<p>My son is at Brown happily pursuing a combined CS/applied math degree. I thought he was in a niche, but it looks like STEM majors now constitute half of all applicants at Brown:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[</a>" + artTitle.replace(“-”,“”) + " - " + “The Brown Daily Herald” + "](<a href=“http://www.browndailyherald.com/mobile/early-applications-rise-for-class-of-2017-1.2792546]”>http://www.browndailyherald.com/mobile/early-applications-rise-for-class-of-2017-1.2792546)</p>
<p>
Well, I don’t know–some of you have been pretty persuasive that it might be better for the Tech Ten to include some of these universities that have broad, strong STEM offerings.</p>
<p>The advantage of a university is option to switch to another major. I had two kids that went to STEM schools - one was not a great fit to engineering and is now at a university as an econ major.</p>
<p>Thank you bclintonk for the explanations. Interesting about how they assign the rankings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Was your intent to include schools which are not super-selective reach-for-everyone schools?</p>
<p>Let’s face it - most families have to consider finances too. In general, a student is either chasing one or the other :</p>
<ul>
<li>the best need based FA<br>
or </li>
<li> the best merit scholarships (if the student has high stats and the EFC is more than they can afford)</li>
</ul>
<p>
Well, my idea was to create a “Top Ten,” akin to what you might get if you were asked for, say, the top ten music conservatories. I just see a little too much on CC of the attitude of “If you don’t get into MIT you might as well go to the local directional, or give up on STEM altogether.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not to mention a more balanced gender ratio. </p>
<p>The fact that Cornell is 50% female can ease a male tech student’s pain about ending up there instead of Caltech.</p>
<p>California Institute of Technology
Carnegie Mellon University
Case Western Reserve University
Clarkson University
Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art
Drexel University
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering
Harvey Mudd College
Illinois Institute of Technology
Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences
Kettering University
Lawrence Technological University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Milwaukee School of Engineering
Polytechnic Institute of New York University
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Rochester Institute of Technology
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Stevens Institute of Technology
Webb Institute
Worcester Polytechnic Institute</p>
<p>These are members of the Association of Independent Technological Universities, all tech focused private universities.</p>
<p>I wonder if it would make more sense to think in terms of two lists – one for All-Tech, one for Well-Rounded-Tech. I think each may appeal to different kinds of individuals. My son, for example, had a strong interest in attending MIT but no interest at all in even applying to CalTech. He is very much a math and science geek, but with broad across-the-board interests in tying very different subjects together. Others may be focused on a single discipline or sub-discipline and not much care about the rest.</p>
<p>LoremIpsum: I agree very much. My son is one of those well rounded STEM kids. He intends to pursue a PhD in economics but his UG degree will be in math/economics. He likes math, is interested in studying math but he does not live and die with just math. He also likes history, economics and politics. </p>
<p>He has been happy at Case Western. In addition to his math/economics course he took a class on China and how it fits into the modern world. He found it very interesting. Next semester he is taking a class that deals with the history of the British empire. There are some STEM kids who are all techy all the time but others have broader interests. That’s why it is a mistake to simply apply to the most highly ranked school you can get into. There are other things to consider.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think it makes sense to talk about conservatories for math and science because it’s still easy to break into mathematics as a college student. I doubt someone who starts playing the violin as a college student has a realistic chance at becoming a professional violinist. If you want a conservatory-like experience, then the best option is to go to graduate school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Someone who comes to MIT with only credit for 18.01 (which can be got by getting a 4 or a 5 on the AP Calc BC exam) can realistically start taking graduate level courses their junior year that are not taught at Harvey Mudd. And this is assuming a regular schedule of 4 classes a semester.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can understand that a kid of this type would be happy at a tech school. What I cannot understand is why the same kid would be unhappy at a university that has an excellent program in his/her field of interest.</p>
<p>Is there something uniquely attractive about the tech school atmosphere that I’m not seeing?</p>
<p>I bring this up because I’m a Cornell graduate and the parent of a Cornell graduate. Cornell is a major destination for STEM kids who don’t get admitted to Caltech or MIT. These kids may be sorry that they’re not attending their first choice schools, but they don’t seem to be repelled by the idea of sharing a campus with people who are majoring in psychology or business or hotel administration. The fact that Cornell is not exclusively a STEM school just doesn’t seem relevant.</p>
