Why Caltech Is in a Class by Itself(mindingthecampus.com)
mindingthecampus.com
Why Caltech Is in a Class by Itself
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2010/12/why_caltech_is_in_a_class_by_i.html
152 comments
There seems to be a confusion with diversity in academic persuits (math/science vs. humanities/arts) and non-academic diversity (racial, socioeconomic, athletic). It so happens that CalTech values neither type of diversity in admissions (focusing on math/science academic merit, and nothing else). But the author is really only arguing that the non-academic diversity is rightfully ignored.
I agree with you that it's a strength of Carnegie Mellon (weakness of CalTech) that it has excellence in a broad (narrow) range of academic subjects. But that's not an argument against the author's thesis: the pursuit of non-academic diversity has a major negative impact on the academic quality of most major research universities in the US.
(Disclosure: I'm a white Princeton Alum who played one of the varsity sports which were not considered in admissions, so I took a bit of umbrage at those athletes who got a boost at the admissions office. Not that I'm a petty person or anything....)
I agree with you that it's a strength of Carnegie Mellon (weakness of CalTech) that it has excellence in a broad (narrow) range of academic subjects. But that's not an argument against the author's thesis: the pursuit of non-academic diversity has a major negative impact on the academic quality of most major research universities in the US.
(Disclosure: I'm a white Princeton Alum who played one of the varsity sports which were not considered in admissions, so I took a bit of umbrage at those athletes who got a boost at the admissions office. Not that I'm a petty person or anything....)
I agree with you, Jess. Georgetown (where I did my undergrad) isn't on the same level as CalTech or Princeton, but it's still supposed to be pretty good, and I honestly wasn't that impressed with the student body on the whole. There were, as expected, a lot of precocious wannabe-Senators...but there were also a lot of, for want of a better term, dumb jocks, and also a lot of people who were selected entirely for skin color and who didn't really have the academic qualifications to be there. There was even a program to teach these students remedial English during the summer before their freshman year - an explicit admission that they weren't qualified.
Honestly, I felt like it cheapened my degree.
Honestly, I felt like it cheapened my degree.
Non-academic diversity should never be "rightfully ignored". Universities are a wonderful tapestry of people, and students benefit by being exposed to students from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds.
My undergrad university in the UK (Bristol) was/is widely regarded as an "Oxbridge reject" school, full of those from the upper-classes that were expected to go to Oxbridge but failed. The private schools (called public schools in the UK) were outraged when Bristol announced that they would start offering placements not on academic achievement but on potential, so a straight-A student from Eton would be evaluated about the same as a straight-B student from inner-city comprehensive schools where the teaching was noticeably worse. It was a great idea.
It is wrong, if not dangerous, to evaluate universities by abstract metrics such as research or academic performance. Universities are much, much more. They are the student newspaper, the radio station, the sports teams, the activists, the hackers, the politicians. Students undoubtedly benefit from exposure to all.
(Disclosure: I'm a white middle-class Englishman who went to a Top 10 univerisity in the UK and now I'm a PhD student at the University of Californa, Santa Cruz)
My undergrad university in the UK (Bristol) was/is widely regarded as an "Oxbridge reject" school, full of those from the upper-classes that were expected to go to Oxbridge but failed. The private schools (called public schools in the UK) were outraged when Bristol announced that they would start offering placements not on academic achievement but on potential, so a straight-A student from Eton would be evaluated about the same as a straight-B student from inner-city comprehensive schools where the teaching was noticeably worse. It was a great idea.
It is wrong, if not dangerous, to evaluate universities by abstract metrics such as research or academic performance. Universities are much, much more. They are the student newspaper, the radio station, the sports teams, the activists, the hackers, the politicians. Students undoubtedly benefit from exposure to all.
(Disclosure: I'm a white middle-class Englishman who went to a Top 10 univerisity in the UK and now I'm a PhD student at the University of Californa, Santa Cruz)
If one wants to be exposed to people from different backgrounds, one should go live in a big, metropolitan city / travel the world while earning his way. Sucking down enormous amounts of public / donor / endowment money to run social experiments, whether in university or otherwise and then using weasel-words like 'diversity' etc. is of questionable value, at best, unacceptable at worst...
Why should the taxpayer or the wealthy donor be fleeced to provide zero value to the unwitting student (who probably doesn't have enough maturity to make decisions independently anyway)?
Why should the taxpayer or the wealthy donor be fleeced to provide zero value to the unwitting student (who probably doesn't have enough maturity to make decisions independently anyway)?
OK. In my comment, I was just trying to keep the discussion focused on non-academic diversity. I agree with what you say to a certain extent; I'm willing to consider other factors in admissions besides academic excellence. But I find it hard to believe that the quality of academics isn't negatively impacted to an unacceptable degree when a sizable fraction of the class (the OP claims > 10%) has much poorer scores (the OP claims roughly one standard deviation).
Also: Gauchos >> Banana Slugs
Also: Gauchos >> Banana Slugs
It is wrong, if not dangerous, to evaluate universities by abstract metrics such as research or academic performance.
I fail to guess in what sense research and academic performance are somehow "abstract metrics" while non-academic diversity isn't. You may dispute their effectiveness but SAT/GPA scores, number of peer-reviewed publications, million dollars in grants, etc. are certainly less abstract than the color of your skin or the word on the street about the school you attended.
I fail to guess in what sense research and academic performance are somehow "abstract metrics" while non-academic diversity isn't. You may dispute their effectiveness but SAT/GPA scores, number of peer-reviewed publications, million dollars in grants, etc. are certainly less abstract than the color of your skin or the word on the street about the school you attended.
They are abstract in the sense that it is not immediately clear what makes them go up or down.
Does the presence of a sports team make students feel more school pride, increasing student performance? How much does commute times factor in? What about whether there's political activist students that successfully negotiate better benefits for TAs?
If you look at metrics alone, you lose the woods for the trees. It looks like CalTech have their head on straight, at least according to some comments here, about potential and passion, not about numbers. This is what the blog post advocates, and that I think is a very short-sighted position to take.
Does the presence of a sports team make students feel more school pride, increasing student performance? How much does commute times factor in? What about whether there's political activist students that successfully negotiate better benefits for TAs?
If you look at metrics alone, you lose the woods for the trees. It looks like CalTech have their head on straight, at least according to some comments here, about potential and passion, not about numbers. This is what the blog post advocates, and that I think is a very short-sighted position to take.
If universities are the student newspaper, the radio station and the sports teams, a 1 in 9 chance of sharing a dorm room with an underachieving black guy and the opportunity to go to student protests, then as a taxpayer, I want to stop funding them. It sounds like a huge waste of money.
Then you can pull the money from Berkeley, I guess. Other than that, the large majority of the very-top-tier schools are private. Yes, they receive public money for research, but the undergraduate "experience" is funded by tuition, endowment, and donations.
Still, I agree. This seems like a fantastically inefficient way to meet people with different backgrounds.
Still, I agree. This seems like a fantastically inefficient way to meet people with different backgrounds.
Roughly half the public money for "research" is actually pocketed by the university and spent on education/administration/etc (the university calls it "overhead"). This is a dirty little secret of science funding - a big chunk of it isn't funding science at all, but is merely a subsidy for big research colleges.
Also, even tuitions at private colleges are massively subsidized - the subsidies just follow the students (e.g., subsidized student loans, need-based aid, etc).
Also, even tuitions at private colleges are massively subsidized - the subsidies just follow the students (e.g., subsidized student loans, need-based aid, etc).
"students benefit by being exposed to students from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds"
You got any evidence about the trade-offs on that? In my experience, the very diverse student body of my alma mater formed closed cliques (racially, nationally) and the wide variance in backgrounds caused most, if not all, classes to slow down to the lowest common denominator.
You got any evidence about the trade-offs on that? In my experience, the very diverse student body of my alma mater formed closed cliques (racially, nationally) and the wide variance in backgrounds caused most, if not all, classes to slow down to the lowest common denominator.
besides the offensive nature of those words
The point was that the stereotype is formed quite strongly because those groups do exist on campus. He was using those words to demonstrate why using different academic criteria for different groups of students was problematic. If there were no academic differences between the regular student body and minorities or athletes people wouldn't make those "offensive" generalizations.
The point was that the stereotype is formed quite strongly because those groups do exist on campus. He was using those words to demonstrate why using different academic criteria for different groups of students was problematic. If there were no academic differences between the regular student body and minorities or athletes people wouldn't make those "offensive" generalizations.
If there were no academic differences between the regular student body and minorities or athletes people wouldn't make those "offensive" generalizations.
Oh really? I suppose it's unlikely that peoples' prejudices could cause them to make inaccurate generalizations about the world around them. And do go on about the differences between the minorites and the "regular students".
He was using those words to demonstrate why using different academic criteria for different groups of students was problematic.
The assumption being that this is actually happening to a significant degree. The SCOTUS has set down fairly strict rules governing affirmative action in admissions processes, including forbidding quotas and rigid point-systems that benefit minorities.
Oh really? I suppose it's unlikely that peoples' prejudices could cause them to make inaccurate generalizations about the world around them. And do go on about the differences between the minorites and the "regular students".
He was using those words to demonstrate why using different academic criteria for different groups of students was problematic.
The assumption being that this is actually happening to a significant degree. The SCOTUS has set down fairly strict rules governing affirmative action in admissions processes, including forbidding quotas and rigid point-systems that benefit minorities.
The article says:
"The academic achievement gap between the admitted white and Asian students and those designated as "underrepresented minorities" is often huge, in statistical terms often exceeding a full standard deviation (equivalent to a 600 vs. a 700 on each of the sections of the SAT exam)."
Sounds like a significant degree to me. Should the OP pretend not to notice this is happening?
I know it doesn't cite sources, but neither do you.
"The academic achievement gap between the admitted white and Asian students and those designated as "underrepresented minorities" is often huge, in statistical terms often exceeding a full standard deviation (equivalent to a 600 vs. a 700 on each of the sections of the SAT exam)."
Sounds like a significant degree to me. Should the OP pretend not to notice this is happening?
I know it doesn't cite sources, but neither do you.
If there were no academic differences between the regular student body and minorities ...
You keep using that phrase, affirmative action. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Modern affirmative action in higher education isn't about meeting quotas and admitting inferior students; rather, it's more like the Rooney Rule in the NFL, a way to make sure that minority students are getting looked at.
By the way, MIT has an active affirmative action program and we still seem to be doing just fine.
You keep using that phrase, affirmative action. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Modern affirmative action in higher education isn't about meeting quotas and admitting inferior students; rather, it's more like the Rooney Rule in the NFL, a way to make sure that minority students are getting looked at.
By the way, MIT has an active affirmative action program and we still seem to be doing just fine.
I think affirmative action does mean what he thinks it means. Data is hard to come by, but here are a two data points:
The University of Michigan would give you +1.0 on GPA if you were black (e.g., 2.8 GPA -> 3.8 GPA):
http://www.cir-usa.org/Images/mich_index.gif
Medical schools have similar practices - the average black student accepted into medical school has GPA/MCAT a full standard deviation below the average white student. (I.e., 50% of black medical students are in the bottom 20% of medical students.)
http://web.archive.org/web/20080801022539/http://www.aamc.or...
The University of Michigan would give you +1.0 on GPA if you were black (e.g., 2.8 GPA -> 3.8 GPA):
http://www.cir-usa.org/Images/mich_index.gif
Medical schools have similar practices - the average black student accepted into medical school has GPA/MCAT a full standard deviation below the average white student. (I.e., 50% of black medical students are in the bottom 20% of medical students.)
http://web.archive.org/web/20080801022539/http://www.aamc.or...
I'm pretty sure I didn't use the phrase affirmative action so I'm rather taken aback that you think I don't know what it means. I'm sure you don't know what καλημέρα means, but I have better chance at being right because it's in Greek. And I wouldn't rub your face in it anyway.
But since you brought it up... At Caltech they didn't say they didn't use affirmative action at all. They said they didn't lower the "academic" criteria- i.e. test scores and GPA- for minority students. They do that at some schools. I wouldn't know about MIT.
But since you brought it up... At Caltech they didn't say they didn't use affirmative action at all. They said they didn't lower the "academic" criteria- i.e. test scores and GPA- for minority students. They do that at some schools. I wouldn't know about MIT.
And I wouldn't rub your face in it anyway.
Funny, you certainly had no problem rubbing your offensive, misguided views about minority students in my face.
They said they didn't lower the "academic" criteria- i.e. test scores and GPA- for minority students. They do that at some schools. I wouldn't know about MIT.
They don't do that at any schools in the United States, actually ... at least not at any in compliance with Federal law.
Funny, you certainly had no problem rubbing your offensive, misguided views about minority students in my face.
They said they didn't lower the "academic" criteria- i.e. test scores and GPA- for minority students. They do that at some schools. I wouldn't know about MIT.
They don't do that at any schools in the United States, actually ... at least not at any in compliance with Federal law.
First you say I used the phrase affirmative action when anyone could see that I didn't.
And then you say that I have offensive and misguided views about minority students when I have not professed any views about minority students.
I don't think I'm being overly inventive when I say you seem rather inventive.
And then you say that I have offensive and misguided views about minority students when I have not professed any views about minority students.
I don't think I'm being overly inventive when I say you seem rather inventive.
And then you say that I have offensive and misguided views about minority students when I have not professed any views about minority students.
Sure you have, scare quotes and all. From your comment:
The point was that the stereotype is formed quite strongly because those groups do exist on campus .... If there were no academic differences between the regular student body and minorities or athletes people wouldn't make those "offensive" generalizations.
Sure you have, scare quotes and all. From your comment:
The point was that the stereotype is formed quite strongly because those groups do exist on campus .... If there were no academic differences between the regular student body and minorities or athletes people wouldn't make those "offensive" generalizations.
