simfish

On a side note, check this out:

http://diversity.caltech.edu/dpg_rep...06-04/Data.pdf

Wow. I think this says something. First of all, most Axlines get into other universities (although a few get rejected by MIT, Harvard, etc.) Second of all, these Axlines prefer the other universities to Caltech. It may, of course, be that many desire a more well-rounded experience than Caltech provides.

The question then is, which students are the ones that Caltech takes and MIT rejects? Perhaps both take most of the top students to fill up their Putnam teams and activities (though MIT may reject a small number at the top). Then out of the ones who are clearly well-qualified for Caltech Core but unexceptional, MIT may reject a large proportion of them, whereas Caltech admits a large proportion of them. Then Caltech rejects the ones who wouldn't be able to tackle Caltech core, while MIT takes some of those students.

Of course, Caltech admissions are imperfect, as evidenced by the high rates of students who transfer out. But it's impossible to tell who those students are.

MIT admissions explicitly says that many of the rejectees were perfectly academically qualified. It just parses its admissions in such a way that it wants "fit" with the school.

simfish

I hate edit limit rule.

"
Of course, Caltech admissions are imperfect, as evidenced by the high rates of students who transfer out. But it's impossible to tell who those students are."
=>
Of course, Caltech's admissions is imperfect, as evidenced by the high percentage of students who transfer out. But it's impossible to tell who those students are, since the types of students who transfer out are usually academically qualified. Many of them just didn't know enough about their own personalities/learning styles to really know whether or not they would be able to tolerate the high levels of stress at caltech (seeing that there is no parallel in high school).

Big Brother 1984

"Even if the standards have changed, I think it's pretty clear that the classes admitted now are academically stronger than those admitted in the past. There's a paradox for you."

mollie, I'm inclined to think that's more or less a change of the times. High school graduates (those that apply to college at least) are for the most part, getting smarter. Case in point - looking at the AIMEs from the 80's. They'd be incredibly easy by today's elite high school problem solving standards. Pre-90's high school students definitely don't compare to our generation since most curriculums back then were pure ****. Academic strength is a relative term - relative to students today.

"I worked at a tennis club in the summer and watched movies..."

Tell that to a rejectee who actually cared enough about science to go out of his/her way to do stuff with it in high school. Tell me Sklog, would you have been just as satisfied as you are now at another college?

I think this was what collegealum was saying....it hurts the evidently higher calibre/passionate folks the most.

"I approach college exactly like I approached high school and I'm excelling with minimal stress."

Dude...what classes do you take at MIT? Shouldn't MIT be...harder?

"...most interesting applications he had ever seen."

I don't doubt your application was pretty. Infact, if I wanted a school that'll take me on the basis of how pretty my application was irregardless of the actual effort I put in high school, I would've gone to Harvard.

CAdream

Why does this issue keep coming up?

I doubt it really has to do with the overall strength of the class.
We really don't have the data to assess the admissions process,
other than anecdotal stories and proxies for quality such as the
Putnam exam.

I think the problem is that the admissions office puts out an
image that offends people.
1) Marilee Jones offends parents by implying she is a defender
of students and parents don't have their kids' best interests
at heart.
2) The push toward getting women to apply by saying
it makes for a better atmosphere offends some of them. (Who
wants to just be there to keep the boys happy?)
3) The whole thing about "we can tell who is a match" offends
applicants. I mean, they think they're a match, that's why they
are applying. To pretend that it is a deep process; that you read the
application and somehow see into their hearts and can proclaim
that they are soul-mates with MIT! Well, it's a little over the top.

Most people are pretty mature, they can take being accepted or
rejected based on their record, or whatever the clear criteria are.

But the criteria aren't clear, and I feel as if the admissions officers
are trying to be rock-stars. I wish they would produce a little less
verbiage, and get on with their jobs in a professional manner.

sakky

It doesn't matter that these things happened in the past. Ben Golub brought up the notion of 'principles', which I take to mean standards of behavior that supposedly stand the test of time. I am simply pointing out that Caltech is not quite as pure, historically speaking, as he seems to think it is. Whatever Caltech's principles are, looks like they were violated in the past.

