Caltech vs MIT for engineering

Colleges and Universities A-Z California Institute of Technology
241

<p>Thank you Ben for your kind and heartfelt responses, and thank you for accepting my invitation. I hope that others in our communities will embrace this, however idealistic. It is representative of the cultures of the schools for which we speak - which happen to be the same schools that consistently find themselves at the forefront of that which changes the world for the better. No coincidence, if you ask me.</p>

<p>I do understand where you were coming from when responding to the post you quoted in the first of your two responses above. Believe me, I know what it feels like to have to correct false stereotypes ad nauseam and to constantly ensure that folks are comparing apples to apples - it can be immensely frustrating. </p>

<p>I just took issue with what I perceived as an insinuation that we were lowering the standards of our curriculum to accommodate our "academically marginal affirmative action beneficiaries." The reason that I called you on that is because I am familiar with your respect for MIT and the general integrity of your posts, and thus that comment seemed out of character. I now know that this was not your point - and I won't give it another thought.</p>

<p>I wholly believe that you hold MIT in high regard, no worries there. What you respect about MIT is what I respect about Caltech - the differences between us. As much as the schools are alike in some ways, they are also very different. These differences should be celebrated. They create a wider spectrum of thought and opportunity in the world, which will no doubt bring us all closer to solving the world's great problems.</p>

<p>So Ben, thanks again for accepting my invitation. Here's to working together for more productive threads (and fewer false stereotypes for both Caltech and MIT) across both forums.</p>

<p>:-) B.</p>

242

<p>A note to the Public Ben Golub:</p>

<p>By way of introduction, I've been a lurker at CC for the past several months, as my daughter has been involved in the college application process. After she was accepted early to both Caltech and MIT, I began skimming these boards to learn what I could about the personalities of the students and life at both schools. In the interest of fuller disclosure, I will add that I know personally only one young woman other than my daughter who was accepted by MIT; she was also accepted by Caltech. </p>

<p>In the past few months, I have been disconcerted by the anti-female bias that has been evident in your posts regarding MIT. I have not responded before today because: a) I told myself I was too busy to become involved in a message board war (and I am); b) you are a very young man, and I am older and wiser (mathematicians may peak early, but mothers don't); c) you are not an official representative of Caltech, and I am aware that the administration does not share your viewpoint. </p>

<p>Ben Jones has taken the high road and reminded us that both schools are truly amazing institutions who on their own are enough reason for Americans to have pride in our youth and hope for our future. But it is my concern for that future that brings me here today. I don't represent MIT or Caltech. I'm here as a mother, as a mother of a girl who when she first accessed the Internet sought out the websites for NASA and the JPL and Caltech, a girl who at seven began saving her pennies for her future at Caltech. How many other girls are out there now, filled with the kinds of dreams our country -- our planet -- needs? Are any of them reading your comments? Worse, are their brothers reading them? Their fathers? Their mothers?</p>

<p>Only a few days ago, you wrote that MIT is accepting "girls and minorities of middling academic talent ... who would get mauled by many Caltech kids in a head-to-head academic match-up." Excuse me? Out of the hundreds of thousands of girls pursuing STEM degrees today, what logic is there in assuming that a world-renowned institution such as MIT couldn't skim five hundred or so from the top of the talent pool who could hold their own against a Caltech man? Do the arithmetic. </p>

<p>What concerns me most is that over the months of your increasingly bold statements about the women at MIT, other Caltech undergraduates have not risen to the challenge and argued against you. In fact, on one of my visits to Caltech, a tour guide told me that Caltech would be a better choice for a female than MIT, because a young woman accepted at MIT would run the risk of being treated by the men around her as if she were an "affirmative action" candidate. Is the culture at Caltech based on the underlying assumption that the thousands of female mathematicians and physicists and engineers who don't attend Caltech should expect to be treated as inferior? </p>

