<p>i can't wait to meet caltech's prefrosh :)</p>
<p>omgninja... I don't debate that Harvey Mudd is an excellent college. That's why I haven't said much in this thread. </p>
<p>With respect to you omgninja (I do respect you) I feel that my comment was justified simply because it seems that RocketDA is attempting to engage in a ****ing contest even after the alumni and awards of caltech and hmc already have been compared. I don't claim that HMC has an unimpressive list of accomplishments, but Caltech's is certainly more impressive. This of course does not mean Caltech is a better school (you'd have to standardize a definition for "better school"). </p>
<p>It just seems humorous to me that RocketDA would post a list of accomplishments that is dwarfed by Caltech's. I can't understand why he would do this except to declare that HMC is at least equal to Caltech. It makes no sense to list this just to make the claim that HMC is a good school, because everyone already agrees on that. </p>
<p>Cliff notes: Because everyone agrees that HMC is a good school, I assume that rocket is listing the alumni and awards of HMC to state that it is as good as Caltech. (note that this assumption is based on previous posts of his as well) It is humorous to me that he would attempt to make this claim with an area where Caltech clearly stomps HMC. I therefore laughed.</p>
<p>I apologize if I misunderstood rocket's intentions. </p>
<p>And yes, I agree with you omgninja, a description of the unique aspects of tech vs. hmc would be more helpful.</p>
<p>Rocket, you can meet me anytime after I arrive at Tech. My name is Tom Gwinn and I'd be more than happy to give you my contact information.</p>
<p>tom, can't you read the sarcasm from my post? (haha, dual sarcasm now!) ;-)</p>
<p>I am deeply hurt and dissapointed. :-( I simply hoped from your earlier comment about wanting to meet Ben that you might want to meet me too. </p>
<p>Now my day is ruined. <em>cries</em></p>
<p>rocketDA -- on HMC's alumni list, I see several medium-high level staff at JPL, a few astronauts, a few corporate executives (a Chief Marketing Officer of Intel -- alas, not quite as high as Gordon Moore, the Chairman of the same firm and Caltech alum). To be blunt, people of the level of HMC's notable alumni list don't even come close to making the Caltech notable alumni list, because there is such an overwhelming number of Caltech graduates who would fit the bill. We've produced at least two directors of JPL (yes, the whole thing) that I can name off the top of my head, including the current one, but they don't even make the Wikipedia list of Caltech alumni. When we have to list Linus Pauling (2 Nobels), Kip Thorne (one of the greatest physicists alive), and William Shockley (inventor of the transistor) that kind of puts things in perspective. </p>
<p>So yes, I think it would be misleading to mention HMC and Caltech together as if they were comparable in the success of their alumni.</p>
<p>Now, per lizzardfire's request, I post Caltech's alumni list. I agree we should emphasize the positive aspects our schools. And here are a few small positive things that have come out of our little Institute.</p>
<p>RAWR! :)</p>
<p>Physics and Astronomy
Carl D. Anderson, BS 1927, PhD 1930, faculty - Nobel laureate in physics (1936) for proving the existence of positrons
Chung-Yao Chao, PhD 1930 - first scientist to capture positrons through electron-positron annihilation; father of atomic energy enterprise of China
Sidney Coleman, PhD 1962 - theoretical physicist
William A. Fowler, PhD 1936, faculty - Nobel laureate in physics (1983) for his studies of the nuclear reactions in stars
Donald A. Glaser, PhD 1950 - Nobel laureate in physics (1960) for the invention of the bubble chamber
James E. Gunn, PhD 1966 - astronomer, Crafoord laureate (2005)
Mark M. Mills, PhD 1948 - nuclear physicist, developer of atomic weapons, and deputy director of Livermore
Frank Oppenheimer, PhD 1939 - Manhattan Project physicist, founder of the Exploratorium
Douglas D. Osheroff, BS 1967 - Nobel laureate in physics (1996) for discovering the superfluidic nature of 3He
Leo James Rainwater, BS 1939 - Nobel laureate in physics (1975) for finding the shapes of certain atomic nuclei
William Shockley, BS 1932 - Nobel laureate in physics (1956) for invention of the transistor
Charles H. Townes, PhD 1939 - Nobel laureate in physics (1964) for contributions to planetary thermal radiation; patented the maser
Kenneth G. Wilson, PhD 1961 - Wolf Prize laureate (1980), Nobel laureate in physics (1982) for his theory of phase transitions in matter
Robert W. Wilson, PhD 1962 - Nobel laureate in physics (1978) for discovering the cosmic microwave background radiation (shared medal) </p>
<p>Chemistry
