<p>(1)Axline-level people: MIT and Caltech take nearly all
(2)People capable of handling Caltech core, but not exceptional: MIT rejects many that Caltech accepts
(3)People not really capable of handling Caltech core: MIT accepts some, Caltech rejects nearly all (it makes some mistakes)</p>
<p>Caltech tries the best it can to get the best student body for its educational system. It at least works. But if it desires to get people from category (3), then it must modify its educational system (and this would be bad for many students who feel that the institution is their perfect fit). At least enough people place in category (2) for Caltech admissions to work fine the way it is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I definitely agree.</p>
<p>When it comes to education, an interesting question is - how much does peer group really matter? How much does teaching really matter? What matters in the end, is the connections (and research) you get with your professors.</p>
<p>==
Anyways, I think we’ve all brought up interesting points.</p>
<p>Let me give you an example. I would argue that Berkeley runs highly meritocratic admissions. After all, much admissions, while supposedly based on a ‘comprehensive admissions policy’ is still very largely numbers driven. Berkeley, by law, cannot use AA. Granted, Berkeley does admit scholarship athletes, but they are a quite small percentage of the overall population. In fact, I would argue that Berkeley probably runs a more meritocratic admissions system than does Harvard or Stanford, in the sense that if you have the numbers, you can be pretty assured that you’re going to get into Berkeley. But ultimately does that mean that Berkeley is a more meritocratic university than Harvard or Stanford? I wouldn’t say so - because, again, a lot of Berkeley admittees, especially the best ones, choose to go elsewhere. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course there are such people. In fact, I already gave one such example - my brother. He went to Caltech and he freely admits that he did so because Caltech gave him money. If Caltech didn’t do that, he would have gone elsewhere. </p>
<p>But more to the point, I also agree that some people would still prefer Caltech even if they didnt’ get money. Any statistical analysis will * always * find some outliers. What is interesting is not where the outliers are, but where the data points converge. The truth is, the majority of Caltech admittees choose to go somewhere else. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The deficiency is that the majority of the top “meritocratic people” (as proxied by the scholarships) choose to go elsewhere. So evidently, the data points seem to converge upon the notion that even the majority of meritocratic people don’t really want to go to Caltech. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And this gets down to what I said above. People just don’t like change. I’m sure that when MIT changed from a trade school to a research school, some people didn’t like it. In particular, I strongly suspect that those people with strong trade skills but with weak theory/research skills who were now being rejected hated the change. Similarly, now that MIT is broadening into less technical subjects like poli-sci or general management, that necessarily means that some people on the margins with strong technical skills but weaker soft skills are not getting into MIT. That’s what happens when organizations change. Surely no one here is seriously advocating that MIT should never change.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because I have always agreed with what I said above - that it’s a matter of emotion. You might expect to be rejected from the Ivies because the Ivies have a strong reputation of not providing entirely meritocratic admissions. But then you get rejected from MIT, and that surprises you, at an emotional level.</p>
<p>But that’s an * emotional * response, not a rational response. When an academic superstar gets rejected from Harvard, little emotional response is elicited because psychologically you already “know” that Harvard’s admissions are unmeritocratic. But when an academic superstar gets rejected from MIT, that elicits an emotional response. But the rational response is to ask why aren’t you just as angry at Harvard as you are at MIT? Why has Harvard been able to play with your mind to set that psychological expectation of being unmeritocratic? That’s the proper * rational * response. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that’s where Ben Golub and I fundamentally disagree about Caltech. Don’t get me wrong. Caltech is great for the students who did well. My brother did well. Ben Golub is obviously doing well. Good for them. </p>
<p>But what’s always been interesting to me and my brother is - what about those Caltech students who don’t do well? Many of these students are obviously deeply dissatisfied, and would have almost certainly been better off if they had gone to some other school. The presence of these dissatisfied students deters future prospectives, ex-ante, from attending, because they’re afraid they will end up the same way. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Admissions and matriculation are intimately linked. Again, consider the Berkeley example. Berkeley’s admissions are clearly highly meritocratic in that if you have top numbers, you’re going to get in. But that doesn’t do that much to help the school because many of those students with the top numbers will usually choose to go somewhere else. So at the end of the day, Berkeley ends up with a student body that is far less meritocratic than its admissions policy would imply. </p>
<p>This is all about the issue of emotional response. I would argue that it doesn’t really matter if you got rejected from a school that you should have gotten into, if you weren’t going to go there anyway. To give you an example, I know a guy who was rejected from what he thought was a safety school. Yet he was actually laughing about the situation. Why? Because he got into Harvard, which is where he ended up going. Hence, his reasoning was that, after getting into Harvard, he wasn’t going to go to matriculate at that safety school anyway, so who cares if they rejected him? </p>
<p>That is why I see admissions and matriculation to be deeply linked. If a school rejects you, but you weren’t going to matriculate there anyway (possibly because you got better offers elsewhere), then who cares?</p>
