<p>"...at Caltech they dont teach you anything..." </p>
<p>Was it said in bravado, casual conversation? And no social life? Would Caltech alums please explain?</p>
<p>
I mean, this is also a huge exaggeration. The legitimate point that TooRichForAid was alluding too was the general argument of a LAC vs. a research institution, in that you get more professor interaction (generally) in the former and more independent students (generally) in the later. </p>
<p>Specifically for Caltech, it makes no qualms about not having professors hand-hold students through an education; the professors provide the resources and are there to answer questions for students who seek them out. I think you'd find that the professors' actual lectures are for more theoretical and abstract than other schools (in general) and often have very little direct application to the assigned homework. Hence, it's generally the student's responsibility to build on that abstract/theoretical framework and be able to apply it to (quite difficult) problems which build or extend on the presented material. </p>
<p>Of course, none of this is done in isolation, and there are many ways to get outside help and inspiration. I think Caltech, especially, fosters a community of collaboration and cooperation between students, and so that the best resource for solving these problems is usually yourself and your peers; that is exactly how science actually functions, where there is no higher authority to guide you to the solution. Combining this with Caltech's emphasis on significant and real scientific research, not only do Caltech undergrads come away prepared for graduate school, but moreover, they've experienced something far closer to it than the majority of students at other institutions, including Harvey Mudd (someone's going to yell at me for saying this...). I, personally, think that's incredibly relevant, as I'd rather not commit myself to 4-7 years in a PhD program without knowing what that will actually look like.</p>
<p>Hence, in general, it's not so much that Caltech "teaches" its students such as Caltech provides the ample resources for students to teach themselves (as well as more than adequate feedback and support, obviously). If any student doesn't subscribe to some form of that, I definitely would urge him or her to look elsewhere.</p>
<p>I posted that thread mainly for Tiyusufaly's quotes that he cited about Mudd's reputation among grad programs, not as a Mudd>Caltech screed. Should have made that more clear -- sorry!</p>
<p>
I mean this is just simply not true, but the Caltech social life is certainly either more subdued or sporadic than your typical college life. Really though, the honest answer is that even at Caltech, there is a pretty diverse set of student interests, and many of the students on campus are perfectly 'normal' socially, except that they do have to spend some time studying, so their partying is more limited to weekends. </p>
<p>What I find funny, though, is that many students on CC clamor for how important a school with a 'good social scene' is, but I bet at least some of those students would actually be happier at schools like Caltech. It's not like there aren't people who don't party every night or highly prioritize dating/casual relationships at places like Stanford; perhaps they would have found more people with similar interests and priorities at a school like Caltech (or Harvey Mudd for that matter), providing an even better 'social' life more individually suited for them. I do understand, though, how it's not necessarily easy for any high school student to openly admit that they feel they would fit in socially at Caltech - it's a whole lot more socially acceptable and understood to say that you want to be at a school with a social scene, of say, Dartmouth.</p>
<p>"Combining this with Caltech's emphasis on significant and real scientific research, not only do Caltech undergrads come away prepared for graduate school, but moreover, they've experienced something far closer to it than the majority of students at other institutions, including Harvey Mudd (someone's going to yell at me for saying this...). "</p>
<p><em>yell</em></p>
<p>consider it done.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Harvey Mudd is a better choice than Caltech. At Caltech, they don't teach you anything, you teach yourself.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
The CalTech students put up no fronts, and admit outright that the workload of their school seemingly disregards the value of sleep or a social life or anything that is not purely academic in the math & science realm.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am a Harvey Mudd student, and if I had to do it again, would probably choose it over any other school in the country (as long as I could transplant the 5C's to an urban area). However, I am one of the first to admit that these statements are exaggerations and not true in general at all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course, none of this is done in isolation, and there are many ways to get outside help and inspiration. I think Caltech, especially, fosters a community of collaboration and cooperation between students, and so that the best resource for solving these problems is usually yourself and your peers; that is exactly how science actually functions, where there is no higher authority to guide you to the solution.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know if you were necessarily implying that this does not happen at Harvey Mudd, so forgive me for responding with the (possibly false) assumption that you were.</p>
<p>As far as I can tell, there is no direct quantitative way to compare the amount of collaboration and teamwork done at Harvey Mudd vs. at Caltech. However, I can confidently claim that this scientific process of learning from your peers (which I agree with you is how science is really done) is done quite frequently at Harvey Mudd. Almost every Mudder collaborates with his or her classmates regularly. We chat, compare methods of thinking, study together, etc... This is a HUGE part of how students learn at HMC - there'd be no way most of us could get through the curriculum without the support of our peer network. Professors do not simply give you all the answers as the primary authority. Rather, the way I see it is they lecture clearly, and are available to answer questions. However, students only seek the professor out AFTER they have exhausted their peer network and still have trouble with the material. In this case, the professors are unanimously willing to help, have their office doors open, and will sit patiently with you to help you see it. They will not give you the answers, but rather they will try to help you see how you went wrong, so that you learn how to fix things on your own, and figure out the material for yourself.</p>
<p>So it is not like students immediately go to the professor and the professor guides us to everything. Their job is to orate the concepts to us in a clear fashion - it's up to the students to absorb it and use it to figure out the homework or the problems.</p>
<p>If I don't answer any more responses to me for a while, I apologize. It's because I'll be taking a nap for a few hours, before I go see the midnight premiere of Harry Potter (YAY!).</p>
<p>
Nah, I definitely know that this also happens at Mudd (which I really respect, of course) - I should have made that more clear though. The problem was that I had written the whole post without reference to HMC (from "Combining this..." to the end of that paragraph wasn't there), and then added that later, so it seemed like I was contrasting to Harvey Mudd when I wasn't intentionally doing so. </p>
<p>I do think it happens to a larger extent at Caltech, but as you said, that's not the easiest thing to convincingly claim. I guess I'm sort of basing that claim assuming that if students from both schools learn 'equal amounts of material' (that could be a fun dispute...), and Mudders learn more from Professors, than Techers must learn more alone / in groups. I realize that's not the most convincing logic, but this is all kind of hand-wavey and over-generalized anyway.</p>
<p>
lol, well, that's the best any of us can do without a Hamiltonian, right? ;)</p>