<p>I am trying to decide between Caltech and Stanford for undergraduate mechanical engineering. I like Caltech because I will be able to challege myself at the highest level but I also like Stanford because it's big and has more classes and possibly more opportunities. I also plan on taking advanced physics courses because physics has always been one of my passions. However, I see myself working at Nasa, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Darpa, etc. to develop new technology. I also want to eventually create my own high tech start up. Before I start my career, I plan on applying to mechanical engineering graduate school at Stanford, MIT, and other top schools. Any advice?</p>
<p>Both schools are “top level”, so don’t worry about that.</p>
<p>Also, it’s fine to have graduate school in the back of your mind, but do realize that you may or may not be interested in that 4 or 5 years from now since you haven’t even taken a single undergrad class yet. For example, I didn’t know for sure until my 6th semester.</p>
<p>Also keep in mind that choosing a graduate school is not like choosing an undergraduate school and the name of the school matters very little, compared to the name of your advisor, especially at the PhD level.</p>
<p>I vote for Stanford. My firend’s son went to Caltech and it was not a great social experience for him. The school was too small. His father went to MIT and his experience was much better.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To expand on this, Caltech is known much more as a graduate school and most of its rankings for undergraduate engineering are as a result of their graduate reputation. I, too, have met a fair number of people who have not been happy with the undergraduate experience there.</p>
<p>If your S wants to work at NASA I would say Caltech. He can get a SURF (summer research) at JPL which can give a foot in the door for grad research leading to a job.</p>
<p>@boneh3ad: Just curious about what you posted… You said “Also keep in mind that choosing a graduate school is not like choosing an undergraduate school and the name of the school matters very little” … I’m just wanting to make sure I understand correctly… You’re saying the name of the graduate school you go to doesn’t matter as much as your undergraduate. I guess I thought it was the other way around and that your graduate school is more (or at least equally) as important, in name, as your undergraduate. Wouldn’t a job applicant with a masters from MIT be a little more attractive to some large national companies than one from Regionally Known University X? …ceteris paribus.</p>
<p>Just curious. 
That statement caught my eye.</p>
<p>Generally during the discussions of graduate schools we’re talking about people pursuing a PhD, and not a MS. The difference is that not all very famous professors with the best research are at schools known for being a the best in their field. Often times working with a very well known/respected professor can outweigh having a big name issue your degree. (Though the ideal case is when the top researchers are at the top schools AND you can get in, plus be accepted to their research group. ;)).</p>
<p>That being said, top schools are in a way magnets for good professors, if they want to be.</p>
<p>Kaelin, to reply to you and expand on RacinReaver, there are a few different things that could be meant when talking about “graduate school”:</p>
<p>If you are going to graduate school for a coursework-only MS, likely on the dime of your employer, the name of your school matters almost none since your employer is sending you there so they must respect that institution. You already have a job, and when you are done studying, you go back to that job. By the time you leave that job your experience will trump the name on your graduate degree by far.</p>
<p>If you are going to graduate school for a thesis-based MS degree, the name on the school matters probably equally or slightly more than the advisor you work for. It depends on your field and what sort of jobs you are looking for, but the name of the school on your degree in this case can make a difference in getting you that interview.</p>
<p>If you are going to get a PhD, top-name schools are nice, primarily because they tend to have the top researchers. However, the jobs you are looking for as a PhD are generally much more about the connections you have made through your advisor and your research. In other words, as a PhD, rather than going to the school with the strongest name brand, you typically want to go to the school with the strongest research group in the particular area you are interested in getting into, as they will have a much better chance at getting you into that ultimate career you are looking for. Pedigree matters, but not as much as the network you build, and that network can be almost infinitely bolstered by a good advisor.</p>
<p>All top schools generally have top research groups, but not all top research groups are at top schools. Just keep that in mind.</p>
<p>Caltech is not “known more for its graduate education.” It is known for having an especially strong undergraduate program as well.
I actually would put my vote for Stanford, because even though Caltech is more academically strong in my opinion, Stanford “has the whole package.”</p>
<p>Caltech’s Pros:
I would say that the rigor of Caltech’s undergraduate academics are significantly higher than Stanford’s. You will be challenged to an incredible degree.
There is a 3:1 student faculty ratio, professors see you as equals, and class sizes will be much smaller than Stanford. Remember that Stanford is a large research university with 6.8k undergrads and 8.4k grads, while Caltech only has about 1.2k grads and 1k undergrads.
