<p>I don't agree with #3. Caltech is definitely not an urban campus -- suburban would be a much more apt description. There are no tall buildings around (in fact, our library is the tallest building in Pasadena and will remain that way since there is now a city ordinance banning buildings that tall) and the campus and surrounding area is filled with trees and flowers (anyone heard of the Rose Parade -- it's not a problem that it's in January, because we have roses almost year round). Only people from the rural midwest might think the campus is too "urban". Granted, LA is nearby and the pollution in LA is dreadful. But, it's a full 20 minutes away and students rarely find the time to leave Pasadena. I swear, it's like there's a bubble around Pasadena which keeps most of the pollution out -- I really think it's because all the greenery in Pasadena keeps our air much cleaner than LA proper. The one exception is in October when the mountains are burning, and then sometimes the ash in the air gets really bad. (I also can't vouch for what it's like in June-September). Either way, I've never heard students complaining that the campus is too urban for them.</p>
<p>rtkysg, </p>
<p>I know CalTech admits who did not enroll (as well as kids who did not apply to CalTech) for reasons 1, 2 and 4. </p>
<p>It is reasonable to think that these same reasons might apply to a student unhappiness and their ultimately dropping out. </p>
<p>Here's reasons 1, 2 and 4 for your reference.</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 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>
</ol>
<p>alleya: I like LA. But I know tons of people from Northern California and out of state that Hate it. Depending on where the kid is from, it could be an issue.</p>
<p>I'd rather disagree with your proposition joemama. They could be the reasons why a student choose not to enroll at Caltech, but definitely not the reasons for drop out cases.</p>
<p>I doubt 1 (small size of student body) could be changed without relocating the campus entirely; although 1 may stop people from applying/matriculating, I doubt it would contribute to a student's decision to transfer. </p>
<p>House life is definitely not lacking in excitement at all. Everyone's always up for some fun. Walking around campus this may not seem the case, but I think that in general, the social life isn't bad. In fact, the small size of the student body actually tends to bring out the social side in some of the more introverted students (myself including). The house system is excellent at bringing people together, and with 7 houses you have 7 social teams each putting on a social event every week. If by excitement you mean "huge sports game" or "huge party with lots of alcohol," or those are both smaller and less frequent here than they may be at other schools, so one would have to go to LA for that kind of thing. However, they would have no trouble finding something to match their tastes there. </p>
<p>2 is definitely a factor for some people here, despite the fact that some students date people from Occidental, UCLA, and USC. There is nothing good about a 2:1 male to female ratio, and it is probably the 2nd greatest stressor after the workload. However, I do not think I would feel comfortable attending a school at which affirmative action were a deciding factor in my admission, and in such a school students might look at under-represented minorities/genders (regardless of their actual ability) with less respect due to the fact that they could have been admitted under lower standards than the rest of the students. Although the male:female ratio is an ugly consequence of the fact that the admissions office does not practice affirmative action, it is necessary in order to ensure that everyone here is as talented as possible. </p>
<p>Alleya addressed 3. Caltech is not in LA. Pasadena is quite different, our campus is in a suburban area, and I doubt anyone would enroll here, decide they don't like LA, and then transfer out because of this. </p>
<p>I don't think 4 can be changed without detracting from the quality of other areas, but I think the bigger issue is the one rtkysg brought up: the difficulty level could turn off some students' passion for math or science. </p>
<p>Although a brilliant researcher is not necessarily a good teacher, a brilliant researcher will definitely know their stuff in the area that they're teaching. If a student wants to learn high-level physics, it is unfortunate that difficulty could be added by a sub-par teacher, but it's also unfortunate that there are so few excellent teachers that know the topics taught here.</p>
<p>Thanks. I wonder if the school does any interrviewing to determine cause on a cases by case basis.</p>
<p>Yes, joemama, many people from Northern California or out of state hate LA. (My roommate, for instance, thinks that no place in the world can come close to San Francisco.) But, I'd argue that the majority of these people know BEFORE coming that they hate LA. (And remember, Pasadena is very different from other parts of LA proper.) I agree with rtkysg that while a few of your points may be a deterrant for people enrolling in the first place, they aren't the types of things that would make a student go through the trouble and stress of switching schools.</p>
<p>Decisions often result from a confluence of factors, i.e.</p>
<p>Wow, courses here are tough.
