<p>Haha, nice try itsallgood, but do you have any response to the Stanford letter's demolition of your main point? Or is that it for you?</p>
<p>Ben Golub, and alleya, but the point is, why use shadow grades, or pass/fail for just the first couple of terms? Why not use them for ALL terms? What's so bad about that? If it's OK to do that for the first 2 terms, then why isn't it OK for all the terms? </p>
<p>But all the quibbling about procedure is neither here nor there. I think I have to agree with itsallgood and say that clearly there is an indisputable issue on the table which is that Caltech graduates a lower percentage of its students than its peer institutions do. We can argue about what exactly is the source of the issue or what is the best way to fix it is, but what is not in dispute is that the issue exists. </p>
<p>Furthermore, one of your latest posts I believe illustrates precisely what I see as the problem. You say that Caltech makes its graduation rates public, and to paraphrase and extend what you are saying, if somebody comes to Caltech and then flunks out, it's basically his own fault, for he should have known that it was rigorous. Come on, don't you think that's a bit cold - sort of like blaming the victim? It's like the Army telling all soldiers who die in battle that it's their own fault - they should have known that joining the Army was dangerous and if they didn't want to die, they shouldn't have joined. Not only that, but you can use that logic to say that the Army shouldn't bother trying to protect its troops in battle, because after all, the soldiers knew that they were getting into something dangerous, so if they die from lack of protection, that's their own fault for joining the Army. I think we both know that that would cause a political firestorm if the Army were to ever publicly say something like that. </p>
<p>Hence, I think the real source of the problem is that a lot of Caltech people think that chewing up and spitting out a bunch of students is inherent to what makes Caltech special, and if a bunch of people get hurt that way, that's too bad for them. </p>
<p>All of this might actually be defensible if Caltech really did provide a huge boost to its graduates relative to its peers. But does it? Do Caltech graduates really enjoy substantially greater access to graduate school and/or employers than do HYPSM graduates? Is the Caltech brand-name really substantially better than those of HYPSM? I think that's dubious at best. In terms of access to graduate-school and employers, I think we would all agree that it's hard to beat the 'Harvard' name, despite Harvard's coddling and grade inflation. And, again, it's not entirely clear that Caltech enjoys a substantial advantage over Stanford or MIT when it comes to engineering or science, or over Stanford, MIT, or Harvard when it comes to science. </p>
<p>Case in point. Look at the backgrounds of Caltech's own graduate students and notice how not all that many of them came from Caltech undergrad. This stands in marked contrast to what happens at the graduate schools at MIT, where the most highly represented undergraduate school is, unsurprisingly, MIT. You might reply that part of that has to do with the fact that certain Caltech departments don't like taking its own undergrads for graduate study, but that is only serves as another reason not to go to Caltech for undergrad, because it means that by doing so, you reduce your chances of going to Caltech for grad.</p>
<p>itsallgood -- If all you mean is engineering, then you should make it precise when you say "higher ranked" that you mean engineering. Sometimes it seems like you're attacking the entire school, and most people won't read your very top post since this is such a long debate. It also undermines the credibility of your point.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that it would be easy to beat up any school by focusing on one area that is not a major focus and saying "look, here are three schools that are better." Most students coming to Caltech aren't even sure exactly what aspect of science/engineering they're most interested in, and for them the overall quality matters more. As far as overall undergraduate analytically-oriented education, I'd ask you to read the first half of this thread and respond (if you can) to my points proving why, for sheer "value added" the education here is the best anywhere.</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>Ben, here's the latest USnews rating of Engineering programs from their website. Where did you get your info that CalTech beat Berkeley? </p>
<p>Best Undergraduate Engineering Programs
(At schools whose highest degree is a doctorate)
Rank/School Peer
assessment
score
(5.0 = highest)