I also don’t know about Pasadena (where Caltech is in), but another thing is that Palo Alto is a boring suburb with nothing to do. You have to go to San Jose or SF to do anything.</p>
<p>Stanford’s Pros
You will have an easier time. There will be less work, more grade inflation, and you will have more free time to socialize and pursue extracurriculars.
There will be a greater diversity of extracurriculars (I’m not sure if this really matters to you. Caltech will likely have tons of academic and engineering related extracurriculars)
People around you will have more diverse interests (i.e. you will be around humanities majors, etc…)
Stanford has a more “well-rounded” education with top humanities programs. Don’t underestimate the value of communication skills if you ever want to rise through the ranks of a company.
Stanford is more “entrepreneurial.” Venture capitalists are very close by and come to talk frequently, there are lots of events and entrepreneur fellowship programs. It’s actually a little over-the-top. Everyone seems to want to create a startup. It can make you feel a little inadequate if you aren’t into that. Professors at Stanford will also often have many industry contacts with the startup world.</p>
<p>If you’re life’s dream is to found a tech startup, Stanford, I think, wins as well. You also said that later on you might want to do a startup. I’ve talked to startup founders in the past, and a near universal sentiment is that the earlier you start the better, because you are probably going to fail a couple times, but that’s the only way you can learn what to do right (you can’t learn this through business school), and since later on in life you tend to have more obligations and are going to be more risk-averse, whereas when you are young you can afford to take risks. Many said that the best time to start is during college or right afterwards, when you still have lots of energy, you don’t have any obligations/family, you have access to labor, access to professors (who have industry contacts), etc…</p>
<p>Both schools will have incredible physics facilities and research opportunities. At both Stanford and Caltech, anyone who wants a research position will get one.</p>
<p>tl;dr: Caltech is will be much more challenging, with more faculty attention. Stanford will be easier, more well-rounded, and more entrepreneurial.</p>
<p>Thanks for the reply RacinReaver and boneh3ad. 
I understand now. Very insightful! Thank you! And I’ll remember that.</p>
<p>Caltech is absolutely better known for its graduate programs, as are most schools. The undergraduate programs are certainly good but they aren’t the school’s focus. Their reputation gets a boost from the clout of the graduate programs as well. For example, Caltech has a very highly ranked aerospace graduate program (GALCIT). Their undergraduate program is also highly ranked… except they don’t have an undergraduate program. A lot of their (and other schools’) undergraduate clout comes from the strength of the graduate program.</p>
<p>^My point is that Caltech’s undergrad academic focus is stronger relative to Stanford.</p>
<p>You idea that their high grad ranking is responsible for their high undergrad ranking implies that their undergrad program is not strong in of itself, which I do not think is true.</p>
<p>Heck, Caltech’s student faculty ratio is half that of Amherst and Williams, which are both LACs. (though you can argue that some professors at Caltech do not teach)</p>
<p>The student to faculty ratio is not only nearly irrelevant, but it is also influenced by the fact that Caltech admits very few undergrads as their focus is grad school and producing top scientists. Undergrads see some benefit from that, but not anything that a student who is proactive about getting to know his professors at a larger school.</p>
<p>^That is not true. </p>
<p>Caltech certainly admits few undergrads. But it also admits few grads.</p>
<p>Caltech only has about 1.2k grads and 1k undergrads.
