<p>I'm interested to find out if Caltech is really so much harder than other schools of similar quality (i.e. about top 10-15 in a field). I would be interested to hear from someone who transferred between Caltech and another top school (in or out of Caltech) since this person would actually have some insight into this discussion. No offense, but a lot of the Caltech kids on here that always say how much harder it is haven't really experienced other programs.</p>
<p>I'm a high school student, so all I know is from what I've heard. Caltech offers a much more rigorous education than other colleges. Look at the core cirriculum and you'll see that some the physics required for everyone by their sophmore year could never be seen by a physics major in another college. However, if you wish, you definetly could take the equivalent course at another college.</p>
<p>This is a main reason why Caltech's graduation rate is a bit lower than other colleges'. This is also the reason why professors are able to make advanced physics references in English class. </p>
<p>I'm not saying that other colleges are necessarily easier: again, I'm just a high school student. I'm saying that from what I've heard, the average courseload for an average student is more rigorous than that of the average student at another college.</p>
<p>Take what I say with a grain of salt as I could very well be wrong. I would recommend you visit different schools to see for yourself. Or wait around for Ben to come along this thread. </p>
<p>And by the way, Caltech is better than "top 10-15" in many fields if offers, including most if not all of the math/science ones.</p>
<p>I'm not trying to decide on schools. I'm already in college and interested in the issue.</p>
<p>I wasn't implying that Caltech was 10th or 13th or anything like that. I was trying to bring maybe the other top 10 or 15 schools into the discussion.</p>
<p>"I'm interested to find out if Caltech is really so much harder than other schools of similar quality"</p>
<p>Which other schools would those be? I knew a person who found Caltech "too intense" and transferred to Stanford. She seemed to be happy there afterwards, so I assume that she found it less intense. I don't know if that means "easier" to you, but that's how I interpret it.</p>
<p>I also know someone currently at Caltech who transferred to Duke for awhile, thought it was too easy, and so transferred BACK to Caltech (I'm not kidding). When she came back, I think she basically had to take the Caltech sophomore year in her third overall year of college, or something like that. </p>
<p>Other than those two people, it's rare to find a comparison among people I know, because most people who transfer out of Caltech are either flunking and thus transfer "down" somewhat, or decide after a year or two that they didn't like science and thus transfer to study a completely different subject, which doesn't lend itself to comparison. I had a friend in my house, very brilliant actually, who was a physics major but suddenly decided that he wanted to study econ and become a lawyer. You can do econ just fine at Caltech, but not the variety that he wanted to do apparently, so he transferred to Harvard.</p>
<p>I can tell you this: I sat on the admissions committee at Caltech and specifically evaluated and voted on admitting transfer applicants. Most students transfer into Caltech after their second year of college, and the vast majority end up having to do 3 more years at Caltech in order to graduate. I think that's a pretty good indicator.</p>
<p>Well, I think I am guilty of being one of the Caltech kids on here who always talks about how hard Caltech is compared to other top schools. How do I know?</p>
<p>:-D</p>
<p>It turns out I got very lucky with respect to where I lived when I was growing up, and when I was a senior in high school, I ran out of high school courses to take and was allowed to take courses at Princeton University. I took a course in applied math (MAT201), an higher-level course in pure math (MAT217 Honors Linear Algebra, mostly taken by sophomore math majors), the theoretical level of electricity and magnetism for physics majors (PHY106), and a Russian literature course (SLA something).</p>
<p>Overall, I found the program at Princeton to be comparable to but significantly easier than at Caltech. A big reason was the grading. I was very busy senior year (but that's not an excuse) and for various reasons I didn't always do my best work in the courses I took. Nevertheless, I got very good grades and it seemed that many of my Princeton classmates were doing less than I was. (Usually because they were spread thin among lots of activities.) </p>
<p>At Caltech, I found the grading to be less forgiving and the problem sets slightly more frequent (fewer off-weeks, of which we had several at Princeton, if I recall right). The teaching at Caltech has been a little bit better, I've found, but that may have been purely an accident of which courses I took.</p>
<p>Most importantly, my classmates at Caltech are more committed to science and work much harder, so it wouldn't be possible to be nearly as laid back as I was at Princeton and get grades nearly as good.</p>
<p>This is one datapoint -- Caltech vs. Princeton, but I gather it is of the first-person kind you wanted, since I have actually been a student at both places.</p>
<p>Incidentally, for what it's worth, Princeton offered me a spot and I chose Caltech. So I put my education where my mouth is. :)</p>