Arnold Beckman, PhD 1928 - Inventor of the pH meter, founder of Beckman Instruments and financier of the first "silicon" company in Silicon Valley, Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory
William Lipscomb, PhD 1946 - Nobel laureate in chemistry (1976)
Edwin Mattison McMillan, BS 1928, MS 1929 - Nobel laureate in chemistry (1951)
Linus Pauling, PhD 1925, faculty - Nobel laureate in chemistry (1954) and peace (1962)
Kenneth Pitzer, BS 1935 - winner of the National Medal of Science, third president of Rice University, sixth president of Stanford University, Director of Research for Atomic Energy Commission (1949-1951) </p>
<p>Biology and Medicine
Leland H. Hartwell, BS 1961 - Nobel laureate in physiology or medicine (2001)
David Ho, BS 1974 - AIDS researcher
Edward B. Lewis, PhD 1942, faculty - Nobel laureate in physiology or medicine (1995)
Howard M. Temin, PhD 1960 - Nobel laureate in physiology or medicine (1975) </p>
<p>Mathematics and Computer Science
Michael Aschbacher, BS 1966, faculty - winner of the Cole Prize in Algebra (1980)
Fernando J. Corbat</p>
<p>I wrote:
[quote]
If you want a quick summary of the different opinions, some of which will never be reconciled:
a) Caltech is far and above better
b) Caltech is just a little better due more to the higher caliber of students than a higher caliber of profs
c) They are in all ways equal, Caltech is just pretentious
d) Caltech is better because there are more Nobel laureates
e) HMC is nearly equal, (b) is only true because (d) attracts better students
f) Caltech is more work but produces the same educations as HMC
g) WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH, HMC is just as good as Caltech because my mommy says I'm special, WAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!
h) Caltech is better due to the clear disparity in stature between notable HMC alums and notable Caltech alums
i) HMC has yet to reach its potential
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Did I not predict every argument that was used in the last 2 pages (and the fact that some would never be reconciled)? Seriously, instead of wasting time writing out long opinions, just refer back by letters. It's not like we're going to get anywhere fast with the status quo.</p>
<p>Whoa. When Ben says "small positive things" he really means it. It is perhaps not quite fair to claim that they came directly from Caltech, though, cool as that might be. Dirty propagandist.</p>
<p>(Y'all sound hungry. I feel an overwhelming urge to bake cookies. Because it is hard to argue so much while eating chocolate. Which is, I might note, probably available at both schools.)</p>
<p>A simple list of people who have come out of Cal Tech is enough to realize that Cal Tech isn't even in the same plane of existence as HMC. Cal Tech is in a plane which very few schools and even be mentioned in. Academic giants which have proven Nobel Laureate production (Cambridge/Harvard/University of Chicago/Berkeley/Stanford)...</p>
<p>I don't go to either school but I agree with the Caltech people. HM isn't really comparable to Caltech in my mind, not to say it isn't a good college.</p>
<p>I think no graduate school kills any comparison. In physical sciences and engineering, it is such a disadvantage not to have heavy research going on. It means less money coming into the department for projects and fewer opportunities for undergrads to do research. Even if you do research, you don't have grad students to learn with and from. Less money and fewer projects would also, in general, mean fewer big-name or upper echelon faculty.</p>
<p>Engineering programs in particular need funding that comes with having a grad program. Try have a microfab class without a microfab lab or a TEM class without a good TEM.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now, per lizzardfire's request, I post Caltech's alumni list. I agree we should emphasize the positive aspects our schools. And here are a few small positive things that have come out of our little Institute.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, don't you think it's a little unfair to be touting all those alumni who got their PhD's from Caltech (but no undergrad degree) as proof of superiority vis-a-vis HMC, when HMC doesn't even have a graduate school? Obviously HMC can't produce all of these prominent PhD graduates when HMC doesn't even offer PhD programs. That's like saying that Harvard undergrad is better than MIT undergrad because Harvard has a bunch of prominent law school graduates, and MIT doesn't even have a law school. </p>
<p>Furthermore it would be even MORE fair if you were to simply name those Caltech alumni who graduated in the 1960's and beyond. After all, Harvey Mudd wasn't even founded until 1955, and didn't graduate its first class until (presumably) 1959. Caltech is obviously going to have more highly prominent alumni by the simple virtue of having existed longer. But that doesn't really prove superiority, it just proves longevity.</p>
