<p>And if that's not enough, we have the second highest percentage of PhD's in the nation after Caltech. Clearly if any serious research university were superior to an LAC like Mudd for science and engineering experience, we would not be ranked nearly so high. It is also interesting to note the LAC's in general hold their own in this category as well. Go look up the statistics for the schools that have the most percentage of their students earn PhD's, particularly in math and science. Read before you make unfounded assertions.</p>
<p>"per capita Mudd has a much more impressive list of alumni"</p>
<p>yes it's impressive but look at CMU's, lots of people you've (hopefully) heard of, including 12 Nobel Prize winners either faculty or alumni (or both) </p>
<p>posts 1 and 3, rankings post 5<br>
EDIT: Heck the link isn't working, so check Wikipedia :)</p>
<p>Believe me I have utmost respect for HMudd (although I only know about it from CC) but I do wonder about what bruno123 brought up. I'm NOT trying to put down HMC, I imagine it's a wonderful place, but CMU has 5400 undergrads and 4500 grads. It's large enough to be powerful on a national and international basis. Small enough to get personal attention, plenty of it. A lot of important, diverse research can and does come from 10,000 students and from the faculty of a school of this size and calibre. btw CMU faculty is also loaded with MIT, CTech, ivy, Michigan <em>AND</em> CMU phd's galore...</p>
<p>My question...If HMC has 720 undergrads, that's about 180 in a class. How many freshman CS majors do they have? 10? 20? Couldn't be much more. How many mechanical engineers? ECE's...25 or at most? How can there be much variety in the courses you can take? CMU's course catalog is endless. Check out page after page of offerings in CS...how could HMC possibly be a "better" CS program, as someone mentioned.
(I realize Caltech is also a tiny school but they have world class grad school where significant research takes place). Just asking...</p>
<p>Also fwiw I think if I asked 100 people here in NJ if they've ever heard of Harvey Mudd College I'll go out on a limb and say 99 (at least!) will never have heard of the place. Of course plenty of Californians have never heard of Carnegie Mellon! (yes I understand the people who count, grad schools and employers certainly know of HMC)</p>
<p>Both schools are topnotch, but I'll take HMC's weather any day...</p>
<p>How can there be much variety in the courses you can take?</p>
<p>You get to take classes at the other 4 claremont colleges: Pitzer, Scripps, CMC, and Pomona. If you add up the population of all of the claremont colleges you will get about the same number of undergraduates, or close enough. </p>
<p>Just to answer that.</p>
<p>And as for the research, you can pretty much do it at any university you attend; I wouldnt even consider it an issue. However the difference at HMC is that it is required to graduate, and not just optional.</p>
<p>I believe he was refering to course variety within the computer science departments.</p>
<p>
I've heard this argument several times from you and other Mudders, and I've never found it convincing. </p>
<p>I don't think you realize that having a PhD from a top program is a necessary, but by no means sufficient, condition for being a 'first rate' professor. Indeed, only the very best of these PhD recipients are even offered tenure-track positions at top research universities (like CMU for instance), so it's a bit insulting to those amazing achievers to suggest that everyone who gets a PhD from a top school is equal in ability. </p>
<p>If you actually wanted to compare the research 'quality' of the faculty, you should look at publication records of the faculty. I'm pretty confident that CMU would dominate HMC in this regard, which is one of the academic reasons some people choose research institutions over LACs. That and the graduate courses, that is.</p>
<p>I actually agree with cghen that getting a PhD at a top school doesn't automatically qualify you as a top research guru. I even think the faculty at HMC would admit themselves that compared to top research university faculty, they are relatively unaccomplished.</p>
<p>But my point is that I think, for undergraduates, this is not so important in and of itself. I do not believe that a large research department automatically makes a school better for science and engineering undergrads. Because again, I would point to how well LAC graduates in general, not just HMC, do when it comes to students getting PhD's compared to large research universities (heck, even Caltech can be considered a LAC from some perspectives considering it's smaller than most of them!). So clearly LAC education is not a "waste of time" so to speak.</p>
<p>Meh, an Economics teacher at my highschool was the ambassador to Japan at one point and even did teaching at the Ivys including Harvard as well as associated research with them. However, was he a good teacher? not, in fact he was always under fire from the other teachers. Just because he is accomplished doesnt make him a better 'passer of knowledge.' For me, my best teacher was from a Cal State school and she taught English, my most hated subject; but she was damn good.</p>
