<p>Thanks for not "driving me into the ground!"</p>
<p>You're very welcome.</p>
<p>Well, I searched the thread. It seems that Caltech retains fewer freshmen and has a lower graduation rate because it is "harder." It seems like the "rigorous and academically focused" admission process (even relative to MIT!) isn't doing its job quite right.</p>
<p>Caltech is clearly not for everyone. Unless you're trying to prove that it is an inferior school, in which case...</p>
<p>actually, never mind.</p>
<p>So far we've seen wandering monsters from Harvard, Yale, and MIT who apparently have nothing better to do than make unbacked and unclear accusations that Caltech will ruin your life. Is Caltech really attracting so much of your usual applicant pool that you feel the need to come here and try to steal them back?</p>
<p>Begone, the Ayatollah commands it.</p>
<p>They don't need to: Caltech's 42% yield is hardly problematic!</p>
<p>And of course the RD yield is lower than that. Most of those "carefully chosen" admits who have a choice go elsewhere, even when offered large "merit" incentives - odd for an elite.</p>
<p>They're very persistent, the trolls.</p>
<p>Okay, here's another harvard troll :)</p>
<p>I did physics ug at Harvard and grad at Caltech, and spent a lot of time at MIT as an undergrad, and I would say the following:</p>
<p>a) Caltech and MIT are MUCH more rigorous than Harvard, in terms of the physics and math degrees at least. This makes complete sense. Most of my classmates didn't go on to graduate school (in physics), and (almost) all of us welcomed the chance to take classes in other academic disciplines. The extremely flexible program reflected this. Caltech physics majors are expected to continue on in physics, and their rigorous program reflects that.</p>
<p>b) Caltech is probably more rigorous/difficult than MIT, for somewhat similar reasons. MIT undergrads tend to be interested in industry, at least in my experience, and they have a much wider range of classes. Caltech (and parts of Harvard) also has a culture of "look how hard I'm working" which is both kind of cool and kind of unhealthy.</p>
<p>c) I knew a lot of unhappy Caltech undergrads when I was there, as well as a couple of extremely happy ones. The unhappy ones were those who were interested in other fields besides science (as I knew lots of undergrads through choir, this makes up most of my anecdotal sample), or who realized after a couple of years that they weren't into astro the way they thought they were, or who started chafing (socially and sociologically, not intellectually) at the confines of a rather small school. Those who were extremely happy were those who took full advantage of the research opportunities and were happy as a clam pretty much doing research full time. These people, while they would've done quite well anywhere, were clearly very well suited for Caltech and its amazing opportunities.</p>
<p>d) I would say the social scene at Caltech, although satisfying to many of those in it, is more skewed than that at MIT, just because there are fewer options. MIT may have a higher variance, but the mean is probably a little closer to the "real-world" mean.</p>
<p>e) I would personally counsel any kid who is bright, ambitious, and interested in other subjects besides his/her (science) intended major to go to MIT. (Actually, I'd recommend a good liberal arts school before MIT, but that's another story.) I'd counsel a kid who is bright, ambitious, and is focused on one subject only, and thinks the arts are kind of bogus, to go to Caltech. I would never counsel a kid like me to go to Caltech ug, but I am interested in lots of things besides science.</p>
<p>f) I recommend Caltech as a <em>grraduate</em> school without reservation.</p>
<p>g) I think biology majors taking quantum mechanics is actually kind of ridiculous. I knew a fair number of pretty unhappy sophomores.</p>
<p>Very informative and helpful post, deorwine : )</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>Yes, I also want to thank you for that post. Very informative and supports what most people have said (although from a differerent perspective than what we usually get to read here).</p>
<p>Thanks for the kind comments! Oh, I forgot; I also wanted to comment on what previous posters have said about grad students from prestigious institutions taking undergrad classes in classical (106) and quantum (125) physics. This is true, although I feel that it's not telling the whole story.</p>
<p>First, <em>most</em> physics grad students at caltech do not take these classes, having already had them! Second, although the level of 106 is (somewhat) higher than that of the corresponding junior-level classes at Harvard (e.g., they use Jackson for E&M instead of Griffith), it is lower than that of the grad-student-level classes at Harvard (and I imagine at other institutions, but I can only speak about my experience!), which of course are open to undergrads who wish to take them. We were often a bit frustrated (in 106) that the material didn't go into as much depth as we would have liked. If there <em>were</em> a more advanced grad school class available, that's what the grad students would take. But we run into this problem of Caltech being a small school again, plus which Caltech believes, I think rightly, that grad students should by and large be in charge of their own education and not dependent on Grad Classes. </p>
<p>(I won't talk about 125, as it's undergoing some interesting changes, including a possible bifurcation into a regular-major and advanced/grad pair of courses. But before this development similar things could have been said about that class. Also, I <em>think</em> this may happen/be happening with 106 as well, but can't swear to it.)</p>
<p>What I"m trying to say in a rather roundabout way is that I think that the average physics major at Caltech takes more difficult and rigorous classes, and definitely more of them, than the average physics major at Harvard; but the top physics major at Harvard will have access to a larger variety of harder classes than his/her Caltech counterpart. That being said, for a scientist, taking classes should NOT be the chief academic experience, and I think Caltech does a better job of fostering that sort of atmosphere.</p>
<p>...But, you know, it's extremely common for grad students to justify themselves with respect to undergrads ("those little whippersnappers!") so you may want to take this post with a grain of salt :) (Also, apologies for hijacking the Caltech/MIT discussion, but I suspect most of what I said about Harvard here is also applicable to MIT.)</p>
<p>I agree with you completely that "for a scientist [undergrad major], taking classes should NOT be the chief academic experience," so it is good to read from you that Caltech is good at "fostering such an environment." Is it fair to conclude from what you wrote, then, that Caltech undergrads have enough free time after their classess and psets to actually "take charge of their own education"? I realize you speak from a grad experience; it would be nice if you can confirm this about undergrads. There is an impression, perhaps mistaken, that Caltech undergrads are -- to exaggerate somewhat -- completely consumed by their classes and psets, in which classes would indeed become the only significant academic experience. Or did I misunderstand you?</p>
<p>This was a while back in the thread, but I think I'll bring it up again. I'm a girl headed for Caltech this fall and I sure as hell wouldn't go there if I thought they favored girls in admissions. That's one reason I prefer Caltech over MIT. Some of us really don't mind having more boys around (odds are good and the goods...actually, I won't go there).</p>
<p>It would be nice if it were more even, but if the cost of a 50-50 ratio is denying well-qualified boys to allow less-qualified girls, that's always seemed wrong to me and I would seriously consider not going if that were the case.</p>
<p>Just wanted to drop by and say that you guys are awesome! Both of you truly reflect the great schools that you officially/unofficially represent.
