<p>I was just lurking on this board as usual when I saw that mazewanderer had posted different core requirements than the usual 5 terms of math and physics. This inspired me to do some googling and I saw that the core indeed is different! <a href="http://admissions.caltech.edu/documents/105-core_curriculum_requirements_2013.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://admissions.caltech.edu/documents/105-core_curriculum_requirements_2013.pdf</a></p>
<p>I was just wondering if there was a reason behind the change? I'm interested because I really like everything I've read and heard about Caltech and as I also know some people who were accepted/attend and it's always been on my radar as a school I'd want to apply to. (Love science, love research, involved heavily in science ECs etc.)</p>
<p>So yeah, I was curious about the thought process behind it. Any insight is very welcome! :)</p>
<p>It was decided that the old core was just too much; in some majors, you ended up taking 6-7 highly technical classes that would never be useful to you. The new core is supposed to strike a better balance between having a broad foundation and letting people take the course they’re interested in.</p>
<p>Basically, it was essentially just a structural change as many options will still require these classes. In particular, what used to be denoted ma2ab - a:Differential Equations, b:Statistics and Probability - will almost certainly be required for every major and the only other change is reducing the amount of necessary physics by 1 term which isn’t a huge deal and with many majors still potentially requiring it. </p>
<p>As stated by the announcement: “It is anticipated that the vast majority of options will require students to
enroll in math and physics beyond Ma 1abc and Ph 1abc. Thus, any concerns that
the Caltech science education will become “less rigorous” are misplaced.”</p>
<p>Really, the only sad part imo is that Caltech can no longer claim that every caltech grad will have taken Quantum Mechanics and Diff EQs which carries weight I think.</p>
<p>Ah, that makes sense. Differential Equations are fun though 
Thanks to both of you for answering the question! </p>
<p>Also, I was reading somewhere (I think an editorial for the Caltech newspaper) that the amount of credits required to graduate/ huge amounts of work required for each class make students at Caltech “hate science” and “circumscribes their ability to really delve deeply into the topics”. As Caltech students, have you found that to be true? </p>
<p>I love love love science and scientific research, but I really like to have enough time to explore topics in depth and really think about them. By that I mean, I like to derive everything from the 1st principle and then “find connections” and understand it. Superficially learning stuff via memorization, without understanding the concepts is not for me. </p>
<p>Thanks again! :)</p>
<p>For some majors, yes, that’s unquestionably true. I have friends in chemical and electrical engineering who literally work 60 hour weeks to get everything done; after that, nobody really wants to just play around with the concepts.</p>
<p>However, that doesn’t mean you’re doing rote memorization. Collaboration is encouraged on almost all homework assignments, and most tests are open-textbook (I don’t think the professors entirely trust the take-home exams they have to give), so you can usually just look up whatever specific facts you need. The complaint is more that you can’t look into any concepts but the ones taught in class, because your brain will be fried once you finish all the required work.</p>
<p>^ Ah, sorry, I didn’t mean memorization but more of “so much work that i don’t feel like sitting around and thinking deeply about it, beyond what’s taught in class”.</p>
<p>Either way, I’m going to apply and give it my best shot and worry about this more if I am lucky enough to get accepted 
. From what’s been described to me- the atmosphere and campus are pretty much my dream, but I’m not sure if I can handle nonstop pressure and work and no time to sit around and think :/.</p>
<p>Still, the time to worry about such things is a year from now, and I think the best strategy for the present is to buckle down and finish the tower of summer work I have! Thanks again for the response!</p>
<p>It varies. Alot of times the sets themselves make you think deeply about the various topics taught in class and how they interweave themselves in all sorts of problems. So, I do think that I do think alot about science and math outside of class but I would agree that I don’t really go searching for new science or math ideas outside of what is directly relevant to either my research or coursework at the time, at least compared to the amount I went searching for new ideas in these topics while in HS. Its really just a matter of how much free time you have to do these things and also trying to vary what you do to keep a sense of sanity.</p>
<p>As an alum, I find this is one of the saddest pieces of news I’ve seen. This is the followup to splitting the Math track to have both analytic and practical sequences. The laughable claim that because individual subjects will still require a lot of math and physics, a Caltech science education will not become “less rigorous,” is pure bureaucratic doublespeak. The whole point of the old requirements was that ALL majors must take a lot of math and physics even if they don’t “need” it. Even lit, econ, biology, or history.</p>
<p>If you follow their logic the fact that MIT only requires a year of math doesn’t make it less rigorous than Caltech since most majors make you take much more. Or the fact that HYP don’t even require calculus doesn’t mean they’re less math rigorous since the math dept is quite rigorous. Etc…</p>
<p>You can argue that these changes are needed to keep Caltech competitive with easier, more grade inflated schools. But it is a little death of the Caltech ideal. One small step down the path of school homogeneity.</p>