<p>So I have done a good deal of reading about MIT, Cal Tech, and Harvey Mudd, however I would appreciate it if students/alumni could explain what they see as the non-trivial advantages/disadvantages/things to consider about each school. For instance Im not sure if a bigger school, like MIT, or a smaller school, Mudd/Cal Tech, would be best for me what do you see as the advantages/disadvantages of each? Furthermore, I know all three of the schools are excellent and rigorous however could any of the three be considered harder than the others? Also please comment on any other important differences between the schools. Thanks for the info!</p>
<p>Saw your post at all the three forums.
So you are a HS freshman or junior? researching about schools, huh?From a personal point of view, I think Harvey Mudd and Caltech are generally similar. They are both famous for producing talented scientists. But MIT is a well-rounded school, well-known for its education in science and technology, and in Political science and economics also. about difficulty of admission, I think MIT is the most difficult to get in of all the three. Applicants of Caltech and Harvey Mudd are generally more self-selecting–it seems like:“if you don’t like science, go away.” But for MIT it’s quite a different thing. Yes, they admit lots of science geeks, but they also admit lots of people whose interests are in humanities or other fields, rather than science.</p>
<p>So your choice depends whether you want to be a scientist or not. If so, I think Caltech and Harvey Mudd can fit you; if not, try HYPSM. :)</p>
<p>I’m a junior right now. While I currently plan on majoring in physics and or math I could certainly change my mind after going through the classes - would this basically force me to transfer from Caltech or Mudd?</p>
1 Like
<p>Not really force you. You could get a minor in math or physics and then off-campus major at the other colleges. HOWEVER, with the core in mind, minoring in either at Mudd is equivalent to about the most basic major at other institutions. </p>
<p>If you think it is at all likely that you wont major in science in engineering, it might be a good idea to avoid Mudd, despite its awesomeness. At that point it probably isnt worth it.</p>
<p>In all likelihood I will major in math/physics - could you expound on what you think are the advantages of Mudd compared to MIT and Caltech?</p>
<p>When you say, “If you think it is at all likely that you wont major in science in engineering, it might be a good idea to avoid Mudd, despite its awesomeness. At that point it probably isnt worth it,” science/engineering includes math, right?</p>
<p>Dawncoming, I have to disagree with you a bit. I think Mudd and CalTech are similar in size and in the strength of their academic programs, but quite different in personality from what I’ve seen. You really need to vist both. My son had no interest in Cal Tech at all, but loves Mudd. And Mudd is the epidomy of somewhere that values well roundedness, as it is also a liberal arts school with a strong required core in a broad range of subjects including humanities. I do think Cal Tech is more single focused than either MIT or Mudd, but none of these school are right for someone who doesn’t want to major in math or science, and while MIT, like MUdd, seeks a well rounded student body, I doubt it admits people that are interested in humanities rather than science. At Mudd you also have the other Claremont schools where you can take clasess and socialize with. I have heard of some folks who ultimately decided not to major in science who did a major at one of the other schools, but it is not recommneded. </p>
<p>spratleyj - Mudd is particularly strong in physics and math.</p>
<p>Here is a rough idea of what I want - ranked in terms of importance</p>
<ol>
<li><p>A group of peers who are extremely intellectually skilled and curious (especially math/physics)</p></li>
<li><p>A group of peers who enjoy college and life in general, and who aren’t socially awkward =)</p></li>
<li><p>A school which offers an environment (namely classes) in which students are extraordinarily challenged because of the quality, not quantity of work. This includes very challenging intro courses, as well as access to advance (grad) courses. (especially math/physics)</p></li>
<li><p>A faculty who are experts in there fields, as well as quality teachers, who care deeply about their students.</p></li>
<li><p>A school which is in a different region of the country (all three of these schools fit this catogery)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>All in all I would like to learn, rigorously, about the fundamentals of all subjects: biology, chemistry, humanities, etc. Then I would like to have access to even more challenging and interesting physics/math courses. Furthermore, I would like my interest/ability to be somewhere towards the median of the student body.</p>
<p>Mudd is the only one offering #2, I’m afraid. However, it is well able to offer advanced courses (through independent studies, if necessary) without needing an explicit “graduate” designation.</p>
<p>I visited Caltech and HMC and felt very different social vibes. If you are fortunate enough to gain admission to both, visit yourself and see what appeals to you. My 2¢ is in a visit report for HMC, but you should think this over yourself as it is an inherently subjective observation.</p>
<p>MIT is a whole different place again; more well-rounded, larger, and definitely more of a city school.</p>
<p>I say the biggest difference would be claremont consortium. You can get the advantage of both a pretty nice size(I want to say big, but some will say “4000 people is not big, blah blah”) and a small school</p>
<p>Regarding Caltech and Mudd,</p>
<p>Both have 1.
Maybe half of each student body falls under 2.
At both schools you will have to do large quantities of high quality work. Mudd has a few grad classes but I’d say it has enough regular classes to fulfill the needs of a standard student and most more advanced students. There is also plenty of research and independent study.
