Antiquark

I don't think that's quite the case. The GPA disparity probably comes from Caltech caring less about some Bs in humanities classes and being "well-rounded" than HYPSM do. Bs in science or math classes, unless there's a really good reason for them, are serious red-flags to the adcoms. In my experience, the "genius slacker" type, even the ones that got all As in high-level math and science classes in high school, don't do too well at Caltech. Being smart can only carry you so far. The best students here are not only extremely smart but also work ridiculously hard.

*Brahmin

I second Antiquark's GPA scenario.
But there should be an example why the middle 50% SAT range of Caltech is very different compared to MIT's, especially SAT's lower boundary. I think MIT gives a lot more space and chance to other factors, like a certain experience or trait expressed in an essay, something not really to do with math and science. Caltech gives much more weightage to brilliance and academic proficiency. This kind of also goes to show that Caltech's student body may not as diverse as MIT's but much more smarter and motivated.

Antiquark

Our bottom line is pretty high because Caltech is one of the few schools where you really can't hide from the tough math/science curriculum. The bare minimum requirements for math even at MIT? Standard Calculus I (single variable) and Calculus II (multivariable.) Just two semesters. For physics? Standard college-level Physics I (mechanics with calculus) and Physics II (E&M.) Also just two semesters. Plenty of people take harder courses than that for math and physics, and some take more semesters of them, particularly if it's related to their major. The point is, though, that MIT has room to play with non-academic factors more since someone who would have a hard time with math/physics beyond this isn't necessarily going to be failing out. The core math requirements at Caltech are calculus with proofs, linear algebra, multivariable calculus, differential equations, probability, and statistics -- five terms in total past AP Calculus BC. Core physics requires a term of mechanics, two terms of electricity and magnetism + special relativity for people taking the analytic track, waves, quantum mechanics, and statistical mechanics. Also five terms in total. There are also two terms of chemistry that assume you've done the AP class and a term of chemistry lab. For most people, you're also going to be taking an additional year of complex analysis, ODEs, and PDEs with Caltech grad students.

In other words, when the people on the admissions committee see an applicant to Caltech who has a 700 SAT I Math score and a 750 SAT II Math II score without other evidence of good mathematical preparation (math past calculus, good results on math competitions, mathematical research, really good math recs) they are going to seriously wonder if they can make it through core math. The SAT II math is curved so generously that most people who are good at math (even just enough to be successful at Caltech's math core) are going to find it easy to get an 800. Caltech can't get away with making it easier for legacies/minorities/athletes to get in, even if we wanted to, because they would probably fail out in ridiculously high numbers. We already fail out quite a few people. Most come back and still manage to graduate in 4/5/6 years. Sometimes they do much better after some time off, sometimes they struggle all the way through and then find out that life after Tech is really easy.

Even if you don't fail enough classes to get kicked out for a term, nearly everyone here will utterly fail at least one test despite putting epic amounts of effort into preparing for it. As someone who was your standard Caltech "always the best math and science" student in high school, I can tell you that it's incredibly painful to fail something despite feeling that you could not have done any better or put any more time in. Ever spent four days straight working on the same physics problem, generating hundreds of pieces of paper filled with work, but not getting anywhere only to have a friend figure out the answer in ~20 minutes because you were "looking at it from the wrong angle"? For the vast majority of Caltech students, you will have times when you break down, you will feel burnt out and just want to give everything up, you will experience failure like you never thought you could have before. Caltech really lives up to its common description of being "soul-crushing" sometimes, and you will feel it, maybe not while on pass/fail, maybe not even until you've been here a couple of years.

Why doesn't Caltech just change their core/major requirements to be easier? Because there are already 4,000 other colleges in the country that have that covered, and even through the pain, some of us still enjoy it. Though I usually feel burnt out at the end of each term, I still love Caltech and wouldn't go anywhere else in a million years.

*Brahmin

Fantastic post Antiquark...just gets me more eager to go to Caltech
I can just imagine the annhilation in Caltech, all the particles and antiparticles...

