sakky

Whatever terms you want to use, it's just all semantics. The bottom line is just because a school (like Berkeley or other public schools) use highly meritocratic admissions doesn't necessarily mean they get a, what you call, a 'high quality class'.

Again, this analogy breaks down because in reality, you wouldn't get "all" the smart anti-semitic WASPS to enroll. You might be able to admit all of them, but many of them would end up going elsewhere (i.e. HYPS). Hence, you would inevitably have to backfill your class with some other WASPS's who are relatively less smart.

But here again, you are presuming that even in your hypothetical, you really would get the 'best' class.

Like I've always said (and I think you agreed), Caltech doesn't exactly get the 'best' technical students, full-stop. Rather, it gets those 'best' technical students who are also risk-taking with their careers , because I think we agreed in other threads that there is a significant chance you can come to Caltech and do poorly, and that those students would have been better off going to some other school where they would have done better. You said it yourself - Caltech is not for everyone - and from that, I take it that even if you're an academic superstar, Caltech still may not be for you, depending on your psychological profile. Just because you want to be a scientist doesn't mean that you don't also value career safety. Some top science students do value safety.

So in that sense, Caltech also runs a de-facto 'discriminatory' process, as it discourages those people who value safety from even applying in the first place. Again, take that girl I know from Harvard. She didn't even apply to Caltech as an undergrad because she would never have gone because she viewed it as too dangerous for her. Yet she did well enough at Harvard that Caltech admitted her as a graduate student. So clearly the fact that she chose the 'safer' school didn't seem to hurt her.

Well, I'm not even sure I would be convinced by this. Let's face it. A lot of science students at even the best schools decide not to pursue science as a career, instead opting for more lucrative fare (i.e. consulting, investment banking, etc.). They could become scientists, they just don't want to. For example, I seem to recall how molliebatmit talked about how a slew of her biology classmates are now management consultants. I'm sure this happens at Caltech also.

It gets to the larger point that just because you major in a science doesn't mean that you actually intend to pursue science for your career. It's just an undergraduate major, nothing more, nothing less. It's not your whole life.

sakky

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.

Yeah, but I think that raises other issues - namely the issues of student satisfaction and progress. Take graduation rates. Of HYPSMC, Caltech has the lowest graduation rate. What's so great about admitting a high quality class if a significant chunk of them don't even graduate? Like it or not, we live in a world where you are going to be judged on whether you have a degree or not. If you don't have a degree, many employers are not going to bother to even interview you.

Now, granted, I'm sure that many of those people who didn't graduate from Caltech probably transferred to another school and graduated from there. But again, that leads to the notion of student satisfaction. Somebody who chooses to leave Caltech clearly finds Caltech to be unsatisfactory in some way (otherwise, why would he leave?). While this is purely anecdotal, I gather from Caltech alumni like my brother that there are a lot of unhappy students at Caltech, a notion that is reinforced by other anecdotes I have seen, including the one that simfish posted earlier. Ben Golub has admitted in other threads that there are some students at Caltech who do poorly, and I'm quite sure that most of them are unhappy (after all, it's hard to be happy when you're performing poorly).

Like I've always said, Caltech certainly serves well the students who are doing well. But what about those students who don't do well? Caltech prides itself on its rigor and, what Ben Golub calls, its 'adherence to principles'. But I doubt that does much to salve those Caltech students who are doing poorly. And I suspect even Dan Golden would agree that those Caltech students who are doing poorly are not being well served and would probably be better off if they had gone elsewhere.


Now, I'm sure some people would object that they are just talking about the admissions process solely. But you can't make a clean separation because student satisfaction is wrapped into the admissions process. Like I said before, I know a lot of people (like that Harvard girl) who don't even apply to Caltech because they don't want to take the chance of ending up as one of those unhappy Caltech students.

simfish

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.

==
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.

simfish

Advice

Anyways, are Caltech students actually given handouts on say, "the dangers of computer game addiction", rather than "the dangers of drug addiction?" I find that statement rather amusing, incidentally.

The point notwithstanding, is that there are hidden factors like computer games that explain some of the failure rates. For some reason, so many Caltech students like to play computer games. Many of them think that they can control their urges to play such games, only that they discover that people around them are playing games, or they discover a new game, or they discover BitTorrent, and then boom, predictions based on limited information are shattered.

simfish

Correction above:

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.

