<p>My kids is stong in sciences, but not the English student of the Mudders. If he attended, it is likely he would be the bottom half. But, he would not mind that if the rest of the community was warm and fuzzy. Do bottom rung Mudders feel as good about the school as the elite?</p>
<p>Be honest.</p>
<p>I think I'm roughly in the middle in terms of GPA here at HMC. I get mostly A's (and a few C's) in my engineering classes so my engineering GPA is above average but I've been below average in the humanities (besides music) and biology.</p>
<p>Mudd is an interesting place to me. I hate it and I love it at the same time. I feel that one receives a superior education here and greatly expands one's set of problem solving tools. However, Mudd often leaves me feeling bitter.</p>
<p>I often feel bitter because I think conventional homework, tests, and grades are bogus. In one of my engineering classes, for instance, I knew the concepts and math better than nearly anyone at the school. When we had quizzes (which have virtually no grade value) I always got one of the top scores. In addition, I could talk circles around other students with regards to the material and integrate what we just learned into real-life problems. I ended up getting a C in the class. I felt that the tests were too detail-driven (Like you get screwed if you can't remember the semantics if a MATLAB fft displays inward to outward or vise versa).</p>
<p>In an example from last semester, I received my first-ever D in a class...and the class was biology. I did all the homework (with an 80% average), bombed the first mid-term (because the prof awarded zero partial credit) and felt really good about the final. Turns out, somehow, I got a 71% on the final EVEN THOUGH I knew how to do everything on the test and was very confident in my answers. I think the grading is bogus, man. Seems like the professor had it in for me because I over-studied for that test. That, alone, made my semester GPA go from a 3.3 to a 2.7.</p>
<p>When it comes down to it, the difference between the "elite" and "bottom rung" at Mudd sometimes has no real significance. I lost all respect for academia when not-so-smart people get better grades than hard-working smart people. The grading difference seems to come from how students approach learning the material. I could not live with myself if I were the guy who aspires for high marks. To some people, school is all about grades and that is what really ****es me off about Mudd. I do, though, love Mudd though.</p>
<p>But yeah, your son may feel warm and fuzzy sometimes but don't count on it even the majority of the time. If your son has views similar to me I'd suggest coming to Mudd...though realize that (he is) going for the learning.</p>
<p>In the case that your son is really a "bottom rung" by the sense of the mental preparation for Mudd, he'll probably get quite a kick the first semester or year and then settle in... 'Someone has to be the "bottom rung" ' , though I do not believe in such a bull$hit concept.</p>
<p>Just as a side note- I am by no means an average Mudder though. I think the school is a good source of education but I'm working two engineering consulting jobs on top of school. I know my stuff and it makes me sad that my grades don't necessarily reflect that. If you can live with this too, you'll be fine.</p>
<p>I find that students are not terribly competitive with eachother. They are generally pretty supportive of good work by their peers.</p>
<p>The overall requirements and load of Mudd can just be downright ridiculous at times...and I think that is where a lot of the aggregate stress of the campus comes from.</p>
<p>As smart as mudders are, they are not very competitive. This is one of the benefits of Mudd. Professors don't curve because they want us to work together (which we do, a lot) on homework and studying. I don't think there are many schools as good as Mudd that are as non-competitive. The ivy-league, for example, is extremely competitive.</p>
<p>RocketDA, you said, "The grading difference seems to come from how students approach learning the material."</p>
<p>Could you elaborate? Are there specific ways of studying that work better? Is what you're talking about the emphasis by some kids to study for good grades at all costs vs. others who want to learn, but not let grades get in the way of their education? Is it the difference between studying with groups vs. solo?</p>
<p>I would be interested to hear what kind of studying approaches work (or don't) at Mudd, since that seems to be an important component of how one enjoys the experience. Call it another component of fit! </p>
<p>Thanks for your honesty here. We appreciate both the positive and negative!</p>
<p>"Are there specific ways of studying that work better? Is what you're talking about the emphasis by some kids to study for good grades at all costs vs. others who want to learn, but not let grades get in the way of their education? Is it the difference between studying with groups vs. solo?"</p>
<p>Remember that learning and getting high marks are two different things. While there may be a linear correlation of 0.7 or so between the two, it seems that a lot of times engineering is about much more than book-work and formulas. I know of several students that are not as bright as their grades reflect because instead of struggling with the core concepts of a subject (i.e. fundamentally how viscosity affects the boundary layer) they learn how to take an equation and plug in a few values and solve for a variable. </p>
<p>On the other hand, people like me take a while to learn subjects. This is because I do not (and cannot) memorize formulas and I am not satisfied until I either implicitly or expilcitly derive the formulas. At the very least, I conceptualize what is going on in the system... I find most students that I've met (and most any school) purely $uck at this.</p>
<p>I think, though, that Mudd is about 50/50 of the previously mentioned types.</p>
<p>Working in groups is good and bad. While you can get homework done easier and faster (and more correct), I find (personally) that it really does not help the "personal discovery" of the subject at hand. That is, your friend may tell you his or her way of doing it....which keeps you from struggling as you often adopt their methods as yours. Another opposite scenario, which is fairly common with me, is that I will go to a friend for help and I will not understand the logic they use. I'll get confused and say, "thanks, I got it" but I'll leave and go rehash it out myself. Often, I'll go back and show them my way (and they will not understand my logic)...but often we would get the same result. I think other people are much more successful at this than me.</p>
<p>It is hard not to get depressed due to grades at Mudd. Nearly all Mudders in high school had mostly As and a few Bs (and pretty much all As in sciences/maths). We were at the top of our game...and now we get Bs and Cs with the occassional A. Of course, there are those that get As and Bs at Mudd but like I say, some are grade freaks and some are just genuinely brilliant. </p>
<p>Remember, something like 3 Mudders, in the history of the school, have pulled of a 4.0 GPA. At least one of those people went crazy and exactly one killed himself and his parents. What ever you do, do not get a 4.0.</p>
<p>LoL that's a nice urban legend but it's not quite true. I know that in 2000 HMC had its fourth 4.0. I know of two of them: Cass Hackett in 1991, who is now a physics professor at the University of Virginia, and Elisha Peterson in 2000, who is now a math professor at West Point. When you get here you will here all sorts of legends regarding who was a 4.0 and what they did...but most of it is outright rubbish. This that I'm telling you, however, is authentic.</p>
<p>That is not to say you should strive for a 4.0: you should strive for your best. These people are just ridiculously brilliant and hard working, and I find it best not to compare myself with others too much, it just makes me feel worse about my own grades, even when they are, on a few occasions, good - there is always someone better.</p>
<p>Grades are overrated.
Education is overrated.
QUIT WHILE YOU'RE AHEAD AND BECOME A HOBO.
I'm joking.</p>
<p>1/2 of the above statements are false.</p>
<p>What is the reality?</p>
<p>"LoL that's a nice urban legend but it's not quite true. I know that in 2000 HMC had its fourth 4.0"</p>
<p>Oh, there is a fourth. I've heard rumors about Prof. Lyzenga getting a 4.0 while here. Is this valid?</p>
<p>I doubt it. The physics faculty themselves say it's not true.</p>