How is that misguided or offensive? It's simply a fact that if you lower academic standards for athletes, then the stereotype will be that the athletes are of lower academic caliber. Because they are. It was a statement of fact. I suppose the truth can be offensive...
I suppose the truth can be offensive...
Except that it's not the truth ... no schools do that for minority students. It's a strawman.
Except that it's not the truth ... no schools do that for minority students. It's a strawman.
It's not a strawman. At UoM, the point system was designed so that being a racial or ethnic minority was worth the same number of points as a full grade point (i.e. a white student with a high school 4.0 was equivalent point-wise to a black student with a high school 3.0.) For athletes, I remember it was about 1/5 of that amount of points, but I could be wrong on that score.
Having taught at UoM, I can say that unfortunately this translated to their performance on exams as well...
Having taught at UoM, I can say that unfortunately this translated to their performance on exams as well...
If you taught at U of M, I'd imagine you're at least passingly familiar with Gratz v. Bollinger, in which the Supreme Court explicitly made what you're talking about illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger
So yes, it's a strawman ... no schools do that anymore. Lots of schools never did it. And the schools that were doing so, were doing so with a fundamental misunderstanding of and in non-compliance with both the spirit and letter of the law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger
So yes, it's a strawman ... no schools do that anymore. Lots of schools never did it. And the schools that were doing so, were doing so with a fundamental misunderstanding of and in non-compliance with both the spirit and letter of the law.
The methodology has changed. Now they use humans instead of a point system. The result is identical. Entering "minorities" and athletes enter with lower GPAs and SATs. It's a fact, not a strawman.
> They don't do that at any schools in the United States, actually ... at least not at any in compliance with Federal law.
Actually, they do. The Supreme Court decision involving the University of Michigan Law School explicitly allowed that practice.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger
* The Court's majority ruling, authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, held that the United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."
Actually, they do. The Supreme Court decision involving the University of Michigan Law School explicitly allowed that practice.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger
* The Court's majority ruling, authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, held that the United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."
You're reading the wrong ruling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger
Huh?
Gratz didn't overturn Grutter. (They were issued the same day.) Grutter says that some things are permissible while Graz says that some other things aren't.
Gratz didn't overturn Grutter. (They were issued the same day.) Grutter says that some things are permissible while Graz says that some other things aren't.
Gratz didn't overturn Grutter. (They were issued the same day.)
Yup ... I was outside the Supreme Court that day, actually. :)
Gratz makes clear that point systems are illegal, which was my claim. I never claimed that affirmative action or race considerations are illegal, writ large.
Yup ... I was outside the Supreme Court that day, actually. :)
Gratz makes clear that point systems are illegal, which was my claim. I never claimed that affirmative action or race considerations are illegal, writ large.
> Gratz makes clear that point systems are illegal, which was my claim.
The original claim was "They said they didn't lower the "academic" criteria- i.e. test scores and GPA- for minority students."
Grutter said that they could use race to decide admit certain folks according to different criteria than they use for other folks.
The original claim was "They said they didn't lower the "academic" criteria- i.e. test scores and GPA- for minority students."
Grutter said that they could use race to decide admit certain folks according to different criteria than they use for other folks.
As a follow-up, in the late '70s, Caltech changed the admissions policies to go from application review by one professor to review by a committee of three. The % of women in the next class jumped by about 3x from one year to the next, from about 5% or so. Admissions is done completely differently today, but I still find that to be an interesting anecdote.
I applied to CMU with a 3.8 cumulative (at a school where AP classes were worth 5.0), 740 math SAT, and 670 English SAT. I was accepted into the school of computer science, after submitting my application in a big red envelope that said "Athletics Department" on it (I was a football player).
Now, I'm a second semester senior with a 3.6 cumulative, I've TAed 5 classes, done 3-4 semesters of systems research, and accepted a job at Facebook (it was between them and Google).
If Caltech would have rejected me (I didn't apply) for being a "dumb jock," more power to them -- it might even be a worthwhile heuristic. I think CMU made the right choice though.
Now, I'm a second semester senior with a 3.6 cumulative, I've TAed 5 classes, done 3-4 semesters of systems research, and accepted a job at Facebook (it was between them and Google).
If Caltech would have rejected me (I didn't apply) for being a "dumb jock," more power to them -- it might even be a worthwhile heuristic. I think CMU made the right choice though.
Sweet, congrats on the job accept, Alex!
Caltech accepts people who discover their passion for a field very early in life and then excel at basic academics. Some, like myself, fail to take advantage of the academic opportunities and come out much worse than you seem to from CMU. Tech very well would have accepted you, if you had applied, but they would have done it for your demonstrated interest in CS--more likely ACM, since CS at Caltech is an entirely different fish than at other schools--while basically treating your athletics as a null factor. On the other hand, it would have perhaps been a slight negative against you, because athletics took time away from when you could have been volunteering in a local college science lab or hacking some code together. The students who read applications and we who screen them when they apply to sit on that committee are quite serious when it comes to seeking applicants who show a "passion for math and science."
Caltech accepts people who discover their passion for a field very early in life and then excel at basic academics. Some, like myself, fail to take advantage of the academic opportunities and come out much worse than you seem to from CMU. Tech very well would have accepted you, if you had applied, but they would have done it for your demonstrated interest in CS--more likely ACM, since CS at Caltech is an entirely different fish than at other schools--while basically treating your athletics as a null factor. On the other hand, it would have perhaps been a slight negative against you, because athletics took time away from when you could have been volunteering in a local college science lab or hacking some code together. The students who read applications and we who screen them when they apply to sit on that committee are quite serious when it comes to seeking applicants who show a "passion for math and science."
"A weird-ass cross section of human" is a great description of Carnegie Mellon.
Also, for all of the article's bashing of "dumb jocks" athletes at Carnegie Mellon slightly outperform non-athletes in GPA (something like 3.23 to 3.16 while I was there.) I ran cross-country and track there with people who were studying Computer Science, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Architecture, Physics, Biomedical Engineering, etc. -- the one who was studying Biomedical Engineering ended up with a 3.97 as well as being one of the best distance runners in school history (3:51 1500m, 14:40 5000m, runner-up at the DIII national track and field championship for 5000m.) The team has consistently gone to the DIII national cross-country championship in recent years as well. I was never good enough to go with them, but some of my best memories are with that team. That's an important part of college too.
Caltech can have their famous losing streaks.
Also, for all of the article's bashing of "dumb jocks" athletes at Carnegie Mellon slightly outperform non-athletes in GPA (something like 3.23 to 3.16 while I was there.) I ran cross-country and track there with people who were studying Computer Science, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Architecture, Physics, Biomedical Engineering, etc. -- the one who was studying Biomedical Engineering ended up with a 3.97 as well as being one of the best distance runners in school history (3:51 1500m, 14:40 5000m, runner-up at the DIII national track and field championship for 5000m.) The team has consistently gone to the DIII national cross-country championship in recent years as well. I was never good enough to go with them, but some of my best memories are with that team. That's an important part of college too.
Caltech can have their famous losing streaks.
I also attended CMU (SCS). I'm not sure how many other schools do this, but when applying to CMU you apply to specific departments and the acceptance decision is handled at the department level. This causes there to be a great variance in the paper qualifications of attending students across the school.
http://my.cmu.edu/portal/site/admission/adm_statistics/
You can see that compared to the other departments that the College of Fine Arts lags "significantly" behind the other "academically rigorous" departments. Yet even that being the case, we have one of the strongest fine arts programs in the country with many of the programs being considered top 10.
My reason for bringing this up is that college admissions are (and should be) based on something more meaningful than paper qualifications. The point of a well rounded University is to foster a place of learning across a varied set of fields. Who is to say that athletics is any more or less worthwhile than Fine Arts, Drama, or Computer Science? Athletics contribute a lot to a school's experience. Who cares if their grades are slightly lower and didn't get perfect SAT scores. They are recruited because they have astounding talent in their respective fields just like a geek might have a talent for numbers or a music major has talent for playing the piano.
(I am not and never was an athlete)
http://my.cmu.edu/portal/site/admission/adm_statistics/
You can see that compared to the other departments that the College of Fine Arts lags "significantly" behind the other "academically rigorous" departments. Yet even that being the case, we have one of the strongest fine arts programs in the country with many of the programs being considered top 10.
My reason for bringing this up is that college admissions are (and should be) based on something more meaningful than paper qualifications. The point of a well rounded University is to foster a place of learning across a varied set of fields. Who is to say that athletics is any more or less worthwhile than Fine Arts, Drama, or Computer Science? Athletics contribute a lot to a school's experience. Who cares if their grades are slightly lower and didn't get perfect SAT scores. They are recruited because they have astounding talent in their respective fields just like a geek might have a talent for numbers or a music major has talent for playing the piano.
(I am not and never was an athlete)
There's another principle at play. Colleges aim to maximize their yield, or the percentage of students who are offered admission that ultimately matriculate. Nothing against CMU - it's a fantastic school in nearly every regard - but these perfect scoring students... are they most likely to attend CMU? In a lot of cases the school is competing with HYP and others of that ilk.
So if you're CMU admissions, how do you maximize yield in those scenarios when P(student matriculates) is relatively low? You reject the student in favor of the better (if lower scoring) fit. Not only does it enable them to better predict/manage the size of the incoming class, but it also increases yield, which is a number that's reported directly to US News and which (in principle if not in practice) describes the desirability of admission from the perspective of incoming freshmen.
So if you're CMU admissions, how do you maximize yield in those scenarios when P(student matriculates) is relatively low? You reject the student in favor of the better (if lower scoring) fit. Not only does it enable them to better predict/manage the size of the incoming class, but it also increases yield, which is a number that's reported directly to US News and which (in principle if not in practice) describes the desirability of admission from the perspective of incoming freshmen.
They said the same thing at my CMU orientation in 2005. To be fair, they don't mention how many students with perfect SAT scores and GPAs they accept (I met many as an undergrad, and I'm sure many of those accepted chose other schools). The percentage rejected is more interesting.
ditto 2006, they clearly like that introduction ;)
I heard the same intro speech during 2007 and 2009. It's their stamp to show their diversity statement
I remember visiting Caltech years ago when I was in high school (I never applied).
My impression was that non-diversity of interests actually extended to a complete lack of interest in theoretical math (my intended major). Everything was extremely rigorous but nothing was going to go beyond a certain theoretical level.
It indeed seemed unique in the sense of producing the most noticeably uniform group of students I saw in my different campus visits. It seemed like they did make a nod to English by having some breadth requirements and so it seemed it would actually have been even harder for a Caltech graduate to take theoretical perspective within an engineering field than it would have been for them to appreciate a sonnet on their off-hours.
My impression was that non-diversity of interests actually extended to a complete lack of interest in theoretical math (my intended major). Everything was extremely rigorous but nothing was going to go beyond a certain theoretical level.
It indeed seemed unique in the sense of producing the most noticeably uniform group of students I saw in my different campus visits. It seemed like they did make a nod to English by having some breadth requirements and so it seemed it would actually have been even harder for a Caltech graduate to take theoretical perspective within an engineering field than it would have been for them to appreciate a sonnet on their off-hours.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, you picked up a completely inaccurate impression. Caltech is theoretical to the point of disregarding many practical applications in many fields.
Theoretical math is hugely important, popular, and a major department within the Physics, Math, and Astronomy division. Personally, I found Caltech to be far too theoretical for my own liking, as a former aerospace engineer.
Theoretical math is hugely important, popular, and a major department within the Physics, Math, and Astronomy division. Personally, I found Caltech to be far too theoretical for my own liking, as a former aerospace engineer.
It's true that, at least in the engineering department, Caltech isn't that hands-on. But I learned the hands on at work at Boeing, and it was backed up by solid theoretical knowledge, which was lacking in a lot of the other engineers. So I think it's the better approach.
Good point. I just didn't make it that far :) For further expansion of the point, Caltech teaches you how to learn in a rigorous, rather than piecemeal, fashion, which if you are still filled with passion for your chosen path, gives you the chance to be extremely technically successful. Rather than learning 'tricks' that build into experience-based knowledge, you have a full framework that new knowledge gets slotted into as you acquire it.
That CMU President was Jerry Cohon?
I went to Caltech recently, and I feel I should weigh in on this.
The author of the article spends an unfortunate amount of time talking about SAT and AP scores, as if that's all that Tech cares about. Having served on an institute committee to decide the direction of the Admissions office, I can assure you that this simply isn't true. Caltech's sky-high SAT and AP scores aren't an end in and of themselves, they're simply a side-effect. Caltech looks, more than anything else, for a demonstrated passion for math and science. Near-perfect SAT and AP scores are just a check box on the way to demonstrating a true passion and ability for math and science.
And that's really key, because a perfect GPA, SAT & AP scores, and great teacher recommendations isn't enough to get in. There has to be something more. Usually that 'something more' is independent work in a research lab, science competition, personal projects, or somesuch, and so the incoming class at Caltech is never just people who know how to get good grades and do nothing else, but a crowd of voracious achievers, many of whom have spent their lives figuring out how to push themselves harder and faster towards their passions than allotted for by whatever system they were raised in. To characterize them otherwise is a mistake.
The author of the article spends an unfortunate amount of time talking about SAT and AP scores, as if that's all that Tech cares about. Having served on an institute committee to decide the direction of the Admissions office, I can assure you that this simply isn't true. Caltech's sky-high SAT and AP scores aren't an end in and of themselves, they're simply a side-effect. Caltech looks, more than anything else, for a demonstrated passion for math and science. Near-perfect SAT and AP scores are just a check box on the way to demonstrating a true passion and ability for math and science.
