Harvey Mudd medical school preparation

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvey Mudd College
21

<p>omgninja, although this is sometimes the case, even when it hasn't been (for example Bi1 changes topics every year) I've preferred undergrad TAs. I should clarify though--the grad students here are very intelligent and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I've also found most of my grad TAs to be very, very knowledgeable about whatever they are doing--but that doesn't make them good TAs. </p>

<p>You can believe whatever you'd like, RocketDA. It's just that most of the classes I've taken have been freshman courses that are not very related to whatever research the grad students TAing them are doing. When I said the undergrad TAs knew more, I meant about the course they were TAing, not about a subject or schooling in general. By the way, I never said undergrads were smarter than grads ;-). </p>

<p>omgninja probably stated what I meant to say in a better way... my original comment was mostly based on grad TAs looking at homework I was doing for other classes and saying "I never did that in undergrad" (this was mostly in lab classes that involved a lot of waiting around). I've heard at least three graduate TAs comment on how Caltech teaches undergrads things they didn't learn until they got here for grad school.</p>

22

<p>I think that LabRat actually wrote a pretty good post (on the last page). Some of the anecdotes certainly shouldn't have happened (and should have been reported to the division chair / ombudsman), and it's unfortunate that you have experienced that. </p>

<p>There's certainly validity to the argument that professors at HMC are more dedicated to undergraduate students; that's certainly the largest advantage for LACs in general. That isn't to say there aren't lots of Caltech professors who care about undergraduates - it's just that one has to more actively search them out. I think that it's unfortunately all too easy to neglect these opportunities, and some students probably would be better suited at a LAC where the opportunities are more obviously available (I hope that's not an unfair statement to people at LACs). The problem at Caltech (of students not really taking advantage of the available resources) is kind of magnified by the fact that (most) Caltech students are overly humble in their abilities - they may not feel 'worthy' in some sense to take up the faculty's time (this feeling is far more common than the otherway around as I've observed).</p>

<p>That isn't to say that the Caltech atmosphere is not supportive; rather, it's usually upperclassman (though the house system especially) that take the forefront in mentoring and helping (over professors and TAs). I don't think such an system would work so well at other schools, but the smallness and quality of the student body actually makes it really beneficial: being able to develop honest collaborative relationships with peers is really what drives science. I don't mean to imply that such things don't also happen at HMC, but it's very intensified and important at Caltech given the house system.</p>

<p>As for:


From my experience, I would probably go 30 percent excellent, 30 percent good, 25-30 percent okay to meh, and 15-10 percent bad to awful. I'm a physics major so I can't really speak to engineering classes too much (I assume you're CDS or mech E or something similar). Also, who knows, maybe my standards are lower. </p>

<p>For the discussion for the grad students compared to the undergraduates, I would stipulate that the grad students are less uniformly stellar, but have a better higher tail than the undergraduate students. The undergrads are pretty uniformly good and qualified (probably since admissions are done through one central office vs. through individual departments). </p>

<p>


Well, it's really not as unbelievable as one might think. </p>

<p>One of the classes that LabRat mentioned taking was ACM 95/100 (taught under Pierce who is an excellent Professor). This class is required for all engineering majors and a few science majors, and about 1/2 of the undergraduates enrolled in the class are sophomores. So a good 50 sophomores are taking classes that several first year grad students are taking (and the undergraduates do quite well in the class!) - it's not completely ridiculous to claim that the undergraduates might be equally capable in some areas. </p>

<p>Another instance is two of the junior year physics classes: quantum (ph 125) and classical mechanics / E&M (ph 106). Each is about half and half graduates and undergraduate junior physics / applied physics / astro majors. I think that the graduate students score a bit better (on average) than the undergrads in phys 106, but there are definitely quite a few undergrads who outscore most to all of the graduate students in the class. I don't know how students fare in phys 125.</p>

<p>Now take what I've said with a grain of salt: I'm not out to say the graduate students aren't steller or anything silly like that. All I'm saying is that many of the undergraduates are equally capable in many areas. Additionally, many of the most exceptional graduate students are able to skip such classes and so the undergraduates perceive a quality of graduate students that is less than what it actually is.</p>

