<p>blast, i think like an idiot at 3 in the morning.</p>
<p>likewise, i wasnt trying to make a real point by citing the friend that i know, but just that personally i make these kinds of judgments based on people that i know.</p>
<p>at the same time, im just saying that because mit admissions is much more holistic, its sometimes harder to judge someone's true potential. heck, mits graduation rate is very high, much higher than caltechs. i think that anyways, my friend will do much better in later years, so i do stand by what i said in saying that mit tries to gauge potential, and that that potential isnt necessarily realized as soon as a student enters mit.</p>
<p>i wrote a lot of stuff in saying what i said, and i dont even remember what i said, but i think i was trying to make this clear earlier, but i guess i obviously didnt.</p>
<p>The biggest difference is that Caltech has more math/science requirements for all students than MIT and must adjust admissions accordingly. Roughly speaking, all Caltech students (regardless of major) must take courses for the first two years that look a lot like the minimal 2yr requirements for an MIT physics major. Moreover I believe that MIT has a wider range of non-formal or non-rigorous math sections in their first year core than Caltech. [Math 1a at Caltech, everyone uses Apostol or the equivalent.] MIT's admissions would have to be different if all the soc sci, biology, linguistics, and architecture students had to take two years of math, and nearly two years of physics plus some chem and bio.</p>
<p>Even at Caltech, adjusting the rigor of the first two years' Core courses has probably been the biggest factor in lowering the drop-out and transfer rate over the last quarter century.</p>
<p>One of the ongoing battles at Caltech is between the faculty who believe in the core and those who argue that premeds and financial wannabees shouldn't be made to slog through all that math and physics.</p>
<p>Pass/Fail is useful only because the grades are adjusted to make passing easy today. When I was a student (a long time ago), perhaps 40% of the entering class got an F in at least one quarter of math or physics.</p>
<p>^"MIT's admissions would have to be different if all the soc sci, biology, linguistics, and architecture students had to take two years of math, and nearly two years of physics plus some chem and bio."</p>
<p>Caltech requires you to take quantum mechanics, whereas MIT doesn't. I don't know if it is a year of quantum mechanics or only a semester. Also, as someone said, Caltech uses Apostol for calculus and Purcell for physics, which are more theoretical versions. MIT does have this option as well, but does not force everyone to do the theoretical version. I don't know if Caltech requires differential equations, but MIT does not. </p>
<p>I don't think the chemistry or bio requirements are different.</p>
<p>This year I met a number of students like me who were admitted
to both Caltech and MIT EA. 80% girls and 20% boys in the small
group of 10 people.</p>