I thought I could hack LA, but this is worse than I thought.
Damn, where are the women. I havn't had a date in months.
Jeez, more problem sets?!
3 more years of this?</p>
<p>Maybe CalTech isn't for me after all.</p>
<p>"Damn, where are the women. I havn't had a date in months."</p>
<p>LOL, I haven't a date since <em>UNDEFINED ERROR</em></p>
<p>Maybe it's just you. j/k. Next time it rains offer to walk a girl without an umbrella to her next class. I thought it was very sweet when a guy at MIT did that for me. You could also ask to borrow a girl's calculator and leave a note on it. It's very cute.</p>
<p>Back to my point... bad for you, good for me. :)</p>
<p>Hey, maybe we can turn this into a dating thread. </p>
<p>Here's a hint for the girls and guys. First you do group dates--maybe dorm with dorm. Then, if you find someone you like and (very important) they like you back, you start dating as a couple.</p>
<p>Ben Golub, what do you want me to say? </p>
<p>Basically, what you are saying is the same thing that I hear from all Caltech people who try to compare them to a 'luxury economic good'. Basically you are saying that Caltech derives value from its high-risk profile.</p>
<p>To that, I have the following points</p>
<p>*Don't put words in my mouth - I never said anything about maximizing yields as a whole.</p>
<p>The point is not that I think it's good for Caltech to maximize its yields among everybody. The point is that Caltech could maximize its yields among people who could do very well at Caltech and would otherwise come to the school were it not for the relatively low graduation rate. I am not talking about Caltech bringing in people who aren't good at science and math. I am talking about Caltech bringing in people who are very good at science and math, and probably would do just fine at Caltech, but don't want to take a risk with their academic career. Surely you're not saying that Caltech has a monopoly on science talent and every other school has no talent. </p>
<p>*Secondly, you continue to, I think deliberately, turn a blind eye towards those students who do come and don't make it.</p>
<p>Whether they flunk out and get no degree at all, or successfully transfer to another elite school, what is undeniable is that everybody that Caltech brings in and doesn't graduate represents a human cost. Even in the best case scenario, which is that that person is able to successfully transfer to another elite school, it still would have been better for that person to have never come to Caltech in the first place (i.e. that person should have always gone to that school that he/she ultimately transferred to). But you don't seem to care about that. Some people get hurt. Some people don't make it. However, looks like you either don't see that, or you don't want to see that. In essence, you are sacrificing these people in the name of your prized Caltech 'risk-luxury'. </p>
<p>Well, I suppose since you're not the one paying the price, maybe that's why you can afford to be so glib about it. If you were the one going through academic difficulty, maybe you'd have a different attitude. So how would you like to be the one that is really struggling at Caltech, only to hear somebody talk about how it's really great that Caltech has this high-risk model of education, and if some people don't make it, that's their problem. What would you think if that were you? Oh wait, I forgot, according to you, Ben Golub, these people aren't important, so who cares, right? </p>
<p>*Furthermore, consider the changes at Caltech in the last few decades.</p>
<p>The graduation rate at Caltech is significantly higher than it was just a few decades ago, because Caltech is doing exactly what I have been saying. Looks like Caltech has in fact added other departments to attempt to broaden its course offerings. And Caltech in fact seems to be targeting who it admits with greater precision such that whoever does come is more likely to graduate than the people it admitted in the past. The point is that, for various reasons, Caltech's graduation rate is probably at an alltime high. My point is that it is still not high enough, and in particular, the other schools have been increasing their graduation rate too.</p>
<p>But Ben Golub, according to your logic, Caltech shouldn't have been doing any of those changes. You said it yourself- you want to compare Caltech to a high-risk extreme skiing resort or a high-luxury Rolex. So that means that all of the things that Caltech has been doing in the last few decades are obviously wrong, because they are taking away from that risk-premium that you value so much. So I want to hear you criticize the Caltech administration for all their changes, and with the same fury that you use on this forum. I want to hear you castigate the administration for making Caltech softer and obviously taking away from that hard-edge that you like so much. Caltech should instantly close down all those extra departments that broaden the school's offerings, because they're taking away from Caltech's hard edge, right? All the things that Caltech has been doing to target its students more and more, Caltech should not be doing, right? In fact, Caltech should really go back to the "old Caltech" where far less students graduated. You mock my ideas as 'training wheels' and 'ski padding', but what exactly has Caltech been doing lately, if not adding 'training wheels and ski padding'?</p>
