<p>Okay I'll say it again:</p>
<p>If you are pre-med you should go to some type of state-university of a university that is known to give good grades easily, even though they may lack the name-recognition value.</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd is much less well-known outside of California. And the name sounds bad. A smaller school might be nice, though.</p>
<p>Well RML, you'll have to take up the point about cutting edge research with the HMC expert rocket. It seems like he's managed to do quite a bit more research type work than most undergraduates at either of the two schools we're comparing, from the sounds of it! Though I understand where you're coming from, in that a larger school is a larger school, somewhat tautologically, and there might be more variety in terms of course selection and such. But I think given as you say, HMC is undergrad focused, the professors would be <em>particularly</em> willing to help their undergrads shine in undergraduate research. </p>
<p>Your comment that it's not right to compare the whole of Cal to the whole of Mudd is of course right on.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Mudd does not have a name or has very little name outside in the West coast. And Cal is a solid top 5 school outside of the US. In Europe, Asia and South America, for instance, scholars and highly educated people would consider Cal a top 5 school. I cannot say the same thing for Mudd.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Mudd has just as big, if not a bigger, name to people within engineering. The average person doesn't know Mudd and knows Berkeley, but who cares? Why should I care what people in South America think about prestige?</p>
<p>atomicfusion, Cal's name is way "bigger" than Mudd's name in engineering circles. The Berkeley name stands on equal footing with Stanford's and slightly behind MIT's. I don't know where you got that idea that Mudd has a bigger name than has Cal within engineering.</p>
<p>mathboy, I hope you're not trying to challenge me on which between Cal and Mudd has better and bigger research activities. There are only a handful of universities than can challenge Cal's extensiveness and deepness in research and Mudd obviously isn't one of them.</p>
<p>Well, I know Berkeley is a research powerhouse in an extreme way, and of its international reputation being exceptional as such a powerhouse -- partially because Berkeley's graduate students are on average much more talented and qualified than the vast majority of its undergrads ever will be (almost tautologically), and its faculty is nothing short of godly in many disciplines. That said, I am not sure that it is a better school for undergraduates who want to get involved in research. </p>
<p>As an undergrad, honestly until you're a senior or something, generally you haven't actually seen enough to even do such "deep" work in many disciplines. Math being one where generally even the best undergrads are heavily limited in what kind of research they can do at an undergrad level of course. So I wouldn't judge a school's undergrad research opportunities in terms of the cutting edge work its faculty and graduate students may put out.</p>
<p>I will agree, though, that as a name in engineering circles, there is NO way Berkeley's reputation is only "at best close to Mudd's" -- realistically, RML is correct in saying that it's up in the top 3 consistently.</p>
<p>
<p>As an undergrad, honestly until you're a senior or something, generally you haven't actually seen enough to even do such "deep" work in many disciplines.
</p>
<p>And Harvey Mudd can magically Fourier Transform its students to do such "deep" work in science & engineering disciplines? </p>
<p>Unless you advocate students to do fluff researches as undergrads, I see no reason to go to Harvey Mudd just because research positions are readily available. Readily available = unlikely to be published.</p>
<p>
Most engineers do not know anything about Harvey Mudd.</p>
<p>I don't know what you're implying, but I certainly didn't say to go to Mudd in favor of Cal to do research. I'm saying to go to Cal as an undergrad expecting to be treated to the glory of the brilliant faculty's research + publish crazy stuff with them is idealism...</p>
<p>
[quote]
atomicfusion, Cal's name is way "bigger" than Mudd's name in engineering circles. The Berkeley name stands on equal footing with Stanford's and slightly behind MIT's. I don't know where you got that idea that Mudd has a bigger name than has Cal within engineering.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmm that didn't come out right. I meant bigger name as in people within Engineering regard HMC engineers as being just as good, if not a little better, than Berkeley engineers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And Harvey Mudd can magically Fourier Transform its students to do such "deep" work in science & engineering disciplines?</p>
<p>Unless you advocate students to do fluff researches as undergrads, I see no reason to go to Harvey Mudd just because research positions are readily available. Readily available = unlikely to be published.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>HMC's clinic program provides all students with the opportunity to work on projects for great companies. All HMC engineers spend 1.5 years in the clinic program. This opportunity likely exceeds the opportunities of the average Berkeley engineer.</p>
<p>Cal and mudd are two different world for two very different types of student. DO NOT make the mistake of mixing them up just because they are both prestigious, selective institution. They have excellent engineering program and beyond nerdy (as beyond intelligent) students. But that is where the similarities end. The environment are very different. Mudd is in claremont, a suburban area, that is very serene and peaceful. Berkeley, well since this is a Berekely forum i assume you are familiar with the environment there. Student body, well Berkely kids are very diverse, the kids come from everywhere and all nationalities. Mudd, not so great, predominatly white/male/rich. But I got to give Mudd props, they are trying harder to make the student body more diverse and the male female ration more even. Mudd small classes with individual attention, Cal is super huge and no one is gonna hold your hand. Cal is very insanely liberal, powerhouse for political activism. Mudd does swing toward to the left, but it's not that noticeable. They say mudd kids don't know how to have fun,( which is probably true =p) but they are known to have the best parties =D. Mudd is not that widely know, but it's very prestigious to those who are aware of it. Mudd is mostly for the math genius, although they say you can take classes at the other CC.
