<p>Oh sure Harvey Mudd is right up there with MIT.</p>
<p>
Agreed. Looking through his past posts, it’s evident that the OP is an international student primarily looking for LACs and small universities with very good financial aid.</p>
<p>Virtually all of the publics on this thread would be horrible fits. Unfortunately, the thread topic was rather vague.</p>
<p>
For sciences:</p>
<p>Princeton: #12, #16, #3, #11, #1, #6 = 8.66
Cornell: #12, #9, #7, #15, #13, #6 = 10.33<br>
Michigan: #15, #16, #13, #5, #9, #13 = 11.83
Wisconsin: #15, #7, #16, #15, #14, #11 = 13.0
Texas: #23, #12, #16, #9, #14, #9 = 13.83
Illinois: #29, #7, #8, #34, #18, #5 = 16.83</p>
<p>For engineering (undergrad specialties: Biomed, Chemical, Civil, Computer, Electrical, Environmental, Industrial, Materials, Mechanical):</p>
<p>MIT: #5, #1, #3, #1, #1, #4, #11, #4, #1 = 3.44
Berkeley: #13, #2, #2, #4, #4, #3, #5, #3, #3 = 4.22
Stanford: #14, #5, #6, #2, #2, #1, #6, #6, #5 = 5.22
Michigan: #7, #10, #7, #7, #6, #8, #2, #2, #2 = 5.66
Illinois: #22, #8, #1, #5, #3, #2, #11, #1, #6 = 6.55
Caltech: NR, #6, #15, #8, #7, #12, NR, #12, #9 = 9.86
Cornell: #19, #15, #9, #8, #8, #9, #11, #7, #8 = 10.44
Texas: #19, #7, #4, #8, #11, #7, NR, #18, #10 = 10.50
Wisconsin: #17, #3, #13, #12, #13, #17, #10, #12, #14 = 12.33
Princeton: NR, #11, #17, #14, #12, NR, NR, NR, #16 = 14.0</p>
<p>**For Science AND Engineering:
- MIT: (1.5, 3.44) = 2.47</p>
<ol>
<li>Berkeley: (2.17, 4.22) = 3.20</li>
<li><p>Stanford: (1.33, 5.22) = 3.28</p></li>
<li><p>Caltech: (4.5, 9.86) = 7.18</p></li>
<li><p>Michigan: (11.83, 5.66) = 8.75</p></li>
<li><p>Cornell: (10.33, 10.44) = 10.39</p></li>
<li><p>Princeton: (8.66, 14.0) = 11.33</p></li>
<li><p>Illinois: (16.83, 6.55) = 11.69</p></li>
<li><p>Texas: (13.83, 10.5) = 12.17</p></li>
<li><p>Wisconsin: (13.0, 12.33) = 12.67**</p></li>
</ol>
<p>^^^Love those gaps UCB. LOL. Btw, notice that there is only one school that is rated in the top ten in all of your engineering rankings. :-)</p>
<p>Yes, IB, the thread has gotten sidetracked rating grad schools.</p>
<p>The gaps indicate statistical differences.</p>
<p>Yes I am quite away of what the gaps were for. I just found them amusing.</p>
<p>@UCBChemEGrad, medians are probably better measures in this case.</p>
<p>ewho, you’re probably right…I just don’t feel like recalculating the numbers now.</p>
<p>rjk, I did not notice that…good for your school.</p>
<p>vossron, I did use undergrad engineering rankings 
…current undergrad science rankings were not available…</p>
<p>Hmmm. So if they’re not NRC rankings, which legitimate rankings are they? The only other ones I saw mentioned are the USNWR rankings which the schools themselves don’t believe.</p>
<p>vossron,</p>
<p>I think most people would recognize those are graduate rankings that pertain to only research universities, not LACs. CC members that are interested in LACs are likely smart enough to recognize this says nothing negative about LACs. We are posting published rankings for research universities because it’s way better than people throwing in their schools just because they went there when they probably don’t belong (e.g. Duke, for which the rankings actually say it’s far from being a science (except bio) powerhouse).</p>
<p>^^^Science or engineering powerhouse I might add.</p>
<p>“I think most people would recognize those are graduate rankings that pertain to only research universities, not LACs.”</p>
<p>Okay, I just disagree. I think most HS students will assume that a list posted by senior CC members in “Best science and engineering schools” will present what we think are the “Best science and engineering schools.” I also don’t think of Mudd as a standard LAC, considering that few graduates are LA majors (there were two this year). </p>
<p>I think it does HS students a disservice to not mention one of the number one schools in science and engineering, and Mudd is the only one I find conspicuously absent, since standard LACs don’t offer engineering.</p>
<p>
Agreed. The posting of such rankings is somewhat lazy and unhelpful, in my opinion, particularly when links would suffice. If the OP has the intelligence and initiative to have a chance at the schools mentioned on this thread (such as the much lauded Stanford and Caltech), presumably he has the sense to consult the USNWR rankings. This is, of course, quite aside from the fact that Caltech, MIT, Berkeley, Harvard, etc. are universally known science powerhouses and stating so is virtually redundant. </p>
<p>Past posts reveal the following important details:
[ul][<em>]From VA. With UVA, W&M, and Virginia Tech in his backyard, OOS publics make little sense.
