Caltech vs MIT for engineering - Page 6

Ben Golub · 01-29-2005, 08:18 PM

Eh, itsallgood, maybe YOU should get out more. I got grades of A and A+ in upper level Princeton math and physics courses and barely broke a sweat (as a high school senior, no less). Caltech has made me work. So I know the actual comparison.

As far as the outside world, recruiters here (Goldman Sachs, etc.) routinely say that the Caltech name conveys, on average, a higher level of expertise with hard math and science than diplomas from other top schools.

As far as your question "why take the risk" I've explained that many times. Because you learn more here. Because after Caltech almost everything else is easy. Because you know you are being judged on standards that aren't designed to make everyone feel good.

Heck, the president of Stanford explained this eloquently in his letter to US News ( http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-pr...6gcfallow.html ). There, he points out what a nonsense criterion of quality graduation percentage is (which those foolish rankings devised in the first place).

Quote:

The California Institute of Technology offers a rigorous and demanding curriculum that undeniably adds great value to its students. Yet, Caltech is crucified for having a "predicted" graduation rate of 99% and an actual graduation rate of 85%. Did it ever occur to the people who created this "measure" that many students do not graduate from Caltech precisely because they find Caltech too rigorous and demanding - that is, adding too much value - for them? Caltech could easily meet the "predicted" graduation rate of 99% by offering a cream-puff curriculum and automatic A's. Would that be adding value? How can the people who came up with this formula defend graduation rate as a measure of value added? And even if they could, precisely how do they manage to combine test scores and "education expenditures" - itself a suspect statistic - to predict a graduation rate?

Anyway, maybe you don't like the graduation rate. Too bad for you. I wouldn't be surprised if some people don't come here because of it. Too bad for them. Our goal isn't to maximize yield (otherwise we'd change our name to Harvard) and it isn't to accord with your tastes.

Maybe there's not a good answer to "why" for you, but there is for the people who come here, and that's good enough for me.

itsallgood · 01-29-2005, 08:33 PM

To Ben, sakky, alleya and others

Please understand, I believe CalTech is a great school, with great students and fantastic faculty. But PLEASE don't try to tell me that its program is any better than the ones at Berkeley, Stanford, MIT (all ranked higher) and, even, Princeton. That statement simply won't wash outside the walls of CalTech.

And stop ignoring the problem with retention and graduation rates. Something is wrong when you take super bright and highly motivated kids and can't hold or graduate them. There's a fault in the system that won't get fixed until you come out of denial.

Ben Golub · 01-29-2005, 08:37 PM

"But PLEASE don't try to tell me that its program is any better than the ones at Berkeley, Stanford, MIT (all ranked higher) and, even, Princeton."

errrm, time to wake up. For each school, there is certainly a field in which Caltech is ranked higher. In overall undergraduate USNews rankings, you well know that Caltech bounces around from beating those schools to being tied with them to trailing them by a negligible margin because those people need to sell magazines.

If you're just talking about engineering, you have to quarrel with me. I've always maintained that many engineers are probably better off at MIT. The one's who aren't probably like the 3:1 student:faculty ratio here.

Oh, and note also that for all the infinite wisdom of the USNews rankings Berkeley's undergrad program is ranked something like 20 spots lower than ours last I checked.

And as for your persistent whining about graduation rates, I've answered your points and you don't have any substantive responses. You are now just down to repeating your undefended assertion that non-100% graduation rates mean there's something wrong. Why don't you respond to the points in the Stanford president's letter? Or is that too tough for you?

Anyway, until you come back with some answers containing substance, you've obviously lost this debate.

itsallgood · 01-29-2005, 08:39 PM

Ben, don't believe all the flattery of the recruiters. They probably say that at EVERY top school they go to. Right out of the play book.

It's good that Stanford came to CalTech rescue. It's a great and noble school looking out for the others.

itsallgood · 01-29-2005, 08:40 PM

Ben, ALL my posts have to do with Engineering. I said that at the start.

Ben Golub · 01-29-2005, 08:41 PM

Haha, nice try itsallgood, but do you have any response to the Stanford letter's demolition of your main point? Or is that it for you?

sakky · 01-29-2005, 08:42 PM

Ben Golub, and alleya, but the point is, why use shadow grades, or pass/fail for just the first couple of terms? Why not use them for ALL terms? What's so bad about that? If it's OK to do that for the first 2 terms, then why isn't it OK for all the terms?

