Easier to get into CalTech??

Colleges and Universities A-Z California Institute of Technology
41

<p>^^I really don't agree with your first sentence, although I do agree with the last sentence. There aren't enough spots to admit everybody with sky-high test scores at Caltech as their incoming class is like 200 people. And the SAT is so easy (esp. the math part) that it doesn't tell you enough. It's more like that you'd better be 750+ on the math/science parts or they will wonder whether you can handle CalTech. </p>

<p>Grades are as important as test scores, especially your math/science classes. Perfect or near-perfect test scores and grades are more like a pre-requisite rather than something that will get you in. (I know there are exceptions, like maybe some guy qualified for USAMO but got a B in biology might get in.)</p>

<p>I would say the typical profile of the CalTech admit:
1. straight "A's" or A+'s in school
2. highest grade in all math/science classes
3. math/science recs say that they are the smartest person that year or in several years coming from that high school
4. 1500+/1600 on SATI, 750-800 on math SATI
5. 800 on Math SATII (very generous curve here, so this isn't hard)
6. 750+ on science SATIIs
7. done well in math and science competitions (maybe state medals)
8. if they took AMC, qualified for AIME
9. an attitude that they are really doing everything they can to get everything out of their education (i.e., get 100% avg. in math/science classes, taking summer classes if possible, doing projects on the side)
10. intense student in general</p>

<p>In general, I'd say getting sky-high test scores and grades is necessary but not sufficient to get into CalTech. I think the thing that gets you in are the recommendations. They had better say that you are one of the smartest people they have ever seen, especially if you go to a regular public school.</p>

<p>Incidentally, as recently as 10 years ago the above "formula" to get in was true about MIT.</p>

42

<p>^^
Yeah, that's basically what I meant (cept in a more brash way)...obviously everyone (kids get below 700 in CR and not all kids are in the top 10% of their class) is not all those things but certainly a way higher percentage than any of it's peer schools. If you have those things collegealum posted, it would be surprising if you didn't get in. Actually to be honest, I didn't know about the teacher recs...but that makes a lot of sense so I'll take it to be true.</p>

43

<p>Fred, please stop stating as fact your misperceptions of Caltech. It would, in fact, not at all be surprising if you had everything collegealum posted and still didn't get in (which he explicitly states in his post). I'm sorry that Caltech is not the paragon of human quantification that you think it is, you're simply incorrect.
For instance, my best friend in high school and I both applied to Caltech. He was more qualified than me on every quantitative metric, yet he was rejected while I was accepted. This is not an isolated case. Caltech admissions does make qualitative decisions, a fact you will have to accept.</p>

44

<p>Also, I'm guessing Fred doesn't go to Caltech much less is he involved with admissions so anything he says should be taken as such.</p>

45

<h1>41 Collegealum314: I think your assessment of a "typical" admit is right on. Your list sums up my son succinctly. As I see it, the true passion for math and science is a must for anyone interested in getting into Caltech. As for test scores, look at the mid-ranges at the schools. I believe Caltech's are the highest, undoubtedly contributing to the self-selective nature of the applicant pool. The test score mid-range, coupled with the small size of the school, would scare off many potential applicants.</h1>

<p>My son applied to Caltech after we had read Daniel Golden's book. It seemed pretty clear that Caltech is one of the few highly selective schools where the admissions process has integrity. At the same time, choosing a school is a lot about fit. Caltech seemed a good match for my son's strengths and interests.</p>

<h1>33 Craig Montuori: I agree. Daniel Golden's book The Price of Admission is a must-read for anyone trying to look for differences in the admissions process between Caltech and other highly selectives. Golden's Senate testimony reiterates his conclusions:</h1>

<p><a href="http://www.senate.gov/%7Efinance/hearings/testimony/2005test/120506dgtest.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.senate.gov/~finance/hearings/testimony/2005test/120506dgtest.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

46

<p>out of the 5 neighboring hs in our area, 3 valedictorians are MIT bound this fall, 1 is heading to New Haven, CT. and the other is heading to GT.</p>

47

<p>Thank you for that penetrating insight, leftylafty. Rarely have I encountered such a knack for providing a relevant bit of evidence.</p>

<p>(Compare:</p>

<p>A: The typical Nobel laureate has a Ph.D.
B: But of the 5 Ph.D.'s in my area, four are unremarkable and one is a goat.
Audience: Ooooh! Ahhhh!)</p>