To sum it up, Cal and Mudd are top institutions, for math genius. Be worn, they are very different and you should do your research to see what fits ur needs.
Personally I would choose Cal, just because the architecture at Mudd is boring. lame I know.</p>
<p>One thing to keep in mind is that you are guaranteed to have opportunities at Mudd. At Cal, you'll have to fight and claw your way for everything.</p>
<p>At Mudd, you have easy access to one of the top coop programs in California (USA?). I'd say it's as much about knowing yourself as knowing the campus. What do you want from a college?</p>
<p>
[quote]
At Mudd, you have easy access to one of the top coop programs in California (USA?). I'd say it's as much about knowing yourself as knowing the campus. What do you want from a college?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've been an engineering coop and the Clinic program is on an entirely different level. I've only been in clinic for half a semester and I've already learned more than I have from all my other opportunities combined (internships, research, etc.). The Mudd Clinic program is one of a kind and is for sure one of the best opportunities in the country. In fact, last year there was an Olin professor here observing during Clinic presentation week since Olin wants to create a program modeled after Mudd's Clinic.</p>
<p>That's why all this crap about Berkeley having better research opportunities is ridiculous. At Mudd, EVERY engineer does 1.5 years of difficult work on a team of four for companies like Honeywell, Boeing, JPL, SS/L, need I go on?</p>
<p>I don't know if that's completely true. There are plenty of opportunities at Cal but you just have to go find them yourself. They aren't going to be placed in front of you on a silver plate. I've heard other students complain about this before at Cal, but I really don't think it's as big of an issue as you think if you are determined and use your resources correctly. For example, both my friend and I were offered internship postions this summer at a biotech start up, which we both turned down and we're only freshman.</p>
<p>Honestly people...my opinion is quite simply that if you're damn good at what you do, and proactive, you can find opportunities at both these places...and if you're not damn good at what you do, then you shouldn't be whining about research as an undergraduate, because what you do will be fluff; Mudd students go on fine to grad school, and really couldn't compete as well as they do unless they have opportunities. Cal IS one of the biggest hotspots for engineering grad students, and a proactive undergrad who's actually GOOD will be able to do great work here. </p>
<p>If someone is that into research, posting such a thread isn't the best way to figure out what school to choose anyway. I'd talk to people who have done <em>the specific kind</em> of research one wishes to do, I mean I'm sure everyone can find <em>something</em> to do at both schools, the question is where one can find the kind of work one would most likely wish to do.</p>
<p>I think we should compare other factors here, because people are getting down very quickly to the level of marketing their own schools.</p>
<p>harvey mudd is boring while berkeley is fun.</p>
<p>And I disagree again. Maybe it's a matter of opinion, but I found Mudd's quirky community, awesome/nerdy sense of humour, and general dedication to making real people and not number-drones made it much more fun looking than other similar institutions. I'm fan of making sure there's time for work and play, and Mudd seemed to call for making sure there were equal amounts of both. HOWEVER, my definition of fun is probably different. So while we can say that Mudd might not be fun for you, it's definitely, in my opinion, not a boring place.</p>
<p>“atomicfusion, Cal’s name is way “bigger” than Mudd’s name in engineering circles. The Berkeley name stands on equal footing with Stanford’s and slightly behind MIT’s. I don’t know where you got that idea that Mudd has a bigger name than has Cal within engineering.”</p>
<p>I’ll tell you this much:
The company that I just signed onto has the resources to bring the best engineers from around the world to work on a REALLY BIG project. They SPECIFICALLY spend extra energy looking at Mudd/Caltech than other schools… because from their experience, they’ve found that these engineers tend to bring the most to the company. I cannot divulge the company name or projects…</p>
<p>It may be true that the average engineering firm has not heard of HMC. However, the cream of the engineering world definitely has a bias in favor of HMC. For one who may potentially be a phenomenal engineer, you should be considered with the quality of hiring outside of your educational institution rather than the quantity… and even though quality is the important thing, Mudd has no problem with the quantity either.</p>
<p>These posts show a lot of ignorance on the part of the more well-known institution. If you are really serious about science/engineering/math you’d likely know about HMC and if you by chance didn’t know (by fluke or because you are young), I’d suggest you start doing some research and/or asking some questions before you come on here and blabber away.</p>
<p>With that said, Mudd is not for everyone. This place takes an emotional toll on almost all engineers.</p>