<p>Hence, it's clearly unfair to be invoking somebody like Linus Pauling who, #1, got a PhD from Caltech, but not a BS, and #2, graduated in 1925 when there was no such thing as Harvey Mudd. A far more equitable comparison would be to look at the undergraduate alumni of Caltech starting from the 1960's.</p>
<p>I suspect that Caltech still probably wins even in this comparison, but I think we can all agree that the comparison would be a lot closer.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think no graduate school kills any comparison. In physical sciences and engineering, it is such a disadvantage not to have heavy research going on. It means less money coming into the department for projects and fewer opportunities for undergrads to do research. Even if you do research, you don't have grad students to learn with and from. Less money and fewer projects would also, in general, mean fewer big-name or upper echelon faculty.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm afraid I don't buy this argument. Ben and others will remember some of my old posts where I analyzed the undergraduate backgrounds of newly minted Caltech PhD's, as evidenced by the Caltech commencement data, and showed that Harvey Mudd was one of the most highly represented undergrad programs of those newly minted Caltech PhD's. In fact, in most years, more new Caltech PhD's were minted who came from HMC for undergrad than from UCLA or USC, despite the fact that UCLA and USC both have far far more undergrads than does HMC, and both UCLA and USC have large graduate programs. So that just begs the question of, if these HMC students are so disadvantaged by not going to a school with graduate programs, then why does Caltech admit so many of them for graduate school? Why doesn't Caltech stop admitting these supposedly poorly qualified HMC students in favor of more UCLA and USC grads? Is Caltech being dumb? </p>
<p>In fact, in some years, more newly minted Caltech PhD's did their undergrad at HMC than from even MIT. Granted, HMC grads probably have a geographic preference to study at Caltech, whereas MIT undergrads often times prefer to stay at MIT, but MIT also has far more undergrads than does UMC (4000 vs. 900). I'm sure there are quite a few MIT undergrads who applied to Caltech for graduate school but got rejected because Caltech decided to admit somebody from HMC instead. But again, like I said, if HMC students really are so disadvantaged because of lack of resources and projects, then why does Caltech continue to admit so many of them for graduate school?</p>
<p>HMC is a fine school and so is Caltech. Debating which one is better is really asinine. That said, I would list some facts and let readers decide which the winner is.</p>
<p>1) Pure science: Caltech hands down. Caltech ranks right with the world-class-science-giants like Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton, Berkeley, and Chicago</p>
<p>2) Engineering: Wash. Both have great engineering schools but they both rank below than the world-class-Engineering-Giants like MIT, Berkeley, and Stanford</p>
<p>3) Intangibles: No question that academics are more rigorous @Caltech and Caltech students are handling much heavier course loads and whatnots. Also it is quite evident that a Caltech degree is more prestigious than HMCs, at least to potential employer/graduate school adcoms eyes (Google it if you want to compare their stats). But this well-known Caltechs tough academic rigor can have a negative effect on its student body- Caltech students tend to spend more time on solving problem sets, less on social life (Some may morbidly described them as zombies or gholas) Social life that includes a very important stage of forming a complete human being- exploring new things, engaging meaningful relationships, falling in love hopelessly, and in genera learning about other subjects beyond math/science. </p>
<p>Of course, it really depends on individual taste and priority (shacon a son goo), but IMO, college is more than 4-year of intensive studying and really one can go deeper into his/her major later in graduate school!!!</p>
<p>"I'm sure there are quite a few MIT undergrads who applied to Caltech for graduate school but got rejected because Caltech decided to admit somebody from HMC instead."</p>
<p>This is complete spectulation. You have no idea if this is true.</p>
<p>My point is that having a graduate program is a HUGE asset in the physical sciences and engineering. Thats not to say that people can't get a good education at other places or that these people will not succeed. Researching and learning from the best professors in a certain field is important. People at the top of their field are at research institutions.</p>
