<p>sakky -- you do seem to be a fair guy, and we agree more than we disagree. But I want to point out that going against the grain and not signing up for the popular fad of maximizing yields and graduation rates is not necessarily evidence of institutional arrogance.</p>
<p>Sometimes the popular thing to do is the right thing, and at other times the right thing to do is to go against the grain. I think this case falls into the latter category, but you are free to disagree.</p>
<p>Ben Golub, do you really think that people really like moving around, after they graduate from undergrad?</p>
<p>Then why is it that far and away the most popular grad-school destination for MIT undergrads is... MIT? And what's the 2nd most popular grad-school destination for MIT undergrads? Harvard. I guess these MIT people don't really want to move around. </p>
<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/facts/graduation.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/facts/graduation.shtml</a></p>
<p>Furthermore, the largest chunk of Harvard Law Students came from ... Harvard College. The largest chunk of Harvard Medical Students came from ...Harvard College. Similarly, the largest chunk of Stanford graduate students did their undergrad at either Stanford or Berkeley (only 40 minutes away). Not a whole lot of moving around going on there.</p>
<p>Keep in mind Stanford and Berkeley are cities compared to Caltech, size-wise. While a cozy place is great for undergrads, many of us would like another sort of environment for grad school. I don't think how many Caltech undergrads stay for grad school is a great metric. If you could get your hands on data saying how many of those who APPLIED got in, that would be a different and more interesting story.</p>
<p>Wow, that's an eye-opener. Illinois Urban beats CalTech too. </p>
<p>Hmmm.</p>
<p>Makes you wonder is CalTech is the elite school it makes out to be.</p>
<p>Maybe it's just a very small, good school, and that makes it seem elite.</p>
<p>Ben, have you been forthright with everyone about the smog in Pasadena area. Or would you even know? C'mon, are you really a CalTech student?</p>
<p>... a troll (webhappy thus honored you in another thread)</p>
<p>For a while there you were occasionally saying some things at least worth refuting, but now you're just wasting my time. I wish you all the happiness in the world at Georgia Tech.</p>
<p>I am off to do my real analysis homework, which is harder here than at other places ;-)</p>
<p>The point was to simply say that a lot of people clearly don't like to move around too much, for whatever reason that might be. </p>
<p>The other point is that clearly HYPSM are highly respected programs, for if they were not, then the Caltech graduate programs would be stupid for admitting as many HYPSM graduates as they do. And I think we can all agree that the Caltech graduate programs are not stupid. Hence, people can laugh and poke fun at the high grade inflation at HYPS all they want, but at the end of the day, a good number of HYPS students manage to get into Caltech graduate programs. So that grade inflation obviously didn't hurt them too badly. </p>
<p>However, what I am seeing is that Caltech seems to be playing a double game. On the one hand, Caltech decries the trend of higher yields and higher graduation rates, saying that it is a possible threat to rigor. On the other hand, Caltech has (quietly and not without resistance) in fact, boosted its graduation rate. I have noticed that the Caltech graduation rate is substantially higher than it was just a few years ago. </p>
<p>I still don't see why it is really so controversial for Caltech to boost its graduation rate with the simple step of admitting less students, and in particular, not admitting those borderline students. Why is that such a terrible thing? Caltech knows full well who these borderline students are, or could fairly easily find out. For example, Caltech could go back to its historical data of each admitted class, categorize and rank them in deciles, and then look at the graduation rate of each decile. Or some other more involved statistical analysis. From that, find out which attributes serve as 'warning flags', and simply admit less future candidates that have lots of these warning flags.</p>
<p>sakky -- as I explained before: I do admissions, and we do all these things. It's just completely false to say that "Caltech knows full well who these borderline students are, or could fairly easily find out." You can't guarantee 99% graduation rates at Caltech except by seeing the future or changing the actual education. Plus, a lot of the kids who did great at great high schools end up not doing so well here (complacency or something). It's a complicated question. If you think you can do a better job than admissions does, come and do so.</p>
<p>I thought you were off to do your analysis homework.</p>
<p>It is obviously true that admissions is not an exact science and that you can never know with 100% certainty who is going to succeed and who isn't. </p>
