Harvey Mudd medical school preparation

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvey Mudd College
1

<p>Does anybody know the stats on how many people apply to medical school from Harvey Mudd and the % acceptance rate of these students? Taking into consideration HMC's considerably more demanding science/math courses in comparison to most schools (and their relatively minimal grade inflation), I'm curious as to how HMC students have fared in med school applications</p>

<p>I plan on going into medicine, but I just can't seem to find much information about the relative quality of the premed education/preparation that HMC offers. Any comments will be appreciated! Thanks!</p>

2

<p>Based on what I have heard, HMC offers great preparation class wise and for the MCAT, but the grade deflation is a huge tradeoff for that. I don't have any statistics on the acceptance percentages of applications (or even, the number of students who even bothered to apply), but the person who would is Dr. Karl Haushalter, professor of biology and chemistry and coordinator of HMC Pre-Med. His email is <a href="mailto:Karl_Haushalter@hmc.edu">Karl_Haushalter@hmc.edu</a> and feel free to send him an email with any questions you have (He's VERY friendly!).</p>

3

<p>I went to Harvey Mudd undergrad intending to be a chem major, ending up majoring in physics. Since then, I've been a grad student in Aero Eng., ME (doing robotics research), and for the last 5 years been doing microdevice development for neurobiology (in the BioE dept). The point is, no matter what I went into, I was extremely well prepared. The same will be true if you want to go to med school. As tiyusafaly pointed out, while you will be in an excellent position to rock med school, med schools don't know Harvey Mudd terribly well, so a 3.0 from Mudd won't carry the same weight as a high GPA from a well known school. I don't know of many people who actually took the med school route, but those who did faired fairly well, getting into top name schools. My advice, Harvey Mudd will serve you extremely well long term. Go for the learning, not the name.</p>

4

<p>Great post, LabRat</p>

5

<p>I mentioned to my doctor that I'm considering Harvey Mudd, and he became excited and he said that a journal told him that Harvey Mudd ranks third in sending students to medical schools.</p>

<p>That probably means out of liberal arts colleges as opposed to overall.</p>

<p>By the way, LabRat, where did you complete your graduate studies?</p>

6

<p>And hooray for having another HMC Physics major on board! If you don't mind my asking, what was your fave class in the physics major and who was your fave physics prof?</p>

7

<p>Wow thanks for your responses guys; it definitely adds to the case for attending HMC. Again, thanks!</p>

8

<p>ArPlaquette: I'm at "that other institution" in Pasadena. Great place for graduate work; terrible place for undergraduate (in case anyone out there is comparing Harvey Mudd and Caltech, having seen both places for 4+ years, I strongly recommend Mudd undergrad over caltech anyday. At Mudd it is all about the teaching, professors actually care about you, and there is plenty of research. Caltech is all big time research all the time; as a gross generalization, profs only care about getting results, and not about having any interaction with undergrads.)<br>
Haven't completed grad work yet--very very close to finsihing, thank goodness =) </p>

<p>tiyusufaly:
Favorite Phys class...ohh, that is a toughy, so many good ones.
I'm gonna go with either Quantum (Phys 116?...ben a while since I looked at course numbers) with Profs Townsend and Donnelly. I also loved theo mech with Helliwell. Stat mech with Saeta was the most difficult class I've ever taken. So many legendary profs in that dept. It is kind of daunting because I'm applying to faculty positions and wondering how I could ever measure up...</p>

9

<p>116 is Big Quantum (junior year), 52 is Baby Quantum (sophomore year). I don't know how it was when you were here, but usually Townsend and Donnelly teach 52 and Saeta teaches 116 (except this year, since Townsend's on sabbatical, Sparks and Saeta are teaching 52).</p>

<p>Oh man, so much has changed. You never had Prof Esin for Stat Mech or Prof Sahakian for Theo Mech. And Helliwell retired.</p>

10

<p>LabRat: Can you please talk a bit more about the comparison between HMC and Caltech? That is the decision my D has to make. She is going to both prefrosh weekends. Contrary to what you say here, the students on the caltech board have nice things to say about working with their professors as undergrads. If you (or anyone else) could talk more about what you see as the salient differences between the two programs, that would be helpful. My D is interested in computer science, math and physics. Thanks.</p>

11

<p>From the perspective of an undergrad at Caltech: Most of the professors I've had so far in technical subjects have seemed to love teaching and interacting with undergraduates - and are friendly to students outside of class! Pretty much all are willing to answer questions in class, talk after class, set up a meeting with you, or take you out to lunch at the Ath to hear your input on the class (many actively encourage these things.) Most ask for constructive criticism of their teaching style, sometimes by giving out surveys throughout the term (clear enough? too fast? too slow?) or by asking you to pass through requests about the lecture-style through your TAs. Our humanities and social science classes are based around discussion and student-professor interaction, so they're like that even more so. I don't doubt that Mudd has excellent (probably better) teaching, but I think LabRatInc is unfairly characterizing teaching at Caltech and decided that "Caltech is great for grad, terrible for undergrad" based primarily off of the data that LabRatInc went to Caltech for grad, but not undergrad. Certainly Caltech undergrad prepares you for grad school about as well as any school possibly can, and most graduates of Caltech (undergrad) that I know verify this.</p>