It is refreshing to see such a positive spirit of mutual respect and admiration between two of the best schools in the world. Thanks for keeping the overall positive tone and setting an example on how to avoid the trolls.</p>
<p>Someone pointed me to this discussion and suggested I add my 2 cents. I am a Caltech alum who is now a faculty member in econ at another university. I absolutely agree with Ben Golub's characterization of the tradeoffs and benefits of going to Tech, but I thought I would add the perspective of someone who graduated in Physics but who is now in Econ.</p>
<p>As a former director of PhD admissions in our econ department I can say that Caltech's grades are taken very seriously. Most professors I've spoken to are aware that Caltech has tougher grading standards than other schools and we take this into account when considering grad admissions. That means that we usually consider a 3.0 from Caltech as better than a 3.2 from Stanford even in economics where Stanford is much better than Caltech overall.</p>
<p>It is true that students are still penalized for low grades and I would not recommend going to Caltech if your ultimate goal is law or med school. But because Caltech is known to be so tough, profs in econ and engineering will sometimes cut someone slack with grades that would get dismissed for grads even from the Ivies. There's no set cutoff or formula, but if someone has 4 Cs but good recs from Caltech, we might make phone calls to figure out what's what.</p>
<p>When I went to grad school many years ago, I almost certainly had the lowest grade point average of my entering class in econ (with several Cs in science classes) but I also got accepted to Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, Minnesota and Northwestern econ partly on the strength of my degree in physics and partly on the basis of phone calls from my professors. In contrast many classmates from good schools with straight As were rejected by some or all of these departments. </p>
<p>It is worth noting that several prominent economists and political scientists were Caltech undergrads who did not receive their degrees in econ. These profs include Robert Barro, Vernon Smith (Nobel prize), and Roger Noll.</p>
<p>Having said all that, it is true that going to Tech is high risk. And there is the real possibility of "flunking in". I do wish that Caltech kept it pass/fail in the first two years (not terms) and used grades only internally.</p>
<p>But as I said, just my 2 cents and you can all flame away.</p>
<p>A very interesting post, obviously with an insider perspective. It is good to hear that Caltech grades mean a good deal even in fields somewhat far removed from physics and the like.</p>
<p>You've made me rather curious about where you are, not that I'm asking : )</p>
<p>Incidentally, as you probably know, Caltech is aiming to hire about five new big-name faculty in econ to build the department, but this will obviously take a few years. We recently got Preston McAfee, who has done wonders for the popularity of the econ department among undergraduates especially, and with whom I'm lucky enough to be doing a summer project currently.</p>
<p>I should add that the Caltech grade problem is a microcosm of general problems with grade inflation nationwide. Studies have suggested that tougher grading in science courses relative to humanities courses in most schools tends to drive many people out of science. Why? Assume that in State U, one major, say physics, gives grades that perfectly track your class rank, in the other, call it lazy studies, all get an A. Then the latter is an uninformative A. Nonetheless, a student may prefer to get a useless A than an accurate C.</p>
<p>This is one advantage of systems (not in the US) with common nationwide tests in a discipline. There then exists a common standard for how well students at a school did relative to all other students.</p>
<p>=</p>
<p>QUESTION:</p>
<p>IF I WANT TO DO AERO-ASTRO/AEROSPACE ENGINEERING AND AM INTERESTED IN THE FOLLOWING SUB-FIELDS:
- DESIGN OF AEROSPACE VEHICLES
- DESIGN OF AIRCRAFT
- AIRCRAFT PROPULSION SYSTEMS
- SPACE FLIGHT PROPULSION SYSTEMS
- CONTROL, GUIDANCE & NAVIGATION OF AEROSPACE VEHICLES</p>
<p>WHICH INTSTITUTE WILL BE THE BETTER : CALTECH OR MIT?</p>
<p>WHICH ARE THE OTHER INSTITUTES/UNIVERSITIES OF EXCELLENCE THAT OFFERS THE ABOVE COURSES AND HAS EXCELLENT INFRASTRUCTURE?</p>
<p>Please give details.</p>
<p>Yours truly
SHABIN
July 11, 2oo5.</p>
<p>=</p>
<p>MIT generally has much broader offerings in Aero/Astro. I would recommend MIT for your interests.</p>