<p>"2) Engineering: Wash. Both have great engineering schools but they both rank below than the world-class-Engineering-Giants like MIT, Berkeley, and Stanford"</p>
<p>Definitely not true--nice try!</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky wrote: Well, don't you think it's a little unfair to be touting all those alumni who got their PhD's from Caltech (but no undergrad degree) as proof of superiority vis-a-vis HMC, when HMC doesn't even have a graduate school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Furthermore it would be even MORE fair if you were to simply name those Caltech alumni who graduated in the 1960's and beyond.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This argument is entirely illegitimate, and here's why.</p>
<p>Yesterday, I founded the Yevrah Dumm Institute of Technology. Yevrah Dumm has only one department -- geobiology -- and offers studies only leading only the Master of Science degree. Yevrah Dumm has only one faculty member (I won't say who, he made me promise), and one student (guess who!).</p>
<p>Now, I think we'll all agree that Caltech is not demonstrably better than Yevrah Dumm. Oh, sure, Caltech has 32 Nobel Prizes to its name. But that's irrelevant blither; to make the comparison fair, we should compare only the geobiology departments of the two schools. Moreover, since Yevrah Dumm was founded yesterday, we must disregard everything Caltech before 2010. And of course, we must disregard BS or PhD students of Caltech, because Yevrah Dumm doesn't offer those degrees. It wouldn't be fair to compare applies to oranges.</p>
<p>When you take away all Caltech's unfair advantages, the comparison between Caltech and Yevrah Dumm is obviously a wash.</p>
<p>DiamondT said: "Caltech is a vocational school." </p>
<p>Actually, DiamondT... the great thing about Caltech is that you are taught to be a scientist before you actually learn your major. That prepares you to be ready for multidisciplinary work and enables you to pursue a wide variety of opportunities. Because of its core, one could argue that it is even less of a vocational school than your typical university. I'm guessing that you are simply posting here to stir the pot... a quick glance at your past posts reveals you aren't really interested in Caltech and that you are also quick to post inflammatory statements. In other words, you're a troll. Another quick glance at your past posts reveals something I found very humorous...</p>
<p>"If i could turn back the hands of time," by R. kelly, I believe, takes the prize for saddest song. I've cried so many times listening to that song, and I AM A BOY!"</p>
<p>So, Mr. Phillips Exeter / Stanford boy, please go back to trolling the Ivy League and Stanford forums and kindly leave us alone.</p>
<p>Edit: Oooh, more funny!!</p>
<p>"Most public school kids think Abercrombie is preppy. It is definately not. I attend Phillips Exeter, and we wouldnt be caught dead wearing that trash."</p>
<p>hahahaha, you're such a man of the people. "Daddy's money keeps me in clothes that cost more than it would take to feed an african country for a year! Aren't I special?"</p>
<p>"Just as many would say Harvard and Yale produces more leaders than Caltech or MIT..."</p>
<p>Aha, so the hidden bias is revealed. How do you define "leader"? It would make a lot of sense that Harvard and Yale produce more politicians simply because Caltech is a Math, Science, and Engineering school. On the other hand, you'd have a very hard time showing that Harvard and Yale produce more leaders in Math, Science, and Engineering. Unfortunately most politicians aren't smart enough to handle Caltech core.</p>
<p>Wow, I continued looking through your posts for more assanine things you've said, but they are all the same. A good 80% of your posts are troll posts saying nothing but "HYPS is better than ________". After reading through a few pages of your babble, I can honestly say that you are the type of person who gives those schools a bad rep. A rich spoiled elitist boy with nothing better to do than let everyone know how awesome you and your schools are.</p>
<p>Caltech would be on most lists of "world-class-Engineering-Giants" (despite the fact that it isn't giant at all), and HMC most certainly would not be.</p>
