<p>So I have done a good deal of reading about MIT, Cal Tech, and Harvey Mudd, however I would appreciate it if students/alumni could explain what they see as the non-trivial advantages/disadvantages/things to consider about each school. For instance Im not sure if a bigger school, like MIT, or a smaller school, Mudd/Cal Tech, would be best for me what do you see as the advantages/disadvantages of each? Furthermore, I know all three of the schools are excellent and rigorous however could any of the three be considered harder than the others? Also please comment on any other important differences between the schools. Thanks for the info!</p>
<p>MIT is pretty much more of an all-around school than Cal. Not to say, of course, you won’t get fine instruction in the humanities at Cal. Both are intense. However, MIT is more notorious for its suicides than is Caltech. </p>
<p>I have not heard too much about Harvey Mudd, other than its strong rep. </p>
<p>Visit the schools–that’ll tell u more than any1 else can.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This notoriety is irrelevant.</p>
<p>spratleyj,</p>
<p>What do you want to study?</p>
<p>I want to major in physics, and I definitely want to take a bunch of math courses too, so perhaps a double major in physics and math.</p>
<p>Small schools suck. None are harder than the others although you’ll see multitudes of people pontificating about how Caltech requires “Quantum Mechanics.” The truth of the matter is Ph2a and Ph12b are not overly difficult classes, and tons of people get by in both without the slightest idea of what is going on. For that matter no part of core is particularly difficult.</p>
<p>Caltech has had 3 or 4 student suicides and a professor suicide all within the past ten months.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am wondering that why almost all your posts are saying how bad Caltech is? if you hate everything about the school, transfer to another one and stop ranting here. </p>
<p>location</p>
<p>of all the three schools, Caltech has the best** location**:
Mudd:</p>
<p>
For MIT: Boston is a great place indeed, but it has such horrible weather. Many people cannot put up with it, for me at least.</p>
<p>the major difference between Mudd and Caltech I guess(I haven’t visited both yet. So only a guess) is that Claremont is not as prosperous as Pasadena. </p>
<p>academics
Caltech: to do research is vastly easy. the 3:1 student/faculty ratio is simply amazing. courses are hard, (If you don’t believe me try Apostol’s Calculus textbook, and then try Thomas’ Calculus.) yes, but I think you can taste the true flavor of science and math than if you don’t get a challenging course. </p>
<p>Mudd: Mudd is generally the same as Caltech. But professors here pay more attention to students than those of MIT/Caltech. here is an example:
the disadvantage of Mudd (which is the advantage of Caltech) is that you don’t have tons of opportunities to do research. and You don’t have many Graduate level courses, since Mudd is a liberal arts college. </p>
<p>the size of a school
</p>
<p>this is a quote from another forum. I think it can solve your problem.
For me I like small schools though. Knowing everybody, and getting lots of attentions from professors…</p>
<p>actually, I suggest you apply to all three schools. See which one(or ones?) you can get into, then decide which one to attend.</p>
<p>"the disadvantage of Mudd (which is the advantage of Caltech) is that you don’t have tons of opportunities to do research. and You don’t have many Graduate level courses, since Mudd is a liberal arts college. "</p>
<p>I’m going to have to heavily disagree with this. I graduated last year and entered an elite private aerospace company that hires quite a bit from MIT, Caltech, Purdue, GTech, and UMich. Those who are hired typically have MS or PhD’s in aerospace or mechanical engineering… only 5 or so “new grads” a year.</p>
<p>I was one of these new grads. I was the only one that had only a BS and got an offer. I’m from Mudd. In fact, the owner of spacecraft hydraulics and control surfaces is also from Mudd… graduated 5 years ago and also only has a BS degree.</p>
<p>We are prepared to a level that is comparable to a good MS degree. How do I know this? Because the interview for my company is about 6 hours long… of technical one-on-one with key figures in each engineering dept. You are grilled and required to demonstrate your abilities to solve problems you’ve never encountered before… pulling from a general technical tools basis.</p>
<p>I earned a “General Engineering” degree though I put my emphasis on propulsion and rocket research. I took classes in fluid dynamics (incompressible and compressible) and even though our compressible class is titled “Intro to compressible flow” it turns out that I have a much stronger basis than many of my coworkers on this particular topic even though they have a MS from schools like Purdue and Caltech. These are real people and I am talking about real experience.</p>
<p>I certainly had no trouble finding research at Mudd. I accumulated over 10 units of graded research and also spent two summers on campus doing paid research. I also happen to know that the campus is bustling with activity (just like Caltech) over the summer. I also spent two summers at Caltech doing research. One time only at JPL (as a HS junior/senior) and one time as a more serious hire (NOT a SURF or SHARP student though I lived with them on campus). The second time I spent about half my time working in a GALCIT lab (Firestone basement) instrumenting the hypervelocity impactor. Yup, the sensors, amplifiers, and data processing routine are of my design. I figured out how to reject 89% of the radio background noise on a nano-second optical gate to catch particles at 10 km/s. I continued this work as a consultant WHILE at Mudd during my junior year. Interesting a Mudd undergrad would be paid to work in Caltech graduate lab if he/she didn’t have abilities…</p>
