<p>California Institute of Technology - 25%/75%</p>
<p>700-780 - SAT Critical Reading
770-800 - SAT Math<br>
710-780 - SAT Writing<br>
34-35 --- ACT Composite</p>
<p>[2010</a> Incoming Class Profile - Caltech Caltech Undergraduate Admissions](<a href=“http://www.admissions.caltech.edu/applying/profile]2010”>http://www.admissions.caltech.edu/applying/profile)</p>
<p>It looks like it is actually 33/35 for ACT? Pretty ridiculous nonetheless though…</p>
<p>Caltech Common Data Set 2010-11</p>
<p><a href=“http://finance.caltech.edu/budget/cds2011.pdf[/url]”>http://finance.caltech.edu/budget/cds2011.pdf</a></p>
<p>ACT Composite
34-35</p>
<p>=========</p>
<p>and the top ten percent of the class is different also, 98% v. 96%</p>
<p>And now they have won a basketball game. Do you think there is any correlation between their improved scores and their basketball prowess.</p>
<p>and Caltech’s yield was 36% last year. I can think of only a couple of schools that a science/engineering student would go to instead of Caltech.</p>
<p>Sad part is, students applying to Caltech also commonly apply to those science/engineering schools (like Stanford and MIT), end up getting into one of them, and turn down Caltech. In situations like that, the school normally tries to figure out which ones are not likely to attend, but Caltech can’t seem to do that.</p>
<p>IMO one of two things is happening that explains why the SAT scores are so high: either Caltech emphasizes scores more than other schools do, or the students who scored super high on the SAT didn’t get into their preferred science/engineering school and “settled” for Caltech.</p>
<p>Preemptive defense: I don’t dislike Caltech–I love California, institutes of technology, and the Big Bang Theory, and would love it if Caltech>MIT, but when it comes to attracting and competing for the very top students, Caltech just doesn’t measure up to its competitors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not sure about that. Is there any data that is available that shows that MIT wins significantly in the cross admit battle with Caltech?</p>
<p>MIT is too similar to Caltech. I would guess that MIT doesn’t win more than 60/40 to Caltech in cross-admits.</p>
<p>the following are some of the others that might win a higher level of cross-amits against Caltech simply because they have highly ranked science and engineering departments and offer a more well rounded education.</p>
<p>Math/Physics
Harvard
Stanford
Princeton</p>
<p>Biology
Harvard
Stanford
Yale</p>
<p>Chemistry
Harvard
Stanford
UC Berkeley</p>
<p>Engineering
Stanford
Princeton
UC Berkeley</p>
<p>**from Collegeboard:</p>
<p>Students who viewed the profile for California Institute of Technology on collegeboard.com also looked at these schools. We’ve listed the 20 most “also viewed” in descending order of overlap popularity**. </p>
<p>Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts
See Profile </p>
<p>Stanford University
Stanford, California
See Profile </p>
<p>Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
See Profile </p>
<p>Harvard College
Cambridge, Massachusetts
See Profile </p>
<p>University of California: Berkeley
Berkeley, California
See Profile </p>
<p>Princeton University
Princeton, New Jersey
See Profile </p>
<p>Yale University
New Haven, Connecticut
See Profile </p>
<p>Columbia University
New York, New York
See Profile </p>
<p>Duke University
Durham, North Carolina
See Profile </p>
<p>University of California: Los Angeles
Los Angeles, California
See Profile</p>
<p>it’s 25th percentile isn’t even a 2200?? weak! (jk)</p>
<p>wow, 34-35 is pretty amazing.</p>
<p>^hahahah it did. The composite score was 2200 at the 25th percentile. Not too high, right?</p>
<p>I think the reason for the low yield is the college experience factor. As great as it is, Caltech is a tiny school filled with nothing but math and science geniuses. If someone is admitted to Caltech, they’re probably getting into any other school. I’m sure many of their admits choose MIT, Stanford and others for the larger size and more traditional college experience.</p>
<p>… in this thread, but…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think Cal Tech emphasizes scores more… let’s say to the detriment of grades… nor to the detriment of EC’s because the vast majority of their graduates are probably top 2% and most have probably won science fairs, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s probably a valid point. CIT grads are self-admittedly pretty ackward socially. But one hears the same description for the science grads at MIT and Stanford. None of these would be the social animal one would find at, say, ASU or maybe even UCLA.</p>
<p>I think the most valid reason for CIT’s high scores is because there are NO legacy admits. A school so science-oriented and important to supplying the country’s science corps can’t be legacy intensive.</p>
<p>^^Even if those in Pasadena are not “awkward socially” the fact is that Caltech is a small school in a suburban (read = boring for college kids) city. MIT offers so much more than math/science: great econ department, great linguistics, great biz, great city, and cross-registration with that other college in Cambridge for those that want to take even more lit/humanities courses (and boost their gpa). Stanford offers engineers essentially the same.</p>