23

<p>I understand that grads may not be the best for TAing. At a place like Caltech, though, the grads have always been considered the big cheeze(s) on campus. (No offense to undergrads. You guys are excellent in your own regard and have a reputation of that.)</p>

<p>One should also remember something about grads: they may not be pursuing graduate work in the field they did exactly for undergrad. With that said, I am not surprised a someone who may have done physics for undergrad would not be as well in-tune with engineering as a sophomore (or for that matter upperclass) Techer.</p>

<p>In fact, I know of one guy, R. Baker at JPL who is one of the big chemical propulsion masters (mid 30's!) who did his grad work at Caltech. He said that he took a few undergrad classes and he, after getting a BS in Aerospace from U of Michigan, struggled through some of the stuff.</p>

<p>Anyways, the point is that I'm not trying to shoot Caltech down at all. I'm just saying that grads, especially at places like Caltech, are not there because they are run-of-the-mill and because they don't perform as well as undergrads in some areas does not mean anything... I mean, have you ever considered how many things they are probably better than you at?</p>

<p>Just a thought.</p>

24

<p>With so much talk about academics at Mudd vs. Caltech, I'd hate to lose sight of the fact that it is but one important part of the puzzle. Another very important piece is the social scene and personal development outside the classroom. </p>

<p>I've put in my two bits about Mudd being a good situation because other colleges are just next door. I'm curious to hear thoughts from the Caltech crowd. Do you find it limiting or appealing that you are situated on a relatively isolated campus with all science/engineering people? Do you perceive that students (undergrads) are generally happy with the social situation?</p>

<p>And finally, what's up with this C. Montouri guy writing in the Caltech student published paper that Harvey Mudd and Georgia Tech are "second tier or lower level schools." Sheesh, he could at least show respect where respect is due. I hope not everyone at Tech thinks they are god's gift to science, preordained Nobel laureates who walk around all day telling everyone "my Schrodinger is bigger than yours."</p>

25

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

<p>Why not just Caltech (undergrad) ---> Caltech (grad) or the quite common Caltech (undergrad) ---> MIT (grad)?</p>

<p>And yes, as a Caltech undergraduate alum and soon-to-be Caltech grad student, I feel pretty confident saying that the undergraduate TAs are better at TAing their classes than grad students are--for a variety of reasons. For ACM95 (ACM100 for grad students) in particular everyone knows who the "good TAs" are. For a long time the best TA was a Caltech undergraduate alum who was a PhD student... now the best TAs are almost always undergrads. Yes, even the grad students go to the undergrad-led sections for help.</p>

<p>And rocketDA, the grad students have never been considered "big cheezes [sic]" on campus. That would be the professors, obviously. If anything, the undergrads get more care and attention and I would say a bigger share of the resources devoted to "quality of life" type issues than grad students do.</p>

<p>Finally, I would like to point out that the graduate and undergraduate social lives at Caltech are almost completely separate. I don't really know why this is (it's not at Oxford, and I love that about Oxford, but it is like that at most US universities). Therefore, a Caltech graduate student has almost no idea what it's like to be a Caltech undergraduate.</p>

26

<p>"Why not just Caltech (undergrad) ---> Caltech (grad) or the quite common Caltech (undergrad) ---> MIT (grad)?"</p>

<p>Because on a HMC thread, you'd expect that we talk about HMC and not omit it. That's why. </p>

<p>"And rocketDA, the grad students have never been considered "big cheezes [sic]" on campus. That would be the professors, obviously. If anything, the undergrads get more care and attention and I would say a bigger share of the resources devoted to "quality of life" type issues than grad students do."</p>

<p>Maybe in terms of 'quality of life' undergrads get more resources. You, however, are not going to tell me that the returns from a $2.5 billion endowment is going to be used mostly on undergrads. It is mostly used on research. Research that grads do and undergrads, if they are lucky, can get their feet wet with.</p>

<p>Regardless, the major resources of Caltech go to research. It is a research university.</p>

