Quote:
|
Originally Posted by simfish Perhaps it can be said that Caltech has the privilege of being able to sort out the most mathematically inclined from the less so because it receives so few applications. |
I'd like to correct this statement - seeing that it would be easy to sort them out even when it has more applications (just by means of AMC/AIME scores). It's just that when a school starts to value pursuits other than math/science, and then adcoms start looking for traits that are extremely hard to define (as clearly evidenced from the students who apply to all of the Ivies, and who are accepted by some but rejected by others), even though it's unlikely that the admissions policies of each of the individual Ivies are significantly different from each other. Moreover, since most students don't do anything beyond CollegeBoard exams, which they get near-maximum marks on, it is literally impossible to distinguish between students unless a significant number of them report AMC/AIME scores (and even then, I think Ben Golub said that most Caltech students haven't reported AIME scores - due to the fact that many of them haven't taken them). I think another factor in admissions is that it is based on an assumption - that students are likely to reach and then report their maximum scores on a particular test. This assumption is true for Collegeboard exams, but not for AMC/AIME scores (since numerous students haven't prepped for AMC/AIMEs). It must be false for AIME scores so long as the AIME is a once-per-year test - anecdotal evidence says that the AIME is the test of stupid mistakes.
Anyways, that was somewhat of a digression.
==
Quote:
I never said that the final matriculating class at Caltech was bad. In fact, I know of no reason to believe that the student quality at Caltech is worse than that at MIT.
I am simply saying that just running a meritocratic admissions policy alone doesn't necessarily give you much, because at the end of day, what matters is which students you ultimately matriculate. Again, I would point out that, with the exception of athletes (which comprise a tiny percentage of the population), Berkeley's admissions policies are highly meritocratic - certainly more so than are the policies at HYPS. After all, Berkeley does not run AA, does not run legacy admissions. But does that mean that Berkeley ends up with a higher quality student body than HYPS? I don't think so.
|
Berkeley tries to do the best it can to attract its students admitted on the basis of merit (short of financial aid). Most institutions don't wish to overhaul their own curriculums.
Caltech's admissions policy is meritocratic. It does the best it can for its curriculum. The only other step it can do is to make changes within the institution. The major change that it can make is to improve the student quality of life - especially for the unhappy students. Isn't there a minimum credit load that you have to take to stay within Caltech, for example? That minimum credit load could be relaxed for students under certain circumstances. EDIT: found it.
http://www.deans.caltech.edu/PDF/Adv...ook-06-web.pdf
"1. Students need to average 41 units a term to graduate in
four years. The minimum course load is 36 units per
term, unless permission is given by the Deans. Petitions
for underloads must be made to the Deans. The maxi-
mum freshman course load is 51 units per term. Fresh-
men will need to convince you and the Dean that an
overload is appropriate in their case. Contrary to the
folklore, the Dean’s approval for overloads is rarely given
to freshmen"
==
How many people petition for an underload? Could they petition for, perhaps, a single class (or even to take a break for a quarter?). Even then, the mere existence of petitioning to the dean discourages some students from petitioning.
==
Now, the issue with graduation in more than four years, of course, is cost. Caltech is expensive, just like any other of the four year institutions. While it takes steps to ensure that every student can attend - the fact is - some parents are more willing to pay for 4 (or potentially more) years of their kid's education than others. And few parents expect the potential of having to pay more for their kids.
==
Admissions, though, can't do much. You just can't tell which students are more likely than others to burn out. Even those who have the potential to burn out may have personality characteristics aside that which may benefit their scientific endeavors. Why? Because
few of the students have actually been tested in a Caltech-like environment. Until they have been tested in such an environment, it's impossible to tell the difference.
==
And then, there's computer games.
Ben Golub said that computer games were probably the biggest causes of students failing classes. We don't know whether these students failed due to computer games, or if these students used the computer games as a coping mechanism for stress that already existed (most likely a combination of the two). Again, it's impossible to tell which students are more likely to find solace in computer games from those who are less likely to do so. Some people may have been exposed to few before Caltech, and then become fully immersed once they finally discover what's within a computer game. Meanwhile, those with long-time exposure to computer games have little new to discover within them, and may be more willing to defer pleasures for workload.