<p>
[quote]
So hush up, go away, and stop telling us how to run our ski resort.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You know, Ben Golub, I used to respect you. I thought we were having a civil discussion, and even though we disagree, we were still behaving professionally. Until now. So basically, you just want me to stop writing - in other words, censorship. Hey pal, isn't the whole point of a discussion forum to hear different ideas, even if you don't agree with them? Why even have a forum if people aren't allowed to express their ideas? So basically you are saying that if somebody expresses an idea that you don't like, then that person should just go away? By that same logic, you are expressing ideas that I don't like, so maybe you're the one who should go away.</p>
<p>Saaky: I think it's a structural issue. </p>
<p>An elite school that is a TRUE university can gaduate students at a rate in the mid to high 90s.</p>
<p>A school like MIT that has grown beyond the "Institute" level can gradualte students at a rate in the low 90s.</p>
<p>A school like CalTech, which is a Science Institute pure and simple, is handicapped since even the smartest and best intentioned undregrad often want to change majors, sometimes outside what the Institute offers. </p>
<p>Harvey Mudd, which in some respects mirrors the offering of CalTech, has a graduation rate of about 80%</p>
<p>I think the most important question that has not been answered is 'why take the risk?'</p>
<p>I think that attitude is what separates those who do apply to Caltech from those who don't. Techers are taking a big risk with a big payoff, if they make it they will forever hold one of the most difficult-to-attain diplomas in the country. Sure, Caltech is extremely focused in a few areas, so what? Caltech isn't running around proclaiming their amazing humanities departments to applicants. Tech makes it extremely clear what it's focus is and that leads to their having top-notch focused students. I am sorry, sakky, if Tech does not cater to the wishy-washy student who changes their major every few years. There are colleges for that, and those students are free to attend them, no one is holding these Tech applicants at gunpoint to apply. And I understand that despite how focused an 18 year old may be as they enter college, they may want something entirely different by their sophomore year, and Caltech indeed does NOT have the facilities to help a student transition from physics to business, and these students leave. But this can be viewed in a positive light, why not be 'forced out' of Caltech in college rather than bum through a less rigorous program and then end up in industry with the realization that the student hates their field of study?</p>
<p>Why should Caltech make itself 'safe' for you, sakky and itsallgood? Not every student wishes the 'safety' of grade inflation at HYP. Feel free to take the safe route and graduate from a less hardcore school and achieve a wonderful career with a nice salary. I, on the contrary, would take the risk and do something extraordinary. And I find it rather rude that this topic on comparing two schools' engineering departments has been hijacked for an ego-boosting anti-Caltech session</p>
<p>First of all, for posterity, I'd like to apologize for Ben. Please, get a hold of yourself.</p>
<p>There are a lot of things wrong about Caltech, but the good thing is that with a little help from friends, it doesn't matter in the end. </p>
<p>Before I get on topic, I'd like to just reiterate that the weather here is absolutely awesome.</p>
<p>Now, on the subject of failing out. Frosh do it to themselves. Our first two terms are on p/f, and upperclassmen encourage frosh to take it easy for a reason. There are several reasons frosh fail out:</p>
<ul>
<li>They don't listen to upperclassmen (ie, they take too many classes)</li>
<li>They don't want to work</li>
<li>They don't want to collaborate</li>
</ul>
<p>These are all consequences of the very special matriculants we get here. Some frosh are really ambitious. You often don't learn until later that basic classes are really not that useful. You learn how to teach yourself here. The reason why biologists and chem-majors learn epsilon-delta proofs as frosh is so they can follow proofs in their own textbooks, not for "rigor." In any case, if you talk to any upperclassmen, or (god forbid) listen to your faculty advisor, the first problem is eliminated. </p>
<p>The second is unavoidable, and a little related to the first. Some people get here, and realize that they just don't feel like doing work. Whatcha gonna do? I know only one case of this in my class: one guy just sat in the stairway, doing puzzles--just didn't want to work. </p>