27

<p>Oh, OK. That does make sense but I was confused since you had referred to your two lineups as "Science/engineering power duo/trio" which sounded more general, but now I understand that there's an implied "A...that includes Harvey Mudd" in there.</p>

<p>"Regardless, the major resources of Caltech go to research. It is a research university."</p>

<p>It sort of depends upon how you define resources "of Caltech." About 59% of Caltech's budget comes straight from the federal government to fund research (although the institute is allowed to take a percentage of that off the top to fund things like administration and so on that all colleges and universities need). But the income from the endowment? I wouldn't be so sure about that, as we'll see below.</p>

<p>"Research that grads do and undergrads, if they are lucky, can get their feet wet with."</p>

<p>If they are lucky? That's right, in a sense: if they're lucky enough to be at Caltech, then they can. (Heck, there are even opportunities left over for outside undergrads too, as I'm sure you appreciate!)</p>

<p>Now to the next (or really, the prior) point:</p>

<p>"You, however, are not going to tell me that the returns from a $2.5 billion endowment is going to be used mostly on undergrads. It is mostly used on research."</p>

<p>I am going to very confidently tell you that the returns from at least $300 million of that (i.e. the roughly pro-rated amount of the Harvey Mudd endowment of $200 million) are spent on undergrads, but in reality it's much more than that. Let's look at a recent Caltech budget to illustrate (I found 2003-04 in a quick Google search; I'm sure all the numbers have gone up but I'll bet the proportions are about the same).</p>

<p>Income Sources:
Federal grants $ 260 M (direct and overhead)
Gifts & endowment $ 190 M
Net tuition (graduate & undergraduate) $ 17 M (cf. $ 54 M without the aid)
TOTAL $ 467 M</p>

<p>Expenditures:
Academic support $ 214 M
Organized research $ 189 M
Caltech research $ 37 M
Off-campus research $ 33 M
TOTAL: $ 470 M</p>

<p>So Caltech got $260 M from the government, almost entirely of course in research grants (a proportion of which is also taken to fund administrative tasks). Caltech's "research" total expenditures were $259 M. I'd say a pretty fair proportion of that $190 M income from the endowment and gifts must be going "somewhere" other than research.</p>

<p>The reality is that the endowment supports mostly things like faculty salaries ($3-4 M or so for each endowed chair alone, I believe, for example) and student financial aid, which would have to be paid regardless of whether or not research goes on.</p>

<p>Interestingly, that $54 M - $17 M = $37 M per year that Caltech spends directly and only on student financial aid is equal to about three times the TOTAL income per year from the Harvey Mudd endowment! (Which at $200 M should provide around $12 M a year on a 6% draw.)</p>

<p>Maybe this endowment largesse could be part of the explanation for why Caltech is approximately $10,000 less expensive than Harvey Mudd per year? (Calculated by sticker price minus average non-loan aid.)</p>

28

<p>"Maybe this endowment largesse could be part of the explanation for why Caltech is approximately $10,000 less expensive than Harvey Mudd per year? (Calculated by sticker price minus average non-loan aid.)"</p>

<p>I was thinking it had something more to do with the fact HMC is a liberal arts college and does not get extra teaching-staff AND revenue from graduate students. </p>

<p>As for finding research at any university, I can say it is very easy to find undergraduate research, even where I am currently attending: UCR. Then again, I am not exactly ordering tokamaks left and right, like Joe implies Caltech students are.</p>

29

<p>Yeah. I'm not surprised that Caltech's endowment returns can cover a lot of tuition costs. I always figured that's how they pull of so much aid...</p>

<p><em>sigh</em></p>

<p>Mudd is too young to have a huge endowment... with only 4000 grads $200million isn't too bad. Someday Mudd will be able to cover tuition costs. Until then, I'm rolling in loans :)</p>

30

<p>"I was thinking it had something more to do with the fact HMC is a liberal arts college and does not get extra teaching-staff AND revenue from graduate students."</p>

