<p>Very few people end up teaching wherever they studied--a friend of mine whose dad has a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering said that his dad wouldn't have even been eligible for tenure if he stayed (don't remember which university though).</p>
<br>
<p>This list of faculty includes the most respected names in virtually every field of physics</p>
<br>
<p>8 from Berkeley 2 from Caltech</p>
<p>Caltech has 29 nobel prize winners. However only 6 are from Caltech UG.</p>
<p>30 Nobel prize winners. CotoDeCasa, dude, I wonder what you're trying to prove? I notice that you're like a buffoon blown by the wind giving irrelevant and rubbish comments.</p>
<p>I believe that we're also forgetting to remember just how few students Caltech even has. Somehow, even though Caltech is a spec of the college population there seems to be Caltech educated people everywhere along the cutting edge or highest realms of academia, none in great numbers, but a few everywhere that's important. Besides, do you really want all the Caltech people to just stay and teach at Caltech?</p>
<p>Nice Try.</p>
<p>I think one person got twice. so 29 winners.</p>
<p>Quote.</p>
<p>Caltech was a pretty low quality place to go, it didn't really offer much in the way of a 'college experience'. The coursework was very rigorous, however, in many cases it seemed to emphasize covering more material instead of covering in great depth. I thought the core would give me a very solid foundation in math/physics but the classes seemed rushed and overall I think the coverage of the various fields was somewhat spotty.</p>
<p>Eh? I don't get any of your comments! What are you trying to say, CotoDeCasa?</p>
<p>Quote
Since graduating from Caltech, I have returned as a Microsoft recruiter, and for a couple of alumni functions. After my freshman year I seriously considered transferring elsewhere, but in the end I decided to stay. I have often thought about whether I made the right decision. Anyway, here's my thinking about this school. I'm writing this epinion as if to a high school student thinking of where to go to college.</p>
<p>Standards are really high at Caltech. About half of my class got the highest possible score on their SATs (1600 points). My total of math and verbal was 1579 which I still remember because this is the kind of place where such things are actually topics of discussion! I think almost every student got an 800 on the math part, it's only the verbal that was different. (This probably explains my lousy grammar.) It is really a pleasure to be with so many smart people who understand what you're talking about, who can follow a line of thought, and who have interesting things to say.</p>
<p>The teachers I had were outstanding. A number had either won a Nobel Prize or would later win one. I am tempted to drop names, but let's leave it at that. Sure the courses are challenging but if you are a good student, you love to study and learn new things, and so it's a pleasure, really. Students are treated well here. The administration is well organized. The student house system works well, especially for the many studious loners who would be isolated if housed in a regular dorm. The small student body and the small campus are nice and homey and you get a real feeling of belonging here. The narrow focus of the school is something to consider: if you want to be a scientist in one of the traditional hard sciences like physics, chemistry or biology, this is the place. For other things, like computer science or most engineering, it's only so-so. For other topics than science and engineering, the choice of courses is terribly narrow. I remember marveling over a UCLA catalog which offered a tremendous rainbow of things to study.</p>
<p>My feeling now, thirty years after graduation, is that college is a time of transition from being under your parent's roof to being a totally independent adult. The best thing a college can do is prepare you for success as an adult. And I'm not sure Caltech does the best job of that. First off, the social life is bad. Only about 30% of the students are women and that makes for a lot of lonely and sad guys. Secondly, it's such an ivory tower. The "Honor System" is an example of that. I think many students are attracted to the life of a scientist because it sounds like a noble calling - seeking truth and bettering humanity. The real world comes as a surprise. Grad students everywhere (not just Caltech) are treated like slave labor, helping their advisor to succeed and working for peanuts, with the time for their PhD dragged out for a shocking number of years. Then when they do get that PhD (the scientist's union card) they wind up in post-doc hell, trying to get on a tenure track or trying to get grants of their own, but mostly teaching for peanuts or doing the grunt work for someone else's research. Many finally give up and turn to other work, like computer programming. If I sound bitter, let me add that this is not my story. I was always interested in computers and went straight from Caltech into software development. But I have seen what happens to others.</p>
<p>I visited a number of times as a recruiter. A few students were fantastic - sharp and energetic, really kept me on my toes. But all too many were clueless dreamers. They were still learning computer languages like Pascal and Ada and LISP that time has passed by.</p>
