What should I do to get into MIT, CalTech, etc?

In summary, the conversation suggests that the key factors for getting into a top-notch college like MIT or CalTech are achieving high grades, taking on leadership roles, participating in unique extracurricular activities, and excelling in areas that are challenging. However, there is no guarantee of admission even with a stellar application, and it's important to also focus on other aspects such as teacher recommendations and essays. Additionally, there is some debate about the emphasis placed on extracurriculars in the college admissions process. Ultimately, it's important to find a balance and not get too caught up in trying to meet certain criteria for admission.
  • #71
Vanadium 50 said:
I've interviewed over 100 applicants. If you are serious about MIT, I would get interviewed. "I'm really, really, really passionate about going to MIT" and "I can't be bothered to spend an hour doing something which demonstrably improves my chances to get in" are not exactly compatible statements.

Have you interviewed via Skype? Is the interview process usually something like http://www.emma.cam.ac.uk/admissions/videos/interviews/?showvideo=24"? Or is it a much more casual, "hey, apparently I should get to know you and tell the big boys what I think of you, so let's get talking, shall we?!" kinda thing?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Vanadium 50 said:
I've interviewed over 100 applicants. If you are serious about MIT, I would get interviewed. "I'm really, really, really passionate about going to MIT" and "I can't be bothered to spend an hour doing something which demonstrably improves my chances to get in" are not exactly compatible statements.

That's I guess the main issue; If I was asked "Why MIT?", I wouldn't know how to answer it because I feel I'd be just as happy there as I would be at Cornell, Harvard, William&Mary, UIUC, the list goes on. Maybe since I'm still an undergrad, I don't see the big differences.

Any other attempt at a response would be some soliloquy I pull out of my ***; "Amazing things happen at MIT, revolutionary things, and I want to contribute," blah blah blah.
 
  • #73
I don't know what's on your link. Interviews are fairly informal.
 
  • #74
Vanadium 50 said:
I don't particularly think it's a good idea to do this, and I know many MIT physics faculty agree with me (or at least many of the ones I talk to). But it is certainly not "very strong policy".

And I know of one professor on the graduate admissions committee at the time that said that he would explicitly veto any application coming in from an MIT undergraduate, and that you (meaning me) shouldn't bother applying. I remember the statement being that if he sees an undergraduate MIT application, he would immediately toss it into the trash. It turns that that he has been outvoted on this, but it was apparently a rare event.

I can give names and dates in private if you are interested.

Now it's possible that he was misinformed or what he said was restricted to theoretical astrophysics, but I'm not making this stuff up... I wouldn't be surprised if things were different in HEP, because I don't know of anyone in astrophysics with "dual degrees" and this is in part because pretty much everyone in my peer group was strongly dissuaded from applying by that particular professor.

Also, if it turns out that he was flat out wrong, and the lesson is not to believe everything that a professor tells you well, that's not the first time stuff like this has happened.

One other thing that I have seen on hiring decisions outside of MIT, is that a lot depends on who is on the committee. Personally, I put a low value on "school brand name" but I know of people that I work with that put a high value on this, and so whether you get hired or not depends a lot on the luck of the draw and who reviews your application.
 
Last edited:
  • #75
twofu said:
That's I guess the main issue; If I was asked "Why MIT?", I wouldn't know how to answer it because I feel I'd be just as happy there as I would be at Cornell, Harvard, William&Mary, UIUC, the list goes on. Maybe since I'm still an undergrad, I don't see the big differences.

Graduate school rarely has interviews. As far as undergraduate, MIT is a *VERY* different school from Harvard and W&M (which I have direct personal experience from), and I think it's also different from Cornell and UIUC.

If you don't know the differences, then you probably need to do more research, asking people that have been to MIT is one way of doing that. This also apply to graduate school. If they all look the same to you, then you need to do more research.

Any other attempt at a response would be some soliloquy I pull out of my ***; "Amazing things happen at MIT, revolutionary things, and I want to contribute," blah blah blah.

Let me tell you one thing that a lot of people are worried about.

It's a cold December morning. You are two thousand miles from home, and you feel rotten. You aren't making friends, you are getting extremely low scores in 18.01, and for the first time in your life you are not only not the smartest people in the room, but you feel as if you are the dumbest.

What are you going to do?
 
