4 ms·

I don't think the data supports this: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/california-institute-of-technology https://www.nytimes.com/i

I don't think the data supports this: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/california-institute-of-technology https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobilit... I do think it's true that Caltech students are all very passionate about STEM, so the average family wealth is less apparent.

WalterBright 4y ago
> the data Keep in mind that I attended in the 70s. Nothing stays the same. I have little idea if Caltech is the same today as then, and rather doubt it. One obvious change is their mission statement has changed drastically. In the 1978 "Caltech Information for Students" pg 105 it says simply: > The primary purpose of the undergraduate school of the California Institute of Technology, as stated by the Trustees, is "to provide a collegiate education which will best train the creative type of scientist or engineer so urgently needed in our educational, governmental, and industrial development."
- ridgeguy 4y ago
  >Keep in mind that I attended in the 70s. Nothing stays the same. I have little idea if Caltech is the same today as then, and rather doubt it. Late 60s, Page, for me. I was lower middle class, which seemed to be the great majority. I recall only one House contemporary who was from serious wealth. Would never have known but for developing a friendship. As you say, I doubt things are similar today.
- umvi 4y ago
  Caltech is very different today than it was 50 years ago. Modern Caltech recently cancelled Robert Millikan (the founder)
  - red-iron-pine 4y ago
    explain
  - everybodyknows 4y ago
    Millikan as in the oil drop experiment, foundational to quantum physics?
  - markdown 4y ago
    Looks like he was a rabid racist and eugenecist. Glad to see that modern Caltech has progressed.
    - ironcurtain 4y ago
      Don’t you worry, they’ll come for you eventually.
      - markdown 4y ago
        One would hope so. Ideally, the people of the future will have progressed beyond the relative savagery of me and my peers and look upon us with disdain. Perhaps for how much I enjoy a good steak, or for the genital mutilation of our boys.
        flappyeagle 4y ago
        Or you could like... understand that people behave in the context of their time in history, be glad we've moved past that, and celebrate the contributions of the people that got us to where we are. I can celebrate George Washington as a founder of the country and also understand he was a slave owner.
        esrauch 4y ago
        I think the problem is that we're really bad at any amount of nuance: people we celebrate are treated as flawless saints beyond reproach rather than humans who achieved something great in one area. It turns out even Gandi, Mother Theresa, etc had a pretty sketchy side, because shocker no human actually meets that bar. But since we're categorically unable to say someone did a great thing while actually being pretty immoral by that's standards, the only options that the university seem to have available to it are entirely condoning their unacceptable side or else disowning them.
        faeriechangling 4y ago
        Pet ownership is my favourite example of what will be seen as immoral in the future.
  - 77pt77 4y ago
    He should have been canceled for all the experimental fraud he committed.
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  If college is the only way to make a good living, then rational actors will game and lobby their way to getting in. Even in the 1990s, a CS program was easy to get into and a local 4 year degree was sufficient for most lines of work.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    At least in the 70s, if you gamed your way into admission at Caltech by doing test prep, coaching, having someone else do your application essays, etc., you were going to be sorry. Because you would find it impossible to do the work required. Caltech did a good job of screening because the ones they admitted could do the work (though a lot dropped out simply because they didn't want to work). But there were a few that couldn't, no matter how hard they worked at it, and just wound up leaving. A friend of mine dropped out of Caltech after a couple years, and disappeared. I ran into him many years later, and we did some catching up. 10 years after dropping out, he asked Caltech if he could come back and try again. They said sure (one of the nice things about Caltech's philosophy). He got straight A's. I asked him if he had gotten any smarter, he said no, he was just willing to work the second time around. Of course, there were some students who just effortlessly aced everything. Hal Finney (yes, that Hal) was one of them. Being around people like that was just amazing.
    - nebula8804 4y ago
      For as far as I can remember, this is the same philosophy held at my alma mater: NJIT. I was admitted into the CS program in 07 and got put on probation my first semester. I transfered to community college and messed around with bad grades for a while until I got my act together. I was readmitted and from what I could tell, they essentially have guaranteed admission If you have at least like a ~2.6 GPA in a science related degree. Quite a low bar. However you are expected to work hard once in the program. That didn't change once I went back, although the school as a whole was a lot less scary and intimidating the second time around. I think this is true for a lot of engineering schools. Maybe there just isn't as much of a demand to go to the pure STEM schools as there is the schools that have everything. Like I remember looking at requirements for Rutgers at the same time and essentially they had like a 3.2 (or maybe 3.4 GPA) minimum and you'd have to re-take all the core CS classes as they would not accept those classes from community college.
- ajkjk 4y ago
  How could they keep that in mind if you never said it ..