<p>These are both exactly backwards. Graduate students (except for those few that bring in outside fellowships) actually COST money because they are almost always fully supported and paid a stipend too. Likewise, hiring more profs because the profs do research as well as teach COSTS extra money (money that often comes from the endowment income). It is a great and very expensive luxury for a professor to teach just 1 class a year (as many at Caltech do) and probably the reason why those gung-ho researchers usually turn out to be good teachers too--because it's not a burden and they can focus on just one class and one set of students.</p>

<p>Undergraduate and graduate tuition combined provide something like 3% of Caltech's budget (if you were to include JPL in this it would drop again to an infinitesimal amount). It really is a drop in the bucket.</p>

<p>"As for finding research at any university, I can say it is very easy to find undergraduate research, even where I am currently attending: UCR. Then again, I am not exactly ordering tokamaks left and right, like Joe implies Caltech students are."</p>

<p>I agree that it's possible to find research at just about any university. I'm not sure where I "implied that Caltech students order tokamaks left and right" but access to solid well-funded research projects is easy, very much part of the culture, and the available opportunities far exceed the actual number of Caltech undergraduates. I'm not sure that's true very many places.</p>

<p>rocketDA, I'm very impressed with your response here--an ad hominem would've been an easy thing to type--and I think you're correct that the endowment is the reason that aid is so generous (many alumni specifically earmark their donations for aid or for undergraduate/graduate student life, so even if the administration wanted to spend it on something else they couldn't--for example a recent $3 million earmarked donation funds a yearly disbursement for student activities over and above what the Institute already supplied).</p>

<p>I wouldn't have responded as forcefully and with so many numbers but I just wanted to emphasize that, yes, Caltech undergrads really <em>do</em> feel the benefit of that endowment and the resources of Caltech in general even if one takes research completely out of the equation (although of course for a Caltech student, research is never completely out of the equation anyway).</p>

<p>I suppose you'll just have to start a dot-com and bolster the endowment yourself! But don't feel too badly... We've only had ~90 years to accumulate ours. Next to Harvard's 370 that's nothing. In fact given their extra 280 years of compound interest they really ought to have a lot more than 10 times our endowment... right?</p>

31

<p>"I suppose you'll just have to start a dot-com and bolster the endowment yourself!"</p>

<p>I'm working on it. Luckily, (and I'm not saying that Caltech isn't like this either) we are developed multidimensionally with a deep set of powerful tools to conquer nearly any challenge.</p>

<p>I'm not a dot-com kind of guy, but I think an aerospace venture would do just fine.</p>

<p>Oh, and as a side note, West Dorm tried to purchase Hughes Aircraft for $4billion in 1995(ish), stating, "it would be a great addition to the engineering deptartment and would help fund events such as the annual TQ night." :) Too bad the check for $4billion bounced...there was only $300 in that account.</p>

32

<p>I don't know if I'd really trust an aerospace venture to "do just fine" as a wealth-generating mechanism in today's economy, although I'm sure it'd be fun. But good luck!</p>

33

<p>Way back at the ranch:
"Why not just Caltech (undergrad) ---> Caltech (grad)"</p>

<p>Because then you would be institutionalized.</p>

<p>No matter what school for undergrad, I strongly recommend a different graduate school--for a new and different perspective, flavor of life, etc.</p>

<p>Tuition is a funny thing. I haven't really attempted to figure out finances at either (any) school, but endowments seem to be these black box money machines which are loosely correlated to the pricetag.</p>

<p>And I really don't understand how these schools always have big parties and tout their endowments while tuition continues to rise at an astronomical rate. (Probably just have to make the big donors feel important and loved...)Haven't run the numbers, but I would wager large sums of money that the yearly increase in price tag for the almost any private school is far outpacing growth in endowment.</p>

<p>At this rate the only school my future kids will be attending is home school!</p>

34

<p>
[quote]
Haven't run the numbers, but I would wager large sums of money that the yearly increase in price tag for the almost any private school is far outpacing growth in endowment.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Get out your checkbook to write some "large sums", then, because lots of top endowments grow at 15+% a year. Yale's and Harvard's are notorious for being closer to 20% many years.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Tuition is a funny thing. I haven't really attempted to figure out finances at either (any) school, but endowments seem to be these black box money machines which are loosely correlated to the pricetag.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I did run the numbers above for how a large endowment directly impacts students, using Caltech as an example.</p>

