<p>Any arguments for or against either?</p>
<p>depends on the major... harvey mudd is amazing at math</p>
<p>joshua, that depends on a LOT more than just what you said, and I can take issue with many of the things you brought up.</p>
<p>"great faculty." HMC professors are often among the best in their field, and more importantly, HMC considers teaching skill as a HUGE factor in tenure decisions, while CalTech doesn't.</p>
<p>"excellent prestige." Who cares?</p>
<p>"Better prospects for employment." You clearly have not gone into Harvey Mudd College and read the student-destinations list in their math department. Go do so.</p>
<p>Depends on who you are and what you want to do honestly, but not much.</p>
<p>Both are great schools and will give you top-notch opportunities upon graduation. </p>
<p>As for specific categories, I would say Caltech would normally win in the pure sciences (physics, chemistry, math) and Mudd in the applied fields (engineering, computer science) though both schools are EXCELLENT in a the others as well. Also they have slightly different mission objectives. Caltech is slightly more science focussed and Mudd is slightly more humanities focussed . But both will be sufficient in educating you. </p>
<p>In my personal case my father, a chem engineer-employer, really wanted me to go to Harvey Mudd so I did not even bother applying to Caltech; he wouldnt have helped foot the bill if I got into both. I am a physics major by the way. </p>
<p>Of course I had a personal choice toward Mudd in other aspects as well, especially the scenery, ie. Scripps. While Caltech has <30% females Mudd enrolled 42% this year for the class of 2011 and I will be the ONLY male transfer this year. Add this to the fact that it is across the street from an all girls school and voila, happy nerd.</p>
<p>And as a side note many people will share the view that Josh has, Harvey Mudd IS less known than Caltech to normal person. However, where it counts Mudd is CERTAINLY known. When I asked my physics professor this year about the various physics programs I was interested in transferring in, Mudd was quite popular (in fact the most). A total of 4 physics professors ended up popping out of nowhere to talk about the SoCal gem.</p>
<p>You seem to be the only one caring about prestige here--and I know people who would go to Mudd over anything Caltech could give them. (I'm not one of them--I'd have to think about it no matter what they give me.) They believe that they'll get a simply better education at Mudd.</p>
<p>"I just said that between the two of them -- Caltech is the better university, and I believe most, if not all professors, college deans, admission deans, school presidents and even an ordinary guy on the street would tell you I am right."</p>
<p>Of course you are right. Caltech is the better UNIVERSITY, since Harvey Mudd is not one; it is a LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGE. This is one the main differences between the two places, as it:</p>
<ol>
<li>Gives Caltech better research opportunities than Mudd*</li>
<li>Insures that Mudd's professors are more focussed on teaching than anything else.*</li>
<li>Gives Caltech a graduate school which always helps boast the name and increase the prestige of the university. (though this is linked with #1)</li>
</ol>
<p>*Both are actually great at research and teaching considering the small student body and type of teachers; these are generalizations. </p>
<p>Now back to your reasons for why Caltech is better than Harvey Mudd as an INSTITUTION OF GREATER LEARNING, they are by far the worst behind the long-lived Caltech vs Harvey Mudd debate. If people only cared about prestige then I am sure even half the students at Caltech would have gone to Harvard since it is the most prestigious (and thus by your reasoning best) university in the world. However they went to Caltech because they value something more than just prestige, and the same can be said for Harvey Mudd as it has quite the talented study body as well.</p>
<p>So with that said, if prestige is what you actually are basing your decision on between these two, it might be best for you to chose "none of the above."</p>
<p>Funny, I thought this was about Caltech and Harvey Mudd, not HARVARD YALE PRINCETON STANFORD MIT. The students of the latter and former groups are completely different, even MIT and Caltech. </p>
<p>And as you said "Harvard wins cross admit battles mainly because of PRESTIGE. " Is this 100% though? I mean people ARE choosing other colleges over Harvard, proving that a non-prestige whore like myself and the others arent as unique as you think.</p>
<p>But anyways, why do we not let this off topic debate die? I am sure the OP can already form his own opinion on prestige and act according. I say we let other people join in on the topic and add there own pros/cons to either side. As far as I can tell, prestige is sufficiently argued.</p>
<p>rocket:</p>
<p>be gentle</p>
<p>"but so is Caltech, for math. This is pretty clear."
Really? How so? If I remember correctly, HMC and Caltech have been neck and neck for the last 15 years in the math dept. PhD and Putnam stats... look em up.</p>
<p>"Caltech is the better school between the two. great faculty. "
Mudd's faculty gets tenure based on teaching ability, as determined by the students.</p>
<p>"great resources."
Overall, yes, Caltech has superb resources. However, the open range that you get at HMC with no grad students is definitely worth noting. I have my own lab and I can use the machine shops or computer labs whenever I want. If I need special materials or services, undergrads can get this done easily.</p>
<p>"great student body. "
Both schools do...however, they are similar in some ways and dissimilar in others. Overall, I'd say Mudd has a higher deviation of talent and IQ...</p>
<p>"great alumni network."
Umm.. Yeah. Both schools have great alumni networks. You will be hard-pressed to find a Mudder who cannot get an internship...and many offers come through because of the alumni network.</p>
<p>"excellent prestige."
