Caltech

[Anonymous]

Caltech is vastly vastly superior to Harvey mudd. only 35 students in Harvey Mudd's entire freshman class scored above 1560 on the sat. at Caltech, that number is closer to 80 percent of the class.

Harvey Mudd is test optional.
Caltech isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Caltech is the only school environment I can easily declare is completely miserable. There’s nothing fun going on at Caltech. It’s just an environment for people obsessed with STEM. Best for the introverted science kid who wants to go to aspires most to get a PhD/be a leader in STEM.

So just like Sheldon Cooper? (Isn’t that where the character from “Young Sheldon” went to grad school and became a professor?)

If you want to know what the social life at Caltech is like, watch the 80s movie Real Genius. It was based on Caltech and is disturbingly accurate.

There's lots of fun going on, but it won't appeal to everyone.

This. Caltech is for kids who would find MIT too easy and be bored.
Dead serious.
It's a special place. ~1/1500 undergrads wins a Nobel Prize later. That is like 10x the rate of the next highest school. It is super intense and a hot house as no other nearby schools. But there are some for whom this is absolutely the right place. If a kid lives for math Olympiads, quantum physics, or writing their own LLMs to derive the math, and finds doing reckless science experiments their version of blowing off steam on the weekends, they will love it. Though the gender ratio makes things weirder than they need to be.

If this description does not appeal to a kid, odds are it is not the right place. Which is FINE. Good luck.

Signed Caltech grad alum, so no direct UG experience but saw a lot first hand.

*For kids who would find the standard MIT degree requirements too easy

MIT has a lot of flexibility to take graduate classes, etc.

Also, the gender ratio at caltech is 50/50

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Caltech is the only school environment I can easily declare is completely miserable. There’s nothing fun going on at Caltech. It’s just an environment for people obsessed with STEM. Best for the introverted science kid who wants to go to aspires most to get a PhD/be a leader in STEM.

The question isn’t whether the school has wild parties and hot babes. The question is whether the school ends up being fun or soul crushing for students who love STEM.

MIT is fun for virtually all the STEM-loving nerds. Caltech is crushing for a good portion of the STEM-loving nerds (i.e. the student body)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Caltech is vastly vastly superior to Harvey mudd. only 35 students in Harvey Mudd's entire freshman class scored above 1560 on the sat. at Caltech, that number is closer to 80 percent of the class.

Harvey Mudd is test optional.
Caltech isn't.

Where is that 35 students figure coming from?

[Anonymous]

CalTech is pass fail for first 2 years, no? How can that be soul crushing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CalTech is pass fail for first 2 years, no? How can that be soul crushing?

Not only that, the median GPA there is above a 3.8.

It’s undoubtedly a rigorous school, but they admit students who can excel in the coursework.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CalTech is pass fail for first 2 years, no? How can that be soul crushing?

First two quarters. Third quarter of freshman year, you get normal grades.

It's intended to ease students - who have, without exception, always been the smartest person in their school - adjust to the fact that they're actually going to have to work for their grades. You'll have people coming in with literally 1550 SAT and straight As, and actually fail a class. It's a major shock to the system.

I actually didn't find it soul crushing, but that was a long time ago so things may have changed. I did find it extremely hard, a major shock for the first year, but I eventually rose to the challenge. The social life wasn't a problem. People there do actually get involved in sports, music, theater, and other extracurriculars. They do have parties just like any other college. They have a big culture of harmless pranks, the more tech-based and creative, the better.

It's either your place, or it isn't. If it's not your place, it probably will be soul-crushing. But if it works for you, it can be an amazing experience.

[Anonymous]

My daughter loved Caltech - it was challenging but in a good way, not at all soul crushing. And her peers were amazing - kind and brilliant and a surprising number who partied harder than seemed wise. The house system fostered very close friendships and many left with long term boyfriends/girlfriends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Caltech is the only school environment I can easily declare is completely miserable. There’s nothing fun going on at Caltech. It’s just an environment for people obsessed with STEM. Best for the introverted science kid who wants to go to aspires most to get a PhD/be a leader in STEM.

The question isn’t whether the school has wild parties and hot babes. The question is whether the school ends up being fun or soul crushing for students who love STEM.

MIT is fun for virtually all the STEM-loving nerds. Caltech is crushing for a good portion of the STEM-loving nerds (i.e. the student body)

Do you have a kid at each school? Wondering how you can speak so confidently about the student experience at each school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Caltech is vastly vastly superior to Harvey mudd. only 35 students in Harvey Mudd's entire freshman class scored above 1560 on the sat. at Caltech, that number is closer to 80 percent of the class.

Harvey Mudd is test optional.
Caltech isn't.

Where is that 35 students figure coming from?

Harvey Mudd's Common Data Set

Freshman class size: 236
130 enrolled freshman submitted SAT's

25%-50%-75%
1500-1510-1560

75 percent of freshman scored BELOW 1560, 25 percent above. 25% of 130 about 30 students. In fact, something like 40% scored below 1500 at Harvey Mudd when you realize only half bother to submit an SAT score. These are usually the below the 25th percentile crowd.

So, no, Caltech and Harvey Mudd are vastly different in the quality of their undergraduate students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Caltech is vastly vastly superior to Harvey mudd. only 35 students in Harvey Mudd's entire freshman class scored above 1560 on the sat. at Caltech, that number is closer to 80 percent of the class.

Harvey Mudd is test optional.
Caltech isn't.

Where is that 35 students figure coming from?

Harvey Mudd's Common Data Set

Freshman class size: 236
130 enrolled freshman submitted SAT's

25%-50%-75%
1500-1510-1560

75 percent of freshman scored BELOW 1560, 25 percent above. 25% of 130 about 30 students. In fact, something like 40% scored below 1500 at Harvey Mudd when you realize only half bother to submit an SAT score. These are usually the below the 25th percentile crowd.

So, no, Caltech and Harvey Mudd are vastly different in the quality of their undergraduate students

Yet their outcomes for salaries and PhD production are essentially indistinguishable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My daughter loved Caltech - it was challenging but in a good way, not at all soul crushing. And her peers were amazing - kind and brilliant and a surprising number who partied harder than seemed wise. The house system fostered very close friendships and many left with long term boyfriends/girlfriends.

What was her major? Did she take the analytical track or place out of any courses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Caltech is the only school environment I can easily declare is completely miserable. There’s nothing fun going on at Caltech. It’s just an environment for people obsessed with STEM. Best for the introverted science kid who wants to go to aspires most to get a PhD/be a leader in STEM.

The question isn’t whether the school has wild parties and hot babes. The question is whether the school ends up being fun or soul crushing for students who love STEM.

MIT is fun for virtually all the STEM-loving nerds. Caltech is crushing for a good portion of the STEM-loving nerds (i.e. the student body)

Do you have a kid at each school? Wondering how you can speak so confidently about the student experience at each school.

This is well-known. I'm not splitting hairs, this is from alumni of the respective schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CalTech is pass fail for first 2 years, no? How can that be soul crushing?

https://www.its.caltech.edu/~ph1a/QPs/QP1-53.pdf
These are the quiz problems for first quarter physics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CalTech is pass fail for first 2 years, no? How can that be soul crushing?

https://www.its.caltech.edu/~ph1a/QPs/QP1-53.pdf
These are the quiz problems for first quarter physics.

How long do they have for this?