1. Massachusetts Inst. of Technology 4.9
2. Stanford University (CA) 4.8
3. University of CaliforniaBerkeley * 4.7</p>
<p>Now in itsallgood's defense, let me deal with the Stanford letter.</p>
<p>First of all, I find it ironic indeed that such a letter would come from Stanford, which we all know to be a school that is grade inflated. If the Stanford administration really believed what was in the letter, then why doesn't Stanford itself become more Cal-tech-ish in its grading? </p>
<p>Secondly, I have to say that graduation rate is in fact a valid metric to be used to assess whether a school is good or not. Let's face it. People don't just go to college just because it's fun to go to college. You go to college to get a degree. Those schools that don't facilitate its students being able to get a degree, whatever those reasons might be, deserve to get dinged for that. </p>
<p>And like I said, I respect the fact that Caltech wants to be rigorous. That's not the issue. Just because you're rigorous doesn't mean that you necessarily have to have a low graduation rate, relative to your peer schools. You can simply admit fewer students - making sure that those you do admit truly can handle it. After all, I think we can all agree that Johns Hopkins Medical School is unbelievably rigorous, yet almost 100% of all students who matriculate there graduate with their MD. I would also point to the LFM program at MIT (basically the combined MS in engineering + MBA from the Sloan School), which is also indisputably rigorous (for you are getting 2 master's degrees in 2 years, which is the time you would normally need to get just 1 master's), yet every single MIT LFM student in the history of the program (which has been around since 1988) has managed to graduate. The point is, you can still have rigor and a high graduation rate at the same time.</p>
<p>sakky -- note that your major metric of quality that might make up for the difficulty here is success with respect to graduate schools, etc. How shallow is that? Don't you realize that for many of us the learning and the intense environment are even more valuable and rewarding? It might not be right for everyone, but we're not recruiting everyone.</p>
<p>But if you want to talk about graduate schools, etc., just one particular example: last year two of the graduate students admitted to Princeton (uncontroversially a nearly unbeatable name in math) for math were from Caltech. No other major U.S. university (all of which are almost an order of magnitude larger than Caltech) had more than one. And this is not uncommon.</p>
<p>So when you remark on Caltech's career and graduate school success, you fail to keep in mind that we have 900 undergraduates here total. You're not likely to know someone who graduated. MIT churns out 1000 kids a YEAR. Harvard twice that. When you look at that and consider the Princeton example above, you begin to gain some understanding of just how disproportionate Caltech's influence is.</p>
<p>Anyway, I'd just like to point out that this debate, which you are losing, is pointless. Maybe it's not nice to do what we're doing. Who cares? We're going to keep doing it because the Institute as a whole values rigor in teaching and grading more than pleasing you and people like you. What is the point of your tirades?</p>
<p>itsallgood -- note I said the UNDERGRAD program, overall. Go look at the granddaddy listing at <a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/natudoc/tier1/t1natudoc_brief.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/natudoc/tier1/t1natudoc_brief.php</a></p>
<p>Ben, your link has NOTHING to do with Engineering. That's the overall ranking.</p>
<p>Here's the Engineering link.</p>
<p>Yes, itsallgood, I know that. My point is that most undergraduates thinking about Caltech want the best overall undergrad education around (usually with an analytical bent) not specifically the engineering program. The overall listing, though absurd, makes the most sense for them.</p>
<p>Look, Ben Golub, while I can't speak for itsallgood's motivations, I can speak for myself. I am not out to castigate Caltech. In fact, I respect Caltech as an undisputed member of the elite 6 - being HYPSMC. </p>
