Overrated schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Was the point of this stupid thread always to dump on one school - CalTech - or is that just how it devolved?

You people are pathetic.

OP is asking in this thread about overrated schools. It’s on topic. If this is not what you are looking for, there are other threads. Or start your own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine complaining about putting Cal Tech on the same "list" as Harvard or MIT. Delusional folks need to get out more.

Imagine complaining about Cal Tech starting out as a technical school, as if the Ivies starting out as clergy schools makes them better.

Cal Tech lacks medical/business/law and graduate schools in many disciplines yet ranks among the best in the US and world on science and engineering research alone.

The student-faculty ratio at Cal Tech is 3:1. It's similar to European research institutes that primarily exists entirely for research and accepts a few undergraduates every year, smaller than most high schools.

Let’s just say CalTech is an adopted child of your imaginary list that’s constantly in fear of being kicked out of the imaginary group. Even these CalTech nerds wouldn’t be there had they gotten into Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Yale, Columbia...

You are wrong. Caltech (not CalTech or Cal Tech) is a peer of MIT, both undergrad and grad. In many fields, Caltech is by far the best place in the country. JPL was founded because a couple of Caltech students were experimenting with rocket motors, and nearly blew up the labs. Instead of kicking them out, they gave them a place to experiment away from population.

Caltech seismology lab is world class. Far better than the MIT or Harvard counterparts.

There are other examples.

Fundamentally, though, I would not want my child to go to Caltech Undergrad. I would choose a more LAC curriculum.

There you go again - what a great school CalTech is blah blah blah - only to admit you would not send your kids there if they can go elsewhere. Same with the poster immediately above you. If his or her kids can go to Harvey Mudd, s/he would not choose CalTech. It’s a highly specialized school, not for those broad minded liberal arts types who have other options. It’s in the league with California Maritime. It’s a highly specialized technical school that is part of the same school system to which Cal State Fullerton belongs. Pay scale shows CalTech is just a notch above what is basically a Cal State vocational school. Schools like Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Harvey Mudd, on the other hand, are in a different league.

Well Stanford is in the Pac10, which is a different league. And again, it is Caltech not CalTech. I do not know what your problem is with Caltech. But, I would also chose a LAC over MIT. It is because I do not think 18 yo's should go to a school that does not have the breadth of curriculum. Caltech is the best school in the world for many disciplines; it is among the top schools for any field which it focuses on. But, you don't go to Caltech to study the classics. And starting salaries are modest because most people at Caltech go on to graduate school and in to academia, which does not pay well.

[Anonymous]

Once you add CalTech to the top list, you also have to add julliard. You don’t add julliard cuz it’s a highly specialized technical school. No matter how good their students are, they can’t get into Harvard, Yale on artistic talent alone. I doubt many CalTech students have the broad holistic background to get into Harvard, Yale. Not sure what your problem is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was the point of this stupid thread always to dump on one school - CalTech - or is that just how it devolved?

You people are pathetic.

OP is asking in this thread about overrated schools. It’s on topic. If this is not what you are looking for, there are other threads. Or start your own.

You’re an imbecile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once you add CalTech to the top list, you also have to add julliard. You don’t add julliard cuz it’s a highly specialized technical school. No matter how good their students are, they can’t get into Harvard, Yale on artistic talent alone. I doubt many CalTech students have the broad holistic background to get into Harvard, Yale. Not sure what your problem is.

I have no problem. You have a stick up your ass against Caltech (again not CalTech). It is a highly specialized school, in the sense that the focus is 100% on STEM. But, you have to have a certain breadth to be admitted.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s funny how people place so much stock in comparing graduates of different schools in one workplace. You really don’t know if employee A became an excellent writer because of excellent English teachers in high school, education at a SLAC, or just a natural knack for it. College is typically four years. Most of the time over those four years isn’t even spent in the classroom.
A resume from a top undergrad school tells me that the individual was a high performer in high school and that he or his parents were willing and able to pay — I really don’t think it tells me he will be especially well-positioned to perform well moving forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once you add CalTech to the top list, you also have to add julliard. You don’t add julliard cuz it’s a highly specialized technical school. No matter how good their students are, they can’t get into Harvard, Yale on artistic talent alone. I doubt many CalTech students have the broad holistic background to get into Harvard, Yale. Not sure what your problem is.

I have no problem. You have a stick up your ass against Caltech (again not CalTech). It is a highly specialized school, in the sense that the focus is 100% on STEM. But, you have to have a certain breadth to be admitted.

Says Donald J Trump who thinks a tamper tantrum wins a debating point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once you add CalTech to the top list, you also have to add julliard. You don’t add julliard cuz it’s a highly specialized technical school. No matter how good their students are, they can’t get into Harvard, Yale on artistic talent alone. I doubt many CalTech students have the broad holistic background to get into Harvard, Yale. Not sure what your problem is.

