simfish

sakky, I edited my post since you quoted it. Um, it's kind of funny because I edited it in a way that resembled your reply to it. The Axline is a signal to the applicants that they would be able to handle the Caltech core - so then it's a question of what the students want.

Even then, is Caltech's top priority the happiness of its own students? Or is it the fulfillment of its mission goals, which may make some students happier, at the cost of the happiness of some other students? A substantial portion of Caltech students are discontent with the institution, but a substantial amount of them also feel that Caltech is the perfect place for them. I think one of Caltech's main problems is how to make life better for the students discontent with their current situation (given its high transfer-out rate), while retaining the rigor it allows for those who feel that it's ideal for them.

Now, Marilee Jones says that 15% of the MIT acceptance pool would not be admitted under previous MIT admissions policies.

Now, the question is, when was the last time that MIT has increased the number of undergraduates?

Even if it hasn't increased the number of undergraduates in recent years, MIT's educational policies have obviously broadened, and it seems that it doesn't seem to feel a loss to its top level science and engineering programs despite the change in admissions policies, perhaps because of the increasing calibre of the top levels of the applicant pool at large.