<p>"Well, it seems to me that having these grad departments really isn't THAT huge of an asset, for otherwise, HMC students wouldn't be getting into top grad schools, i.e. Caltech's grad schools."</p>
<p>There are logical fallacies all over this post. First of all, you could make the same argument for any college that happened to have a student or two admitted to Caltech for grad school: "Having X isn't really THAT huge of an asset, because otherwise, College Y students wouldn't be getting into Caltech!" Clearly not true.</p>
<p>Second of all, the fact that some HMC students manage to get into Caltech for grad school in no way means that the vastly better research opportunities available year-round and from the freshman year to Caltech undergrads aren't a "huge asset." I'm not even sure how the two things are really connected--that research experience is going to be valuable no matter what, and in many cases VERY valuable.</p>
<p>Next, the number of matriculants from Harvey Mudd to Caltech graduate programs vs. MIT or any other school is also a deeply flawed method of analysis. First of all, consider that a significant fraction of the Harvey Mudd student body would have gone to Caltech had they been admitted. (Statistics about common applicants and admits bear this out--Ben Golub will back this up, I'm sure.) Note that I didn't say that every Harvey Mudd student would have, or that your friend Bob from down the hall would've, or anything like that--it's simply a true statement about "a significant fraction" of the student body as a whole. Given this, is it really so surprising that Harvey Mudd students who have done well at HMC might want to go to Caltech for grad school, given the opportunity? Furthermore, Caltech is a lot closer to HMC geographically than it is to MIT. If you want to stay on the east coast Caltech is obviously not for you. This criterion would filter out at least some MIT students and probably zero HMC students. (For similar reasons, a sizeable fraction of each Caltech graduating class goes to Stanford for grad school.)</p>
<p>Finally, let's take a look at the claims about this vast number of Mudd students going on to Caltech for grad school and supposedly proving the worth and/or equality of HMC. I called up the latest Caltech Commencement program on <a href="http://pr.caltech.edu/commencement%5B/url%5D">http://pr.caltech.edu/commencement</a> and compiled some statistics on the PhD grads. The number of Caltech PhDs given to undergraduate alumni of each college were: </p>
<p>Caltech: 7
MIT: 3
Harvey Mudd: 1</p>
<p>That's right. One lonley guy. And that Caltech "7" figure is despite the fact that Caltech in virtually all cases actively encourages their alumni to go elsewhere for grad school to get more breadth--particularly because they've often already done graduate-level research by the time they've graduated.</p>
<p>(Lest you think these numbers are some sort of fluke, the relevant numbers for last year were 7, 4, and 2; the year before that 8, 3, and 1; before that 7, 2, and 0.)</p>
<p>So over four years:</p>
<p>Caltech: 29
MIT: 12
Harvery Mudd: 4</p>
<p>I think the idea that the number of Harvey Mudd students who get Caltech PhDs somehow establishes any sort of parity with Caltech and/or MIT is pretty thoroughly refuted by these numbers. Even if such a fact <em>could</em> establish equality, we see that the numbers aren't even close, and that the claims made above by the Harvey Mudd trolls--"more Caltech grad students are from Harvey Mudd than MIT," and so on--once again aren't even true in the first place.</p>
<p>One more thing: maybe you guys making the "unfair! unfair!" argument should think about how this sounds from the outside:</p>
<p>-- "Caltech is cool. Lots of amazing people are affiliated with the institute."
-- "Stop trying to pretend you're better than everyone. Who have you got anyway?"
-- "Well, Linus Pauling was a big deal. Discovered the chemical bond. Won a Nobel for Chemistry and for Peace."
-- "Nope! Doesn't count. Graduated with a PhD, AND before our school was founded."
-- "Oh. Well how about William Shockley, who invented the transistor?"
-- "DOESN'T COUNT! Got his BS in 1932, when our school was barely a synapse firing in someone's brain. Stop trying to sneak in this illegitimate crap."
-- "Aww, well how about Gordon Moore, founder of Intel?"
