Harvey Mudd from the Beavers' point of view.

<p>
[quote]
Actually, Mudd's $10k scholarship is for students w/750+ on SAT-I Math and Math Level II, 700+ on CR and W, and top 10% ranking, regardless of whether you attended a nationally known math/science powerhouse or a crummy HS. They do offer additional full-ride scholarships in an effort to bring more women and underrepresented groups to campus. There are also some departmental scholarships as well, but those tend to be small, one-time awards.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is a true. A lot of Mudd students (30-40%) receive this merit grant.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, I don't know enough about it myself, but I'd encourage people to ask the experts who're going to Mudd right now about what the "general engineering degree" is like - a school reputed for the rigor Mudd is likely isn't going to let students just "spread themselves" thin and become good at nothing.</p>

<p>I do often wonder what it'd have been like to go to Mudd.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well I am in Mudd engineering, so you can see my post above. Most Mudd engineers going into industry would like to be a leader some day (aside: one of the main goals of HMC is to educate well-rounded engineers and scientists who have the technical know-how, but also the humanities skills, to be effective leaders). As a manager within engineering, its obviously useful to know many different fields. Our classes are all at a very fast pace and I don't think anything has been watered down. We take the same classes in different engineering disciplines that engineering students majoring in those disciplines would take at other schools. When I've compared our courses to analogous courses at other schools, I've always found ours cover just as much material, if not more. Also, a very high percentage of Mudd engineers go onto grad school, where they specialize their degree further.</p>

<p>Mudd has a very unique way of removing overlapped material between different engineering fields and teaching it all at once in a powerful and generalized way. All of our engineers have to go through 3 courses of systems engineering and are encouraged to take more. These three courses alone are enough to get our engineers a systems engineering job at almost any company (one professor, who is a top engineer in a private space exploration company, was certain we could know enough after only two courses). I didn't really like systems engineering at first, but now I absolutely love it because of how much you can apply it to all disciplines of engineering. Also, all engineers take 3 semesters of clinic, which are real projects for great companies. You get to pick your clinic project based on your area of interest within engineering. I'm interested in mechanical engineering and my project is modeling shocks in spacecraft panels for a Californian satellite producer. </p>

<p>So I don't really understand how we are spreading ourselves too thin and becoming good at nothing...</p>

<p>"So I don't really understand how we are spreading ourselves too thin and becoming good at nothing..."</p>

<p>Just to make it clear (though I don't think you misunderstood), I was suggesting to others that you guys are NOT doing that, and that I couldn't imagine it. My posts above should make it clear that I have tremendous respect for Mudd (I know just one graduate of Mudd in physics, and he's told me enough to give a picture of that program =]).</p>

<p>I was just looking to get a bit more insight into why your program structure is how it is from an expert.</p>

<p>"also, if you major in just "engineering" what are you getting good at? i don't know if you'd want to spread yourself thin like that"</p>

<p>My major is "general engineering" from HMC. I just happen to also be one of the leading young experts on solid rocket propulsion in the US. Hmm...</p>

<p>Yeah atomicfusion's description makes it sound like if I HAD to do engineering, Mudd would be the best place for me to do it. </p>

<p>I also read that Mudd sends ridiculous percentages of its students to grad school, and that's where a lot of good stuff happens even for the most talented undergrads.</p>

<p>I don't think that "general engineering" versus more specific programs is a definite pro or con- depends on who you are as a person, what you want out of your education, etc. I imagine some people would really hate one or the other, but that doesn't mean either is better.</p>

<p>I also think we can make that argument without coming off entirely full of ourselves. Ahem.</p>

<p>Except he might not be full of himself and might be stating facts.</p>

<p>The number of Mudders posting here is a bit odd.</p>

<p>I only know of rocketDA and atomicfusion as attending Harvey Mudd.</p>

<p>"I also think we can make that argument without coming off entirely full of ourselves. Ahem."
Meh, I could really care less of what you think of me. The point of my post is to provide an example in which someone can become very good at something from receiving a "general engineering" education. I could also go so far as to argue that becoming great at something requires breadth of study so new problems can be attacked using techniques from adjacent fields.</p>

<p>Atomic and I are the only HMC students on here, I believe. </p>

<p>To be honest, however, I'm going to have to discourage prospective students from applying here unless your heart is 100% in it. I can't wait to get the **** out of here.</p>

<p>I know a couple of Mudders from an science, not engineering, REU I did a few years back. They were the only rising sophomores, the rest were older. Both were friendly and laid back and described their school as an intense, but close-knit place- the most intense of the Claremont McKenna group of schools. One won an award for the having one of the best research projects at a conference we presented our summer work at.</p>