35

<p>Just as an interesting aside, many of the larger university endowments didn't experience the 2001-02 downturn to the same degree that other investors did. They were into alternative assets before it was "cool" to do so--the most famous example being Harvard's holding 15% or so of its endowment in the form of 1.3 million acres of timber rights; Harvard was for awhile the largest private landowner in New Zealand. They made a killing by buying right after the Asian financial crisis in 1997 and just began selling off their holdings last year.</p>

36

<p>Wow, this thread started off about med school preparation and now look where we are!</p>

<p>At any rate, maybe I should rephrase (perhaps naively): in spite of growing endowments, price tag for private universities continues to rapidly rise. Why aren't the financial goods being passed on to the student? I am well aware of all the "we meet all demonstrated need" bit. Nonetheless, in 10 years, the pricetage has gone up--at most places--~15K, or about 50%.
Somehow doesn't feel right to me...</p>

37

<p>Yeah, this has been a wide-ranging thread! But I think endowments are a pretty interesting topic.</p>

<p>I think some schools do pass the financial goods on to the student, though. At Caltech the sticker price all-in is over $41,000, sure--but what students actually end up paying is closer to $14,000. The difference is largely from the endowment. I'd call that a pretty big financial good.</p>

<p><a href="http://content.kiplinger.com/tools/privatecolleges/privatecollege.php?schoollist=prv_univ&sortby=RANK&orderby=flip&states%5B%5D=ALL&myschool%5B%5D=none&outputby=table%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://content.kiplinger.com/tools/privatecolleges/privatecollege.php?schoollist=prv_univ&sortby=RANK&orderby=flip&states%5B%5D=ALL&myschool%5B%5D=none&outputby=table&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Caltech has actually seriously discussed simply eliminating tuition (since it accounts for only 2% of the budget or so anyway), but it's not done because they think 1) students care more about an education that they have to pay something for; and 2) Caltech ends up looking worse if it's MUCH cheaper in terms of "sticker price" than, say, the Ivy League or MIT. It's silly, but people sometimes think that if something's got a cheap price tag it must not be top quality (even though Caltech actually spends more money per student than any other college or university in the world--probably part of why Money magazine and Kiplinger's Personal Finance have both termed it "the best buy in college education").</p>

<p>So the approach for at least some high-endowment schools tends to be a higher sticker price to "keep up with the Joneses", and then discounting 2/3 of it through scholarships and financial aid so that students don't actually feel it.</p>

38

<p>Considering Mudd's faculty is all teaching faculty and not research, I'm not suprised that Mudd can't give a terrible amount of aid away. $10million/year on professor/staff salaries alone and without huge research programs, the funds come only from tuition and endowment.</p>

<p>$17million/year from tuition (on average) and ~$20million/year from endowment.</p>

<p>that leaves $27million/year to run facilities and maintainance, pay taxes, and cover lab/academic costs.</p>

<p>seems reasonable.</p>

39

<p>Actually an endowment of $200 million produces more like $12 million a year in income (a 6% annual "draw" is pretty typical; 10% would be fiscally quite reckless).</p>

<p>But I agree, it's definitely clear why the tuition is high and the aid isn't. (Though I think it has more to do with the lack of endowment than lack of research--although research funds do help to support faculty salaries and administration, I don't think any would get diverted to need-based financial aid.)</p>

40

<p>Maybe Caltech keeps gets undergrads a 'discount' by skimming 60% of all research grant money.</p>

<p>Yep, it's true: they really charge 60% overhead. As I understand it (and I don't claim to know the ins and outs) if a prof gets awarded $1M, Caltech says "thanks very much, we'll be taking 600K of that."</p>

<p>While Harvey Mudd has some really good undergrad research going on, it is no where on the scale of a major research university, so the finances are apples to oranges.</p>