Chances???

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvey Mudd College
21

<p>The core is absolutely essential to the engineering courses taught at Mudd. Anyone saying that they want to go to another school to avoid a core doesn't understand engineering. If you want to learn engineering pitched at a high level, you have to understand physics, chem, mv calc, DEs, lin al, cs, possibly bio -- oh hey, that's the Mudd core!</p>

<p>Seriously, if your engineering courses aren't heavily based on these subjects, then they are probably cupcake classes. Mudd doesn't provide students with easy non-analytical engineering classes freshman year. Instead, we build up a great general knowledge of science and math that is essential to fundamentally understand engineering.</p>

22

<p>OK atomicfusion, your post to me sounds like a less realistic, much more presumptuous version of rocket's above, which actually sounds quite good to me. Know what the fundamental flaw is with your addition to his words? It's not that the core at Mudd is unnecessary for its course of study, or not useful for engineers in general...it's that
the following:</p>

<p>"If you want to learn engineering pitched at a high level, you have to understand physics, chem, mv calc, DEs, lin al, cs, possibly bio -- oh hey, that's the Mudd core!"</p>

<p>claims to package exactly what is necessary to learn engineering, the only supposedly right way. First off, my understanding is that Mudd's core applies to <em>everyone</em> and not just to engineers. There is absolutely no way I am going to believe that everyone on the face of this planet should have to go through that core to achieve tremendous intellectual satisfaction. I have a strong feeling Mudd's core is geared towards <em>its specific philosophy of learning</em>, and whether or not someone wants to go through it is really a personal choice. At least from the angle of mathematics and physics, I can tell you that the core is definitely not the end-all, and I have a hard time believing it is for engineering. </p>

<p>On the contrary -- I can see a Mudd student requiring material <em>NOT</em> in the core for his/her later inquiries, and potentially <em>NOT</em> so much requiring something in the core. Academics in math, science, and engineering are vast beyond any of our tiny little university educations. In the ocean, you will have to learn things as they come up, and no one school can package you a "core" which tells you everything you need to know, no more, no less, as you're suggesting. </p>

<p>I am very much in touch with one physics graduate of Mudd, and he definitely complained many times that random technical mathematical machinery would be introduced in his upper level physics courses, which he wasn't exactly familiar with...I can imagine this. There are definitely physics books at a high level that I've picked up, which require things <em>not</em> in Mudd's core, but don't require many things which are in the core. </p>

<p>Now I am less knowledgeable about engineering, as I said, but I am also certain that no such curriculum can be the end-all one....heck, what if someone goes and decides engineering isn't for him/her in Mudd? And they want to do a math major? I can sure as heck tell you there are math prof's at Berkeley who are geniuses to speak of, who did <em>nothing but math</em> in their undergraduate careers. </p>

<p>"Seriously, if your engineering courses aren't heavily based on these subjects, then they are probably cupcake classes."</p>

<p>The above is pretty much what I take issue with. Most engineering schools require SOME physics, MV calc, DE's, linear algebra, but not all of them require the same stuff as Mudd does. What CAN I am sure be said is that Mudd provides a great education based on its own core. Undergraduate education is, after all, preparing you to go out into the world and do [hopefully] amazing things, i.e. it's part of an ongoing process...and it only makes sense that there would be more than one way to approach it.</p>

23

<p>Well you really misinterpreted my example rocketDA because my daughter really wants to study biology and even so was considering studying 2 years of physics plus engineering plus etc.... Regardless, she decided that it wasn't a good fit.</p>

24

<p>WEll to the above, I think rocket was pointing specifically to physics. I can imagine that he's probably right there. Given your daughter's line of study, I am sure her decision was best for her...</p>

<p>I think advising a little healthier physics + math for an engineer is great, but going through Mudd's core is heavily a personal choice, and amounts to far more than a "little healthier"!!!</p>

25

<p>OK upon thought, I am willing to say my above huge post is a little too attacking...the basic point atomicfusion brings up, which is to encourage a coverage of certain subjects, is good.</p>

<p>However, a core that "eats one soul" being required for anyone and everyone does not have to be the only way you learn. You need to put lots of effort in, but different people learn different ways, with different degrees of freedom. I do think that atomicfusion's post does not adequately respect the different engineering program philosophies, i.e. in the sense of not honoring students' wills to go elsewhere.</p>