<p>One day you may be in a position at a university, or a corporation, to hire a woman who graduated from MIT (or Cornell, or Georgia Tech, or Stanford). Would that woman have to be twice as accomplished as a man from the same institution to meet your requirements? No problem, actually. Women are used to that. I'm willing to wager that a female engineering grad from MIT will be able to meet the double standard.</p>

<p>But your generation should know better. </p>

<p>The future of the human race may depend on it.</p>

243

<p>I thought Ben was trying to comment on the borderline girls at the two schools, not the top female students, since MIT has a gender affirmative action policy.</p>

<p>And doesn't Ben count as an "administration" member?</p>

244

<p>My vote's for MIT.</p>

245

<p>Jerseymom, Ben never made any comments which presented any bias one way or the other on the issue of gender. Statistically men deal with numbers more and more men apply to Caltech. Women also apply and are admitted based on the exact same criteria as a man. When a girl walks into an interview, the only thing the interviewers see is achievment. They do not have any quota to fill. If 50 women get into Caltech one year, awesome. If none get in it's the same to the school. I've been reading up on Caltech admissions pretty heavily because I am hoping to transer and this is my understanding based all of the information I have gotten. </p>

<p>Ben was saying that the above scenario does not exist at MIT. Obviously they are still going to take extraordinary applicants over ones with more average achievments but, instead of looking only at achievments, there is a quota they fill every year. It's nothing about sexism above what MIT does. I know girls at Caltech and they were all lucky enough to have done research since middle school because their family members ran labs. They got in on merit, not because of any special consideration. </p>

<p>I'm sure in Ben were hiring people for a project and he saw a woman went to MIT then he would probably have a bias towards a woman at Caltech. He will also ben an alumni of Caltech and there is an inherent bias which comes with that. If the girl from Caltech got average grades and the ones from MIT got exemplary ones and had many achievments, do you really think he would hesitate to hire them? </p>

<p>Have you ever asked Ben would he thought instead of writing that post? He's a very helpful guy and i'm sure he would explain what he meant. Everyone here has a very straight and arrogant writing style. I can really understand how you may have gotten that idea but I personally think that the posts may have been misinterpreted.</p>

<p>By the way, congratulations for you daughter. That is really great and it's good to hear she was actually set on this from early childhood. That is really pretty rare these days.</p>

246

<p>JerseyMom, thank you for your brilliantly written post. It is wonderful to read such cogent prose and such a closely argued position. As a lover of good writing and good argument, I couldn't refrain from pointing that out.</p>

<p>First, to dispose of preliminaries, you correctly surmise that my posts here should never be interpreted as officially representing the position of Caltech on any issue. On this forum, I'm just a Caltech student on a message board, like many others, irrespective of whatever else I do with my copious free time.</p>

<p>All that aside, I owe you a substantive response to your main points. You cited the comment made by me in another thread:
[quote]
There's no doubt that [MIT] is denying Axline-quality scientists to admit, in their place, girls and minorities of middling intellectual talent, plus singers, dancers, water polo players, etc. who would get mauled by many Caltech kids in a head-to-head academic match-up. Let me say, first, that there's nothing wrong with that in itself. It is certainly MIT's right as a university, and it makes for a diverse and vibrant community.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I was alluding here to the fact that MIT sometimes does not accept students who win Caltech’s highest full-ride Axline academic scholarship for freshmen. Admittedly, this happens quite infrequently, but it does happen. A typical winner of the Axline has perfect scores, perfect grades in every subject, and, most importantly, scientific extracurricular achievement that completely tops out even in the extremely research-heavy Caltech pool — original research or university coursework that blows away even the Caltech professors who read these applications (not a low bar to hop, I promise you). Also, it is just simply true that there are students at MIT who, on any mildly reasonable evaluation of broadly scientific talent and achievement at the time of their admission, would rank substantially below these Axline students. Usually, those admitted students are exceptionally desirable for MIT due to their mind-blowing nonacademic talents or the valuable diversity that they would bring.</p>

