<p>Hey, I happen to think Carleton Street has a sort of charm :-P</p>
<p>Nobody talked about the important difference between Caltech's quarter system and MIT's semester system. I'm currently attending a university that uses the quarter system. What I could tell is that if you're not well prepared in high school, you would not probably survive at Caltech. </p>
<p>A quarter lasts only 2 months and a week. But during that short period, for each subject, you have to take 2 midterms and one final, along with a problem set every week (and lab, if any). So, the quarter system is all about reading books, sitting for exams and doing problem sets (and labs). (The worst case is that you might have to turn in a hard problem set and sit a midterm on the same day. Also, something like, take the midterm today and the final just one week after.) So, the system is suitable only for those who are already well prepared in high school. (And my friend from Indonesia told me that a gold medalist of Physics Olympic (also from Indonesia) who went to Caltech finally dropped out. So, you could guess how hard it is at Caltech to study sciences like Physics.)</p>
<p>Unlike Caltech, MIT uses, in addition to its 4-month semester system, pass/no record for its first semester and grade/no record for the second semester during the freshman year. (i.e, there is no such thing as failing a class during freshman.) So, I'm sure MIT students would already get used to the academic rigor at the start of their sophomore.</p>
<p>Just go to MIT. You can make any adjustments there, but not probably at Caltech.</p>
<p>"A quarter lasts only 2 months and a week. But during that short period, for each subject, you have to take 2 midterms and one final, along with a problem set every week (and lab, if any)."</p>
<p>Um... 2 midterms? Not at Tech. And not all subjects have midterms. But yeah, there's generally a set every week, and final and midterm. It is intense.</p>
<p>"Unlike Caltech, MIT uses, in addition to its 4-month semester system, pass/no record for its first semester and grade/no record for the second semester during the freshman year. (i.e, there is no such thing as failing a class during freshman.) So, I'm sure MIT students would already get used to the academic rigor at the start of their sophomore."</p>
<p>Caltech has pass/fail for the first two terms. And it's pretty hard to fail your freshman courses. So you do have a chance to adjust to the rigor. </p>
<p>However, it is true that Caltech is intense and fast-paced. So is MIT, I'd imagine. I'd say that it's a LITTLE easier for the less-prepared students to get by at MIT, as I understand their core requirements are a bit more flexible and the semester system would help.</p>
<p>yea i have the same decision to make.. caltech v. mit. im leaning towards mit because i think i want to minor in a humanities subject (philosophy especially) and mit offers much more in humanities than caltech</p>
<p>Well, regarding philosophy: MIT has more courses, but Caltech is listed on the Philosophical Gourmet report ( <a href="http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/%5B/url%5D">http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/</a> ) as one of the schools with a very strong faculty in philosophy despite not awarding a doctorate in that field. I know something about this because I am still very seriously considering a philosophy double major and the courses I have taken have been incredible. For one thing, everything at Caltech is done with such a rigorous streak that the philosophy papers undergraduates write -- with such an emphasis on mathematical, logical reasoning -- would impress many professional philosophers. I guess the bottom line is that Caltech students are so uniformly smart that everything is done at a very high level.</p>
<p>Also, the faculty is great. I wrote a paper criticizing a famous argument of Hume (about miracles) and my professor liked it so much that he decided to write it up for publication (with me as a coauthor) in a major philosophy journal. I don't think that would happen as much at MIT, where in the philosophical writing courses, TA's often grade the work. So, amusingly, even as far as breaking into "real" academic philosophy, Caltech is probably a bit stronger than MIT.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think that would happen as much at MIT, where in the philosophical writing courses, TA's often grade the work.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>your musings on caltech are none of my business but unless by 'often', you mean in the 2 or 3 intro courses of over 50 people, that's not true.</p>
<p>pebbles -- I realize this, but: </p>
<p>First, as you know, those intro courses (by virtue of their size and popularity) account for the bulk of most students' contact with philosophy, as well as a large chunk of the department's total teaching load, measured in terms of students. Sure, it's "only" a few courses, but they're very important courses.</p>