<p>I think a better choice would be a larger and more diverse school with very high standards. For computer science, the best schools are Stanford, MIT and (a sleeper) the University of Waterloo in Canada. Good luck with your choice.</p>
<p>CotoDeCasa,</p>
<p>Don't give yourself a punch</p>
<p><a href="http://www.caltech.edu/at-a-glance/%5B/url%5D">http://www.caltech.edu/at-a-glance/</a></p>
<p>You seem to be one ignorant bufoon</p>
<p>CotoDeCasa, as shown on the link rtkysg provided, he's right -- there were 30 profs who won 31 Nobel Prizes (Linus Pauling won twice -- peace and chemistry). The newest one of these prizes went to Prof. Politzer, who teaches one of the core physics classes.</p>
<p>My dad did an informal research project. He talked with Human Resources people or Engineering Managers at 4 different companies, all in California, all very large and very successful, all famous for technology leadership. These companies currently run recruiting programs at CalTech, Stanford, MIT and Berkeley and compete to attract their graduates. </p>
<p>Disclaimer: It's a very small sample and there was no standardized question list so the results here at best can be described as ancedotal. The observations put forth here come from what my dad described as 5 to 10 minute informal phone conversations with people who were involved in interviewing and hiring engineers into their companies or departments. Two companies were very EE oriented, 2 were heavily EE and ME. No software companies. Nobody from IT departments. No chemical companies.</p>
<p>The opening question he asked was: "Looks like my son might be accepted at CalTech, Stanford, MIT and Berkeley for undergraduate Electrical Engineering. If he was your son, which would you prefer?"</p>
<p>First response from everyone, without exception, was "those are all great choices. All are great schools."</p>
<p>My Dad noted there was great hesitancy to choose between the schools because "you couldn't go wrong with any of them", the respondents also did not want to generalize, but when pressed to rank them, MIT and Stanford were the top choices and considered about equal, although my Dad said MIT was always mentioned first (a fine point, but maybe meaningful). </p>
<p>Now some comments which just came out during the conversations.</p>
<p>"The top kids from all the schools are unbelievably brilliant. Everybody wants them, there's not enough to go around, companies can't hire enough of them."</p>
<p>"Berkeley is a huge school, with a large Engineering program. The top kids are excellent and equal to the other schools, but there is less consistency in the total pool of graduates."</p>
<p>One of the companies said their CalTech hires were "absolute geniuses." Another company said they "don't see CalTech grads that often", and speculated it was because there are fewer CalTech graduates.</p>
<p>A couple of very common stereotypes were expressed (maybe they're true since these people should know):</p>
<p>Stanford engineering grads tend to be better rounded and more socially adept than those from the other schools.</p>
<p>Berkeley, even though it has a great UG program, is a better choice for grad school.</p>
<p>In the end, there doesn't appear to be anything new here. Certainly nothing that couldn't be found or deduced from reading US News.</p>
<p>I think the most meaningful statement is "you can't go wrong with any of them." So, if you're accepted at any one of the schools, REJOICE. You win.</p>
<p>If you're accepted at them all, you will have to make a hard choice among nothing but great options.</p>
<p>
[quote]
LOL! Sakky, I think you've mis-interpreted some of my comments about employment. When I said recruiters looked very highly on Caltech students, it didn't necessarily translate to easy employment. In fact many not so technical companies are driven away from Caltech, nevertheless it still commands highest respect (arguably slightly higher than Stanford) in terms of pure academic achievement.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, first of all, you are at least partially conceding something there. The fact is, a lot of people do indeed see the value of going to an elite college as getting easy (or at least easier) employment. And I think this is particularly true of many middle-class parents who get little financial aid, and who figure that if they have to fork over an arm and a leg for a private college, then they better be arming their progeny with the best chance of getting a job as easily as possible, otherwise might as well just send their kid to a public university. The point is, I don't think it's proper for us to dismiss any concerns of 'employability' as being somehow quaint or unworthy. A lot of people worry about how marketable their degree will be to all employers, not just highly technical employers, and rightfully so. </p>
<p>Now, again, to be fair, I am not saying that the Caltech degree is unmarketable. On the contrary - it is in fact one of the most marketable degrees on the face of the planet. What we are talking about is its marketability relative to its peer institutions. And in particular, we should be talking about marketability, keeping the major constant (hence, it's not fair to compare electrical engineers to English majors). </p>
