<p>Your opinion?</p>
<p>For what? If it's for engineering, Harvey Mudd is supposed to be one of the best.</p>
<p>harvey mudd in sciences/engineering is reowned...anyhow...cmu is pretty easy to get in but hmc is madness O.o</p>
<p>how about math and medicine stuff</p>
<ol>
<li>Don't come to harvey mudd if you are premed</li>
<li>HMC is superior for math, physics, engineering, chemistry, biology, and mathematical biology. Carnegie Mellon is superior for CS.</li>
</ol>
<p>um what about neuroscience? does that count under biology?</p>
<p>The London Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) ranked Carnegie Mellon the 5th best school in North America in the "technology" (i.e engineering + CS) category, behind only MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, and Caltech. Harvey Mudd on the other hand probably doesn't even appear in any international ranking. </p>
<p>Bottom line: if you want to be an engineer, don't waste your time going to a LAC like Harvey Mudd; go instead to a real engineering school like CMU (which is, by any measure, one of the top 10 engineering schools in the US and probably the number one CS and robotics school).</p>
<p>If however you are interested in neuroscience or biology, then Carnegie Mellon is definitely a bad choice (as it is generally pretty weak in life sciences). I</p>
<p>
[quote]
Bottom line: if you want to be an engineer, don't waste your time going to a LAC like Harvey Mudd; go instead to a real engineering school like CMU (which is, by any measure, one of the top 10 engineering schools in the US and probably the number one CS and robotics school).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"waste time" going to Harvey Mudd for engineering? That's way ~25% of our students go on to receive PhD's? Essentially tied for highest in the nation with Caltech? Surely grad schools don't view an undergraduate education from Mudd as a "waste of time." Also, employers will consider an engineering degree from Mudd more powerful than an engineering degree from Carnegie Mellon.</p>
<p>Anyway, don't go to Mudd or CMU for neuroscience. I'd recommend Pomona if you want to go to a LAC for neuroscience.</p>
<p>"The London Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) ranked Carnegie Mellon the 5th best school in North America in the "technology" (i.e engineering + CS) category, behind only MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, and Caltech. Harvey Mudd on the other hand probably doesn't even appear in any international ranking. </p>
<p>Bottom line: if you want to be an engineer, don't waste your time going to a LAC like Harvey Mudd; go instead to a real engineering school like CMU (which is, by any measure, one of the top 10 engineering schools in the US and probably the number one CS and robotics school)."</p>
<p>Bruno123, you don't know what you are talking about. HMC does not appear on those rankings because it is not ranked. They probably excluded it as:
1) HMC is only 720 students
2) HMC is only undergrad</p>
<p>Now, if you would like to compare the numbers of HMC and CMU graduates, please go ahead. I think you will be shocked to find that HMC has at least the same quality of freshman, if not greater quality. Now, please, look at the numbers for HMC graduates. Notice that HMC alums make very good money, for those who enter the workforce right away (and later) and most go on to receive at least a master's degree after HMC. Approximately 30+% go on to earn PhDs, many at the most prestigious grad schools in the country... including CMU.</p>
<p>You are definitely up-playing CMU's undergraduate program. While they have a great program, it is not of the measure of CMU's grad program, which is where most of CMU's prestige comes from. Since Mudd is soley undergraduate (and is 40% engineering), I would venture to say that HMC is just as good, if not better than CMU for undergraduate engineering (and chemistry and math and maybe computer science and physics).</p>
<p>CMU is a top 10 ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY NOT COLLEGE. Mudd is ranked #1 for colleges, which by definition are institutions that offer at most a master's degree, not PhD.</p>
<p>Per capita, Mudd has a much more impressive set of alumni. (Check Wikipedia and then remember that only 4000 alums have ever existed) The chances any one student (undergrad) will come out of HMC and do something notable is statistically higher than that of CMU undergrad. </p>
<p>The numbers don't lie, but you do.</p>
<p>Starting Salaries
CMU (in 2005)-$57,281
HMC (in 2005)-$58,000</p>
<p>Albeit the two numbers are with-in statistical variation of eachother, it is simple to see that Mudd is not "a waste of time".</p>
<p><a href="http://www.studentaffairs.cmu.edu/career/employ/salary/cit.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.studentaffairs.cmu.edu/career/employ/salary/cit.html</a>
<a href="http://www.eng.hmc.edu/EngWebsite/index.php?page=AftYouGrad.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.eng.hmc.edu/EngWebsite/index.php?page=AftYouGrad.php</a>
Note: CMU data was averaged by reported number and $.</p>
<p>
<p>Bottom line: if you want to be an engineer, don't waste your time going to a LAC like Harvey Mudd; go instead to a real engineering school like CMU
Your logic is completely circular and misfounded.</p>
<p>Indeed, if you knew anything about high-caliber engineering LACs like HMC and Olin, you'd understand that in many ways you get a better education than at large research universities like CMU. For instance, they have a much better student body, more faculty interaction, and generally a better classroom experience. </p>
<p>There are of course negatives to attending a LAC over a university, but those negatives can be far outweighed by unique positives. Different people will weigh these pros/cons with differing outcomes so it's absolutely ludicrous to suggest that everyone should go to a 'real engineering' school.</p>
<p>"HMC does not appear on those rankings because it is not ranked."</p>
<p>Now that's circular reasoning.</p>
<p>I think that for engineering, a larger university is better because of the research opportunities.</p>
<p>Okay, if you are premed HMC is both a good and bad school. Good because you will definately learn everything you need to know. Bad because you will probably learn a great deal of stuff that you wont need. I would probably say the same for neuroscience. There is a lot of calculus and physics, so if that isnt your cup of tea (as with many bio-ish people im familiar with) harvey mudd will beat you down like a ho who doesnt have enough benjamins fo big daddy. </p>