Not quite old

One of the most lamentable trends in modern academia is the desire to encourage non-academic diversity while simultaneously promoting a norm of few drop-outs. The result is inevitably the lowering of minimum academic standards and the unwillingness to fail students.

Thus, top schools which have a reputation for selecting good students can exploit their reputation by accepting less academically qualified admits -- especially those below the 25th percentile, whose scores are never reported in the common datasets -- in effect, "blessing" academically weaker students who make it through the program. Conversely, the US News style ratings which penalize schools for having low graduation rates actually damage lesser known schools with the cojones to maintain high standards and simply flunk out students who don't make the cut. Caltech's rank has suffered from this rating bias as well as the tendency to rank SAT scores by using the median and not the average (not counting the post 1994 recentering which compressed SAT scores at the high end, thus rendering fine distinctions less meaningful). It is almost certainly true that students (say 60th percentile) at a good state school would be able to graduate with at least a 3.0 from HYPS in some (carefully selected) majors if admitted. The same is not true for Caltech because of its core.

Nonetheless, Caltech soldiers on, and has tended to limit its inevitable compromises at a time when its "style" is out of fashion.

collegealum314

^^I noticed those statistical oddities in the US News rankings, too. I don't think it's an accident. Remember when Caltech was #1 in the mid-90's? The next year they changed the rankings and Caltech slipped down to sixth or seventh. The rankings seem manufactured to artificially produce the results they want.

I suspect the people at US News went to HYP.

collegealum314

" For example (just a basic one), if you look at their stats on US New, Caltech has the highest SAT scores, but compared to the other top schools, the percent in the top 10 percent in high school is much lower."

Are you sure? I remember the number being like 98% of Caltech students were in the top 10%--much higher than other schools.

foo182

"The core math requirements at Caltech are calculus with proofs, linear algebra, multivariable calculus, differential equations, probability, and statistics -- five terms in total past AP Calculus BC. Core physics requires a term of mechanics, two terms of electricity and magnetism + special relativity for people taking the analytic track, waves, quantum mechanics, and statistical mechanics."

yummy!


i guess that anyone who REALLY wants to go to caltech will probably realize it by 11th grade..so he has 11th and 12th grade to show his potential and his skillz in math/physics/biology/whatever and to push himself to have at least 2200 on SAT. those things show commitment, and if you send an additional letter where you explain how the first 2 high school years you didn't know what you want, and then you realized, so you got to work, and you have results that back up that, you can with even being a "weaker" student get in caltech.

on the other side if you are mediocre all the time, that's everything you'll ever be. you're not pushing your limits, and why would they even want somebody like that? if you have better results in swimming then on science competition i think it's really clear what occupied your mind for the whole time.

when caltech decides to admit people the way HYPetc and lately MIT does, it will stop being caltech, and that sucks.. the diversity of colleges disappears, and you end up without choice, you have 7 same, yes great, but still the same colleges, with only difference being location... st00pid.

momofchris

From above:
" For example (just a basic one), if you look at their stats on US New, Caltech has the highest SAT scores, but compared to the other top schools, the percent in the top 10 percent in high school is much lower."



According to my 2007 (out-of-date) issue of USNWR, 94% of Caltech's class was in the top 10% of their hs class. The only ones higher are Harvard at 96%, and that other institute with 97%.

sdkdol

Hmm... pretty big change from 2007 to 2008 then. I wonder why? (since most colleges keep their criteria mostly the same from year to year.)

Right now it's 88% for Caltech. The other top schools are all in the high 90s except for Stanford with 89%.

But Caltech has the highest test scores... which makes me think that it thinks more of "potential" than "current accomplishment"

*Brahmin

patterns in academics can be shuffled because of striking math and science extracurriculurs/awards, experiences and how interest for these subjects are shown...

momofchris

According to this:
Caltech Undergraduate Admissions: Incoming Class Profile — 2007

99% of last year's incoming class was in the top 10%.

minamora

All types. The best are the best everywhere; Caltech just has more of the best.