<p>One more thing, again this is specific to Engineering graduates going out and looking for Engineering jobs: If an employer has candidates from Berkeley, Stanford and MIT standing there with 3.0 GPAs and a kid from CalTech with a 2.85 or 2.75 GPA (because of the extra "Rigor"), I suspect the employer is going to choose the higher GPA over the (perhaps mythical) higher rigor.</p>
<p>Any thoughts?</p>
<p>itsallgood,</p>
<p>LOL! you've been to Caltech campus but my guess you haven't socialized yet with most of Caltech students. They're just 'weird' :) Can you believe that many Caltech students actually take more than they should (some of them take 7-8 classes per quarter) and they think Stanford students are losers to have such easy workload with grade inflation. </p>
<p>Although it's an immature view on the prospect in engineering field, which by the way should be rather practical than theoritical perhaps, Caltech society has its own unique, lovable pride (well you may find it detestable :))</p>
<p>"If an employer has candidates from Berkeley, Stanford and MIT standing there with 3.0 GPAs and a kid from CalTech with a 2.85 or 2.75 GPA (because of the extra "Rigor"), I suspect the employer is going to choose the higher GPA over the (perhaps mythical) higher rigor."</p>
<p>Only about 0.25 gap ? The answer is NO.</p>
<p>To webhappy, perhaps it would skew the distribution towards outgoing people. But the first thing I would say to that is that such a skew such a bad thing? The fact is, people who are outgoing about a particular subject tend to be the ones with greater motivation and heart about that subject. Obviously it doesn't hold in every case, but a statistical correlation probably does exist - just like there is a correlation between smoking and cancer. Not everybody who smokes gets cancer, but those who smoke have a greater likelihood (not guaranteed, but greater likelihood) of getting cancer. And surely we all know people who are normally extremely quiet but if you get them talking about something they really care about, you can't get them to shut up. For example, if you get an initially-introverted Caltech applicant talking about physics, and then you find out that he just goes on and on and on and you can't get him to stop, I think that's a fairly decent indication that this applicant is passionate about physics. </p>
<p>And my second response is that that's neither here nor there. I am not claiming to know exactly what are these attributes that will indicate whether a person has what it takes to succeed at Caltech. What I am claiming is that these attributes are out there and can be found out. Maybe the personal interview is a good way to do it. Maybe it isn't. Maybe interviews with teachers are a good way to do it. Maybe they aren't. I don't know. My point is not that I know what the right answer is, but rather that Caltech should take the time to find out what the answer is. I was just throwing out some possible examples out there. </p>
<p>Now to rtkysyg, I don't agree that higher Caltech selectivity would serve to deter applicants from applying. Harvard is unbelievably selective, yet Harvard doesn't seem to have any shortage of applicants. Far from it, in fact. Or think about the top medical schools like Johns Hopkins Medical, which are ridiculously selective, yet always seem to bag an ever-increasing number of applicants. The point is that just because you become selective doesn't automatically mean that you are going to deter applicants. In fact, I might argue that the exact opposite could happen - if Caltech becomes even more selective, then that might encourage certain applicants to apply just to 'see' whether they can get in, just like some superstars apply to Harvard even if they don't really want to go, but just to see whether they can get in (or perhaps because their parents push them to see whether they can get in). </p>
<p>And furthermore, if the $50 app fee is really the issue, then reduce it, or eliminate it entirely. Seriously, how much money does Caltech really make from this $50 fee? Something on the order of 2000 or so applicants (of which ~20% are admitted, and of those admitted, about half will actually matriculate) apply to Caltech undergrad each year. So we're talking about only about $100,000. With Caltech's budget, who really cares about 100k? </p>
<p>Now to Bengolub, I never said that Caltech doesn't screen its applicants at all. Indeed, I am well aware that it does. But at the end of the day, one fact remains indisputable - a greater proportion of Caltech students do not make it relative to peer schools like HYPSM. Caltech can talk about how it rigorously screens its students and all that good stuff, but at the end of the day, the fact remains. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I don't think it's even really a matter of screening at all. Rather it's a matter of 'tolerance values' and of where do you place the benefit of the doubt. Right now, with the screening process, I'm sure that Caltech admits some applicants who the adcom officers have some doubts as to whether they succeed - and these applicants disproportionately tend to flunk out. In the future, perhaps Caltech should simply admit less of these students. Now obviously nobody can ever know with a 100% guarantee who will succeed or who will not, which is why the notion of 'playing it safe' and of 'tolerance values' comes into play. Caltech could simply make its 'safety window' smaller such that a safer group of applicants were brought in, which makes it more likely that a given admitted student will actually make it. It's one thing to say that maybe you can't get more data about your applicants, it's quite another to say that you can't do more with the data that you do have. Caltech could simply say something like "Instead of admitting the top 400 students who apply, we're only going to admit the top 300", or whatever the numbers turn out to be (I was just making up the numbers), and I think it is fairly clear that the top 300 will be a safer choice than the top 400. </p>
