<p>Caltech's graduation rate is around 88% (according to this</a>), while MIT's is 94% (same</a> source). This contrasts the Ivies which have rates in the very high 90s. </p>
<p>Anyone have an explanation?</p>
<p>I found one possible reason on the MIT site:
"Both MIT and Caltech have comparatively low graduation rates, 89 percent and 83 percent respectively. U.S. News believes that the graduation rate reflects how well a college is educating its students; but could it be that a college with a lower graduation rate is also offering a tougher curriculum for its students, that it offers greater educational value to its students?" - Counteracting</a> Imperfect Rankings: MIT Should Post School Statistics on the Web for Prospective Students - The Tech</p>
<p>Caltech is really hard. And everyone here is required to take 5 terms of math and physics courses, regardless of major. At MIT, they take a freshman year core of math and science regardless of major. At an Ivy, you can switch to just about every joke major you can think of if you can’t hack science or engineering. </p>
<p>Caltech can provide you with a very rigorous education, but at a price; it’s really freakin’ hard.</p>
<p>Every year there are a few freshman and sophomores who decide that Caltech isn’t for them, and transfer out. Unlike many other schools, if you decide you don’t want to do math, science, or engineering, you really should transfer to somewhere else. This is also something that is impossible to tell before you get here- upon matriculation, you can’t really tell who these students are going to be. </p>
<p>Although I don’t think anyone has hard numbers, I suspect this accounts for many of the non-graduates. Very few people finish their degrees in more than 6 years. 88% is lower than other numbers I’ve seen for a 6-year graduation rate- it looks like this data is kinda old, and I’m pretty sure the number has risen in the past few years.</p>
<p>Humor me please, isn’t this exactly Caltech’s responsibility in its admissions philosophy setup? I.e. not to admit students who wouldn’t almost certainly be happy? I hope you just mean that a few exceptions accidentally slip through, and they’re hardest to detect because most of the <em>glaring</em> misfits are not admitted. </p>
<p>I would think an ideal way to check whether students are truly ready for Caltech is to monitor a hugely significant lopsidedness in their studies with extra time dedicated for engaging in significant maths/science/engineering pursuits beyond having extremely high grades and scores…plus an essay that communicates not just enthusiasm but maturity. Maturity is the key word – people who don’t just like maths/science, but those who know what they are getting into.</p>
<p>mathboy98: I would think that the issue here is that students change their mind all the time. They think and show they can handle the math/science, but when the rubber hits the road, they decide that they cannot handle or do not want to handle it.</p>
<p>Someone I talked to told me this, “kids sometimes come in Caltech expecting that they will breeze through the classes as they are good in math/science. They not only find the classes challenging, they also find that their classmates are no slouches.” So you have to work extra hard to keep up and there are people who do not want to do it. I have heard the same of some majors in Berkeley. </p>
<p>I am not sure how you would measure this maturity by an essay. It may have to be experiential. Yes some more education is possible, but I would say almost all Caltech applications realize it is going to difficult, but not how much.</p>
<p>Definitely this problem exists at Berkeley, and I guess I’m one of those who thinks it’s a little ridiculous for frosh to enter these types of schools thinking that it’s going to be simple :D</p>
<p>My humble opinion is that part of the big issue is that the nature of work done before and during attending these universities can be a night and day difference, and it shouldn’t be, because really the way the universities do it tends to be the correct way. I have posted many times and in many places that AP courses being designated as college level can give people a very false sense of their being able to handle real college level work – because simply, a lot of the AP is very sloppily done, and people take the classes more to boost GPA than out of dedication to the subject matter. </p>
<p>Now I’m aware Caltech might not accept AP credit for some of their classes because they teach them at a higher level, but I’m in favor of their giving exposure to what the first-year curriculum will be like. I think sometimes seeing a sample of the real stuff really does make you start thinking if you care enough to do it. Especially if you’re forced to actually work through the real stuff. </p>
<p>As for the essay, it would be purely asking the students to explain interest in maths/science/engineering in context of what they’re doing and what they plan to do. One would be surprised how clear it is when you ask someone about goals and interests whether they have a real mature idea or not. All of the claims should have some grounding in evidence, i.e. things the students actually did – because really, when students harp on about “research,” I can smell when it was just filler work and when it actually was something useful and significant in an instant, and certainly admissions fellows can do it even better than I.</p>
<p>*Interest in math, science, or engineering manifests itself in many forms…In a page, more or less tell the Admissions committee how you express your interest, curiosity or excitement about math, science or engineering </p>
<p>Before answering this question you might ask those around you -family, friends or teachers -how they see you as a mathematician, scientist or engineer…*</p>
<p>^^ Right, I was aware I was just being complete in my list of things a school like Caltech should have. They already do everything they reasonably can in today’s day and age using the standard means of assessment.</p>
<p>I’m pointing out that an important flaw is that AP and similar coursework is simply taught the wrong way, and the SAT IIs are conducted as multiple choice tests – there simply isn’t an incentive for high schools to try to teach “real math and science” though a select few do it anyway. These students and any others who make the effort to educate themselves about what the real stuff is like don’t experience a shock in college (I certainly didn’t – it was just as hard as I thought, no more and no less). I have long been a believer that sending a realistic message of what serious math/science work is like would solve lots of misconceptions students have when entering college. A sample of college level maths, physics and chemistry is not something all of the masses should be able to undergo in high school. They’re simply not qualified, but get deluded into thinking they were…given almost everyone remotely serious takes the classes.</p>
<p>I would hope Caltech uses all means they can to screen for which students realistically have a clue what they’re getting into. In fact, it is best to approach students with skepticism, and figure out what they’ve actually learned somehow.</p>
<p>That has changed in the past few years (the ratio has gone from 70/30 when I was a frosh to almost 60/40 now, which is a huge difference) I also don’t know many people who leave Caltech because of the ratio (that might be a part of their overall frustration, but I’m willing to bet that if their work was going better, they would have stayed)</p>
<p>Let’s be honest here everybody. A lot of the guys at Tech are incapable of interaction with the opposite sex of the romantic variety, including I’m guessing, most guys who go on college confidential to complain of their lack of success.</p>
<p>I’m not sure if this would have a significant effect, but could the smaller size of MIT and particularly Caltech, make the graduation rate appear lower? Each student that does not graduate is almost a percentage point at Caltech.</p>
<p>No. Graduation rates have been steadily rising, but it hasn’t shown the hopping effect due to low sample size if the lower graduation rates were due to small enrollment sizes.</p>
<p>Also, MIT’s class size is comparable to the Ivies.</p>
<p>My direct knowledge on this is that after the Freshman year almost all classes taken by undergraduates are actually the same classes in the graduate pHD program with the Graduate Students. It’s not a large school in student population but it is the toughest and most challenging. They screen students very carefully. It’s well known that these students get into any school they want and they choose Caltech because they want to the most rigorous program and research oppotunities. It’s much harder to get in as an undergraduate then a graduate and it’s really hard to get in as a graduate. The only fair complaint anyone can make is that you can’t have the same amount of fun because you will be challenged at the highest level. There are no gentleman A’s and B’s plenty of C’s and F’s. Fair enough. Those who get in are committed. Few leave I suspect but many need and extra year…</p>
– because really, when students harp on about “research,” I can smell when it was just filler work and when it actually was something useful and significant in an instant, and certainly admissions fellows can do it even better than I.</p>