26

<p>Mind you the core is also supposed to give you an introduction to all scientific disciplines so that you can make an educated guess at what you want to do for the rest of your life. You might think you want to do chemistry until you take our unique introductory course on special relativity/quantum mechanics and fall in love. You might think you want to do physics, but then you take discrete math and introductory CS and decide thats more interesting. </p>

<p>Also, I think saying the core eats your soul is a bit too harsh. I think its considerably more accurate to say the core tests your soul. It might come out a bit damaged though....</p>

27

<p>"Mind you the core is also supposed to give you an introduction to all scientific disciplines so that you can make an educated guess at what you want to do for the rest of your life."</p>

<p>Now this is a healthier reason to go through the core...though, might I say, I am sure Mudd's version of "sampling" is probably somewhat brutal. I think for a vast majority of people, the way to go is to sample things at a school which is less taxing + brutal. If they're closed-minded and don't sample, that's their fault. A few, though, are suited to a more rigorous program. </p>

<p>I don't know, of course, if core eats your soul [that's rocket's say =)] but I do know that it looks pretty substantial compared to what most have to go through at other schools.</p>

28

<p>Having to take the core was one of the reasons my Mudd GPA was as low as it was. I was a math/compsci major at Mudd, and by the time I graduated I had mostly A's and B's in all my Math/CS classes. The other subjects, however, were a whole different story. I got a D in freshman chem. I failed sophomore physics. I dropped sophomore engineering because it was clear I was not going to pass (I retook it my junior year and I think I got a C). </p>

<p>While some view the core as unnecessary extra courses, I don't regret having to take those classes at all. In fact, as I was entering Mudd out of high school, I was thinking I would major in pure math, or maybe even physics. After taking some required compsci classes (because of the core) and enjoying them, and finding out that I wasn't nearly as good at physics as I thought (because of the core, haha), I switched majors to math/compsci. A lot of my classmates ended up changing majors (some more than twice) as well, because of what they were exposed to in the core.</p>

<p>The goal of the HMC curriculum is not to produce 'engineers', or 'mathematicians', or 'computer programmers.' The goal is to produce well-rounded, rational thinkers who happen to specialize in a certain subject.</p>

29

<p>Thanks for your post malgorium, I found it very helpful.</p>

30

<p>Sure thing. If you have any questions about Mudd, feel free to ask, though my info may be a bit outdated, since I graduated almost 10 years ago!</p>

31

<p>"While some view the core as unnecessary extra courses, I don't regret having to take those classes at all."</p>

<p>That's part of the thing -- I, as someone who ended up choosing not to go to Mudd, despite loving many things about the school, really encourage people who FEEL like the core is this huge, massive amount of math and science courses and aren't sure how they'll feel about it not to go to Mudd. It's a small school, with I think a somewhat specific target student. I think it's possible for people to know what they want coming in, AND still enjoy the school greatly, if they are open to + excited about technical/scientific subjects just in general. Because then, I think it's fairly possible to try another such subject, and figure out it's what one wants in the first place! </p>

<p>For students less excited though, I really think the best option is to go to a school which <em>has</em> good resources in all those areas, but to leave the option to experiment to themselves. I actually think a good way to go about it is -- if one doesn't find what one is studying REALLY FUN, ask why, and ask what could be different about the subject. Then, look around for a subject meeting the description -- in the vastness of it all, surely a fitting subject will exist. I mean heck, whenever I felt "Ack, I wish this aspect of so and so math subject were flavored more like this, rather than that," by golly, a subfield to my tastes always existed!! Just food for thought, somewhat tangentially related.</p>

32

<p>mathboy98 I think your grossly over exaggerating complaints Mudder's have. Just like many college freshman like to brag about how "easy" high school was.</p>

<p>About me: Junior at Mudd, was an engineering major and I am now a "CS" major. I have taken a number of elective credits, and gained a pretty good background in some engineering principles as well as some of the higher level aspects of CS.</p>

<p>As for core: Its an intellectual exercise. There are a number of interesting problems involving CS, Chemistry, Bio, and Engineering that are not limited to any one of the above. Each of the courses gives students a good footing for engaging material in those subjects beyond the core and also introduces some higher level technical questions in each subject. While the idea of "free choice" is nice, it is not for everyone. A lot of people get introduced to ideas that they find very interesting rather than taking their own impetus for studying the material.</p>