Stanford has 7.8k undergrads and 8.4k grads.</p>
<p>As someone who attended undergrad at Caltech, and grad school at Stanford I can tell you this:</p>
<p>Caltech undergrad was the most challenging academic experience I ever had. One of the things they told us during freshman orientation was to look to our left, and look to our right. You or one of the people next to you will not graduate. And this was about the graduation/attrition rate for my class senior year. This is after all of us were straight-A students in high school. Just about every major had a “weed-out” class. The “simpler” majors were the Eng-Applied Science majors which only required Applied Math 95 (ODEs, PDEs, Complex analysis) as the “weed-out” classes which was a very difficult math class, that all the other eng/hard science majors also needed to get through.<br>
There were always stories about people flunking out of caltech, going to MIT, and acing the school. Caltech classes were so difficult for many of us, that we had to band together to do problem sets, which was arguably a great thing. It forced us to cooperate and lean on each other to do our work. It taught us humility after a childhood thinking we were “hot $hit.”</p>
<p>We called Caltech “the firehose of knowledge” which we all took a drink from. We also refer to it as Science/Engineering boot camp, where they break us down, and build us back up again, and we come out with very strong bonds with our fellow techers.</p>
<p>All this talk about Caltech being a grad school more than an undergrad is highly inaccurate. Caltech undergrad was formed directly by Robert A Millikan himself. It is a primary focus of the institution. The grad program basically refers to the top notch professors and research being conducted there. But, across the board, my easiest classes during undergrad were all of my grad level classes, and this was true for all of my fellow undergrads. </p>
<p>After my “training” at Caltech, I went to Stanford and completed a 1-yr master’s degree like a breeze. I got to socialize, and even cook for myself most days. I had time to play pickup basketball, some mild mountain biking, and other fun activities at stanford’s beautiful grad housing facilities.</p>
<p>My opinion is that Stanford grad classes were much easier than my caltech grad level classes, while still providing good information. All of us could tell there was serious grade inflation, and that the undergrads were getting coddled by the school, curving grades around a B+ (compared to Caltech curving around lower grades).</p>
<p>All this said, while I am proud to have survived drinking from the firehose of knowledge, if I had a choice to go to stanford for undergrad, I might have done that instead. Mainly because of the lack of women at Caltech when I was there (which was 3-1 when I went in, and incoming classes when I graduated were 2-1, and I hear it’s about that or better now). But I clearly learned much more at Caltech than I would have at Stanford undergrad.</p>
<p>Choose wisely. Stanford had a much better social life, and extracurriculars. But Caltech had much more actual knowledge, work ethic, and cooperative work training. </p>
<p>-Fong</p>
<p>
According to posts in the Caltech forum, the grading curve in Caltech has changed since when your were a student. For example, in a 2010 post in the Caltech forum, a student wrote
In a post a few weeks ago, a Caltech student said the average GPA at Caltech is a 3.6. That’s higher than the average GPA at Stanford engineering classes.</p>
<p>I can confirm the grade inflation (or at least relative inflation) at Stanford. A good friend of mine graduated from Carengie Mellon with an MS/BS in ECE. He went to Stanford to get a PhD in CS. He had to take some catchup courses in order to start on his graduate work and he nearly cried at how easy it was to get A’s compared to his time at CMU. Similarly my sister in law who did CS undergrad at GaTech got her master’s at Stanford in one year with all A’s.</p>
<p>da6onet, I was an undergrad at CMU and now a grad at Caltech. A couple of my friends went to Stanford for their PhDs, too. They were telling me how easy the classes were, and how it was great to be able to start their research right away. Just gonna say that was far from my experience. Taking ACM 95/100 (complex analysis) with all of the undergrads after not having taken a math class in 4 years plus graduate quantum mechanics with both graduate and undergraduate physics majors when I was neither of those just about kicked my butt my first two years.</p>
<p>I did both my undergrad and grad at Stanford as part of a co-terminal degree program. There is indeed grade inflation, but this doesn’t mean the work is not challenging or it’s easy for everyone to get straight A’s. </p>
<p>After the first major tests during freshman year, they had several counselors come to the dorms to help students cope with getting B’s and C’s for the first time in their lives. My roommates and Stanford students I have known usually recommended the school to the siblings and friends who were accepted. However, sometimes they did not, and when they did not it was always the same reason – the difficulty of the coursework and struggling to keep high up high grades. One used the phrase “struggling to keep our heads above the water.” Many persons I knew as undergrad weren’t able to get into as good a graduate school or medical school as they would have liked because of their grades.</p>
<p>Based on personal experience, I was not challenged in the slightest in high school and was often bored out of my mind, leading to mediocre grades in some areas. During my upperclassmen HS years I took classes at some nearby colleges, some of which have good reputations, such as RPI. They were better than HS, but still not as challenging as I would like. In contrast, Stanford was at the level I desired for the first time in my life and often beyond. This was reflected in really pushing myself to achieve for the first time and better grades, even though the course work and grading was far more difficult. I also had enough time for outside activities like briefly being on a sports team, working part time jobs, and completing both the bachelors and first masters in slightly under 4 years (some of the HS credits were transferable).</p>
<p>The difficult and degree of relative grade inflation varies quite a bit from class to class, and likely from major to major. I had one grad school engineering class where the professor said he didn’t like to give grades below an A because it discourages students. If you did satisfactory work in that class, you could pretty much expect an A. In contrast, I had another class which may have been setup to weed out pre-med students where the difficulty of exams and required speed was such that the average grade was sometimes under 35%. Overall grades were curved to a low B. If you want to be challenged, you can find ways to do so at the school. And if you instead want to maintain a high GPA for grad school with minimal challenge, you can also find ways to do so at the school.</p>