Look, ALL US schools have had issues with meritocracy at some time or another. No school can claim to be 'pure'. I'm sure that MIT probably also exhibited streaks of anti-Semitism in its past.

Nah, looks like from the context of the text, I gather that those views did indeed influence admissions decisions. For example, Davis specifically said that he served on an admissions committee (perhaps a graduate adcom) who was basically attempting to discriminate against Jews. Hence, here is a case of political views seeping into the admissions process.

OF COURSE I understand the argument - I just completely disagree with it. What that basically means is that the Ivies get a free pass because, because if they were "bad" before, and they are less bad now (but still bad), that's still OK. Why should you get a free pass just because you were less bad in the past (but still bad)? Bad is bad. It's like saying that I murdered 5 people last year, but this year if I only murder 4, that somehow makes me a good person? Yeah, I am not as bad as I was in the past, but so what? Instead, you choose to ignore that person and instead single out for criticism somebody who murdered nobody last year, but who murdered 1 person this year? Shouldn't the correct logic be to concentrate on the person who is committing the larger absolute level of crime?

sakky

Well, let me put it to you this way. My brother went to Caltech. And he often times wished that the school was more diverse and balanced.

Big Brother 1984

sakky, I'm sure Caltech isn't even "pure" today. But no doubt about it, it seemingly has the most philosophically pleasing admissions policies. Look at the Caltech board. Do you see any huge "injustice" debates going on like this one? Yeah probably...and they're probably mostly directed at MIT as well.

"I just completely disagree with it. What that basically means is that the Ivies get a free pass because, because if they were "bad" before, and they are less bad now (but still bad), that's still OK. Why should you get a free pass just because you were less bad in the past (but still bad)?"

Because sakky, it's quite the commendable improvement to go from a psychopathic killer to a law abiding citizen - not so much the other way around. The proof is right on these forums. People are not so much indignant about Harvard's admissions policies, because URM admissions are expected from it. Well-rounded admits are expected from it, and recruited athletes are expected as well. Do you ever see bashing threads such as this on the Ivy boards? Think about that.

MIT is perceived to be that beacon of higher achievement in education. To change that view so that it becomes something more of an Ivy League, is clearly going in the wrong direction from the earlier days of meritocratic admissions. We already have 8 schools that admit balanced classes. Why do we need another?

pebbles

Big Brother-

Oh, don't be condescending. I think you had someone on your side for a while. Now everyone just thinks you're a jackass.

{edit: that was a response to your previous post. i haven't read this one yet.}

pebbles

"We already have 8 schools that admit balanced classes. Why do we need another?"

Because, believe it or not, you can only go to one school at a time. I don't even remember the last time I thought about 8 other schools.

sakky

Yep, I think that is quite the dagger pointed at the heart of Caltech. It doesn't really matter who is accepted into a particular school. It only matters who chooses to matriculate . You can be as meritocratic as you want in your admissions, but as long as the majority (59%) of your admittees choose to go elsewhere for reasons of self-selection, then your resulting student body is effectively unmeritocratic.

As stated above, presumably Caltech only gives out Axline (and if you keep reading the pdf, President's) Scholarships to its best admittees. Yet even the majority of them choose to go elsewhere. In fact, the yield of these particular scholarship students is even lower than the overall Caltech yield.

I think a fair interpretation is that the very best applicants who get into Caltech (and hence, are also offered the scholarships) usually choose not to go, instead opting for MIT, Harvard, or Stanford, as can be seen in the pdf. Whereas, Caltech enjoys its highest yield probably amongst those students who get into Caltech but who couldn't get into MIT, Harvard, or Stanford, perhaps because Caltech admissions are more 'meritocratic' which gives certain students a better chance of getting into Caltech. Hence, perhaps the top students at MIT/Stanford/Harvard are more meritocratic than the top students at Caltech (because, again, we're talking about those students who turned down Caltech scholarships). But the median Caltech students are more meritocratic.