  • #76
Looking at the stats, I found a very interesting thing which is that most of the people with dual MIT undergraduates/Ph.D.'s graduated in the 1960's. The other cool thing is that there don't seem to be anyone recent with dual MIT undergraduates/Ph.D.'s in the database.

The reason I find that interesting is that when I knew him Professor "I will toss applications from MIT undergraduates into the trash" was a junior professor, but I just did a google and he has since been promoted to a pretty high position within the department, and the dates match up with the Ph.D. graduation dates.
 
  • #77
twofish-quant said:
It's a cold December morning. You are two thousand miles from home, and you feel rotten. You aren't making friends, you are getting extremely low scores in 18.01, and for the first time in your life you are not only not the smartest people in the room, but you feel as if you are the dumbest.

What are you going to do?

Was that you by any chance? What a bad feeling of isolation :(. I guess suck it up and work harder :/ as far as scores are concerned. I mean if scores are that low... something must be up.

As far as friends and 2 thousand miles from home are weird because I hate my home; I've been away from that hell hole for 3 years and I love it. But I get your point.

And I probably haven't done enough research. I get all my information from my advisor. "get good GPA, perfect GRE, take grad classes. Competition for astrophysics is very STIFF at competitive departments."

I'm told to apply to these wonderful schools, I guess I should take their word for it. I just want to learn about the cosmos (intensively), get a decent job doing something that isn't unbearable, and die knowing something. I don't plan to revolutionize Physics and I know I'm not capable so top schools won't maybe aren't the place for some. I've gone on a little rant here but it's always fun talking to you twofish =P
 
  • #78
Just come be a ramblin' gamblin' hell of an engineer at Georgia Tech. We are a lot of fun and we call our degrees "B.S." and "B.A." not this "S.B." and "A.B." nonsense. Oh, and we don't do any of that magna cum saude laude whatever it is; we just say "with honours" or "with high honours" or "with highest honours." Also, we're in the south, which is much better than any other place :)
 
  • #79
twofu said:
Was that you by any chance?

It's pretty much everyone that ends up at MIT.

One thing that you makes MIT different from state schools is that if you are a high-school uber-genius in high school, you are likely to be one of the smartest people at a state public university. However, this has a flip side in that most people at MIT find themselves below average or struggling for the first time in their life.

What a bad feeling of isolation :(. I guess suck it up and work harder :/ as far as scores are concerned. I mean if scores are that low... something must be up.

This is a bad idea.

What will likely happen is that if you are depressed and your grades are low, and you work harder you'll find that your grades will stay low and you will get even more depressed. Hopefully, things will bottom out, but there have been situations in which things got really, really, really bad.

One reason that MIT has a "no record" (i.e. failing a class is not recorded) policy for freshmen is that it takes time to get used to the expectations and work-load. One good thing about MIT is that it will work you at your limits, but when you are your limits and things aren't going well, then "work harder" will cause more problems.

One thing that this is good training is that by the time I was in graduate school, I was cool with being "inferior." One problem with people that come out of a state school environment is that it delays the "day of reckoning" until graduate school.

I get all my information from my advisor. "get good GPA, perfect GRE, take grad classes. Competition for astrophysics is very STIFF at competitive departments."

One thing that you should do is to start looking at the web pages of schools that you are interested in and see if they do the type of research you are interested in.

I'm told to apply to these wonderful schools, I guess I should take their word for it.

You are training to be a scientist. The last thing that you want to do is to take someone's word for it.

I just want to learn about the cosmos (intensively), get a decent job doing something that isn't unbearable, and die knowing something.

1) Go into graduate school expecting that you will not get a research professorship.

2) Expect to be more confused about the cosmos leaving graduate school than entering it. One thing that becomes more and more obvious when you do graduate research is that there are some things that you will never understand.
 
  • #80
Robert1986 said:
Oh, and we don't do any of that magna cum saude laude whatever it is; we just say "with honours" or "with high honours" or "with highest honours."

MIT doesn't have honors degrees at all. The philosophy is just making it through is an honor. Also, you have so making people that are pushing themselves to the limit, that giving people something to fight over is just going to make the environment worse.
 
  • #81
twofish-quant said:
It's a cold December morning. You are two thousand miles from home, and you feel rotten. You aren't making friends, you are getting extremely low scores in 18.01, and for the first time in your life you are not only not the smartest people in the room, but you feel as if you are the dumbest.

What are you going to do?

