<p><a href=“Nevermind%20that%20in%20a%20scientific%20career,%20you%20may%20have%20long%20stretches%20where%20you%20do%20devote%20every%20waking%20hour%20to%20science.”>quote</a>
[/quote]
Sigh. </p>
<p>(I am currently eating take-out on the couch, debating whether to go back to writing my thesis or go to bed.)</p>
<p>Congratulations! That was fast work! I am assuming that you are still up, mollie!
Best wishes for the next step in your career.</p>
<p>I think that was right around when I went to bed. 
I’m trying to write my thesis and get two papers out at the same time, and it’s fairly exhausting, to say the least. </p>
<p>But thanks so much! I’ll defend in late October, and then I’m starting a postdoc in a great lab in the spring.</p>
<p>Quant Mech, the thing I don’t get is, “they admit people reluctantly” that’s your point. Why would a school do that for 150+ years?</p>
<p>Actually I’m sorry. I think I was still unclear. In your view, people who get into MIT are on the same boat with the ones denied, deferred or waitlisted. If they are all equal on Ad. Officers’ eyes, shouldn’t they admit or deny everyone?
Where did you get the vibe they think no one deserves admission? What makes MIT Admission different than other Ivies, for example Harvard and Yale? Is your view for admission the same for them? I mean I just want you to clarify your view a bit more.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They didn’t. There was a new admissions director who was appointed in 1998 that had radically new ideas on what the admissions philosophy should be. Before that, MIT’s admissions policy was almost indistinguishable from Caltech. That admissions director left about 5 years ago. I think things have somewhat gone back to normal, but a lot of her influence remains. </p>
<p>The ivies are even worse in terms of weighing nonacademic factors, though, including weighing personality. For instance, I was told by a Harvard admissions rep that they admitted a bunch of people who sent a shoe in with their application and said, “Now that I’ve got one foot in the door, let in the rest of me.” They thought it was funny. </p>
<p>As to “why” they would do such a thing, that is a loaded question. For one, they get so many good people that their academic reputation won’t be harmed by taking people that are good but not outstanding academically. Secondly, it’s not like everybody in the university got together and made these decisions. It was more likely a small cadre of people, led by the old admissions director. The university professors, including the administration, got to where they are by working like crazy and not making waves about stuff that didn’t affect their research.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People representing the admissions office have said this explicitly. </p>
<p>If you are international, things may be somewhat more rational because there is probably a higher priority in grabbing the academic stars due to the quota limiting international admits.</p>
<p>Nope, I’m a US citizen but my native language is different.
Thanks for all the info, I didn’t know they did have such a philosophy. By the way what is Caltech’s philosophy? Can you explain briefly?</p>
<p>Caltech is looking for the strongest math/science/engineering students they can find. I think that educational context is taken into account to some extent by their admissions office, but there is little extra weight for it. They do not have much interest in your non-science EC’s. It is harder for international students to get into Caltech (as elsewhere), though.</p>
<p>Sandra Tsing Loh’s 2005 Caltech commencement speech gives an idea of what student life at Caltech is like:
[[FoRK</a>] [archive] Sandra Tsing Loh’s Caltech commencement speech](<a href=“http://www.xent.com/pipermail/fork/Week-of-Mon-20050613/036623.html][FoRK”>http://www.xent.com/pipermail/fork/Week-of-Mon-20050613/036623.html)</p>
<p>The Feynman Lectures on Physics (3 volume set) were the introductory physics course at Caltech when Feynman taught it. Calc 1 is taught from Apostol.</p>
<p>If you look on YouTube, you can find a few humorous videos about the problem sets at Caltech.</p>
<p>A friend of mine went to Caltech (many years ago now) and decided to leave after a single year. When the university to which he transferred (a good one by CC standards) completed their correspondences to the content of his Caltech courses, he wound up with two years of credit. </p>
<p>In the olden days, Caltech used to fail quite a large fraction of the students in introductory calculus (20-40%). Two of my colleagues failed calculus at Caltech and went on to have outstanding scientific careers. I think Caltech has adopted a kinder, gentler grading system since then, but they still have one of the most demanding sets of classes around.</p>
<p>Caltech is quite small in terms of the overall undergraduate class size, and the group of students is not very diverse. In combination, its atmosphere means that it is not really a good fit for some people who are quite committed to science and quite bright.</p>
<p>Thanks a lot for your explanation. I appreciate it!</p>