else has. In telling us to loosen the requirements for some people, you've acknowledged that we can't reduce the hurt on the bottom 10% without changing the nature of our school.</p>

<p>And the main thing that you don't see is that those changes would hurt other people; probably the entire top 50%. There wouldn't be a school anymore where even economics professors can make casual references to the wave equation and be sure that everyone will understand. I would be a very sad person if there weren't such a place. Yes, I could take the same hard courses, but it wouldn't be the same -- there wouldn't be the same ambience, the same spirit of the place. And why don't you care about me, heartless sakky, or the thousands like me at MIT and Caltech? Why don't you care about how much worse our lives would be?</p>

<p>I'm just glad that people with unthoughtful views like yours don't actually have any influence, at least at my school.</p>

<p>So yes, some worthwhile ventures end up hurting some people. The NBA makes lots of people's lives somewhat worse than they would have been otherwise -- development league players who never make it big and waste the best years of their lives striving for something they'll never achieve. Should we abolish the NBA or reduce the requirements for playing pro ball? But that would destroy pro ball and not give the truly great a chance to shine. Either way, someone gets hurt. That's not a reason to hurt the best people.</p>

<p>If you seriously espouse the views you put forth, misguided sakky, you are an enemy of greatness. Shame on you.</p>

223

<p>sakky,</p>

<p>You asked on the other forum (but I'm posting here, since it has nothing to do with MIT), about the students who are doing poorly academically. You asserted that anyone who doesn't graduate isn't happy with their school. I completely disagree with that. Just from my own experience, I've known many people who may not graduate who still love Caltech. First example is the one Ben gave of the girl who transferred to Duke. She realized soon after that she really missed Caltech and transferred back. But, she's still been having academic difficulties and currently isn't a student. If it turns out that she doesn't graduate here, I think she'll still say she loved Caltech, as evidenced by her continued attempts to continue here as a student. Another example is of someone who transferred here, loves it here, but had difficulty adjusting to the academics. He also currently isn't a student, but he works in one of the labs on campus and has been offered some wonderful job opportunities. I've had lengthy discussions with him and he's perfectly happy -- both with his life and with the school. In fact, he helped cheer me up when I failed a class for the first time recently. And no, I didn't consider transferring at that point -- not because of the trouble of transferring, but because I truly love the academic education I'm receiving here, even if my grades demonstrate that I'm nowhere near the cream of the crop.</p>

<p>Like Ben pointed out above, it's perfectly acceptable for many schools in the nation to cater to the average student and do everything possible for them to graduate. But shouldn't SOME schools cater to the above average students, and concentrate on giving them the education they need, rather than devaluing it to increase a yield rate?</p>

224

<p>Alleya and/or any other current CalTech student:</p>

<p>How does a CalTech student ever fail a math, physics or other science course? Is it lack of effort? Lack of available time? Bad professors or TA? Just not smart enough?</p>

225

<p>Very good question, joemama. </p>

<p>High school math is largely technique. Learn this (small) bag of tricks, get some problems (so that it's fairly obvious which method to use in each) and apply the methods.</p>

<p>Caltech math (and to some degree physics) is largely ingenuity. Get this problem that seems very hard, rack your brain until you find an approach. The field is very wide open; it's rarely "obvious" what to do.</p>

<p>Some people are quite brilliant (or very experienced) and get all the answers. Some people are not so good at it, but very hardworking. They ask the TA, they talk to the profs, they ask their classmates, and pass the courses.</p>

<p>If you got into Tech, there is no question you CAN pass, either through smarts or hard work.</p>

<p>The problems arise when somebody doesn't exactly get everything instantly, but likes the idea of the free time had by some of those who do, and leaves work til last. Those people have no time to go to office hours, etc., and don't do the work or understand how to solve such problems.</p>

<p>So flunking out is almost always a combination: a lack of very good aptitude for the class, combined with some laziness.</p>

226

<p>And how exactly am I heartless and hurting people? I am not stopping anybody at Caltech from taking whatever hard courses they want to take. If you want to take hard courses, feel free. But to require if ot people for which those courses have nothing to do with their major. </p>

<p>What I am saying is that perhaps if you don't want to take difficult courses that have nothing to do with your major, perhaps you shouldn't have to. If it's rigor that you're so concerned about, then the Caltech economics department should create a highly rigorous (but still related to economics) gateway course. You and I both know that QM has only a tangential relationship to economics. </p>