Laugh at myself while I reach out for my pack of Reds. Go out, do something fun. (like, going to a cafe with my favourite book and observing **** happen) When I get back in, I'd sit down, figure out what I did wrong exactly. Or whether it wasn't directly my fault and it was something else. Maybe whoever grades the papers, does it in a harsh manner for some reason. If it's a "me" thing, I'll see where I faulted in my learning. And the minute I understand what I'm doing, even if I get a B- and not an A+ because of crappy exam technique (for the most part), I don't care anymore and I move on to another topic of study or go more advanced. Note that it would depend on why I got the B- exactly. If it's for something like exam technique and I couldn't finish the exam on time, I wouldn't care. If I truly don't understand the material, I'd do it again.

What did you do?
 
  • #82
Vanadium 50 said:
I don't know what's on your link. Interviews are fairly informal.

It was mock interview by Emmanuel College, Cambridge for a Mathematics student.

Yeah, that's what I concluded when I tried looking for more information. Somebody on college confidential (another MIT interviewer) said that "Why do you want to be at MIT?" is a question that many ask. Would you agree that, in general, this is correct?

Interestingly enough, the question is not "why do you want to study at MIT?" or "why do you want to study X subject at MIT?", it's about "being at MIT"... (which, I must say, is more convenient for me)
 
  • #83
I would draw no inferences whatsoever from what I read on College Confidential. The posters there have had zero or one interviews themselves.
 
  • #84
twofish-quant said:
MIT doesn't have honors degrees at all. The philosophy is just making it through is an honor. Also, you have so making people that are pushing themselves to the limit, that giving people something to fight over is just going to make the environment worse.

Yeah, that makes sense. I spend much time listening to the MIT lectures on OCW and I can say, without a doubt and with few exceptions, that much more material is covered than at the corresponding classes at GaTech.
 
  • #85
Robert1986 said:
Yeah, that makes sense. I spend much time listening to the MIT lectures on OCW and I can say, without a doubt and with few exceptions, that much more material is covered than at the corresponding classes at GaTech.

The institute term for this is "drinking from a fire hose".

However curiously even though there is more material covered, in some ways the courses are easier. What happens at UT Austin is that the physics department has weed out courses at the lower divisions, whereas one good thing about MIT physics is that there really are no weed out courses. People have rather high (and perhaps unreachable) standards, but one thing that I liked about MIT is that people there are extraordinarily helpful.
 
  • #86
Robert1986 said:
Yeah, that makes sense. I spend much time listening to the MIT lectures on OCW and I can say, without a doubt and with few exceptions, that much more material is covered than at the corresponding classes at GaTech.

And no one attends the lectures at cal tech even though they are taught by nobel laureates (which doesn't correlate to pedagogy skill). I think the main advantage to going to great schools are the people and resources, not the lectures.

Where do you even find many lectures on OCW? They seem to only have a few video lectures for the basic classes.
 
  • #87
I absolutely love Georgia Tech. We have a lot of profs who are at the forefront of their respective research areas. One of my absolute favorite profs was Dr. Prasad Tetali who has done a lot of well-known research. On top of that, I have NEVER experience a prof who is just bad at teaching. To me, it really seems that the department does a good job of hiring good teachers. As for OCW, I only listen really to the CalcI-III/ODE lectures. I listen to about 4 lectures a week and there is more stuff in those courses than we cover. (I also watch various other courses but not regularly.) I really like listening to Prof. Mattuck's ODE course; no matter how many times I listen, I think he is really funny and interesting. However, while I think MIT is above GaTech, I think that GaTech and CalTech are on equal footing when it comes to engineering. In fact, GT ranks a bit higher than CalTech in the US News and World Report Engineering rankings. Anyway, I would have really enjoyed going to MIT, but I couldn't have gotten in.
 
  • #88
I have always thought that it is more important to know what you are going to study and why rather than where are you going to study it unless there's a major reason for it. In some countries, the difference across universities is so sharp that where matters as much as what. In my country, only 3 universities can be considered good enough to inernational standards. In the US, my experience is that usually the top state school does a pretty good job.
 
  • #89
Fizex said:
And no one attends the lectures at cal tech even though they are taught by nobel laureates (which doesn't correlate to pedagogy skill). I think the main advantage to going to great schools are the people and resources, not the lectures.

One point here. There is this idea that if you meet a Nobel laureate that you will be awesomely inspired and will receive nuggets of wisdom. Sometimes meeting a famous person is useful even when that doesn't happen.