-- "NOOOOOOOOO. Doesn't count. PhD 1954. When you graduated the founder of Intel, we were building our first dormitory. Clearly, he doesn't count. Also, PhD! Doesn't count, doesn't count!"
-- "Well, okay. I see now. Could you tell me what your school has done lately?"
-- "Erm, well here's a list of mid-level scientists and corporate executives, and here's a list of some decent finishes at undergraduate competitions. No Nobels yet or founders any important technology firm, but none of yours count anyway. Gotta go."</p>
<p>Nevermind the fact that a good number of ours DO count even by their very limited criteria. A guy like Osheroff, some other Nobelists, and the only scientist to walk on the Moon (who was, incidentally, a U.S. Senator and is my personal favorite Caltech alum ever)? There's really no comparison here.</p>
<p>Yes. That too.</p>
<p>lizzardfire wrote:
[quote]
Aha, so the hidden bias is revealed. How do you define "leader"? It would make a lot of sense that Harvard and Yale produce more politicians simply because Caltech is a Math, Science, and Engineering school. On the other hand, you'd have a very hard time showing that Harvard and Yale produce more leaders in Math, Science, and Engineering. Unfortunately most politicians aren't smart enough to handle Caltech core.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would take a look at last year's USAMO winners before relegating all Phillips Exeter students to the pits of h*ll (politics). And I'm pretty sure they aren't all rich snobby kids with daddy's money (even though DiamondT is).</p>
<p>And Joe, I'm surprised you criticized rabban's second point when his first is so much more entertaining:
[quote]
1) Pure science: Caltech hands down. Caltech ranks right with the world-class-science-giants like Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton, Berkeley, and Chicago
[/quote]
With the exception of MIT I think most sane people would agree that Caltech is far and above better than all those "world-class-science-giants." In pure sciences I would rank HMC as equal with all those other "science-giants"</p>
<p>mmcduff... I think you misunderstood my statement. I wasn't making a comment about Phillips Exeter students, I was just saying that his statement that "Just as many would say Harvard and Yale produces more leaders than Caltech or MIT..." only makes sense if you are talking about "leaders" in areas that Caltech does not teach to.</p>
<p>I don't see why all this fighting should occur. HMC and Caltech are two of the best sci/math/technology schools in the US. Why don't you collaborate? This is the way advancments can occur. Whats better than 800 of the best Math & Science minds in the country? 1600 of them.</p>
<p>Word. </p>
<p>(I'll take w/e I get into between MIT Caltech HMC & Uchicago)</p>
<p>If you don't understand why the "fighting" occurs (I think of it more as "correcting errors," frankly) then you've never read a post by RocketDA or his ilk. A difference of opinion is one thing; maliciously spreading misinformation is something else entirely.</p>
<p>joe, you of all people should know that truth is relative. </p>
<p>" difference of opinion is one thing; maliciously spreading misinformation is something else entirely."</p>
<p>that's funny... because i have links to all the data that i have quoted. (all but numbers that were supposed to be figurative... like 90% facilities, etc.) perhaps the online data is wrong and the word of mouth is bad, but you are a perfect indicator of the elitism that will make you feel like an ass when you find out who you are talking to.</p>
<p>why did caltech come to me to build the sensors for the HVI in the basement of firestone? </p>
<p>have you picked a fight with someone from caltech's research staff? uh oh...</p>
<p>RocketDA, do you know who you've picked a fight with? One of Caltech's most distinguished students in the past decade, a Rhodes scholar, and an Oxford alumnus, among a few other things. I am sure he is terrified of a Harvey Mudd student who is doing research at Caltech over the summer. How embarassing it is for Joe to offend such an eminence as yourself. By the way, did you get into Caltech, rocketDA? I know, I know, it's not relevant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