<p>Yeah, but that begs the question - why does MIT take * so many * of them. After all, MIT doesn’t give out merit money. Hence, a lot of people are taking MIT over Caltech even when Caltech is offering money. That just seems to indicate that Caltech is really not as desirable to these particular people as MIT is that even money can’t compensate. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I would argue that there’s a category (4), comprised of people who have the ability to handle Caltech, but who don’t even apply to Caltech at all because they’re afraid of the legendary rigor, and who figure that they wouldn’t go even if they got in, so why even apply? Instead, they strongly prefer ‘safer’ schools like HYPS. You can say that these are risk-averse people - people who don’t want to take the risk of hurting their future marketability for future careers (i.e. for GPA-intensive criteria like law school or medical school). They can probably complete Caltech, and might even do well there, but they just don’t want to take the risk that they won’t do well. Let’s face it - a lot of people (probably most) are risk averse. </p>
<p>So the real question is, does Caltech want to pull people in from category (4)? Look, just because you’re psychologically risk averse doesn’t mean that you’re not brilliant. Being a brilliant scientist or engineer doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to be a career daredevil. I know many extraordinarily intelligent and hard-working people who are also highly risk averse when it comes to their own personal and professional lives. Nothing wrong with that, they just place high premium on safety. Heck, I know a girl at Harvard who’s a genius in physics and probably could have done very well at Caltech. But she’s also a very risk-averse person, which is why she didn’t even apply to Caltech for undergrad (although, ironically, she has now decided to go to Caltech for her physics PhD - but that’s because going to Caltech for physics grad school is no riskier than going to any of the other top physics grad programs).</p>
<p>But the point is, I don’t see why Caltech has to wrap risk into rigor as a package deal. Just because you enjoy and are good at technical subjects doesn’t also mean that you enjoy risk. This girl evidently did very well for herself in the ‘safe’ environment at Harvard - so well that Caltech admitted her for graduate school. That implicitly dictates that you don’t need to be a risk-taker to be a top science candidate. If you did, then why exactly would Caltech have admitted her for grad school? Was Caltech being dumb in admitting her?</p>
<p>I certainly did not mean to imply that grades and scores were the only indicators of potential to succeed (if I was one of those who did). Certainly, I know that I have been lucky as far as high school teachers go, and many extremely intelligent, motivated students are not as lucky. My problem is not that students from this latter category are admitted; I could have very easily been in this category in different circumstances.</p>
<p>In theory, it’s a very good thing that MIT admissions will try to look beyond some poorer grades or scores to see if the student really is motivated and willing to learn. However, the impression that I get from MIT admissions at this point is that they not only do this for students who have issues with grades and/or scores, but that they ignore good grades and/or scores as an indicator of motivation for students who do have them. A student fortunate enough to find a supportive academic environment within his/her high school should not be forced to do needless self-studying in order to have an application that can compete with students who have used self-study as an alternative to a poor academic environment.</p>
Well, no doubt. And it’s a consequence of there being a larger number of qualified people in MIT’s applicant pool – twenty years ago, MIT might have had to make more sacrifices to get a class hailing from diverse parts of the country. Now more smart kids across the country are aware that they have options other than a scholarship to State U, and MIT’s applicant pool and admit pool benefit. </p>
<p>But if the students today are more qualified on average than students twenty years ago, which they appear to be in terms of SAT scores (modestly) and graduation rates (less modestly), then what of all of those “unqualified” people who were let in twenty years ago under the more “meritocratic” policies? Perhaps we ought to take away their diplomas.</p>
<p>EDIT: And as for criticizing admissions officers for being friendly and trying to explain what they do, give me a break. The reality is that there are a lot of really qualified kids in the applicant pool, and decisions are not ultimately made because Applicant X is 0.001% smarter than Applicant Y. There aren’t firm criteria; that’s the nature of holistic admissions. Just wait until you have to start fretting about graduate school – graduate school admissions criteria are even less clear. (And yet nobody complains.)</p>
<p>Just my two cents, because this thread is mildly interesting sometimes and I’ve just gotten through the college admissions processes of both Caltech and MIT.</p>
<p>Somebody up there said that there are ‘outliers’ who would prefer Caltech over MIT – I’d suggest it might be more like ‘clusters.’ What I’m starting to see more and more, looking closely at both schools, is that many of their aspects will appeal to different categories of people. And I think it’s often hard to decide into which cluster, if you will, you’ll fall. </p>
<p>At the same time, I think it’s worthwhile to point out that it’s not surprising that Caltech has a lower yield than MIT, since it doesn’t do nearly as much advertising before May 1st. Plus, there aren’t that many 18-year-old kids out there who are confident enough in their interests to rule out any real possibility of studies outside of pure math/science and some engineering.</p>
<p>From Caltech’s approach to admissions, I get the feeling that it doesn’t really mind the relatively low yield – it seems like a lot more people going there would be miserable if they had matriculated because of a mistaken impressions of well-roundedness/whatever other easy-going cliches.</p>
<p>“And as for criticizing admissions officers for being friendly and trying to explain what they do, give me a break.”</p>
<p>I’m sure the admissions officers are nice people. It’s just that I don’t
know them, and I’m not going to know them, and when if and when
my kid applies, it won’t be because he wants to know them, either.