And that's really key, because a perfect GPA, SAT & AP scores, and great teacher recommendations isn't enough to get in. There has to be something more. Usually that 'something more' is independent work in a research lab, science competition, personal projects, or somesuch, and so the incoming class at Caltech is never just people who know how to get good grades and do nothing else, but a crowd of voracious achievers, many of whom have spent their lives figuring out how to push themselves harder and faster towards their passions than allotted for by whatever system they were raised in. To characterize them otherwise is a mistake.
Would you admit someone with a fascinating and very impressive personal project who also clearly hates school and barely got C- in all subjects including math and science?
Why would anyone? If they clearly hate school it seems like a mistake to try to entice them -- and an acceptance to CalTech may place undue pressure on them from family.
I'd reject with a note, "This student may excel, but not in a university setting".
I'd reject with a note, "This student may excel, but not in a university setting".
Well perhaps "hates school" might really mean "needs an independent education". Maybe an independent study around great minds would let a brillant, yet academically unsuccessful student, flourish.
Most schools though, love to promote those who are a reflection of their definition of "greatness", so this sort of independent course is widely discoursed.
Most schools though, love to promote those who are a reflection of their definition of "greatness", so this sort of independent course is widely discoursed.
Why would anyone? If they clearly hate school it seems like a mistake to try to entice them
I think this is an admission that college, and defiantly CalTech is not about knowledge but academics, and the two are not the same. Imho, academics is also not the same as learning.
I think this is an admission that college, and defiantly CalTech is not about knowledge but academics, and the two are not the same. Imho, academics is also not the same as learning.
Could you expand? This doesn't compute to me, so maybe I'm missing something. Caltech is a school. It is structered as a school. If you hate school, why go to school? There are other ways to learn, and if I'm a Caltech admissions officer I already reject a full class of students who would love to attend and have great qualifications. So why accept someone who would neither want to attend, and probably shouldn't.
Well to me the most valuable things are knowledge, practice and discovery. After all that is how progress is made. And we study hard to be able to make discoveries and do things which will change the world.
And I firmly believe that almost all studying is at its core autodidacty. You get out of college what you put into it.
That is to say, self-motivation is necessary to acquire knowledge in and out of a formal academic setting.
But clearly where you are and who your peers are, is a huge influence on the human social animal. And because you might love learning but hate the rather heavy hand of authority at the pre-college education level, you might still want to co to college.
Specifically, potential to change the world may be intimately related to an almost pathological love of reason and hatred of unreasonable rules, methods, approaches and behavior.
I believe Caltech wants students who will do great things. But I may be wrong? That may not be the goal, actually I am quite certain that is not the only goal.
The way Caltech evaluates students is by using a proxy of academics. There are other proxies but clearly formal schooling is a main component of the evaluation proxy.
I will not go into the proven dangers of optimizing the proxy instead of the thing that the proxy is proxy-ing for.
School prior to college is well known to not just impart knowledge but also things like arbitrary rules and enforced discipline over agreed upon cooperation, etc.
College has some of that as well, although much less so then pre-college education.
Assuming someone has proven both a disdain for formal schooling and also a love of learning, knowledge, and scientific discovery, we could speculate that is a person with an extreme love of logic and hatred of lack of logic, who might to well in an environment with more knowledge and less B.S.
We all know anecdotes about great geniuses and the trouble they got in at school. Beyond that there is a lot of formal work done on "gifted" children and learning environments.
So an argument could be made that exceptional academic success at the pre-college level is a bad predictor of truly exceptional success in changing the world.
But I don't think formal academic success is just a proxy for Caltech. I think Caltech is specifically looking for kids who will work well within the system.
Caltech's filter for students proven to do exceptionally well within the academic systems is I suspect a goal in itself.
Actually I find Caltech's laser like focus on proven academic success refreshing. Because it is honest, open and complete.
Other schools make use of the same proxy but don't do it as well as Caltech.
So in my opinion, Caltech is pursuing a low risk/high reward strategy of potential Nobel prize winners who don't make a lot of trouble in school and don't tax their advisor's schedule too much.
There is an alternative slightly higher risk which might have a better chance of picking up real-far outliers.
tl;dr: Does Caltech value academic potential over intellectual potential?
And I firmly believe that almost all studying is at its core autodidacty. You get out of college what you put into it.
That is to say, self-motivation is necessary to acquire knowledge in and out of a formal academic setting.
But clearly where you are and who your peers are, is a huge influence on the human social animal. And because you might love learning but hate the rather heavy hand of authority at the pre-college education level, you might still want to co to college.
Specifically, potential to change the world may be intimately related to an almost pathological love of reason and hatred of unreasonable rules, methods, approaches and behavior.
I believe Caltech wants students who will do great things. But I may be wrong? That may not be the goal, actually I am quite certain that is not the only goal.
The way Caltech evaluates students is by using a proxy of academics. There are other proxies but clearly formal schooling is a main component of the evaluation proxy.
I will not go into the proven dangers of optimizing the proxy instead of the thing that the proxy is proxy-ing for.
School prior to college is well known to not just impart knowledge but also things like arbitrary rules and enforced discipline over agreed upon cooperation, etc.
College has some of that as well, although much less so then pre-college education.
Assuming someone has proven both a disdain for formal schooling and also a love of learning, knowledge, and scientific discovery, we could speculate that is a person with an extreme love of logic and hatred of lack of logic, who might to well in an environment with more knowledge and less B.S.
We all know anecdotes about great geniuses and the trouble they got in at school. Beyond that there is a lot of formal work done on "gifted" children and learning environments.
So an argument could be made that exceptional academic success at the pre-college level is a bad predictor of truly exceptional success in changing the world.
But I don't think formal academic success is just a proxy for Caltech. I think Caltech is specifically looking for kids who will work well within the system.
Caltech's filter for students proven to do exceptionally well within the academic systems is I suspect a goal in itself.
Actually I find Caltech's laser like focus on proven academic success refreshing. Because it is honest, open and complete.
Other schools make use of the same proxy but don't do it as well as Caltech.
So in my opinion, Caltech is pursuing a low risk/high reward strategy of potential Nobel prize winners who don't make a lot of trouble in school and don't tax their advisor's schedule too much.
There is an alternative slightly higher risk which might have a better chance of picking up real-far outliers.
tl;dr: Does Caltech value academic potential over intellectual potential?
There are many reasons why a person might have a C average besides "they hate school". Just as there are reasons why someone might score less than an ACT 36 / SAT 1600 besides they are not a brilliant thinker.
I was just answering a hypothetical that stated that the student clearly hates school. I took that as a given and worked from there.
An admissions officer at Caltech once told me they did look at applicants with poor grades and would overlook them if there was a good reason why the grades were poor and there was very strong evidence that the applicant was impressive anyway.
Yes, but you have to consider very carefully what "poor grades" means here. Coming from a Caltech admissions offices, "poor grades" is anything less than about a 3.8 (unweighted), or anything less than straight As in math and science.
Anything less is beyond poor compared to Caltech's admissions standards.
Anything less is beyond poor compared to Caltech's admissions standards.
I wonder why people so often use athletic or industrial metaphors when talking about excellence in the sciences or technical fields? I look at mathematics for example as a creative endeavor. It scratches the same itch for me as drawing or making music. Why would I want to put any emphasis, as a creative person, on the rate of achievement in any of these fields? I would rather make one profound original contribution, if given my druthers. That is an extreme chosen for the sake of argument, but don't you admit that this might be just as valid a model of scientific or mathematical excellence?
It's a common misconception that humanities and social science is second rate at Caltech. It's true you wouldn't go to Caltech to get a degree in political science--but that's not because the political science professors there are weak. It's because there aren't enough of them for a broad program--but most of the professors are first rate in their area.
For instance, when I was a student there, they had a professor, Edwin Munger, who was a professor of Geography. He was one of the world's leading authorities on Africa. He taught a popular class on Africa. The lectures were held in his office, which was big enough to comfortably hold a dozen or so students. Adjoining his office was his personal library of materials on Africa--one of the best collections of African research material in the world.
His classes were particularly interesting because he frequently would have guests speak and take questions. One week, the guest might be his good personal friend, the President or Emperor or Dictator of some African country. Then, a few weeks later, the guest might be his good personal friends, the leader of the revolutionary army trying to overthrow the aforementioned President. Munger knew nearly every important leader in Africa on both sides of most significant conflicts, and was close friends with many of them. When they would visit the US, they would often swing by Pasadena to visit him.
For instance, when I was a student there, they had a professor, Edwin Munger, who was a professor of Geography. He was one of the world's leading authorities on Africa. He taught a popular class on Africa. The lectures were held in his office, which was big enough to comfortably hold a dozen or so students. Adjoining his office was his personal library of materials on Africa--one of the best collections of African research material in the world.
His classes were particularly interesting because he frequently would have guests speak and take questions. One week, the guest might be his good personal friend, the President or Emperor or Dictator of some African country. Then, a few weeks later, the guest might be his good personal friends, the leader of the revolutionary army trying to overthrow the aforementioned President. Munger knew nearly every important leader in Africa on both sides of most significant conflicts, and was close friends with many of them. When they would visit the US, they would often swing by Pasadena to visit him.
In case anyone is keeping track, stuff like this is why it's still worthwhile to go to college, IF you can get into a good one. Not saying that there's no benefit to a middle-tier college, but you'd be hard-pressed to argue that you can replace an experience like the one posted above with a stack of textbooks and an account on a Blackboard site.
We also had Carl Sagan once come by our dorm (Page) for dinner and conversation. I only realized years later what a treat that was.
/Older readers know how the leading American universities, which had risen to world-class status by the 1930s and 1940s, were upended by the traumatic campus events of the late 1960s and their aftermath. Riots and boycotts by student radicals, the decline in core curriculum requirements, the loss of nerve by university presidents and administrators, galloping grade inflation, together with the influence on research and learning of such radical campus ideological fads as Marxism, deconstructionism, and radical feminism all contributed to the declining quality of America's best institutions from what they had been in the middle years of the 20th century. /
Er, what? I'm not following any of the author's points here. The introductory paragraphs read as a barely coherent rant against every major event that's occurred on university campuses since the 1950s. While I agree that not everything has been to the benefit of academics, I definitely disagree with the author's point that American universities reached their peak prior to World War 2. Pre-war, there were institutions in Europe and Britain that could match American universities; post-war, American universities were far ahead of the rest.
Er, what? I'm not following any of the author's points here. The introductory paragraphs read as a barely coherent rant against every major event that's occurred on university campuses since the 1950s. While I agree that not everything has been to the benefit of academics, I definitely disagree with the author's point that American universities reached their peak prior to World War 2. Pre-war, there were institutions in Europe and Britain that could match American universities; post-war, American universities were far ahead of the rest.
The author clearly has an axe to grind. I suggest just skipping the introductory paragraph and concentrating on the main claim: the pursuit of non-academic diversity has a major negative impact on the academic quality of most major research universities in the US, but CalTech is rare in resisting this.
"The pursuit of non-academic diversity has a major negative impact on the academic quality of most major research universities in the US"
I haven't read the book these claims are based on, but a Harvard professor wrote what looks like a pretty thorough debunking here:
http://www.row2k.com/features/print_feature.cfm?id=82&ty...
I haven't read the book these claims are based on, but a Harvard professor wrote what looks like a pretty thorough debunking here:
http://www.row2k.com/features/print_feature.cfm?id=82&ty...
[deleted]
The site's down so I can't read the context this was taken for, but:
1. Exploring more than middle-class American political ideologies isn't an example of a decline in learning for the same reason learning only Java or C# makes doesn't make anyone a better programming student.
2. Derrida is my homeboy.
1. Exploring more than middle-class American political ideologies isn't an example of a decline in learning for the same reason learning only Java or C# makes doesn't make anyone a better programming student.
2. Derrida is my homeboy.
Re: point 2, I'm sorry, that's just a deconstructive comment that I can't possibly agree with. Derrida is really de Man. /grin
To belabor the point, this is an awful, awful pun involving the literary deconstructionist movement mentioned by the previous poster that both Derrida and de Man were members of. My apologies for polluting the internet.
He did not say that American universities peaked in the 1930s and '40s - he said they had reached world-class status. Later improvement relative to Europe was as much mostly due to Europe's self-destruction and brain drain.
I graduated from Caltech in '08. White, female, 3-sport athlete, SAT scores M 660/V 730.
That's not a typo, I scored a 1390 on my SATs
In my application I wrote about my experience in high school athletics and I obviously wasn't put in the reject pile. I also expressed my desire to be at a college where everyone was focused on learning, unlike at the underachieving public school I attended. That's the type of student Caltech is looking for: passionate about learning and STEM. While that usually translates to perfect SAT scores, an 800 in math is not a requirement.
The author stresses numbers because those are measurable and easily comparable, leading to the easy critique that numbers aren't everything. As in my case, Caltech admissions agrees, and the result is an incredibly diverse population considering how focused the school is academically and how small the classes are. A guy in my class designed and built a bridge in his home town. I knew kids who were home-schooled and who were champion ballroom dancers.
BTW My junior year we broke the women's basketball team's 10-year losing streak. One win of that magnitude trumps any winning season in my book.
In my application I wrote about my experience in high school athletics and I obviously wasn't put in the reject pile. I also expressed my desire to be at a college where everyone was focused on learning, unlike at the underachieving public school I attended. That's the type of student Caltech is looking for: passionate about learning and STEM. While that usually translates to perfect SAT scores, an 800 in math is not a requirement.
The author stresses numbers because those are measurable and easily comparable, leading to the easy critique that numbers aren't everything. As in my case, Caltech admissions agrees, and the result is an incredibly diverse population considering how focused the school is academically and how small the classes are. A guy in my class designed and built a bridge in his home town. I knew kids who were home-schooled and who were champion ballroom dancers.
BTW My junior year we broke the women's basketball team's 10-year losing streak. One win of that magnitude trumps any winning season in my book.