<p>However, we still have at hand the true issue at hand. I have said it before and I will say it again - those students who are doing well at and who are enjoying Caltech are obviously benefitting from Caltech immensely. But I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about those Caltech students who don't do well at all. The fact is, there are a not-insignificant number of students at Caltech who are not doing well. And my central point is - what about them? At Harvard, or even at MIT, even those students who are not doing well are still more likely to graduate than those students at Caltech who are not doing well. </p>
<p>And the response and attitude that I have gotten is that "Well, if they're not doing well, that's too bad, they were stupid for choosing Caltech, and so they deserve what they get". I think that's a rather callous and cold attitude to have. I believe a school needs to look after ALL its students, not just those who are doing well. Caltech is indeed doing a pretty good job in this aspect (i.e. far better than Berkeley is, which hardly ), but still could stand for some improvement in this area.</p>
<p>And the other main point I've been making is that the relatively low graduation rate at Caltech (relative to HYPSM) does in fact scare some people off who otherwise would probably have done quite well at Caltech. Let's face it. Fear of not-graduating is a legitimate concern. Just because you're afraid of not graduating doesn't mean that you are an intellectual wuss or otherwise unworthy of Caltech. You don't just go to college because it's fun to go to college, you go there because you want to graduate, and so everybody should be concerned about whether they will graduate. </p>
<p>Nor is a low graduation rate necessary to prove that your school is 'rigorous'. You can have both rigor and high graduation rates. Elite medical schools like Johns Hopkins Medical are highly rigorous, yet they manage to graduate almost every student. Hence, that proves it is possible to have both. Is it difficult? Sure. But Caltech is an elite school, so Caltech should be able to do difficult things. After all, Caltech students are asked to complete extremely difficult assignments and exams all the time. So why can't the Caltech administration be asked to do something difficult?</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>Frankly speaking, beyond a certain threshold I believe it is really hard to measure the probability of an admit dropping out from Caltech. Again, the drop-out students' profiles may have large variance, although I and you will both never know the real statistics. Despite Ben's 'harsh' opinion, I would think that Caltech adcom has tried rigorously to select the qualified students. It does not make sense to admit students who have high probability to drop out. After all it doesn't bring good image to the university, and hence I would argue your claim that Caltech purposely makes such a scheme to prove its rigor. It's just a lame and childish perception don't you think? You keep pushing your view that the Caltech adcom should be able to better filter its students, but without statistical data, how would you argue that Caltech adcom has not reasonably done its homework before admitting a student?</p>
<p>Of course there is always another way to boost graduation rate, such as giving less workload and grade inflation as practiced in Stanford. However, it turns out to violate the school's core policy and hence not implementable in this case.</p>
<p>hey guys, i hear it is difficultto transfer to MIT. Is it as difficult or even more to transfer to Caltech?</p>
<p>Rtkysg, well I don't know, but it does seem to me that from what Ben Golub has been saying, that Caltech does in fact see its relatively high dropout rate as a symbol that it is a difficult school. The thinking seems to be "Well, we are an extremely difficult school and we'll prove it by causing a lot of our students to drop out." I believe the philosophy is that it provides a psychological and cultural boost to the Caltech alumni who obviously didn't drop out, because they can say that not only did they get into Caltech, they also managed to survive it, so that makes them even more special. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I would argue that it is in fact highly possible to fit your students better. This is precisely what medical school adcoms do. I think we would all agree that Johns Hopkins Medical School is ridiculously rigorous. Yet very very few students drop out. Yes, I know what you're going to say - we're not talking about med-school. But the point is that there is a model out there for how a school can be both highly rigorous and yet have very few students drop out. It is possible to do both. It will require dedication and hard work from the Caltech adcom staff. Yet I don't think that's too much to ask. After all, Caltech profs ask their students to do extremely difficult coursework every day. So why can't we ask the Caltech adcom staff to do something difficult?</p>
<p>Sakky, I would like to point out that no matter what committees Ben is on, his opinions are still his own. </p>
<p>The homework here is doable, but it's still work. Completion of the homework requires the student's effort. Attendance at lecture, section, and office hours as well as giving homework a large chunk of one's free time may be necessary. Most people will need to really love what they're doing in order to succeed here. </p>
<p>From what I heard at an information meeting when I was looking at Caltech, it seems that the admissions committee selects students based on several criteria:</p>
<p>1) The student has talent.