<p>But the point is, graduation rate is in fact a weakness of Caltech and it is something that Caltech should work on. If Caltech wants to get better as a school, then Caltech should address its weaknesses. Hence, I think it's entirely fair for Caltech to be called out for its relatively low graduation rate. If you want to get better, you have to work on your weaknesses. We all know that Caltech is a top-notch science and engineering school. But graduation rate is a problem. I don't think it does anybody any favors by pretending that it's not a problem. In the beginning of his NBA career, Michael Jordan was criticized, and rightfully so, for not being a good team player, and not being a good long-range shooter. He was a brilliant individual slasher, but not a good team player and not a good shooter. Only when he eliminated his weaknesses by learning how to integrate himself with the team and learning how to shoot from downtown did he finally become the greatest player in history. What would MJ have become if nobody ever pointed out his weaknesses, and so he simply remained the same player he was when he entered the league? </p>
<p>I believe that Caltech in fact loses a lot of very good talent who are scared off by the low graduation rate. I believe there are quite a few students who would have been able to succeed at Caltech, but, as itsallgood has pointed out, don't want to take the chance that they might flunk out, so they end up at HYPSM. I think it's a bit unfair to disparage all of these students by impugning them as unworthy or stupid. Not everybody likes to take chances with their future. After all, if HYPSM really are so unworthy, then why is it that Caltech's graduate programs have so many students who came from HYPSM?</p>
<p>Ben, you were wrong about Gordon Moore's background --what a gaffe that was--and now about the USNews rankings. Really sloppy work.</p>
<p>I find it hard to believe that you are either a Princeton grad or a current CalTech student or a application reader. In any case, if you aren't a total fraud, you certainly don't represent either institution with any distinction. </p>
<p>Honestly, I now suspect every statement you've made.</p>
<p>sakky -- I've read your posts and understood your points. The administrators, faculty, and students who determine long-term Caltech policy are well aware of tradeoffs here.</p>
<p>We think it's important for there still to be a place where grades are fairly uninflated, where standards are unquestionably very high, that nobody makes fun of for being a creampuff school.</p>
<p>We know this is not the fad in American education today. Caltech has outlived a lot of fads and is still going strong. I'm fairly sure that when the public notices the slipping standards in the US and the rising ones in India and China, the push to shape up will be huge, and Caltech will be right there leading the way, as it has been in that respect for decades.</p>
<p>Top universities shouldn't all be the same and shouldn't all have the same priorities. Harvard has theirs, let us have ours.</p>
<p>Umm, itsallgood, I never claimed that Caltech outranked Berkeley in engineering. I emphasized multiple times that I was talking about the overall undergraduate program. Why don't you get a quote -- even better, learn to read?</p>
<p>I also never claimed to be a Princeton graduate -- I took all of my math and physics there as a high school senior because I had run out of courses in high school. Read carefully.</p>
<p>Oh, and the ad hominem attacks certainly don't reflect well on your standing in this debate. You are becoming progressively less able to discuss its substance. Plus, if you don't believe me about something, why don't you look me up? My full name is right there, unlike yours.</p>
<p>That's all.</p>
<p>Thank you for your sympathy, it's important to me. You show all the debating skill and honor that so well characterized the PrincetonReview boards in their heyday. Oh, and if you'd really like to see how foolish you are, refer to <a href="http://www.its.caltech.edu/%7Ebeng/%5B/url%5D">http://www.its.caltech.edu/~beng/</a></p>
<p>But I must thank you for leaving it so clear who won this debate. While I've never wavered from the main points, you have quickly slid down to nonsense and ad hominem attacks. How sad for you. But again, you have my gratitude.</p>
<p>As someone who was admitted EA and intends fully to attend Caltech next year, I'd like to put in my two cents. The fact that Caltech's graduation rate is not 99-100% is, in my opinion, a good thing. I want to be pushed as hard as is possible because I know that I will be getting a better education than I can anywhere else. Granted, I am more interested in math and physics than in engineering, but I am glad to see that I'm not going to get another piece of paper handed to me; you see, unlike most people, the people going to Caltech are going to college to learn, not just for that piece of paper and a high figure salary.</p>
<p>Ben Golub, you really think I am losing this debate? So if you are winning, then who have you managed to convinced to be on your side? I believe I got itsallgood in my corner. So tell me again, who's losing? </p>
