<p>For the sciences(specifically biology or biotechnology) which one has more rigor, thoroughness, research involved Caltech or MIT?
I dont doubt MIT, but for stuff like Stem cells Caltech must be ahead right since of Proposition 71, or is MIT ahead on Caltech on that type of research?</p>
<p>Haha, I can't imagine there's a huge difference between the biology departments at Caltech and MIT. The general requirements for all Caltech students are probably more difficult than those at MIT, but biology is just sort of biology! At any rate, both departments have a similar focus on neurobiology, cell biology, and developmental biology.</p>
<p>I think the big question about stem cell research is whether or not researchers at a given institution are interested in them or not. To be honest, there aren't that many places in the US right now where you have a great deal of stem cell research (since the $$$ to fund said research hasn't been around). Schools in California, I'm sure, are likely to find themselves at the forefront of such research since the money will be flowing soon, but as of right now, I don't know too many profs who are doing stem cell stuff.</p>
<p>A list of the research interests of MIT faculty can be found [url=<a href="http://web.mit.edu/biology/www/facultyareas/viewbyarea.html%5Dhere%5B/url">http://web.mit.edu/biology/www/facultyareas/viewbyarea.html]here[/url</a>]. MIT's faculty is somewhat larger than Caltech's (and the graduate program in biology is ranked slightly higher), but both are absolutely excellent, and I wouldn't choose one over the other due to rankings.</p>
<p>Excellent response, molliebat, and I certainly wouldn't disagree with anything you said. The atmospheres are slightly different -- MIT is larger, Caltech is somewhat more personal; which one you like is totally a matter of taste. The general institute requirements differ -- Caltech has harder physics and math requirements, and whether you like this is also a matter of personal preferences.</p>
<p>I'd apply, visit both places if you get in, and decide based on the gut feeling you get about which one you prefer. It's a system that works pretty well :)</p>
<p>Well, considering that <a href="http://www.biology.caltech.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://www.biology.caltech.edu/</a> says they got 2.3 mil for research and this applies to undergrads, Id say that they do have a good assortment of cash to use as they wish while at MIT the same can't be said, since Massachusetts does not have such a program/initiative.</p>
<p>Oh, I know the money will be flowing in soon, but so far as I know it hasn't been distributed yet (?). The thing is that research in biology takes a lot longer than you would sort of imagine that it would, so I wouldn't expect to immediately get involved in a stem cell project and expect it to go somewhere big. At least not for a few years.</p>
<p>The money described in the press release, by the way, is for postdocs...? I'm sure undergrads will be able to research in the labs to which those postdocs are attached, but it looks like the money is going for training in techniques and bioethics rather than to actual research projects. This is probably how it will be for a few years at least -- very few biologists at the moment actually have the technical knowledge to work with stem cells, so people have to be trained from professors on down.</p>
<p>(I meant to say this earlier, sorry) I actually don't know any biology faculty at MIT (off the top of my head) who are working with stem cells. Granted, this could be because there's no state money to work with them. But it also could be that none (or very few) of the faculty are interested in working with them, even if Massachusetts were to suddenly rain down free money from the sky.</p>
<p>Yes, molliebat is right about grant slowness. By the way, the reason Caltech got so much money was that our president, David Baltimore (who won the Nobel prize for something other than stem cell work) was one of the main backers of the Proposition, so he's probably excited for Caltech to get into it.</p>