I attended Caltech in the 70's, and the article is accurate. I was told by older students that there had been efforts by outsiders to get the students to stage protests, but that the students had ignored them with "but I've got to get to class!"
My SAT scores were lower than those cited in the article, but were average for my freshman class (750/640). I understand that there has been inflation in the SAT scoring system since.
One thing not mentioned was Caltech's attitude towards students who were accepted. Once they were in, they were in. You could flunk and fail repeatedly, and Caltech was always ready to let you have another go, even a decade later. I know students who dropped out and were welcomed back a decade later to finish.
I lucked out in going to Caltech. The way the college was run fit my attitudes completely. The administration always treated the students like sentient, responsible adults (even when we behaved badly) and by and large the students responded by acting like adults. For example, professors were not allowed to take attendance at lecture. The students could show up or not, their choice. Grades were determined by the midterm and final, which of course were given on the honor system.
The students liked the system, and if you broke the honor system you were ostracized. Nobody cheated that I knew of the entire 4 years I was there.
My SAT scores were lower than those cited in the article, but were average for my freshman class (750/640). I understand that there has been inflation in the SAT scoring system since.
One thing not mentioned was Caltech's attitude towards students who were accepted. Once they were in, they were in. You could flunk and fail repeatedly, and Caltech was always ready to let you have another go, even a decade later. I know students who dropped out and were welcomed back a decade later to finish.
I lucked out in going to Caltech. The way the college was run fit my attitudes completely. The administration always treated the students like sentient, responsible adults (even when we behaved badly) and by and large the students responded by acting like adults. For example, professors were not allowed to take attendance at lecture. The students could show up or not, their choice. Grades were determined by the midterm and final, which of course were given on the honor system.
The students liked the system, and if you broke the honor system you were ostracized. Nobody cheated that I knew of the entire 4 years I was there.
Walter, are you in the Bay Area? If so, you should totally check out our alumni happy hours :)
Hear! Hear! to the 'once a Techer, always a Techer' mentality.
The other key thing about the honor code was the lack of proctored exams. I took most of my frosh ones at 3 am in the student SciFi library (SPECTRE, ftw)
Hear! Hear! to the 'once a Techer, always a Techer' mentality.
The other key thing about the honor code was the lack of proctored exams. I took most of my frosh ones at 3 am in the student SciFi library (SPECTRE, ftw)
I'm in the Seattle area. The Caltech alum community here is pretty small :-(
I read with bemusement the various articles and laments about rampant cheating in colleges. And yet this cheating was completely absent at Caltech. Even the failing students did not cheat, it never occurred to them.
Perhaps that's also why I place no value on my piece of paper degree or GPA. I think it's moldering in the basement somewhere. What I value is the experience at Caltech and what I learned there. Reading the catalog of what classes I could take next semester was like picking which dessert you wanted at a banquet; the only regret was my stomach was only so large. Cheating would have gotten me nothing that I wanted.
I also read about students complaining that their college courses aren't "relevant", who wonder what the point is, that they'll never use that knowledge, etc., then graduate and wonder why they can't get a job. It seems pretty obvious to me why they can't.
I read with bemusement the various articles and laments about rampant cheating in colleges. And yet this cheating was completely absent at Caltech. Even the failing students did not cheat, it never occurred to them.
Perhaps that's also why I place no value on my piece of paper degree or GPA. I think it's moldering in the basement somewhere. What I value is the experience at Caltech and what I learned there. Reading the catalog of what classes I could take next semester was like picking which dessert you wanted at a banquet; the only regret was my stomach was only so large. Cheating would have gotten me nothing that I wanted.
I also read about students complaining that their college courses aren't "relevant", who wonder what the point is, that they'll never use that knowledge, etc., then graduate and wonder why they can't get a job. It seems pretty obvious to me why they can't.
GOOD.
Of course, a Cal Tech star prof was Feynman. My understanding of his time in grad school at Princeton is that he mostly was on the floor of his dorm room talking and thinking about what became his approcah to QM. GOOD.
The frosh students at Cal Tech are ready for a LOT and should be encouraged to take the freedom to pursue it. Heck, they about deserved a Bachelor's on the day they were admitted, so after that, let them do their best relatively independent work and not sweat trivia.
Of course, a Cal Tech star prof was Feynman. My understanding of his time in grad school at Princeton is that he mostly was on the floor of his dorm room talking and thinking about what became his approcah to QM. GOOD.
The frosh students at Cal Tech are ready for a LOT and should be encouraged to take the freedom to pursue it. Heck, they about deserved a Bachelor's on the day they were admitted, so after that, let them do their best relatively independent work and not sweat trivia.
I think it is awesome that Cal Tech is so singularly focused on academics, it shows serious devotion.
However, I think most people would agree that academics are not the only thing that matters for success, either personally or professionally.
However, I think most people would agree that academics are not the only thing that matters for success, either personally or professionally.
Why can't school be mostly focused on academics? It's hard to excel without focus.
The biggest benefit of going to a public high school in the DC area was being forced to interact with kids from almost every background you could imagine. This includes ethnicity, income bracket, intelligence, and social ability. True diversity is an education in our own human race, specifically the common bonds that unite all of us. Being able to see a wide range of perspectives and experience completely different cultural norms on a daily basis can go a long way to testing your own assumptions about the world.
This is oft-said, but I'd like to see some concrete evidence of this. I'm not being skeptical to be skeptical, I'd really be interested if there were any proof that this helps people. I have heard some evidence to the contrary, that white kids that grow up in heavily integrated areas are actually MORE racist than those who grow up in primarily white areas.
The biggest benefit of going to a public high school in the DC area was being forced to interact with kids from almost every background you could imagine.
But isn't it a bit odd you had to go to college to do that?
Wouldn't it be better if you had grown up in a neighborhood that would let you do that?
OK, you didn't and you're glad college provided you that opportunity, but isn't it a bit sad how much $ they charge for what is at its core human interaction?
But isn't it a bit odd you had to go to college to do that?
Wouldn't it be better if you had grown up in a neighborhood that would let you do that?
OK, you didn't and you're glad college provided you that opportunity, but isn't it a bit sad how much $ they charge for what is at its core human interaction?
[deleted]
It depends on what you are looking for. Many socially awkward "nerds" learn how to socialize outside of just academics when they are in college. If there are few outlets besides just academics, it's hard to become "well rounded" socially. I can tell you I'd rather hire a socially adept but slightly less intelligent person rather than the brilliant but incapable outside of his field person. Unless of course I am hiring a nuclear physicist, etc etc.
It can be, and there is nothing wrong with that. But if you focus only on academics you foster students that are only good at one thing. I might be cynical, but getting good grades in a class does not mean you are good at the subject material or can apply it anywhere beyond the classroom.
How many people make 6 figures for studying for and taking standardized tests every day?
How many people make 6 figures for studying for and taking standardized tests every day?
Academics at Caltech means research. You don't get grades on independent discovery, you get peer-review :)
Test prep is a big industry.
(It's Caltech, btw, not Cal Tech.) Of course academics are not the only thing. Caltech looked hard for people that were smart, motivated, and passionate about their interests. You wouldn't get admitted without all three.
Keep in mind that Caltech is a very small school, smaller than a lot of high schools. They chose to focus on doing one thing very well, and they succeeded at it. For some types of people, very much including myself, it was a perfect fit for my personality and what I wanted to get out of college. If you're not one of those people, there are plenty of other excellent choices.
Keep in mind that Caltech is a very small school, smaller than a lot of high schools. They chose to focus on doing one thing very well, and they succeeded at it. For some types of people, very much including myself, it was a perfect fit for my personality and what I wanted to get out of college. If you're not one of those people, there are plenty of other excellent choices.
>> However, I think most people would agree that academics are not the only thing that matters for success,
>> either personally or professionally.I fully agree but I've always found the notion that universities can/should teach things other then academics a bit silly.
And strangely while many universities aim to do just that, I don't know of any who take it seriously enough to teach formal classes in self discovery or making friends and influencing people.
Which you absolutely could seriously do. But no one does. I think this shows that those "other" things are not something universities truly aim to teach, but want to make use of in creating an environment which justifies the very high cost of education.
And strangely while many universities aim to do just that, I don't know of any who take it seriously enough to teach formal classes in self discovery or making friends and influencing people.
Which you absolutely could seriously do. But no one does. I think this shows that those "other" things are not something universities truly aim to teach, but want to make use of in creating an environment which justifies the very high cost of education.
I don't know of any who take it seriously enough to teach formal classes in self discovery or making friends and influencing people.
Here ya go:
http://www.uq.edu.au/study/course.html?course_code=CRMD7001 http://www.eastern.edu/academic/cas/depts/missions_and_anthr... - MIS260
http://las.alfred.edu/psychology/ - "Life skills Students in Alfred University's psychology program learn about human behavior, develop self-discovery skills, and learn to think critically about themselves and others."
Self discovery is often an important part of a Psychology or Counseling major and "influencing people" aka Negotiation is taught at business and law schools across the country. I even took a corporate course in it 3 years ago.
Here ya go:
http://www.uq.edu.au/study/course.html?course_code=CRMD7001 http://www.eastern.edu/academic/cas/depts/missions_and_anthr... - MIS260
http://las.alfred.edu/psychology/ - "Life skills Students in Alfred University's psychology program learn about human behavior, develop self-discovery skills, and learn to think critically about themselves and others."
Self discovery is often an important part of a Psychology or Counseling major and "influencing people" aka Negotiation is taught at business and law schools across the country. I even took a corporate course in it 3 years ago.
The article is biased and full of negative stereotypes and a thinly veiled attack at not the Universities but the practice of Affirmative Action and dare I say, racial, ethnic and sexual minorities themselves.
First of all, SAT scores or grades are hardly any measure of the 'smartness' of academic credibility of the student. For example, as a commenter above pointed out, in computer science, a person who has average grades but more research work and open source experience is probably more motivated to learn than a student with just good grades.
Secondly, the data[1] proves even that though minority students who make it with affirmative action might graduate with average of below average scores but perform as well as their colleagues in their professional life. Come to think of it, isn't this what education is really about. Changing people's lives for good.
Thirdly, contrary to what the author might want us to believe, the politically charged atmosphere in the Universities during the 70s was good for the society. Remember the free speech movement? Universities have been the breeding ground of revolutionary thinking for centuries and it is actually unhealthy for the society if the Universities are too compliant with the dominant thinking.
Fourthly, though I am sometimes critical of exuberant spending on sports by American Universities, they are the primary reason of the USA's sporting excellence. Why should a student who is obsessed with and excels at track-and-field be penalized for his obsession? In addition, These 'dumb-jocks' work harder than most students. Contrary to popular beliefs; in most top ranked Universities these athletes have to finish as many credits as a non-athlete and have to work as hard on their courses.
I think very highly of CalTech and respect them, but the reasons for their excellence is not what the author would want us to believe. The article is nothing but horse manure.
[1] Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers, 2008
First of all, SAT scores or grades are hardly any measure of the 'smartness' of academic credibility of the student. For example, as a commenter above pointed out, in computer science, a person who has average grades but more research work and open source experience is probably more motivated to learn than a student with just good grades.
Secondly, the data[1] proves even that though minority students who make it with affirmative action might graduate with average of below average scores but perform as well as their colleagues in their professional life. Come to think of it, isn't this what education is really about. Changing people's lives for good.
Thirdly, contrary to what the author might want us to believe, the politically charged atmosphere in the Universities during the 70s was good for the society. Remember the free speech movement? Universities have been the breeding ground of revolutionary thinking for centuries and it is actually unhealthy for the society if the Universities are too compliant with the dominant thinking.
Fourthly, though I am sometimes critical of exuberant spending on sports by American Universities, they are the primary reason of the USA's sporting excellence. Why should a student who is obsessed with and excels at track-and-field be penalized for his obsession? In addition, These 'dumb-jocks' work harder than most students. Contrary to popular beliefs; in most top ranked Universities these athletes have to finish as many credits as a non-athlete and have to work as hard on their courses.
I think very highly of CalTech and respect them, but the reasons for their excellence is not what the author would want us to believe. The article is nothing but horse manure.
[1] Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers, 2008
> The article is biased and full of negative stereotypes and a thinly veiled attack at ... dare I say, racial, ethnic and sexual minorities themselves.
Could you give an example of how this author could have criticized the practice of affirmative action without attacking racial, ethnic and sexual minorities themselves? I agree that the author clearly has an axe to grind, but I see nothing in the text which attacks a minority. Honestly, it seems like you're accusing him of racism based only off the fact that he opposes affirmative action.
ADDED:
>SAT scores or grades are hardly any measure of the 'smartness' of academic credibility of the student. For example, as a commenter above pointed out, in computer science, a person who has average grades but more research work and open source experience is probably more motivated to learn than a student with just good grades.
The author uses SAT scores because they are the best objective measure we have of academic quality. Most other measures (GPA, high school research experience) are going to be strongly effected by where the student is from. Nowhere does the author suggest that research experience shouldn't be considered. And, in fact, using this measure would benefit the rich, white, and privileged students, as they are much more likely to have such research opportunities than poor minorities.
>Secondly, the data[1] proves even that though minority students who make it with affirmative action might graduate with average of below average scores but perform as well as their colleagues in their professional life.
The data as you describe only confirms that well-known fact that top-tier schools add negligible value to the professional prospect of its students. That is, after controlling for SATs, familiy income, etc., future success doesn't depend on what school you attend. (I can pull the study if you want.) That data says nothing about the how lower admission standards for minorities impact the schools academics. And, as you say, their grades are weak both in high school and college.
>Thirdly, contrary to what the author might want us to believe, the politically charged atmosphere in the Universities during the 70s was good for the society.
This isn't the main thesis of the article; the author is just giving you his perspective on where the situation originated.
