<p>I understand that Harvey Mudd College is only undergraduate, and Cal Tech has important graduate schools, but what are other things to know about these two schools (how they are different). Is Cal Tech much harder to get into? Does Harvey Mudd have much more of an inter-disciplinary atmosphere? </p>
<p>What about the student life at the two schools? Similarities/differences?</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>Well, one major difference is the core. While they both have a science-oriented part of their core, Harvey Mudd includes a humanities portion to its core, which makes up roughly a third of your classes. Harvey Mudd also has the advantage of giving students the chance to take classes at the other Claremont Colleges, which are literally right next to it. Harvey Mudd is also a lot more geared towards teaching. Caltech has more research funding, though, but in both situations the undergrads have good chances of doing research. Caltech also has more facilities like the JPL. Those are the main things that I can think of off the top of my head.</p>
<p>Caltech is more selective than Harvey Mudd (although both are very selective, Caltech is just more so).</p>
<p>Caltech is also more well-known than Harvey Mudd, I'd say.</p>
<p>At Harvey Mudd, the focus is purely on the undergrads. At Caltech, there are more grad students than undergrads. </p>
<p>The undergrad student bodies are of similar size (both <1000 undergrads), though Caltech has about 1200 grad students, and Harvey Mudd has the other 4 Claremont Colleges (the 5 Claremonts have something like 5,000 undergrads total).</p>
<p>Having visited both, I personally think Caltech's campus is much nicer. Harvey Mudd just had really ugly architecture, I think.</p>
<p>Neither of these schools are known for their great social life. They're not party schools. But students DO have social lives. They do have fun. They do things on the weekends (not just math and physics). They have parties.</p>
<p>Caltech has no Greek life, but they do have the undergraduate Houses (if you're not familiar with them, you could liken them to the Houses in Harry Potter).</p>
<p>Both schools have excellent research opportunities.</p>
<p>Both schools are in suburban towns, not too far from Los Angeles.</p>
<p>Although I don't know anyone at Caltech, my cousin is a senior EE major at Harvey Mudd. He loves it. He got asked to teach a course when he was only a sophomore. He's had some really nice job offers already, but plans to go to grad school instead (applying to Stanford, Harvard, Caltech).</p>
<p>At Harvey Mudd, you are allowed to take classes at the other 4 Claremonts, which are all primarily liberal arts schools. This allows you to take some classes with students . Harvey Mudd students also have a requirement for a concentration within the humanities.</p>
<p>At Caltech, I think you can take classes at Pasadena Art School. </p>
<p>Both of these schools are really focused on math, science, and engineering. </p>
<p>Neither school is known for their excellence in sports. </p>
<p>When I toured Harvey Mudd, my tour guide (a freshman, who seemed a little nerdy) described the different dorms: "This is the jock dorm, this is the party dorm, this is the NERD DORM"... hello, everyone there is a nerd. But same goes for Caltech, really (or any other tech school, I guess). When I toured Caltech, my tour guide said he left high school early. Everyone at both schools seemed extremely intelligent. I actually met one guy on the tour at Harvey Mudd that was also on my tour at Caltech the next day (he loved Harvey Mudd, hated Caltech).</p>
<p>Personally, I tried really hard to like Harvey Mudd. I just didn't. But, my cousin LOVES it (coincidentally, when, as a highschooler, he toured Caltech for undergrad, apparently he hated it). The students there seem to love it, but it's not for everyone. Harvey Mudd almost turned me off of tech schools completely, and I almost didn't want to visit Caltech. But I'm glad I did, because I liked Caltech. It seems like I'm not the only one who likes one school but not the other (see above).</p>
<p>Both are excellent schools. They are both very strong academically. They both offer excellent educations. </p>
<p>If you can, I would definitely recommend visiting one or both schools (they're not too far from each other, so if you visit one, it's definitely worth trying to visit both).</p>
<p>Caltech does have a humanities requirement as part of core. It's 12 classes so it comes out to one per term.</p>
