<p>
[quote]
The average undergrad at MIT definitely doesn't take quantum mechanics or a math course from Apostol's book. That's not my opinion. That's a fact. As far as I can tell that takes care of your last post.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You and I both know that taking a class doesn't necessarily mean learning or retention of material...</p>
<p>Sure, but having been here for four years, people do benefit from courses even if they don't learn all of the material. Just the challenge has been worth it to the vast majority of students that I know -- and among the alums this feeling is even stronger.</p>
<p>
You and I both know that some classes are much more about teaching people how to think rather than 'learning or retention of the material.'</p>
<p>
Are you suggesting that everyone's opinion is necessarily equally correct regardless of how much he or she actually knows? Think about how ridiculous that sounds for a minute, please.</p>
<p>
I think there's a giant dearth of reliable post-graduate success data. You can look at things like average salary, but then that could be skewed by more engineering majors vs. math and science majors at each school. Alternatively, you could try to look at PhD rate, but that's not fair for the opposite reason. All be told, I've seen no metrics that I would trust regarding how Caltech grads compare to MIT grads. </p>
<p>That lack of post-graduation evidence, however, doesn't leave us without anyway to evaluate which school can provide the 'better' education. What we have to do if identify which traits we associate with improving education rate. In essence, it's what USNEWS does (but of course, the most logical weighing system is likely vastly different for comparing two tech schools than the accepted one).</p>
<p>You look at things like research opportunities, quality of undergraduate students, ease of getting research, course offerings/requirements, student life, student/faculty ratio, and yes, you look at graduation rate.</p>
<p>Every student will personally weigh those attributes based on his or her desires and needs, afterwhich they will maximize their perceived utility. </p>
<p>All I have really been saying this whole time is that, if you understand the typical populations who are accepted to Caltech (and more importantly and subtly those who should attend Caltech), the lower graduation rate is often not as important as for other schools. Hence, to actually answer the question of this thread, the graduation rate is probably 'overrated' when it comes to Caltech.</p>
<p>cghen,</p>
<p>Retention is pretty important for those going into the sciences, however. If I want to actually go on and become a ______, I need to master the basics. No matter how well I can think, if I haven't learned the most basic concepts I'm effectively screwed.</p>
<p>It's like teaching someone a language, and then expecting them to "get it" if they don't understand how conjugations occur.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Retention is pretty important for those going into the sciences, however.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course it is, and the Caltech students who go on to use advanced math or physics on a daily basis certainly do retain what they learn in math and physics. As for students for whom it is not directly relevant, it teaches them how to think.</p>
<p>In any case, the point is kind of moot. Of course students will learn some and miss some of what they see in their required classes. That's the same at any school. But requiring more classes increases the average amount learned.</p>
<p>I'm not arguing that. I just wonder whether or not CalTech is necessarily (note the qualifier) preparing its students for a wide variety of careers as MIT is.</p>
<p>Yes, math and science can teach someone to think. But then again, so can logic classes for a philosophy major (even though the hardcore natural science types may scoff.) Believe me, I'm not trying to impugn CalTech's quality as an institution, but whether or not it's just that much better than MIT...I find that hard to swallow, myself.</p>
<p>
Yes, you are of course correct. It's of the utmost importance to learn things in one's specialty. </p>
<p>I think that I was a bit too curt in my statement to make my actual point. </p>
<p>I was also trying to indirectly explain to sakky why it's important for biologists to take quantum mechanics. Specfically, I was trying to suggest that it's not always about what knowledge you acquire, but how you are able to think and learn new things. </p>
<p>It's no wonder, for example, that math, physics and engineering majors are highly valued on wallstreet even though the content they've learned may only indirectly relate. </p>
<p>It's admirable that Caltech attempts to expose all graduates to such a valuable way of looking at the world despite the difficulties it entails!</p>
<p>My only issue with it pedagogically is whether or not this is necessarily good. Of course we need scientists who are capable of crossing specialty lines-- after all, biologists need some chemistry, chemists need some physics, and physicists...umm...well...anyway.</p>
<p>But in this world of increasing specialization and compartmentalization, is this feasible anymore? Can we actually teach students to be masters of all trades, jacks of none? Is this the most "value/dollar" that CalTech can offer?</p>
<p>I mean, administrators at CalTech seem to believe-- ostensibly, at least-- that four semesters of math will produce better _________. Perhaps it will. But if that's the case, then why do MIT grads seem to do comparably well in the marketplace and grad school pool? Yes, the pursuit of knowledge qua knowledge is a wonderful thing, but let's face it: you can learn anything you want from a book. You go to college to get certified. Otherwise, we'd all just be reading the same stuff at home, saving our money.</p>
<p>Well, I wouldn't...I'm not self-motivated enough, but you get my point. A degree is a tool, and the school is the seller of that tool. It's crass, but it's something that should be considered, I think.</p>
<p>
No argument from me here (though I think you're stereotyping 'hardcore natural science types' like myself). Both Caltech and MIT do try to make sure that undergraduates have a pretty significant exposure to such (or similar) things, and such courses can be pretty valuable. </p>
<p>
But you don't see how it could be 'that much better' for some people? Try to put yourself into the perspective of people who apply to Caltech and evaluate the pros and cons; there are several incredibly important benfits that no other school can offer - it's truly unique. Of course there are also negatives that come along with the benefits (I've never not stated that), but the differences in 'quality' can be significant depending on personal priorities - certainly enough to overcome graduation rate (the least of concerns to most applicants!).</p>