>Why should a student who is obsessed with and excels at track-and-field be penalized for his obsession?
No one is suggesting that athlete's be penalized. The author is arguing that they shouldn't receive the (massive) boost in admissions.
Could you give an example of how this author could have criticized the practice of affirmative action without attacking racial, ethnic and sexual minorities themselves? I agree that the author clearly has an axe to grind, but I see nothing in the text which attacks a minority. Honestly, it seems like you're accusing him of racism based only off the fact that he opposes affirmative action.
ADDED:
>SAT scores or grades are hardly any measure of the 'smartness' of academic credibility of the student. For example, as a commenter above pointed out, in computer science, a person who has average grades but more research work and open source experience is probably more motivated to learn than a student with just good grades.
The author uses SAT scores because they are the best objective measure we have of academic quality. Most other measures (GPA, high school research experience) are going to be strongly effected by where the student is from. Nowhere does the author suggest that research experience shouldn't be considered. And, in fact, using this measure would benefit the rich, white, and privileged students, as they are much more likely to have such research opportunities than poor minorities.
>Secondly, the data[1] proves even that though minority students who make it with affirmative action might graduate with average of below average scores but perform as well as their colleagues in their professional life.
The data as you describe only confirms that well-known fact that top-tier schools add negligible value to the professional prospect of its students. That is, after controlling for SATs, familiy income, etc., future success doesn't depend on what school you attend. (I can pull the study if you want.) That data says nothing about the how lower admission standards for minorities impact the schools academics. And, as you say, their grades are weak both in high school and college.
>Thirdly, contrary to what the author might want us to believe, the politically charged atmosphere in the Universities during the 70s was good for the society.
This isn't the main thesis of the article; the author is just giving you his perspective on where the situation originated.
>Why should a student who is obsessed with and excels at track-and-field be penalized for his obsession?
No one is suggesting that athlete's be penalized. The author is arguing that they shouldn't receive the (massive) boost in admissions.
>"Minding the Campus readers probably need little instruction on the corrupting effects of the racial balancing game played by almost all our elite universities"
Racial balancing is somehow corrupting? If I am making a claim like that I would definitely like to back it up with some facts.
>" The typical African- American and Latino student who gets admitted to the most elite colleges and universities in the U.S...."
What is a typical African-American student? Can I meet him? Racial stereotypes are loaded, and the authors throws them around like bad puns.
>"a requirement often interpreted to mean that if there is a male lacrosse, soccer, water polo, volleyball, cross-country, or fencing team there must be a female equivalent"
And this is a problem, why? Why shouldn't there be a female equivalent of a fencing team?
I don't think the author is racist or sexist, I am sure he is a perfectly nice person to meet. However, his deep hatred for programs to achieve social equality leads him to have beliefs that are very very worrisome from a racial and gender equality point of view.
Racial balancing is somehow corrupting? If I am making a claim like that I would definitely like to back it up with some facts.
>" The typical African- American and Latino student who gets admitted to the most elite colleges and universities in the U.S...."
What is a typical African-American student? Can I meet him? Racial stereotypes are loaded, and the authors throws them around like bad puns.
>"a requirement often interpreted to mean that if there is a male lacrosse, soccer, water polo, volleyball, cross-country, or fencing team there must be a female equivalent"
And this is a problem, why? Why shouldn't there be a female equivalent of a fencing team?
I don't think the author is racist or sexist, I am sure he is a perfectly nice person to meet. However, his deep hatred for programs to achieve social equality leads him to have beliefs that are very very worrisome from a racial and gender equality point of view.
> And this is a problem, why? Why shouldn't there be a female equivalent of a fencing team?
What's the definition of "female equivalent"?
Doesn't the validity of your assumed "should" depend on the definition we're using?
> However, his deep hatred for programs to achieve social equality leads him to have beliefs that are very very worrisome from a racial and gender equality point of view.
Are you suggesting that all current programs to achieve social equality are worthwhile, that none of them are bad? Or is it just that any criticism is necessary wrong?
What's the definition of "female equivalent"?
Doesn't the validity of your assumed "should" depend on the definition we're using?
> However, his deep hatred for programs to achieve social equality leads him to have beliefs that are very very worrisome from a racial and gender equality point of view.
Are you suggesting that all current programs to achieve social equality are worthwhile, that none of them are bad? Or is it just that any criticism is necessary wrong?
>What's the definition of "female equivalent"?
Author's words not mine. I should have put quotes around "female equivalent". I believe that female sports should be given as much attention as male sports.
>Are you suggesting that all current programs to achieve social equality are worthwhile, that none of them are bad? Or is it just that any criticism is necessary wrong?
No. Some of them might have failed spectacularly and deserve criticism. But to criticize the social equality programs in colleges because they get students with lower SAT scores into colleges is a very imprecise argument to make.
Author's words not mine. I should have put quotes around "female equivalent". I believe that female sports should be given as much attention as male sports.
>Are you suggesting that all current programs to achieve social equality are worthwhile, that none of them are bad? Or is it just that any criticism is necessary wrong?
No. Some of them might have failed spectacularly and deserve criticism. But to criticize the social equality programs in colleges because they get students with lower SAT scores into colleges is a very imprecise argument to make.
> But to criticize the social equality programs in colleges because they get students with lower SAT scores into colleges is a very imprecise argument to make.
Is it? The SAT folks claim that SATs correlate somewhat with college achievement, and the college folks seem to agree (otherwise they wouldn't use it).
What do you think that the goal of college admissions is?
Is it? The SAT folks claim that SATs correlate somewhat with college achievement, and the college folks seem to agree (otherwise they wouldn't use it).
What do you think that the goal of college admissions is?
> I believe that female sports should be given as much attention as male sports.
Why should they be "given attention" and by whom? What about folks who don't provide said equal attention? (While the majority favor male sports, there are folks who favor female sports. Surely both are in need of correction.)
For example, why shouldn't womens' preference be given some weight?
I note that women are less likely to attend women's sports than men are to attend men's sports. Heck - women are more likely to attend men's sports than they are to attend men's sports.
Be careful - the "provides valuable diversity" argument requires differences (in aggregate). If there are differences, then exact duplicate treatment is inappropriate.
Why should they be "given attention" and by whom? What about folks who don't provide said equal attention? (While the majority favor male sports, there are folks who favor female sports. Surely both are in need of correction.)
For example, why shouldn't womens' preference be given some weight?
I note that women are less likely to attend women's sports than men are to attend men's sports. Heck - women are more likely to attend men's sports than they are to attend men's sports.
Be careful - the "provides valuable diversity" argument requires differences (in aggregate). If there are differences, then exact duplicate treatment is inappropriate.
You ask a nice question - why no female fencing team? Well if a) there are students who want to form it and b) they will be good enough competitors for similar teams ok, but imposing it just because a male fencing team exist is stupid.
Regardless the color of the skin, of the eyes, or of any other ridiculous parameters only one thing matters : excellence.
You talk about social equality. But is social equality a goal to reach ? If so, would you care to explain me why, and according to whom ?
There are bright people, there are dumb people. Fact of life. I don't care how you try to make them into groups through the aggregation of some parameters I find ridiculous - all I see is the end result.
Trying to impose social equality means working against this natural repartition. This takes cash and energy that could be used differently. Even worse - the added burden from those who can't pull they own weight is put on those who could excel.
To me, excellence seems like a better (and fairer) goal to reach.
Regardless the color of the skin, of the eyes, or of any other ridiculous parameters only one thing matters : excellence.
You talk about social equality. But is social equality a goal to reach ? If so, would you care to explain me why, and according to whom ?
There are bright people, there are dumb people. Fact of life. I don't care how you try to make them into groups through the aggregation of some parameters I find ridiculous - all I see is the end result.
Trying to impose social equality means working against this natural repartition. This takes cash and energy that could be used differently. Even worse - the added burden from those who can't pull they own weight is put on those who could excel.
To me, excellence seems like a better (and fairer) goal to reach.
>Regardless the color of the skin, of the eyes, or of any other ridiculous parameters only one thing matters : excellence.
See, here lies the problem. Define: excellence. As I have maintained, excellence is not tied well with SAT scores or GRE scores or papers or citation counts. I think excellence is very personal. If I am a economically disadvantaged student, but held my own in a violent high school in a bad neighborhood, worked a job but still scored good grades; much better than my peers. Did well in SATs without having any money for extra SAT training. If I resisted peer pressure to join a gang while focusing on my studies, I would think I did a pretty excellent job at my life. To compare me with a kid who comes from a privileged background had extra tuitions for SATs and had all the time in the world to spend on his studies and did much better in SATs is probably unfair.
>There are bright people, there are dumb people.
In your mind which likes to simplify things. Not in the world there aren't. If you think you are smart because you are really good at Math, I would like to introduce you to my friend who is an exceptional soprano.
>Trying to impose social equality means working against this natural repartition.
There are no natural repartitions. Only artificial ones imposed by the complex societies. I am not blaming the society, just saying that we could improve it to be much fairer and to aspire for anything less would be unfortunate.
>To me, excellence seems like a better (and fairer) goal to reach.
We agree, just not on the definition of excellence.
See, here lies the problem. Define: excellence. As I have maintained, excellence is not tied well with SAT scores or GRE scores or papers or citation counts. I think excellence is very personal. If I am a economically disadvantaged student, but held my own in a violent high school in a bad neighborhood, worked a job but still scored good grades; much better than my peers. Did well in SATs without having any money for extra SAT training. If I resisted peer pressure to join a gang while focusing on my studies, I would think I did a pretty excellent job at my life. To compare me with a kid who comes from a privileged background had extra tuitions for SATs and had all the time in the world to spend on his studies and did much better in SATs is probably unfair.
>There are bright people, there are dumb people.
In your mind which likes to simplify things. Not in the world there aren't. If you think you are smart because you are really good at Math, I would like to introduce you to my friend who is an exceptional soprano.
>Trying to impose social equality means working against this natural repartition.
There are no natural repartitions. Only artificial ones imposed by the complex societies. I am not blaming the society, just saying that we could improve it to be much fairer and to aspire for anything less would be unfortunate.
>To me, excellence seems like a better (and fairer) goal to reach.
We agree, just not on the definition of excellence.
> compare me with a kid who comes from a privileged background had extra tuitions for SATs and had all the time in the world to spend on his studies and did much better in SATs is probably unfair
It sure is. But life itself is unfair. If you resisted all the pitfalls that society or the environment put in front of you, good for you, but I'm sorry it is not what matters.
What can you produce ? Can you outcompete others who do not have had such obstacles ? If you can, then yes I call that excellence, if you can't that personal growth/karma/name it the way you want.
As you said - "much better than my peers" - that's good, but we are all in a big pond called mankind. The way I see it, some people think they deserve something just for the randomness of their birthplace, or for not screwing up.
Sorry they don't. There are a lot of people on this earth who may have surpassed even greater problems, yet did not make it.
Trying to improve or fix society means making the situation even more complex, with artificial restriction - thus even more unfair in the end.
Bright people come in all shapes and colors. A soprano, a sport pro, a math wiz - bright people in different areas. They all reach for excellence.
I don't believe I'm smart. I just believe I'm doing my best to become excellent in one specific domain, and I don't want to be judged on anything but my performance.
It sure is. But life itself is unfair. If you resisted all the pitfalls that society or the environment put in front of you, good for you, but I'm sorry it is not what matters.
What can you produce ? Can you outcompete others who do not have had such obstacles ? If you can, then yes I call that excellence, if you can't that personal growth/karma/name it the way you want.
As you said - "much better than my peers" - that's good, but we are all in a big pond called mankind. The way I see it, some people think they deserve something just for the randomness of their birthplace, or for not screwing up.
Sorry they don't. There are a lot of people on this earth who may have surpassed even greater problems, yet did not make it.
Trying to improve or fix society means making the situation even more complex, with artificial restriction - thus even more unfair in the end.
Bright people come in all shapes and colors. A soprano, a sport pro, a math wiz - bright people in different areas. They all reach for excellence.
I don't believe I'm smart. I just believe I'm doing my best to become excellent in one specific domain, and I don't want to be judged on anything but my performance.
None of the quotes you list suggest that the author is attacking any minorities, only that he is criticizing these programs. I'm not saying the author isn't an angry person, I'm just taking issue with you saying he is attacking minorities.
Incidentally, I decided to add to my original comment and address your other points. I'd love it if you had the time to respond. If you prefer, I can move those points to a separate reply.
Incidentally, I decided to add to my original comment and address your other points. I'd love it if you had the time to respond. If you prefer, I can move those points to a separate reply.
>Incidentally, I decided to add to my original comment and address your other points. I'd love it if you had the time to respond. If you prefer, I can move those points to a separate reply.
Replied above in a separate reply.
Replied above in a separate reply.
>The author uses SAT scores because they are the best objective measure we have of academic quality.
I wouldn't agree with this point. Though this claim has traditionally been accepted by academia but plenty of literature exists to make a claim otherwise too. I never took the SATs but did take the GREs and my anecdotal experience would say that standardized test are only a good measure of test-taking abilities.
>This isn't the main thesis of the article; the author is just giving you his perspective on where the situation originated.
The author tries to paint an idyllic picture of Universities of the 40s and 50s. He builds upon this premise and makes a claim that the quality of the Universities has gone down and ties it to the introduction to the Affirmative Action and rise of sports. I am attacking this very premise in my comment.
>No one is suggesting that athlete's be penalized. The author is arguing that they shouldn't receive the (massive) boost in admissions.
An obsession of being very good at something (be it sports or academics) brings with itself an inherent penalty of not being very good at other things. Though I am not saying that its impossible to excel at both sports and academics but to treat sporting excellence as a skill not as valuable as being good at academics is something I take exception at. In addition, considering that good sporting skills is how many racially and economically disadvantaged students make it to college is also not lost in the author's arguments.