<p>But just because it's not an exact science doesn't mean that you can't make good predictions. For example, you can take any entering class and figure out with fairly strong certitude who among that class will probably end up doing better than others. No guarantees, of course, but the likelihood is there. The guy with straight perfects on all standardized test scores, who is valedictorian with straight A's, and who won all kinds of math and science awards, and has mind-shattering rec's and essays will probably do better than the guy who got less than perfect test scores, who wasn't valedictorian, and who has less awards and whose recs/essays are not that good, even though both applicants got accepted. </p>
<p>On a larger scale, you simply take all the admittees from years past, put it into a computer running statistical software like JMP or Minitab (or heck, get some of the Caltech CS students to write a custom program), and basically run a large-scale regression using Design of Experiments techniques, to determine which attribute is statistically significant. Then you do the same for several other classes of years past as a check and to make your data more significant. Eventually you will be able to flag certain attributes as truly significant. It really is no different from the data-mining techniques that all large companies use to ascertain which customers are likely to buy which products. </p>
<p>The point is, that every single admitted class has some students who just barely got in. If 400 spots were handed out, somebody came in as #400. Maybe you can't figure out exactly who is #400 (i.e. everybody between #351-400 looks basically the same), but you can divide out to some degree who is a very strong candidate in a given admitted class, and who is a less strong candidate in that same admitted class to at least some level of resolution. Then, Caltech can simply admit fewer students in that less-strong category. You can use the statistical results of the software to help you determine who is in that less-strong category. </p>
<p>You're not going to get all of the students who won't graduate, but you will get a good number of them. And, true, you will probably end up tossing out some students who could have graduated. But I wouldn't worry too much for them. Like I said, if you can get into Caltech, then you should be able to get into at least 1 of HYPSM.</p>
<p>If CalTech is tied with USC for Grad School Engineering, does that make USC an elite school.</p>
<p>Is Georgia Tech more elite.</p>
<p>Is Illinois Urbana elite.</p>
<p>Wow, what does that make MIT and Stanford.</p>
<p>I know that it may be generous to call me even borderline for Caltech, but I expect to thrive if I get in. It's very difficult to determine which people can survive there and which cannot from an application.</p>
<p>There's more to life than numbers. I don't envy admissions their jobs. I applied to Caltech for the same reasons that most people criticise it.</p>
<p>I do not want to float through college, I want intellectual stimulus and challenge. I do not want to graduate with a degree unless I deserve to do so. Caltech is one of the few schools that provides these opportunities and that's why I'm going. I could do fine without college at all so if I don't get a degree it's not going to really cause me much of a problem.</p>
<p>Of course, I already intend to start at least one company and have the framework set up completely for one (fiscal solvency isn't yet part of the company yet so I'm not calling it one until that stage comes into play)... so what employers are looking for concerns me less than it does most people.</p>
<p>But still, I doubt your points really concern the students Caltech is after.</p>
<p>dj, why go to CalTech when there are schools that are ranked and regarded as better? </p>
<p>And if you plan to run a company, you might consider UPenn Wharton or MIT on the East Coast or USC on the West. They have strong business schools too.</p>
<p>Stanford is probably the most famous for developing technology entrepreneurs. that might be the best bet for you if your company is based on high tech.</p>
<p>itsallgood writes
[quote]
why go to CalTech...?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And why troll on boards in a pathetic way?</p>
<p>Typically, only Harvard and Princeton attract "this school is overrated" trolls. I guess we'll take itsallgood's presence as a sign of our immense prestige in the troll community ;-)</p>
<p>I am applying to Caltech and I regard it as my first choice (oh and I want to major in EE). To make you feel better, I tried, as much as I can, to increase my odds of admissions and didn't apply for financial aid, and if you haven't yet figured from my posts, I am a junior and applying this year due to a certain circumstance. I could've applied to bunch of other schools (I'm only applying to Caltech and MIT) but I know I'm more keen into Caltech, and if I don't get in this year, I'll have another chance next year.</p>
<p>As for your point above, would you turn down a Princeton/Cornell/Harvard/Columbia acceptance for Purdue (USC, GA Tech, UIUC or whatever)? Purdue is ranked higher btw. I suspect you wouldn't, but your assertions are based on these rankings. The point is, don't take everything for granted, especially the usnwr ranking. They can be used as paths, but certainly not as the deciding factor.</p>
<p>And yes, I am aware of (and look forward to) what I'm going to encounter at Caltech (as djcapelis mentioned above).</p>
<p>[sarcasm]Chances are high, but are you related to NYCFan, btw?[/sarcasm]</p>
<p>h88, if you're talking to me:
I would choose Stanford or MIT for Engineering.