<p>I also happen to know that the electrical/digital engineering classes at Mudd are much more substantial than other undergraduate programs. For instance, how would it be possible for a group of 5 students to work on ultra-low noise video conversion technology for Intel (on chip) if they weren’t accustomed to the nuances of VLSI or high speed PCB design? Do all undergrads from other institutions come out designing their own MIPS+ microprocessor from scratch… dye and all? I mean, surely there is a lot left to be desired (the one a few years ago only ran at 6 MHz, I’m not sure about recent ones) but you can’t do this stuff without diving head-first into the technical meat and potatoes of engineering and science… with a healthy serving of math.</p>
<p>So, in closing… the opportunities at Mudd for research and advanced coursework are there… even if Mudd is classified as a “liberal arts college”. This isn’t to say that Caltech has similar opportunities… I’m just saying that Mudd has them.</p>
<p>Both are great choices. I’m certainly convinced, however, that Caltech isn’t the only club in town anymore.</p>
<p>rocketDA, I don’t think anyone’s saying that Mudd students don’t have research opportunities. I think people are saying that there are more opportunities at Tech, something I’m pretty confident in. It’s nice that you had a good research experience at Mudd, and your detailed explanation of it sounds wonderful.</p>
<p>As for my research, it wouldn’t be possible at Harvey Mudd. You don’t have the equipment, or the money to pay for the equipment. While it might be possible to do something at another school or company, it wouldn’t be as convenient, and, more importantly, you wouldn’t have nearly as much freedom.</p>
<p>Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that Caltech’s research opportunities advantage mostly involves the access to expensive and specialized equipment. I’m mainly interested in theoretical physics and “pure” math - two fields which I don’t imagine require a lot of specialized equipment for research, so how would Caltech offer more in the terms of research opportunities in these areas?</p>
<p>I’m not sure where you got that impression, spratleyj, unless you’re basing that entire impression off of my post (which was just meant to be an example). Harvey Mudd professors primarily focus on teaching, whereas Caltech professors focus primarily on research (even sometimes to the detriment of teaching). There’s also the obvious distinction that Caltech has graduate students, whereas Harvey Mudd does not. For these reasons, your average Caltech professor is much more likely to be in the middle of cutting-edge research than your average HMC prof.</p>
<p>And by the way, probably 80-90% of students who are mainly interested in “theoretical physics and math” end up switching into something else–very few high schoolers actually understand what working in these fields entail. At Caltech, even those who make it past the first barrier (discovering what studying theoretical physics actually means) rarely make it past the second barrier (getting admitted to a theoretical physics grad school program). Let’s face it, you have to be really, really brilliant to be paid just to sit in a room and think.</p>
<p>“As for my research, it wouldn’t be possible at Harvey Mudd. You don’t have the equipment, or the money to pay for the equipment. While it might be possible to do something at another school or company, it wouldn’t be as convenient, and, more importantly, you wouldn’t have nearly as much freedom.”</p>
<p>Please clarify. Are you a graduate or an undergrad? Is this YOUR research or are you tagging along? Why do think that Mudd couldn’t afford laboratory equipment? What are we talking about here?</p>
<p>The distinction is not necessarily about money but intent. Mudd is an undergraduate-only educational institution. Caltech is a undergrad-grad hybridization between an educational and research institution. However, just because Mudd’s focus is on pedagogy doesn’t mean that there isn’t research going on. Some of the research is aimed at teaching while some of it is boundary-pushing.</p>
<p>Here are some recent publications out of the physics dept… with a total of ~30 graduates each year:
[Publications[/url</a>]
[url=<a href=“http://www.hmc.edu/academicsclinicresearch/academicdepartments/physics/research.html]Research[/url”>http://www.hmc.edu/academicsclinicresearch/academicdepartments/physics/research.html]Research[/url</a>]</p>
<p>Math:
[url=<a href=“http://www.math.hmc.edu/seniorthesis/archives/2008/]Math”>http://www.math.hmc.edu/seniorthesis/archives/2008/]Math</a> 197: Senior Thesis: 2007–2008 Students](<a href=“http://www.hmc.edu/academicsclinicresearch/academicdepartments/physics/publications.html]Publications[/url”>http://www.hmc.edu/academicsclinicresearch/academicdepartments/physics/publications.html)
[Math</a> 197: Senior Thesis: 2008–2009 Students](<a href=“http://www.math.hmc.edu/seniorthesis/archives/2009/]Math”>http://www.math.hmc.edu/seniorthesis/archives/2009/)</p>
<p>I encourage you to skim through some of this. I think you’ll be amazed how much undergrads can do.</p>
<p>“Let’s face it, you have to be really, really brilliant to be paid just to sit in a room and think.”</p>
<p>That’s what I do all day/week/year long… except I don’t claim to be “really, really brilliant”. Only “a little brilliant”. 
