Thanks!

[sakky]

<p>

sakky you seem not to understand that caltech is a specific school,

</p>

<p>Uh, trust me, I think my level of understanding is pretty darn good.</p>

<p>

i wouldn’t apply to caltech if it did. sakky you seem not to understand that caltech is a specific school, the only in the US from the top top schools, which doesn’t want to be a sell out, and it actually does what it wants and does it good.

</p>

<p>Is it a matter of “selling out”? Then, like I said before, Caltech is a sell-out. How’s that? Because Caltech built HSS. Caltech wasn’t founded with HSS, and wasn’t forced to create it later. It chose to create HSS because it wanted to broaden the reach of the school. So does that mean that Caltech sold out? </p>

<p>In other words, why is it not a sell-out for Caltech to have added HSS before, but is a sell-out if Caltech wanted to add some more programs today? What’s the difference? Or, put another way, why was Caltech allowed to add programs before, but not allowed to add programs now? </p>

<p>

opening a caltech’s version of sloan school would attract more applicants to caltech which were never initially caltech targets. ok, it would offer more options for students which are already go there, graduation rates would be higher blabla, but grrrr, why did those people decide to go to caltech anyway?

</p>

<p>See above. I’m sure that some people questioned why Caltech needed to add HSS under the notion that those students who are interested in those topics can just go to another school. But Caltech added HSS anyway. </p>

<p><a href=“for%20those%2012%%20which%20are%20idiots”>quote</a>…

[/quote]
</p>

<p>

i didn’t mean idiots as stupid or unintelligent, but more idiots as a personality… if i were having such trouble i would just suck it up and not whine about how caltech is bad and how it should change, because it would be my problem and my bad choice…

</p>

<p>I think right there we just identified the real heart of the problem: that a lot of Caltech people (or, in foo182’s case, future Caltech people) are simply not interested in helping those students who are having trouble. </p>

<p>Now, sure, I can agree that maybe these students had perhaps made a bad choice in coming to Caltech. But come on, they were just 17-18 years old when they made that choice. They’re just kids. I think you have to feel some sympathy to these kids. Not every 17-year kid really knows that they truly love science. </p>

<p>I think what’s fair is to implement a shared sense of responsibility. Sure, those students perhaps made a mistake in coming to Caltech. But on the other hand, Caltech made a mistake in admitting those students. Hence, both sides are at fault. Yet because it is the student who suffers most of the damage, and furthermore, because Caltech ought to have far greater experience in terms of knowing who should be admitted (for Caltech admits hundreds of students a year, and have done so for decades, but individual students only apply to college once in their lifetime), I think it is only fair for Caltech try to help these struggling students as much as possible. </p>

<p>Again, I don’t see what is so controversial about the notion of Caltech broadening its programs. It did so before, so why can’t it do so again? By doing so, not only will you help those students who come to Caltech and then find out that they don’t really love science the way they thought they would, but you would also attract those students who already understand that they’re not really sure about science and hence value the freedom to explore. Why is that freedom such a bad thing? I believe that greater choice is a good thing.</p>