<p>Furthermore, Ben Golub, we have to distinguish between rigor and pure punitive behavior. This is where your analogy of the Olympics or the NBA not only stops short, but is a useful analogy for what I am trying to prove. Let's say you try out for the NBA, and you do poorly. Fine, so you can't get into the NBA. But the NBA then doesn't go and ruin your professional record such that you find it difficult to play in the Continental Basketball Association or the Euro-leagues or some other pro-basketball league. Similarly, if you go to the Olympics and do really badly, that doesn't ruin your chances of going and doing something else in your life. For example, let's say that you do terrible and you come in dead-last in an Olympic event. No potential employer is going to say "Oh, you came in dead-last, so that means that you suck and so we're not going to hire you". No college is going to say "Well, we thought about admitting you ,but since you really sucked in the Olympics, we're not going to admit you." But that's precisely what happens when somebody does badly and/or flunks out of Caltech. If you come to Caltech and do badly, not only do you ruin your chances of getting a degree from Caltech, but you also seriously injure your chances of getting a degree at any other peer school.</p>
<p>The point is, there's a big difference between maintaining high standards and going around unnecessarily punishing and hounding those students who don't meet those standards. It's one thing to say that Caltech should set a high bar and only those students who are strong and motivated will be rewarded with a Caltech degree. Fine. It's quite another thing to say that all those Caltech students who don't meet that high bar should have their academic records trashed such that they are hindered from doing other things in their life. If a guy can't make it through Caltech, then that's fine, don't award him the degree. But if he's not going to make it, then what purpose is served by tossing the guy's academic record into the gutter? That's just adding insult to injury. </p>
<p>Hence, maybe Caltech should run its first year or first-semester as pass/not-pass (similar to what MIT does), or have whatever letter grades are recorded in the first X semesters designated for internal use only, meaning that only Caltech faculty gets to see those letter grades, and outsiders only get to see grades of "pass" (and if the student doesn't pass a class, then no grade is recorded). Or Caltech can identify those difficult intro classes that are gateways to particular majors as ones that can be 'shielded'. For example, let's say that an incoming Caltech student thinks he wants to major in electrical engineering, but then does really badly in the intro EE classes, such that he no longer wants to major in EE anymore. Why then should that student's record have to be marred with bad EE grades? That student isn't going to be majoring in EE anyway. Caltech has already proved its point by setting a high EE standard, which that student could not reach. So what more is to be gained by sticking his record with a bunch of bad grades? If that student ends up majoring in say, economics, either at Caltech or some other school, what does it matter if he did badly in Caltech EE? That's like the Olympic analogy - if you're trying to get a job, what does it matter if you came in last in an Olympic event? </p>
<p>The point is, just because you have high standards doesn't mean that you have to go around gratuitously damaging the stock of the students who don't meet those standards. For those students who do well at Caltech, Caltech is obviously serving them well. But for those students who do poorly and want to transfer out, I believe Caltech should do whatever it can to help them transfer out to a good program, or at least not gratuituously hurt them from doing so. So if that means cloaking bad grades from prospective transfer programs by instituting an external pass/not-pass policy, then maybe Caltech should do that. If that means simply not assigning any course credit to any grade less than a B (hence, if you get a grade worse than a B, then you can choose whether you want to take that grade or simply not take any credit for that course at all). Or some of the other options I mentioned.</p>
<p>And finally, to the last post of Ben Golub, I have always maintained that Caltech is indeed great for some people. But it is clearly not good for others. I have to agree with itsallgood that Caltech, the way it is now, is clearly a risk that some people would prefer not to take. After all - it's not like Caltech completely dominates all other schools when it comes to science/engineering. So for many people, it's a risk that isn't worth it. Again, don't get me wrong, for some people, it is worth it. But for others, it isn't. </p>
<p>I would also argue that if Caltech could institute a policy where high standards are maintained, but on the other hand, transferring to another school is easily faciliated should Caltech prove to be too difficult would be a great boon to the morale and to the overall desirability of the school. Lots of candidates who might now hesitate to go to Caltech because of its 'boiler-room' nature and instead end up at HYPSM might decide to go to Caltech if they know that they can get out if they have to.</p>
<p>Rtkysg, the problem with comparing GPA's the way you have been doing it is that often times, that guy with a 2.75 from Caltech won't even get considered. Right or wrong, many companies will simply set a GPA cutoff at 3.0. If you don't have that GPA, your resume gets tossed into the trash even before it gets read by a human being. Right or wrong, that's what they do. So the guy from Caltech with the 2.75 doesn't even get a chance to show what he can do. </p>
