<p>Awesome, lizzardfire :) I realize it must vary a bit by prof, but it's nice to hear that in general things are good.</p>
<p>There's some truth to what everyone's said so far about the profs. They are incredibly passionate about their subject areas and usually easily accessible outside of class to talk about the subject matter for their class or their research. They're also very willing to mentor students with research. However, when it comes to classes, they tend to have a very hands-off approach to teaching. They're not going to try to come up with better ways to help you learn the material -- they'll present it and expect you to take care of the learning. Also, some tend to be scatterbrained (e.g. have lots of typos in their notes) or overestimate the abilities of their students and give incredibly hard or long sets.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've heard that a lot of the professors don't care very much about teaching and that overall the teaching quality is pretty poor, particularly in math.
[/quote]
Hmm... so I'm a math major. I'll tell you what I honestly think, but keep in mind that I've taken precisely one path through the experience of Caltech math and that a curve is a variety of dimension 1 in the higher-dimensional ambient space... there may even be different homotopy classes of such paths.</p>
<p>The famously bad classes are the required contacts with math for non-math majors: ACM 95 in particular. It's a forced dose of complex analysis and a little PDE's for engineers, and I can't imagine a way to make that a tasty concoction even if the lecturer is very good, which the ACM 95 lecturers aren't, with one exception.</p>
<p>As for the curriculum for math majors. I just wrote down all the profs I've had (12) and they fit nicely into four categories (numbers in parentheses reflect how many)</p>
<p>Brilliant, organized, and inspiring (4): organized better (and with better handwriting) than a fifth grade teacher, these guys convey mathematical insight in a way that makes you wonder how you could understand this much in this short a time period. Too dedicated to teaching for their own good (they could be publishing about 150% as many papers as they are if they spent less time preparing notes). Eagerly greet you if you come to their office. I was really shocked to find these people... I wouldn't have expected anyone to care so much about undergraduates at a research university.</p>
<p>Inspiring, intuition-developing, bad handwriting (3): They are discursive and I learned a lot, but many found scrawl annoying. This is the kind of prof who stops every half hour and reminds you roughly how you got here starting roughly from the first theorem you proved in the class to make up for his bad handwriting. Learning Galois theory this way was a joy. Not a fifth grade teacher. Loves to have students come after class because it gives him a chance to gesticulate even more wildly and even get someone to nod.</p>
<p>Organized, effective, not performers (3): solid, well-organized notes without theatrics or sing-alongs. I like sing-alongs, so I was a little sad. Nevertheless, you kind of have to try hard not to learn from the meticulously organized presentation.</p>
<p>Bad (2): One is very famous, the other is a former physicist. The first one writes down theorems and doesn't prove them, mumbles a lot, gets sleepy. I suspect this is attributable to the recent brith of a child. Not useful. The second one had a hearing difficulty, which is unfortunate, so he sometimes wrote complete nonsense but couldn't understand the students' questions about it. Neither of them teaches anything but obscure topics courses anymore :)</p>
<p>[[ By the way, it becomes well known who is great and who sucks, so there could be names attached to the list. Thus, it is possible to tilt your experience heavily toward to the top end.]]</p>
<p>In short, I'd say the lecture quality is quite good on average with a few notable exceptions. Also, the institutional ethos is such that it would be unthinkable for a prof not to help a student who comes to his office... so even the bad teachers (2 of 12 in my sample) can be forced into usefulness if you come talk to them.</p>
<p>The other main virtue of Caltech's math curriculum is structural. The well-defined sequence of courses means there's no repetition or confusion, and everything is done the right way around. (For instance; algebra is done starting with a thorough tour of group theory, including some of the classification of finite simple groups, and by the time you get to the rational and Jordan canonical forms, you can understand them perfectly as decompositions of modules over principal ideal domains... usually this clarity does not exist in the usual linear-algebra-first method.) </p>
<p>I actually didn't like the structure when I first came in, thinking it would make me repeat things I knew or be too constraining. In hindsight, a little humility goes a long way. Despite having taken an advanced algebra course (among other things) at Princeton in high school, doing some of it again from the bottom up gave me a rock-solid foundation that I wouldn't give up for a lot. It's amazing how far really knowing a graduate algebra text cold can take you.</p>
