So I just recently got accepted into both MIT and Caltech, and I now obviously have to make a tough decision. I’m aware of the differences in size and location, and I’m going to learn more about each school’s culture at their respective pre-freshman weekends, but there is one big factor in my decision that I know very little about. How do these schools compare in their preparation for someone who wants to enter academia and achieve at least some success?
I hope to go into academia for either math or theoretical physics, but I am by no means a star in either of these areas. As a senior, I’ve only just recently discovered competition math and physics and I’m not even good enough to pass the AMC12 or f=ma right now. Now, I’ve heard (anecdotally) that Caltech is much harder in terms of its math and physics classes. This, in addition to the smaller student-faculty ratio, makes me think that Caltech might serve me better in my long-term goal than MIT would. On the flip side, I suspect that Cambridge/Boston is a better area for making connections that might help me get into grad school or meeting individuals who could teach me valuable lessons about math/physics academia.
I have very little knowledge on these subjects so I came here for some perspective. So, which is better for math/physics academia preparation, MIT or Caltech?
Caltech has more theoretical bend than MIT. Its standard freshmen math classes are more rigorous. You can actually find a textbook for this class and see it it makes you more excited or more scared. MIT, of course, is bigger and has more research areas. Student life is somewhat different, and of course the weather. Both places are amazing, a lot depends on your non-academic preferences but they both will prepare you well for graduate school.
However, the phrase “I hope to go into academia for either math or theoretical physics, but I am by no means a star in either of these areas” surprises me. How do you know then that you want to be a researcher in any of these areas?
I’d hope you plan to go to accepted student days at both. It will really help with your decision. Both would be superb prep for grad school. Your profs and research mentors will be your best connections for grad school, and either school will be great for that. You can’t really go wrong with these two in that respect.
Congratulations! Both are obviously excellent and offers the absolute best in a STEM-focused education. However, there’re some subtle differences between the two. Generally speaking, Caltech leans toward the science side of the equation while MIT leans towards the engineering side. Caltech focuses slightly more on the theoretical side than MIT and its courses reflect that. As a result, Caltech’s core math/science courses are a little more challenging. Caltech also sends significantly higher percentage of its students to PhD programs. MIT, on the other hand, has more choices in terms of specialties due to its larger size. If, for whatever reason, your interest changes down the road, you will have more options at MIT.
Since your stated interest in math/physics and your career goal is to be in academia, I’d recommend Caltech in your case. But as @intparent has said, you should go to both MIT’s CPW (Campus Preview Weekend) and Caltech’s PFW (PreFrosh Weekend). The two schools cooperate with each other in such a way that the two events never conflict.
Go look at the CVs of the faculty at both schools. You will find that the universe of undergraduate schools that get their students into faculty position at top universities is much larger than people think. Neither one of these will limit your potential. Also, neither will guarantee any future. That is up to you. The ability of either school to better prepare you for a possible future career in academics would zero weighted in my decision between the two schools.
Sorry, I was going to edit my comment but got distracted. What I mean is you don’t need to be a star in high school to end up as an academic researcher, but to decide this now you need a level of involvement in math and/or physics much deeper than a normal high school level. I imagine you do have this if you were accepted into MIT and Caltech, but if not you may want to postpone making decisions about your future career until you dig deeper into various possibilities (and MIT might be better for this).
@Eeyore123 I didn’t make it extremely clear, but I’m more concerned about the growth that I can achieve while at either one of these schools. I’m not choosing based on their boost for getting me into grad school, but rather how well they can prepare for me for success in grad school and academia (obviously I’m considering other factors outside of what we’re discussing).
My point is that there is somewhere around 400 (a guess, but it is a big number) schools in the world that can adequately prepare you for grad school at the highest level. You are asking us to differentiate two at the higher end. The ability to rank the two is impossible. Once a school crosses the threshold of available resources, it is up to you how you take advantage of what is available. People succeed and fail at both schools.
This reminds me of one of my professors in grad school. He taught forecasting. He hated it when people tried to do point forecasts. He spent all of his time trying to predict turning points.
We don’t get as much feedback about Caltech on CC. But it sure seems the kids at MIT have their share of fun. It’s MIT fun, but there. OP, how did you match yourself to these two schools, in the first place? What’s important to you, outside classs or labs?
Just took a look at the links provided by @ucbalumnus. The Caltech course seems to be quite a bit more challenging than even the harder of the two MIT courses. That surprises me a little bit because both are based on Apostol’s book (which is an excellent book). Caltech’s course is also a required course for every Freshman while the harder of the two MIT courses is optional at MIT.
Academically they are a wash. Therefore choose on other criteria, eg location, vibe, life style. Its important to be happy. I think MIT has better party and social scene if you care about that at all.
MIT has a more active traditional party and social scene, with a substantial Greek system. Caltech is more close-knit, with a house system that’s full of quirky traditions. Which is “better” is very subjective. MIT has more grad students relative to undergrads than Caltech, albeit not by a huge margin. Caltech is smaller population-wise and also acreage-wise, and 95% of undergrads remain on campus in the house system, whereas MIT’s living groups are more scattered, with many fraternities across the river in Boston or in Central Square.
I agree with the previous poster who felt that most students who visited both would come away with a clear preference. The vibes are quite different.
I would also consider what role you want research to play in your undergrad experience. The vast majority of both MIT and Caltech undergrads participate in research, but my impression is that at Caltech, the academics are pretty all-consuming and a lot of undergrads do their research stuff primarily in the summer. At MIT, my sense is that even during the academic year, the experience isn’t really complete without involvement in projects outside the classroom. (My guess is that this is the counterbalancing factor to the reports above of Caltech’s academic baseline being more intense.) I could be wrong as my impressions of MIT were formed a while ago, but this is an aspect to explore and compare, and decide what you prefer. Also compare class sizes and faculty (vs. grad student) contact in lower-division classes. In my first year at MIT, I had lectures that were bigger than Caltech’s entire entering class; but the philosophy has changed since then https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/13physics.html so I don’t know how much the two schools differ now.
I’ll bet you will know what you want after attending both freshman weekends, but it’s good to have questions in mind. Congrats on having this choice to make!
As many people have pointed out before, go for fit. You should know which school fits you the best if you have visited the schools and done your research. I do want to point out that your statement that “I hope to go into academia for either math or theoretical physics” is premature. Assuming that you successfully finish your BS, it is another 4+ years for your Ph.D. and another 4+ years for your tenure. It is like someone who just starts premed talks about being an orthopedic surgeon. You should have a better vision for your future after a year or two. Keep in mind that MIT has 40% of students majoring in something related to computing. (https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-10/miot-ma101518.php) I know a current MIT senior who has a 4.9+ GPA and absolutely loves it there. If you are not a star in math or physics (as you said), you should worry about your survival instead of what will happen 12+ years later.
Daughter attends college nearby. Her commentary back home for beak is the MIT parties where the most fun and safest feeling of the local schools they have visited. Not at all a “nerdy group” but smart and interesting in her words when I asked. FWIW. No insight into Caltech other than the wonderful reputation.
MIT historically had higher percentage of students in engineering majors than Caltech, which had higher percentage of students in purer sciences. However, that’s changing, primarily because of the popularity of computer science, which is somewhat in between pure science and pure engineering. Both MIT and Caltech now have more than 1/3 of their students majoring in computer science or its derivatives.