<p>In particular, those intro courses can be the place where two-way contact with an experienced scholar can be most important. I wrote my paper on Hume in the equivalent of 24.00. At MIT, I probably would have gotten a pat on the back from the TA. At Caltech, I got a full-fledged intellectual debate with a world-renowned philosopher and a publication. I'm sure similar stories have happened at MIT in more advanced courses, but a year or even a semester in your intellectual prime is too valuable, in my view, to waste having your work judged by assistants.</p>
<p>Oh, and: I've taken quite a few philosophy courses after the equivalent of 24.00, and, sad to say -- no other publication-worthy diamonds in the rough. That's to be expected. It's not often that an undergraduate has a truly original idea in a field that's at least three millennia old. I happened to get lucky, and had my idea in my first philosophy course. I guess that illustrates the point that you shouldn't have TA's grade the intro course and say "oh, that's just the intro course." As my example illustrates, you can already miss out on a lot that way.</p>
<p>Oh, I forgot: the philosophical dialectic -- the back-and-forth debate -- is probably the most crucial aspect of the discipline, and one that is very important to actually learning philosophy. Big lectures followed by discussion sections with TA's are, in my view, a highly suboptimal way to teach the subject, ESPECIALLY in the intro course. It should almost be backwards if you have to settle for a lecture/recitation split: anyone can read a prepared lecture pretty decently, but it takes a genius (or at least somebody very experienced) to direct a truly productive, interesting, and wide-ranging discussion.</p>
<p>Those discussions were the reason I fell in love with philosophy, and I don't think the experience would have been nearly as great with a TA who had 4 or 5, as opposed to the professorial 15 or 20, years worth of philosophical experience and inisight.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, regarding philosophy: MIT has more courses, but Caltech is listed on the Philosophical Gourmet report ( <a href="http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/%5B/url%5D">http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/</a> ) as one of the schools with a very strong faculty in philosophy despite not awarding a doctorate in that field. I know something about this because I am still very seriously considering a philosophy double major and the courses I have taken have been incredible. For one thing, everything at Caltech is done with such a rigorous streak that the philosophy papers undergraduates write -- with such an emphasis on mathematical, logical reasoning -- would impress many professional philosophers. I guess the bottom line is that Caltech students are so uniformly smart that everything is done at a very high level.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>MIT is still ranked higher than the preponderance of schools in the philosophicalgourmet. To be sure, they are the best in philosophy of language - which subsumes symbolic logic, modal logic, and mathematical logic - and analyic metaphysics. Though Caltech is good, I do not think it measures up to what MIT has to offer in philosophy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, the faculty is great. I wrote a paper criticizing a famous argument of Hume (about miracles) and my professor liked it so much that he decided to write it up for publication (with me as a coauthor) in a major philosophy journal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not to belittle your accomplishment, but that can happen anywhere. I am publishing during the spring, though I will be the only author. </p>
<p>In which journal is your paper being published?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think that would happen as much at MIT, where in the philosophical writing courses, TA's often grade the work.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First, TAs rarely grade in higher level courses. Second, whether or not TAs actually grade papers, nothing prevents them from recognizing merit or forwarding outstanding papers to the professor. My TAs have already done that on several occasions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So, amusingly, even as far as breaking into "real" academic philosophy, Caltech is probably a bit stronger than MIT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not quite, MIT still offers more resources, from a better overal faculty to an outstanding Ph.D program. You might think the latter is useless as an undergrad, but, to be sure, undergraduates are allowed to enroll in most graduate level philosophy courses. Next semester, for instance, I will be in a graduate epistemology course, even though I am only a sophomore.</p>