The blogs create this wierd false intimacy, kind of like reality TV. Maybe
this is a generational thing and I just can’t understand because I’m
over 40.</p>
<p>The question has come up, why do people complain so much about MIT
admission and not about Caltech, or the Ivys. Maybe it’s because the tone
of the admissions relationship is just a little bit …inappropriate? I don’t
know, but think about it, I’m an alum and I’m actually trying to be helpful.</p>
<p>As for complaining about graduate school admissions, people usually save
their complaining for about 3 1/2 years into the program, LOL.</p>
<p>There are a couple of other reasons why someone would turn down CalTech:</p>
<p>1) they have the desire and are the caliber to be a prof. in science at a top school, but they would prefer to have a liberal arts education</p>
<p>these people might end up going when Harvard/Princeton/Stanford turn them down.</p>
<p>2) as it has been said, Harvard and MIT have more name recognition, particularly among those who don’t know about science…both MIT and Harvard have a little more history </p>
<p>3.) they want academic rigor but the firehose style of disseminating information doesn’t suit them. these people might be able to learn a similar amount on their own</p>
<p>4.) the campus --this is more of an issue for people turning down MIT, as frankly most people think the campus and dorms are ugly.</p>
<hr>
<p>People that I know turning down MIT for comparable schools did so for the following reasons:
they would prefer to go to a liberal arts school as long as it is in the top 5
don’t like the campus
don’t feel it is a healthy environment (i.e., suicide rate)
don’t like the “firehose” technique of learning
more prestige at Harvard, and the workload is less</p>
<p>I don’t know anybody who turned down MIT because of who they admitted or their admissions policies.</p>
<h2>mollieb: But if the students today are more qualified on average than students twenty years ago, which they appear to be in terms of SAT scores (modestly) and graduation rates (less modestly), then what of all of those “unqualified” people who were let in twenty years ago under the more “meritocratic” policies? Perhaps we ought to take away their diplomas.</h2>
<p>how does anyone have any clue what the SAT distribution is? does anyone report the mean SAT score?</p>
<p>Typically, only the 25%-75% range of SAT scores is reported. This enables a school to take 25% people of the class with low scores without hurting their US News Ranking. This is how the ivies can recruit athletes, legacies, and people with quirky life stories but no brain without it hurting their rankings. Also, I’ll assume that you know about the “recentering” of the SAT scores and have accounted for this. An SAT score of 1400 in 1994 is the same as an SAT score of 1470 or so in 1995. (Couldn’t find the exact conversion, but I think this is accurate.)</p>
<p>Also, is it possible to fail out of the Sloan School? I don’t think so. If Business is suddenly the #4 most popular major, could that explain the higher graduation rate?</p>
<p>Well, no one has committed suicide at MIT since 2002 apparently, but it used to be the highest in the country. About 1 undergrad a semester for 5 years in one stretch in the 90’s. Certainly the reputation still remains and that might dissuade people.</p>
I just poked around on The Tech’s website earlier today. I’ll try to find a more reliable data set. But as I said in my original post, the effect is modest, if it is real.</p>
<p>
Um, I don’t know about that. Incidentally, Sloan is relatively URM-poor – URMs at MIT are more likely to major in engineering (relative to their representation at the school) and less likely to major in management.</p>
<p>Lots of stuff to respond to here, I’ll just do a few</p>
<p>1) There are simple reasons no one has mentioned that some cross-admitted students might prefer Harvard or MIT to Caltech: size (Caltech is much smaller) and location (which I guess is related to the “don’t like the campus” but while I like Caltech’s campus I think Cambridge >> Pasadena.)</p>
<p>2) I don’t understand the claim that if top admitted students choose not to attend the admission policy isn’t meritocratic. It might not be maximzing the number of highly-rated students who enroll, but “meritocratic” is a property of the admissions procedure, based on an idea of procedural fairness, it is not a property of the outcome of that process in terms of enrollments.</p>
<p>3) I strongly disagree that the quality of fellow students doesn’t matter: they are the people students interact with the most, and they also serve as a constraint on the level of the class.</p>
<p>4) I also strongly disagree that one can learn as much taking graduate classes at a “top 50-100 school” as one can at Caltech, MIT, or their competitors. In part this is because grad student quality falls off much more quickly than faculty quality does, and this serves as a constraint on the classes.</p>
<p>There’s also the added factor of the Internet. Now whenever one has some time, one can always head over to the MIT/Caltech website, download problem sets + solutions, and work on them in one’s own spare time, in conjunction with the textbooks from the university library. Moreover, one can always ask for help at places like artofproblemsolving.com and physicsforums.com, but those sites aren’t a pure substitute for real life social interaction.</p>
