<p>
Good job opening a whole other can of worms…</p>
<p>Well, it’s certainly true that Mudd focuses more on undergrad education than MIT or Caltech–because it doesn’t have a graduate school. That has both pluses and minuses. As a soon-to-be Caltech Alum, I don’t regret my decision, but I don’t look down on Mudders either. I know a few that are pretty smart. That being said, I’m graduating with three years of research experience that I wouldn’t have been able to get at Mudd.</p>
<p>(I give it an hour or so before one of the Mudd alums shows up)</p>
<p>it’s “easy” to get into science phd’s if you’re qualified. being qualified entails having solid research experience, good LORs, a good SOP, and the usual other things. those who aren’t qualified (they don’t meet the aforementioned criteria), and it’s usually obvious to adcoms, won’t get in anyway. i think applicant pools are very self-selective, leading to higher acceptance rates and people who get rejected from science phd’s probably shouldn’t have applied in the first place. that’s just my opinion on the whole process.</p>
<p>
Education efforts are 100% on undergraduates at Harvey Mudd. That’s obvious, but that doesn’t make percentages a useful measure of the strength of an institution’s undergraduate program.</p>
<p>Yeah, I would also argue that PhD admissions is much “easier” than undergrad admissions. Well-qualified, well-prepared applicants are often told by their advisors that they will get into most, if not all, of the programs they apply to, and this usually turns out to be the case. Furthermore, only a small fraction of students applying to top PhD programs actually have strong enough qualifications. Not only is this not the case when applying to undergraduate institutions (“We had more qualified applicants than we had spaces.”), but also, you wouldn’t likely hear someone tell even a supremely superbly qualified student that he or she is a shoo-in at all undergraduate colleges.</p>
<p>I guess the above discussion is mostly for sciences/engineering Phds.</p>
<p>I have a son who is applying for a Phd in a Humanities/social sciences interdisciplinary field. The stats are daunting in his field. In the humanities, a lot of people apply and only a handful get in to the top schools. The question of fit with the graduate student comes in and is a very good indicator of success for the applicant. For example, if you are interested in late 15th century Germanic literature and there are some scholars looking for researchers with an interest such as yours, your chances of getting in are high; but only if you can prove you can do the work. If not any of the above, your chances are almost 0. </p>
<p>Northwestern U, very helpfully, publishes an annual report from it’s graduate school. This lists the selectivitiy of each program. In the Humanities, the highest number is around 9.8% . Fields such as Languages have around 5-6% selectivity. Engineering/sciences have selectivity a lot lower (some around 15-20%) as it should be. They have a lot more funds and have funding from private/public sources.</p>
<p>In this time of budget cuts for Humanities fields, I think the schools are right in not admitting too many students. There is already a glut of Phds for academic positions at universities…</p>
<p>this is again just my opinion, but i have no idea why someone would ever get a phd in the humanities. at least other job ops for science phds are in industry. but it seems like a phd in the humanities is a huge risk…</p>
<p>^
It is, but we accept that risk. </p>
<p>There was actually a very good [url=<a href=“http://chronicle.com/article/Graduate-School-in-the/44846]article[/url”>http://chronicle.com/article/Graduate-School-in-the/44846]article[/url</a>] in the Chronicle of Higher Education a couple of months ago urging students not to go for PhDs in the humanities. While I disagree with his main point, I strongly agree that humanities students should be aware – truly aware – that the likelihood of getting any job in academia is next to zero.</p>
<p>– That being said, I’m graduating with three years of research experience that I wouldn’t have been able to get at Mudd.</p>
<p>A ridiculous assumption. Mudd faculty are required to conduct research (and as PhDs I’m sure would do so regardless) and involve students. Three years is a lot, but I know several people who have spent three years and three summers conducting research with various professors. A large percent of Mudd students go to graduate school, I don’t think that would be possible if they had no research experience. Every student is also required to do at LEAST 1 year of either thesis research or clinic (industry projects) work.</p>
<p>^
I’m sure he’s not implying that Harvey Mudd doesn’t have much research experience, but rather Caltech has better research experience</p>
<p>I’m a huge proponent of liberal arts and smaller specialty schools like Mudd, but the amount and kind of research available on campus cannot compare to a large, first-rate university. That said, students at the undergraduate-centric colleges usually have more active roles in research, with more one-on-one experience with PIs, so what they miss in cutting-edge research and facilities, they gain in mentorship and greater input into the direction of the research itself. I’m NOT saying that students at Mudd don’t contribute to important research or that students at Caltech don’t get mentored; I’m talking about a general difference in emphasis and opportunity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct. The experience I got at Caltech–being able to work with one of the top ten faculty in my field–is one I wouldn’t be able to get at any but a few other places. When I went on grad school visits at the end of 2009, every single professor I met with (at four different universities) knew my prof and his research, and I can promise you that was a boon to my application.</p>