<p>I don't think you should underestimate the difference between a research university and a teaching college. I'm assuming the OP is still in high school, so it's hard for me to explain that the different levels of research output are incomparable. To be honest, I don't even know if the labs at HMC publish regularly whereas if you visit a professor at MIT/UC-B/etc., they'll likely recognize the professor you're working with.</p>
<p>If you want profs who really focus on teaching for undergrads, then you'll want the latter. If you want to work in the labs of the most famous profs, then you have to be at a research uni (although a large portion of SURF students are from off campus so research at Caltech is possible for even non-Caltech students). The best classes at Caltech are the research-oriented ones where the profs explain what they've done and what they find interesting.</p>
<p>Yes, Cider, Caltech's Humanities requirement is actually more than a third of our required classes. You can learn more about it here: Caltech</a> Undergraduate Admissions: Core Curriculum</p>
<p>In addition to the Pasadena Art School, Caltech students can also take classes at Occidental College and Scripps.</p>
<p>In any case, as Molliegym said, the two schools have very different "flavors" despite being similar in many ways, and I'd recommend that you visit both.</p>
<p>I'd like to be able to offer more comparison, but I have never visited Harvey Mudd, nor did I apply there as an undergraduate. </p>
<p>It's definitely true that there is a bigger focus on teaching at Harvey Mudd, simply because we need to donate a lot of our resources to doing top-notch research. I don't doubt that there are research opportunities for undergrads at Harvey Mudd, but in terms of the level of research available, it's simply not the same. We are given the frequent opportunity to work with professors who are absolutely at the top of their fields--something very nontrivial.</p>
<p>You guys have 3 terms per academic year, no?</p>
<p>If that is so, your Hum/SS requirement equates to one per term, as stated by someone already. That would equate to 8 courses at HMC, when in reality we need to take 12 classes (on the semester system).</p>
<p>Therefore, HMC has 50% more core Hum/SS requirements than Caltech. If the statement of Hum/SS accounts for 1/3 of your coursework is true (as it is at HMC), this means HMC has 50% more of the balance (core/major requirements).</p>
<p>Therefore, HMC has 50% more requirements for graduation, based on the information provided. Are the numbers provided by Caltech posters erroneous?</p>
<p>"It's definitely true that there is a bigger focus on teaching at Harvey Mudd, simply because we need to donate a lot of our resources to doing top-notch research. I don't doubt that there are research opportunities for undergrads at Harvey Mudd, but in terms of the level of research available, it's simply not the same. We are given the frequent opportunity to work with professors who are absolutely at the top of their fields--something very nontrivial."-Lizzarfire</p>
<p>While I applaud you for your politeness and openness, I do have to point out something:</p>
<p>I have an interesting perspective on all of this. I am probably one of the few people here who have spent significant time on both campuses. I have accumulated about 5 months of time at Caltech over the last 3 years doing support work for GALCIT. I have also lived on campus for two summers...</p>
<p>The devotion to research at Caltech IS incredible. However, based on the level of exposure of undergrads to my lab (in Firestone) and the adjacent labs, I have to say that I didn't experience undergrads doing commanding work in the labs. While the labs exist and extraordinary work is conducted, I feel that the undergrads had limited exposure to the facilities. Now, this doesn't mean my observation is how it is (it is just anecdotal) but I'd say that students at HMC actually have more facilities at their disposal than undergrads at Caltech.</p>
<p>Lizzardfire, before you slither and fire off your retort, I'd like you to think about how much time you've spent in the basement at HMC and whether your comparison comes from experience or stigma. </p>
<p>At HMC, if an instrument isn't in our possession, we'll design and build it, within reason. (see below note) At Caltech, we'll either send it off to be built or buy it.</p>