<p>This is particularly true of medical schools and law schools for which admissions are very much numbers- driven. If you don't have the numbers, then your application won't even be read. Caltech can therefore be said to be seriously hurting its students' chances of getting into law/medicine, something that I believe somebody (either kyshantry or galen, I can't remember) alluded to previously. </p>
<p>Like I said, there's a big difference between high standards and just going around hounding your students unnecessarily. If a guy does really poorly in a class, then instead of marring his record with a really bad grade, why not just let him strike it from his academic record completely? Things like that would go a long way towards removing the punitive nature of Caltech grading.</p>
<p>rtkysg: Thanks for the insight in the mind of the "Techer." </p>
<p>But explain to me why an employer would take a lower GPA from a lower ranked program, over a higher GPA from a higher ranked program? Something doesn't sound right there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hence, maybe Caltech should run its first year or first-semester as pass/not-pass (similar to what MIT does), or have whatever letter grades are recorded in the first X semesters designated for internal use only, meaning that only Caltech faculty gets to see those letter grades, and outsiders only get to see grades of "pass" (and if the student doesn't pass a class, then no grade is recorded).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Caltech does this. The first two terms are P/F (pass/fail), and the second of those they get letter grades which are for internal use only (called shadow grades). In addition, each Caltech student can choose to P/F up to 10 classes (this must be decided while the student is in the class). So, if a student tries out an intro EE course, realizes they're going to fail and wants to switch majors, they can P/F it. Students can't P/F classes in their own major for obvious reasons.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And finally, to the last post of Ben Golub, I have always maintained that Caltech is indeed great for some people. But it is clearly not good for others. I have to agree with itsallgood that Caltech, the way it is now, is clearly a risk that some people would prefer not to take.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The information about Caltech's freshman retention, and about how difficult Caltech is, is readily available to every student who applies. So every student who comes knows this and chooses to take the risk. If it's a risk someone would rather not take, then they shouldn't come here. That doesn't mean we should take the option away from them.</p>
<p>I would not want to be the CalTech grad interviewing in Silicon Valley and have to describe "rigor" to the Stanford and Berkeley grads who run most of the companies there. Their response will likely be "NEXT!"</p>
<p>And if I'm a CalTech grad interviewing on the East Coast, I think I better have a better story than "rigor" for the employer who graduated from MIT.</p>
<p>sakky -- your posts are long on words and short on content. As alleya pointed out, you throw out accusations without realizing that (for instance) the first two thirds of the frosh year (two of three trimesters) are on pass fail. You also probably don't know that Drop Day, the last day for dropping a course so it doesn't appear on your record at all (any trimester) is a mere three weeks before finals -- with more than two thirds of the term behind you, including midterms. It's very hard to be doing badly and not to know it by that point.</p>
<p>As for Caltech gratuitously ruining lives or whatever, you may have some anecdotal evidence to that effect, but I have lots of anecdotal evidence to the contrary. I know a girl who failed spectacularly freshman year, got into Duke as a transfer, spent a year there, and came back because she liked it here better. Is Duke a third tier trashbag?</p>
<p>I also know someone who really didn't like it here, was getting very mediocre grades, and got into Stanford as a transfer student apparently without any trouble.</p>
<p>Finally, as Alleya said, students have extremely ready access to all the statistics about graduation rates. Those who take the risk have no excuse for not knowing what they're signing up for. (Caltech's viewbook doesn't gloss over the rigor, either... nor does the admissions website.)</p>
<p>Itsallgood -- it's silly to act like the average Caltech grad comes to the job/grad school hunt badly beaten with a rock-bottom GPA. It's just not true. Very close to half of each class graduates cum laude. And you'd better believe that those guys -- especially the ones in the top fifth or so -- are snapped up VERY eagerly by investment banks, Google, Microsoft, graduate schools, what have you. I know because I see it every year.</p>
<p>In short, while we can quibble about a Stanford B versus a Caltech C, there's little doubt that an A in upper-level Caltech physics/math/engineering classes trumps almost any other card on the table. For the people who are capable of getting it, that's worth coming here for.</p>
<p>Oh, and as for Silcon Valley companies, I know at least one whose upper management knows a little something about the rigor of Caltech. It's a little mom and pop shop called Intel, and it's founder is a Caltech grad [edit] named Gordon Moore.</p>
<p>Ben, get your facts straight. Moore is a Berkeley product. </p>
<p>He got his Masters and PhD at CalTech but not in EE. It was Chem and Physics.</p>
