<p>Population of Pasadena, CA: 133,936
Population of Claremont, CA: 33,998
(Caltech is a <em>more</em> urban environment... more urban than HMC for sure)
And the entire size factor. It's true that HMC has other colleges right there, and that's something that should be considered in deciding where to go. If a person wants to take more non-math/science classes, HMC has plenty of options there for him. The point I was trying to make was that there are more things to consider than just the selectivity of the colleges, but you guys seem to automatically attack anything..</p>
<p>Well, to be fair, I don't think anybody advocated Caltech's selectivity as the primary reason it is better. Sure, it's a reason, but others (like eventual success of alumni, level of the faculty, etc.) are probably much more important.</p>
<p>Atomicfusion--urban/suburban does not relate to a city's population as much as it's population density.</p>
<p>Population density of Pasadena: 904.8/km²</p>
<p>Population density of Claremont: 999.0/km²</p>
<p>Pasadena is bigger than Claremont, but not more urban.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"In fact, it is a fairly common saying within MIT that the easiest way to go to MIT for graduate school is to just go there for undergrad and just stay there. I am quite certain that the same is true at Caltech."</p>
<p>Then you're quite certainly wrong, as you so often seem to be around these parts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh? So why has this quote about MIT actually been repeated numerous times by quite a few MIT students? Are they mistaken? In fact, I think they were actually quoting from the "Getting Around MIT" guide that MIT publishes, which I will look up shortly once I find it. If it's in there, then why would it be, if it's wrong? </p>
<p>
[quote]
For what it's worth, by the way, Berkeley students earned 22 Caltech PhDs over the same period of time that Harvey Mudd students earned 4.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, and many more undergrads does Berkeley have? </p>
<p>
[quote]
You've committed a cardinal sin of science in attempting to pursue your point in this way: you've let other variables change along with the independent variable, and pretended that it doesn't make any difference.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, no, I have not done ANY such thing. In fact, what you just said right there is PRECISELY my point - that there are OTHER variables involved. And that's exactly what I'm getting at - that merely having large research departments is BY ITSELF not that big of an advantage if you don't have those other variables. </p>
<p>As another proof of this, again, I would point at Berkeley, which we can all agree has excellent research programs. The truth is, Berkeley undergrads really don't do all that well when it comes to PhD admissions on a per-capita basis, compared to Caltech or other such schools. I believe there are many reasons for this - the fact that the Berkeley undergrad population simply is not as talented as some of the other schools, that the undergrad environment is not particularly helpful in educating undergrads, that undergrad research access is, on a per-capita basis, is relatively weak, and so forth. Granted, Berkeley does better than UCLA or USC, because those other schools are even worse on that score. But the point is, other factors matter, and that's all I'm saying. </p>
<p>To wit: Berkeley's undeniable research strength is not really that huge of an asset for its undergrads. In the case of Caltech, it's not just that Caltech has research strengths, but that Caltech ALSO USES THEM WELL, whereas Berkeley, frankly, doesn't use its strengths well to help its undergrads. That's still better than Berkeley not having any research strengths at all, but the point is, research strengths that are poorly utilized or that are not highly available to undergrads is not that valuable. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Then you're quite certainly wrong, as you so often seem to be around these parts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What's your problem, Joe? I have never insulted you, and I have never insulted Caltech. If you haven't been able to tell, and somebody like Ben Golub can probably confirm, I actually LIKE Caltech. </p>
<p>If you have a personal problem with me, then we should just take this offline.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My own preference is to start with a null hypothesis that is neither overoptimistic nor insulting. If we have few data on a place (due to newness, smallness, whatever), we need not assume it sucks, but it would be too much to assume it's amazing. Until there is sufficient time so that we get out of the range of small-number statistics, we can reserve judgment. So we would reserve judgment (for the most part) on both Harvey Mudd and Yevrah Dumm, until both have had time to prove themselves in the long term.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly. That's a reasonable position that I can support. The alumni numbers do not categorically "prove" that HMC is better than Caltech (or vice versa), just like the alumni numbers that mdx49 likes to cite do not "prove" that Harvard is better than MIT (or vice versa). Hence, those who try to cite alumni numbers that show that HMC is better than Caltech are mistaken, and those who try to cite other alumni numbers that show that Caltech is better than HMC are also equally mistaken. The alumni numbers are at this time inconclusive. And in case you're wondering, I have never said that the numbers show that HMC is better than Caltech, which you can verify by going through my old posts. I have always said that the numbers show that HMC is pretty good, but I never said anything about how the numbers prove that HMC is better than Caltech. </p>
<p>Let me reiterate my position. I still suspect that Caltech has the edge over HMC, but that is not because the alumni numbers prove it to be so. Instead, I would cite Caltech's better brand name, better selectivity, the tight integration between the undergrad program and the research activities (which I think is far more important than just simply having lots of research activities - again, look at Berkeley), and so forth. </p>
<p>But look, if we can't agree on anything else, at least we can all agree that HMC and Caltech are perfectly fine schools. There is no need to bash each other's school and there's certainly no need to go around making personal insults, as some people here seem to enjoy doing.</p>
<p>Here's my unasked for perspective... </p>
<p>Comparing Caltech to other schools is fairly similar to the situation where Caltech was looking for its next president. (Techers, most of this info comes from an interview of Professor Stevenson, who chaired the search committee; I believe it'd be early March, if you want to look through the Tech archives)</p>
<p>1) They need to be above a certain line of academic accomplishment. Nobel winners are nice, but it's not necessary that the president always must have one. All they need is to be respected by their peers. There's no need to get the "best."</p>
<p>2)After you remove everyone who isn't above that line, it's a matter of personal fit. We want someone that fits in with the different groups that make up the school (undergrads, grads, faculty, Trustees, etc...). These are the people that the president needs to understand and make decisions for. A Nobel doesn't help too much if people feel that you don't care about them. Good personal interactions go a long way in making your job easier.</p>
<p>Once you have decided on an academic level that you want out of your school, you'll still have many schools to choose from. At that point, just decide on which place fits your personality the best.</p>
<p>...Or I mean, you could just have the schools fight to the death over you. Only having one school survive to be selected does show which one is "the best."</p>
<p>I know I'm late to this, but I had to add this experience.</p>
<p>I had a cousin who went to Harvey Mudd. My aunt used to brag about it all the time. I had an occasion to be in CA, so I went to visit him and sit in on some of his classes (our spring breaks came at different times).</p>
<p>They didn't have half the labs or computer equipment--especially networks, we had at CMU. I wasn't particularly impressed with the coursework or the students. They weren't dumb, but they NOR the school impressed me much at all.</p>
<p>For engineering, there is no way they get the experience students at CMU get. I would go to Cornell before I went to Mudd.</p>
<p>If anyone has an option to go to Caltech consider it seriously. If your other option is Mudd, choose Caltech without hesitation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They didn't have half the labs or computer equipment--especially networks, we had at CMU
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, isn't that a bit unfair? CMU is one of the best schools in the world at computer science and computer networking, as, after all, computer science is CMU's crown jewel. That's like saying that a girl is ugly just because she isn't as beautiful as Halle Berry. </p>
<p>My point is, and has always been, as follows. Given the choice between Caltech and Harvey Mudd, would I choose Caltech? Probably. However, can I see reasons for some people to choose Mudd? Yes. Let's give credit where credit is due - Mudd is a pretty darn good school.</p>
<p>Thank you sakky. I appreciate your respect for us.</p>