12

<p>Science/engineering power duo/trio:</p>

<p>Mudd (undergrad) ---> Caltech (grad)
or
Mudd (undergrad) ---> MIT (masters) ---> Caltech (PhD)</p>

<p>like a pyramid. i have two professors that have done these paths and they are absolutely incredible. i'd like to see more...</p>

<p>and as a tag, i still find LabRat's perspective interesting.</p>

13

<p>I too am interested in this conflict of opinion regarding LabRat and most Caltech undergrads. I would like to see the confusion sorted out.</p>

14

<p>


Provide specifics, or it didn't happen.</p>

15

<p>A grad student will, of course, have a different take on the undergraduate experience, and I can only offer my persepective. Admittedly, I may not be in the very best position to comment on undergrad experience at Caltech since it is not firsthand. Nonetheless, I have taken about 3 full years worth of classes--majority of these courses are beginning level grad/ upper level undergrad-- so I have a pretty good sample for comparison.
I have also spoken candidly with at least half dozen undergrads about the experience--not a terribly large sample by any means, but maybe enough to get some sense for their take on Caltech. The Caltech people on this thread clearly have had a much different and better experience, and I am very happy to see that happy/satisfied undergrads actually exist and that they can provide a different perspective.</p>

<p>With that proviso/caveat here is my attempt to talk objectively about differences in Caltech/Mudd and provide some specifics. </p>

<p>First off, by "gross generalization" I really did mean it is a gross one. I have had a some good experiences here (Caltech)--Prof Murray, Pierce, Abu-Mostafa were all excellent in their teaching ability, and I sensed a genuine care for the students learning and welfare in all of them. </p>

<p>On the flipside, some profs didn't seem to care whatsoever about teaching. I was enrolled in a class where the prof would walk in (usually 10 min late for an hour long class), completely unprepared, flip open the textbook, give the look of "oh gee what the heck did we do last time, and what are we doing today?" then proceed to give a few random thoughts and the material--not terribly enlightening. A particularly memorable experience was with another a prof who routinely failed at derviations of important results during lecture. He would get stuck half way through, stare at the board a minute then usually say something like "huh, not sure what happened here...anyone see an error? well, guess you can just sort it out in your homework later." It's true that it is impossible to do math on the board in front of an audience, but this prof really left something to be desired. Anyone who actually cared about teaching wouldn't make blunders like this week after week. Incidentally, he is a big name in his field of research...go figure.</p>

<p>I've have had some professors who were borderline complete jerks. Most notably in one lecture my first year here (Caltech) a problem was posed to the class. No one could figure out an answer and after a minute the professor asked "Did anyone do their homework, or are you really just that stupid?" Maybe it was meant as a joke, but it really didn't come across that way. I've had one math prof who completely bumbled during most lectures and when asked a question regarding an error made he replied in a very frustrated manner "well, I don't really know; why don't you just go to the library and get a mathbook. It will have the right answer." I didn't sense this was meant as a joke either. It is this type of attitude I really didn't care for. </p>

<p>Almost every recitation section was taught by a TA. Many try to do their best and there are some good ones, but there is something to be said for being in contact with the professor who is (supposed to be) an expert in the class material and dedicated to teaching. </p>

<p>On the few occassions I showed up to a professor's office to ask a question--most I've had never seemed welcoming or encouraged an office visit. They gave me about 10 min and then usually had to either run off to a meeting somewhere or had another meeting scheduled with a grad student.
This happened with 2 different profs.</p>

<p>As an estimate, I'd rate about 1/3 of the profs here excellent teachers, and small fraction as "so-so" and the rest as poor to very poor. </p>

<p>I'm now curious to know why my experience is so incredibly different from UndulyLlamarific and cghen. Because I was a grad student? I didn't know how to pick the good classes prof? Because I just had an uncommonly bad experience?</p>

<p>At Mudd, almost every professor I ever had, across the board, I would rate as excellent. There are only 2 that stand out in my mind that I would rate as (very) poor. You'll <em>never</em> have a class taught by a TA at Mudd.</p>