<p>Lastly, collaboration is a necessity. The lone scientist is a myth, and collaboration is what makes life here fun. If you can't work together in a team, don't like sharing insights, etc, then you learn quick. If you don't learn, then Caltech sentences you to misery until you do. Alot of things work like that here.</p>
<p>The switching majors argument is lame. Many people switch from phys to geo or astro, chem to bio, etc. You can sometimes switch even up to the end of 2nd year--certainly after first. However, part of the reason some frosh beat themselves up is because they're unsure, and so want to take a little of everything. I know I did, but it all worked out.</p>
<hr>
<p>Now that that's done, here's my take. We do some pretty cool stuff here--science /and/ engineering, parties and fun stuff. And people really don't give our humanties classes enough credit--they are top notch. If you don't make life hard for yourself (ie, emphasizing class # vs. class grades) then you'll do alright here. If you can find a spark that gets you going, you'll be a star.</p>
<p>Thanks, slippy, for the very informative post about failing out. That really answered a lot of questions I had about Caltech, especially with all the talk about those who don't graduate. Your take on this subject has made me feel more optimistic, and thanks for the great advice. :D</p>
<p>slippy, thanks for the 1st person report from the inside. It, of course, raises many more questions but I, for one, am moving on.</p>
<p>Best of luck in your studies and career.</p>
<p>I stepped out of this thread and recently come back.</p>
<p>RedDragone, I don't want to have to point this out, but the fact is, you are displaying the same attitude, dare I say arrogance, that other people have expressed on this forum. I am not necessarily talking about people who change their major or are otherwise 'wishy-washy' and end up in a less rigorous curriculum. The fact is, the risk of not graduating is a legitimate concern, and has nothing to do with a person's inherent ability to do hard work. What are you going to say to 2 guys I know who both got into Caltech but both turned it down to go to Harvard, with one getting his degree in physics summa cum laude, and the other getting a degree in mathematics summa cum laude? Are you saying that both of them are 'weak' and 'unworthy of Caltech'? I think it is fair to say that they could have been 2 of the best students that Caltech has ever had. Yet again, it seems that you are saying that everybody who hesitates to go to Caltech because of its relatively low graduation rate must be weak and unworthy. You're basically saying that there is no legitimate reason for anybody to ever feel concerned about Caltech's relatively low graduation rate, and anybody who does feel concerned is clearly a wuss and is obviously not good enough for Caltech. Again, I would dare you to tell that to the 2 guys I know. </p>
<p>And again, I would say that, even more poignantly, think about who else may be visiting this forum. In particular, think about those current Caltech students who are doing poorly, or who may have already flunked out. How exactly are they supposed to feel when they read quotes from you like "Why should Caltech make itself 'safe'..."? Not every student wishes the 'safety' of grade inflation at HYP. Feel free to take the safe route..." Put another way, how would you feel if you were doing poorly at Caltech and then you read the comments from other people about how Caltech has no need to be safe, and that those who want safety should have gone to HYP? Maybe you should end up doing poorly at Caltech, and then we'll see whether you still feel that Caltech has no need to be safe for its students. I would posit that it's easy to say that Caltech has no need to be safe if you happen to be one of the students that is doing well. It's a far far different story when you are the one who is experiencing difficulty.</p>
<p>I stepped out of this thread and recently come back.</p>
<p>RedDragone, I don't want to have to point this out, but the fact is, you are displaying the same attitude, dare I say arrogance, that other people have expressed on this forum. I am not necessarily talking about people who change their major or are otherwise 'wishy-washy' and end up in a less rigorous curriculum. The fact is, the risk of not graduating is a legitimate concern, and has nothing to do with a person's inherent ability to do hard work. What are you going to say to 2 guys I know who both got into Caltech but both turned it down to go to Harvard, with one getting his degree in physics summa cum laude, and the other getting a degree in mathematics summa cum laude? Are you saying that both of them are 'weak' and 'unworthy of Caltech'? I think it is fair to say that they could have been 2 of the best students that Caltech has ever had. Yet again, it seems that you are saying that everybody who hesitates to go to Caltech because of its relatively low graduation rate must be weak and unworthy. You're basically saying that there is no legitimate reason for anybody to ever feel concerned about Caltech's relatively low graduation rate, and anybody who does feel concerned is clearly a wuss and is obviously not good enough for Caltech. Again, I would dare you to tell that to the 2 guys I know. </p>