<p>That being said, the social element in those universities is often missing, since few students are purely academic in such universities (and consequently, one has a smaller pool of personalities with whom one can become study buddies with). It depends on the personality of the student as well (is the student an awkward nerd?). There just isn’t the close-knit community like the Caltech house system. The very top students at state universities are generally comparable to students at Caltech/MIT, but since there aren’t very many of them, it can be likely that very few will have any similar academic interests as the student. </p>
<p>A truly self-motivated and intelligent student, however, can mitigate the gap. Professors at those universities can recognize talent and encourage it. The student can take graduate level courses, do additional problems by himself (remember, in math/science circles, one learns more by doing problems than by attending lectures), do research, and grab excellent recs for grad school. </p>
<p>On a side note, there are the students who turn down Caltech/MIT for state (often for financial reasons, or for programs the state university is specifically strong in). I know a couple of them. It’s actually pretty interesting how some of them aren’t the most scientifically self-motivated people out there. They usually become somewhat involved with the social scene of their respective universities, and take normal course loads (and follow normal course sequences). They probably aren’t getting a Caltech/MIT equivalent education, although they’re still likely to go farther than their counterparts (a “drink the firehose” curriculum wouldn’t be the best learning format for a lot of people).Without the social groups, it’s often difficult to maintain the motivation needed for studying at levels comparable to those that Caltech/MIT students study. </p>
<p>And yes sakky, I’m aware of the research that shows that average income of people who turn down Ivy for state is pretty much equivalent with the average income of Ivy league alumni. Generally though, since genetic factors play a very large role in career outcomes (as evidenced from adopted twin studies), irrespective of the institution the student attends, I don’t think that the institution makes that much of a difference. Then again, student personalites may still be malleable in the university setting, and students do develop social standards that they compare with to their peers, and this accounts for most of the variance in behavior that genetics doesn’t explain (source: The Nurture Assumption). That being said, we must ask the question, “just how malleable is personality from the time the student enters college and is already 18?”</p>
<p>We have to make the distinction between theoretical possibility and practical possibility. Theoretically, it is possible for a number of students to obtain Caltech/MIT-equivalent educations in a state university. But an important question is - is it practically possible - that is, would most Caltech/MIT-calibre students who enroll in state universities get Caltech/MIT equivalent educations given what they’re likely to do in a state institution?</p>
<p>Many of these students don’t have a lot of incentives to pursue Caltech/MIT equivalent educations, as opposed to incentives to be more relaxed (though one important question is - how much do students really remember from Caltech/MIT courses?). Most of the incentives come from the instructors they work in research with - and then there is the added question - are instructors likely to reward them with better recs if the students show the instructors the products of their self-study? </p>
<p>The other issue, in any case, is tht many of those students would probably major in physics/math in those state universities, while they would have been turned off by physics/math at Caltech. In conjunction with that, Caltech offers rigorous mathematical-based research in other fields - fields that would take courses and courses of non-mathematical busywork in a state university (though the student could try to contact instructors to do research independently of taking courses in such a field).</p>
<p>I apologize for intermixing the terms Caltech/MIT and Caltech. I’m a lot more familiar with Caltech, but I have to keep in mind that many Caltech students turn Caltech down for MIT and still get Caltech-equivalent educations.</p>
<p>Anyhow, how this is relevant to the topic - is this - if students can obtain MIT equivalent educations at state schools, then why complain about MIT admissions? But if students cannot obtain MIT equivalent educations at state schools, then that is one reason to complain about admission standards at MIT (were such students desirous of working in an environment other than Caltech’s stress-filled one).</p>
Generally though, since genetic factors play a very large role in career outcomes (as evidenced from adopted twin studies), irrespective of the institution the student attends, I don’t think that the institution makes that much of a difference. Then again, student personalites may still be malleable in the university setting, and students do develop social standards that they compare with to their peers, and this accounts for most of the variance in behavior that genetics doesn’t explain (source: The Nurture Assumption). That being said, we must ask the question, “just how malleable is personality from the time the student enters college and is already 18?”</p>