<p>Last year our son applied to Mudd as a (relative) "safety" (or less risky) school. He is more interested in math and theoretical physics than engineering or life sciences; what other schools would be good fallbacks for students with those interests and a relatively strong profile?</p>
<p>In addition to Caltech, I will be applying to MIT (by the Gods not a safety school, ^_^; ), Georgia Tech, and University of Florida (I am a Florida permanent resident). I am also considering Florida State University and University of South Florida as further safeties.</p>
<p>One word (or three, depending on whether an acronym counts as a word or not): RPI! :)</p>
<p>University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
Carnegie Mellon
University of Virginia</p>
<p>Caltech can certainly be seen as a match for some people. I know a bunch of people a grade above me I expected to get in, and they all did. Caltech's admissions process is nowhere near the roll-of-the-dice nature of HYPS admissions. For safety perhaps UChi and WashU (unpredictable because they care about your interest). Also certainly state flagship, RPI, state tech school (VA tech, georgia tech, etc), if you're a strong applicant then CMU, Harvey Mudd. Depends on your qualifications, mainly.</p>
<p>"As much fun as it would be to pull out my high school CV..."</p>
<p>I could use that line too but instead I just go and pull it out. That usually settles all debate...</p>
<p>But, really, isn't a measure of a school's excellence the amount of PROGRESS it makes on the incoming class? i guess it is comparable to a transfer function, H(jw)..
Y(jw)=H(jw)X(jw)
Your argument is that a true measure of greatness is the input to the system, X(jw). I say, however, that it is the transfer function H(jw).
In all honesty, though, it should be the output Y(jw) that measures the potential impact a person, and therefore institution has on the world.</p>
<p>Here's one more reminder to apply somewhere safe while you apply to Caltech. Good luck, everyone.</p>
<p>UF and University of Miami are my safeties. Carnegie Mellon, HMC, and possibly Cornell are my matches. MIT, Caltech, Stanford, and Columbia are my reaches.</p>
<p>Well I woudlnt' really consider any of these safeties (except for the last school):</p>
<h1>1-Caltech</h1>
<h1>2-MIT</h1>
<h1>3-Harvey-Mudd / U of Chicago (if accepted into both, as of now I'm not sure where I'd go)</h1>
<h1>5 Case Western Reserve University</h1>
<h1>6 University of Rochester</h1>
<h1>7 OSU</h1>
<p>in order of choice
someone mentioend to me the other day that i should apply to harvard because if i did get in i would get a full-ride (need based) because of my family's income. I'm still deciding whether to do that or not, so Harvard is tentative. And I guess I'd put it under MIT in terms of choice.</p>
<p>
[quote]
UF and University of Miami are my safeties. Carnegie Mellon, HMC, and possibly Cornell are my matches. MIT, Caltech, Stanford, and Columbia are my reaches.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Makes sense, but Cornell wouldn't "possibly" be a match if Mudd is. Unless you are a girl, Cornell would also be a match if Mudd is. I know it's semantics but people need to wake up and realize it's harder to get into Mudd than Cornell if you're a guy. Mudd's acceptance rate was 16% for guys last year in an already self-selecting applicant pool. That should tell you something.</p>
<p>well UCs for me. </p>
<p>ok so I 'heard' that it is easier for girls to get into HMC and Caltech. how much of that is ACTUALLY true?</p>
<p>To the best of my knowledge, Caltech's admissions committee does not try to contrive admissions in order to balance the gender ratio. The committee would do a disservice to everyone, the accepted student, those rejected who could have had the "spot," and the Caltech community, to accept people who could not handle it here. Acceptance rates may differ across genders, but I'd assert that's only due to applicant self-selection, not admission committee self-selection.</p>
<p>So HMC is trying to balance out the gender ratio? Ouch, then I'd have to put that in my reach then. =/</p>
<p>I'm not implying that (about HMC). I don't have a problem with trying to recruit using scholarships, PFW, etc., but I suspect there'd be some backlash if we did try contriving admissions policies here. I'm only referring to Caltech, I can't speak for HMC (then again, nor can I speak for Caltech)</p>
<p>
[quote]
So HMC is trying to balance out the gender ratio? Ouch, then I'd have to put that in my reach then. =/
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They've been trying to do this for a long time. Last year they went overboard and had a 16% admit rate for guys and about a 50% admit right for girls. The admissions office at Mudd really is absolutely horrid for many reasons.</p>
<p>Caltech does not practice affirmative action of any sort. Although the admit rate is higher for girls than guys, that is simply the result of a more self-selecting pool.</p>
<p>I think the more correct statement is that Caltech practices affirmative action for students whose background limited their educational opportunities, but sets high standards for all admitted applicants, which is a slightly different idea.</p>
<p>I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, tokenadult. I am under the impression (as are most of my friends here at Caltech, as far as I can tell) that Caltech does not practice affirmative action. If you mean that Caltech doesn't admit students solely on the basis of raw achievement but rather on some comparison of achievement and opportunity, I agree, but I wouldn't call that affirmative action (even though it technically may be). </p>
<p>I should clarify that when I say affirmative action I mean treating applicants differently on the basis of their race or gender.</p>
<p>There are less girls, way less girls. They want more girls. Therefore, aren't girls cut some slack? I mean, if you had a girl and a guy with similar credentials, I'm sure they'd pick the girl for the sake of the gender imbalance...</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you mean that Caltech doesn't admit students solely on the basis of raw achievement but rather on some comparison of achievement and opportunity, I agree, but I wouldn't call that affirmative action (even though it technically may be).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's what I mean. And that's what the term "affirmative action" briefly meant in the 1960s, when I first heard it, before it mostly became a euphemism for explicit ethnic quotas.</p>