Reflections....

[IMSAgeek]

<p>

@lizzardfire

That being said, a core curriculum in any state is only going to be ideal for some subset of students that are qualified to attend Caltech. Some people are not going to be served by any core; some people don’t want to be forced to take difficult coursework in areas they don’t care about. These people should not attend Caltech.

Agreed.

@lizzardfire

IMSAgeek, do you really feel that students going through core are not able to solve most of the problems they see? I’m not sure if I’m reading you correctly here, but this seems somewhat unrealistic. Most of my friends were able to solve correctly the vast majority of problems they faced in core, regardless of major or genius-level.

Sorry, my wording was ambiguous. When I said “or even most of them” I meant that students would have to get used to being able to solve less than most of the problems (say, they can solve 60-70% of them instead of the 90-100% they were used to in high school). Not that they would not be able to solve most of the problems. Ugh, I’m not sure that made it any clearer. The essential point was having to get used to not knowing how to solve everything.</p>

<p>

@lizzardfire

You additionally state that core will be miserable for students who “want to try to learn all of the material”. I guess I believe you, but I’m not really sure why this is hard to adapt to. It seems to in some way suggest that having less material is better because it is easier to learn it all. I’d much rather be exposed to a very large amount of material that allows me to pick and choose what I want to focus on more deeply.

I’m not saying it’s better objectively. It might have been better for me, and I go back and forth on that, but it will certainly be better for some people. It’s up to each person considering Caltech whether they are one of those people or not.</p>

<p>

@lizzardfire

There’s a professor at Caltech who says that one of the largest problems with Caltech today is that students are too focused on grades. Of course, this is somewhat due to a greater focus on grades in grad schools, and med schools, but still there is some responsibility on the shoulders of the student. This prof, who is a Caltech alum, always said that when he took a course that he was not interested in, he just took a B and didn’t worry too much about it. This is a philosophy I rarely see at Tech today. I feel like a lot of students now gain self-worth by acing classes. It’s not enough to learn a lot, they have to master the class and get an A. This grade-focused mentality keeps students from walking away from a course they worked really hard in, and still got a B, with a smile on their face–it keeps them from objectively identifying just how much they may have learned from that course.

I agree with this, but caring less about grades is a lot easier said than done. Caltech students are all people who are used to doing really well and having it get them where they want to go. Trying to make these people be okay with working their butts off to get straight Bs and settle for their 2nd, 3rd, 4th choice grad school is not an easy job and can border on insensitive. </p>

<p>

@lizzardfire

Core is difficult. Core has issues with it that need to be solved. The overall idea of core is going to suit some people with a particular learning style and not suit others with a different learning style, regardless of implementation.</p>

<p>Caltech is one of the few schools left that has a strong core, and by doing so, it offers an optimal learning environment for those suited to it. If being forced to take difficult classes in a large variety of areas is not what you’re interested in, don’t come here. If you’re obsessed with grades, don’t come here. If you want to be exposed to as much as possible and be challenged through it all, well then, you might just like it here.

Agreed 100%. Said much better than I’ve been managing lately. Gah.</p>