One thing that affects my view of the world is that I've met Nobel laureates that turn out to be first class jerks. If you read the public literature, no one is going to say publicly that so-and-so is a brilliant scientist but a miserable human being, but this is the sort of thing that you can figure out if you have some social interaction with them, and when you get hooked into the rumor mill, you figure out that everyone else thinks that person is a first class jerk also.

Also, something that also is inspiration is that sometimes you meet a "great person" and when you look at them close up, they look just ordinary. The media makes so-and-so look like the god of business, but when you see them, they just seem like ordinary people. This is weirdly inspirational, because you get it into your head that if so-and-so can start a multi-billion dollar company, then so can I.

And then there is the license to complain. Since I went to a big name school, if I start talking about how bad big name schools are, that will be taken more seriously than if I didn't.

It's these sorts of social interactions that make going to a big name school useful. It would be nice if someone could make these social interactions more generally available.

Where do you even find many lectures on OCW? They seem to only have a few video lectures for the basic classes.

One of my complaints about OCW is that I don't think that MIT is pushing it as hard as it could or should. Part of the problem is that OCW was a very high priority project of the last president Charles Vest, but I don't get the feeling that is really high on Hockfield's list of projects, which is a shame. Vest came out of a major public university so the idea of "educating the public" was very high on his agenda. I've never got the sense that it was high on Hockfield's agenda.

Also one issue that MIT has seriously been struggling with is the question "if you can get an MIT education via OCW and Khan Academy, then why pay $XXXXX to go to MIT?" One reason I admire Vest and some of the other professors that were heavily involved in OCW was "the values of MIT make it essential that we do this, and we'll figure out the money part later." However, since MIT had a budget crisis, money becomes more important, and so a project that will kill your own revenue stream has more resistance.

What I think is going to happen with OCW is that it will be sort of like the GUI. Xerox PARC came up with the idea, but it was Apple that made this mainstream. I think that someone other than MIT will take OCW to the next level. I can't do it because I've got a million other things to do, but if anyone listening wants to do it, then I'll do what I can to help.
 
Last edited:
  • #90
twofish-quant said:
If you read the public literature, no one is going to say publicly that so-and-so is a brilliant scientist but a miserable human being, but this is the sort of thing that you can figure out if you have some social interaction with them, and when you get hooked into the rumor mill, you figure out that everyone else thinks that person is a first class jerk also.

Have you seen http://prl.aps.org/edannounce/PhysRevLett.100.070001? "If a physicist wants to work in such a collaboration, she or he must be sure to have a tough mind and sharp elbows" Wow! I don't think they run the army like that.

Watson also has a famous self-indicting book.

twofish-quant said:
Also one issue that MIT has seriously been struggling with is the question "if you can get an MIT education via OCW and Khan Academy, then why pay $XXXXX to go to MIT?" One reason I admire Vest and some of the other professors that were heavily involved in OCW was "the values of MIT make it essential that we do this, and we'll figure out the money part later." However, since MIT had a budget crisis, money becomes more important, and so a project that will kill your own revenue stream has more resistance.

Good for Vest! But don't they consider it a form of advertising? Everyone else has their notes on the internet now. Surely MIT has to at least keep up?
 
  • #91
Robert1986 said:
I absolutely love Georgia Tech. We have a lot of profs who are at the forefront of their respective research areas. One of my absolute favorite profs was Dr. Prasad Tetali who has done a lot of well-known research. On top of that, I have NEVER experience a prof who is just bad at teaching. To me, it really seems that the department does a good job of hiring good teachers.

When I was at MIT in the late-1980's, I had some teachers that were bad and in some cases spectacularly bad. One irony is that because the students are all very good, having an incompetent teacher didn't do that much damage. People grumble and get annoyed, but in the end, people end up learning the material anyway.

One thing that MIT does do which I think is a good thing is that they put the best teachers in lower division core classes. The reason for this is that if you have a bad teacher in an upper level class, the students have already learned the basics so they aren't going to do much damage, and having upper level students go through a bad lecture is outweighed by the benefits of having that student interact personally with the professor in the lab. If you have a bad teacher in a lower division class then it's a disaster because it means that students can't master the basics.