<p>I’m not sure about Cambridge, funny remark btw about ‘(and boost their gpa)’… but Stanford/Palo Alto, Santa Clara County (add San Mateo) is ‘boring’ suburbia also. Rich as parts of Pasadena surrounding communities can be, but suburbia and therefore boring nonetheless. </p>
<p>Stanford students can cross the Bay Bridge into SF, I guess, ride BART, etc… but CIT students can venture off to LA too. I don’t think they would, but they have that same option.</p>
<p>drax, it’s the students at Cal who can cross the Bay Bridge and ride BART to San Francisco. </p>
<p>I think Chardo is spot-on for why Caltech’s yield is low. It would be interesting to compare Olin’s yield, though the auto-half-tuition scholarship there is going to make it a big draw. </p>
<p>And hey, no need to rag on Pasadena. Sure, it’s no Boston. It isn’t filled with college students and bars, but it’s not as unutterably dull as some here seem to think. There’s good food up and down the price scale. Old Town has tons of pedestrians, especially on weekend nights. There’s the rapid transit Gold Line which runs to downtown, making the Pasadena to LA trip comparable to the Berkeley to San Francisco run on BART. But none of that is why anyone chooses Caltech. :)</p>
<p>… I got my Bay Area schools mixed up.</p>
<p>Stanford is on the same peninsula as SF, so they just go up the Serra to SF.</p>
<p>I was even thinking of posting something about Pasdena Old Town.</p>
<p>
Indeed there is. Question has been partially asked and answered. Caltech is (with some critical assumptions) preferred to MIT, and also to Stanford.</p>
<p>Here is the long version (original paper): [SSRN-A</a> Revealed Preference Ranking of U.S. Colleges and Universities by Christopher Avery, Mark Glickman, Caroline Hoxby, Andrew Metrick](<a href=“http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=601105#PaperDownload]SSRN-A”>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=601105#PaperDownload) On page 44, Overall, STEM, and Humanities preferences are listed. In other portions of the paper, the Caltech v. MIT is also
answered, in chart form on page 31. There are some critical assumptions in the construction of the comparisons that are problematic for me. Caltech is assumed to be preferred to MIT because Caltech is preferred to Yale, and Yale is preferred to MIT. The problem is that the average Caltech aspirant is not very much like the typical Yale aspirant, and the same hold for Yale to MIT.</p>
<p>as to why a STEM student given the choice of Stanford, Caltech and MIT might not choose Caltech:</p>
<p>MIT:
-stronger Humanities/Social Sciences offerings (e.g. Sloan business)
-better female/male ratio
-the Harvard cross enrollment priviledges
-much larger student body
-prefers East Coast, or Boston in particular</p>
<p>Stanford:
- same as first two points in MIT section
- Proximity to Cal Berkeley for collaborative research
- location within Silicon Valley for networking, internships, research, employment
- Big Time sports
- 8x as many students
- Hot chicks (in comparison) :)</p>
<p>All of those considerations are compelling, and lead me to wonder if the SSRN study has some fatally flawed assumptions as regards Caltech in particular vs. more comprehensive colleges.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Other than the revealed preference study, I don’t know of any. But how would you explain why Caltech has a 36% yield? That yield is even lower than UCLA’s and Berkeley’s; it’s half what Stanford and MIT have.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is exactly what I’m saying. But the “college experience factor” is not an excuse for Caltech. Plenty of other schools, like MIT, are able to pick out the right students, the ones who want the “college experience” specific to that college. That’s why they have a high yield. Thus, that’s why I said that Caltech can’t seem to do that; it’s picking the students who don’t fit the college, or who don’t think they fit the college, so Caltech has to settle for “MIT and Stanford’s left overs.”</p>
<p>The greater question is, why is Caltech providing an environment that students *think *they want, but flee from if they have the chance (i.e. they apply but get in elsewhere and choose that instead)? I think the answer to this is the same reason that Caltech has a “low” graduation rate–something like 89%. MIT manages two things well: one, to provide an environment that is conducive both to attracting students and to graduating them; and two, to pick the right students who are most likely to attend and graduate. Caltech seems to struggle with this. If anyone’s “drinking from the fire hose,” it’s Caltech students. That is not something to be proud of–especially when more than 10% of the student body drops out or transfers.</p>
<p>Let’s take a look at the other one of the “big three” in top engineering schools:</p>
<p>Enrollment Yields
36% - Caltech
31% - Harvey Mudd</p>
<p>With the 4 other Claremont colleges surrounding it, Harvey Mudd provides a more well rounded social environment - one of the complaints about Caltech - yet the yield is still relatively low for the caliber of institution.</p>
<p>Maybe it is just the small enrollment of the schools - a little small for most potential students</p>
<p>Undergraduates
763 - Harvey Mudd
951 - Caltech</p>