2) The student has passion for math/science/whatever.</p>
<p>I would imagine that in as competitive an admissions atmosphere as the one present now there would be the occasional student who out of insecurity would overplay their passion for math/science/whatever. I seriously doubt that anyone would purposely choose to admit someone with the intent of having them drop out. However, admissions committees know only what applicants and teachers tell them in the application*, recommendations, and transcript, and in the event that someone misrepresents themself on their application, I believe that it is entirely their fault if they do happen to drop out in this case. </p>
<p>Arguments calling for the admissions committee to better filter applicants would not benefit student life. Given that the number admitted is around 225 (wait-listed students were also admitted), I think that to cut down on the number of admitted students any more would simply limit this school. We would be given fewer options in terms of humanities and social sciences, which is not a good thing. Sports teams would be in a tough spot, as our teams are already tiny compared to other schools in our athletic conference. Although any housing shortages would be alleviated, and Caltech's small size is definitely an asset, I sincerely doubt that anything good can come from further decreasing the size of the freshman class. </p>
<p>In the event that there are fewer than 225 individuals capable of graduation in the freshman class, I believe that it is still in the student body's best interest to be given the 4-8%** or so who drop out due to dissatisfaction with Caltech; these 9-18 students will without a doubt benefit and learn from their peers and classes while they are here, and no one is forcing these students to take the opportunity to study here. In fact, at prefrosh weekend orientation last spring, Dean Revel explicitly stated that the idea of prefrosh weekend was not to sell the school to a student but to determine whether or not Caltech is a good fit for the student, a theme apparent throughout the weekend. On top of this, since there were 240 prefrosh in attendance, he specifically asked that some of us not matriculate since our desired class size is less than the number of us that were in attendance. In addition to these statements, the overall tone of Caltech's admissions publications do not seem to be "pushing" the school on the prospective applicant as much as they are presenting it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
First of all, I think it's an entirely fair analogy when placed in the context of what Ben Golub said. Basically, to paraphrase what Ben Golub said is that Caltech is rigorous and if people don't like it, then they shouldn't come to Caltech, and by I think by reasonable implication, I can surmise that if people come to Caltech and do badly, then according to Ben Golub, that's their own stupid fault for choosing Caltech, and they have nobody to blame for that but themselves. I am pointing out that that's a tremendously cold way to go about providing an education. We're not talking about a bunch of scrub underachievers here, we're talking about some of the best students in the world, and to say that Caltech holds no responsibility at all if they do badly is quite off-putting.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For those students who drop out of Caltech after matriculation due to grades, despite the fact that tutoring is available through the Dean's Office (free for classes in the core curriculum), I think it's unfair to say that they were not warned. The informed applicant has no excuse not to know that Caltech has "one of the most demanding core curricula in the nation" ( <a href="http://admissions.caltech.edu/only/unique/%5B/url%5D">http://admissions.caltech.edu/only/unique/</a> ), and for those "uninformed applicants," it is definitely "their own stupid fault" for choosing a college too difficult for them as choice of a college is definitely an important decision, and taking this decision lightly is definitely not a wise thing to do. </p>
<p>*I will disregard interviews because, as someone mentioned earlier, they give a disproportionate advantage to extroverted students. Although someone made an argument that a shy student may perk up and speak excitedly about something they love, often this is not the case as some people are simply inarticulate. It is probably easier to teach someone how to convey ideas than it is to teach someone to be brilliant, so I'd imagine that Caltech would place smarter students over more articulate ones. There are in fact classes (required by the core curriculum "Science Communications" requirement) in which students learn to better express their ideas. </p>
