Why Caltech Is in a Class by Itself

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2010/12/why_caltech_is_in_a_class_by_i.html

by Umalu • 16 years ago

125 147 16 years ago

jrockway• 16 years ago

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.

wallflower• 16 years ago

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

VictorHo• 16 years ago

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.

quanticle2• 16 years ago

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.

jshen• 16 years ago

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.

colinsidoti• 16 years ago

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.

russell• 16 years ago

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.

sjsivak2• 16 years ago

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.

yters• 16 years ago

Why can't school be mostly focused on academics? It's hard to excel without focus.

cullenking2• 16 years ago

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.

samtp• 16 years ago

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.

sjsivak2• 16 years ago

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?

blacksmythe• 16 years ago

  >> However, I think most people would agree that academics are not the only thing that matters for success, 
  >> either personally or professionally.

I would agree. I graduated from Caltech in engineering, and on the whole I would say that my class has been fairly successful in whatever they did. However, if you look at people that are the best known in their field, most of them combine being very strong technically (but not in my observation the best in their field) with tremendous drive and a talent for self-promotion.

bioh42_25• 16 years ago

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.

HeyLaughingBoy• 16 years ago

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.

WalterBright10• 16 years ago

(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.

quanticle2• 16 years ago

/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.

huertanix• 16 years ago

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.

HistoryInAction10• 16 years ago

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

jessriedel8• 16 years ago

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.

Alex3917• 16 years ago

"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...

rsheridan62• 16 years ago

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.

cullenking2• 16 years ago

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.

wtn• 16 years ago

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.

holman2• 16 years ago

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.

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.

eugeneiiim• 16 years ago

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.

whakojacko• 16 years ago

ditto 2006, they clearly like that introduction ;)

araneae7• 16 years ago

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.

_pius8• 16 years ago

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.

jberryman• 16 years ago

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.

jessriedel8• 16 years ago

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....)

Lewisham2• 16 years ago

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)

endtime• 16 years ago

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.

joe_the_user• 16 years ago

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.

HistoryInAction10• 16 years ago

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.

alexgartrell• 16 years ago

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.

HistoryInAction10• 16 years ago

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."

kkshin• 16 years ago

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)

dgordon• 16 years ago

"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.

HilbertSpace6• 16 years ago

That CMU President was Jerry Cohon?

holman2• 16 years ago

Correctamungo.

brianlash• 16 years ago

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.

mtviewdave• 16 years ago

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.

danyoel• 16 years ago

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...

cafard• 16 years ago

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.

jessriedel8• 16 years ago

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.

prayag7• 16 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

prayag7• 16 years ago

I hate it when people downvote without making an effort of writing (even a brief) rebuttal.

ethnomusicolog• 16 years ago

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.

tzs2• 16 years ago

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.

jessriedel8• 16 years ago

This is just semantics. Affirmative action, in this context, means favoring certain minorities in the admissions process.

Anechoic• 16 years ago

* Rather, they sought out qualified women and recruited them, much the way other schools recruit athletes*

that is exactly what affirmative action is.

jessriedel8• 16 years ago

> 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.

prayag7• 16 years ago

>"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.

prayag7• 16 years ago

>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.

dev_jim• 16 years ago

Malcolm Gladwell's books are becoming the new Freakonomics...

cantbecool• 16 years ago

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.

flip-flop• 16 years ago

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.

HistoryInAction10• 16 years ago

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.

ernestipark• 16 years ago

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'.

cma• 16 years ago

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.

iwwr• 16 years ago

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.

alex1• 16 years ago

Seems like link is down. Mirror?

nice1• 16 years ago

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.

ashbrahma• 16 years ago

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.

carpdiem2• 16 years ago

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.

bioh42_25• 16 years ago

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?

kenjackson4• 16 years ago

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".

WalterBright10• 16 years ago

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.

MrMan• 16 years ago

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?

eibrahim• 16 years ago

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.

kenjackson4• 16 years ago

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.

tzs2• 16 years ago

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.

ryanwaggoner• 16 years ago

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.

WalterBright10• 16 years ago

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.

Lukeas142• 16 years ago

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

reinhardt2• 16 years ago

Yes.

Lukeas142• 16 years ago

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?

HilbertSpace6• 16 years ago

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.

WalterBright10• 16 years ago

>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.

HilbertSpace6• 16 years ago

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.

WalterBright10• 16 years ago

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."

WalterBright10• 16 years ago

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.

HilbertSpace6• 16 years ago

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.

HistoryInAction10• 16 years ago

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)

WalterBright10• 16 years ago

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.

enerene• 16 years ago

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.

snikolov• 16 years ago

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.

bokonist• 16 years ago

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.

partition• 16 years ago

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.

Why Caltech Is in a Class by Itself

Related Stories