<p>Look, you have complained about ad-hominem attacks from itsallgood. I don't like adhominem attacks either. So I don't think it's proper for anybody to insinuate that somebody is losing. </p>
<p>You have also displayed a rather strong sense of, well, let me be frank - institutional arrogance (note, I am not saying that you are personally arrogant, but rather I am calling Caltech as possibly being arrogant). Basically, you're saying, this is the way we're going to do it, and if other people don't like it, too bad. Fine. Fair enough. But when strong students decide that they don't want to go to Caltech because of its purported 'rigor', then you have nobody to blame for that but yourself. It is precisely this resistance to change and 'not-invented-here' syndrome, and basically, a categorical refusal to learn from others that hinders certain organizations from getting better. </p>
<p>Besides, look at it this way. You talk about a story of Caltech math students getting into the Princeton graduate math program, and you compare that to the size of MIT and Harvard, as proof of the supposedly disproportionately large influence that Caltech has. Oh really? Does it really prove that? First of all, the vast majority of Harvard students study humanities or social sciences, so clearly they would have no interest in going to a math graduate program. The vast majority of MIT students study engineering, and engineering students generally are not interested in getting graduate math degrees. Hence, the fact that MIT and Harvard have larger total student bodies does not by itself show that Caltech has a disproportionate influence on anything. What you should have been talking about are the number of MIT math majors vs. the number of Harvard math majors vs. the number of Caltech math majors. What does it matter if Harvard graduates hundreds and hundreds of English and Psychology majors? What does that have to do with who has a more disproportionate influence on math? </p>
<p>Furthermore, do you really think that Caltech has such a disproportionate degree of influence on graduate-school admission? Then look at Caltech's own graduate departments (the ones that actually admit Caltech undergrads) and I think you would concede that there probably ought to be more former Caltech undergrads. After all, it would be 'homefield advantage' coupled with the fact that nobody really likes to move, and so Caltech undergrads would probably feel highly comfortable at Caltech graduate school. Yet Caltech graduate school seems to admit plenty of HYPSM students. I am not aware of any evidence that Caltech undergrads enjoy any serious leg up on HYPSM students when it comes to Caltech graduate admissions.</p>
<p>I'd also like to add that of all the people I have seen posting on these forums, Ben Golub is one of the most well-spoken, patient, and respectable, so please don't sink to personal attacks--that's not what these forums are for.</p>
<p>sakky -- I don't know your background, but there is a general ethos at most places that it's not great to stay where you went for undergrad. Contrary to your unfounded assertion that "nobody really likes to move" most people in their early 20s would love to see new places and meet new people. Have you been around college seniors recently?</p>
<p>Personally, I love Caltech, but four years here will be enough. Then it'll be time to go elsewhere and enjoy the fruits of the rigorous training.</p>
<p>Oh, by the way, MIT and Harvard and Princeton all have way more math majors per year than Caltech.</p>
<p>CWatson -- good post (first one) and thanks a bunch (second one). See you next year :-)</p>
<p>Now, let me say the following. I'd like to think I'm a fair guy, so I would point out that Caltech's graduation rate today is far better than it was in the past. An 89% graduation rate in 6 years is actually really really good for Caltech, relative to what used to happen in the past.</p>
<p>But that just goes to illustrate one of the points I have been making. I think we can all agree that Caltech is still extremely rigorous today, despite the fact that far more Caltech undergrads actually manage to graduate today than, say, a generation ago. Hence, that serves to bolster what I've been saying - you can in fact boost your graduation rate while still maintaining rigor. They are not mutually exclusive. </p>
<p>The issue is not that Caltech hasn't made substantial progress on this front. It has indeed. But I believe there is still more that can be done. I believe the real problem is a cultural belief that rigor necessarily means a lower graduation rate, which I don't believe is the case. You can have both rigor and a high graduation rate. Is it easy to combine both? Of course not. But Caltech is an elite school, and elite schools are supposed to be able to do things that aren't easy.</p>