<p>**I say 4-8% despite the fact that our six-year graduation rate is 88% because more than 2% of the people in my house were freshman over 6 years ago and given Stanford's, Yale's and Harvard's 6-year graduation rates of 93-96%, MIT's 6 year graduation rate of 92%, and ignoring UC Berkeley's 4-year graduation rate of 53%, I think it's fair to say that a certain percentage of people anywhere will not finish college in 6 years. Graduation rate data obtained from princetonreview.com.</p>
<p>Well said, ninja.</p>
<p>First of all, I would point out that while it is of course true that Ben Golub's opinions are his own, my opinions are also my own. I respect his right to his opinions, yet I believe that everybody should respect my right to my opinions.</p>
<p>Now, let me say this. Omgninja, I'm afraid to say it, but it seems to me that you are displaying the precise sort of mentality that I've been talking about - that the only person who deserves blame for bad academic performance are the students themselves, and the school bears no responsibility whatsoever. I find that pretty cold.</p>
<p>Let me explain. It looks like you are pinning poor performance solely on a bad fit, or, even worse, just on misrepresentation, as if everybody who flunks out of Caltech must have misrepresented themselves to the adcom and therefore to flunk out. That's pretty harsh, don't you think? The fact is, there are plenty of reasons why one would have academic difficulty. Even those students who fit the school like a glove may have academic difficulty. Some people simply have problems adjusting to life away from home, and so they would have homesickness wherever they went to school. Some people go through a horrifically bad romantic breakup. There are plenty of reasons why a person would be a perfect fit for Caltech, yet still do poorly. </p>
<p>Yet the point is, Caltech doesn't seem to care about that, and not to put words in you and Ben Golub's mouth, you guys don't seem to care about that either. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that for those people who go through those sorts of things, you are saying, oh well, that that's simply too bad for them, and if they can't pull themselves together, that's their own fault, and Caltech bears no responsibility to help them out. </p>
<p>I am asserting that that's exactly the sort of image and mentality that scares some otherwise highly qualified students off. You say that people should be able to assess whether they are a good fit for Caltech, and if they aren't then they should come, but come on, how are people really supposed to figure out whether with certainty whether they are a good fit or not? And even if they are a good fit, what assurance is there that something won't happen during their 4 years that will cause their performance to plummet? No such assurance can be provided in either case. Yet you are basically saying that if you screw up, it's your own fault, and Caltech has no obligation to help you out. Hence, I believe that many otherwise perfectly qualified students, upon hearing that message, will simply choose to go elsewhere. We're not talking about peanuts here, we're talking about whether you are going to get your degree or not. That's a big deal. </p>
<p>And I take it back to what was said previously in this thread. It's not like Caltech is perceived as being worlds-away better than HYPSM. If Caltech really was considered to be heads-and-shoulders above every other school, including HYPSM, then you might be able to make a case that Caltech's difficulty is worth it. But it's isn't. Caltech graduates are generally not viewed as worlds-away better than HYPSM graduates. Maybe a little bit better (and even that's debateable), but certainly not worlds-away better. I've met plenty of Caltech graduates, and they're obviously good, but they're not clearly 'way above' the HYPSM graduates. Hence, a lot of people simply see Caltech as being a bad choice of risk-versus-reward. </p>
<p>Consider Caltech's yield rate, especially head-to-head against HYPSM. Caltech often times loses students to HYPSM. Many of those students that are lost could have done very well at Caltech, but just chose not to take the risk. Nor is that an invalid reason or does that make that person somehow 'unworthy'. Safety is something that people value. If I choose to live in a safer neighborhood rather than a dangerous one, that doesn't make me a 'wuss'. It just means I value my personal safety and I don't want to get jumped at night. Similarly, if somebody chooses another school over Caltech because they want 'graduation safety', that doesn't make them weak or cowardly, it just means that they view Caltech as a bit risky. I am proposing that if Caltech were to decrease its risk portfolio, it would be able to get even better students.</p>