One other thing is that if you have a class of 300 students, you need pretty good administration skills. There are a few professor that I can think of who are decent but not spectacular lecturers, but they are really, really good at making a class of 300-500 students run like clockwork. Also MIT puts a lot of effort and resources into lower division. One thing that MIT does which is one of those simple things that is not so simple is that it hand grades all tests, so that you have a real live human tell you what you did wrong. It's an logistical challenge to hand grade 500 calculus I tests rather than just do multiple choice, but they think its essential.

In a lot of schools it's the reverse. The lower division classes are "weed out" classes and so the school has no particular reason to put good teachers there.

I really like listening to Prof. Mattuck's ODE course; no matter how many times I listen, I think he is really funny and interesting.

Arthur Mattuck is certainly a "personality." One of his good points is that he really, really, really cares about teaching, and when we had a issue in running the course evaluation guide, he was one of the important people we'd go to.

However, while I think MIT is above GaTech

If you've never had a bad lecturer then GaTech is better than MIT in that area.

I think that GaTech and CalTech are on equal footing when it comes to engineering. In fact, GT ranks a bit higher than CalTech in the US News and World Report Engineering rankings.

I don't trust those rankings at all. One problem with rankings is that in order to compare Caltech, MIT, Gatech, you really need to have someone that has taken classes and gone through those schools.
 
  • #92
Hey, I'm a college freshman who applied to MIT, Caltech, and GaTech last admission cycle, and got in 2 of them (Caltech and GaTech). As an incoming high school student, here are the things to look into.
1) You should get top grades in math and science classes (if not all classes) and SAT without much efforts. Standard hs AP curriculum is terribly easy and provides a really poor foundation, imo, especially if you want to become a mathematician.
2) If you truly love math and science, you need to explore and pursue math and science endeavors outside of classrooms that challenge you and open your horizon of knowledge. Here is some ideas:
- Math and science comps such as AMC/AIME/USAMO, USNCO, USABO, USACO, USAPho etc.
Doing well in these competitions are no jokes, especially for the math series (AMC/AIME/USAMO), you need proper training, background, and talent to do well in math comp., but if ur a math count national qualifier/state champion etc. You are in a good position to do well. If haven't done math count in middle school or haven't heard of math count, then you should try to take the AMC anyway, but don't expect to make USAMO, if AIME, on ur first try. imo, math competitions are the hardest and most stimulating experience, regardless of wat ur interested in science, u should at least take the AMC and do math competitions throughout high school, and win, if not place high on them.
- USABO is the easiest, intellectually, tho u need to spend lots of time learning bio from Campbell bio book. However, making finalist round, and the IBO team is much harder and requires hardcore studying. Many of those have taken advanced college classes. I don't know much about USApho, and others. if ur good at math and have a good physics knowledge, u should do well in it, at least making semifinalist round.
3) Look into Siemens/Intel STS, research based competitions (this should be a good experience too, if u can find a mentor and start ur research project early)
4) Science/math camps
- SSP
- Promys
- MITES/YESS
- RSI (this one is incredibly hard to get in)
- MOSP (top scorers for USAMO) etc
5) Admission matters
- MIT is incredibly unpredictable, since they follow the Harvard model in creating a diverse class. To get in as a science, pure academic standpoint, u need to tank out on the comps i mentioned above and basically become the best in the field. Others got in because of other artsy talents etc.
- Caltech is more predictable: u need to be the most hardcore of the applicant pool in terms of academic standpoint and potential to become a good scientist/mathematicians/engineers. U need basically to be an academic beast, here is another helpful link
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/california-institute-technology/1182824-suugest-reading-two-threads-before-you-post-chance-me-caltech-type-request.html

Based on what u've posted, u seem to have good credentials and on track to get in those top schools. As u learn more materials and hone ur test taking skills, u should be able to massacre the SAT/ACT reading/writing.

Many got in the two elite schools without any of the things mentioned above (excluding 1). I didn't know about those in my senior year; those are just some idesas, not formulas. If ur in a good and well funded public hs, private schools, u may very well be exposed to the competitions above. I hope this helps. (Edit: i forgot this is a zombie thread, awkward)
 
Last edited:
  • #93
atyy said:
Have you seen http://prl.aps.org/edannounce/PhysRevLett.100.070001? "If a physicist wants to work in such a collaboration, she or he must be sure to have a tough mind and sharp elbows" Wow! I don't think they run the army like that.