- Added parenthesis to disambiguate the sentence "why" pointed at.

===
"only that they discover that people around them are playing games, or they discover a new game, or they discover BitTorrent in conjunction with Caltech's uber Internet connection speeds, and then boom, predictions based on limited information are shattered."
small correction #2

cghen

I don't think that concern necessarily reflects reality. I think by far, the largest cause for people dropping out/transfering is a loss of interest in science, and there's not too much that Caltech can reaslistically do about that except to prioritize interest/passion/etc. in science in admissions first and foremost. That's why athletics and music and whatnot aren't given as much 'credit' per say as at other schools: it's not that we view them as lesser activities, but rather, it's more important for students to survive at Caltech to be exposed to honest science/math/engineering before enrolling. It's really not that complicated of an issue.

The second largest reason for people dropping out/transferring from Caltech is the difficulty of the core curriculum, particularly the second year of physics. No other school requires quantum mechanics and stat mech/thermo from all of its students, so Caltech has some pretty unique needs when it comes to admissions which again leads to emphasizing those activities which directly demonstrate aptitude in math and science.

As for underloading, I'm confident that anyone who feels an underload is necessary to pass would be granted one. A much bigger problem is students overloading and taking more units than they can handle - I wish there was a better solution for that than just trying to convince people that they should maybe ease into things slowly.

simfish

Wow, I just found a VERY interesting article at the Chronicle of Higher Education, titled...

A top university wonders why it has no black freshmen

It's on Proquest - search for it there. College Confidential deletes posts with copyrighted content (meh).

===

Thanks for describing the reality, cghen. And so long as Caltech admissions can only still rely on high school tests for its admissions, there's always going to be some number of students who have nice high school stats but who can't tackle the material, just because Caltech's course material is magnitudes harder (and different) from that in high school. There's always the option of an entrance exam for the university (as there is for many universities elsewhere in the world), but since such an exam would be highly unique compared with other universities in the United States, it would significantly depress the number of applicants.

I'll just quote something from the article:

simfish

Anyways, while this thread has apparently started to die, I'll just post a few relevant links for the lurkers (seeing that College Confidential is a forum with high lurker/poster ratio):

See how much simpler admissions was in the old days

MIT applicants math abilities SURVEY

Math at Harvard

I just searched for someone's posts, and found his posts to be extremely intelligent and well-informed.

collegealum314

I read through the posts, and I think USAMO qualifiers should get into MIT. Maybe not CalTech, because CalTech only takes 200. But MIT's class of 1000 should have room for the roughly 100 USAMO qualifiers that graduate each year. (About 160 qualify each year, but I'm assuming that at least some of them are underclassmen.) If the person gets a GPA with only a couple of "B's" and the rest "A'"s, then admission should be automatic.

Those that disagree with me probably have no idea what USAMO is or what it means.

Big Brother 1984

That's not a bad proposal collegealum; it's certainly a worthy recommendation. However, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this (I myself have participated in various mathematical and physics olympiads).

Some USAMO qualifiers probably can't handle the MIT/Caltech curriculum because of the pure virtue that not all USAMO qualifiers are mathematically motivated. Some qualifiers qualify on a whim - taking the AMC series tests out of superficial interest. Some qualifiers absolutely despise mathematics altogether.

Also, let us not point out the fact that a large number of USAMO qualifiers are recent immigrants from Asia. A lot of qualifiers I've met have pretty bad writing and communication skills. Some qualifiers I know are only good at mathematics - they don't really excel in any other areas.

I don't think these types would fit into the MIT/Caltech environments well.

simfish

I disagree with the USAMO statement. It would be fine if everyone treated the AMCs/AIME just like the SAT - but it's not treated in such a way and consequently, those who qualify for USAMO are often those who qualify not due to inherent aptitude or motivation, but rather due to superior resources/more studying even before diminishing marginal returns with each additional hour of study/etc. That's true for the SAT, but even more so for the AMCs/AIME.

The collegeboard, incidentally, puts A LOT of research on the SATs. A HUGE HUGE amount (I've seen the charts, they are incredibly incredibly detailed). Words can't express the amount of effort the Collegeboard puts into collecting data about its tests, and in making sure that its tests would produce fairly consistent results in the same student from year to year (unlike the AIME, where score jumps in both directions are very common). This is certainly not something that the organizers of the AMC/AIME can put into the test. Such research is often needed to prevent the same people from having year-year score jumps on the SAT.

