Quote:
|
But it still leaves as an open issue that it doesn't really matter what sorts of admissions policies Caltech chooses to run. It only matters who Caltech actually able to matriculate . You can run the most meritocratic admissions policies in the world, but if many of your best admittees choose not to go (as evidenced by the strikingly low yield of the scholarship winners), then that obviates much of your meritocratic character.
|
(1)Axline-level people: MIT and Caltech take nearly all
(2)People capable of handling Caltech core, but not exceptional: MIT rejects many that Caltech accepts
(3)People not really capable of handling Caltech core: MIT accepts some, Caltech rejects nearly all (it makes some mistakes)
Caltech tries the best it can to get the best student body for its educational system. It at least works. But if it desires to get people from category (3), then it must modify its educational system (and this would be bad for many students who feel that the institution is their perfect fit). At least enough people place in category (2) for Caltech admissions to work fine the way it is.
Quote:
|
Yet the teaching was terrible , so much so that plenty of students concluded that they would learn more by not going to lecture, but instead by just sitting at home, reading the book.
|
I definitely agree.
When it comes to education, an interesting question is - how much does peer group really matter? How much does teaching really matter? What matters in the end, is the connections (and research) you get with your professors.
==
Anyways, I think we've all brought up interesting points.