>That data says nothing about the how lower admission standards for minorities impact the schools academics.
I haven't read the study, only Malcolm Gladwell's book on which I've based my argument. The books talks about the study done on Michigan alumni. I don't know if we are talking about the same study. Would like to read about both (or the singular) studies before making any further comment.
I wouldn't agree with this point. Though this claim has traditionally been accepted by academia but plenty of literature exists to make a claim otherwise too. I never took the SATs but did take the GREs and my anecdotal experience would say that standardized test are only a good measure of test-taking abilities.
>This isn't the main thesis of the article; the author is just giving you his perspective on where the situation originated.
The author tries to paint an idyllic picture of Universities of the 40s and 50s. He builds upon this premise and makes a claim that the quality of the Universities has gone down and ties it to the introduction to the Affirmative Action and rise of sports. I am attacking this very premise in my comment.
>No one is suggesting that athlete's be penalized. The author is arguing that they shouldn't receive the (massive) boost in admissions.
An obsession of being very good at something (be it sports or academics) brings with itself an inherent penalty of not being very good at other things. Though I am not saying that its impossible to excel at both sports and academics but to treat sporting excellence as a skill not as valuable as being good at academics is something I take exception at. In addition, considering that good sporting skills is how many racially and economically disadvantaged students make it to college is also not lost in the author's arguments.
>That data says nothing about the how lower admission standards for minorities impact the schools academics.
I haven't read the study, only Malcolm Gladwell's book on which I've based my argument. The books talks about the study done on Michigan alumni. I don't know if we are talking about the same study. Would like to read about both (or the singular) studies before making any further comment.
Caltech does have a kind of affirmative action (or at least it used to). For instance, when I was there they were trying hard to get more women. However, they did not do it by lowering standards for women compared to men.
Rather, they sought out qualified women and recruited them, much the way other schools recruit athletes. For instance, they might send someone to personally go visit the woman to try to sell her on the benefits of Caltech, and pay for the woman and her parents to visit and tour the campus.
Rather, they sought out qualified women and recruited them, much the way other schools recruit athletes. For instance, they might send someone to personally go visit the woman to try to sell her on the benefits of Caltech, and pay for the woman and her parents to visit and tour the campus.
* Rather, they sought out qualified women and recruited them, much the way other schools recruit athletes*
that is exactly what affirmative action is.
that is exactly what affirmative action is.
This is just semantics. Affirmative action, in this context, means favoring certain minorities in the admissions process.
Above a certain level of 'smartness', a SAT score means nothing. If more than a dozen of people can have a perfect score, it just means that the search space is not big enough.
I hate it when people downvote without making an effort of writing (even a brief) rebuttal.
Malcolm Gladwell's books are becoming the new Freakonomics...
I am a "minority" and I 100% agree with the author. If you don't qualify you don't qualify. How is it fair that you get admitted just because you are black or a latina or can throw a football?
I want my kids to go to caltech but only if they qualify and are smart enough.
Like the author said, the Olympic team doesn't take players because of their race but because they can play and win. The same should apply to academic institutions.
Maybe someone should sue the NBA if they don't let him in for being vertically challenged.
I want my kids to go to caltech but only if they qualify and are smart enough.
Like the author said, the Olympic team doesn't take players because of their race but because they can play and win. The same should apply to academic institutions.
Maybe someone should sue the NBA if they don't let him in for being vertically challenged.
College isn't an institution of knowledge. It's an institution of learning.
This is why you'll often take disadvantaged students over advantaged students, even when the disadvantaged have poorer numbers. Showing you're passionate about learning and have the capacity to learn is not simply reflected in the output. You also have to look at the input.
The same also goes for football and chess players. If someone excel's at something deemed "valuable" (and people will argue over this), that goes into the equation of passion for learning and produced output.
This is why you'll often take disadvantaged students over advantaged students, even when the disadvantaged have poorer numbers. Showing you're passionate about learning and have the capacity to learn is not simply reflected in the output. You also have to look at the input.
The same also goes for football and chess players. If someone excel's at something deemed "valuable" (and people will argue over this), that goes into the equation of passion for learning and produced output.
This seems like an incredibly narrow-minded and misinformed article. While it's great that Caltech doesn't bend on its academic standards, it assumes that simple academic meritocracy on paper is all that is important to build a 'good' school. I go to MIT (where we have over 30 varsity NCAA teams, many of which are very successful), and the jocks have just as much academic merit to be here as the nerds who tool away in their dorm room. Same with the blacks, hispanics, legacies, minority x, minority y, etc etc. Not only that, MIT does an incredible job of putting together well-rounded people, and not at the expense of their intellectual capability. I have a friend who is high up in the undergraduate admissions committee and personality and fit are just as important as their academic merit. This means I don't go to the stereotyped MIT with a bunch of nerds who only study all day. Instead, I go to school with a diverse blend of incredible people who are athletes, musicians, and artists who are talented AND smart.
I guess if CalTech's mission is just to breed academic warriors that's fine, but this article's statements on MIT (I can only speak for my own school, but it probably applies to others as well) are ignorant and elitist. They seem to be pushing their own stereotype that CalTech students are simply one-dimensional people. The real world isn't a 'pure meritocracy'.
I guess if CalTech's mission is just to breed academic warriors that's fine, but this article's statements on MIT (I can only speak for my own school, but it probably applies to others as well) are ignorant and elitist. They seem to be pushing their own stereotype that CalTech students are simply one-dimensional people. The real world isn't a 'pure meritocracy'.
If you want more musicians and artists, then view student portfolios and listen to student demo tapes. The idea that MIT making decisions based on parental legacy (tantamount to aristocracy--extremely scary for a publicly funded school in a democracy but unfortunately the norm) is justified by the broader mix of interests, etc. is absurd on its face; just select for those interests within the admissions process itself, or, failing that, institute a random lottery that lowers the admissions threshold by some amount.
I applaud a university for standing up for academics, but this author sounds slightly unhinged. Affirmative Action and other such policies have some serious downsides so I respect people who are willing to criticize such a racially touchy subject, however the authors animosity towards the subjects of AA, rather than just AA itself, seemed to leak into his writing.
No kidding. My school had D-I athletics and affirmative action but it hasn't slowed us down in terms of (externally granted) academic awards or excellence in engineering and other specialties.
The bigger problem I think is the belief that everyone has to go to college to 'get ahead' and the excesses of credentialism.
The bigger problem I think is the belief that everyone has to go to college to 'get ahead' and the excesses of credentialism.
I don't necessarily agree 100%. I applied to Caltech. I did not have great grades, but I did have published research papers and a few open source projects. If this isn't "love of science and technology" I don't know what is. I got the thin envelope.
I do not really care anymore, but it would have been a cool experience to go to a good school.
I do not really care anymore, but it would have been a cool experience to go to a good school.
This may not make you feel better but here goes. An admissions officer at an Ivy League school once said that for every non-qualified candidate they must admit (son or daughter of wealthy alumni, or maybe legacy) - if the admission rate was 12%, they would have to reject 8 otherwise qualified applicants.
In the case of Caltech, they may have looked at your major and decided that they wanted less Foo majors and more Bar majors. All about recruitment. Either way, I'm sure someone argued your case, as brandnewlow commented.[1]
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=521107
In the case of Caltech, they may have looked at your major and decided that they wanted less Foo majors and more Bar majors. All about recruitment. Either way, I'm sure someone argued your case, as brandnewlow commented.[1]
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=521107
I get the point you're trying to make but that's not exactly true. For every legacy candidate they admit, they must reject exactly 1 qualified candidate as a result.
For every candidate they accept in general, they must reject 8 others.
For every candidate they accept in general, they must reject 8 others.
I do not really care anymore, but it would have been a cool experience to go to a good school.
Not necessarily. Would you be okay with being the dumbest person in the room, not just for one class or one semester, but for four years? A lot of smart kids go to CalTech, MIT and Harvard, but end up dropping out and finishing their degree somewhere else because they're not accustomed to failing on a regular basis. Unless you're convinced that you'll be able to handle repeated failure (because it'll happen when you're trying to achieve at that level) that sort of school may not be for you.
Then there's the fact that these schools are expensive. So not only do you have to be able to deal with failure at an emotional level, but you have to be able to deal with failure financially as well. If you don't have the budget to repeat at least two or three classes - don't bother with a top-ten university.
Not necessarily. Would you be okay with being the dumbest person in the room, not just for one class or one semester, but for four years? A lot of smart kids go to CalTech, MIT and Harvard, but end up dropping out and finishing their degree somewhere else because they're not accustomed to failing on a regular basis. Unless you're convinced that you'll be able to handle repeated failure (because it'll happen when you're trying to achieve at that level) that sort of school may not be for you.
Then there's the fact that these schools are expensive. So not only do you have to be able to deal with failure at an emotional level, but you have to be able to deal with failure financially as well. If you don't have the budget to repeat at least two or three classes - don't bother with a top-ten university.
I'd love to be the dumbest person in the room. I've found in my life that my largest leaps in development come when I throw myself in the deep end that is outside my comfort zone. These days it's the primary thing I look for in a company. Are the people I'll be working with as good or better than may on average? If the answer is no then I'm not interested.
this of course assumes I want to be good at whatever the subject of the room is.
this of course assumes I want to be good at whatever the subject of the room is.
It was really, intensely frustrating at times. I was almost certainly a bottom 10%, if not 5%, at Caltech. It inspired me and pushed me into moving into a different, non-typical field for the average Caltech student where I could still be the best among the cohort. From another, less charitable perspective, Caltech proved to me that I couldn't be a top--or possibly even a very good--engineer, so I just gave up rather than struggling to get better.
My dad dropped out of Caltech in the 60's... he ended up getting a PhD and becoming a professor of asian history. :)
For my own experience, I loved being around people smarter than me. I don't recall ever being bored at Caltech.
Just to pick a nit or two on graduation rates: Harvard 97%,MIT 93%, CalTech 86%. That's not really indicative of a high drop out rate because they feel the school is too hard. Gates dropped out to become an entrepreneur, hurting the graduation rate. From personal experience at Harvard, they are really dedicated at keeping you there. If you are having trouble with a class they arrange help, tutoring, whatever is needed to get you through. If you need a year off, you can come back. If you need to take a makeup class, you can without extra tuition or extra semesters.
Wow, you've managed to pick the worst reasons not to appreciate a good school, and they really don't align with anything I've witnessed at MIT.
Kid's take time off after repeated failure, but they often come back once they're off of academic probation. Others will leave to take jobs, start companies, or transfer to a similarly ranked school that they simply like better. I've heard/seen tens of these cases, but never one where students purposely transfer to a school where they're less prone to fail.
Moreover, financial aid seems generous here. And private school prices anywhere, regardless of the caliber, are very similar.
If anything, take solace from the awkward social life, the excessive workload that makes entrepreneurial endeavors seemingly impossible, and the fact that you really don't need a good school to succeed.
Kid's take time off after repeated failure, but they often come back once they're off of academic probation. Others will leave to take jobs, start companies, or transfer to a similarly ranked school that they simply like better. I've heard/seen tens of these cases, but never one where students purposely transfer to a school where they're less prone to fail.
Moreover, financial aid seems generous here. And private school prices anywhere, regardless of the caliber, are very similar.
If anything, take solace from the awkward social life, the excessive workload that makes entrepreneurial endeavors seemingly impossible, and the fact that you really don't need a good school to succeed.
[deleted]
It could also be that since Caltech has no affirmative action, bright students of minorities would find it easier to enter top schools that employ AA. For example, MIT's AA would be "crowding out" the "disadvantaged minority pool" in Caltech, even if those students would be good enough for Caltech's own standards.
Why Caltech rocks:
"Its indifference to athletic performance is well reflected by the fact that its men's basketball team in recent years had a 207-game losing streak, its women's basketball team had a 50-game losing streak, and men's soccer team lost 201 games in a row."
"Its indifference to athletic performance is well reflected by the fact that its men's basketball team in recent years had a 207-game losing streak, its women's basketball team had a 50-game losing streak, and men's soccer team lost 201 games in a row."
You could argue against affirmative action on the grounds that it is only about some nebulous notion of diversity.
But it is not --- or at least shouldn't be.
It should be about evaluating people's achievements relative to the opportunities presented to them. MIT, for example, prefers someone who is resilient and will change the world over someone who retook the SAT three times to get a 2400. You could argue about whether places like MIT evaluate these things correctly, but having been at MIT for 3.5 years, I've seen a lot of academically less prepared, but super driven students do astoundingly well.
On a side note, I've seen some of the other side as well. I went to a high school that has a 2% acceptance rate by exam only. It was 60% asian, and about 4% total black and latino. While I was around a lot of smart, motivated people, there were also a lot of smart slackers who couldn't or wouldn't thrive in that environment.
But it is not --- or at least shouldn't be.
It should be about evaluating people's achievements relative to the opportunities presented to them. MIT, for example, prefers someone who is resilient and will change the world over someone who retook the SAT three times to get a 2400. You could argue about whether places like MIT evaluate these things correctly, but having been at MIT for 3.5 years, I've seen a lot of academically less prepared, but super driven students do astoundingly well.
On a side note, I've seen some of the other side as well. I went to a high school that has a 2% acceptance rate by exam only. It was 60% asian, and about 4% total black and latino. While I was around a lot of smart, motivated people, there were also a lot of smart slackers who couldn't or wouldn't thrive in that environment.
Added to these 60s-era trends (some of which have mercifully waned) came two further developments which are still very much with us today and which moved the elite universities further away from the pursuit of excellence and merit which was their greatest achievement after the Second World War: the competitive sports craze and the affirmative action crusade. To these two anti-meritocratic developments...