The corollary to that is analyzing what students want. The majority of Caltech applicants doesn't really seem to attend a purely meritocratic school. It is an inescapable fact that the majority (59%) of al admittees to Caltech choose not to go, and an even stronger majority of scholarship-offered admittees choose not to go. The implication to that is that a lot of students choose Caltech only because it was the best school they got into (or could afford), but they would still have preferred to go elsewhere. My brother went to Caltech on a President's Scholarship, and he freely admits that he chose Caltech over other schools just for the money. I am fairly sure that there are a lot of Caltech students who would rather be going to the 'less meritocratic' HYPSM, but just didn't get in (or couldn't afford it). On the other hand, I rarely hear of the converse - somebody at HYPSM who would rather be at Caltech.

But the point is this. Caltech argues that its great strength is its purely meritocratic system. Yet it seems to me that that's not what even the majority of its own admittees want. The majority of Caltech admittees choose to go to other peer schools, and I suspect that many more would like to. Or, in other words, Harvard is clearly not purely meritocratic. But that hasn't stopped Harvard from yielding about 83% of its admittees - far and away the highest yield among non-specialized schools (i.e. not counting academies). In other words, it seems to me that Caltech is sticking to a principle that not even many of its applicants really want.

simfish

Correlation does not imply causation unless all other factors are ruled out.

Most applicants don't even consider a school's admissions policies on whether they matriculate into the university or not. Instead, they think about the student life there. Many of them have heard about the substantial number of discontent students there - as well as the heavy workloads that stress students out. The school must resort to meritocratic admissions becasue its workload is an intense one that not many students can handle. Now, is this workload the reason why Axlines decline their scholarships? We don't know. While they may be confident in handling the core material - they still may wish to have more experiences and not to spend so much time on problem sets (some of their goals are not so much a specialized education as it is a more well-rounded goals). I cannot speak comprehensively for Axlines, of course. Caltech's curriculum isn't the most flexible curriculum, and it may be that the Axlines desire more flexible curriculums (the most intelligent and self-motivated tend to be that way).

Why is it that Axlines turn down their scholarships at higher numbers than the general Caltech admit population at large? The Axlines are likely to have other opportunities, whereas the general Caltech admit population is not.

It's not Caltech's admissions policies that Caltech prides itself on. It's the research, the rigor, the core, the honor code, the science. The rigor and the core demand a strictly meritocratic admissions policy. Does it work? Not perfectly. But it's better than any other admissions policy for its own specific education goals, because worse off students will not fulfill such goals.

The definition of "meritocratic admissions" has changed with respect to time as well. It used to be that "meritocratic" meant selecting the most scientifically talented people of a particular race. It's now changed to the "most scientifically talented people of any race whatsoever". Because the societal conception of "meritocratic" has changed, this overall change relieves Caltech and other universities from the responsibility of modifying their mission statements as such.

sakky

But like I said in the post I just wrote above - people vote with their feet. If Caltech's admissions policies are really so 'philosophically pleasing', then why do the majority of Caltech admittees, and in particular, the majority of Caltech scholarship awardees (who are presumably among the strongest of the admit pool), choose to go elsewhere? Seems to me that whatever the merits of Caltech's policies, it doesn't seem to help in drawing more students. It doesn't really matter who you admit . It only matters who you matriculate . You can admit all of the meritocratic people you want, but if they don't actually come, who cares?

But they're not law-abiding citizens, at least, not in the context of this thread. Like I said, whatever you might say about MIT's admissions policies, I would say that they are still more meritocratic than the Ivies are. Yes, maybe the Ivies are more meritocratic than they were in the past, but they are still less meritocratic than MIT .

And that's precisely what I disagree with. In other words, what you are saying is that the Ivies should get a free pass because they "set an expectation" of unmeritocratic behavior in the past. Just because you were bad in the past doesn't mean that you get a free pass now. If anything, I would argue that that actually makes it worse and that you have more sins to expiate.

I think it is far more fair to hold all schools to the same current standards, regardless of how those schools might have behaved in the past. Who cares about the past? What matters is now.

But is it? So then why is it that HYPS all have higher yields than MIT does? After all, you would think that if MIT was really perceived to be a beacon of higher achivement, then you would think that very few people who get into MIT would turn it down. Or, again,I would point to Caltech and say that if meritocratic admissions policies are really so desirable, then why is Caltech's yield rate so low, especially for best admittees (i.e. its scholarship winners)?