<p>I know HS and College are on different levels, but why do you guys really care about how accomplished your professors are? If you go to any of the schools in this conversations you would most likely be able to be apart of cutting edge research if you want, it just might not be with a nobel laureate.</p>
<p>Are they truly weak in the sciences? O.o I didn't think that they were THAT bad...</p>
<p>
I think it has different levels of relevance to different students. I, for one, found it particularly relevant, but that's a little beside the point as it is certainly understandable that other people might not value it as much as I do.</p>
<p>My point is that choosing between schools like CMC and HMC comes down to student priorities and preferances rather than differences in overall 'quality' between the institutions.</p>
<p>"I believe he was refering to course variety within the computer science departments."</p>
<p>Okay so like I said there are about as many people at claremont as there are at carnegie mellon, all of whom can take a CS course, which is the same as at CM(there are other majors afterall). But as for HMC and the Claremont thing in general, I would assume there is a smaller amount of CS students there, but that does not mean there is a shortage of classes, it just might show that you will have smaller classes instead.</p>
<p>And yes your average LAC will be weak in the science area; it just is not a primary focus when educating non-science, non-engineer majors.</p>
<p>"I think it has different levels of relevance to different students. I, for one, found it particularly relevant, but that's a little beside the point as it is certainly understandable that other people might not value it as much as I do.</p>
<p>My point is that choosing between schools like CMC and HMC comes down to student priorities and preferances rather than differences in overall 'quality' between the institutions."</p>
<p>Correct. I realized "relevant" may not be the appropriate word. What I meant to say was that in and of itself, research powerhouse of the faculty is not so important. As in, any large research university is not automatically better than any LAC just because the faculty publish more. There are a lot of other variables involved, as you said.</p>
<p>And just a minor point - here at Mudd, we view CMC as our friendly rivals Claremont McKenna College. I prefer CMU :-).</p>
<p>
[quote]
And just a minor point - here at Mudd, we view CMC as our friendly rivals Claremont McKenna College. I prefer CMU :-).
[/quote]
Hah, yeah fair enough - I'm sure they do too.</p>
<p>coming from a large research university, i still have the upmost respect for hmc. in my opinion, for undergraduate studies in california in science and technology, it is only second to cal-tech. if i was choosing an undergraduate school, i would choose hmc over carnegie mellon. however this is my opinion. both are excellent schools, and you cant really go wrong with either. ironically, i am usually biased in favor of larger research oriented universities, however harvey mudd is truly an incredible school for undergrads. it also has excellent placement into graduate programs. on a side note, the campus, along with the other claremont schools, is beautiful.</p>
<p>i would also think that harvey mudd college would be a bit tougher to get into than carnegie mellon. of course both are very difficult to get into. i was wondering if anyone had the entering class statistics or average admit statistics of the two schools. i know mudd is quite selective.</p>
<p>CMU</p>
<pre><code>Middle 50% of
</code></pre>
<p>First-Year Students
SAT Critical Reading: 610 - 710
SAT Math: 690 - 780<br>
SAT Writing: 610 - 700
ACT Composite: 28 - 32</p>
<p>HMC
SAT Critical Reading: 680 - 760
SAT Math: 740 - 790
SAT Writing: 670 - 740
ACT: Starts accepting next fall</p>
<p>Post #18 by Bruno123 is interesting but does not coincide with my experience or with my readings. Often research profs have heavy publishing and lab research demands that take them away from the classroom; also, a great researcher is not necessarily a great teacher. Much of undergraduate education is about creating interest and excitement about the subject matter and I would opt for the better teacher who can always read about the ground breaking research. In my opinion, effective communication is the key to a great undergraduate education. Sorry if this seems too simplistic, but it is my experienced opinion. P.S. I readily admit that if your decision is between CMU and Harvey Mudd that you are a lot smarter than I am-so please go easy on the criticism.</p>
<p>so by what seiken stated, HMC is "smarter". lol. ah the argument continues.</p>
<p>
[quote]
on a side note, the campus, along with the other claremont schools, is beautiful.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Haha. I wouldn't go that far... We all know that the other 4C's campuses are quite beautiful but Mudd's isn't. However, it's unique and it grows on you.</p>
<p>Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think Mudd is beautiful in terms of its groundwork and use of space, even though its architecture is rather odd and quirky (but it does grow on you, as said).</p>
<p>i meant the claremont schools as a whole. When i visited them i was surprised how beauitful the campuses and area were. I found them extremely attractive. And i loved the atmosphere.</p>