There are kids at both Caltech and Julliard (and MANY other schools) who could easily have been admitted to any school in the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s funny how people place so much stock in comparing graduates of different schools in one workplace. You really don’t know if employee A became an excellent writer because of excellent English teachers in high school, education at a SLAC, or just a natural knack for it. College is typically four years. Most of the time over those four years isn’t even spent in the classroom.
A resume from a top undergrad school tells me that the individual was a high performer in high school and that he or his parents were willing and able to pay — I really don’t think it tells me he will be especially well-positioned to perform well moving forward.

This. Aside from the tippy top schools which give great FA, due to $$$$ many kids have to to turn down top private universities, and unfortunately in some states, state flagships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once you add CalTech to the top list, you also have to add julliard. You don’t add julliard cuz it’s a highly specialized technical school. No matter how good their students are, they can’t get into Harvard, Yale on artistic talent alone. I doubt many CalTech students have the broad holistic background to get into Harvard, Yale. Not sure what your problem is.

I have no problem. You have a stick up your ass against Caltech (again not CalTech). It is a highly specialized school, in the sense that the focus is 100% on STEM. But, you have to have a certain breadth to be admitted.

I can just imagine this poster’s household.

Kid - “Mom/dad, I really think school X is better than school Y for me.”
Mom/dad - “ You have a stick up your ass against Y.”


How’d you like to have a parent like this one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine complaining about putting Cal Tech on the same "list" as Harvard or MIT. Delusional folks need to get out more.

Imagine complaining about Cal Tech starting out as a technical school, as if the Ivies starting out as clergy schools makes them better.

Cal Tech lacks medical/business/law and graduate schools in many disciplines yet ranks among the best in the US and world on science and engineering research alone.

The student-faculty ratio at Cal Tech is 3:1. It's similar to European research institutes that primarily exists entirely for research and accepts a few undergraduates every year, smaller than most high schools.

Let’s just say CalTech is an adopted child of your imaginary list that’s constantly in fear of being kicked out of the imaginary group. Even these CalTech nerds wouldn’t be there had they gotten into Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Yale, Columbia...

You are wrong. Caltech (not CalTech or Cal Tech) is a peer of MIT, both undergrad and grad. In many fields, Caltech is by far the best place in the country. JPL was founded because a couple of Caltech students were experimenting with rocket motors, and nearly blew up the labs. Instead of kicking them out, they gave them a place to experiment away from population.

Caltech seismology lab is world class. Far better than the MIT or Harvard counterparts.

There are other examples.

Fundamentally, though, I would not want my child to go to Caltech Undergrad. I would choose a more LAC curriculum.

There you go again - what a great school CalTech is blah blah blah - only to admit you would not send your kids there if they can go elsewhere. Same with the poster immediately above you. If his or her kids can go to Harvey Mudd, s/he would not choose CalTech. It’s a highly specialized school, not for those broad minded liberal arts types who have other options. It’s in the league with California Maritime. It’s a highly specialized technical school that is part of the same school system to which Cal State Fullerton belongs. Pay scale shows CalTech is just a notch above what is basically a Cal State vocational school. Schools like Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Harvey Mudd, on the other hand, are in a different league.

Well Stanford is in the Pac10, which is a different league. And again, it is Caltech not CalTech. I do not know what your problem is with Caltech. But, I would also chose a LAC over MIT. It is because I do not think 18 yo's should go to a school that does not have the breadth of curriculum. Caltech is the best school in the world for many disciplines; it is among the top schools for any field which it focuses on. But, you don't go to Caltech to study the classics. And starting salaries are modest because most people at Caltech go on to graduate school and in to academia, which does not pay well.

15-20 years ago Stanford was not an impressive school. It only became so because of its proximity to Silicon Valley. Meanwhile Caltech was prestigious long before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine complaining about putting Cal Tech on the same "list" as Harvard or MIT. Delusional folks need to get out more.

Imagine complaining about Cal Tech starting out as a technical school, as if the Ivies starting out as clergy schools makes them better.

Cal Tech lacks medical/business/law and graduate schools in many disciplines yet ranks among the best in the US and world on science and engineering research alone.

The student-faculty ratio at Cal Tech is 3:1. It's similar to European research institutes that primarily exists entirely for research and accepts a few undergraduates every year, smaller than most high schools.

Let’s just say CalTech is an adopted child of your imaginary list that’s constantly in fear of being kicked out of the imaginary group. Even these CalTech nerds wouldn’t be there had they gotten into Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Yale, Columbia...

You are wrong. Caltech (not CalTech or Cal Tech) is a peer of MIT, both undergrad and grad. In many fields, Caltech is by far the best place in the country. JPL was founded because a couple of Caltech students were experimenting with rocket motors, and nearly blew up the labs. Instead of kicking them out, they gave them a place to experiment away from population.

Caltech seismology lab is world class. Far better than the MIT or Harvard counterparts.

There are other examples.

Fundamentally, though, I would not want my child to go to Caltech Undergrad. I would choose a more LAC curriculum.