<p>Doesn't change the fact that he has an appropriate respect for the level of rigor here. In general, there's little diagreement among people who know their stuff in engineering and hard science that the Caltech name stands for the highest standard of difficulty. And as I said, the people who truly benefit from that are those that come out of here with flying colors. It's true that maybe the bottom of the curve might benefit from a less hardcore grading environment, but then that would take away from the cachet of the best grades. There should be at least one place that's not willing to make that compromise.</p>
<p>Plus, you haven't answered my major point in the post above the Moore one.</p>
<p>An "A" in upper level Physics/Math/Engineering courses from ANY of the schools--Stanford, MIT, Princeton, Berkeley-- is gold. Hate to burst your bubble, but there are other schools equal to or better than CalTech (at least as far as the rest of the world is concerned). You have to get out more.</p>
<p>But that's not even the point.</p>
<p>The point is that CalTech's program graduates a lower percentage of students than Stanford, MIT and Princeton. Great students, for whatever reason, bail out. </p>
<p>It's an extra risk. CalTech is alone in this among the top-rated schools. Given a choice, why take the risk?</p>
<p>Eh, itsallgood, maybe YOU should get out more. I got grades of A and A+ in upper level Princeton math and physics courses and barely broke a sweat (as a high school senior, no less). Caltech has made me work. So I know the actual comparison.</p>
<p>As far as the outside world, recruiters here (Goldman Sachs, etc.) routinely say that the Caltech name conveys, on average, a higher level of expertise with hard math and science than diplomas from other top schools.</p>
<p>As far as your question "why take the risk" I've explained that many times. Because you learn more here. Because after Caltech almost everything else is easy. Because you know you are being judged on standards that aren't designed to make everyone feel good. </p>
<p>Heck, the president of Stanford explained this eloquently in his letter to US News ( <a href="http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/961206gcfallow.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/961206gcfallow.html</a> ). There, he points out what a nonsense criterion of quality graduation percentage is (which those foolish rankings devised in the first place).</p>
<p>
[quote]
The California Institute of Technology offers a rigorous and demanding curriculum that undeniably adds great value to its students. Yet, Caltech is crucified for having a "predicted" graduation rate of 99% and an actual graduation rate of 85%. Did it ever occur to the people who created this "measure" that many students do not graduate from Caltech precisely because they find Caltech too rigorous and demanding - that is, adding too much value - for them? Caltech could easily meet the "predicted" graduation rate of 99% by offering a cream-puff curriculum and automatic A's. Would that be adding value? How can the people who came up with this formula defend graduation rate as a measure of value added? And even if they could, precisely how do they manage to combine test scores and "education expenditures" - itself a suspect statistic - to predict a graduation rate?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Anyway, maybe you don't like the graduation rate. Too bad for you. I wouldn't be surprised if some people don't come here because of it. Too bad for them. Our goal isn't to maximize yield (otherwise we'd change our name to Harvard) and it isn't to accord with your tastes.</p>
<p>Maybe there's not a good answer to "why" for you, but there is for the people who come here, and that's good enough for me.</p>
<p>To Ben, sakky, alleya and others </p>
<p>Please understand, I believe CalTech is a great school, with great students and fantastic faculty. But PLEASE don't try to tell me that its program is any better than the ones at Berkeley, Stanford, MIT (all ranked higher) and, even, Princeton. That statement simply won't wash outside the walls of CalTech.</p>
<p>And stop ignoring the problem with retention and graduation rates. Something is wrong when you take super bright and highly motivated kids and can't hold or graduate them. There's a fault in the system that won't get fixed until you come out of denial.</p>
<p>"But PLEASE don't try to tell me that its program is any better than the ones at Berkeley, Stanford, MIT (all ranked higher) and, even, Princeton." </p>
<p>errrm, time to wake up. For each school, there is certainly a field in which Caltech is ranked higher. In overall undergraduate USNews rankings, you well know that Caltech bounces around from beating those schools to being tied with them to trailing them by a negligible margin because those people need to sell magazines.</p>
<p>If you're just talking about engineering, you have to quarrel with me. I've always maintained that many engineers are probably better off at MIT. The one's who aren't probably like the 3:1 student:faculty ratio here. </p>
<p>Oh, and note also that for all the infinite wisdom of the USNews rankings Berkeley's undergrad program is ranked something like 20 spots lower than ours last I checked.</p>
<p>And as for your persistent whining about graduation rates, I've answered your points and you don't have any substantive responses. You are now just down to repeating your undefended assertion that non-100% graduation rates mean there's something wrong. Why don't you respond to the points in the Stanford president's letter? Or is that too tough for you?</p>
<p>Anyway, until you come back with some answers containing substance, you've obviously lost this debate.</p>
<p>Ben, don't believe all the flattery of the recruiters. They probably say that at EVERY top school they go to. Right out of the play book.</p>
<p>It's good that Stanford came to CalTech rescue. It's a great and noble school looking out for the others.</p>
<p>Ben, ALL my posts have to do with Engineering. I said that at the start.</p>