<p>Those profs who were excellent essentially had all of the same attributes: running a very cogent, question-friendly class, willing to set up meetings, actively sought constructive criticism, demonstrated geniune care for students both in and out of the classroom. At Mudd, for example, a physics prof would run a help session the night before a problem set was due. He'd graciously stay until midnight if he had to. And he was keen on really making sure learning was happening and not just earning points on the homework. Even for freshman lab, we were required to orally present lab reports to the professor...a great way to get feedback. An engineering prof would go out to lunch with his class after class on Friday afternoons--he was an excellent lecturer no less.<br>
Come Thanksgiving, if a student wasn't travelling home and didn't have plans, a professor would usually invite them over to his/her Thanksgiving dinner.
I could go on with many more examples...</p>

<p>To be fair, I know some people who were not as hot on Mudd as I was, but I would wager that the majority of students felt the same way I did.</p>

<p>As for the Caltech undergrads with whom I've conversed, many expressed that they were unsatisfied or deeply unhappy with professors at Caltech. One related that a prof was constantly traveling for research meetings, collaborations, etc., never showed up to the class he was supposed to teach , class was often just cancelled. As a TA, I'd see several student who told me directly that the prof gave incoherent lectures, and the questions they would ask, bless their hearts, supported their claim of poor teaching in the classroom. So, I don't think the bad teaching experience at Caltech is unique to me. </p>

<p>As for another salient difference between the two schools, I'd point out the social environment. In Claremont there are 5 schools total, each of which has very different character. So while Mudd plays like a very small intimate classroom setting, the social scene is much bigger and much more diverse. Sure there are different types of people at Caltech, jocks, party-peoples, bonafide nerds, whatever, but the environment here feels much more locked-in, because essentially everyone is doing science or math. I find it refreshing to be in contact with people who don't do science--a pscyh major, and English, theatre, music major...anything but science. I know some people thrive on 100% science 100% of the time, but I find the Caltech envinroment to be very sterile, compared to what life was like at Mudd/Claremont. Again, I'm not into the undergrad scene Caltech, so I'm sure I'll be crucified for that one too.</p>

<p>I hope that helps clarify some of the questions/points.</p>

16

<p>Another interesting post, LabRat.</p>

<p>I'd like to tag on a few things about my experience at Mudd:</p>

<p>I (and 2 other students) were invited to dinner with a professor at his house with his wife and kids. (Of course, Mudd paid for the food...) We sat at the table for 7 hours just chatting about random stuff. It was an amazing experience.</p>

<p>Two of my professors are planning on going out to this launch of this rocket project a bunch of students have been working on for the last 8 months. The big deal is that this is after school has ended and it is very close to conflicting with a big graduation reception (one prof is clinic director and the other's son is actually graduating). They plan to go to the launch and high-tail it back to Mudd just in time for the reception. They don't even have time to go home and change/shower... they have to do it on campus. It would have been much easier for them to just say they can't go.</p>

<p>It just shows that their priorities are the students. I've stayed up til 2AM working with a professor on a piece of flight hardware... that had to be ready by 6AM the next day. It seems that Mudd professors put the students at top priority long after the paid work day is over.</p>

<p>Professors are often here on the weekends holding review sessions. They often stay late to meet with students. Maybe Caltech is like that too... but all I can tell you is my Mudd experience. (My Caltech experience has only consisted of working and living there)</p>

17

<p>Interestingly enough, LabratInc, my experience with TAs here is that the undergrad TAs typically know a LOT more than the grad TAs. That implies the opposite thing about the teaching here compared to other places...</p>

18

<p>Agreed, lizzardfire. My undergrad TAs, on average, have been more competent than my grad TAs. Due to this, I almost always go to upperclassmen in my House with questions before I go to my TA...</p>

19

<p>"nterestingly enough, LabratInc, my experience with TAs here is that the undergrad TAs typically know a LOT more than the grad TAs."</p>

<p>Extremely hard to believe. Grads are required to be a lot more into research and specific problem solving and analysis. Undergrads are still developing their bag of tools. I don't think you are giving grad students enough credit. Perhaps they have other things on their minds or are on completely different wavelengths than undergrads.</p>

<p>Yes, undergrads may have a broader scope of science on their minds... but that doesn't make them smarter...it makes many people pretentious because the think they are smarter than, say grads.</p>

20

<p>Actually, lizzardfire's experience might be based on the fact that it is usually the case that undergrad TAs have taken the EXACT course that they are TAing. </p>

<p>UndulyLlamarific is more accurate in stating that the undergrad TAs are more competent. They are often quite conscientious about their teaching since it is their first time teaching, and it is above and beyond what most undergrads do (as opposed to graduate TAs who do so because if they don't TA, they don't eat). This being the case, I'm told that undergrad TAs can often be better simply because they put more effort into the course. </p>

<p>Of course, in the upper-division courses undergrads are usually unsuitable to be TAs since it is unlikely that they will have as much familiarity with the course material as a grad student will.</p>