I would choose Harvard or Stanford for most of the Hard Sciences
I would choose UPenn Wharton for Business</p>
<p>I would avoid the excellent publics such as Berkeley, Illinois, etc. Too big.</p>
<p>itsallgood: ALL your posts were based on Engineering - yet you start speaking about Business and Sciences (where Caltech would most certainly win). [Refer to the undergrad/grad Engineering rankings to realize what I was trying to point out in my other post]</p>
<p>
<p>Can we agree that CalTech is a Very Good Engineering school but that CalTech's real strength lies elsewhere?
</p>
<p>I guess that would most certainly sound resonable.</p>
<p>itsallgood,</p>
<p>Do you know what are you talking about, first of all Ben Golub IS a member of admission committee at Caltech. You can find his name in Caltech website. I would defend Caltech engineering (since I, and not Ben Golub, was in Caltech engineering) later on when I'm free. Wait for my return :)</p>
<p>Before that, THINK about HOW the undergraduate engineering ranking is made, is it really valid?</p>
<p>One statement in that flurry of posts caught my eye: that a degree from Caltech means something. That is such a true statement. In my opinion, by and of theirselves, the only undergraduate degrees that mean something these days are from Caltech and MIT. The rest of the elite schools have no standard core and one is able to get a degree in gender studies or some similarly political and pathetic field without proving anything.</p>
<p>sakky, I want to respond to a few of your comments that I think got lost above:</p>
<p>
[quote]
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?
[/quote]
You must be kidding. Do you really propose that we just give students P/F grades the entire time they're here?</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
I don't think this is a valid analogy. Maybe it's just because I come from a Southern family, but I've always seen serving in the army as a sacrifice people make, giving something for the country. As such, the country has an obligation to protect what they're giving as well as possible, in the hope that they don't have to make the ultimate sacrifice. As for college, Caltech doesn't need me. There are many more people out there that could probably do better here than I am, and give more back to the school than I have. It is a privledge for me to be here, and I don't think Caltech has an obligation to shepard me through and make sure I survive. Quite the contrary -- I like that I'm being challenged to my fullest. I like that it's not a given that I'll graduate with honors. I revel in the fact that Caltech has given me an environment where I can work hard to be mediocre. That's what I want, and I knew it coming in. Yes, I do think the students who leave made a bad choice. We all make bad choices every once in a while. It's nothing to be ashamed of or looked down on.</p>
<p>I also don't think leaving Caltech is the disaster you make it out to be. I also know the girl Ben mentioned who transferred to Duke, I knew a guy who transferred to Berkley, and I know another that I think is planning to transfer to Stanford. Many of these people did not have stellar GPA's.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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?
[/quote]
Maybe I'm alone in this, but I was very careful NOT to choose a school based on brand-name appeal. I wanted to make sure that I went to the school that would give me an education best suited to my needs. If you don't go to the school which is going to give you the best education, the brand-name is not much more than an empty label. It's hilarious to me how hung up everyone is on which school is "better". In my opinion, the school itself is not nearly as important as the interplay between the student and the school. The student needs to choose the school that's going to help him/her the most in acheiving a good education. When did choosing a college start being about choosing a brand-name?</p>
<p>As for grad schools, it's incredibly unreliable. Some departments won't admit Caltech undergrads. In many, the grads take many of the same courses as an undergrad, so going elsewhere will give students a broader range of new courses to choose between. Those HYPSM students who come in and "do just fine" in the physics program, for example, often have to start with the same classes that Caltech undergrad JUNIORS take. All of my CS courses are half grad, half undergrad, and if I stayed here for grad school, I'd run out of courses to take. There are so many factors that go into a student deciding whether to stay or not that it's really not worth comparing. Also, where you want to go to grad school really should not factor into your search for an undergrad school. For instance, I considered not coming to Caltech as an undergrad so that I could do grad here. Now I know that Caltech doesn't have the branch of CS I'm interested in, so I wouldn't have wanted to come here for grad school anyways. If I'd declined Caltech so that I could come here for grad, I would have missed out.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
Maybe so, but there has been a demand for this kind of education for over a hundered years, and as long as there are still students who continue to flood us with applications, I don't see why it's so horrible to keep doing things the way we are. Wouldn't it be better to have many different types of college education out there, rather than half a dozen schools with no differences whatsoever? Who's to say HYPSM are doing it "better"? Why not just say they're doing it differently?</p>