<p>I guess the reason I truly think it is “up to the student,” and that these often quoted words aren’t meaningless, is that there are simply different ways to shine. Some ways work better for some students, admittedly. Coming from a school with world-class faculty, I can promise that most students don’t really end up interacting with them in any substantial way, as getting to the point of being able to within 4 years can be very tough indeed. </p>
<p>On the other hand, those who do manage to run off with a great asset to any application they write up.</p>
<p>Looks like the points I was aiming for have been made already =) I agree the scope of research and facilities at large universities is undoubtedly far larger and the faculty more widely known, but I doubt an undergraduate can fully make use of the opportunities it may offer, except for name recognition when applying to grad schools (which is of course quite useful.) I wasn’t sure how much interaction undergrads would actually have with faculty at these universities, but mathboy98 confirms my suspicion that it is rarely significant. </p>
<p>What sort of recommendation do you think a grad school would like more? A famous professor sending a cookie-cutter rec or a less widely known professor who worked very closely with the student. (Not a rhetorical question, I really have no idea)</p>
<p>I essentially agree with what Momwaitingfornew said, but I don’t see how lizzardfire can straightup call Caltech’s research experience “better.”</p>
<p>
The latter.</p>
<p>The notability of your recommenders only comes into play if the letter you’ve secured from them is strong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is my opinion that the research experience available at Caltech is “better”. While I’m sure at Mudd you get quite the one-on-one experience, I know that many people at Caltech, including myself, get that experience too. I also know that the lab facilities at Caltech are far more advanced than Mudd’s, and I know that the research going on is substantially higher profile. I also find the Caltech SURF program to be one of the best undergraduate research programs available in terms of organization and support.</p>
<p>It should be noted that, while large research universities have higher tech labs and world class research, graduate programs understand that this level of research is not available at undergraduate-centric schools. They will not reject a strong Harvey Mudd student over a Caltech student just because the Mudd student wasn’t researching in a famous lab. Grad admissions is much more complicated than that. No one expects an undergraduate to do important work, even if that undergrad is in an important lab. Instead, adcoms are (generally) looking at whether the student understands the daily grind and procedures of research, whether the student’s PI/advisor believes he has demonstrated the qualities necessary to perform more advanced work, and whether the student understands exactly what and why he has performed the work itself. </p>
<p>Harvey Mudd is a known and respected quantity. Its students will not be at a disadvantage in the graduate admissions process. All one has to do is peruse the graduate forums to see that students from all types of institutions have gained entry into top programs.</p>
<p>There are studies on this issue. Find NSF 96-334.
<a href=“http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf96334/nsf96334.pdf[/url]”>http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf96334/nsf96334.pdf</a></p>
<p>You will also find that Tom Cech – upon reviewing NSF 96-334 – discovered that Harvey Mudd was third in percentage from all schools in the US. <a href=“http://www.collegenews.org/prebuilt/daedalus/cech_article.pdf[/url]”>http://www.collegenews.org/prebuilt/daedalus/cech_article.pdf</a></p>
<p>Since almost one in 5 from HM goes to graduate school in the sciences, your odds would appear to be good.</p>
<p>I’m not sure how you two got “Harvey Mudd students fare poorly in graduate student admissions” from “Caltech’s research experience is better than Harvey Mudd’s”. Harvey Mudd is a great school and I haven’t said anything to imply the contrary. I know many Mudders in well-respected academic positions, and I am well aware that they send a large portion of their students to graduate school (of course, not nearly as many as Caltech :P).</p>
<p>That being said, I’d like to respond to some of Momwaitingfornew’s points…</p>
<p>
I don’t understand why you chose to phrase this the way you did. While I guess what you’re saying is true, it’s sort of irrelevant; the point isn’t that you are punished for not having heavyweight connections, the point is that you are rewarded FOR having them. I can GUARANTEE you that having researched in a famous lab (and done well, of course) really, really, really helps your chances in graduate school admissions. It’s a competitive edge simply not available at HMC (that being said, Mudders can certainly research off campus at places like Caltech, MIT, Stanford, etc.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re absolutely right, which makes it all the more impressive when they do.</p>