<p>I would also say that that's where your NBA analogy breaks down. To make it in the NBA, you have to play good basketball. Nothing more, nothing less. The NBA doesn't have a requirement where you have to also be great at hitting a baseball. Hitting a baseball has nothing to do with whether you're going to be a good basketball player or not. Look at Michael Jordan - a mediocre baseball player, yet the best basketball player ever. Yet here's a place like Caltech, requiring QM of an economics student. What's up with that? In the NBA, the only requirement is that you know how to play basketball - not these other requirements that have nothing to do with basketball. </p>

<p>And to Ben Golub, you have constantly insulted me over and over again. Do it again, and the gloves will come off. I have absolutely no problem in reporting you to the moderators and getting you banned. It's one thing to disagree with me. But to constantly resort to personal attacks? Shame on you for constantly resorting to personal attacks.</p>

227

<p>If we followed your suggestion, abolished required physics, and replaced it with an econ course (for econ majors) of comparable difficulty, you'd complain that we don't care about the people who fail that. There's no winning with you, sakky; I suspect your ideal solution would be just handing the diplomas out during prefrosh weekend. ;-)</p>

228

<p>students may not like it, but there are bound to be classes that are seemingly (probably) useless to their major. if i were an art or music major, i would still need to take college algebra, statistics, or pre-calc in order to transfer to a lot of universities. while it may be useless to me and my major, it is still a condition of transferring.</p>

<p>quantum mechanics and linerar algebra is pretty much the same thing at caltech. it might not have much to do with econ, but like it or not, it's still a requirement for graduating. i suspect that the school even provides tutoring or some other form of help to students who might have problems.</p>

229

<p>It does! The Dean's Office pays for upperclass tutors for students having trouble.</p>

230

<p>Ben Golub, you say that that I would complain anyway even if Caltech abolished required QM for econ majors, replacing it with an econ class, then Caltech should simply take my talking point away. In other words, let Caltech indeed do away with the QM requirement for its econ majors, and then we will see if I still complain. Go ahead - take my talking point away. </p>

<p>Again, nobody is saying that a guy who majors in Econ isn't allowed to take QM. He can do it if he wants. The point is why should it be required of them? So far I have heard the 'weightlifting' argument (that QM builds mental discipline and strength), and the 'culture' argument (you develop cohesion in your community by forcing everybody to take the same core, and if you don't do it, you're not a "real" Caltech student). </p>

<p>However, I would further the point by saying that I am fairly confident that Caltech has plenty of economics graduate students (in the Social Science PhD program) who have never done QM, yet Caltech doesn't seem to have a problem with admitting them. Are you saying that these guys are not properly 'mentally weight-trained' because they never did QM? Is anybody accusing these guys of not being "real" Caltech students because they never did QM? I find it odd that Caltech would require QM of its economics undergraduates, yet Caltech seems to have no problem in granting doctorates to guys who have never done QM. It seems to me that if the benefits of QM are really so appealing, then you should require it of ALL your students, not just your undergrads.</p>

231

<p>Well, the debate started with you saying we're heartless because we have a relatively high dropout rate. Now you seem to be backpedaling and saying rigor is okay when it's in the field that a person asked to pursue. I.e. very tough physics courses are okay for physics majors.</p>

<p>What I'd say to that is that it's essentially acknowledged everywhere that a degree from Caltech in ANYTHING is essentially a Physics degree PLUS whatever else they study. I promise, our viewbook makes this abundantly clear. We don't hide it from our prospective students that incidental to their other studies here will be a almost a full physics major by the standards of almost any other school.</p>

<p>The students who come here ask for the rigor, and it would be unfair to deny it to them.</p>

<p>Plus, you never answered the culture argument! It's important to have some places where everyone is very hardcore. Your only response has been "yes, unless it hurts people." But it's not like we're taking these innocent people and forcing them to learn QM for my entertainment. They asked to come here, and we're giving them what they signed up for. If you take away the culture, you hurt me -- it won't be the same if only a fraction of the people takes the hardcore core, even if I take all the same courses. So why should you ignore that you'd hurt me?</p>

232

<p>the econ grads should have to prove that there hardcore and take QM to get grad degree.</p>

233

<p>"What I'd say to that is that it's essentially acknowledged everywhere that a degree from Caltech in ANYTHING is essentially a Physics degree PLUS whatever else they study."</p>

<p>So what would you call people with an actual degree in physics or applied physics at Caltech? Physics supergrads? :)</p>

234

<p>Sakky: we don't consider graduate students to be people.</p>

235

<p>
[quote]
Caltech is, for the average student, much harder than MIT... if MIT required the same courses we do and had the same standards for passing, their graduation would be less than ours because they have more affirmative action beneficiaries who are academically marginal. Is that straight enough for you?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First of all, both MIT and Caltech are phenomenal schools and debating which is "better" is futile. Some students will be happier at MIT and others will be happier at Caltech. And still others would be equally happy at either. It depends on the unique priorities of any given student. </p>