The immense amount of politics in high energy physics is the main reason I stayed out of that field. In part the politics has to do with the nature of the field. HEP experiments are massive engineering projects. One thing that is good about computational fields is that you can spend decades putting together a simulation, but once you have written the code, you can just duplicate it to anyone who wants it, and that makes it possible to have collaborations of three or four people, rather than hundreds.

Watson also has a famous self-indicting book.

One reason that its good to go to MIT so that you see things first hand. It's different to read about something than to have it happen to you personally or people that you know.

Good for Vest! But don't they consider it a form of advertising? Everyone else has their notes on the internet now. Surely MIT has to at least keep up?

Why does MIT need to advertise itself? It's not as if people don't know about it. :-) :-) :-)

Also, decision making at MIT is surprisingly slow and bureaucratic. The reason is that MIT works by consensus, and consensus decision making tends to be slow. Also, MIT doesn't have a very strong tradition of community outreach. Finally, things like distance learning just isn't a high priority for Hockfield. Her vision of MIT is focused on making it a premier research cross-disciplinary institute, and so that gets first priority.

Something else to point out is the fact that MIT is slow helped it. Columbia and NYU were a lot faster to embrace distance learning, but what they came up with (google for fathom) just blew up and they had to shut it down. The thing about OCW is that it still exists.

But one good thing about MIT is that it's part of an general "technology ecosystem". If the next step in distance learning can't happen at MIT, people can just take those ideas and make it work somewhere else.
 
  • #94
kamikaze1 said:
- MIT is incredibly unpredictable, since they follow the Harvard model in creating a diverse class.

It is unpredictable, and diversity is really important to have MIT function. One thing that MIT has found from experience is that if you want to come up with new and original ideas, you just have to have people from different backgrounds. If you have five stereotypical science nerds in a room, they are just going to come up with the standard "science nerd" ideas. So if you want something original, you have to people in the room that are smart but *aren't* stereotypical science nerds.

Also having a diverse student body is important because it gives you more choices. If everyone on campus is a science nerd, they life will suck if you don't want to be a science nerd, but one good thing about MIT is that because there are so many different types of people, you can find a group that you can fit in, or you can decide to do something original and combine the best of all the groups.

The other thing that I liked about MIT is that there is a lot *less* competition than in a lot of other universities. If you have only science nerds in a room, you end up competing over who is the "nerdiest", but what ends up happening at MIT is that because you have lots of people that say "hey, I don't care about being the nerdiest, and I want to be the most artistic."

Something that helped me a lot was that at MIT, I had a whole bunch of teachers and peer pressure to do X, but also a whole bunch of teachers and peer pressure to do not-X, which meant that in the end, I have to figure out for myself what I wanted to do.

The problem with this is that because the freshman class is only 1000 people, you have to reject a lot of people that would just do fine at MIT, and this problem is getting worse over time. Looking at historical admission rates, I'm pretty sure that MIT could double admission rates without reducing student quality, but the problem is that MIT just doesn't scale.

This is why I think MIT faculty and alumni are trying very hard to figure out how to get the MIT experience without getting admitted to MIT, and which is one reason I'm posting as much as I do. If you didn't get into MIT, I want to give you enough information so that you can build MIT or build something better than MIT where ever you do end up.
 
  • #95
twofish-quant said:
In a lot of schools it's the reverse. The lower division classes are "weed out" classes and so the school has no particular reason to put good teachers there.

Do weed out classes really exist?

A similar rumour is that some universities admit more graduate students than they can take so they have TAs. Then they flunk them out during qualifying exams.

Is there any publicly available evidence for such things? If they exist, aren't they unethical?
 
  • #96
atyy said:
Do weed out classes really exist?

For undergraduates. They do at University of Texas at Austin. They don't at MIT or William and Mary.

A similar rumour is that some universities admit more graduate students than they can take so they have TAs. Then they flunk them out during qualifying exams.

I can tell you publicly that at the University of Texas at Austin, the *astronomy* department doesn't do this, but I can't vouch for other departments there. If you are interested in rumor and hearsay, e-mail me in private, and I'll tell you what I've seen.

Is there any publicly available evidence for such things? If they exist, aren't they unethical?

This is why it's a good idea to talk to upperclassmen. As far as being unethical, you can argue the point.

One reason that UT Austin has weed out classes and MIT doesn't is that UT Austin has pretty open admissions whereas at MIT people are "weeded out" before they set foot on campus. One absolute firm and total requirement for an admission to MIT is that you have to convince people that you can get through the basic calculus and physics classes.

