<p>Thx all the guys for the postings. If anything it helped D figure out more about premed / GPA/ fit at Caltech. Well, if she is confident about the multivariable calculus and the quantum physics,and she’s eager to learn, it’s fine with me. It’s everybody’s dream to nurture his or her interest at the top-notch institution and that’s what makes it great! It makes no compromise on the core, does not practice AA (unlike some East Coast counterpart) , accept the best out of the crowd–what else can U ask for ? :)</p>
<p>@RawMcatBB, which college did your D end up? My S will soon be in a similar position, having to decide whether to pursue premed at caltech or not. The rigorous core curriculum and gpa is a concern. </p>
<p>The premed brochure does say that the median gpa is 3.5 in the flyers printed for the last 3 years or so. So it must be accurate.</p>
<p>@lizzardfire, I truly appreciated your caltech posts although your posts consistently discourage premeds from enrolling at caltech. Caltech’s premed brochure, however, state that there are increasing number of premed students at caltech in recent years. So, I am wondering, when did you graduate? Is it perhaps possible that a more lenient grading may be happening even in the tech core classes in the recent years?</p>
<p>I imagine the Caltech literature may cherry-pick their information. For example, they may only college GPAs from students that actually wound up going to med school and not on all students that initially attended Caltech planning on going to med school after graduating.</p>
<p>
^ The brochure says “(the median GPA for Caltech’s Class of 2008 was 3.5).” </p>
<p>On the tough GPA, is it tough on core curriculum, the first five terms? Or is the GPA tough even in junior-senior (mostly electives?) courses? </p>
<p>Of the math-physics sequence, the fifth term (thermo + statistics) looks toughest to me. QM shouldn’t be too bad.</p>
<p>Don’t go to Caltech as premed or any other major except maybe EE or physics.</p>
<p>You should only go to Caltech if you want to research or if you don’t have a life.
I mean…I’ve seen so many cases in which people reject caltech for any Ivy(exception of Cornell or Brown)+UCLA+Berkeley+Stanford and other unknown universities…</p>
<p>Caltech is good for engineering, but I wouldn’t say it’s the best either.
There are MIT, Berkeley, Stanford, Olin, and many others…</p>
<p>Even in prestige level, not many know of Caltech. Although it is pretty popular in terms of research, normal joe would not know where caltech or what caltech is…</p>
<p>Caltech has plenty of prestige. It is always ranked in the top ten U.S. Universities and was recently ranked by Times Higher Education as the number 2 university in the world, behind only Harvard. And it was ranked at number 1 in the world for engineering. While such rankings are not the end all/be all, it does show an international respect for Caltech. Not sure why you feel Caltech is inferior to MIT, Cal, Stanford, etc. All are fine schools. While it may not be the easiest road for pre-med, it may appeal to certain students who look forward to the challenge. I would not pick a college based on what a “normal Joe” knows about it.</p>
<p>First of all, ranking is biased. Let’s not even count USNEWS b/c it’s a junk. Depending on who researched the ranking, the rank may be different. For example, ARWU lists Harvard #1 Berkeley #2 Stanford #3 MIT #4. Times lists differently. Both are respected ranking.
All are fine schools, but in terms of academic and social all together, I don’t think Caltech is for everyone. It’s true it’s up there with all the schools I’ve mentioned, but you are probably end up doing core classes all year long til you gradaute. I would say only engineers would be attracted toward Caltech, but one can go different route going to S, C, M. Besides from ranking wise, general public doesn’t know what Caltech is…</p>
<p>First, you are a ■■■■■. Please stop being a d*** and posting BS all over the Caltech forums.</p>
<p>Second, please learn some grammar.</p>
<p>Third, Core only last for at most 5 terms (~1.5 years) and only for physics and math. It does not last all four years. Also, many people are actually ATTRACTED(!!) by the possibility of being well grounded in all of the sciences and in mathematics before specializing in a specific degree, especially in the multidisciplinary world we live in. </p>
<p>Fourth, you are actually right in saying that Caltech is not for everyone. See: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/california-institute-technology/577759-why-caltech-different-open-letter.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/california-institute-technology/577759-why-caltech-different-open-letter.html</a> . Just because it is not for everyone doesn’t mean that it is perfect for none.</p>
<p>I do feel the core can be revised to give more flexibility and to include more bio and less physics and math. A bio major spends five terms of studying math and physics, but physics majors spend one term on bio. Lack of bio background can be a problem for physicists down the road. Too much hard core math and physics for bio majors can be a burden, especially for premeds. In this sense the effort to revise and improve the core is a very good move, but unfortunately not for the class of 2015 and current students. </p>
<p>Also, caltech has been historically known for basic sciences than for applied sciences and engineering. The graduate programs of physics, chemistry and biology have been ranked at the top or very near the top for a very long time. Engineering may be the forte of mit and stanford, but caltech and princeton are strong in basic sciences.</p>
<p>By the way, Fernando Torres is way overrated and is in fact an idiot. I never liked this Hispanic Liverpool striker who consistently disappointed the team he plays for. Look how low Liverpool slipped in EPL ranking this year. fernandotorres was not even in the lineup for Spain in the world cup because of his inconsistency and poor play. Now that the equally sorry Chelsea overpaid to acquire fernandotorres, that is, when a sorry player merges with a sorry team, the results will be sorrier. and the poster fernandotorress99 seems equally ignorant.</p>
<p>Based on my recent visit, they said they are revising the core to just a year, not a year and a half. I don’t have the details of what is changing, just that it is.</p>
<p>“So, I am wondering, when did you graduate? Is it perhaps possible that a more lenient grading may be happening even in the tech core classes in the recent years?”</p>
<p>I graduated in 2010 (so about six months ago). The reason that the percentage of premeds is increasing is primarily due to the creation of a new program (the UCSD medical scholars program) and an increased promotion of this major by the admissions department. Tech has not become more lenient.</p>
<p>As for the core changes, the purpose of those is to improve core, not “make it easier”. I was on the committee now proposing those changes for two years (and then I graduated). </p>
<p>The comments I made regarding the difficult of Caltech for premeds are still true now. In five years maybe things will be different, but I obviously can’t comment on that.</p>