Also, we have big windows and free snacks. Take that, Dilbert!</p>
<p>I’m an undergraduate in EE at Caltech. I’m starting my PhD at Stanford in the fall. The research in question is 100% mine. The equipment in question is the multi-million dollar fab equipment present in Caltech’s KNI, which I have 24/7 unsupervised access to. </p>
<p>Again, I’m not trying to say that research doesn’t happen at Mudd. I’m just saying that it’s not at the same caliber or scope as the research going on at Tech. Of course, I’m well aware that being near this sort of high-end research isn’t necessarily the same as being able to take advantage of it–I’m just lucky enough that I’ve had that opportunity personally.</p>
<p>Why do you need fab equipment? Are you talking about PCB fab stuff? Or are you talking about chip dye stuff? </p>
<p>If it is PCB stuff PCB Express does 4 day turn-around on 6 layers. We built a Hall-array electromagnetic imagining device last year (60 x 5000 resolution) for mapping the internal electromagnetic reactance of an induction motor (for Honeywell Aerospace). PCB Express turned out our parts in a few days and our resident electronics technician did a bunch of the micro-soldering work.</p>
<p>For other lab items that Mudd may not have, Pomona College has. Like Caltech, they’ve got a ton of money so we can always use their facilities if need be. </p>
<p>This isn’t the 80’s anymore. Most equipment is not too difficult to come by or processes get farmed out… that is unless your equipment is running a 32 nm dye process.</p>
<p>Does anyone know what the difference between Caltech and Harvey Mudd would be in terms of Math and CS? I’m very interested in both, and I cannot imagine lots of expensive equipment would help with them. What is the difference in research opportunities between the two in those fields? </p>
<p>Also, I’ve heard that collaboration is emphasized at both places. How do they compare in that? </p>
<p>I’ve been admitted to both and want to make an educated decision. I know teaching is not considered as good at Caltech, but how is it, really? I can become a bit unmotivated if I have an awful teacher… On the other hand, I don’t know if having a TA would even be an awful thing. At a math summer camp I went to, my favorite teachers were grad students, but the pool of teachers there is rather self-selecting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe not. How depressing would a school have to be to take all those hard years in a single second. So yes, it is important, in terms of atmosphere and academics. With some exception, intense pressure atmospheres teach pressure and competition, just not the learning. </p>
<p>Besides, the relevance is clearly exhibited in further references later on in this post. </p>
<p>Obviously, you have made up your mind for MIT silverturtle, in which best of luck there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe not. How depressing would a school have to be to take all those hard years in a single second. So yes, it is important, in terms of atmosphere and academics. With some exception, intense pressure atmospheres teach pressure and competition, just not the learning. </p>
<p>Besides, the relevance is clearly exhibited in further references later on in this post. </p>
<p>Obviously, you have made up your mind for MIT silverturtle, in which case, best of luck there.</p>
<p>I work in nanofabrication/NEMS/MEMS, so it’s neither PCB nor CMOS. You can’t farm out my processes, and no, Pomona doesn’t have the equipment I use either. The only two schools in SoCal that have the proper equipment are UCLA and Caltech, and to an extent UCLA comes to us for some our equipment (like our etchers). By the way, I think you might mean “die”. Industry typically uses standardized wafer-based CMOS processing (wafer level or die level) but research, at least non CMOS related research, is done on a much smaller scale usually.</p>