<p>My job is to relay to prospective applicants what is wonderful about MIT. Do I need to take stabs at Caltech in order to do this? Of course not. And why would I? I have enormous respect for both places - this is why I don't get involved in these one-is-better-than-the-other debates.</p>

<p>The truth is, as an MIT admissions counselor I personally like to think of Caltech as our main ally in this messy world of top-tier schools. Why? Because, generally speaking, MIT and Caltech don't tend to get caught up in the elitist crap that so often flows from some of our peer institutions (who shall remain nameless but who should be obvious). Both MIT and Caltech know who they are, know the worth of the educations they provide, and enjoy a well-earned self-confidence.</p>

<p>So Mr. Golub, with all due respect - you (and Caltech) are MUCH better than that elitist quote up there. MIT and Caltech should join together to stomp that kind of thing out, not perpetuate it. Both of our cultures depend on it - are built on it, for that matter.</p>

236

<p>Well said, Ben Jones. There should really be more respect between the 2 schools.</p>

237

<p>Mr. Jones --</p>

<p>Thanks for your post. Your point is well-taken. At the same time, I'd like to point out that I certainly didn't start this discussion with the paragraph you quoted. (Indeed, as I say a few lines down in this post, it started as a respectful conversation about the differences between the two schools' approaches.) As I mention quite frequently, I have a great deal of respect for MIT and think that arguing about "prestige" of "eliteness" is incredibly dumb. On this point, you and I agree.</p>

<p>That doesn't change the fact that, even in the MIT-Caltech market, lots of people make their decision based on those factors. And this thread, which was initially a very subdued pro-and-con discussion in which I went out of my way to point out MIT's many virtues (diversity of curriculum, practical relevance, etc.), turned into a Caltech-bashing party officiated by some trolls (pages 4-10, or something).</p>

<p>While I hate that they do this, I really can't sit around quietly while a prestige-focused individual like sakky insists that we are an evil place with far too high a dropout rate while MIT provides an education exactly alike in difficulty with a lower dropout rate. I also hate that, unless I spoke up, far too many people would take the claims of sakky, etc. at face value. How do I know that they would? People whom I know in real life have told me that they believed some of the (ludicrous) Caltech-bashing posts on this board when nobody bothered to correct those posters.</p>

<p>I promise, Mr. Jones, if I thought that most people ignored trollish "Caltech sucks, MIT is better" nonsense as the nonsense that it is, I wouldn't waste my time on this.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, sometimes what they say about Caltech (e.g. about our relatively high dropout rate) is true. What's false is the claim that other places have few of our problems and all of our virtues. In this case, the only way to answer the objection (as opposed to folding and letting my school look second-rate) is to point out that those other schools -- sometimes MIT -- don't share exactly all the same virtues.</p>

<p>In fairness, I think that you would probably not be too happy yourself if somebody persistently bashed MIT for being too hard on its students ("driving some to depression", etc.) and lauded Harvard for being "more prestigious," less depressing, and offering just as rigorous an education across the board. At the very least, that would be unfair. So hopefully at least you can understand my feelings.</p>

<p>I am very much with you in the hope that MIT and Caltech can remain the noble places that they are without being dragged into stupid arguments like this one. I also hope that the trolls who initiate bashing of one school or the other will stay in the forums of the other schools to which you alluded, where that kind of thing is more appropriate.</p>

<p>All the best,
Ben</p>

238

<p>Hey Ben,</p>

<p>Thanks for your response. Some brief thoughts...</p>

<p>
[quote]
I... think that arguing about "prestige" or "eliteness" is incredibly dumb. On this point, you and I agree. That doesn't change the fact that, even in the MIT-Caltech market, lots of people make their decision based on those factors.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But are those the kind of people you really care about? The kind of people you really want to help recruit? Don't you want people coming to Caltech because they truly want to be there, not simply for the name?</p>

<p>
[quote]
People whom I know in real life have told me that they believed some of the (ludicrous) Caltech-bashing posts on this board when nobody bothered to correct those posters.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This saddens me. It seems to me that anyone who truly belongs at a place like Caltech or MIT can distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources of information. People with enough brains to get into these schools do their homework before choosing. Visiting campus, talking with current students... depending on informed primary sources - not anonymous trolls on a message board.</p>