<p>There is a reason that college rankings have two different lists: schools with Ph.D. programs and those without.</p>
<p>Again, this it not to say that HMC is not a good school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"I'm sure there are quite a few MIT undergrads who applied to Caltech for graduate school but got rejected because Caltech decided to admit somebody from HMC instead."</p>
<p>This is complete spectulation. You have no idea if this is true.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It HAS to be true. I know people who, years ago, graduated from MIT a while ago, and applied to Caltech for grad school, and got rejected. Lately, these same Caltech programs who rejected those MIT alumni conferred PhD's upon old HMC alumni. These would have been the same years that those MIT alumni would have been expected to graduate from Caltech, had they gotten in and decided to go. Hence, it's an elementary inference that they didn't get in because Caltech decided to admit those HMC people instead.</p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong. Those MIT people did just fine for themselves, with many of them simply staying at MIT for grad school. But the point is, Caltech rejected them in favor of somebody else, and that 'somebody else' is, in their case, almost certainly an HMC grad. </p>
<p>
[quote]
My point is that having a graduate program is a HUGE asset in the physical sciences and engineering. Thats not to say that people can't get a good education at other places or that these people will not succeed. Researching and learning from the best professors in a certain field is important. People at the top of their field are at research institutions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, this it not to say that HMC is not a good school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But here, you see, is your inherent contradiction. First, you say that having graduate departments are a huge asset. Then you say that HMC is a good school. Well, it seems to me that having these grad departments really isn't THAT huge of an asset, for otherwise, HMC students wouldn't be getting into top grad schools, i.e. Caltech's grad schools. </p>
<p>Look, it's hard to argue with success. Whatever HMC might be losing because they don't have grad departments, they are clearly making up for in other ways. Otherwise, their students wouldn't be so successful in getting into graduate school. Like I said, HMC students are clearly more successful at getting into Caltech for grad school than are the students from UCLA or USC, despite the fact that UCLA and USC have large and prominent grad departments. </p>
<p>But this analysis extends beyond HMC. Caltech, for grad school, also admits plenty of students from LAC's such as Reed, Williams, Amherst, and so forth - all schools that have, at best, miniscule grad departments. So again, it seems to me that having a grad department isn't THAT huge of an advantage, otherwise Caltech wouldn't be admitting so many of these students for grad school.</p>
<p>Now, the salient point of this thread seems to be which is better - Caltech or HMC. I think that is a question best left up to the individual, and I would probably give the edge to Caltech. However, the point of this subtopic is that the LAC's in general, and HMC in particular, seem to be able to provide quite excellent educations despite having minimal graduate departments, which means that the presence of graduate departments, by itself, can't be that big of an advantage for your undergrad education.</p>
<p>^ sakky, using Caltech's own PhD commencement numbers does little to enlighten this particular debate. No one is arguing that Mudd doesn't offer a great education, but many people (including myself) would argue that the graduate programs at Caltech allow you to go get a better undergraduate education. It would be better to compare Caltech vs. HMC PhD's for this metric. Of course, you really shouldn't use the Caltech PhD program for this, since that will be unpredicatably skewed. I would suggest (for anyone who cares) looking into say MIT's graduating PhD students and see how many are from Caltech or Mudd.</p>
<p>In essence, Mudd has other advantages over USC and UCLA that might be making up for the negation of a graduate program: smaller classes, a more rigorous curriculum, stronger student body, etc.. Caltech and Mudd are much more similar and so comparing these PhD students would provide a better measure of the effect of a graduate school on undergrad education.</p>
<p>Sakky to the rescue! :)</p>
<p>Caltech is a vocational school</p>