<p>Bigredmed, I'm afraid I don't agree, mostly because I disagree with your starting assumptions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Without knowing anyone's statistics when they applied to grad school makes your arguement of their placement @ Caltech worthless.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then I'll give you a shining example. We can use molliebatmit, a regular poster here, and who got admitted to a number of top bio PhD programs coming out of MIT. At the same time, I happen to know some other bio students from other big research schools (like Berkeley) who also applied to the same bio PhD programs that she did, and didn't get in. In fact, in most cases, they didn't even get an interview. </p>
<p>
[quote]
For applications to some place like Caltech, we can be assured that they have, for the most part, their pick of the best of the best. If we assume that these individuals had steller GRE scores (not unlikely) and good GPA's, then their admission has little if anything to do with their undergrad institution.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And that's where the analysis breaks down. Molliebatmit had good, but not stellar GPA and GRE scores. Yet she got into every single bio PhD program she applied to. I happen to know quite a few other people who got into top doctoral programs who had decent, but certainly not spectacular scores. For example, I know a guy who just got admitted into the business doctoral program at Harvard Business School whose stats really aren't that good.</p>
<p>The truth is, stats are not the major determinant of whether you will get into a top doctoral program. I know people coming out of MIT, Harvard, and other major research programs with near-perfect grades and test scores who nonetheless found that they couldn't get admitted to a single top-tier doctoral program. What matters far more than your stats is your rec's and your research experience. Molliebatmit got admitted mostly because of her strong research experience.</p>
<p>So now that I have mentioned the importance of research, one might say that that would cause you to prefer a research university over a LAC. Wrong - and that is where the analysis goes off the rails. The issue is not how good the research is at a particular school, the real issue is how much research YOU as an individual student will be able to perform. This is the major difference between LAC's and most big research universities.</p>
<p>The truth is, most undergrads at the big research universities, especially the big public schools, have little access to any meaningful research projects. Sure, there is a lot of research going on, but you as an undergrad probably don't have access to it, or if you do, in only higher constrained circumstances. For example, I know plenty of undergrads at Berkeley who have complained that they have never been allowed to work on any research of note, and if they were able to get a lab position at all (which is by no means certain), then they would often times be relegated to performing menial tasks like cleaning glassware or calibrating instruments, rather than actually doing anything meaningful. In short, most research universities reserve almost all of their research facilities for their graduate students, leaving very little available for the undergrads. </p>
<p>LAC's may have less total big-time research, but that research is far more AVAILABLE to the undergrads, mostly because you don't have to compete with a whole slew of graduate students for lab spots. </p>
<p>Again, take a look at all of the newly minted Caltech PhD's and check out their CV's online. Nearly all of them, including those from the LAC's, can demonstrate substantial research experience from their undergraduate days, including in many cases published articles. How is that possible if the LAC's are unable to provide research opportunities for these undergrads? </p>
<p>To give you a case in point, take some huge research univeristies like Berkeley or UCLA. According to the Caltech data, it is almost always the case that more of their newly minted PHd's did their undergrads at one of the top 10 LAC's than from Berkeley or UCLA, despite the fact that Berkeley and UCLA each have far more undergrads than all of the top 10 LAC's combined. </p>
<p>The other main aspect is that you talk about the importance of grades. Well, to that I would say that it is often times actually EASIER to get higher grades at an elite LAC than at a major research university, mostly because of the grade inflation. At most LAC's, it is practically impossible to flunk out or otherwise get truly bad grades. As long as you put in the bare minimum of work, the worst grade you will get is a B, or maybe a C. Contrast that with the big research universities like Berkeley that almost seem to enjoy tagging students with bad grades. </p>
<p>But more to the point, I think vossron has hit the nail right on the head. The fact is, LAC's do extremely well when it comes to getting its students to PhD programs. For example, what school has the highest percentage of its undergrads going on to receive PhD's in engineering, science or math? Is it a major research university? Nope - it's a LAC, Harvey Mudd. A full 34.4% of Mudd's graduates go on to receive PhD's. That's higher than the percentage from Caltech or MIT. </p>
<p>So your argument that those individual people who get high stats may get into doctoral programs may hold water if a small minority of the class goes to these programs. It holds far less water if more than 1/3 of the class does so. The fact that the percentages are so high indicates that there is probably something else going on - that the school itself must be providing something to prepare its students well for doctoral programs.</p>