<p>I'm quite impressed by Ben's remarks. I think that the currrent system at most universities already overvalues charm, social ease and assertiveness (ecs, balance, recommendations from high school teachers, school and sports, etc.) and there is a lot to be said for a place like Caltech which values raw ability, intellectual firepower and dedication to math/science over everything else. Not to say that there won't be all-around types at Tech -- I liked many of my hum/ss classes better than my science classes -- but there's no need for Caltech to go out on that limb.</p>
<p>[Ironically, academia overvalues narrow brilliance over wide-ranging synthesis. You can be the most obnoxious rodent, but you'll go far if you publish enough papers.]</p>
<p>But at the undergrad level, there's no doubt that the median top university has a filter that seems to select for very bright jocks and class presidents rather than shy Einsteins or Ramanujans.</p>
<p>I know that if I had a couple of billion dollars, I'd build a school that were as purely meritocratic as Caltech but that would be more liberal artsy along the lines of the U of Chicago. Sadly my buddies with that kind of dough didn't do quite as well in the 2000 tech crash as they should have ...</p>
<p>Thanks, NQO. By the way, I think this remark is both hilarious and (from my limited observations) quite true:</p>
<p>
[quote]
[Ironically, academia overvalues narrow brilliance over wide-ranging synthesis. You can be the most obnoxious rodent, but you'll go far if you publish enough papers.]
<p>
[quote]
Being another Techer, I've met a number of people here who are absolutely brilliant, but would probably do terribly in an interview. Not necessarily due to shyness, although that's one of the reasons. Some of them are very nearly unable to have a "normal" conversation, mostly due to an intensely focused mind. Others are simply very introverted, and thus would probably come across as unsure of themselves in a social situation, but in the realm of academics, they're incredibly skilled. emphasis mine
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That particular concept is very intriguing. I hope I'll have the fortune to meet such people sometime (mostly because I enjoy meeting new people and broading my scope with discussions of this and that -- much like this one!)</p>
<p>By the way, schools that are liberal artsy and completely meritocratic do exist. Those are the art institutes. Makes sense in a sort of beautifully analogous way, doesn't it?</p>
<p>I believe that the field of science needs more well-spoken individuals. Unfortunately, we live in a world that is not based entirely around objective merit, but rather political and emotional relationships between groups and individuals.</p>
<p>I also believe scientists have a duty to profess the facts through careful testing and experimentation, as well as to educate the general public of new findings. The very fact that pseudoscientifc ideas like ID/creationism hold any water on the political playing field shows that many of the people pushing these ideas are, at times, better spoken and more assertive than the scientists who can easily refute them. The same can hold true when it comes to the debates on things like global warming, stem cell research, nuclear power, the space program, etc.</p>
<p>It is good if an individual can conduct earth-shattering and controversial scientific research. It is infinitely better if that individual can then go and defend his or her work and make it palatable to the people it will one day benefit.</p>
<p>But why must we pick people who can naturally speak easily and defend their ideas? Why not pick people who have these ideas, and then teach them how to present them to the public? Don't forget that students applying to college are not expected to be perfect engineers and scientists -- they still have a long way to go. All of us have weaknesses coming in, and Admissions has to decide which of those weaknesses can be improved upon and which will prohibit a student from succeeding here. I tend to think that an inability to speak in front of others is the former, rather than the latter.</p>
<p>(I'm not saying that Caltech takes shy but brilliant students and turns them into eloquent scientists. But many students do gain a great deal of social confidence here.)</p>
<p>Sorry frozen-tears but art institutes are too specialized. I'm thinking of a more conventional program, but less weighted to the sciences.</p>
<p>If I may fantasize a bit, I'm thinking of something as tough as the Caltech core but with more hum/ss. Say a semester of history, a sem of Shakespeare, a year of econ, a writing course around great thinkers. There would also be a year of hard calculus (Maybe Math 1a and b stretched to one year) and a sem each of Caltech style physics and chemistry. The Core must be tough and inflexible (i.e. all majors woud have to take the exact same basic subjects). I would envision a student body sort of like the Ivies without the "balance."</p>
<p>The undergrad school would be the size of Chicago and all would be admitted on purely scholastic criteria. No SAT 1600/4.0 student would ever be rejected for a 1300/3.0 student who worked on a political campaign or seemed "Creative" unless he/she were Mozart.</p>
<p>Mm... I was going to apply to Caltech. In fact, I eagerly submitted my Part I in October? Or was it September? Anyway, I was accepted ED to a certain school near Ben's hometown, so I can say that I neither applied nor got into Caltech.</p>
<p>Having said that, I did work at one of Caltech's facilities last summer, and I got somewhat acquainted.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The undergrad school would be the size of Chicago and all would be admitted on purely scholastic criteria. No SAT 1600/4.0 student would ever be rejected for a 1300/3.0 student who worked on a political campaign or seemed "Creative" unless he/she were Mozart.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But isn't the political campaign almost the very heart of social science? I'm just speculating, but I would think Caltech would take a student who sacrifices SAT-study and homework time in order to conduct mindblowing independent research. Wouldn't your school do the same for the politically inclined? What about the student who felt the grades and board tests come second to his/her writing and composition, or history research?</p>
<p>Somehow, I don't think the attitudes on campus at Caltech and Princeton are as different as those between Princeton and MIT. From my perspective, both Tech and Pton seem to possess a sort of elitism that MIT does not -- an attitude that says, "You can't get as good an education anywhere else." (Good science education, for Tech, and good undergrad education, for Pton.) But let's not digress.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But why must we pick people who can naturally speak easily and defend their ideas? Why not pick people who have these ideas, and then teach them how to present them to the public?
[/quote]
From whom will they learn to present their ideas? Certainly not fellow classmates who are similarly reserved.</p>
<p>I think I might come watch some of the SURF presentations this year, if I find myself somewhere in the vicinity. I was going to go last year, and help cook at the dinner and be serenaded by the Italian guys, but then I realized I wouldn't have any way to get home by the time it all ended.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
From my perspective, both Tech and Pton seem to possess a sort of elitism that MIT does not -- an attitude that says, "You can't get as good an education anywhere else." (Good science education, for Tech, and good undergrad education, for Pton.)
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Dude, are you kidding me? Caltech has probably the least elitist students of any college I can think of. I've met UC Irvine kids that have a more inflated ego because of their school than anyone here. </p>
<p>Compared to Caltech, the students at MIT are infinitely more boastf ul, and as for Princeton, that's a completely different stratosphere....</p>
<p>It just seems like quite a few students feel that no one anywhere else would ever be able to (or, even if they were able to, as willing to) handle classes as tough as theirs. Anyhow, I'm sure it's true to some extent.</p>