<p>(To be intellectually honest: I have just asserted this proposition, without including an appendix bearing it out with rigorous data. It would be tedious to do this, and it would certainly require more effort than I can typically expend on a CC post. If anyone familiar with the relevant talent pools would like to seriously challenge the assertion, I would probably go to the trouble of compiling such an appendix to defend my integrity; it would only require the side-by-side comparison of two people for all to inspect, though you can see why this presents various difficulties. But, to be honest, I doubt that anyone informed thinks that what I said is in doubt.)</p>

<p>As I earnestly say over and over again, there is nothing either dishonest or wrong or about MIT’s policies in this respect. Yes, the university values nonacademic prowess and diversity of experience comparably with pure scientific achievement. Sometimes, one applicant beats another in the first two categories so overwhelmingly that he is more valuable to the school, despite the superior book smarts of the latter student. But to admit the most worthy students given the school’s aims and values is not only MIT’s right, but its duty. The fact that some people and institutions do not share the same values does not render MIT’s pursuit of those values suspect.</p>

<p>None of that changes the straightforward truth elucidated above — that sometimes, for MIT, nonacademic qualities trump pure scientific strength. The one serious (and inexcusable) flaw in my quote is that the word “comparatively” should have been inserted before “middling” — I wrongly assumed it would be understood. It is indisputable that everyone admitted to any top university is head and shoulders above the broad social average. But, as I argued at length above, some of those admitted to MIT for their nonacademic gifts or diversity value are significantly less impressive academically than some of those denied despite their overwhelming scientific talents.</p>

<p>I should say that Caltech, contrary to occasional perception, does not have a magical and completely “academically meritocratic” process. But we do — as I have come to understand it — consistently and unabashedly try to have a process in which scientific accomplishment and curiosity trump almost all other types of achievement.</p>

<p>Are the “nonacademic and diversity” admits at MIT quite amazing at science, compared to the vast majority of their high school peers? Undoubtedly. Are they nearly as accomplished in science as some of the people MIT could have had instead for those spots? Certainly not. And the bottom line is that Caltech tries very hard always to resolve these dilemmas in favor of the scientifically superior applicant.</p>

<p>I hope you now understand my view, which I do earnestly hold, that admission to Caltech is more reliable signal of pure academic talent focused on science than admission almost anywhere else. It is not hard to see why this is so. A student’s admission to Caltech means that, in our quite imperfect evaluation, the student was, in scientific talent, achievement, and curiosity, one of the top n people among our applicants, where n is the number we could admit. It is hard to make that claim of, say, MIT. (Remember the Axlines that they denied — did MIT really admit 1735 better scientists than one of the 15 best in our pool? Even if you think that MIT’s pool is stronger, it would be a difficult case to argue. Even factoring in the inherently human and subjective nature of these evaluations, it’s a pretty hopeless case.)</p>

<p>So that’s why Caltech students often say that a female or minority or athlete getting into Caltech need not worry that she is there for reasons other than her academic talent — because our process is more purely focused on talent. For those to whom that knowledge is important, the purity of the Caltech process is precious. </p>

<p>And, relatedly, to answer your question: if I were hiring for a job in which the most important thing was scientific talent, of course I would take admission to Caltech, a priori as a more reliable indication of it. With other schools, I’d have to think about what nonacademic factors could have swung this person toward the top of a list he would not have topped on talent taken alone. But I should note, in fairness, that if I were hiring a person for a “people job,” as opposed to a purely analytical one, I would (before I knew anything else about the candidate) probably value MIT’s diploma more, and Princeton’s more than that; MIT admits have a tendency to be more socially polished, and Princeton’s even more so. Different diplomas send different signals. As Ben and I so amicably agreed in this thread, the beauty of these schools lies in their contrasts.</p>

<p>So, to answer your other accusation: of course I don’t assume that any woman or athlete or minority from another institution is inferior to one here (that’s a cheap shot). I just know that, due to the complexity of the admissions values at other schools, those students’ presence at those institutions, in itself, does not send an academic signal as strong as their presence here would. And in view of the points above, I doubt even you would dispute the soundness of that judgment. </p>