^lol, I sound so immature there. But yeah, the research the CollegeBoard collects is certainly amazing. I'm still naive, so my "threshold of OMG" is still low - that is, I would say OMG at a stimuli that an older person would find non-surprising. The collegeboard could most certainly produce an advanced math test of its own. :P

The best test would be one in which the applicant was evaluated at his maximum level of performance. Two conditions (a) all applicants invest substantial amounts of time and thought into doing the very best they can on the tests, and (b) the test is reliable enough such that an applicant at maximum performance would score in a consistent and narrow range. These conditions aren't exactly true for the SAT, but they work well enough for the SAT to be used in college admissions in the wide group of the population. The problem is that such a test doesn't exist for students who can already score near-perfect.

Also, another thread for the lurkers:
Caltech vs MIT for engineering
(in which Ben Golub and sakky pretty much exchange many of the similar issues, just 2 years ago).

a778999

A college admissions counselor once said (I'm paraphrasing), "If we rejected every one of the top 1500 applicants and accepted the next 1500 instead, almost nothing would happen to the quality of our school. We can do this 5 or 6 times before something would happen."

So MIT couldn't care less about who they accept because it wouldn't be affected at all. It does whatever the heck it wants to do.

Ben Golub

This is wrong at every school, but the spirit is right.

sakky

There isn't much that Caltech can do in the short-term . In the long term, Caltech could do what MIT did - which is broaden its offerings. Like I said before, MIT started life basically as a trade school dedicated to teaching basically only engineering and sciences. The MIT Sloan School wasn't started until the 1910's. Econ wasn't offered until around the 1930's or so, and the Econ department didn't start offering PhD's until around the 40's. Political science didn't become its own department until the 1960's (before, it was part of the Economics department). Now, it's the #10 ranked graduate poli-sci department in the country according to USNews, which I think is not bad for only being around for 40 years. The MIT Media Lab wasn't founded until the 1980's.

So in the long term, Caltech could choose to broaden its offerings the way that MIT has. In the short term, Caltech might choose to engage in partnerships with nearly schools, i.e. the Claremonts, just like how MIT has extensive cross-reg agreements with local schools like Harvard and Wellesley.

Now, don't get me wrong. I respect Caltech. I am simply saying that if Caltech wanted to eliminate the problem of students who want broader offerings, there are things that could be done for them. In fact, Caltech has already made moves to do this - i.e. offering options in English, Philosophy, and History. I don't think these options have been around for very long; I suspect they were offered precisely to satisfy those students who are looking for broader options.

Besides, I think other Caltech'ers, even Ben Golub, has stated that Caltech s not as harshly rigorous as it was in the old days. {To be fair, MIT isn't either}. That just shows that universities can and do change over time.

collegealum314

Actually, you have it backwards. Near the turn of the century (1900), there was serious concern among ivy league alumni that their undergrad curriculum was outdated. In the 1800's, their curriculum consisted solely of latin and other humanities. This was the impetus for schools like MIT that started up at the end of the 1800's. It's probably not a coincidence this happened right after the Industrial Revolution. Harvard and the other ivies successfully revamped their curriculum to produce graduates that were equipped to work and interact in the modern world. Part of Harvard's push to reinvent itself was the unsuccessful attempt to purchase MIT in the early 1900's. The MIT alumni voted against it.

MIT was already well-respected in the early 1900's, but you're correct that it really made its name in World War II with the development of radar. In order for MIT to successfully do this, however, they needed to have a stellar faculty already in place. This could not have happened overnight. Also, just off the top of my head, they attracted some awesome people before the 40's. Vannevar Bush was an MIT alumnus and was one of the giants of electrical engineering--he was there from the 20's until he retired. The application of mathematical logic to electrical circuits was someone's master's thesis at MIT--obviously a gigantic contribution. In the late 30's, they had both Feynman (one of the top few physicists of the 20th century) and Robert Burns Woodward as undergrads. For those that aren't familiar, Robert Burns Woodward is probably the most talented synthetic chemist in the 20th century, winning the Nobel Prize. The Woodward-Hoffman Rules, a very fundamental tenet you learn in organic chem today, also won the Nobel Prize for Hoffman shortly after Woodward died. So he narrowly missed winning the Nobel a second time.

So, in summary, while MIT became world famous in the 40's, I think it's fair to say it was not some insignificant trade school before then.