I think people often confuse “experts in their field” with “doing cutting-edge research and has won a Nobel Prize” but I can assure you that professors at Mudd are good at what they do. Caltech profs I’m sure as well. I would guess that for the same reason Mudd has more quality teachers who care about their students, but that’s just my guess.</p>
<p>Mudd has a core curriculum you must take that covers a lot of chem, bio, math, physics, CS, and some engineering and 12 hum classes are required to graduate (average of 1.5 per semester). I know Caltech has something similar.</p>
<p>Caltech also has a pretty rigorous core, but I believe it won’t be as much as Mudd, especially in the Hum area</p>
<p>
I disagree with this opinion. I have visited both MIT and Cal Tech, staying with friends who go there. Their campus vibes are indeed different, but if I had attended either school, I’m sure I could be happy there too. Visiting is the best way for you to experience the school culture – secondhand sources are inevitably coloured by the writer’s opinion.</p>
<p>Also, I would like to point out that Mudd’s course offerings are limited by its size. While some people may not have noticed it, I have felt the effects taking Core math classes like Diff Eqs which I feel are catered more for Engineering majors. Schools like MIT can offer different flavors of Diff Eqs, because it has enough students.</p>
1 Like
<p>There are problems with offering different flavors of Diff Eqs though. At the University of Michigan, there are 4 different levels of Diff Eq (5 really, but I’m going to ignore the uber-theoretical not-even-all-math-majors one). There are 3 that don’t pre-req linear algebra; the two for engineers are very applied and so don’t really suffer for lack of LA, but the last is basically a complete pile of crap, as they’re supposed to do theoretical proofs of DE concepts, and yet cannot tell me what a linear combination is. Then there’s the one I’m taking, which does pre-req LA, but is so easy that it’s kind of silly.
I feel like with a single course that supposedly caters to everyone, a lot of these issues resolve themselves by necessity.</p>
<p>My son was accepted to, and visited, both Caltech and Mudd. He didn’t apply to MIT because he wanted a small school. He fell in love with Mudd and wasn’t very impressed with Caltech. Although the students were similarly brilliant at both schools, the atmosphere and attitudes about classes were different. At Mudd, the feeling was that the profs cared and made class a great time to learn, and the attitude about classes at Caltech (from SEVERAL students) was that classes were a waste of time because the profs were no good at teaching. The Caltech students frequently said “I learn better on my own.” Well, of course a student who could get admitted to any of these schools is capable of learning on his own, but then what is the purpose of the school? One of the Caltech students said “the classes with the better teachers are more heavily attended.” A few different students said that people attend about 40% of their classes!</p>
<p>MY take on it was that the point of Caltech was to go and bask in the greatness of the faculty, and to be allowed to help them with their research. The point of Mudd is to have the faculty try to help YOU become great, and part of how they do that is by letting you share in their research.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Untrue of MIT, according to some alumni. At least nowadays, apparently it is conceivable to attend if you are perceived as a fit to their culture, which need not involve being obsessive about mathematics or science or technology. I in fact thought what you did, and was corrected. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While this may certainly be true, I do know Mudd’s offerings are, as fiona says, limited by its size as compared to Caltech. I think a huge criterion for someone who likes both school atmospheres would be to choose between faculty who are probably selected much more on the basis of their ability to train the students and a larger set of serious offerings where you get what you need.</p>
<p>For this reason, I feel in a sense that one should research Mudd’s way of organizing the curriculum to make sure one doesn’t have huge mismatch with the structure and its philosophy.</p>
<p>
No matter which way you slice it, MIT is still a technical school with tons of science requirements, so I’m inclined to disagree with those alums. But it’s their school and their P.O.V…</p>
<p>
Since UMich doesn’t execute the options perfectly, the best option is to not give students choices and just offer one flavor?</p>
<p>
Caltech’s advantages – super researchers for faculty, breadth and depth of courses – are more important to some people than others. MIT/Caltech are right for my friends who are extremely into research and want to dive right in. My education at Mudd might not be that fast-tracked, but it’s perfect for my wants.</p>
<p>We have visited all three schools. MIT was of more interest to my son after the summer tour, but not so much after a recent revisit and class visit. He did not apply to Cal Tech. </p>
<p>Although academics are important, you’ll need to at least be comfortable with the varying housing situations. All three have most or all students on campus (a big plus if you are coming from far away… many colleges only have room for 30% of the students). None are better or worse. Just different/ Here are the difference I noticed as the Mom: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>Harvey Mudd has the most typical dorm/food setup. But to me the dorsm seemed a bit… umm… worn down. Didn’t bother my son bit. </p></li>
<li><p>Cal Tech has setup that to me seemed a bit like Hogwarts. You belong to the same house for 4 years, eating weekday dinners together at once (with servers). There is a kitchen and on campus cafeterias to help fill in breakfast, lunch, and weekend meals.</p></li>
<li><p>MIT makes meal plans optional (so less social life revolving around meals). Most students seem to cook or eat out. Read more about it on MIT threads.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Fiona - so essentially you’re saying that Harvey Mudd has better instructional quality while Caltech and MIT have better research opportunities?</p>