<p>LOREM, did your son look at the course catalogue at Caltech? I feel so many people have a stereotype of the school. One advantage is that a student can pursue ECs without prior experience, e.g. Newspaper or sports. Without having to pledge a frat, 7:8 Houses provide a social life. </p>
<p>I obviously am not putting MIT down, as the worm is there now, I just want to pass some love on to Caltech.</p>
<p>I would classify many of the schools listed in post #70 as primarily engineering schools, engineering being just one important subset of STEM. Most of the schools with broad strength across all STEM fields are major research universities, not “tech” (i.e., primarily engineering) schools.</p>
<p>Corollary: Even for students who consider themselves all-STEM-all-the-time, a “tech” school may not be the best choice because it may limit how far the student may go in math, physics, chemistry, etc., relative to a major research university which is strong in those fields. In that sense, a Cornell may be more like MIT or Caltech than is, say, an IIT or Kettering or Milwaukee School of Engineering, schools that share the engineering focus with MIT and Caltech, but are not operating on the same plane when it comes to pure math and pure science.</p>
<p>Marian, my son’s friend was very happy to apply EA to one of the ivies and major in engineering. He’s now 25, and in a serious relationship with a girl who is also an engineer. I think most of his friends were still STEM types. Was this true for you, too?</p>
<p>The worm really didn’t have much choice for UG schools. Even though he had top SAT scores in English and Writing, and had won $$ in national writing contests, only the tech and CS schools wanted him. I’ll never know if this is because he applied as a junior, but at least one of the rejections was surprising, as a dozen family members had attended that school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>CalTech used to have Richard Feynman, one of my son’s heros. If he had still been around, my son surely would have applied there!</p>
<p>I feel that my position on another thread is being caricatured inaccurately in posts #7, #12, and #13.
a) It’s not “my kid,” who had no interest in MIT (nor Caltech, nor Harvard).
b) It’s hardly the case that the only other option is to "flip burgers,"or “do something horrifying.” I am sure that the people I think should be auto-admits take the best available option.
c) On the other hand, before CC gave people an excellent read of MIT admissions practices, I think that MIT rejections did engender some unnecessary self-doubt in some very promising scientists/engineers. I will leave it for collegealum314 to comment on this, because I read of this through his posts.</p>
<p>I have been making an extremely narrow argument, with essentially two components:</p>
<p>1) If a student would logically take a graduate-level course in mathematics as an incoming college freshman at a particular school, that is probably not the right school for that student. I know personally two students, one who went to the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and one who went to the University of Michigan, to whom this situation applies. There is a considerable gulf between an incoming freshman and the typical student in a graduate math class. In my opinion, both students might have been better served by a university that had undergraduate courses of the appropriate level (because a few of the top places offer classes labeled as undergrad classes, which are the right level for a student of that mathematical capability).
2) I still say that a student who scores points on the USAMO above some cut-off (1, 2, 4, 7, ?) should be an auto-admit to MIT and Caltech (only–no other “top” places), barring disqualifying personal characteristics.</p>
<p>To the extent that this does not happen, I am not claiming that it is a “national tragedy,” merely that it is sub-optimal–that is, that the situation can be made better at essentially zero cost. For example, take an MIT admit of the majority demographic who fails first semester calculus and physics. Why would it not be better to substitute one of my “auto-admits” for that student, and have that student attend a state flagship. It’s probably better for the student who failed to instead be taking courses closer to his own level. It’s better for the student that MIT can now take, too, because that student has access to more classes at an appropriate level of challenge, not populated by 23+ year olds, when the student is 17 or 18.</p>
<p>In terms of the subject of the thread: One can make it work practically anywhere, as long as one doesn’t run out of classes in the major. I think that the opportunity to take grad courses is well worthwhile, <em>after</em> the freshman year, so I think that research-intensive public universities are good choices. Colleges such as Harvey Mudd also have a lot to offer such a student, if the student prefers a smaller-college environment.</p>
<p>All of the usual suspects–Berkeley, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, UNC Chapel Hill–would work out ok for a strong student. (Out of state tuition is a problem at many, though.)</p>
<p>Even if Pizzagirl were not a strong supporter of Northwestern, I would mention it, Chicago, Duke, Cornell, Carnegie Mellon, and some others.</p>
<p>For scientists/engineers, I would suggest looking at the research instrumentation that is available, and the opportunities for students to work in labs. This becomes significant quickly, and the quality and accessibility both vary from place to place.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Northwestern has an elite specialty program called ISP (Integrated Science Program). My son was accepted into it, but was unable to mesh the program with a computer science degree, his first choice. For those interested exclusively in math or science it’s a great option.</p>