Is the Math/Science Taught at MIT, Caltech, etc. Harder?

[WWGD]

Ultimately, at most of the top 50 universities, you will have professors being more or less uniformly-distributed from the top 50 schools. But being a great researcher doesn't make you better at teaching. And there are some seriously good people that choose to go to less prestigious schools for different reasons: warmer weather, closer to the beach/mountain/hometown, etc. And if you are motivated to learn more or something different, you can do it yourself or look it up online. If you need to be in a high-pressure environment to motivate yourself, that is a different story. In my school you could have a co-advisor from Frankly, unless you are in a really 10th tier school, I don't see the difference. Like someone said, at least at the undergraduate level many "elite schools" have many courses taught by T.A's in classes with 300 students.

 

[gfd43tg]

I transferred from a community college to Berkeley, and my GPA went down about a full point. Yes, students are smarter, classes are harder, and there is less access to help from the outside, so you have to be more independent.

Now, I wouldn't say they are vastly more difficult, but just moderately more difficult than what I experienced at my CC. The biggest difference is the need to be more independent, since class sizes are larger, so there is less individual help. Some CC transfers have fared better than me, and are doing quite well. Others took a big drop in their grade. Just depends on you (not sure if MIT/CalTech are much harder than Berkeley, could be the case).

 

[IGU]

Jeez, I probably took about 10-12 graduate courses in my whole graduate school period!

It varies a lot. I took none at all at Caltech (I wasn't a very good student and I didn't graduate). My math kid took eleven graduate classes while in high school (although he dropped two of them part way through, so only nine really).

More on topic though, I think the big difference at the elite schools is that even for the nominally identical course they expect you to thoroughly understand the material, not just be able to work the problems. So the homework won't just be "do these problems that we showed you how to do in class", but rather "use what you learned to work this problem unlike any examples you've seen". And not just "use the theorem you learned to do this problem" but rather "prove these lemmas related to the theorem you learned". Same material, maybe even the same book, but much harder work for the student.

I think Hercuflea is confused -- being able to pass identically named classes doesn't mean you've learned the same amount. Even with the same class name and the same book you'll find that the professors adjust the classes to the capabilities of their students. But one thing that I'm clearly in agreement with: you'll get out of it what you put into it. An elite university will provide you with more opportunities to work harder. If you are capable and hard working, such a place will be a better impedance match for you than a low level state school or CC. If you are an average student, you will drown at a place like Caltech or MIT, and that won't be a good experience.

 

[WWGD]

It varies a lot. I took none at all at Caltech (I wasn't a very good student and I didn't graduate). My math kid took eleven graduate classes while in high school (although he dropped two of them part way through, so only nine really).

More on topic though, I think the big difference at the elite schools is that even for the nominally identical course they expect you to thoroughly understand the material, not just be able to work the problems. So the homework won't just be "do these problems that we showed you how to do in class", but rather "use what you learned to work this problem unlike any examples you've seen". And not just "use the theorem you learned to do this problem" but rather "prove these lemmas related to the theorem you learned". Same material, maybe even the same book, but much harder work for the student.

I think Hercuflea is confused -- being able to pass identically named classes doesn't mean you've learned the same amount. Even with the same class name and the same book you'll find that the professors adjust the classes to the capabilities of their students. But one thing that I'm clearly in agreement with: you'll get out of it what you put into it. An elite university will provide you with more opportunities to work harder. If you are capable and hard working, such a place will be a better impedance match for you than a low level state school or CC. If you are an average student, you will drown at a place like Caltech or MIT, and that won't be a good experience.

True that pushing you harder is helpful , and competition can help. But if you are self-motivated towards learning, you can push yourself as much as you want. We have
students from some of the "Elite" schools ( don't mean to be derisive, just that the academic level of those is in question in this post) do well, but not as if they were in another league. BTW my grad program is one of the top 30 according to US news and others, but if you mod out by equality of scores, it is 10th, i.e., if there are , say 3 schools that receive the same score, then the school with next lowest score will be three places down. IOW we scored ( a few years back, last I checked) 4.0 out of a max of 5.0 , whatever that may mean. Still, once you start the actual thesis, you need to take a few leaps level-wise. And you may work with jut-about anyone in the world on a thesis.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

There are plenty of faculty at top 10 schools who obtained their bachelors at universities which are not apparently elite or famous, certainly more than those who got their PhD's at institutions which are not elite or famous. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. Nobody really cares about your coursework at the end of the day anyway, they care about your research. Of course some will say that hard course work -> better research, but this seems extremely dubious, considering that coursework barely scratches the surface of the highly specialized knowledge you'll need in research.

What's bizarre to me is why anybody would want tough coursework, considering that coursework is a distraction from research. I took really hard classes to try and "train" myself but just wound up bored and wishing I had more time to spend in the lab. Oh, and speaking of which, I'm at a scruffy, plebeian Big State School, and I had the opportunity to take lots of additional hard classes, including graduate classes. You can always just take more classes if the core program doesn't seem vigorous enough to you.

EDIT: I should clarify that your coursework does matter, but from the point of view of somebody who's trying to become an academic, it matters significantly less than your publications.