I'll grant you Caltech has better international and general prestige as noted by the layman. However, people who know about HMC are very impressed...and those tend to be people that matter like employers or accomplished engineers/scientists. There is a reason why Mudd hosts the national engineering teaching convention every year. Mudd is considered to be the top for engineering and research design.</p>
<p>"Better prospects for employment."
Really? Care to ask me how many job offers I have and I'm not even graduated yet? Let me list the ones from the last year:</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd Research (current full time)
V-----a Associates Int'l, Associate Engineer (aviation systems, current part time)
Caltech Hypervelocity Laboratory (contract settled today)
JPL MSL Support (ongoing, inactive)
Stanford Research Institute (declined)</p>
<p>"But this is not to say HMudd is not a very good school though. It’s just that—Caltech is the better school between the two of them."
You know, you go to school to learn... isn't that the point? Which place teaches you better, politics and common prestige aside? The argument isn't so clear as to say one school is better than the other. I believe that both are strong and have advantages over eachother. It isn't so goddamn black and white you quantum heretic.</p>
<p>Not everyone who's driven and has top scores wants to go to HPY, etc. There is more to life than the name on the diploma (not that HMC or Caltech on a diploma is ANYTHING to hang one's head about!). Mudd seems to have its priorities in order -- top-notch science, math and engineering, along with making sure people understand the human context in which they will be working. Some folks are glad to take their top scores, that have given them a choice of wonderful options, and go where they will be challenged and happy -- and Mudd and Caltech do that for the kids who choose to attend. Remember lots of the kids who are accepted to these two schools have turned down other top options. They are both highly self-selective schools.</p>
<p>For those of us who like being superficial every once in a while ^__^
1) Caltech is GORGEOUS whereas Harvey Mudd is covered in concrete pimples.
2) However, many more students are covered in pimples at Caltech.
3) If you are a girl, the male female ratio takes a 180 spin and at HM you can expect guys drooling over english majors at Scripps
At least what I've decided in my college search is that there are too many schools with excellent programs to decide based on that alone. Sometimes you have to be a little superficial ;-) and make academics part of a checklist of things that matter to you in a school.
[Personally, I would rather go to Caltech, but I'm a girl planning on majoring in physics, not engineering, so perhaps I'm biased]</p>
<p>How can you focus on the pimples when there are couches everywhere. You must be a glass-half-empty sort of person.</p>
<p>Mudd gives out 10K scholarships which is pretty sweet. Just get a 1550+ and a high class rank (and some finger crossing) and its great for merit aid.</p>
<p>Either way, Cal Tech = smarter in absolute terms, Harvey Mudd = more well-rounded, though I only know one person from each to judge off of.</p>
<p>I remember reading somewhere that Caltech and Harvey Mudd are both very good colleges, but Harvey Mudd is MUCH smaller than Caltech.</p>
<p>In reality though, there isn't a huge difference in size. Harvey Mudd's enrollment is in the 700s while CalTech is in the 800s. In my opinion, Harvey Mudd feels bigger than CalTech because of the four surrounding colleges. </p>
<p>Oh, another thing to consider: CalTech is in Pasadena, which is adorable while HM is in the middle of nowhere. </p>
<p>I would still say Caltech is better overall if you don't merely consider academics. Then again, if you don't care about anything except academics, save yourself 10K and go to HM. The point of my last post (while facetious and perhaps accidentally offensive) was that academics are not everything! As an individual you have to decide where you fit in the best and that includes people, setting, price, and size as well as academics.</p>
<p>Mudd: 1420 - 1550 SATs with 180 undergrads per year (but more % fluctuation)
Cal Tech: 1460 - 1570 SATs with 220 undergrads per year</p>
<p>Very similar, both very small.</p>
<p>"Oh, another thing to consider: CalTech is in Pasadena, which is adorable while HM is in the middle of nowhere. "</p>
<p>I've lived and worked at both places and I think this is a ridiculous statement. Claremont is very affluent and extremely nice. You must be thinking of Upland which is just east of us. Clearly, the Claremont Village is quite nice...but I guess you've never been there.</p>
<p>"Either way, Cal Tech = smarter in absolute terms, Harvey Mudd = more well-rounded, though I only know one person from each to judge off of."</p>
<p>Thank God for large standard deviations since you only know one from each. Woo...yeah.</p>
<p>"In my opinion, Harvey Mudd feels bigger than CalTech because of the four surrounding colleges. "</p>
<p>You are correct in saying that Mudd can feel pretty big with the Claremont Consortium. We do have a ton of classes to choose (2500) and 6000 students. The academic environment in the math and sciences, though, feels very close-knit here at HMC. </p>
<p>While I've only lived at Caltech for 3 months (last summer), I started to get a feel for Caltech life by meeting students and faculty. To me, Caltech's campus feels larger like a research university (like it is). While the undergrad population may be in the 700s, I believe that the grad population is in around 1200 (from my memory, don't want to look it up).</p>
<p>I'll be back at Caltech for two weeks for continuing research so I'll try to refine my judgements of the campus at this time.</p>
<p>I think Claremont is absolutely adorable, still. Though I do admit, Old Pasadena as a few mighty-fine restaurants (like Saladang's, Holly Street Bar & Grill, etc). However, now that I'm learning more about Claremont I've found some pretty good ones (like Walter's, Yanni's, Harvard Square)</p>
<p>Like Master Yoda said, "Don't be seduced by the Dark Side of The Force."</p>