How is being pro-sports being anti-meritocratic? It's anti-academic, but not anti-meritocratic. Getting a sports scholarship requires a tremendous amount of talent, teamwork, dedication, etc. Selecting students based on athletics is every bit as meritocratic as selecting students based on academics.
How is being pro-sports being anti-meritocratic? It's anti-academic, but not anti-meritocratic. Getting a sports scholarship requires a tremendous amount of talent, teamwork, dedication, etc. Selecting students based on athletics is every bit as meritocratic as selecting students based on academics.
I'm not sure how athletics is such a huge problem. The teams meeting in the BCS championship tonight have about 20 thousand undergraduates each. The football team, the largest surely on campus has something under 100 kids on scholarship, so about one half of one percent. Are there schools where it could be a problem? Perhaps. I've heard the complaint made about the Naval Academy.
The OP is focusing on the very-top-tier research Universities in the US. Most of these are private and much smaller than the large public schools which dominate NCAA championships.
For example, Princeton has only 4,500 undergrad so, as the author points out, athletes favored in admission make up an suprising large fraction of the class.
Likewise, legacy admissions has a big impact on the quality of Princeton admits, but probably not as much at the University of Oregon.
For example, Princeton has only 4,500 undergrad so, as the author points out, athletes favored in admission make up an suprising large fraction of the class.
Likewise, legacy admissions has a big impact on the quality of Princeton admits, but probably not as much at the University of Oregon.
The Indian IIT's have a similar focus on academics. One key difference is that they still take in students by employing Affirmative Action. AA hasn't hurt the school's reputation one bit.
[deleted]
Are USC's 114 national championships any less of an achievement than Caltech's 31 Nobel Prizes?
Yes.
Haha. That was probably the wrong question to ask. I agree Nobel Prizes have a greater positive effect on our society than National Championships. But, the point I was trying to make was...
Do you believe that USC should "follow a similar path" and begin to emulate Caltech or are they allowed to be happy with the success that they've had in their own respective areas? My take from this article was that Caltech was the one and only true example of a successful college and all others are doing it wrong. Can we not have some schools that aren't focused solely on the hard sciences and welcomes students who may want something else out of their college experience such as a diversity of backgrounds and ideas, a path to professional sports, or a focus on the arts?
Do you believe that USC should "follow a similar path" and begin to emulate Caltech or are they allowed to be happy with the success that they've had in their own respective areas? My take from this article was that Caltech was the one and only true example of a successful college and all others are doing it wrong. Can we not have some schools that aren't focused solely on the hard sciences and welcomes students who may want something else out of their college experience such as a diversity of backgrounds and ideas, a path to professional sports, or a focus on the arts?
Seems like link is down. Mirror?
A good article, but the trend aiming at redefining admissions criteria to steer away from academic merit appears to have started somewhat earlier than mid 20th century. Already in the second decade of the 20th century measures were being put in place to reduce the rising proportion of Jews at top colleges. Of course not everyone wanted to look antisemitic, so various diversifying tactics were invented to somehow deal with the the fact that Jews seemed to be smarter.
With high irony, it sounds like in the STEM subjects Cal Tech fails to 'get it' on important reality and, instead, is pursuing something not good.
Uh, Job One at Cal Tech has to be 'research' and NOT "learning". For the article, sorry 'bout that.
Well, from the article, it sounds like most of the Cal Tech freshmen have already wasted a few years getting ready for the SATs, making straight A grades, and taking AP courses. Sorry, guys, but that's a LOT of work, a good recipe for early 'burn out', and indicative of a lack of seeing reality. What Cal Tech is insisting on looks very much like at least simplistic understanding and likely 'obsession', and a big, HUGE, problem with these two is that they overwhelm rationality and ability to see reality clearly and, net, are from harmful down to debilitating.
Uh, it sounds like the Cal Tech freshmen were ready for college 2-3 years before they went and, thus, wasted 2-3 years fooling around with make-work, junk-think nonsense. E.g., when I looked at the AP calculus materials, they were garbage. Instead, just get a good, standard freshman college calculus book. When that book is too easy, then just get a stack of the usual suspects in advanced calculus and then measure theory and functional analysis. Don't try to make a super big deal out of frosh calculus.
For AP calculus, f'get about it: The AP materials were overkill, packed solidly with tiny trees with no good view of the forest, written by people who didn't really understand calculus and were afraid to omit anything, no matter how tangential, and are a great way to kill off any interest in calculus.
Here's the truth: If a high school student wants to race ahead in math and physics, then FINE, but to do this they should just get (1) a good stack of the usual, best respected early college texts in these subjects and (2) some guidance from someone, maybe a college prof, who actually understands the fields. Basically nearly no US high school student should EVER take an AP course in high school because the fraction of US high school teachers competent to teach such material is tiny.
Broadly the AP courses are junk, a waste of time and worse; a student ready for the AP courses should just go to college or at least just study college materials.
The biggest problem with Cal Tech is that the freshmen don't really belong in college: Instead, they should touch up in a few subjects for a few months if necessary and then start on their STEM major at the junior or senior level, rush through that, and then get on with grad school, research, and their Ph.D. Instead, Cal Tech is insisting that in high school these students have gone through some pointless mental torture chamber, of material that is elementary and poorly conceived, and then wants to put them through four more such years. It's sadistic, a 'filter', destructive, and way too common in academics.
Look, guys, Cal Tech 'college' is JUST college, ugrad school, and NOT, and can never be, just one step from a Nobel prize. Instead, their college is to get the students ready for grad school, at Cal Tech or any of the usual suspects. The Cal Tech frosh already wasted 2-3 years on AP, etc. nonsense in high school, and Cal Tech wants them to waste 1/2 to 3/4 of their four years at Cal Tech. Bummer.
Net, what's important for that academic track is the research, just the research. All that nose to the grindstone, shoulder to the wheel, ear to the ground, and then try to work in that position, is from not very good down to a disaster for research.
Buyer beware: Save yourself from nonsense; often you are the only one who can.
The path to research is NOT through AP courses, the last 50 points on the SATs, or even frosh and sophomore college work. Indeed, the best path to research usually starts in, say, the junior year of college. The best part of the path is in grad school, and there the best part is the student being in a good 'environment' and doing a lot of relatively independent learning and, then, even more independent research. E.g., commonly a good Ph.D. program has no official coursework requirement.
With irony, Cal Tech, for all their emphasis on being 'brilliant', is being DUMB on college admissions, running a college, and getting students into research.
I've see FAR too much super narrow minded, simplistic, destructive, obsession in academics and know how destructive it can be. Cal Tech is embracing that nonsense.
Uh, Job One at Cal Tech has to be 'research' and NOT "learning". For the article, sorry 'bout that.
Well, from the article, it sounds like most of the Cal Tech freshmen have already wasted a few years getting ready for the SATs, making straight A grades, and taking AP courses. Sorry, guys, but that's a LOT of work, a good recipe for early 'burn out', and indicative of a lack of seeing reality. What Cal Tech is insisting on looks very much like at least simplistic understanding and likely 'obsession', and a big, HUGE, problem with these two is that they overwhelm rationality and ability to see reality clearly and, net, are from harmful down to debilitating.
Uh, it sounds like the Cal Tech freshmen were ready for college 2-3 years before they went and, thus, wasted 2-3 years fooling around with make-work, junk-think nonsense. E.g., when I looked at the AP calculus materials, they were garbage. Instead, just get a good, standard freshman college calculus book. When that book is too easy, then just get a stack of the usual suspects in advanced calculus and then measure theory and functional analysis. Don't try to make a super big deal out of frosh calculus.
For AP calculus, f'get about it: The AP materials were overkill, packed solidly with tiny trees with no good view of the forest, written by people who didn't really understand calculus and were afraid to omit anything, no matter how tangential, and are a great way to kill off any interest in calculus.
Here's the truth: If a high school student wants to race ahead in math and physics, then FINE, but to do this they should just get (1) a good stack of the usual, best respected early college texts in these subjects and (2) some guidance from someone, maybe a college prof, who actually understands the fields. Basically nearly no US high school student should EVER take an AP course in high school because the fraction of US high school teachers competent to teach such material is tiny.
Broadly the AP courses are junk, a waste of time and worse; a student ready for the AP courses should just go to college or at least just study college materials.
The biggest problem with Cal Tech is that the freshmen don't really belong in college: Instead, they should touch up in a few subjects for a few months if necessary and then start on their STEM major at the junior or senior level, rush through that, and then get on with grad school, research, and their Ph.D. Instead, Cal Tech is insisting that in high school these students have gone through some pointless mental torture chamber, of material that is elementary and poorly conceived, and then wants to put them through four more such years. It's sadistic, a 'filter', destructive, and way too common in academics.
Look, guys, Cal Tech 'college' is JUST college, ugrad school, and NOT, and can never be, just one step from a Nobel prize. Instead, their college is to get the students ready for grad school, at Cal Tech or any of the usual suspects. The Cal Tech frosh already wasted 2-3 years on AP, etc. nonsense in high school, and Cal Tech wants them to waste 1/2 to 3/4 of their four years at Cal Tech. Bummer.
Net, what's important for that academic track is the research, just the research. All that nose to the grindstone, shoulder to the wheel, ear to the ground, and then try to work in that position, is from not very good down to a disaster for research.
Buyer beware: Save yourself from nonsense; often you are the only one who can.
The path to research is NOT through AP courses, the last 50 points on the SATs, or even frosh and sophomore college work. Indeed, the best path to research usually starts in, say, the junior year of college. The best part of the path is in grad school, and there the best part is the student being in a good 'environment' and doing a lot of relatively independent learning and, then, even more independent research. E.g., commonly a good Ph.D. program has no official coursework requirement.
With irony, Cal Tech, for all their emphasis on being 'brilliant', is being DUMB on college admissions, running a college, and getting students into research.
I've see FAR too much super narrow minded, simplistic, destructive, obsession in academics and know how destructive it can be. Cal Tech is embracing that nonsense.
>it sounds like most of the Cal Tech freshmen have already wasted a few years getting ready for the SATs, making straight A grades, and taking AP courses. Sorry, guys, but that's a LOT of work,
No, it isn't a lot of work. I never studied before going to Caltech. I never studied for the SAT. This was typical for incoming freshmen. The ones who had to study hard for SATs, etc., could not make it at Caltech, and frankly the admissions committee tried to not admit them.
No, it isn't a lot of work. I never studied before going to Caltech. I never studied for the SAT. This was typical for incoming freshmen. The ones who had to study hard for SATs, etc., could not make it at Caltech, and frankly the admissions committee tried to not admit them.
Hopefully.
But making an 800 on an SAT has to be tricky stuff: The first-cut explanation is that it is more than 3 standard deviations above the mean in a Gaussian distribution. I can't believe that the test is very accurate much above 700 (in the sense of classic 'reliability'). So, getting above 700 is not so tough; actually getting an 800 has to be partly a craps shoot.
On both shots, I was over 750 on the Math SAT and never studied for it either. I finished early, checked my answers, and still had time. I didn't see any of the questions as very difficult and can't imagine I missed much. With such a short test, it about has to be that one question can mean dozens of points above 700 or so. So, the test 'reliability' can't be very accurate above 700.
In the end, what was valuable for me in college and grad school was interest, talent, 'environment', and some relatively independent work. That nose to the grindstone stuff played no role.
If you didn't burn yourself out in high school cutting through AP nonsense, SAT prep, etc. and still got into Cal Tech, then good for both you and Cal Tech.
But, ugrad school is not supposed to be so challenging that determined students "could not make it". Again, it's just ugrad school and not some one step before a Nobel prize. So, "could not make it" indicates something is wrong as I concluded.
If want to make a big splash in academics and get a Ph.D., etc., fine, but nearly all the big splash part is grad school, not ugrad. So, get a four year ugrad degree with a good background in your interest areas and then pick a good grad school. The ugrad school doesn't have to be Cal Tech. If in grad school the Cal Tech students are way ahead, then that just means that at Cal Tech they really deserved a Master's or Ph.D. but only got a Bachelor's.
But making an 800 on an SAT has to be tricky stuff: The first-cut explanation is that it is more than 3 standard deviations above the mean in a Gaussian distribution. I can't believe that the test is very accurate much above 700 (in the sense of classic 'reliability'). So, getting above 700 is not so tough; actually getting an 800 has to be partly a craps shoot.
On both shots, I was over 750 on the Math SAT and never studied for it either. I finished early, checked my answers, and still had time. I didn't see any of the questions as very difficult and can't imagine I missed much. With such a short test, it about has to be that one question can mean dozens of points above 700 or so. So, the test 'reliability' can't be very accurate above 700.
In the end, what was valuable for me in college and grad school was interest, talent, 'environment', and some relatively independent work. That nose to the grindstone stuff played no role.
If you didn't burn yourself out in high school cutting through AP nonsense, SAT prep, etc. and still got into Cal Tech, then good for both you and Cal Tech.
But, ugrad school is not supposed to be so challenging that determined students "could not make it". Again, it's just ugrad school and not some one step before a Nobel prize. So, "could not make it" indicates something is wrong as I concluded.
If want to make a big splash in academics and get a Ph.D., etc., fine, but nearly all the big splash part is grad school, not ugrad. So, get a four year ugrad degree with a good background in your interest areas and then pick a good grad school. The ugrad school doesn't have to be Cal Tech. If in grad school the Cal Tech students are way ahead, then that just means that at Cal Tech they really deserved a Master's or Ph.D. but only got a Bachelor's.
> So, getting above 700 is not so tough; actually getting an 800 has to be partly a craps shoot.
Having just had a look at the Official SAT Practice Test 2010-11, I agree. There's no calculus or anything else at all difficult in the maths SAT so getting a perfect score is merely a matter of avoiding slipping up.