<p>And again, I would say that, even more poignantly, think about who else may be visiting this forum. In particular, think about those current Caltech students who are doing poorly, or who may have already flunked out. How exactly are they supposed to feel when they read quotes from you like "Why should Caltech make itself 'safe'..."? Not every student wishes the 'safety' of grade inflation at HYP. Feel free to take the safe route..." Put another way, how would you feel if you were doing poorly at Caltech and then you read the comments from other people about how Caltech has no need to be safe, and that those who want safety should have gone to HYP? Maybe you should end up doing poorly at Caltech, and then we'll see whether you still feel that Caltech has no need to be safe for its students. I would posit that it's easy to say that Caltech has no need to be safe if you happen to be one of the students that is doing well. It's a far far different story when you are the one who is experiencing difficulty. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that I have to say that, I regret to put it this bluntly, but the attitude of a lot of Caltech students towards their own classmates who aren't doing well seems quite cold and forbidding. The attitude seems to be that if you aren't doing well, you are obviously stupid, unworthy, and/or lazy, and so you deserve your hardships. That's a rather cold-blooded way of treating your own classmates, don't you think? I would posit that not everybody who does poorly at Caltech is lazy or stupid.</p>
<p>sakky, what's the point? Here you are making all sorts of normative statements about the way we "should" be, or "should not" be. What do those words mean? Do you mean that Caltech would be a better institution if we took your advice and made failure rarer?</p>
<p>Maybe you're right, but "better" is in the eye of the beholder. This institution charts its own course based on what we think is best. Sometimes we've become more rigorous (the 1930's), sometimes less (the 1980's and 90's). We (in particular the board, administration, faculty, students, in rough order of influence) decide where it's best to move, and then we move there.</p>
<p>You've told us what you think is best, but the bottom line is, why should we <em>care</em> what you think? Your analysis of the pros and cons has been often pretty good. Yes, we do lose strong students to HYP because they fear failing out. That's one drawback of having a risky university. That's a fact. But it doesn't follow from that fact that we should change our policies; it only follows if we value those students more than we value the benefits we get out of having an extra-risky environment.</p>
<p>We know all the pros and cons, but what we do depends on the values we attach to those pros and cons. They're not the same as your values. We don't care, at bottom, what your values are. We care what our values are. Currently, they don't favor becoming unrisky according to the HYP model. There's not much you can do or say to change that.</p>
<p>"What are you going to say to 2 guys I know who both got into Caltech but both turned it down to go to Harvard, with one getting his degree in physics summa cum laude, and the other getting a degree in mathematics summa cum laude?"</p>
<p>Probably something along the lines of "Hah, you went to Harvard over Caltech? Sucker." followed by some jokes about how terrible the weather/food/drivers/accent is/are in Boston. (Note: very.)</p>
<p>Speaking as a Techer in danger of having to retake quantum and who's lost more than one friend to the Big Red Drop Card, it's not the best thing when someone can't hack it any more and leaves, but honestly, what are you going to do? It's like being a fighter pilot. If Johnny Crewcut decides he doesn't want to be a figher pilot because he gets the shakes every time the radar warning comes on, or the Air Force decides he's blown up one too many Canadian sniper teams by accident, the other pilots might knock one back for Johnny the next time they're at the local bar, but none of them are going to suggest that the Air Force should lower the standards for being a fighter pilot. It only looks cold-blooded if you ignore the membership requirements.</p>
<p>So I've had a few conversations that went something like, "You're transferring to Purdue? Why? ... Well, good luck." or, if they were closer friends, "Lucky bastard, you're getting out early. Have fun at Columbia. I'll drop by next time I'm in New York, crash on your couch, insult your roommates, and drink your refreshing beverages." It's sad, it happens, and then there's the next homework set. You get used to it after a while.</p>
<p>I don't know what you're trying to prove here.</p>