<p>I took classes at both UPenn and Harvard while I was in high school. They were mostly math classes. I've found classes at Caltech much more challenging than those. I was able to blow those off for the most part. I did the homework for those classes like most of my homework in high school -- in homeroom. There's no way I could get sets here done that quickly.</p>
<p>Check out the following frosh first-term classes. The first three are required of every Caltech student, and the fourth one is taken by at least 1/2 of the class. See how the depth and breadth of the classes compares to those are your school (JHU?), and let us know what you think. Remember that the average frosh will also be taking 1-2 other courses along with these 4 (or 2-3 others if they don't take CS 1). Also remember that we're on quarters, so all of this material is covered in 10 weeks of classes. To be fair, the first two terms are on pass/fail, but third term classes can really kick you in the pants if you don't take first and second terms seriously. </p>
<p>Ma1a: <a href="http://www.math.caltech.edu/classes/ma1a/index.html#hw%5B/url%5D">http://www.math.caltech.edu/classes/ma1a/index.html#hw</a>
Ph1a: <a href="http://www.its.caltech.edu/%7Etmu/ph1a/problems.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.its.caltech.edu/~tmu/ph1a/problems.htm</a>
Ch1a: <a href="http://www.its.caltech.edu/%7Echem1/homework/%5B/url%5D">http://www.its.caltech.edu/~chem1/homework/</a>
CS1: <a href="http://www.cs.caltech.edu/courses/cs1/labs.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.cs.caltech.edu/courses/cs1/labs.html</a></p>
<p>The math looked a lot more proof-based but didn't have as many applications. The physics looked about the same. Chemistry was pretty different because we take materials chemistry, not general chemistry. </p>
<p>Then again, I'm MechE, so the fact that everyone takes this is pretty impressive.</p>
<p>Simply looking at the math I would say that Cal Tech is <em>quite</em> a bit harder than virtually any other American Institution.</p>
<p>I took 18.022 (the "tougher" version of multivariable calculus) my first semester at MIT, and our problem sets seemed at least as difficult as those Caltech ones. However, most MIT students just take 18.02, which I suspect is easier. I took 18.03 my second semester, and that was definitely easier.</p>
<p>Following on from what 123 said, the thing that makes Caltech uniquely difficult, in my opinion and from my perspective, is the number and intensity of the <em>requirements</em>. Sure, you can find analagous classes at a lot of other schools for the Caltech core, but they either aren't required or are only required for people who are in those majors, and usually aren't taken in such quantities. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find another school that requires quantum mechanics for biologists or economists or whatever. It's also very typical for a Caltech student to take 5 or 6 academic classes--often only one of which will be a humanities or social science class--which from what I've seen elsewhere is considered pretty unusual.</p>
<p>Hey, I'm not at Caltech or anything but have a friend who is a graduate student in physics at Caltech. He says that the graduate curriculum is intense for those who did not do undergrad at Caltech. He attributes this to the fact that Caltech graduate professors start off where the undergraduate curriculum of Caltech ended - which is assumed to be more difficult. I wouldn't say that it's "better," though - my friend is doing just fine. He says he isn't learning more, per se- just spending more time on the material. IMHO, this is worse. But it's up to you to decide! I'd rather learn the same material in less time, and spend more time on research. Though, I guess one person's take (my friend) isn't suffice to make a general statement - and I'm sure people like Joe know much more about it.</p>
<p>I would think that at a Graduate level the objectives change, but at an undergraduate level the objective is to simply learn the material. And Cal Tech delivers in that regard.</p>
<p>The crux of my post was to agree that Cal Tech undergrad is, in fact, intense.</p>
<p>fool, what courses did your friend take as a first-year at Caltech?</p>
<p>I haven't been in contact with him for quite sometime. Sorry :</p>
<p>Caltech vs Harvey Mudd: what are your opinions?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Caltech vs Harvey Mudd: what are your opinions?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You did NOT just ask that question! If you want the answer, you might find it in this thread: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=199036&page=2&pp=15%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=199036&page=2&pp=15</a></p>
<p>If you want a quick summary of the different opinions, some of which will never be reconciled:
a) Caltech is far and above better
b) Caltech is just a little better due more to the higher caliber of students than a higher caliber of profs
c) They are in all ways equal, Caltech is just pretentious
d) Caltech is better because there are more Nobel laureates
e) HMC is nearly equal, (b) is only true because (d) attracts better students
f) Caltech is more work but produces the same educations as HMC
g) WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH, HMC is just as good as Caltech because my mommy says I'm special, WAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!
h) Caltech is better due to the clear disparity in stature between notable HMC alums and notable Caltech alums
i) HMC has yet to reach its potential</p>
<p>Thank you mmcduff. That was beautiful.</p>
<p>yeah the caltech vs harvey mudd stuff has been beaten to hell on these forums.</p>