But all the quibbling about procedure is neither here nor there. I think I have to agree with itsallgood and say that clearly there is an indisputable issue on the table which is that Caltech graduates a lower percentage of its students than its peer institutions do. We can argue about what exactly is the source of the issue or what is the best way to fix it is, but what is not in dispute is that the issue exists.

Furthermore, one of your latest posts I believe illustrates precisely what I see as the problem. You say that Caltech makes its graduation rates public, and to paraphrase and extend what you are saying, if somebody comes to Caltech and then flunks out, it's basically his own fault, for he should have known that it was rigorous. Come on, don't you think that's a bit cold - sort of like blaming the victim? It's like the Army telling all soldiers who die in battle that it's their own fault - they should have known that joining the Army was dangerous and if they didn't want to die, they shouldn't have joined. Not only that, but you can use that logic to say that the Army shouldn't bother trying to protect its troops in battle, because after all, the soldiers knew that they were getting into something dangerous, so if they die from lack of protection, that's their own fault for joining the Army. I think we both know that that would cause a political firestorm if the Army were to ever publicly say something like that.

Hence, I think the real source of the problem is that a lot of Caltech people think that chewing up and spitting out a bunch of students is inherent to what makes Caltech special, and if a bunch of people get hurt that way, that's too bad for them.

All of this might actually be defensible if Caltech really did provide a huge boost to its graduates relative to its peers. But does it? Do Caltech graduates really enjoy substantially greater access to graduate school and/or employers than do HYPSM graduates? Is the Caltech brand-name really substantially better than those of HYPSM? I think that's dubious at best. In terms of access to graduate-school and employers, I think we would all agree that it's hard to beat the 'Harvard' name, despite Harvard's coddling and grade inflation. And, again, it's not entirely clear that Caltech enjoys a substantial advantage over Stanford or MIT when it comes to engineering or science, or over Stanford, MIT, or Harvard when it comes to science.

Case in point. Look at the backgrounds of Caltech's own graduate students and notice how not all that many of them came from Caltech undergrad. This stands in marked contrast to what happens at the graduate schools at MIT, where the most highly represented undergraduate school is, unsurprisingly, MIT. You might reply that part of that has to do with the fact that certain Caltech departments don't like taking its own undergrads for graduate study, but that is only serves as another reason not to go to Caltech for undergrad, because it means that by doing so, you reduce your chances of going to Caltech for grad.

Ben Golub · 01-29-2005, 08:46 PM

itsallgood -- If all you mean is engineering, then you should make it precise when you say "higher ranked" that you mean engineering. Sometimes it seems like you're attacking the entire school, and most people won't read your very top post since this is such a long debate. It also undermines the credibility of your point.

The bottom line is that it would be easy to beat up any school by focusing on one area that is not a major focus and saying "look, here are three schools that are better." Most students coming to Caltech aren't even sure exactly what aspect of science/engineering they're most interested in, and for them the overall quality matters more. As far as overall undergraduate analytically-oriented education, I'd ask you to read the first half of this thread and respond (if you can) to my points proving why, for sheer "value added" the education here is the best anywhere.

itsallgood · 01-29-2005, 08:50 PM

"Oh, and note also that for all the infinite wisdom of the USNews rankings Berkeley's undergrad program is ranked something like 20 spots lower than ours last I checked."

Ben, here's the latest USnews rating of Engineering programs from their website. Where did you get your info that CalTech beat Berkeley?

Best Undergraduate Engineering Programs
(At schools whose highest degree is a doctorate)
Rank/School Peer
assessment
score
(5.0 = highest)
1. Massachusetts Inst. of Technology 4.9
2. Stanford University (CA) 4.8
3. University of California–Berkeley * 4.7

sakky · 01-29-2005, 08:53 PM

Now in itsallgood's defense, let me deal with the Stanford letter.

First of all, I find it ironic indeed that such a letter would come from Stanford, which we all know to be a school that is grade inflated. If the Stanford administration really believed what was in the letter, then why doesn't Stanford itself become more Cal-tech-ish in its grading?

Secondly, I have to say that graduation rate is in fact a valid metric to be used to assess whether a school is good or not. Let's face it. People don't just go to college just because it's fun to go to college. You go to college to get a degree. Those schools that don't facilitate its students being able to get a degree, whatever those reasons might be, deserve to get dinged for that.