<p>The Princeton Review places hmc as 3rd in "Their Students Never Stop Studying" behind MIT and caltech, and in front of Harvard (5) and U Chicago (6). Mellon is 7th. HMC is also 18th on the list for "Best Overall Academic Experience for Undergraduates," just behind Harvard (16) and MIT (17). </p>
<p>As for the whole 'people go onto PhDs' thing its rather arbitrary because that is just a statistic that tells you what kind of people go to Mudd, a science person does get PhDs more often than anybody else. But if you actually care about it then here is a quote from good ole wiki: 40 percent of graduates go on to earn a Ph.D. — the highest rate of any college or university in the nation.</p>
<p>Overall I would rank HMC higher for various reasons, but that all comes down to personal preference. CM is high on my list as well though. My fav HMC professor actually did his UD work there. </p>
<p>Hmm based on this response one might expect i actually go to HMC...go figure.</p>
<p>"harvey mudd will beat you down like a ho who doesnt have enough benjamins fo big daddy. "</p>
<p>hahaha. Nice simile there.</p>
<p>"Overall I would rank HMC higher for various reasons, but that all comes down to personal preference. CM is high on my list as well though. My fav HMC professor actually did his UD work there. "</p>
<p>Prof Ran?</p>
<p>""HMC does not appear on those rankings because it is not ranked."</p>
<p>Now that's circular reasoning."</p>
<p>Yeah, I guess I am a bit circular there. What I meant to say is: Mudd isn't doesn't appear on that list because it is so bad it didn't even make the top 25 or whatever, but it just was not considered for that listing.</p>
<p>Prof. Benjamin actually. </p>
<p>On another note, potatoes are crappy fruit because they are not a fruit. Who wants to do one on Michael Jackson?</p>
<p>I don't want to get into an argument and I admit I'm biased against LAC education in general (not only HMC). However, I find it hard to believe that any school can have a strong undergraduate program in fast-changing areas like engineering, neuroscience, or cell/molecular biology without having simultaneously a strong research-oriented graduate program that tracks the state of the art in those fields. </p>
<p>High school students in particular sometimes have this misguided idea that LACs are better than research universities for undergraduate studies because, somehow, since professors are not involved in research or advising graduate students, they have "more time" to devote to their undergraduate teaching. However, that is far from the truth. As I said, research-oriented universities, because they are always on the frontier of the subjects they teach, tend to have more modern curricula and offer a great variety of innovative upperclass courses that reflect emerging trends in the profession. Many seniors even have the option of taking graduate classes or getting into integrated bachelor's/master's programs where they study their chosen area of specialization at a much greater depth. Furthermore, because of their involvement in original research, professsors in universities have a much broader understanding of the subjects they teach, often seeing connections and interpretations that a less-qualified LAC teacher is normally unaware of.
In fact, it is not unlikely to find LAC professors who got their PhDs 10 or 20 years ago and have never published one single major research paper since then. </p>
<p>I should also say that, contrary to popular misconceptions, undergrads in research universities do not have to "compete with graduate students" for attention. There are actually plenty of research opportunities for undergrads, often in ground-breaking areas not commonly found in a small LAC. Moreover, contrary to what many HS students hear, full professors do regularly teach undergrad classes in research universities. Some are actually excellent teachers and, even in the cases where their teaching is not so good, students still profit enormously from the professor's depth and breadth of knowledge and deep understanding of the subject. Finally, it is not true either that lecture halls packed with 100+ students are the norm in all research universities. That may be the case perhaps in large state schools, but certainly is not the case in smaller private research universities, especially in upperclass elective courses. </p>
<p>The crucial importance of the research/teaching link goes back to the emergence of the research university model in Germany in the 19th century and is now universally accepted as a basic tenet for quality in modern university education. College is not and should not be simply an extension of High School with tougher classes. Moreover, college education should not be judged solely by the quality of conventional classroom instruction as measured by High School standards. HMC, or any other LAC for that matter, may be ranked # 1 in one category, namely programs whose higher degree offered is a bachelor's degree. That doesn't mean however that this category is either meaningful or desirable. In particular, as I said in my first paragraph, engineering or science undergraduate programs that are not closely linked with a strong PhD program in the same area tend to compare poorly overall to similar programs in research-orientated universities.</p>
<p>That post really makes me think....but not in a good way.</p>
<p>Out of curiosity, have you even heard of harvey mudd college before this topic?</p>
<p>Anyone who's walked around Harvey Mudd can see that the halls are lined with huge posters of research projects.</p>
<p>Our professors are actually amazing, not second rate. If you want to look at the faculty in our website, be my guest. You'll find that 100% of the faculty have PhD's and that almost all of them come from Caltech, MIT, Harvard, and other big name grad schools. Prof. Benjamin is world known for his mental math skills. Prof. Pippenger was a full professor at Princeton with groundbreaking computer science research, and is now a first year professor at Mudd. Some of our other professors used to teach at Caltech but were dying for the chance to teach here and jumped on it right away. And quite a few professors actually were Mudd students in the past, which is always good because they have a greater understanding of the college and the students.</p>
<p>Don't knock our professors and compare them to some at a 50th ranked LAC. Harvey Mudd isn't the typical LAC school. Our professors are all tenured based on teaching ability, but they also do legitimate research.</p>
<p>By the way, did you know that 100% of Harvey Mudd students participate in undergraduate research? It's actually a requirement for graduating that we must do a year of research our senior year, solving real problems for real companies (Harvey Mudd gets paid 40k for each project).</p>