<p>That was a longwinded answer to your question. In a nutshell, I think the well-structured curriculum makes it easy for people to be good teachers, and that most professors do in fact turn out to be good. I think the spirit of collegiality makes it a pleasure to be an undergrad and to get to know your profs if you take advantage of it, and even easy to suggest to your profs what they could do better.</p>
<p>So... I'm pretty happy. I don't feel like an anomaly, but you can make sure by asking others at PFW :)</p>
<p>AAAck! I forgot two profs. Add one to the brilliant category (Richard Wilson is one of the greatest living experts in combinatorics and a really once-in-a-lifetime teacher) and one to the "bad handwriting" category (his protege at Caltech has not yet learned to write).</p>
<p>as far as teaching quality, I heard their undergraduates are smarter than the grad students who come in to TA them, hehehe</p>
<p>and with the course diversity - just don't forget that you can always go to a book shop and buy yourself some books to read on non-science related topics - you don't always need a course to sit in - it is just that in college people forget to read anything beyond their assigned textbook material (i bet as stressful as caltech gets it is even more so) ... i think reading is alike someone lecturing you, especially when compared to bigger 1st/2nd year classes where there is little to no discussion going on in lecture</p>
<p>GuitarMan, do you go to Caltech? I was just curious as to which of the above opinions are from people who go to Caltech.</p>
<p>In case he doesn't get to this for a while, Guitarman doesn't go to Caltech. He did just get accepted to Caltech though (with a nice scholarship!).</p>
<p>Nopes, still in HS.</p>
<p>EDIT: Beaten to it :p Thanks Lizzard.</p>
<p>I'd like to provide some input on this topic, but before I do I think I should explain my background so as to avoid unfairly biasing anyone. Last year, I was very enthusiastic about going to Caltech; I applied early action in fall 2004, was accepted, and didn't even bother with other applications. Everything about Tech seemed suited to my preferences-- the rigor of the Core, the brilliant faculty and students, opportunities for research, etc. I went to pre-frosh weekend and although I learned a few things I hadn't expected, I was still very excited about going there. So anyway, this past fall, I started out as a freshman at Caltech. I hated it so much I withdrew at the end of the first term. Obviously, my experience at Caltech was a negative one and since I was only there for a few months, my opinions about Caltech should probably not be weighed as heavily as experienced students like Ben, alleya, etc. </p>
<p>Here are some prominent problems I noticed during my brief time at Tech:</p>
<p>It seems that many of the faculty are not interested in teaching (or teaching well, anyway) because they are too absorbed in their own research. Here's an example: I spoke with a student who took the aforementioned ACM 95 course a few years ago. On one occassion, she needed help and so she tried to contact the professor. She was told that he "doesn't see students". I think many professors expect students to rely on TA's or their peers to fill in the sometimes rather sizeable gaps in lectures instead of presenting the material in an effective and understandable manner in the first place. I suppose you end up learning the information one way or another if you work hard enough, but a lot of that learning may come from working on problem sets with other students rather than from lecture or recitation section. For me, this system did not work well.</p>
<p>The core curriculum is very rigorous. The approach to everything from physics, to math, to chemistry, to the humanities is an analytic one. If all you care about is science and math, I suppose it's not so bad. I initially thought that was all I was interested in, but after a few weeks I found that I wanted more variety. I guess it's possible to enroll in a variety of courses at nearby schools, and there are some good humanities courses at Caltech, but it seems like there just isn't enough time for them when you're at a school where one problem set can take the better part of a day to finish. I think GuitarManARS is right; if you plan to attend grad school, why not expand your horizons a bit as an undergraduate? Of course you can be a life-long learner and all that, but you won't have the opportunity to explore so many things in this sort of environment again. Also, I believe that there is more to college than academics and problems sets. I think many people shape their perspectives and attitudes about life during this time, and I guarantee you that Caltech will give you a very unique perspective of the world. Some may argue otherwise, but I think it is a very narrow perspective. </p>
<p>The students are, on the whole, a very odd bunch. Most of the students are friendly, but there are plenty of arrogant, self-absorbed, obnoxious, or otherwise socially disfunctional students. Of course, there are students like this everywhere, but Caltech seems to have a particularly high concentration of them. Also, I found that Caltech's small size (~900 undergrads) was stifling. It's possible to know everyone in your class on a first-name basis after a few weeks if you are so inclined. This may be a plus for some people, but I found that it felt a lot like high school. </p>