<p>Note: My clinic team is designing and building an aerospace-grade tester for high performance induction motors. We are creating our own electromagnetic imaging system to test for micro-faults in induction rotors. --- That is some serious undergrad engineering exposure. </p>
<p>In addition, yes, we get published. The exception is that the students get published for THEIR research. I was just published over the summer in SPIE and presented our project in France (expenses paid). It isn't uncommon for HMC students to hold one or more publications and/or names on patents by graduation. Perhaps Caltech is similar in this regard? I'm not sure, I have to admit.</p>
<p><please excuse="" the="" sloppiness="" in="" this="" post,="" i've="" had="" a="" wee="" too="" much="" champagne=""></please></p>
<p>Rocket, did you even read my entire post before responding? I specifically stated that I had never visited HMC. If you read this you should not need to ask how long I’ve spent in “HMC’s basement”.</p>
<p>My main purpose in posting on this board is to increase the awareness of prospective students of Caltech, sometimes through comparison. I have no interest in engaging in meaningless verbal sparring matches. If you would like to discuss the differences between our schools in civil manner, I am more than willing to do so. If you continue to act so acrimoniously; however, I will just ignore you.</p>
<p>To answer your first question, let’s walk through the Caltech core together.<br>
Math: 5 terms x 9 units = 45 units
Physics: 5x9 = 45
Chemistry: 2x6 = 12
Biology: 1x9 = 9
Labs: 2 x 6 =12
Menu: 1 x 9 = 9
Science Communication: 2x3 = 6
Humanities: 12 x 9 = 108
Total Core Units: 246
Percent humanities: 43.9%
I have no idea if you have “double the requirements” that we do. </p>
<p>By the way, this information is all available on the Caltech website. If you’d like to question my numbers again you can certainly go find the information yourself.<br>
As for undergraduates not having access to the top-level research, this is a reasonable (although not necessarily correct) point. That being said, it doesn’t diminish the importance of my original point of the top research in math, science, and engineering being here and not at Harvey Mudd. So even if not everyone has access to this research, the opportunity is still vital. As for actually addressing your point, I can only do it anecdotally. Many of my friends have been published—I am on the verge of something fairly important myself. I know in my lab I am offered access to all of the same research that grad students are—I am given access to the entire lab, unsupervised, and am allowed to take on as much and as difficult research as I am able to do. I could not ask for more. I have no idea whose lab you are working in—I believe Firestone to be the home of Applied and Computational Math, which is one of the less popular majors here. Most of the students I know doing very cool work are in biology, chemistry, physics, or EE/APh. I hope this serves as some sort of explanation for you.</p>
<p>Just want to say that might be a function of the lab you were in here at Caltech, rocketDA. I think when labs have lots of money they tend to be more willing to buy things, while the labs that are more strapped for cash have to make their own tools.</p>
<p>I know an undergrad summer student in my lab had tried building a melt spinning setup a few summers ago, though they weren't successful. For one of my projects I'm trying to build a new machine which would let me create sheets of amorphous alloys (which nobody else has done before); hardly something that I can just send off an order for.</p>
<p>I just want to add that lizzardfire's class breakdown is only for core requirements. 486 units are required for graduation. As his count shows, 246 units are in core. 108 hum units/486 for graduation = 22.2%.</p>
<p>I just wanted to point this out because of "Therefore, HMC has 50% more requirements for graduation, based on the information provided." posted by rocketDA. I think the issue is "If the statement of Hum/SS accounts for 1/3 of your coursework is true" which is not a true statement for Caltech.</p>
<p>Ah, yes, dLo raises an important issue that I overlooked. I tend to interpret the phrase "required classes" as specific classes that all students are required to take, a.k.a. core. I apologize if this was not the intended meaning.</p>
<p>Fair enough, fair enough. (with regards to facilities as well as course requirements)</p>
<p>I guess I'm just trying to make the point that both schools have their strengths and neither school is completely lacking in one aspect or another. That was why I went on the defensive about HMC facilities...</p>