[</em>]Relatively ow SAT scores. Until he brings them up, all of the schools mentioned are high reaches.
[<em>]The OP is looking for LACs and small universities.
[</em>]The OP needs good financial aid. Lots of it.[/ul]</p>
<p>Hopefully with those details (which the OP should have mentioned in the first place), some useful suggestions can be made by those more familiar with science programs than I. </p>
<p>In addition to my LAC suggestions earlier (Bucknell, Lafayette, Union), I would add Goucher and Franklin & Marshall as safeties, U Rochester and RPI as matches, and Swarthmore and Hopkins as reaches. I’m sure there are many others that could fit.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I don’t think it’s appropriate to expect us to actively find out OP’s financials, family background, particular fetish…etc. </p></li>
<li><p>Saying OOS publics make little sense when you already have UVA, W&M, and Virginia Tech in your state implies OOS publics are somehow inferior to privates (it makes sense to pay more for privates but not OOS-publics), even though some OOS publics are actually midway between in-state and privates in terms of sticker price.</p></li>
<li><p>The rankings posted include schools of varying admission difficulty. I think we should post the graduate rankings and the science PhD per capita list (where LACs shine) and then qualify what the limitations are. The OP would then have a list of ranked schools of varying sizes, types, and admission difficulty while being aware of what the lists reflect and what-not; he/she can then research them and go from there for himself/herself. IMO, we should throw in names only if we know the schools fairly well or know they are well-ranked or reputable; otherwise, we may offer worse advice. After the usual suspects, I doubt most people can come up with a better list than the top-10 through top-40 schools in published rankings. For example, why Goucher? Why not another random LAC for science? After all, Goucher’s chemistry department has only 3 permanent full-time faculty (I just checked; I never heard of it even though I was intented to major in science at one point before switching to engineering).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The OP asked a basic question…is it our jobs to search through prior posts to decipher what he/she is truly after? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>As for Harvey Mudd, the OP already mentioned it initially…so mentioning it again is “virtually redundant”.</p>
<p>If you mention Harvey Mudd, perhaps we should throw in Rose Hulman…I believe Rose Hulman is more highly ranked in individual engineering disciplines than HMC, partly because it offers specialized engineering degrees.</p>
<p>The people arguing/throwing stones screams of sour grapes…</p>
<p>“I don’t think it’s appropriate to expect us to actively find out OP’s…”</p>
<p>Many HS students are so naive that they don’t know what info we need to be helpful, so sometimes we’re happy to do a bit of research.</p>
<p>“implies OOS publics are somehow inferior to privates”</p>
<p>I think it implies that OOS publics are more expensive!</p>
<p>“I think we should post the graduate rankings”</p>
<p>What good does that do for someone looking for an undergrad school, especially if some better undergrad schools have no graduate programs to rank?</p>
<p>“As for Harvey Mudd, the OP already mentioned it initially…so mentioning it again is “virtually redundant”.”</p>
<p>How can the OP have any idea where we think Mudd belongs in the rankings if we don’t mention it???</p>
<p>Good point about Rose Hulman!</p>
<p>
Some OOS publics are – but most of the publics mentioned in this thread are not. Furthermore, they have inferior financial aid compared to their private counterparts. An OOS admitted student at Berkeley has the stats to get in elsewhere with a lot more money.</p>
<p>
If you want to suggest another LAC, by all means, go ahead. </p>
<p>As for Goucher, it’s actually fairly well-known for pre-med preparation (less so for PhD production). Among other research opportunities, Goucher has reasonably close ties with Hopkins (including a 3+2 engineering program). I also suggested it because it’s much closer to Virginia than most other LACs, in case the OP was looking for schools close to home.</p>
<p>P.S. This whole thread makes me miss Carolyn and even posters who typed out Rugg’s Recommendations suggestions. Alas for the sad day when USNWR and the NRC devoured CC. 
:eek:</p>
<p>
Maybe so…but that doesn’t take away the fact that Berkeley is a top science and engineering school - not mentioned in the original post.</p>
<p>IB, so we’re supposed to be omnisicent and give only recommendations that exactly fit a poster’s desired profile? More power to you if you can come up with that list. Even more power if you come up with a list that doesn’t tout your school…even if it barely meets the requested criteria.</p>
<p>I have never touted LACs because I know little about them…if you have more info, go ahead and suggest 'em. No one is stopping you. But, to present them in ordered rank along with research universities is misguided IMO. The atmospheres each provides cannot be compared.</p>
<p>
Of course not. I expected nothing of the sort. I did, however, suggest that post #53 might lead to somewhat more tailored suggestions. </p>
<p>What I did expect was for posters not to be too hasty to rule out schools. Suggestions of LACs, for example, were criticized in post #7 – despite the OP being interested in those schools, as it turns out. </p>
<p>As for your implication of bias: LOL. I didn’t mention my alma mater in this thread (I seldom do, in fact).</p>