<p>These are just a few examples of reasons I decided to leave Caltech. This is certainly not a complete list (budget problems and trailer parks come to mind...) but hopefully it will get you thinking more seriously about your college decision.</p>
<p>Serj T. </p>
<p>Thanks for your input, that was extremely helpful. </p>
<p>Can you elaborate on what you mean by budget problems/trailer parks?</p>
<p>I always thought that Caltech had an extremely generous and consistent financial reservoir.</p>
<p>Some of the houses are currently being renovated so they are in trailers.</p>
<p>The class of 09 will probably not have to deal with more than one trimester of trailers, and then there will be nice new renovated south houses.</p>
<p>Serj -- I'm curious, did you ever personally get the vibe that the faculty didn't care about teaching, or only from stories of long ago?</p>
<p>Serj- The vast majority of the freshman class hadn't even met you when you left. How can you say that you got tired of knowing everyone when you knew perhaps 10-20% of the Class of 09'??</p>
<p>As for there being "arrogant and self-absorbed" students, it's a much smaller percentage that at any other prestigious college I've been to. At any rate, the student body is very diverse; virtually anyone can find a crowd that they enjoy being around, regardless of their interests or background. </p>
<p>Regarding the courses, I found them a mixed bag; some awesome textbooks/TAs/lecturers combined with some average textbooks/TAs/lecturers along with some poor textbooks/TAs/lecturers.</p>
<p>It's no different than the classes for any other university that I've personally witnessed, taken, or heard about.</p>
<p>Ben/post23--thank you so, so much for the careful categorization of profs. It's really helpful, and makes me feel a lot better about going to Caltech. I'd also been warned about the relative rigidity of the curriculum, so it's nice to hear from someone who ended up appreciating it.</p>
<p>(and Serj, I'm curious too as to whether you personally encountered a lack of interest in teaching among the professors.)</p>
<p>Flierdeke--I believe the general impression here is that you should definitely do MIT over Caltech. ;)</p>
<p>I gotta wonder, is it really necessary to challenge Serj like that Gracie? I don't necessarily agree or disagree with his statements (my one day at Caltech is not enough to make any generalizations about anyone), but he was just sharing his opinion. He even came out and said that his opinion was based over a short period of time and as such should not be weighed as much as more experienced students.</p>
<p>I guess I personally think that it's acceptable to have differing opinions on something (and I would see no problem with explaining why you feel differently than Serj) but why would you attempt to deconstruct his opinion? You made assumptions about his experience and challenged his statements. Why? I guess I could be wrong here, but it doesn't seem like Serj has an agenda against Caltech. It seems like he is just trying to weigh in on the matter.</p>
<p>Edit: Please don't take this as a personal attack Gracie--I probably should not have posted this but I know that I would be uncomfortable in Serj's position after your post. Of course, the above is my opinion and I don't presume to tell other people how to act.</p>
<p>Actually, it may be necessary to challenge Serj like that. It's best to create as complete a picture as possible of life at Caltech on this thread for people who are making that decision, whether now or in a year or whenever, and if Serj's post is unfairly negative (which it may or may not be), it could very well push people away from Caltech unnecessarily...</p>
<p>But who is to decide whether his post is unfairly negative or not? What about posts that are "unfairly positive" and bias students to attend Caltech when maybe it's not their best fit? (not saying that has happened)</p>
<p>I guess what I am saying is that I don't believe his post was unfairly anything. I'm not saying he's right about Caltech, but he went out of the way to say that this was his opinion and attempt to make his situation--his biases--known. </p>
<p>Although I am not accepted to Caltech like you are, Guitarman, I am waitlisted and I do have a choice to make. I would like to see, as you said, the "complete picture". The way Serj presented his opinion allowed me to get more perspective on the way things work at Caltech, but it didn't necessarily make me feel more negatively about it. For example, he mentions the small size of Caltech and the "oddity" of the students as things he did not like--but those are two of the things I really like about Caltech. I can compare stats and classes all day long but I have never felt as "at home" at a college as I did at Caltech. I felt like I would really fit in with the students there (my dinner with blacker house has been one of the most fun things I've ever done--imagine that every night!)</p>
<p>In conclusion, he stated how he felt and he stated why he felt that way. Everyone should be allowed to do so without having to defend themselves. I do not believe he is attempting to state his opinion as fact and until he does so he should not be subject to challenge on the basis of his opinion.</p>
<p>I agree with lizzardfire that the personal nature of the challenge was probably a little overboard -- he went out of the way to be humble... we can disagree about the ideas, but no need to be so sharp toward him personally.</p>