Stanford Versus Caltech Undergrad Comparison for non-LA Students

Colleges and Universities A-Z California Institute of Technology
1

<p>Although I'm a bit tired of Stanford's constant nagging as the school that "is the best at everything", I want to know if there's really any basis behind their claims.</p>

<p>I know Caltech offers a better foundation for math and science than Stanford does, but my question is, how MUCH better is Caltech's?</p>

<p>Because if Caltech's CORE isn't too much better, shouldn't Stanford's overall balance in terms of men:women ratio, Humanities thoroughness, and social atmosphere be more appealing than Caltech's?</p>

<p>And as an example, Dr. Joel Burdick received his B.S. from Stanford, and completed his PH.d from Caltech. This situation sounds like a great college experienced complemented by Caltech's world renown graduate school.</p>

2

<p>I haven't been an undergrad at both Stanford and Caltech, so I'm unable to compare their academics. Would you be able to post any details about Stanford's classes in the sciences? </p>

<p>When I visit my girlfriend at Harvard I notice that I don't really like the social atmosphere there. Nothing really abnormal, but it just doesn't seem like the place for me. When I'm there, it strikes me as odd that I'd be more likely to find someone willing to talk about "The OC" than nanotechnology or other science-related topics. I find that I'm happier and more comfortable around people with interests similar to mine, and at Caltech I've certainly learned a lot from and had a great time with my friends. </p>

<p>From your post (and my scarce knowledge about Stanford's undergrad program), it seems to me that if one wants to learn science, he could do well by going to Stanford. If one loves (or even likes) science, he would do himself a disservice by not going to Caltech.</p>

3

<p>To me a big issue is just the very different atmospheres. Stanfords big campus is totally unconnected to Palo Alto. It's much larger than Caltech. It has a less casual feel to me - cafeterias looked like hotel dining rooms. And the tour guide (one impression mind you) was much more the well-rounded kid, as opposed to the geeky science type just like my son. I think they're both fine places for future scientists to go - it just depends on what you want.</p>

4

<p>Look at it this way. Everything you hear from Caltech students is "learn to pull all-nighters," "social life, grades, sleep: pick two," and "6 hours of problem sets per day"</p>

<p>I've talked to a couple people that go to Stanford, and it sounds like they have very minimal workload, maybe an hour to two hours per night.</p>

<p>All the other differences aside, where do you think that you will learn more? The place that you need to work or the place that you don't? I may be a bit biased seeing as I will be attending Caltech, and half the people I know that go to Stanford are complete stuck-up a-holes, but it's hard to argue IMO that Stanford will give you an even-close-to-equally strong education in math and science as Caltech.</p>

<p>In terms of culture differences, I will have to agree omgninja. When visiting Stanford I got the impression that people there don't care too much about academics. This was reinforced by the admissions person telling us to take a light senior load (***?) and one of those stuck-up a-holes coming back to my HS last year and telling us that his workload at Stanford was nil. I ended up not even applying there.</p>

<p>Plus Stanford costs more...</p>

5

<p>It's about priorities, as many wise people above have pointed out. If you want to be pushed to the extreme end of your abilities and learn a lot and do a lot of research, etc., in the process then Caltech is the school for you. If you want to have a more laid back environment with more extracurricular activities and less intense workload (hence usually less learning), go to Stanford.</p>

<p>One quick remark on the "you can go to grad school at Caltech" argument. A lot of your most important intellectual development will take place in your undergrad years. You'll never be quite as good at learning math or hard science as you are now. So where you spend those formative four years matters a lot.</p>

6

<p>The major source for my ambivalence comes from this article, named the Caltech Myth, written by a Caltech Alum.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/%7Etjou/words/desk/myth.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~tjou/words/desk/myth.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>In it he says, "This freshman energy is not channeled into experiences designed to enhance it. Freshman learn that science, something once loved as a sparkling orb, light and exciting, becomes the daily routine drudgery of physics lab and math assignments."</p>

<p>It sounds like a lot of passion is extinguished after attending Caltech, and if somebody doesn't love science enough, he/she will perish at this school. Basically, I'm saying that I enjoy reading about science, and learning about how things happen, but I'm just not sure how much i love science anymore after having read this article.</p>

<p>Regarding omgninja's and mathmom's comments, I think because of Stanford's enormous campus, the people you met were probably liberal art majors, and not science or engineering majors. </p>

<p>Finally, I agree full-heartedly that there are no short cuts in life, and therefore there is no substitute for hard work. As such, I am definitely more of a Caltech person, but why does Caltech lose so many matriculants every year to Stanford? Are these students seeing something I'm not seeing?</p>

<p>I believe this is a serious issue to be brought up in Caltech's threads because I see too many brilliant future scientists being suaded away from Caltech by Stanford's attractive undergraduate package.</p>