And like I said, I respect the fact that Caltech wants to be rigorous. That's not the issue. Just because you're rigorous doesn't mean that you necessarily have to have a low graduation rate, relative to your peer schools. You can simply admit fewer students - making sure that those you do admit truly can handle it. After all, I think we can all agree that Johns Hopkins Medical School is unbelievably rigorous, yet almost 100% of all students who matriculate there graduate with their MD. I would also point to the LFM program at MIT (basically the combined MS in engineering + MBA from the Sloan School), which is also indisputably rigorous (for you are getting 2 master's degrees in 2 years, which is the time you would normally need to get just 1 master's), yet every single MIT LFM student in the history of the program (which has been around since 1988) has managed to graduate. The point is, you can still have rigor and a high graduation rate at the same time.

Ben Golub · 01-29-2005, 08:56 PM

sakky -- note that your major metric of quality that might make up for the difficulty here is success with respect to graduate schools, etc. How shallow is that? Don't you realize that for many of us the learning and the intense environment are even more valuable and rewarding? It might not be right for everyone, but we're not recruiting everyone.

But if you want to talk about graduate schools, etc., just one particular example: last year two of the graduate students admitted to Princeton (uncontroversially a nearly unbeatable name in math) for math were from Caltech. No other major U.S. university (all of which are almost an order of magnitude larger than Caltech) had more than one. And this is not uncommon.

So when you remark on Caltech's career and graduate school success, you fail to keep in mind that we have 900 undergraduates here total. You're not likely to know someone who graduated. MIT churns out 1000 kids a YEAR. Harvard twice that. When you look at that and consider the Princeton example above, you begin to gain some understanding of just how disproportionate Caltech's influence is.

Anyway, I'd just like to point out that this debate, which you are losing, is pointless. Maybe it's not nice to do what we're doing. Who cares? We're going to keep doing it because the Institute as a whole values rigor in teaching and grading more than pleasing you and people like you. What is the point of your tirades?

Ben Golub · 01-29-2005, 08:59 PM

itsallgood -- note I said the UNDERGRAD program, overall. Go look at the granddaddy listing at http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/col...udoc_brief.php

itsallgood · 01-29-2005, 09:04 PM

Ben, your link has NOTHING to do with Engineering. That's the overall ranking.

Here's the Engineering link.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/col...hphd_brief.php

Ben Golub · 01-29-2005, 09:06 PM

Yes, itsallgood, I know that. My point is that most undergraduates thinking about Caltech want the best overall undergrad education around (usually with an analytical bent) not specifically the engineering program. The overall listing, though absurd, makes the most sense for them.

sakky · 01-29-2005, 09:09 PM

Look, Ben Golub, while I can't speak for itsallgood's motivations, I can speak for myself. I am not out to castigate Caltech. In fact, I respect Caltech as an undisputed member of the elite 6 - being HYPSMC.

But the point is, graduation rate is in fact a weakness of Caltech and it is something that Caltech should work on. If Caltech wants to get better as a school, then Caltech should address its weaknesses. Hence, I think it's entirely fair for Caltech to be called out for its relatively low graduation rate. If you want to get better, you have to work on your weaknesses. We all know that Caltech is a top-notch science and engineering school. But graduation rate is a problem. I don't think it does anybody any favors by pretending that it's not a problem. In the beginning of his NBA career, Michael Jordan was criticized, and rightfully so, for not being a good team player, and not being a good long-range shooter. He was a brilliant individual slasher, but not a good team player and not a good shooter. Only when he eliminated his weaknesses by learning how to integrate himself with the team and learning how to shoot from downtown did he finally become the greatest player in history. What would MJ have become if nobody ever pointed out his weaknesses, and so he simply remained the same player he was when he entered the league?

I believe that Caltech in fact loses a lot of very good talent who are scared off by the low graduation rate. I believe there are quite a few students who would have been able to succeed at Caltech, but, as itsallgood has pointed out, don't want to take the chance that they might flunk out, so they end up at HYPSM. I think it's a bit unfair to disparage all of these students by impugning them as unworthy or stupid. Not everybody likes to take chances with their future. After all, if HYPSM really are so unworthy, then why is it that Caltech's graduate programs have so many students who came from HYPSM?