<p>Other readers - please correct me if I am wrong. But I give applicants of this caliber the benefit of the doubt.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In this case, the only way to answer the objection (as opposed to folding and letting my school look second-rate) is to point out that those other schools -- sometimes MIT -- don't share exactly all the same virtues.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I respectfully disagree. You can correct the falsehoods and dispute the exaggerations being made by the trolls - and put a positive spin on Caltech - without speaking negatively about another institution in an attempt to supplement your point. I would argue that being forthright about the merits of Caltech - without feeling the need to compare the school to any other, either positively or negatively - shows a quiet, affirming self-confidence. By defending Caltech so rigorously using comparisons, however, it makes it seem like you feel the need to prove something. I say this respectfully: Caltech doesn't need to prove itself to anyone, at least not to anyone who matters. And by trying to do so, I fear that you're accomplishing the opposite of your intention.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So hopefully at least you can understand my feelings.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I wholeheartedly do. I am just suggesting that, as representatives of two of the coolest schools in the world, we set a standard of class and respect for others to follow. I've attempted to do this with all of my messages for MIT. And as I said, I like to think of Caltech as an ally in the battle against the elitist tendencies of some of our peers.</p>

<p>Care to join me in a bi-coastal mission to keep our respective forums on this board positive? Caltech and MIT should have each other's backs on this.</p>

239

<p>And thank you, Ben, for responding. One quick point of substance before I gladly accept your invitation.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I respectfully disagree. You can correct the falsehoods and dispute the exaggerations being made by the trolls - and put a positive spin on Caltech - without speaking negatively about another institution in an attempt to supplement your point.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree that speaking unkinfly about other institutions is never necessary, and I apologize for that. The challenging situation for me arises when people say </p>

<p><a href="i">quote</a> Caltech loses about 10% of its kids, while
(ii) MIT is just as hard and keeps nearly all of them. </p>

<p>Hence </p>

<p>Caltech is worse at helping its students manage a difficult program.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Note that (i) is true. Hence, if (ii) holds, Caltech really does take poor care of its students compared to peer schools. So the only way to deny the conclusion that we take poor care of our students (which I think is false, and you probably agree) is to take issue with claim (ii), which unavoidably concerns places other than Caltech.</p>

<p>I think the right answer would have been to point out that there are academic hurdles at Caltech that don't arise at other schools, and that other schools would face similar problems if they had the same hurdles... in those words. I probably wouldn't have ruffled any feathers had I said it that way, and I should have said it that way. (In fact, I did say it that way at least twenty times, starting on the first page, and then lost my temper, but that's not an excuse... losing one's temper with trolls isn't a thing for a self-respecting person to do. I apologize for that.)</p>

<p>Most importantly, I think the mission you propose -- to keep these forums free of nonsense -- is an extremely good idea. We are more than halfway there; it is a blessing that there are no losers trolling the MIT board "on behalf of" Caltech, for that would embarass us greatly. And I certainly know that virtually everyone affiliated with MIT would immediately renounce the "Caltech sucks, MIT wins" sort of trolling we saw in this thread, if they were told of it.</p>

<p>It is still hard not to lose one's patience after the reasonable response repeated twenty times does not silence the troll, but you've certainly convinced me that the annoyance is more than worth it to keep these discussions worthy of our institutions. I promise to join you in striving for that goal.</p>

<p>Many thanks,
Ben</p>

240

<p>I make this a separate post because it concerns a broader clarification that I owe to Ben and to MIT (and it would have blurred the point of the previous message).</p>

<p>I hope you believe me when I say that I truly do hold MIT in the highest regard. I think it is an absolutely amazing place. Our schools have taken different approaches to recruiting, admissions, core requirements, and many other things. Both approaches present unique challenges and considerations about long-term strategy. But I would never claim that one set of choices is "better" than another; the world desperately needs a diversity of practices in this area. </p>

<p>I get frustrated when people assume we should have precisely the same goals and the same results, and that goes both ways. I think it’s ridiculous when people say MIT betrayed some duty (“sold out”) by seeking a broad, and less exclusively scientific focus -- it has gained immensely in social and humanitarian aspects as a result. And I think it’s equally ludicrous to say Caltech is inhumane in not copying the exact practices of its esteemed peer schools (and not achieving the exact same “numbers”) -- if we did that, we would lose so much of our unique value. </p>

<p>This is all a rather long-winded way of saying that my frustration, expressed so inappropriately in that passage you quoted earlier, does not indicate disrespect for you or your institution -- just a desire that people would leave each school to pursue its own focus, without claiming that either place is evil for doing so.</p>

<p>So, please accept my apologies, and thank you for your reasonable and kind words throughout this discussion.</p>