<p>But if your Hum/SS accounts for 22% of required courses, then my previous math is invalid, as you pointed out. (this is why I provided a disclaimer on it)</p>
<p>HMC requires 128 credits to graduate. If one converts Caltech's credits (by the number provided to HMC credits, Caltech requires 108 credits (in HMC's scale) for graduation. HMC has 18.5% more graduation requirements.</p>
<p>NOTE: I'm making no claim as to which program is harder. My post is just about the number of classes required for graduation. In any case, it looks like the required number of technical classes is about equal.</p>
<p>Rocket said "I guess I'm just trying to make the point that both schools have their strengths and neither school is completely lacking in one aspect or another."</p>
<p>I don't think I ever disagreed with you on this point. I have never felt that Harvey Mudd is anything other than a fine institution. I hope that in the future when discussing this we do not forget the mutual respect we should have for one another and one another's schools :)</p>
<p>Just a quick note for rocketDA. You mentioned your involvement with GALCIT, which is awesome (I've been working at GALCIT for 4 years now). However, the "G" in GALCIT is "graduate". I personally find this kind of unfortunate, but the aeronautics department at Caltech has comparatively little focus on undergraduate work. (This is a whole different topic....) Perhaps if you fish around the other departments, you might see more undergraduates doing "commanding work".</p>
<p>Having said that, undergraduates definitely do not have limited exposure to facilities (not even in GALCIT), unless they just opt out of the experience. At GALCIT, I've worked in our biggest wind tunnel (Lucas Tunnel) from 2005 to 2008 and an oil tunnel facility in 2006, and I've helped out in a smaller wind tunnel and a water tunnel. Very soon I will be working in a supersonic shock tube and a solid mechanics lab. I'm also working right now with a 16-quad-core machine for computational studies (technically ME and not GALCIT, but close enough). The key to getting exposure to facilities is simply to ask; hardly any professor here would say "no" to your request.</p>
<p>"Just a quick note for rocketDA. You mentioned your involvement with GALCIT, which is awesome (I've been working at GALCIT for 4 years now). However, the "G" in GALCIT is "graduate". I personally find this kind of unfortunate, but the aeronautics department at Caltech has comparatively little focus on undergraduate work. (This is a whole different topic....) Perhaps if you fish around the other departments, you might see more undergraduates doing "commanding work".</p>
<p>Having said that, undergraduates definitely do not have limited exposure to facilities (not even in GALCIT), unless they just opt out of the experience. At GALCIT, I've worked in our biggest wind tunnel (Lucas Tunnel) from 2005 to 2008 and an oil tunnel facility in 2006, and I've helped out in a smaller wind tunnel and a water tunnel. Very soon I will be working in a supersonic shock tube and a solid mechanics lab. I'm also working right now with a 16-quad-core machine for computational studies (technically ME and not GALCIT, but close enough). The key to getting exposure to facilities is simply to ask; hardly any professor here would say "no" to your request."</p>
<p>I tried to leavemy commentary very open-ended and noted anecdotal disclaimers on all the things that relate to perception or personal experience. I only said that this was in the lab I was working in and that it may not be representative of other labs. I suppose that your comments on the level of undergraduate involvement at GALCIT (in contrast to other depts) makes sense then.</p>
<p>BTW, if you've been working there for 4 years I probably have bumped into you and not even known! I don't work there anymore (a grad student took over the lab) though. I designed and installed the instrumentation for the SPHIR (hypervelocity) lab, as well as nudged GALCIT to rebuild the main flight-tube with "box ports" in 2006. I was also right there when the building was evacuated due to a fire...which was almost my fault... we brought in a guy to do some plasma cutting on our vacuum chamber and the debris lit a box on fire. (But hey, I told the guy that I was concerned about stuff catching on fire before it happened...) I probably made your life interesting that week with the smokiness and such!</p>