<p>I bet that this has been asked somewhere, but after multiple search terms and going back about 10 pages on each, I figured that making a thread would be a lot quicker.</p>
<p>A bit of background on the question: I'm a first-generation kid, and the only universities (in my chosen "domain" of science) that my parents consider good are the Ivies or media-prominent ones like Standford, MIT, and Caltech. I've told them about other decent sciency schools that don't necessarily have as much lay prestige but seem relatively supported in the college community (such as Harvey Mudd). Their response to this is that I could apply, but wouldn't be going to any of those even if I got in and they'd rather just keep me instate.</p>
<p>Now, this got me wondering a bit. After doing some reading (most notably, an article by Malcolm Gladwell Getting</a> In : The New Yorker), I'm sort of curious. </p>
<p>How much does prestige really affect not only college experience in a science-y school, but overall success beyond college? Is going to a high ranked (bit potentially expensive) undergrad school all that important for math or engineering if a person plans on going to grad school afterward?</p>
<p>(Oh, and since I know this is going to happen... I appreciate those who want to give advice for dealing with my parents, but I just want some research for now. xP)</p>
<p>The most important thing for a career in science is a solid research background. If you can get into a lab and do good work, you’re golden.</p>
<p>Classes in the sciences are generally pretty standardized for undergraduates, especially when comparing top schools to other top schools. The differences will be in variation of course work available in your area of interest, access to graduate level courses, and access to research experiences.</p>
<p>College ranking is important but it is more important that the school is strong in science/math/engineering. Some schools have a high ranking but may not be equally strong in science and engineering (like Georgetown). Some schools have relatively low ranking but are strong in sciences and engineering (like Purdue and Illinois).</p>
<p>Well, yes, but comparing say between MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, Caltech to </p>
<p>"The next group of 5 or 6 are:
Carnegie Mellon University
Cornell University
Georgia Institute of Technology
University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor</p>
<p>KnowledgeInChaos,
This bit of opinion is going to sound highly biased (considering it is my alma mater) but I believe it whole hardily and my early success can back this up:</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd College arguably has one of the best undergraduate science/engineer programs in the country. It definitely meets or exceeds the standards of MIT/Stanford/Berkeley and is not unlike Caltech with regards to its rigor (though the environment is much different).</p>
<p>I just graduated from Mudd last year. I gained immediate employment at one of the toughest aerospace research and development companies in the country. I am the only person in 5 years to come directly out of an undergraduate program and get employed… the last one also came from Mudd. Every other young person recently hired had a few years of industry experience or had a Masters or PhD from UMich, Purdue, Caltech, GTech.</p>
<p>The interview was highly technical (for about 6 hours) and I was grilled on a wide variety of engineering/science topics. Before the interview, they said that they were impressed with Mudd students but it wasn’t until I got an offer (one of ~5 granted each year to young folk) that it became apparent how good my undergrad education was. Since I started (about 7 months ago), I’ve had trouble getting over that I don’t have the “credentials” of the others. Time and time again, the head technical people at the company have assured me that I was hired for a reason and I must believe in my abilities… because they wouldn’t have hired me if I was not up to par. (I’m still working on this but people can still be intimidating)</p>
<p>So you can go to a school for its layman prestige or you can go to a school for its highly regarded kick-$ss education that is recognized by the leaders in the field. It is partially up to you.</p>
<p>Thanks for the post rocketDA. Don’t worry about being biased–I haven’t really heard too much on the school, so the information is welcoming. </p>
<p>Of what I have read of Harvey Mudd so far (mostly on its thread in the Colleges section), I definitely can see that the rigor level is high. It’s actually one of the things that’s piqued my interested towards the school in the past few days.</p>
<p>However, you said that Harvey Mudd “is not unlike Caltech with regards to its rigor (though the environment is much different)”. What about the environment of the two schools is different? So far, I know that Harvey Mudd is part of the Claremount colleges, so I’d except it to be a bit more well rounded and less science-lopsided than Caltech, but what specifically do you think are the differences?</p>
<p>USC engineering has invested a lot from generous engineering alums recently. It has its own internship & career placement center and the kids I know there are getting good placements, including NASA, Exxon, federal positions and others.</p>