<p>
It's a balance to be sure - neglecting either breadth or depth will get you in trouble.</p>
<p>If I'm reading you right, though, you're suggesting that Caltech students don't have enough knowledge in their specialty? You're free to think that if you wish, but you certainly hold the minority opinion!</p>
<p>
I'm curious, what data do you base this assertion on? As I said earlier in this thread, I have nothing to dispute you, but I've never been convinced by any post-graduate data. And to summerize post #84, in the lack of such evidence, I have to base my conclusions on which school has the best qualities I think are important to an education. </p>
<p>
Really? You can learn anything you want from a book? If that's how you feel, it makes much more sense to me why you think MIT is better for everyone than Caltech. </p>
<p>All I ask is that whenever you express such an opinion, you openly present that you think academic quality has very bearing on the value of a college education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No argument from me here (though I think you're stereotyping 'hardcore natural science types' like myself). Both Caltech and MIT do try to make sure that undergraduates have a pretty significant exposure to such (or similar) things, and such courses can be pretty valuable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not you in particular, just natural science majors in general. Us "fluff" majors are pretty used to being impugned...</p>
<p>
[quote]
But you don't see how it could be 'that much better' for some people? Try to put yourself into the perspective of people who apply to Caltech and evaluate the pros and cons; there are several incredibly important benfits that no other school can offer - it's truly unique. Of course there are also negatives that come along with the benefits (I've never not stated that), but the differences in 'quality' can be significant depending on personal priorities - certainly enough to overcome graduation rate (the least of concerns to most applicants!).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Point taken.</p>
<p>As always, schools are a personal affair.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If I'm reading you right, though, you're suggesting that Caltech students don't have enough knowledge in they're specialty? You're free to think that if you wish, but you certainly hold the minority opinion!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not at all. I'm saying that Caltech is trying to build renaissance men and women in an era when it may be impossible. But what you'll have are people who are well-rounded, but maybe at the cost of an additional number of the student population (higher attrition rate.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm curious, what data do you base this assertion on? As I said earlier in this thread, I have nothing to dispute you, but I've never been convinced by any post-graduate data. And to summerize post #84, in the lack of such evidence, I have to base my conclusions on which school has the best qualities I think are important to an education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Companies that recruit there, presence at top grad programs, representation in top fields, etc. I mean, it's not like MIT got its reputation out of thin air. Nor did Caltech.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Really? You can learn anything you want from a book? If that's how you feel, it makes much more sense to me why you think MIT is better for everyone than Caltech.</p>
<p>All I ask is that whenever you express such an opinion, you openly present that you think academic quality has very bearing on the value of a college education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Academic quality does matter, because it means that you work with equally talented and intelligence people, and get guidance from better qualified superiors. But pure knowledge itself can be obtained from a book. I mean, I know a couple of people who just taught themselves enough accounting to get a CPA...no easy feat, you might imagine. I know another guy who self-taught himself programming (C++ and perl) and is now doing webdesign. His major? Cog.sci.</p>
<p>
Okay, I understand - you're speaking more philosophically than specifically. </p>
<p>You do raise an interesting point: we're certainly not in the middle ages where one person could learn everything known about medicine, law, and science. Today, maybe it's a little idealistic to think that scholars can still know the basics in multiple scientific subjects while still being deep enough topically do do novel research. I don't think I have the authority to answer that question, but I hope that science doesn't become too similar to an assembly line where outside knowledge 'gets in the way' of specialization. Maybe I'm idealistic.</p>
<p>
Do you have actual numbers/data or are these just your impressions?</p>
<p>
Yes!</p>
<p>
Okay, you're generally right here - pure knowledge can be obtained from a book; however, that's certainly not the best way! I'd much rather have an expert in the field explain the subject matter. He or she can pinpoint the difficulties in the subject and provide feedback that no book can provide. </p>
<p>Also, it's worth saying that you do reach a point in education where books have not yet been written! There, your only hope is to have access to the people on the forefront of the field. Also, individual scientific research should not be neglected in a technical education, and the better the facilities, the better the results and learning.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You do raise an interesting point: we're certainly not in the middle ages where one person could learn everything known about medicine, law, and science. Today, maybe it's a little idealistic to think that scholars can still know the basics in multiple scientific subjects while still being deep enough topically do do novel research. I don't think I have the authority to answer that question, but I hope that science doesn't become too similar to an assembly line where outside knowledge 'gets in the way' of specialization. Maybe I'm idealistic.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I used to believe in a more renaissance model...then I started working. <em>BZZZT</em> UCLAri-bot came online <em>BZZZT</em>. Sad but true.</p>
<p>That reminds me of an article I read about how much jealousy there is between specific sub-fields of evolutionary biology-- if you do one thing, you stay there, dammit! Don't you dare deign to know the complexities of MY field, you Y fielder! This is X field, for goodness' sake!</p>