48

<p>Responding to some posts from page two...</p>

<p>I don't think that Marilee Jones' vision was bad at all. And I especially don't think asian males need to express themselves as some kind of anti-nerd. On my application I outright stated I aimed to be (and currently am) a total super nerd at MIT with no intention to study anything in phiilosophy or deep moral reasoning or anything like that. In fact, if you are a nerd, then you are probably best off marketing yourself as a "nerd." Trying to appear as something you aren't just starts making you look ****ty in all areas.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I think her term "fit" / "match" is about as good as it gets. For MIT, assuming that you will likely have a top 200-400 students in your student body just as good as Caltech's student body, it's important to find people with vision, and who take chances. Remember that MIT is home to a lot of entrepreneur spirit.</p>

<p>At least IMO (and MO is obviously just an opinion) Caltech's approach of having rock solid grades, good test scores, etc gives this feeling like if you go to Caltech they will train you to become a great scientist. Whereas I (and I think many others going to MIT who I have met) have no intention of following someone else's schedule (I have my own plans) and it seems that MIT gives me more of this freedom. </p>

<p>I remember Ben Golub said a while back that getting good grades should be like a day job and then you can do your other stuff after you just get the good grades taken care of. I've never been able to do this (probably why I was waitlisted at caltech), but instead spent my time learning things like Lisp, Matlab + Mathematica, my own private research (simulation engine programming), compiler design, getting fluent with 'nix as my development environment, etc on my own. For me being an EECS, it seems equally important to know these things as it does to just take classes. I also took many of the classes most kids at my school (which regularily sends 5+ to caltech, and 10+ to MIT) take their senior year during my freshmen/sophomore/junior years, and sometimes got slightly lower grades than if I had taken them as a more mature senior. But life's all curve ball's right?</p>

<p>That being said, of course people can always respond with anecdotes about some guy who wrote such and such for google at caltech, or some other guy who did something something. But I'm talking about overall. </p>

<p>PS: I harbor no nasty thoughts towards either schools, and especially envy caltech's student body for having many characteristics I don't have (No quantum physics for me!).</p>

49

<p>That was a very well written post, and I agree with the substance, too! Kudos.</p>

50

<p>Ben, I take offense to your post. Professor Blanderschmitt may like to eat paper, but that does not make him a goat!</p>

51

<p>It's disgusting how CalTech doesn't utilize AA...and I'm not saying that just because I'm black</p>

52

<p>Why should it?</p>

53

<p>ikwame -- It's not disgusting, it's noble. A handout just for being black is no better than a handout just for being white. </p>

<p>Taking account of actual disadvantage, as Caltech does, is good. Taking account of skin pigment for its own sake is *bad<a href="as%20I%20would%20think%20minorities%20know%20best%20of%20all">/i</a>.</p>

<p>But if you love affirmative action so much, there are plenty of universities out there perfectly happy to judge you on a different, inferior scale just because you're black. I'm sure that's not disgusting to you at all.</p>

54

<p>I agree with Ben...Why should we hold people to lower standards just because of their skin color???</p>

55

<p>


You'd rather they admitted people who couldn't handle the (difficult) core requirements? I think that would be far more cruel.</p>

56

<p>
[Quote]

You'd rather they admitted people who couldn't handle the (difficult) core requirements? I think that would be far more cruel.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>Nahhh... it'd be fun to torture the would-be English majors..... hehe....</p>

<p>Let me have my fun. Pwease?</p>

57

<p>Caltech MUST practice holistic admissions in the narrow sense that Caltech is a Common Application college, and all Common Application colleges pledge to use a "holistic" rather than by-the-numbers approach to admission. But that doesn't mean that Caltech's approach to ethnic variation in its applicant pool will be just like some other holistic school's.</p>

58

<p>just wondering
is caltech is still considering the "anti-nerd" factor that was previously mentioned?
....not that im "anti-nerd"....
in fact..... :P</p>

59

<p>The recent admissions task force was mentioned previously in this thread, and as I'm one of the two undergraduates on that committee, I feel that I can help provide a glimpse of what's actually going on.</p>

<p>First of, we are not looking to institute affirmative action. At no point in the process have we been looking to institute affirmative action.</p>

<p>Now, for what we are doing.</p>

<p>I'll address the question of ethnic diversity. You can say that Caltech isn't a very ethnically diverse place, and in some respects, that's true. You can also say that Caltech isn't a very well known place, and again, in some respects, that's true. These two facts have an interesting link between them that serves as a good example of things we're looking into with this admissions committee. Caltech is better known in Southern California than anywhere else (I think that this is a relatively safe assumption. Certainly Caltech is better known in Southern California than it is in, say, Puerto Rico. Now, if we can increase our name recognition in Puerto Rico to the level that it exsits in Southern California, then purely based off of geography, we'll increase the number of minority students applying to Caltech, and likely increase the number of minority students accepted into Caltech. Of course, Puerto Rico isn't the only place we need to work on our name recognition, it's just a great example of a way to increase diversity (through equalizing factors like name recognition) without instituting affirmative action.</p>

60

<p>could you comment on the anti-nerd train of thought michael?</p>