<p>i know it is generally dangerous to assume a college in a black and white fact like manners, but that's all I seem to hear nowadays.</p>
<p>here goeth the phrase: caltech is good at pure science, whereas MIT is good at applied science like engineering, etc.</p>
<p>to what extent is this phrase true? of COurse they're both amazing schools, but just curious.</p>
<p>Here's an idea, why don't you go read the last dozen threads on this topic?</p>
<p>what I'm interested is the difference in the method of teaching science at each schools.</p>
<p>That's going to be almost impossible to get an objective view on, unless you talk to the people who did undergrad at one and grad at the other. Several of us can objectively compare course material and problem sets, but we haven't sat in on classes at both schools. Even talking to someone who did undergrad at one and grad at the other will only give you part of the story. I know the experience of grad vs. undergrad is very different here, and I'm sure it's also different at MIT.</p>
<p>They're both excellent schools in all of their fields.</p>
<p>Really, pick another criteria for deciding between them. There's plenty of more meaningful differences between Caltech and MIT that will affect your life there far more than a .01% difference in what some "expert" considers the quality of a certain major. School size, location, and classes offered (outside of your major) are all excellent things to investigate.</p>
<p>good article joe</p>
<p>The most obvious difference is the mathematical rigor of the Caltech Core. Two years of mostly proof based calculus are required for all majors with no option to choose a more "plug-and-chug" section. In effect all engineers will be taking the sort of math that only math majors (or similar) usually have to take at other top schools. Some kids at Tech hate this, but it is part of what makes the Caltech training different.</p>
<p>I've been travelling for several weeks, giving lectures and meeting with various educators outside of the USA. I got into a discussion on teaching college math when I saw Apostol on someone's shelf (I think the prof had a grad degree from MIT). I piped in that I really appreciated Apostol's clarity and rigor as a calculus text. The fellow then remarked, "Yeah, but no school would use Apostol as the main text for all students."
He saw me smiling here and he added, "Oh, except for Caltech I suppose."</p>
<p>The only "proof-based" math class required at caltech is Ma1a, which uses apostol and is only ONE term (1//3 of a year). For the rest of core students can (and most do) opt for a "plug-and-chug" section. I wouldn't make the caltech/MIT choice just based on liking/not liking math.</p>
<p>Well, I'd say the development of the ideas in Math 1bc and Math 2(prob+stats) is still significantly more rigorous than average, even in the plug and chug sections. I do wish the prac sections didn't exist, though. That is weakness.</p>
<p>:-D</p>
<p>Said the math major.</p>
<p>Sorry about that. I didn't realize that the plug and chug option had become a reality. I remember this being discussed and must have forgotten that it was actually implemented.</p>
<p>Oh well, another concession to the "real world."</p>
<p>I find it curious that as competition to get into the top schools has gotten tougher and tougher (thus allowing for more selectivity in theory), the degree of minimal rigor [that which is required of all students] has fallen. And grading has gotten more inflated, making the base degree less informative. I don't particularly blame Caltech for this, but it is part of the prevailing zeitgeist.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, in no other school can one still make the claim that every single undergrad has taken such a rigorous core. This affects both the character of the school and the nature of the shared student experience that cannot be replicated in other universities.</p>
<p>After all, if you're going to judge a school by the courses you MIGHT/COULD take if you were motivated enough, it's not clear that Berkeley isn't the best possible place. I don't agree. Those who think like me should put Caltech at the top of their list. Those who don't place a high value on this shared student experience or who actually believe it to be detrimental should look elsewhere.</p>
<p>Actually, teaching style is a good thing to ask about. I've found that Caltech is more geared towards the individualistic, motivated student finding a mentor (or two) to push him/her into nifty sciences/maths/engineering projects. This is not a school for sitting at lecture and learning much that is worthwhile.</p>
<p>I don't know anything about MIT, but that's my two cents on the question.</p>