<p>sakky, omgninja just meant that my opinions don't necessarily agree with those of the committee -- I'm just a guy on a message board.</p>
<p>As for the fact that we lose some people to HYPSM because they prefer a safer school, that's true. Caltech is, for the average student, more expensive in a certain sense -- it comes at the cost of a higher risk -- than HYPSM. This is why our yield is lower.</p>
<p>The first delusion you have to shed: we are not out to maximize our yield. Other schools might be, but we aren't. We explicitly tell students that some of them are ill-suited to this place. Why you think that all schools should maximize yield is a complete mystery to me (and you, too, will soon see how misguided that is). So every time you say "you could get more of those kids" as if that should convince us, don't bother. We don't want every potential student to come here, just the ones that are well-suited to this environment.</p>
<p>Lots of things that have high (opportunity) costs have low yields. Very few people who could in theory afford a Rolex watch actually buy one. The yield -- the ratio of actual buyers relative to potential buyers -- is low. That's not a flaw of Rolex watches. It's just a fact about life. Only the people who value a Rolex watch above a certain amount of money buy it.</p>
<p>The people who choose Caltech despite the fact that it is more expensive (in terms of risk) are like people who choose a Rolex despite its high price (in money). Both groups value the product above the price. Your blithering about how Caltech degrees are not far and away better is irrelevant (just like your opinion about whether a Rolex watch is "worth" that much money). What matters to the people making the choice is not some metric you choose (how respected the diploma is, for instance) but what they value in a school -- the environment, the rigor, the classmates, etc. This is a major amateur mistake made by people who haven't taken an intro econ class or didn't understand it. You don't determine the value of goods to people. They do, and it's whatever they say it is. The values aren't objective. There's nothing irrational about choosing a higher cost product if it's worth it to you.</p>
<p>Once again you see that by reducing the price (the risk) of Caltech, we could attract more buyers. If a Rolex cost $50 (which would be feasible, by the way), a lot more people would buy Rolexes. This is a trivial point. It doesn't mean the price should be reduced. (In the case of both Caltech and Rolex, the relevant cost is a large part of what makes the good attractive in the first place to its buyers.)</p>
<p>Let's take another example -- extreme skiing vacations. These have high costs associated with them (above and beyond the sticker price that you pay in money) because of the risks inherent in extreme skiing. As with Rolex watches, very few of the potential buyers become actual buyers of extreme skiing vacations. This is because the costs of the vacation (mostly risk costs) for most people are not offset by the value they would get out of it.</p>
<p>Converting extreme ski resorts to average-difficulty slopes would cause the yield to skyrocket -- all sorts of potential buyers who didn't even consider a resort before would ski there, and the loss in "extreme" skiers would be decidedly negligible compared to the gain in average skiers. But this does not mean that the conversion should take place. For many reasons, it's good to have some extreme skiing resorts. For some people, the fact that it's risky is part of the value.</p>
<p>Oh, and by the way, extreme ski resorts lose out <em>massively</em> head-to-head to even fairly challenging mainstream ski resorts. This doesn't imply that they're "worse", whatever that means. </p>
<p>But you're like a person arguing that if you only placed padded foam on both sides of the steeper slopes, it would be attractive to so many more people. You don't understand that attracting more people isn't the point. Not all business (or all colleges) are designed to be high-yield enterprises. Disneyland is, extreme ski resorts aren't. Wal-Mart is, Rolex isn't. McDonald's is, the Four Seasons isn't.</p>
<p>So your main point (about how higher costs mean lower yield) is trivial. It's clear to a horse. It's not interesting. It's not new to us. And it's not a reason to change the costs. You should first go talk to Rolex and extreme skiing resorts and encourage them to make their product lower cost, to make it higher yield.</p>