<p>I won’t devote much airtime to your cheapest shot — that this knowledge makes me a sexist. Knowing the fact that some people are evaluated in a certain process under different standards does not, in any sane person’s mind, constitute a prejudice, in the usual negative sense, against those people.</p>

<p>To conclude, I’d like to convey my praise and respect for your daughter. Our world desperately needs people like her. I’d like to think that my institution and I convey our respect most palpably through the purity of our process — by giving her the fairest scientific shake we can.</p>

247

<p>By the way -- the original short message (about how MIT denied Axlines, etc.) was written hastily a few days ago and I got involved in a discussion I should have avoided. I did just write 1500 words defending the position about how MIT's admissions priorities are different from ours, and how that leads to academically superior students sometimes being tabled in favor of ones valuable for other reasons. I don't want people to think that my statements are baseless or untrue or unjustifiable. If I didn't respond, it might have seemed that way.</p>

<p>But as Ben has pointed out, all schools win much more by emphasizing their own virtues rather than discussing the attributes of other elite schools, and I agree wholeheartedly -- which is why I don't like having had to write that previous message to tie up loose ends. In any case, I don't want this to drag on much... hopefully it's clear that I wasn't being sexist or evil, and we can go on to more productive threads.</p>

248

<p>I am personally acquainted with a student who averaged Cs and Ds in his high school math and science classes. Frequently, his test scores were the lowest of any student taking the course.</p>

<p>His parents had regular conferences with teachers regarding his atrocious academic results.</p>

<p>If I had to name the former or current students at my high school that displayed a frightful level of ignorance and stupidity, his name would be near the top of the list. </p>

<p>He was accepted into MIT.</p>

<p>This student was neither a minority nor a girl.</p>

<p>One of the smartest people I have ever met in my life (Axline caliber intelligence and ability) was waitlisted from MIT. (Accepted by Harvard and CIT)</p>

<p>Ben is absolutely correct about MIT accepting weaker applicants than they used to.</p>

<p>Who precisely these applicants are, I don't know. </p>

<p>But anyone doubting his general thesis lacks a fundamental knowledge of college admissions at MIT.</p>

249

<p>hmmm i dont find that believable, he must of had extremely high SAT scores and done some type of science achievement to have been accepted into MIT but in that case he was most likely accepted to Caltech because they put a bit more emphasis on SAT's but then again if he could reapply he might been accepted at Caltech and not MIT</p>

250

<p>Wow, I don't know if there are stories as extreme as ColorOfPain's, but there are plenty of anecdotes detailing surprising results from MIT. Even a famous student (current frosh at MIT) from TJ noted such occurances.</p>

<p>Edit: They're not suprising, though, if you also watch for contributions to the student body's diveristy.</p>

251

<p>"Edit: They're not suprising, though, if you also watch for contributions to the student body's diveristy."</p>

<p>"This student was neither a minority nor a girl."</p>

252

<p>Might have been valuable for extracurricular talents, certainly a form of diversity. As I always say, nothing wrong with that.</p>

253

<p>ColorOfPain - as a member of the selection committee, I can promise you that the case you have described would never have been admitted to MIT. While components other than academic achievement can certainly carry significant weight in our application process, an application isn't even considered if we do not feel confident that the applicant will be able to handle the work here. C's and D's in math and science are a red flag. A student with those stats, no matter how impressive otherwise, would not have been admitted.</p>

<p>I see from your previous posts that you attend Harker. A quick review of the admits from your school corroborates my aforementioned claim.</p>

254

<p>Thanks, Ben J. I thought the claim was pretty suspect; it's good that there are people on these boards now who can knowledgeably debunk such nonsense.</p>

255

<p>Let me clarify;</p>

<p>When I said "Cs and Ds", I wasn't discussing final transcript grades. </p>

<p>I would never say this for the simple fact that such grades are rarely, if ever, given out at the school. The lowest final grade in any class is typically a B-, which is approximately the grade this student received in the afore-mentioned math and science classes.</p>