7

<p>First, the article you read was written (in bulk) over 40 years ago, when Caltech was quite a different institution (over 30% failed out, compared with fewer than 10% today). And, for what it's worth, I'm a living, breathing Caltech student, and my passion for math and science has only increased as a result of being here. And I'm not unique in this respect. At all. By the way, to say that the experience of learning science here is "passive" or "external" seems totally inconsistent with the experience I have been through. With the abundance of research and the availability of the faculty to bat around ideas about the material, it is anything but passive.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, if you are ambivalent to begin with about how much you love science, Caltech is likely to be a bad bet. For the few (the proud...) who really love science immensely AND have sufficient ability and perseverance, Caltech will educate you like no other place can. For those who love science but lack sufficient ability or perseverance, Caltech is likely to be quite painful. If you think you might be in the latter category, it's safer to go somewhere else.</p>

<p>This ties into the reason Caltech loses some admits to more mainstream schools with broader programs. Simply put, not everyone is cut out to take what we have to offer. The intensity and focus of this experience appeals only to the most confident and the most committed. In this sense, there are two sorting processes that determine who ends up at Caltech. In the first process, it is decided whether you are the kind of person who can get in. In the second process, you decide whether you are the kind of person who would want to go. People who don't have the gung-ho-ness to jump at Caltech are probably safer at softer places.</p>

<p>In fact, it would be a strange world in which Caltech would be more appealing "on average" than Stanford. The latter is safe, diverse, and fairly easy. The former is focused and very very hard. It's no surprise that many people shy away.</p>

<p>Perhaps you have discerned that Caltech (like Rolex or Bentley) does not aim to sell to the average consumer of education. We aim to sell to a very special and rare kind of consumer who values our good. Whereas a fairly huge variety of undergrads could be happy at Stanford, only a select few (outliers on a few dimensions) would be very happy at Caltech. You have to decide whether it's right for you.</p>

<p>So, in short, I'd say -- don't feel bad if Caltech seems like it might be too hard, or too much work, or too focused. For the vast majority of applicants to top-10 schools, it is those things exactly. If you are unaverage in exactly the right kinds of ways -- only then should you consider coming here. And if you're not sure, don't.</p>

8

<p>This question has been touched upon in many different ways, but usually in discussion about grade inflation, or the lack thereof, at Caltech.</p>

<p>Caltech is hard. But is it too hard? Consider that over the years Caltech has definitely seen grade inflation. As Ben noted 30% used to fail or transfer out. Nearly 50% used to get at least one F. C was a really common grade. This was not a good thing. But times have changed -- nearly anyone can get a decent GPA with hard work (meaning 3.0 or higher). Only thing is, you will work harder for an A- than you would at the other top 10 schools, and you will have fewer opportunities to find easier courses to pad your gpa. And for many, getting a 3.75 in Math or Physics is probably hopelessly unrealistic. As I have written before -- Caltech should not be captive to the grade inflation of other schools.</p>

<p>But there is a more substantive issue: You will be exposed to real math and physics early -- the kind that you're supposed to ace if you want to be a Professor of Theoretical Physics at a top 30 department. I decided I didn't want that so I didn't become a physicist. This was a useful learning experience even though I was probably an average student (of those who survived in the Bad Old Days). I repeat, this was very useful because it taught me what I really needed to know early. Many students at other schools do not get this kind of wake-up call early enough, so they founder in grad school because they don't get the proper training. [Look at another post at my surprise that even good students from Harvard can be rejected by most econ grad programs for lack of math training.]</p>

<p>But what about someone who wants an MD/JD/MBA? Might that person not be a disadavantage at Tech because of their grades? The answer is Yes. But I see no reason why Caltech should make it easy for those students. I'm not saying it's bad to go on to professional (not Phd) school, nor am I saying Caltech students don't go on to successful careers in law or business. [I think Caltech has a larger percentage of students at Harvard Law than even MIT, or at least they did.] But I am saying that Caltech is not going to make it easy for you to pad your vita and glide into med school (although I think the new UCSD venture is a great idea).</p>

<p>What is the payoff? First, those who get high grades in the tough subjects will be deservedly among the best in the world -- and all other PhD schools know it. Grades really mean something for ALL students. [I pity the poor sods with 3.2 averages in Ivy Engineering while their classmates in Easy Studies graduate with a 3.8 while being BMOC.] Second, research is easy and letters from professors about undergrad research are truly revealing. Third, everyone can be guaranteed rigorous training in the kind of math that is a foundation for work in any technical field, including econ and finance not just in science. All will have finished a CORE than not even MIT can match. Fourth, you will come to learn about yourself and what you really want to do in life.</p>

<p>Risky? Yeah. But I have friends who <strong>flunked</strong> out of Caltech yet would not have gone elsewhere even in hindsight.</p>