<p>The core is a very important part to what makes mudd such a great school for budding academics and businessman in that it prepares you to handle any challenge presented to you. Clinic is a great example of this in that you will likely do a project related to your major that also incorporates ideas from different disciplines. The same is true when you graduate from college. You will find challenging problems that incorporate multiple fields, and while you will forget a lot of the material, having a background in the material builds confidence to answer tough questions.</p>

33

<p>Slak - I am not sure what makes you believe I'm exaggerating complaints, but I'll take your word for it. My mission here is to provide one student's perspective on why I <em>believe</em> I made the right decision in going elsewhere. In fact, I think your point is similar to mine in philosophy:</p>

<p>"While the idea of "free choice" is nice, it is not for everyone. A lot of people get introduced to ideas that they find very interesting rather than taking their own impetus for studying the material."</p>

<p>If "free choice" is not for everyone, neither is Mudd, I imagine! One can get a good education in math, science and engineering at many schools, and this is one very specific way to do it. My feeling is that those who aren't sure they want the particular kind of program offered at your school might be better off going to a more "normal" school. I think even at normal schools, if one hates one's major + classes, life becomes terrible, but if you're in a school where the entire culture is to revel in this insane academic atmosphere, it becomes all the more important to like that atmosphere. </p>

<p>However, all this said, I apologize if I'm misrepresenting anything. This is, after all, just part of my reasoning as to why I chose to go elsewhere personally.</p>

34

<p>four things:
First, I believe they are going to be cutting the core back a little, taking a semester off of physics, chem, and math. As a math major, I could do without two semesters of chem lab, but I don't have too many complaints about the core.
Secondly, the core is definitely not an end unto itself. The benefits are similar to those associated with going to a school where everyone can handle calculus. The teachers and classes can assume a much broader knowledge of math and science and don't have to cater to those without the necessary background. For instance, everyone has taken CS, so the physics professors have no qualms about assigning homework that requires students to write a program to numerically solve the differential equation for planetary motion (because we've all had DE's).
Thirdly, while, for most majors, the core classes outside of their major are a novelty that isn't necessarily used that much later on, they are essential for any engineers. At Mudd there isn't specialization in engineering; everyone gets a general engineering degree. The engineering core (the applied sciences 80s, as they're known) is thus an extension of material learned in the core physics, chemistry and cs classes.
Fourthly, the core ensures that all students face and confront a certain degree of academic rigor. I think (and hope i'm right) that the core is part of what makes Harvey Mudd such a well respected school. I chose to go here rather than MIT for a number of reasons. While I could have elicited much stronger responses from the average person by saying I went to MIT rather than Mudd ("Where is that?"), in the technical and scientific fields Mudd is well known. My dad knows one of the founders of intel and, when I was making my decision, my dad asked him if I was giving up anything in choosing to go to Mudd. He said that Mudd, Caltech and MIT were all on about an equal level, above almost all other schools. During the discussions surrounding core revisions, I heard multiple upper classmen voicing their concerns that they would be making it too easy, to the detriment of the academic experience as a whole.</p>

<p>That being said, the core, and Mudd, is not for everyone:
-If you want to focus on a specific dicipline of engineering, i.e. mechanical or electrical, mudd is the wrong place. Both the core and engineering major are based on a more holistic approach.
-The core does restrict flexibility in course selection. This is most commonly a problem with languages, as it is very hard to take languages 1st semester of freshman year (although they are trying to make it easier with the changes).
-You don't like, can't understand, or don't want to take courses in all the sciences. The core classes aren't watered down so everyone can get through them. I pretty much slept through AP chem in high school and got a 5 on the test, and I just pulled in a 46% on my last test in Chem. If you just want to be a computer scientist or biologist, you may find the core onerous and soul eating.</p>

35

<p>Nice post above, this seems to outline some of the benefits of the school very well, and certainly hits on why I warn people making the same decision I once did to do it carefully.</p>

36

<p>Nice post by Hajt - stumbled across this site while trying to find a notel motel image. It hits nicely on what the core is/was (depending on how they undertake the new requirement changes I've heard about) and why it matters. But, Hajt, if you don't like all the chem in the core currently, be glad you wern't a mudder when Pchem was also in the core. (nah, I'm not that old, I graduated in '04)</p>