WalterBright 4y ago

> the data Keep in mind that I attended in the 70s. Nothing stays the same. I have little idea if Caltech is the same today as then, and rather doubt it. One obvious change is their mission statement has changed drastically. In the 1978 "Caltech Information for Students" pg 105 it says simply: > The primary purpose of the undergraduate school of the California Institute of Technology, as stated by the Trustees, is "to provide a collegiate education which will best train the creative type of scientist or engineer so urgently needed in our educational, governmental, and industrial development."

ridgeguy 4y ago
>Keep in mind that I attended in the 70s. Nothing stays the same. I have little idea if Caltech is the same today as then, and rather doubt it. Late 60s, Page, for me. I was lower middle class, which seemed to be the great majority. I recall only one House contemporary who was from serious wealth. Would never have known but for developing a friendship. As you say, I doubt things are similar today.
umvi 4y ago
Caltech is very different today than it was 50 years ago. Modern Caltech recently cancelled Robert Millikan (the founder)
- red-iron-pine 4y ago
  explain
- everybodyknows 4y ago
  Millikan as in the oil drop experiment, foundational to quantum physics?
- markdown 4y ago
  Looks like he was a rabid racist and eugenecist. Glad to see that modern Caltech has progressed.
  - ironcurtain 4y ago
    Don’t you worry, they’ll come for you eventually.
    - markdown 4y ago
      One would hope so. Ideally, the people of the future will have progressed beyond the relative savagery of me and my peers and look upon us with disdain. Perhaps for how much I enjoy a good steak, or for the genital mutilation of our boys.
      - flappyeagle 4y ago
        Or you could like... understand that people behave in the context of their time in history, be glad we've moved past that, and celebrate the contributions of the people that got us to where we are. I can celebrate George Washington as a founder of the country and also understand he was a slave owner.
        esrauch 4y ago
        I think the problem is that we're really bad at any amount of nuance: people we celebrate are treated as flawless saints beyond reproach rather than humans who achieved something great in one area. It turns out even Gandi, Mother Theresa, etc had a pretty sketchy side, because shocker no human actually meets that bar. But since we're categorically unable to say someone did a great thing while actually being pretty immoral by that's standards, the only options that the university seem to have available to it are entirely condoning their unacceptable side or else disowning them.
      - faeriechangling 4y ago
        Pet ownership is my favourite example of what will be seen as immoral in the future.
- 77pt77 4y ago
  He should have been canceled for all the experimental fraud he committed.
nobodyandproud 4y ago
If college is the only way to make a good living, then rational actors will game and lobby their way to getting in. Even in the 1990s, a CS program was easy to get into and a local 4 year degree was sufficient for most lines of work.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  At least in the 70s, if you gamed your way into admission at Caltech by doing test prep, coaching, having someone else do your application essays, etc., you were going to be sorry. Because you would find it impossible to do the work required. Caltech did a good job of screening because the ones they admitted could do the work (though a lot dropped out simply because they didn't want to work). But there were a few that couldn't, no matter how hard they worked at it, and just wound up leaving. A friend of mine dropped out of Caltech after a couple years, and disappeared. I ran into him many years later, and we did some catching up. 10 years after dropping out, he asked Caltech if he could come back and try again. They said sure (one of the nice things about Caltech's philosophy). He got straight A's. I asked him if he had gotten any smarter, he said no, he was just willing to work the second time around. Of course, there were some students who just effortlessly aced everything. Hal Finney (yes, that Hal) was one of them. Being around people like that was just amazing.
  - nebula8804 4y ago
    For as far as I can remember, this is the same philosophy held at my alma mater: NJIT. I was admitted into the CS program in 07 and got put on probation my first semester. I transfered to community college and messed around with bad grades for a while until I got my act together. I was readmitted and from what I could tell, they essentially have guaranteed admission If you have at least like a ~2.6 GPA in a science related degree. Quite a low bar. However you are expected to work hard once in the program. That didn't change once I went back, although the school as a whole was a lot less scary and intimidating the second time around. I think this is true for a lot of engineering schools. Maybe there just isn't as much of a demand to go to the pure STEM schools as there is the schools that have everything. Like I remember looking at requirements for Rutgers at the same time and essentially they had like a 3.2 (or maybe 3.4 GPA) minimum and you'd have to re-take all the core CS classes as they would not accept those classes from community college.
ajkjk 4y ago
How could they keep that in mind if you never said it ..