<p>Well, that was the gist of it. It happens all the time in poli sci and econ, too. I think all this compartmentalization, while allowing us the ability really explore the details of the universe and our world, is also making people into nanobots. But that's a different discussion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you have actual numbers/data or are these just your impressions?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please don't think of this as a copout, but I did...not on this computer, though. I had some cross-school cross-major data that showed median incomes and representation at top grad programs. On a per-capita basis, both MIT and Caltech seemed to perform pretty much on par with one another.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Okay, you're generally right here - pure knowledge can be obtained from a book; however, that's certainly not the best way! I'd much rather have an expert in the field explain the subject matter. He or she can pinpoint the difficulties in the subject and provide feedback that no book can provide.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Absolutely.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, it's worth saying that you do reach a point in education where books have not yet been written! There, your only hope is to have access to the people on the forefront of the field. Also, individual scientific research should not be neglected in a technical education, and the better the facilities, the better the results and learning.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No arguments here, other than the act that most undergrads (even at Caltech) are never going to reach those frontiers in four years. It's exceedingly rare, especially thanks to all the compartmentalization I'm bemoaning.</p>
<p>And really, something tells me that MIT's facilities aren't too shabby, either. </p>
<p>But you don't have to say it. It's okay. ;)</p>
<p>
I don't doubt it. I am personally curious to ever see such data, though. Next time you have access (if you remember), if you could PM me a link, I'd really appreciate it. </p>
<p>
I'll quote that for truth.</p>
<p>This debate has turned into a snugglefest in my absence :).</p>
<p>Actually, I agree with most of what's been said. A small amount of personal perspective: I'm very glad Caltech taught me quantum mechanics and statistical physics and organic chemistry because I'd never have time to even look at those things otherwise. Nowadays it takes me two weeks before I get around to looking at an important paper in my own subfield that's not directly related to my work at the moment. Caltech works hard to stuff a lot of smartness in our heads before we become little superspecialized bots like everyone else, and there's something to that. I think that's what keeps good students coming despite the fact that it's risky.</p>
<p>Sakky's disappeared, but I imagine his first instinct would be to say "nobody's stopping you from taking the Caltech core at any school you want -- certainly you could take those courses at MIT". And the truth is, people could, but few people ever would when push comes to shove. It's that pressure to specialize and focus and not "waste" good energy that UCLAri was talking about. </p>
<p>So that's why people see value in committing before the fact to a rigorous core. It's a way to prevent yourself from weaseling out. That does mean that some people will have committed to more than they can swallow and will end up getting hurt, but a much bigger number of others will have gotten a lot out of committing to something they can do and want to do, but wouldn't have the self-discipline to do "entirely voluntarily".</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you suggesting that everyone's opinion is necessarily equally correct regardless of how much he or she actually knows? Think about how ridiculous that sounds for a minute, please.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>um, Did i say that everyone's opinion is equally CORRECT? Can you point to the post where I said that everyone's opinion is equally CORRECT? All I said is that a person offers ONE view / opinion / assessment, nothing more. I also said that a person can have a view or make a choice that works FOR THAT PERSON (and that person alone). When in the world did I say that everyone's view / opinion / assessment is CORRECT? Please refer to that. Otherwise, think about how ridiculous that sounds, please.</p>
<p>It amazes me the sheer brass that some people have totally making things up for their own convenience and then attacking these made up statements. It's either:</p>
<p>A) Massive ignorance, or
B) Flatout dishonesty</p>
<p>You were the one who implied (post #70) that Caltech's challenging courses mean that it's "every man for himself". Evidently you are comfortable saying things that are entirely false for your convenience.</p>
<p>In any case, cghen is right in this situation. The post he quoted definitely implied that you think my evaluation of Caltech's difficulty is just a judgment call. But you're wrong about that. In th is case, my evaluation is a matter of fact. Caltech is more difficult in terms of the courses people are required to take and the work they have to put in to get a given grade. Your relativism (one man, one view) is not so effective when you appear to know little about the institutions you criticize. I think that's all he was saying.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In any case, cghen is right in this situation. The post he quoted definitely implied that you think my evaluation of Caltech's difficulty is just a judgment call. But you're wrong about that. In th is case, my evaluation is a matter of fact. Caltech is more difficult in terms of the courses people are required to take and the work they have to put in to get a given grade. Your relativism (one man, one view) is not so effective when you appear to know little about the institutions you criticize. I think that's all he was saying.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Man. Unbelievable. </p>
<p>first of all, when in the world did i say that Caltech's DIFFICULTY is just a judgment call? STOP --- TWISTING --- MY ---- WORDS.</p>
<p>I said that the NET BENEFIT of graduating from a school with a lower graduation rate is not substantially higher vs. a comparable school with a higher graduation rate. When in the world did i say ANYTHING about Caltech's difficulty being a judgment call?</p>
<p>I'll say it once more: STOP TWISTING AROUND MY WORDS FOR YOUR OWN PURPOSES. PLEASE STICK TO WHAT I HAVE ACTUALLY POSTED.</p>