<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not saying that you don’t consider the stuff that Caltech did in the 1920’s at all. But at the same time, that has to be recognized as past accomplishment that says little about what Caltech is like today, except in terms of enduring reputation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know that that would really affect anything. Caltech was founded in 1891. Nobels didn’t even start being awarded until 1901, and in the early years, most of the Nobels won by Americans were Peace Nobels (Americans seemed to be really good at winning Peace Prizes back then). I haven’t talked about Peace Prizes here at all, as I don’t think they’re relevant.</p>
<p>As far as science Nobels are concerned, I believe that before Millikan won his Caltech Nobel, the only other American science Nobels were Alexis Carrel (born and educated in France, and won his Nobel while working at the Rockefeller Institute), Albert Michelson (Prussian-born Jew who graduated from Navy and won his Nobel while at Chicago), and Richards (American educated at Harvard, won the prize while a prof at Harvard). Chicago was founded in 1890, 1 year before Caltech, Rockefeller was founded in 1901, a decade after Caltech. So it’s not like Chicago or Rockefeller had any serious advantage in age over Caltech. That really only leaves one guy at one school - Richards at Harvard. Even if you take away that one guy, that doesn’t really change much. </p>
<p>Look, again, my point is that yes, other schools are older. But at the same time, those schools weren’t even really schools in the sense that we understand them today. Let’s face it. For centuries, the Ivy League was just a bunch of gentlemen’s finishing schools for the Eastern establishment. They weren’t elite science research powerhouses, nor were they trying to be. They didn’t really admit people based on academic merit, or on any merit at all, but rather whether you had the right social connections, and nor did they really try to admit based on merit. They certainly weren’t research universities in the way we understand them today. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The only reason why I point it out is because I maintain that Caltech can do something about its students who are not doing well, and in particular, for those students who want to transfer out or do not want to pursue a career in science/engineering. For example, if a guy hates Caltech so much that he wants to transfer to some other school, then what’s the harm in giving him a cleansed transcript that expunges all his bad grades in order to maximize his chances of transferring to a strong school? The guy isn’t going to get a Caltech degree anyway, so what does it matter?</p>