<p>There's only one Caltech.</p>

9

<p>I'd like to address a few small points in this article, before trying to tackle the larger (and more substantive) argument of the essay.</p>

<p>First of all: "The healthy emotional and personal growth of the majority of Caltech students is possible in spite of the obvious social limitations of the Caltech experience."</p>

<p>The author claims this is a myth, I believe it is simply oversimplified. I think it would be more correct to say: 'The healthy emotional and personal growth for some types of students is possible because of the unique social atmosphere at Caltech.' This atmosphere will be healthy for some, and horrible for others -- just like any social atmosphere. I came from a background with few friends, all of which were female, and very little self-confidence. By coming here, I was effectively moving to the shallow end of the social pool. Here I was able to learn how to swim -- most importantly (for me) how to be assertive and confident, how to make friends with guys, and how to be comfortable with my intelligence. I have taken these traits with me into the workplace. I didn't talk at my internship three years ago. Just two days ago, on my first day of work, one of the guys I worked with commented on how confident I was. People laugh at me today when I tell them that I used to be shy. Let me repeat -- this atmosphere isn't going to be healthy for everyone. Some use it as an excuse to stay in their room. But these are the types of things you should be considering when you choose a college -- whether or not the social atmosphere will be healthy for you.</p>

<p>"Little real responsibility for developing scholarly self direction falls on the student."</p>

<p>Completely untrue. Most majors require a thesis or some form of senior project, which requires you to come up with an idea and follow it through to completion.</p>

<p>"The emphasis seems to be on the substance rather than the structure of information. "</p>

<p>I can't speak for other departments, but I've found the opposite to be true in mine (Computer Science). In fact, when I switched majors (from Math), I debated switching schools, because two of the major areas I was interested in (database technologies and computer security) were almost non-existent here. In the end, I decided that the problem-solving abilities taught here were far superior to elsewhere and were far more important than the substance or topics learned. Looking back, I still believe that Caltech is far superior in producing computer scientists because of the methods used here.</p>

10

<p>I just wrote a long post arguing that burnout was not an indication of lack of passion and that burnout and an increase in passion could coexist. However, reading through it I realized that it is too specific and is probably really only relevant for Computer Science, so I'm not going to post it. I saved it on my hard drive, so if it's relevant to you, PM me and I'll send it on.</p>

11

<p>"If you are unaverage in exactly the right kinds of ways -- only then should you consider coming here. And if you're not sure, don't." Ben</p>

<p>This statement doesn't sound very helpful to me because when you say "unaverage in exactly the right kinds of ways" are you referring to academics, hobbies, or personality?</p>

12

<p>One way to gauge that unaverageness is to see whether the idea of Caltech -- a place where hardcore math and science comes at you in large, sometimes intimidating quantities -- appeals to you. If you think "I want that! May I have some more please, sir? Where is the firehose?" you may have the right personality. If you think "gee, that sounds like too much, what about my relaxation time, and my water polo, etc. etc." then probably not.</p>

<p>It's a combination of academics, hobbies, and personality altogether. But it's not like there is a formula that I will use to tell you whether you fit. If near-abusive quantities of intellectual growth excite you, then come here. If they scare you, don't come here. </p>

<p>This introspection is not easy, so I recommend that you take a little time and see what you think when you come back to the issue some time later. I think the answer will eventually become clear.</p>

<p>Also, apply just in case if you are unsure. Maybe this dilemma will be resolved for you (if you don't get in) and it never hurts to have one more top-ranked option (if you get in).</p>

13

<p>
[Quote]
Looking back, I still believe that Caltech is far superior in producing computer scientists because of the methods used here.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>Intentional or unintentional CS joke?</p>

14

<p>Umm... I see questionable grammar, but no joke.</p>

15

<p>methods, as in java</p>

16

<p>Heh... OOP names are annoying. I still call them functions.</p>

17

<p>"Regarding omgninja's and mathmom's comments, I think because of Stanford's enormous campus, the people you met were probably liberal art majors, and not science or engineering majors."</p>

<p>Our tour guide at Stanford was a double major in biology and international relations. He was interested in going to med. school and getting into public health of some sort. He seemed very bright and personable - just excessively well rounded! Our Caltech tour guide was a geology major who I believe had switched out of physics.</p>

18

<p>How would you compare Berkeley and Cal Tech in chemical engineering (for undergrad)?</p>

19

<p>


</p>

<p>That's a great turn of phrase for summing up the appeal of Caltech.</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
How would you compare Berkeley and Cal Tech in chemical engineering (for undergrad)?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The work at Caltech is probably harder for this major and you will have much more personal contact with faculty. These contacts can be immensely helpful for landing jobs and getting into grad school. I'd say Caltech's is the more valuable degree, but know what you're getting yourself into. ChemE at Caltech is one of the most famously hard majors here.</p>