<p>Students accepted by Caltech last year: 550.
Studens accepted by MIT last year: 1665.</p>
<p>To say that it isn't THAT many more in sheer numbers is a bit ... erm ...?</p>
<p>maybe hes speaking i terms of percentages. But still...</p>
<p>pebbles is a she (I believe)...and I think her point was Caltech must take a larger percentage of applicants in because a lower percentage of them enroll. I only have 2004 stats, and they go:</p>
<p>Caltech: Applicants accepted - 21% of 2,615
Accepted who enrolled - 45%</p>
<p>MIT: Applicants accepted: 16% of 10,664
Accepted applicants who enrolled - 57%</p>
<p>So the size difference of the accepted applicants is not as drastic as the size difference of the enrolled classes. But anyway.</p>
<p>As Ben said, you can hardly quantify either school as "easier to get into" or "harder to get into." The t-shirts are jokes, of course (though they're admittedly pretty funny, at least, the Harvard one is) and honestly, I think it's almost a crime that both MIT and Caltech have matriculation rates that low. How can so many people who get into either school turn them down!? It's beyond me :)</p>
<p>A Caltech student who recently commented on Matt's blog had to make the MIT v Caltech choice, and as he said, put in that position, there really is no wrong choice. I'm sure we all wish we'll get to be put in that decision come March.</p>
<p>
"Renown" (not a word) by whom?
</p>
<p>Hey Ben, renown is a word! I think you mean wrong form (should be 'renowned') - what happened to those recrementitious rehearsals?</p>
<p>You've got me. I meant, of course, that it was ungrammatical, but I will admit to speaking quite imprecisely.</p>
<p>Since you wanted a source, here's a credible one:</p>
<p>Yes, since PR is such a reputable and august source........</p>
<p><em>rolls around laughing</em></p>
<p>A few minutes of Google will find more...</p>
<p>And also explain why Caltech's EA acceptance rate is like 40%.</p>
<pre><code>* Number of early action applications received: 468
* Number admitted under early action plan: 169
* Number enrolled under early action plan: 67
</code></pre>
<p>Because the people who apply to Caltech early are extremely good. Trust me, I've read the applications. The self-selection at that level is incredible -- virtualy nobody mediocre applies. (It's certainly not because we had to take that many. We could have taken 0 in the early round and easily filled the class with incredible students.)</p>
<p>Nevertheless, our EA admit percentage was much lower this year (around 20%), partly because we didn't want to fill such a large portion of our class EA no matter how good the applicants were.</p>
<p>Anyway, without knowing anything about the strength of the pool, it's specious to draw any conclusions based on a single percentage.</p>
<p>What's your point in all these posts, Flippy? It only shows that Caltech is well into the top echelon of engineering colleges. A few spots in the rankings really do not mean that much. If you want proof, Caltech and MIT are a "lowly" 7th under "national universities" in the incredibly reliable USNews report. Maybe going to Harvard and Princeton (#1) will get you a better education. Also, the Caltech pool is very self-selective, hence the higher admit rates. Caltech has the highest average SAT score in the nation, so to say its easier to get in is a little absurd.</p>
<p>I see I've been beaten to the punch. :-)</p>
<p>Thanks for the help, ramsfan : )</p>
<p>See, if the exact same media rankings were used year after year, people would be bored. So, what they do is take the top X number of schools and assign random rankings for "Toughest to Get Into", "Overall Best", etc. It adds a pleasant variety and keeps parents and students on their toes. An added benefit is that it can be used as ammunition for message board arguments. </p>
<p>If you take any two top schools and look at their relative rankings for the past 20 years, one will be higher than the other approximately 50% of the time.</p>
<p>With the exception of HYP, which are pretty consistently rated top three.</p>
<p>after a certain point ratings lose meaning and become popularity contests</p>
<p>If you want to compare a Caltech education to an MIT education, you're splitting hairs. There are very few departments where one's is really THAT much better than the other's (Caltech's geology, MIT's aero/astro), and even then, it's negligible for an undergraduate education.</p>
<p>Pick whichever one feels right to you. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you want to compare a Caltech education to an MIT education, you're splitting hairs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>sure if you're strictly speaking of education in a math/science sense. as ive said earlier on this post, mit seems to win out in the humanities and business (also has access to harvard)</p>
<p>Yes. Caltech is aimed at math/science types who want to focus early. That approach has some drawbacks, but also huge advantages.</p>
<p>Many students will end up with the best of all worlds--UG for one, and Grad for the other (including Stanford, UCB, Princeton, etc., for certain fields). I think if one wants a strong math school as well as healthy dose of humanties, I'd advise P or U of Chicago.
I think most of you would be content and enriched at any of the above colleges.</p>
<p>I was basing my post on the 67% MIT yield last year vs the 37% Caltech yield. (the stats are from Princeton Review, not sure how reliable they are -the MIT one is correct I know) I was just trying to offer another point of consideration. I was actually quite appalled the caltech yield was reported to be so low- correct it if it is wrong.</p>
<p>Ok, this is jumping back a bit.</p>
<p>What's wrong with God dictating morality? True, then He'd only be "good" for agreeing with Himself, but why is that a problem? If God is omnipotent, then He can't be subject to any external laws, so morality must be defined by Him. I don't see anything wrong with this idea.</p>
<p>Also, if there is no God or morality is independent of Him, then "good" can't be truly intrinsic to the universe. It can only be defined by human minds, which lessens its significance and influence.</p>