Why Caltech Is in a Class by Itself

<i>Many Caltech freshmen got a perfect 800 on their math SAT, while a near-perfect 1560 combination score placed an incoming freshmen at only the 75th percentile of his entering classmates.</i><p>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 <i>rejected</i>- 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.<p><i>What this means is that at Caltech, there are no dumb jocks, dumb legacies, or dumb affirmative action students.</i><p>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.<p>That said, I'm trying not to translate much to Caltech itself from this article since this cat sounds kind of crazy.

I went to Caltech recently, and I feel I should weigh in on this.<p>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.<p>And that's really key, because a perfect GPA, SAT &#38; 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.

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.<p>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.<p>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.

/<i>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. </i>/<p>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.

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<p>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.<p>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.<p>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!"<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.

I think it is awesome that Cal Tech is so singularly focused on academics, it shows serious devotion.<p>However, I think most people would agree that academics are not the only thing that matters for success, either personally or professionally.

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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>[1] Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers, 2008

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?<p>I want my kids to go to caltech but only if they qualify and are smart enough.<p>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.<p>Maybe someone should sue the NBA if they don't let him in for being vertically challenged.

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.<p>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 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.

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.<p>I do not really care anymore, but it would have been a cool experience to go to a good school.

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:<p>"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.<p>But it is not --- or at least shouldn't be.<p>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.<p>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.

<i>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...</i><p>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 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.

Are USC's 114 national championships any less of an achievement than Caltech's 31 Nobel Prizes?

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.<p>Uh, Job One at Cal Tech has to be 'research' and NOT "learning". For the article, sorry 'bout that.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Buyer beware: Save yourself from nonsense; often you are the only one who can.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.

This 'article' is very clearly another instance of trollish, uninformed misleading shit designed to sell copies of &#60;author&#62;'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).<p>Caltech is in <i>some</i> 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.<p>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.<p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2089717" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2089717</a><p>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:<p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2090087" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2090087</a><p>"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."<p>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 <i>anyway</i> to get into this place. Then Caltech has (and misses) a great opportunity to end up educating people the <i>right</i> way, as you say.<p>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 <i>enthusiastic as hell</i> at math/science and you are going to <i>signal this</i> by overloading, taking the hardest classes for no good reason, and trying to impress Head Nerd in &#60;subject of your (their) choice&#62;. This is your <i>life</i>---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.<p>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)?<p>Basically: Where was the <i>education</i>? For being a fairly good student who clearly could learn subjects straight from books: how to learn what to learn? To educate <i>yourself</i> in the <i>right way</i>? To see the world for what it is and make independent, informed choices? To be rational?<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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?<p>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.<p>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.

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.