 

[jack476]

I'm currently in community college and will be transferring to a 4-year university hopefully in 2016. I'm wondering if the math and sciences taught at "big name" or "elite" colleges, such as MIT, Caltech, Princeton, Harvard, etc., are harder or more advanced than those same subjects taught at non-elite schools?

I'm not at all suggesting that I will be transferring to one of these elite schools (I don't know where I'll be going yet). But I'm simply wondering about this topic, as someone who attends a community college and has heard it said before that our classes are "inferior" to those of "real" colleges. I'm wondering about whether there is this gap in expectations generally and, if so, how big that gap is between various academic institutions.

Thanks.

Yes and no.

Yes, more is expected from the students, the students are often more hardworking and more ambitious.

More significantly though, no, because physics is physics and that's not going to change between two institutions. Kinematics will still be kinematics, electricity will still be electricity, calculus will still be calculus. Students from big name schools go on to do well because those schools only admit the most ambitious and most capable students, those with the most potential. And many students go in in the first place having been exposed to college-level content, if not in the form of AP exams then possibly dual-credit courses.

It's academically harder, more homework and more expectations and geared towards a higher caliber of student, but the material is not any more difficult.

That said, that should not be taken to mean that the education is "better" at those schools. If you want to go to such a school, go for the opportunity to meet like-minded students or to learn from some of the best professors in the world, not because you heard that CalTech = smart. You can easily go far at a less well-known school if you try.

 

[TMFKAN64]

The 100m dash is the 100m dash. It's something almost anyone can do.

Just not in under 10 seconds.

 

[WWGD]

<Snip>

. If you want to go to such a school, go for the opportunity to meet like-minded students or to learn from some of the best professors in the world, not because you heard that CalTech = smart. You can easily go far at a less well-known school if you try.

I think there is no clear correlation between being a good researcher and being a good professor. Big schools don't hire people who are good teachers; they hire good researchers. And schools that are "less demanding" give you the option of pacing yourself and setting your own agenda to a greater degree. Pushing yourself more does not imply learning more nor learning better. Only real/significant difference may be funding: being able to study without having to worry about supporting yourself, etc.

 

[bballwaterboy]

There are exceptions. When I was a professor at Central Washington state college, I wanted to provide the best opportunity to my top students, so I taught an extra calculus class from Mike Spivak's book to the few who could handle it. I taught it free so my department did not mind that it only had three or four students. We went from that into Spivak's Differential Geometry as a seminar, and those students, and several faculty who attended, learned a lot.

Greetings, again, everyone. Was just perusing through this older thread and wanted to ask about these books by Mike Spivak having seen them mentioned several times. First, which Calculus book by Spivak are you referring to mathwonk? I'd be interested in checking it out. You've really piqued my curiosity.

And, secondly, what makes Spivak's math books difficult for students? Thanks so much!

 

[bballwaterboy]

re: Jack476 (Apologies. I can't seem to quote your message above in the reply box - the quote button seemed to have disappeared.)

That's a good perspective. One thing I had thought of as well is that the tests may be potentially harder at these schools.

But, I appreciate the well-reasoned view you've offered as well.

 

[jtbell]

wanted to ask about these books by Mike Spivak having seen them mentioned several times.

Plenty of discussion of Spivak down the hall in the Science & Math Textbooks forum, as shown by a search restricted to that forum:

https://www.physicsforums.com/search/512653/?q=spivak&t=post&o=relevance&g=1&c[node]=21

Have fun browsing!

I've never read Spivak myself, being a mere physicist rather than a mathematician, but I've seen it mentioned here plenty of times.

 

[HuskyNamedNala]

Not all schools are created equal, this is true. I went to a high ranking small research university for undergrad and got a lot more out of my education than my friends who went to lower tier schools. I also have a stronger network. At the very least you can objectively look at your required classes for your major at respective programs. My program, for instance, had some high caliber class requirements compared to a few of my friends who had to take 2 semesters worth of "electives" (If you consider The History of Rock and Roll an appropriate class for a CS major elective. He also did not have to take anything about calc II).

At the same time:
I worked very hard and I was passionate about what I was learning. There were a good fraction of slackers who got by leaching off the "smart" kids. I went to graduate school at a lower tier university because I thought funding was secure (it wasn't, but that's another issue) and I noticed the distribution of students who took their education seriously was much lower than in my undergrad. They had a lot more money and a much more beautiful campus/location, but I hated working amongst people who didn't seem to take their work seriously. I left that university and haven't since return to grad school. Because of that move and going to a good undergraduate school I have 60 grand in debt. Financially, it wasn't a good idea.

That said, prestige doesn't matter because whoever is holding the most money ultimately gets what accolades they want, regardless of how good they actually are.

Please consider the following:
*Does the university I want to attend have a broad scope of classes or offer classes I am confident I would like to take and am interested in?
*Will I get a good financial aid package...IE minimize my loan expenditure?
*Are there extracurricular clubs relevant to my major?
Visit the school!
Visit the school!
again, visit the school!
And ask yourself
*Did I feel like I connected with the students? Was it easy to get on the same page, converse, socialize, etc?
*Did I get a good vibe? Could I see myself doing well at this institution?
*Did I like the professors I met? Did they seem happy?
*Did the students throughout the campus seem happy? Did I "like the crowd"?