<p>I haven't been able to figure this out. why MIT and not Caltech? Even if Caltech is included in HYPSMC, why is it only an afterthought? What's the difference between MIT and Caltech? My personal guess is that MIT is at least more "mainstream" than Caltech - even when compared to MIT, Caltech's admission criteria is almost totally score based, and the curriculum is hardcore and more on the fringe than MIT's. And it seems to me that MIT is more comprehensive than Caltech, it has a business school and you go there even if you don't wanna go grad school and be a scientist. Many entrepreneurs are among MIT alumni, while Caltech is a hardcore science training ground. What do you think?</p>
<p>I think you’re essentially right. MIT is more holistic and is closer to the Ivies than Caltech is.</p>
<p>And besides, it’s always been HYPSMC in that order, and people are just lazy and leave out letters. When folks say HYP they aren’t necessary saying that Stanford isn’t on par.</p>
<p>MIT has top ranked Social Science department (Econ, Political Science, Psychology), a top ranked MBA program, a highly regarded Architecture school, and is a pioneer in the field of linguistics. I even think MIT has a top ranked Philosophy department. Caltech has a strong Economics department (not nearly as good as MIT’s mind you), but that’s about it. As such, I would not say that Caltech has the academic versitality that is associated with MIT.</p>
<p>I think MIT just has more of the “university”-type feel, and they also have a greater number of well-ranked departments. Usually, when someone thinks of MIT, s/he usually associates it with more than just math or science.</p>
<p>Honestly, the only thing that comes to my mind when I think of Caltech is math or science.</p>
<p>I know what HYPS stands for so M is MIT and C is Columbia or Caltech?</p>
<p>I dunno. Maybe because M graduates five times as many top students as C?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is that because MIT is 5 times bigger?</p>
<p>What everyone else is saying - It’s more well-rounded in terms of academics. And I do think athletics play a bit of a role as well. I’m not sure MIT is exactly known for its athletics, but Caltech’s athletics are infamously weak. I mean, its basketball team had, what, a 200 game losing streak?</p>
<p>“Is that because MIT is 5 times bigger?”</p>
<p>Yep, five time bigger than C and ten times bigger than the “lesser” C (Cooper Union).</p>
<p>How about in terms of admission requirements? Do M and C look for different things? My impression is that MIT still looks for great, well rounded ECs and leadership (in addition to science research etc) while Caltech admissions is very heavily score-based (according to Daniel Goldin’s The Price of Admission) and science-based.</p>
<p>They want you to do research in high school?</p>
<p>Gee not going to lie I thought that in HYPSMC the C stood for Chicago. Why is University of Chicago not included in this? As far as I can tell, HYP was the abbreviation, then it became HYPS, then HYPSM, and HYPSMC is the new abbreviation. Fact is the number of “top” colleges is increasing, pretty soon the abbreviation will get so unwieldy people will just say “top 10” or “top 20.”</p>
<p>I think the MAIN reason Caltech is somewhat forgotten is this. A seriously large chunk of the US population lives east of the Mississippi and is thus closer to MIT. MIT is much bigger and thus much higher profile. Quite simply, the average high school in this country is more likely to send a graduate to MIT than CalTech. NOT ONE of these things in any way diminishes the academic prowess of CalTech, it’s a really great college. But it’s just not as much in the public eye.</p>
<p>The one place where this may not apply as much is in the media. Because the film and TV industry is physically closer to CalTech, it shows up in about as many movies and TV shows in the physical sense as does MIT. Real Genius, Numb3rs, etc. (Although, I do find that references to MIT are more common in the simple sense of “Oh he went to MIT” for the same reason that it’s more present in the public consciousness)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe MIT shows up far more often in popular media (TV, movies) than Caltech. See for example the [“MIT in popular culture”](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_in_popular_culture#Movies_and_television”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_in_popular_culture#Movies_and_television</a>) entry at the Wikipedia.</p>
<p>^ Except when we have an earthquake and Caltech’s Kate Hutton is all over the media. ;)</p>