because i have links to all the data that i have quoted. (all but numbers that were supposed to be figurative... like 90% facilities, etc.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"I can substantiate all my statements, except for the blatant lies and the numbers that I completely made up." Very good, very good. Cite a single "online source" for any of the three paragraphs full of lies that you told, which I quoted in #31. Oh, what is that you say? All of them are word of mouth? How convenient.</p>
<p>I think it's pretty funny that you are counseling others on how not to look like an ass.</p>
<p>I really wasn't trying to start a fight when I started this thread. I was just interested in potential differences between Caltech and other schools.</p>
<p>Ben and Joe, please just ignore the clowns that post from Harvey Mudd and maybe they will go away.</p>
<p>"I am sure he is terrified of a Harvey Mudd student who is doing research at Caltech over the summer. How embarassing it is for Joe to offend such an eminence as yourself. By the way, did you get into Caltech, rocketDA? I know, I know, it's not relevant."</p>
<p>Ehh, I do say, how do you know I am doing research at Caltech just over the Summer? I've been asked to work year-round until MSL's launch in 2009. This will be a challenge with school, but we'll see how APT works out.</p>
<p>"Cite a single "online source" for any of the three paragraphs full of lies that you told, which I quoted in #31. Oh, what is that you say? All of them are word of mouth? How convenient."</p>
<p>Ben, I already aplogized for many of these remarks. They were made several months ago. Can you let that rest?</p>
<p>I'm sure you are aware of what the qualifications to become a Rhodes Scholar. Much emphasis is put on character... and by the looks of this forum, none of us are exemplary in that field in any way. Rhodes Scholars are not incorrigible and elitists unless they are good actors.</p>
<p>No Ben. I did not get into Caltech. I was too busy not applying as I applied ED to another school and got in. But, you know, I had my MIT interview the night before and MIT was kind of growing on me... ;-)</p>
<p>(Please, in the future, don't misquote me just to **** me off.)</p>
<p>Please just stop posting here rocket.</p>
<p>rocketDA and I have had an offline discussion. He apologized earnestly for attacking Joe's character and for letting his temper get out of control. He and I agreed it would be best if he didn't post on this forum anymore, and I think he'll keep to his word. So I think we can put this whole unpleasant nonsense behind us.</p>
<p>And with that ugly mess (edit: I started typing after rocketDA's last post), I think it's time to let the topic rest. Everyone's said their substative piece, and we're on the brink of full out personal attacks, which make both of our school's look bad.</p>
<p>Really, everyone's on rocketDA's case for two things: the false posts about Caltech from a couple months ago, and posting on the "where do you caltech graduates go" thread. It's pretty clear that he regrets both of those, and so I think we should just give him a break. The vast majority of his posts are both useful and respectful, so I really think we could avoid attacking the guy so adamantly. Besides, it's possible that he had a run in with a few *<em>holes here at Tech (</em>gasp really? not everyone is always nice to summer researchers?). And yeah, of course it would nice if rocketDA restrained from throwing insults himself.</p>
<p>And guys, everyone is going to push their school a little more than they should. When we do it (<em>another gasp</em>) we come off as elitist to them. When they do it they come off as manipulative and misinformational to us. Everyone tries their best to be accurate, but let's just realize that some things are going to be biased, and we need not flame people for that. Rather, we should just point our own view and leave it at that - let the reader decide who has the more convincing version of the truth.</p>
<p>mmcduff wrote:
[quote]
In pure sciences I would rank HMC as equal with all those other "science-giants"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is so laughable i almost spit out my gatorade. Are you saying HMC has world-class-science dept? wow timeout-You gotta be kidding me. Every person with some gary matters up there would know that HMC ranks even far below than Amherst, Williams, Swatty in terms of pure science. The funny thing is AWS is not even world-class!!! No disrespect to HMC or AWS or small LACs for that matter, but HMC and AWS will never be categorized world-class unless they institute world-class PhD programs and start doing serious world-class researches!!!</p>
<p>Rabban, please see post #77, in particular the last sentence.</p>