The other difference is that if you are UT Austin, and you flunk out of physics 101, there are a ton of other majors you can do, whereas at MIT if you can't pass 8.01 you can't get a degree in anything since physics and calculus is a required topic for all students.
 
  • #97
twofish-quant said:
One reason that UT Austin has weed out classes and MIT doesn't is that UT Austin has pretty open admissions whereas at MIT people are "weeded out" before they set foot on campus. One absolute firm and total requirement for an admission to MIT is that you have to convince people that you can get through the basic calculus and physics classes.

The other difference is that if you are UT Austin, and you flunk out of physics 101, there are a ton of other majors you can do, whereas at MIT if you can't pass 8.01 you can't get a degree in anything since physics and calculus is a required topic for all students.

While I do think that this makes sense, it isn't explicitly stated anywhere on the website. It can, however, be inferred from that page which says that even if they do offer "humanities" majors, one has to have the pre-req courses to graduate. And the page which says that mathematics up to the level of calculus should've been studied before.

Why is that so? I suspect it's because that might complicate things for them because there'd be more well-prepared people applying. Alternatively it could mean that people who aren't, wouldn't bother applying.

??!?
 
  • #98
Thy Apathy said:
Why is that so? I suspect it's because that might complicate things for them because there'd be more well-prepared people applying. Alternatively it could mean that people who aren't, wouldn't bother applying.

This is some educated guess work, but I much of it is that they don't want to scare off people that have decent math skills, but huge amounts of math anxiety. If you talk about math and physics too much, then you may scare off applicants that would do fine in 18.01 and 8.01, so the philosophy seems to be "give us your application and we'll figure out if you can make it through the general institute requirements."

Something that MIT has obviously tried to do is to broaden the types of people applying, but by having more people applying you run into the problem of too many good applicants, and not enough spaces.
 
  • #99
twofish-quant said:
This is why it's a good idea to talk to upperclassmen. As far as being unethical, you can argue the point.

One reason that UT Austin has weed out classes and MIT doesn't is that UT Austin has pretty open admissions whereas at MIT people are "weeded out" before they set foot on campus. One absolute firm and total requirement for an admission to MIT is that you have to convince people that you can get through the basic calculus and physics classes.

The other difference is that if you are UT Austin, and you flunk out of physics 101, there are a ton of other majors you can do, whereas at MIT if you can't pass 8.01 you can't get a degree in anything since physics and calculus is a required topic for all students.

What exactly is a weed-out class?

Is it one that is badly taught so that only those who already know the subject can pass?

Or is it one that is well-taught for the stated pre-requisites (like high school algebra - which I believe is the pre-requisite for one version of MIT's freshmen physics), and those who haven't reached the equivalent of 10th grade mathematics flunk out?

It's interesting though, that the most mathematically accomodating version at MIT is given over a longer time, and restricted to 100 students. (I think it's 8.01L of http://student.mit.edu/catalog/m8a.html#8.01l). Perhaps the public schools don't have the resources to have so many different versions of freshman physics?

They also have a version called 8.011 "Designed for students with previous experience in 8.01". Would you know if that's for those who took the course and didn't pass, or is that an advanced version for those who studied the subject in high school but want to do it again to make sure they've got the basics securely?
 
Last edited:
  • #100
atyy said:
What exactly is a weed-out class?

It's a class in which many/most people who talk the class are expected to fail and drop out. A lot of schools put some tough classes at the beginning to try to reduce the number of students that continue on in that major.

It's interesting though, that the most mathematically accomodating version at MIT is given over a longer time, and restricted to 100 students. (I think it's 8.01L of http://student.mit.edu/catalog/m8a.html#8.01l). Perhaps the public schools don't have the resources to have so many different versions of freshman physics?

What MIT is doing with freshman physics is one of the reasons that I think people should apply.

When I was an undergraduate, there were a few different tracks for 8.01 but they were all "big lecture class, recitation, test, and problem set." What MIT has been doing over the last few years is to totally rethink and redesign how 8.01 is taught, and today most frosh can take several different versions, some of which are taught in very different ways than when I was there.

Now I'm sure that the way that MIT teaches freshman physics will eventually end up to be the standard way at most universities in a few years, but you get it at MIT first.
 