Actually I'm surprised Caltech or any other supposedly elite US university uses it as an entrance exam; it's simply far too easy a test to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Having just had a look at the Official SAT Practice Test 2010-11, I agree. There's no calculus or anything else at all difficult in the maths SAT so getting a perfect score is merely a matter of avoiding slipping up.
Actually I'm surprised Caltech or any other supposedly elite US university uses it as an entrance exam; it's simply far too easy a test to sort the wheat from the chaff.
>But, ugrad school is not supposed to be so challenging that determined students "could not make it".
Some students will never make it there no matter how hard they work. If one had to take a "test prep" course to do well on the SATs, then realistically Caltech is not the right school for him. And I'd never be an olympic athlete, no matter how hard I tried.
Some students will never make it there no matter how hard they work. If one had to take a "test prep" course to do well on the SATs, then realistically Caltech is not the right school for him. And I'd never be an olympic athlete, no matter how hard I tried.
Well, maybe out of ambition or whatever they took some SAT prep work.
I didn't for three simple reasons: (1) I was so uninformed I didn't have a clue about just what the SAT was! (2) Teachers in grade school had been so critical of me, essentially because I wasn't a student like the girls in the classes!, that I'd largely given up on academics and wasn't trying very hard. (3) I'd never heard about any SAT test prep!
I did try hard in high school math, because I very much liked the subject, but I still thought that pleasing the teachers was hopeless and, thus, didn't try. Maybe that math I studied was responsible for my SAT scores, but I doubt it. Besides the CEEB or whatever wanted to claim that the test measured just 'aptitude'.
Uh, just because someone took some SAT prep material doesn't mean that the prep material was really responsible for their good scores! I'd side with the students who got good scores, however they did it: If they did so well on the SATs, however they did it, then they should be able to "make it" in ugrad school.
Uh, unless they were competing with my wife! She wanted to take a course in history but didn't need the credit so just audited. The lecture hall had 300 students. The prof insisted that even auditing students also take the tests. At the end, the prof told her that she should have taken the course for credit since she had the highest grade in the class! Before I met her socially, I taught her frosh trig. On my tests, some of the questions were difficult for a lot of points. At the end, she had twice as many points as the next best student; she could have walked out after the midterm and still made an A! I tried to compete with her in Scrabble. She was ahead, but as we played I got better. Alas she got better even faster so that her margin grew so much she refused to play with me again!
I didn't for three simple reasons: (1) I was so uninformed I didn't have a clue about just what the SAT was! (2) Teachers in grade school had been so critical of me, essentially because I wasn't a student like the girls in the classes!, that I'd largely given up on academics and wasn't trying very hard. (3) I'd never heard about any SAT test prep!
I did try hard in high school math, because I very much liked the subject, but I still thought that pleasing the teachers was hopeless and, thus, didn't try. Maybe that math I studied was responsible for my SAT scores, but I doubt it. Besides the CEEB or whatever wanted to claim that the test measured just 'aptitude'.
Uh, just because someone took some SAT prep material doesn't mean that the prep material was really responsible for their good scores! I'd side with the students who got good scores, however they did it: If they did so well on the SATs, however they did it, then they should be able to "make it" in ugrad school.
Uh, unless they were competing with my wife! She wanted to take a course in history but didn't need the credit so just audited. The lecture hall had 300 students. The prof insisted that even auditing students also take the tests. At the end, the prof told her that she should have taken the course for credit since she had the highest grade in the class! Before I met her socially, I taught her frosh trig. On my tests, some of the questions were difficult for a lot of points. At the end, she had twice as many points as the next best student; she could have walked out after the midterm and still made an A! I tried to compete with her in Scrabble. She was ahead, but as we played I got better. Alas she got better even faster so that her margin grew so much she refused to play with me again!
This 'article' is very clearly another instance of trollish, uninformed misleading shit designed to sell copies of <author>'s book. The whole piece is pretty much 'Revenge of the Nerds' tripe, containing the usual, trite anti-jock (and, lol, anti-minority) rhetoric combined with facile AP/SAT test-score elitism (I'd have thought HN would be suspicious of arguments that use test scores as a proxy of education quality).
Caltech is in some class by itself, sure, but not for the reasons he cites, which are plain bullshit, and definitely not a completely 'positive' class---there are definite, subtle tradeoffs of a Caltech education that are not highlighted by the rather crude level of discourse this article has encouraged.
Already mentioned and debunked here is the asinine assumption that AP/SAT scores are used as proxy for actual academic excellence by the admissions committee.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2089717
However this next comment, while probably made on the wrong premises (that the admissions committee uses test scores as the sole criteria), is probably the only assessment of Caltech I've seen that has a hope of getting the real issues that show going to Caltech can be a bad decision if there are other respective alternatives available:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2090087
"Well, from the article, it sounds like most of the Cal Tech freshmen have already wasted a few years getting ready for the SATs, making straight A grades, and taking AP courses. Sorry, guys, but that's a LOT of work, a good recipe for early 'burn out', and indicative of a lack of seeing reality. What Cal Tech is insisting on looks very much like at least simplistic understanding and likely 'obsession', and a big, HUGE, problem with these two is that they overwhelm rationality and ability to see reality clearly and, net, are from harmful down to debilitating."
Indeed, even though the admissions committee emphasizes the fact that test scores do not completely determine admission, preparing for tests and 'burning out early' is exactly what the majority of applicants end up doing anyway to get into this place. Then Caltech has (and misses) a great opportunity to end up educating people the right way, as you say.
What many people who go to Caltech do is end up learning all the right subjects but the wrong lessons. There is hardly room for introspection, broadening one's perspective, and really learning the why and how of research---there is only the assumption that you are enthusiastic as hell at math/science and you are going to signal this by overloading, taking the hardest classes for no good reason, and trying to impress Head Nerd in <subject of your (their) choice>. This is your life---this is a social group where your self-worth is measured by your GPA and how many papers you publish. Too many people I knew have been sucked in this way and ended up burning out in one way or another.
The end result is that there are no 'jocks' at Caltech in the usual sense---what you have is a similarly wretched, caveman-like hierarchy, but with 'sports' replaced by 'academic achievement.' Surely a different and perhaps more productive contest than what goes on at other colleges, but no less of a harmful environment. Unless you are at or near the top of the hierarchy, the environment has the structural effect (as in, may not be intentionally designed) to beat any previous interest you had in math or science out of you. Could this be an explanation for the high suicide rate at Caltech (and other elite institutions like it)?
Basically: Where was the education? For being a fairly good student who clearly could learn subjects straight from books: how to learn what to learn? To educate yourself in the right way? To see the world for what it is and make independent, informed choices? To be rational?
Hell, this shouldn't be exclusive to Caltech---with the availability of information these days it seems to be a much better payoff to educate people in this alternative way instead.
So, go to Caltech only if you really understand it as just one small step in a longer research career, you know how to be rational and not get taken in by the social hierarchy there, and you are in contact with helpful faculty with whom you know you will have a productive relationship. Or, if you estimate P(Head Nerd) as being really high, so you can start your own little fiefdom.
Full disclosure: I went to Caltech (class of 08) and thankfully am in a good Ph. D program right now where I can 'pick up the pieces,' as it were, and reignite my interests.
I am constantly in conflict about this---would I have done 'better' (for some definition of better) overall if I hadn't gone there, and instead gone to an easier school?
Or do I just remain grateful about my current situation and just stop thinking when I think about this? I am forever indebted to my parents for their sacrifice in paying my Caltech tuition, and I really think there could not be a better place for learning engaging subjects with the brightest people around. All my career opportunities were made possible because I networked in the Caltech community.
But I just think there could have been a much more principled, less psychically costly way of doing it.
Caltech is in some class by itself, sure, but not for the reasons he cites, which are plain bullshit, and definitely not a completely 'positive' class---there are definite, subtle tradeoffs of a Caltech education that are not highlighted by the rather crude level of discourse this article has encouraged.
Already mentioned and debunked here is the asinine assumption that AP/SAT scores are used as proxy for actual academic excellence by the admissions committee.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2089717
However this next comment, while probably made on the wrong premises (that the admissions committee uses test scores as the sole criteria), is probably the only assessment of Caltech I've seen that has a hope of getting the real issues that show going to Caltech can be a bad decision if there are other respective alternatives available:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2090087
"Well, from the article, it sounds like most of the Cal Tech freshmen have already wasted a few years getting ready for the SATs, making straight A grades, and taking AP courses. Sorry, guys, but that's a LOT of work, a good recipe for early 'burn out', and indicative of a lack of seeing reality. What Cal Tech is insisting on looks very much like at least simplistic understanding and likely 'obsession', and a big, HUGE, problem with these two is that they overwhelm rationality and ability to see reality clearly and, net, are from harmful down to debilitating."
Indeed, even though the admissions committee emphasizes the fact that test scores do not completely determine admission, preparing for tests and 'burning out early' is exactly what the majority of applicants end up doing anyway to get into this place. Then Caltech has (and misses) a great opportunity to end up educating people the right way, as you say.
What many people who go to Caltech do is end up learning all the right subjects but the wrong lessons. There is hardly room for introspection, broadening one's perspective, and really learning the why and how of research---there is only the assumption that you are enthusiastic as hell at math/science and you are going to signal this by overloading, taking the hardest classes for no good reason, and trying to impress Head Nerd in <subject of your (their) choice>. This is your life---this is a social group where your self-worth is measured by your GPA and how many papers you publish. Too many people I knew have been sucked in this way and ended up burning out in one way or another.
The end result is that there are no 'jocks' at Caltech in the usual sense---what you have is a similarly wretched, caveman-like hierarchy, but with 'sports' replaced by 'academic achievement.' Surely a different and perhaps more productive contest than what goes on at other colleges, but no less of a harmful environment. Unless you are at or near the top of the hierarchy, the environment has the structural effect (as in, may not be intentionally designed) to beat any previous interest you had in math or science out of you. Could this be an explanation for the high suicide rate at Caltech (and other elite institutions like it)?
Basically: Where was the education? For being a fairly good student who clearly could learn subjects straight from books: how to learn what to learn? To educate yourself in the right way? To see the world for what it is and make independent, informed choices? To be rational?
Hell, this shouldn't be exclusive to Caltech---with the availability of information these days it seems to be a much better payoff to educate people in this alternative way instead.
So, go to Caltech only if you really understand it as just one small step in a longer research career, you know how to be rational and not get taken in by the social hierarchy there, and you are in contact with helpful faculty with whom you know you will have a productive relationship. Or, if you estimate P(Head Nerd) as being really high, so you can start your own little fiefdom.
Full disclosure: I went to Caltech (class of 08) and thankfully am in a good Ph. D program right now where I can 'pick up the pieces,' as it were, and reignite my interests.
I am constantly in conflict about this---would I have done 'better' (for some definition of better) overall if I hadn't gone there, and instead gone to an easier school?
Or do I just remain grateful about my current situation and just stop thinking when I think about this? I am forever indebted to my parents for their sacrifice in paying my Caltech tuition, and I really think there could not be a better place for learning engaging subjects with the brightest people around. All my career opportunities were made possible because I networked in the Caltech community.
But I just think there could have been a much more principled, less psychically costly way of doing it.
I felt there was a sense of arrogance from the author while reading this article. We get it, Russel, Cal Tech is a difficult school to matriculate in. No need to hype the academic credentials required by your Alma mater for acceptance.
One major difference between Caltech and many other schools is that Caltech is a technical school, and doesn't provide a liberal arts education. An underlying assumption of the article is the superiority of the technical education vs. liberal arts, but the evidence he provides that this is actually the case is rather thin: the author seems to expect the reader to accept this point of view by default. It would have been better if the author could have made this argument explicitly.
Although Caltech isn't a liberal arts school, undergrads are required to take one humanities or social science class every term (for a total of 12). You occasionally see Caltech alumni with a BS in Literature...
Comparing Caltech to any other college is plain unfair. They have one of the biggest endowments in the country because they are affiliated with JPL. I'm pretty sure just about any college could rise to that level of prominence given resources like that.
This is factually incorrect. The endowment is separate from the operating budget, which is where JPL comes in as a factor. The endowment is large because of several 'home runs,' in the fundraising parlance, specifically Gordon Moore's $600M donation in 2003, the largest donation to higher education ever and hundreds of millions in smaller donations by the Moore Foundation, as well as other large ticket donations by successful Caltech alumni and LA notables, like Eli Broad. The JPL budget is separated out from the Caltech general operating budget, which you can learn more about here: http://annual-report.caltech.edu/
We were actually offered Los Alamos, too, after several security breaches under their UCLA managers, but our faculty board turned it down, resulting in UCLA getting the contract again. Amusingly, the result of UCLA management's security failings was that they got paid a higher rate for the same duties. Gotta love the government sometimes, heh.
We were actually offered Los Alamos, too, after several security breaches under their UCLA managers, but our faculty board turned it down, resulting in UCLA getting the contract again. Amusingly, the result of UCLA management's security failings was that they got paid a higher rate for the same duties. Gotta love the government sometimes, heh.
One of the most interesting things I heard in my first day at orientation at Carnegie Mellon was CMU's president talking about all the students they rejected- xx perfect SAT scores, xxx students with a 4.0, xx valedictorians, etc. In other words, CMU's perspective is that someone purely interested in academics (and nothing else) isn't as strong of an asset. I think it made for a more fulfilling academic atmosphere for the entire student body.
What this means is that at Caltech, there are no dumb jocks, dumb legacies, or dumb affirmative action students.
I kind of think that's weird too (besides the offensive nature of those words). Carnegie Mellon has a reputation for being an absurdly nerdy school, but along with Computer Science it also top business schools, drama schools, and art schools. That is a weird-ass cross section of human. There's plenty of areas that CMU may lack compared to other top schools, but I think having a broad, diverse student body is one of its strongest assets.
That said, I'm trying not to translate much to Caltech itself from this article since this cat sounds kind of crazy.