<p>I'm an international girl interested in studying Chemistry. The two schools I'm definitely applying to are Harvey Mudd College and Reed College... Despite my international status which beckons me to apply to more colleges, I really don't feel like applying to more. </p>
<p>I probably will get into Reed College, which I really love too. Harvey Mudd seems to be the requisite dream competitive school. But MIT is a fantastic school which I've always wanted to go to, and the instiute has such fantastic programmes, opportunities and teachers (Don Sadoway...)</p>
<p>So, what I'd like to hear is people's ideas on MIT versus HMC, and the benefits of choosing either. Specifically if anyone has chosen one over the other, I'd love to hear from you guys.</p>
<p>Is HMC largely recognized? Even for a LAC, it seems quite low-key. Is there a significant difference in the scope of classes at HMC vs MIT? The availability of opportunities?</p>
<p>MIT alum here. You could also try posting this on the school-specific boards.</p>
<p><em>I</em> have certainly heard of Mudd, and so has essentially everyone I know at MIT, and people think it's a great school. We're probably not representative, though. :)</p>
<p>The major differences are, basically, the differences between a LAC and a research university (albeit a research university with a relatively small, close, student population).</p>
<p>I'd say apply to both Mudd and MIT - it's not that much more work - and increase your chances. Keep in mind how low the international admit rate is for MIT - even if you're a great student, the likelihood is that you will not get in. If you do get into both - in which case, congrats! - <em>then</em> you can worry about choosing between them (and what an enviable choice that is to be faced with).</p>
<p>Well, that's really a relief that you guys over at MIT have heard of Mudd. In my school, where prestige is valued, I'm the only one applying to Mudd but more than 10 people are applying to MIT. ^^;</p>
<p>I know that LACs usually focus on a broad-based education, while research universities allow depth in research. </p>
<p>However, does it make a difference that Mudd is heavily focused on engineering? I've heard that their Clinic program affords highly-valued experience, and that their courses are rigorous. So I'd like to know, is it up to MIT standard?</p>
<p>Also, when I went to the MIT talk, the officer highlighted MIT's strengths in the humanities as well, citing several acclaimed professors in those departments. MIT's distribution requirements <em>seem</em> almost LAC-ish. So, Jessie, I'd like to hear your opinion on whether MIT does have such breadth, or is there still much difference between MIT and Mudd, an engineering-focused LAC?</p>
<p>S1's decision (HS grad '07) came down to MIT v. HMC. He chose HMC because he felt more at home there, thought it would be at least as challenging, and figured that MIT could be available for grad school, while HMC would not be.</p>
<p>So far (fingers crossed), he is happy with his choice and already has had good luck with getting applied research experience via Mudd's clinic program. Then again, his HS classmate who chose MIT over Princeton is also happy with HIS choice . . .</p>
<p>Both are fantastic schools that will challenge just about anyone. I agree with the other poster. Apply to both and if you are lucky enough to be in a position to make a choice between them, visit the campuses and see which one appeals to you the most. You can't go wrong. (And note that, even for domestic applicants, luck plays a role in getting into MIT in particular--very few people are a "lock" for admission there; that is somewhat less true for Mudd, but still not a given for many people.)</p>