<p>Rather, the "Cs and Ds" refered to averages on tests and quizzes. Obviously, when one factors in homework, projects, and extra credit, the final grade rises significantly.</p>

<p>However, none of this changes the fact that this student received the low*est* grade in several of his math and science classes. This I know as a certainty. </p>

<p>Furthermore, this was in no way meant to degrade MIT. I apoligize if that was the conclusion certain individuals arrived at. </p>

<p>I was merely stating an example that supported Ben Golub's contention about acceptance practices.</p>

256

<p>So perhaps I'm a little late, but I'd like to say to throw in my two cents here and clear up some of the bad blood:</p>

<p>i) I'm a current Caltech freshman. When I decided not to apply to MIT it was solely because of location (I was in slightly unusual circumstances at the time, because otherwise this would not have been such a factor).</p>

<p>ii) I think MIT is a great school. I think Caltech is a great school. There are ups and downs to both, but that is true of anything in life.</p>

<p>iii) I think Caltech <em>is</em> a harder school than MIT. This is not simply because of the one-way rivalry; I was very suspicious of this claim at first so I did my own research by looking at OCW homeworks, class websites, etc. I found that Caltech students typically take more classes than MIT students do (5 classes would be average at Caltech, but 4 for MIT), and that the level of rigor is a bit higher in the core curriculum. For example, whereas MIT has a basic intro Physics course, but special versions for those who want a more theoretical approach/hands on experience, Caltech only has the special versions. </p>

<p>So a student at MIT could take similar coursework if he wanted to overload and enroll in lots of extra stuff; it simply isn't required. I don't know what happens in the individual majors. This is just what I see in the core, general-ed courses.</p>

<p>iv) I feel there is <em>some</em> justification in saying that MIT has a weaker pool of students, just going by the straight academics/test scores/etc. Caltech's SAT scores tend to be higher, for one, but more importantly, the general vibe I get is that the admissions committee just wants to make absolutely sure that you can survive this place easily. So that is to say, if you're extemely smart and scientifically inclined and can show this on your transcript, you're probably going to be admitted to Caltech. On the other hand, MIT would factor in other things like diversity more heavily.</p>

<p>Neither viewpoint is 'right' or 'wrong'. It's simply the flavor of the two that you get to choose from. There are lots of reasons to think why someone would prefer either one. And really, both are great places to be.</p>

<p>I'll stick to that claim. There is a popular rivalry here at Caltech against MIT, but on the personal level I don't think many people believe in it. It's just all in good fun.</p>

257

<p>Very well said, tweaks.</p>

258

<p>"I'm not going to fight the engineering battles, and I tell most engineers at prefrosh to go to MIT or Stanford."</p>

<p>Well, I'm glad I didn't meet you at MY prefrosh weekend, way the heck back in 2000! Of course, it was clear enough then that MIT wasn't for me, and I didn't even apply to Stanford, so....</p>

259

<p>Back in 2000 I was busy being a frosh in high school, as you know :)</p>

<p>Of course I think Caltech is an amazing engineering school. Plenty of our engineers get unmatched opportunities here and would have much more difficulty accomplishing the same things at a place like MIT (I gather you know this firsthand.)</p>

<p>It's just that when it comes to CC trolls who try to demean Caltech in every respect, I'll take them on in pure science (where their claims are just an obvious joke) -- it's easiest for me that way.</p>

<p>Hope you're doing well, Joe.
-- Ben</p>

260

<p>Yes, it was the size of Caltech, frankly, that appealed to me the most. The fact that I developed a very close relationship with not just some, but literally MOST of my professors. The research opportunities. Etc. </p>

<p>I'm doing very well--I visited Pasadena the first weekend after spring break and had a great time seeing old friends, Tom Mannion, etc. I'm done with my master's program at Michigan, but going to keep working in the lab over the summer, then take most of August and September off to work a couple band camps, maybe substitute teach or something for fun, and get ready to go to the UK. Awfully excited about that! I got a new camera in preparation.</p>