I said it before, I'll say it again. It doesn't matter who you admit. What matters is who you matriculate . It seems to me that even a lot of meritocratic people (i.e. Caltech scholarship winners) don't really want to be at a meritocratic school. Hence, the logical conclusion is that a lot of students simply aren't that interested in meritocratic principles. They may SAY they are, but actions speak louder than words.

simfish

We hold all schools with respect to their respective mission standards and what they wish to do. We don't hold Christian universities to the same admission standards as Ivy League universities - because we know that Christian universities have a particular goal - and that goal is different from that of the Ivy League universities. We don't hold Caltech to the same admission standards as Ivy League universities - because we know that Caltech's educational goals are different from those of the Ivy League universities.

What has changed, though, are MIT's educational goals in particular. MIT's educational goals have changed from what they were in the past. And some people don't like it.

One such educational goal is the "training of the future scientists and engineers of the 20th century". MIT's goal captures this sentiment, but has broadened it out. Caltech has retained it. How many more universities retain such a goal? Pure engineering universities do exist, but where then is the student who desires a mix of science and engineering at the top level?

Edited post above for wording errror.

CAdream

I'm mystified by all this comparison to Caltech. The OP talks about
the oddness of MIT admissions, not MIT in comparision to Caltech.

Schools don't live and die by their undergraduate student body. You
could admit baboons to Harvard and rational people would still want to
go there because their faculty is so amazing. I've heard when you come
up for tenure, they don't ask people in your field if you should get
tenure - they ask people in your field who is the best in the world at
what you do. If the letters don't come back with your name, they fire
you, and go out and hire that other person, if they can. If I could
be 18 again and had the chance to spend my days listening to Harvard
professors lecture, I would.

Same thing with MIT. It's an amazing place, independent of what
admissions does. The Open Courseware is a great advertisement for
MIT, too. My hs age son is watching Walter Lewin lecture in 8.01 and 8.02.
It's fantastic, and he's convinced MIT is full of stimulating, exciting
classes. And it is! Not to mention all the amazing research in so many
fields gathered at one institution.

How much can bad admissions decisions and off-putting rhetoric mess
this up? That is the question.

sakky

I agree, but however you want to call it, at the end of the day, what Caltech has to offer is, for whatever reason, not appealing to the majority of its admittees, and is evidently really not appealing to its scholarship winners. You talk about rigor, you talk about the demands of the core, you talk about science, you talk about all that stuff, and I agree that those are Caltech's core competencies. But again, for whatever reason, a lot of admittees apparently find other schools more appealing.

You talk about scholarship winners perhaps shying away from Caltech because of the workload. Well, first off, I would argue that the mere fact that you got a scholarship serves as a signal that you are probably one of the stronger admittees in the class. Hence, I think that's a pretty good sign that you can handle the rigor of Caltech, at least more so than the average Caltech admittee who didn't get a scholarship.. A more likely interpretation is that these top admittees just don't want to handle the rigor, and would rather go elsewhere. There's a big difference between "can't", and "don't want to". Those top admittees tend to have more options (i.e. getting into some or all of HYPSM) compared to the average Caltech admittee.

I'm quite certain that there are some people who chose Caltech simply because it was the best school among the peer group of HYPSMC that they got into, and that they'd rather be going to one of the other ones but just didn't get in. Note, I'm not saying that a lot of students are like this, but there must be some. And were it not for these students, the Caltech yield rate of 41% would be even lower than it is.


But anyway, the point is that whatever the core tenets of Caltech are, evidently they are not consonant with what even the majority of its own admittees really want. Hence, Caltech is standing for something that does not seem to have a tremendous amount of demand. It reminds me of numerous infamous cases in business history where firms persist in selling products with features that customers don't really want, and yet insisting that customers should want those features. For example, I seem to recall how BMW persisted in refusing to sell cars with cup-holders even though customers told the company again and again that they wanted them, because BMW engineers insisted that customers should not want cupholders.