  • #101
atyy said:
They also have a version called 8.011 "Designed for students with previous experience in 8.01". Would you know if that's for those who took the course and didn't pass, or is that an advanced version for those who studied the subject in high school but want to do it again to make sure they've got the basics securely?
Heh. 8.011 is a new invention for those who failed 8.01... they used to just teach 8.01 every term, not 8.01 in the fall and 8.011 in the spring. The advanced version of 8.01 is 8.012; it assumes that you have had at least 1D calculus (equivalent of 18.01 or AP Calculus BC) and has a lot more theory and math than 8.01.
 
<h2>1. How important are grades and test scores for getting into top universities like MIT and CalTech?</h2><p>Grades and test scores are definitely important factors that admissions committees consider when evaluating applicants for top universities like MIT and CalTech. However, they are not the only factors that are taken into account. These universities also look for well-rounded students who have demonstrated excellence in other areas such as extracurricular activities, leadership, and community involvement.</p><h2>2. What kind of extracurricular activities should I participate in to increase my chances of getting into MIT or CalTech?</h2><p>There is no specific set of extracurricular activities that will guarantee admission to top universities. It is more important to choose activities that you are passionate about and excel in. This could include participating in STEM-related clubs, conducting research projects, or competing in science fairs. It is also beneficial to have a diverse range of extracurricular activities, rather than just focusing on one area.</p><h2>3. Is it necessary to have research experience to get into MIT or CalTech?</h2><p>Having research experience can definitely strengthen your application to top universities like MIT and CalTech. However, it is not a requirement for admission. If you are interested in pursuing research, you can reach out to professors at your school or local universities to inquire about opportunities. You can also participate in research-related extracurricular activities, such as science fairs or summer programs.</p><h2>4. How important are recommendation letters for getting into top universities?</h2><p>Recommendation letters are an important component of your application to top universities. They provide insight into your character, academic abilities, and potential for success in college. It is important to choose recommenders who know you well and can speak to your strengths and achievements. This could include teachers, mentors, or supervisors from extracurricular activities.</p><h2>5. How can I stand out in my college application to top universities like MIT and CalTech?</h2><p>To stand out in your college application, it is important to showcase your unique talents, passions, and experiences. This could include participating in challenging courses, conducting research, or pursuing leadership roles. It is also important to have a strong personal statement that highlights your goals, motivations, and how you will contribute to the university community. Additionally, showcasing a strong work ethic and dedication to your academic pursuits can make you stand out to admissions committees.</p>

1. How important are grades and test scores for getting into top universities like MIT and CalTech?

Grades and test scores are definitely important factors that admissions committees consider when evaluating applicants for top universities like MIT and CalTech. However, they are not the only factors that are taken into account. These universities also look for well-rounded students who have demonstrated excellence in other areas such as extracurricular activities, leadership, and community involvement.

2. What kind of extracurricular activities should I participate in to increase my chances of getting into MIT or CalTech?

There is no specific set of extracurricular activities that will guarantee admission to top universities. It is more important to choose activities that you are passionate about and excel in. This could include participating in STEM-related clubs, conducting research projects, or competing in science fairs. It is also beneficial to have a diverse range of extracurricular activities, rather than just focusing on one area.

3. Is it necessary to have research experience to get into MIT or CalTech?

Having research experience can definitely strengthen your application to top universities like MIT and CalTech. However, it is not a requirement for admission. If you are interested in pursuing research, you can reach out to professors at your school or local universities to inquire about opportunities. You can also participate in research-related extracurricular activities, such as science fairs or summer programs.

4. How important are recommendation letters for getting into top universities?

Recommendation letters are an important component of your application to top universities. They provide insight into your character, academic abilities, and potential for success in college. It is important to choose recommenders who know you well and can speak to your strengths and achievements. This could include teachers, mentors, or supervisors from extracurricular activities.

5. How can I stand out in my college application to top universities like MIT and CalTech?

To stand out in your college application, it is important to showcase your unique talents, passions, and experiences. This could include participating in challenging courses, conducting research, or pursuing leadership roles. It is also important to have a strong personal statement that highlights your goals, motivations, and how you will contribute to the university community. Additionally, showcasing a strong work ethic and dedication to your academic pursuits can make you stand out to admissions committees.

Similar threads

  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
2
Replies
41
Views
16K
  • STEM Academic Advising
2
Replies
56
Views
6K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • STEM Academic Advising
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
2
Replies
35
Views
15K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
15
Views
9K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
16
Views
11K
Back
Top