There you go again - what a great school CalTech is blah blah blah - only to admit you would not send your kids there if they can go elsewhere. Same with the poster immediately above you. If his or her kids can go to Harvey Mudd, s/he would not choose CalTech. It’s a highly specialized school, not for those broad minded liberal arts types who have other options. It’s in the league with California Maritime. It’s a highly specialized technical school that is part of the same school system to which Cal State Fullerton belongs. Pay scale shows CalTech is just a notch above what is basically a Cal State vocational school. Schools like Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Harvey Mudd, on the other hand, are in a different league.

Well Stanford is in the Pac10, which is a different league. And again, it is Caltech not CalTech. I do not know what your problem is with Caltech. But, I would also chose a LAC over MIT. It is because I do not think 18 yo's should go to a school that does not have the breadth of curriculum. Caltech is the best school in the world for many disciplines; it is among the top schools for any field which it focuses on. But, you don't go to Caltech to study the classics. And starting salaries are modest because most people at Caltech go on to graduate school and in to academia, which does not pay well.

15-20 years ago Stanford was not an impressive school. It only became so because of its proximity to Silicon Valley. Meanwhile Caltech was prestigious long before.

I was surprised at how well San Jose State STEM majors do. But then it’s in a prime Silicon Valley location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once you add CalTech to the top list, you also have to add julliard. You don’t add julliard cuz it’s a highly specialized technical school. No matter how good their students are, they can’t get into Harvard, Yale on artistic talent alone. I doubt many CalTech students have the broad holistic background to get into Harvard, Yale. Not sure what your problem is.

I have no problem. You have a stick up your ass against Caltech (again not CalTech). It is a highly specialized school, in the sense that the focus is 100% on STEM. But, you have to have a certain breadth to be admitted.

I can just imagine this poster’s household.

Kid - “Mom/dad, I really think school X is better than school Y for me.”
Mom/dad - “ You have a stick up your ass against Y.”


How’d you like to have a parent like this one?

I said you have a sick up you ass against Caltech. You were not saying that Harvard is better for some students than Caltech. You were saying that Caltech is overrated -- not really any better than cal state's. That Caltech is just a trade school. That is objectively bull crap. And you know it.

Caltech is to other colleges what TJ is to FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Stanford only recently became prestigious? LOL.
Clintons sent their Chelsea there in the mid 90s over Harvard and Yale. Stanford has been hyper elite for at least 40 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine complaining about putting Cal Tech on the same "list" as Harvard or MIT. Delusional folks need to get out more.

Imagine complaining about Cal Tech starting out as a technical school, as if the Ivies starting out as clergy schools makes them better.

Cal Tech lacks medical/business/law and graduate schools in many disciplines yet ranks among the best in the US and world on science and engineering research alone.

The student-faculty ratio at Cal Tech is 3:1. It's similar to European research institutes that primarily exists entirely for research and accepts a few undergraduates every year, smaller than most high schools.

Let’s just say CalTech is an adopted child of your imaginary list that’s constantly in fear of being kicked out of the imaginary group. Even these CalTech nerds wouldn’t be there had they gotten into Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Yale, Columbia...

You are wrong. Caltech (not CalTech or Cal Tech) is a peer of MIT, both undergrad and grad. In many fields, Caltech is by far the best place in the country. JPL was founded because a couple of Caltech students were experimenting with rocket motors, and nearly blew up the labs. Instead of kicking them out, they gave them a place to experiment away from population.

Caltech seismology lab is world class. Far better than the MIT or Harvard counterparts.

There are other examples.

Fundamentally, though, I would not want my child to go to Caltech Undergrad. I would choose a more LAC curriculum.

There you go again - what a great school CalTech is blah blah blah - only to admit you would not send your kids there if they can go elsewhere. Same with the poster immediately above you. If his or her kids can go to Harvey Mudd, s/he would not choose CalTech. It’s a highly specialized school, not for those broad minded liberal arts types who have other options. It’s in the league with California Maritime. It’s a highly specialized technical school that is part of the same school system to which Cal State Fullerton belongs. Pay scale shows CalTech is just a notch above what is basically a Cal State vocational school. Schools like Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Harvey Mudd, on the other hand, are in a different league.

Well Stanford is in the Pac10, which is a different league. And again, it is Caltech not CalTech. I do not know what your problem is with Caltech. But, I would also chose a LAC over MIT. It is because I do not think 18 yo's should go to a school that does not have the breadth of curriculum. Caltech is the best school in the world for many disciplines; it is among the top schools for any field which it focuses on. But, you don't go to Caltech to study the classics. And starting salaries are modest because most people at Caltech go on to graduate school and in to academia, which does not pay well.

15-20 years ago Stanford was not an impressive school. It only became so because of its proximity to Silicon Valley. Meanwhile Caltech was prestigious long before.

Stanford was an impressive school 15-20 years ago. It has really been at the top level with Harvard for some time if you look at where cross-admits choose.