<p>Graduate courses offer an even more personalized environment: around seven students, a meeting room environment, two or three books to read, one paper to write, and discussion. The discourse you desire is available to any earnest undergraduate, in my opinion, and no philosophy department ignores philosophical enthusiasm from neophytes.</p>
<p>In addition, MIT offers the following which I do not think Caltech matches:
- Outstanding Colloquia: <a href="http://web.mit.edu/philos/www/colloq.html%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/philos/www/colloq.html</a>
- Outstanding Conferences and Lectures: <a href="http://web.mit.edu/philos/www/conferences.html%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/philos/www/conferences.html</a>
- Outstanding Reading Groups: <a href="http://web.mit.edu/philos/www/read_groups.html%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/philos/www/read_groups.html</a>
- Do not forget Tea Time! <a href="http://web.mit.edu/philos/www/teatime.html%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/philos/www/teatime.html</a>
...which is held in the same building as where the philosophy department is located: <a href="http://web.mit.edu/buildings/statacenter/%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/buildings/statacenter/</a>
- Courses that students can take at Harvard.</p>
<p>Combined with the resources that Harvard offers, which are unparalleled, MITs program requires much in order to be matched, and very few departments can do it, much less departments that do not have a Ph.D program.</p>
<p>Um. the largest philosophy course happened to be one I was enrolled in for first semester (then I had to drop it to make room for 8.012 and blahblahblah I still plan on taking it next fall when it is offered again) - it was taught in lecture/recitation style and enrolled approximately 80 students. I wouldn't call that a large chunk of the department's total teaching load, measured in terms of students when a hundred plus different courses in philosophy are run yearly. </p>
<p>In terms of philosophy, I am not a bit insecure about MIT's offerings. I have friends who came here to study philosophy and philosophy alone (actually, same with music- but that's another post altogether); I will most likely be a philosophy major/minor/concentration; I've received nothing but the best recommendations from upperclassmen who have taken courses in that department (like... one actually overheard my indecision regarding one of the courses and bounded over midway through whatever she was doing to gush about it being the 'best class she'd taken at MIT so far'- and she's a math major); undergraduates of ALL levels are encouraged to take on UROPs (one-on-one research projects with a professor) in departments including philosophy- so, really, you're able to work on a level of intimacy not available through a classroom setting, even; the faculty is pretty amazing from what I hear; oh, and all that stuff above from nspeds's post.</p>
<p>But, really, what is a little bit of anecdotal heresay worth? Best way to figure things out is to get on both campuses and ask around, attend classes, talk to professors, whatever is necessary. Philosophy is actually fairly well-respected here. For a humanities course, that's gotta count for something ;)</p>
<p>Oh, and one more thing. I'm really a little put-off by the whole, look-down-your-nose-at-TA's thing you're doing, and its accompanying reek of arrogance:</p>
<p>
[quote]
but a year or even a semester in your intellectual prime is too valuable, in my view, to waste having your work judged by assistants.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Honestly, what is with this forum and TA's? Even without further addressing (and refuting) your claims that TA's grade students' papers, what the heck is so wrong with receiving instruction from those who are much more educated than you are? There is a very scant number of courses that allow upperclassmen and grad students to become TA's- and those are the most basic math/science courses (calc 1, intro to solid state chem, etc). Hell, even 8.012 (freshman physics) TA's were all full MIT professors. One of them will be the lecturer for 8.012 next year; one of them is the lecturer for 8.02 next semester; another one won the Nobel Prize... and on days where my Nobel Prize-winning TA was absent to give lectures at oh... Stanford or Caltech or something, the substitute TA turned out to be the main author of our (actually quite famous) textbook.</p>
<p>So, no, I really don't feel like my intellectual prime was mutilated beyond repair per my most unfortunate association with these "TA's". =</p>
<p>
[quote]
Philosophy is actually fairly well-respected here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course! Have you seen MIT's graduate placement? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Honestly, what is with this forum and TA's?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I was going to ask the exact same question in my previous poost.</p>
<p>nspeds -- we're submitting to Analysis, and my co-author is fairly confident of acceptance based on interest from editors in the idea.</p>