<p>As for Hopkins med school being hard but having a high graduation rate, you have to realize that they have the luxury of much better data on which to screen. College grades at good undergraduate institutions are a much stronger predictor of medical school grades than high school grades and scores are of college grades. Not to mention that people's interests and abilities are more solidified at 22 than 18. So you're comparing apples to oranges in an uninteresting and illegitimate way.</p>
<p>Finally, your accusation that Caltech is cold and uncaring is nonsense. We have free psychological counseling, free tutoring in core classes, a strong undergraduate peer support network, and many many other ways to make Caltech manageable. This is akin to an extreme ski resort having good medical services, checking for unintended hazards on the mountain, and offering detailed tours of the slopes. They're doing everything they can to make the enterprise safe SHORT OF ruining the point of the enterprise in the first place, which is to offer a more challenging skiing environment than most, WITH MORE FEAR OF FAILURE! (Ask any extreme skier, that's what makes it worth it.) Similarly, we at Caltech are doing everything we can to make this education safe SHORT OF ruining the point of this enterprise in the first place, which is to offer a more challenging college environment than almost any other, WITH MORE FEAR OF FAILURE. (That's what makes it worth it for us, too, as alleya has pointed out.)</p>
<p>And remember, you can't now say that the extra risks of Caltech aren't "worth it" -- that not enough value is added to offset those costs. Maybe not for you. Certainly extreme skiing doesn't add enough value for me to offset its risk costs. But I'm not arguing that the resorts should be made more failure-proof. Obviously they're valuable for some people.</p>
<p>As far as I can tell, this takes care of all the persistent nonsense you have been spewing. Yes, Caltech has higher risk costs. Yes, this reduces yield. No, this is not a problem, any more than extreme ski resorts having low yields is a problem. It doesn't even matter whether you think the value added is worth it. It's worth it to some buyers (like me), and we don't falsely advertise to deceive other buyers into thinking it's worth it to them when it isn't.</p>
<p>So hush up, go away, and stop telling us how to run our ski resort.</p>
<p>I would like to propose a few reasons why students drop out of CalTech at a higher rate than the other elite academic shcools, other than the punishing workload:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>CalTech has a very, very small enrollment. That's good from a teacher to student ratio standpoint but I've been on the campus--which is big-- and it seems sort of empty and quiet. I think some small percent of students--especially ones who have come from High Schools bigger than CalTech-- will feel that some "excitement" is missing from their college experience--and go elsewhere.</p></li>
<li><p>CalTech also has a really lousy male to female ratio. I'm sure there are guys who feel, once again, that something important(female companionship and dating and sex) is missing. It's hard enough to get dates with a 50-50 ratio.</p></li>
<li><p>CalTech campus is really beautiful but it is in a major metro area known for having a chronic air quality problems. I'm sure some students from more pristine environments find the urban campus unattractive. Face it, Los Angeles is not for everyone.</p></li>
<li><p>CalTech narrowly focuses on science and engineering (it is a technical institute after all) and all the other programs play second fiddle and are second rate. If a student wants to change majors outside science and engineering, there's nowhere to go. If they want a high quality Business, Humanities, soft-sciences or Arts education, they have to go elsewhere.</p></li>
<li><p>CalTech is also primarily a research institution staffed with researchers. A brilliant researcher is not necessarily a brilliant teacher. Some may be dissatisfied with the quality of instruction.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Put all these potential reasons together and it might account for the unusually high drop out rate at CalTech.</p>
<p>What do you think?</p>
<p>No Joemama,</p>
<p>Only extreme workload really causes the high drop out. The rest do not count. One variance would be the fact that Caltech difficulty level has turned off the science 'passion' of some students and makes them feel they are better off in other majors. Another would be the smart prestige whore but not hardworking students, they could bear the workload, but they don't like the pressure. Typically these students transfer to Stanford and sometimes Harvard after one year at Caltech.</p>