<p>more soon.</p>
<p>ooohh can't wait :D</p>
<p>Hey, I visited Caltech yesterday! We're here in southern California for the Rose Parade (my HS band -- containing my little brother -- is marching), and my family was driving around Pasadena and ran into Caltech. It was very pretty!</p>
<p>
[quote]
nspeds -- we're submitting to Analysis, and my co-author is fairly confident of acceptance based on interest from editors in the idea.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I look forward to reading it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
interest from editors in the idea.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Piqued interest is always a good indicator; my professor is one of the editors for one of the best philosophical journals, and he always complains about receiving articles on the same book published over 25 years ago!</p>
<p>I hope you idea was not that Hume's entire criticism of induction is one large post-hoc fallacy, because that was my idea!</p>
<p>Okay, now onto a more substantive response.</p>
<p>You're missing the point, guys. To my knowledge, most TA's at MIT in 24.00 are graduate students in philosophy. I'd welcome data to refute this, but everyone I know who has taken 24.00 has had the recitation led by a grad student, and the grading done by same. Granted, often TA's (in physics, for example) are full professors, etc. At Caltech, too, David Politzer, who won the Nobel last year, helps people wire circuits. That's not what I was talking about, and far be it from me to say a negative word about TA's who are professors. That's great. But, until you show me otherwise, I'm pretty sure that TA's in 24.00 are mostly grad studens in philosophy. So most of pebbles' response on this point is, I think, completely irrelevant. My beef is with grad students teaching 24.00.</p>
<p>And there is undoubtedly a problem with TA's and discussion leaders in a sweepingly broad course like 24.00 being grad students. Their limited knowledge (limited in view of how huge philosophy is) sometimes causes them to offer a quite a stilted view of the landscape. I'm glad nspeds is here so that he can appreciate this point (but I'm pretty sure you don't need to be a philosopher to do so) -- a friend of mine had a TA say that he thought ethical relativism was "obvious nonsense" and not worth much discussion. That's something that a broadly trained philosophy professor would almost certainly not say. The problem was that this grad student was speaking outside his specialty (which was, I believe, logic) and showed a remarkable lack of appreciation for the complexity of a huge and far from settled debate in another subfield. Or, in any case, he certainly robbed the students of an adequate exposure to at least a small part of that complexity.</p>
<p>So am I misguided in my "whole, look-down-your-nose-at-TA's thing"? On this topic, frankly, I don't think so. The fact that it's easy for an MIT undergraduate to know more about a big, important, contentious philosophical area than his TA (at least as far as that TA lets on in his discussion of that field) shows that something is wrong.</p>
<p>So, I'll stand by my claim that Caltech's approach to introductory courses is better than MIT's. nsped's summary of MIT's virtues is comprehensive, but what's all that worth if the introduction is subpar and it doesn't intrigue students who didn't even know that philosophy was their calling?</p>
<p>Oh, and pebbles. Your remarks about "reek of arrogance" ring a little hollow in view of the generally snarky and smug tenor of your own posts.</p>
<p>Pick the cheaper including transportation.</p>
<p>Or, ask about the dormitory differences.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's something that a broadly trained philosophy professor would almost certainly not say.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>HA! Then you most certainly have not read the works of Bernard Williams!</p>
<p>I will deliver a more substantive post later.</p>
<p>nspeds -- don't mistake my claim for the suggestion that no philosopher thinks that ethical relativism is nonsense. I've read enough Peter Singer, among others, to know otherwise. But Singer, when he teaches broad ethics courses at Princeton, takes care to emphasize the different approaches of people like J. L. Mackie. There's a difference between not buying a certain philosophical position and not thinking it's not even worth saying much about. Few professors that I'd consider worthy of respect would completely neglect a flourishing school of thought in their own discipline when discussing a relevant topic.</p>
<p>The person whose 24.00 experience I'm recounting says that I should point out that she found her graduate student TA, despite his comparitive lack of subtlety regarding ethics, to be an extermely interesting and engaging discussion leader. So grad student TA's often have upsides. But I'd still prefer profs for myself : )</p>