<p>How convenient that middsmith makes claims about GPA at Berkeley and Mudd without presenting any data for either high school or college GPA’s to support said claims.</p>
<p>And how convenient that he thinks a 1960-2250 and 2110-2290 range of SAT scores are “the same”. That made my day.</p>
<p>tiyusufaly, </p>
<p>99% of the students admitted/enrolled in Berkeley were in the top 10% of their gradating HS class. On the contrary, only about 87%(?) or lower were in the top 10% enrolled in Mudd. </p>
<p>Also, Middsmith presented enrolled data for Cal whilst the data from Mudd are for the accepted/admitted students. </p>
<p>Normally, enrolled SAT data are lower than accepted/admitted data by at least 20-30 points. On top of that, Berkeley does not superscore whilst Mudd and Caltech do. Somebody made a personal study about SAT superscoring and according to his studies, schools that superscore SATs usually register additional 40 to 50 points on SAT average scores.</p>
<p>RML and middsmith are not worth my time.</p>
<p>If you want to compare engineering programs, I’m ready to start talking science/engineering. We’ll soon see what four years of grueling study does to one’s neural connections.</p>
<p>Please… tell me how Cal students are more capable than Mudd students. I want to know if you even know anything about engineering/science or whether you just blabber away with some numbers you found without spending any time on the other campus. (Yes, I’ve sat in on classes at Cal)</p>
<p>I’m going to toot Tyiusufaly’s horn here for a second. Did you know that he just graduated from Mudd this year and has passed out of almost all of his first and second year classes in his physics PhD program at Rutgers? Furthermore, I hear that he is excelling. How is this possible?</p>
<p>Now my turn. I just graduated too…and was matched with grad students (MS) from top aerospace grad schools: Purdue, GTech, UMich, Caltech. I work at a private aerospace research and development company that is very careful about the hiring process… a 6-7 hour technical interview problem-solving session… one-on-one. How is this possible?</p>
<p>What about Andrew H this year? One of Mudd’s TWO 2009 Churchill fellows (of ~12 total in the nation) who also is one of Mudd’s six Apker finalists in the last 11 years. (two won)… doing research as an undergrad on laser-induced fusion in mesoscopic water droplets.</p>
<p>…and the list goes on and on.</p>
<p>Let me ask you something: Do you honestly believe that Berkeley produces higher caliber students from their undergraduate program? There are only a few schools that I will admit to producing comparable students: Caltech, Olin. Berkeley is not on that list.</p>
<p>So you did manage to waste my time here. Don’t even get me started on PhD statistics or starting/mid career salaries.</p>
<p>rocket, </p>
<p>I’ve never claimed that Cal students are more capable than Mudd students. No data have been presented to support such claim. What Middsmith presented were data for admissions. They only tell about the students’ academic capabilities whilst they were in HS. For college education/standard, I have no sufficient information for both schools, but I would reckon Berkeley - being ranked number 2 by USNews for engineering - is a force to reckon with and is a pillar of engineering and science education, not only in America, but in the world. </p>
<p>I think Mudd - for engineering - is also good. But compared to Berkeley, it’s not. They’re not even in the same league. Berkeley is head and shoulders better than Mudd for engineering. Of course, being a Mudd alum yourself, you would fight tooth and nail to elevate your alma mater school. But sadly, your opinion here does not matter.</p>
<p>RocketDA I agree with most of what you said and I think you make a lot of good points, but no need to be so unnecessarily agressive, it makes Harvey Mudd students look elitist. We can all agree that Berkeley does produce great students, but what we are contesting is the comparison of average overall difficulty or graduate quality, not whether or not a student can excel at either Berkeley or Mudd.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And of course, being a Berkeley alum (or someone who clearly likes Berkeley, I am not entirely sure which school you went to) means you yourself are completely free of bias when comparing schools, whereas us being Mudd alums blinds us and makes us “elevate our alma mater”.</p>
<p>While I sometimes disagree with how RocketDA defends Mudd, he and I share the opinion that you, RML, are frankly not worth our time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>haha! poor scapegoat…</p>
<p>If you want people on here to believe you, tell me how Mudd Eng’g is superior to Berkeley Eng’g or how Mudd graduates are superior to Berkeley Eng’g graduates?</p>
<p>Here’s what’s said chronologically.<br>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
Because it’s Rutgers. </p>
<p>
Tell me what kind of technical job doesn’t have a 6-7 hours technical interview? There was on-campus interview, on site interview that sometimes lead to another on-site interview. </p>
<p>
Not to mention completely disregard factual evidence in favor of hearsays and personal anecdote. </p>
<p>You two are made for each others. And Mudd did a good job educating both of you. You couldn’t refute any of my points and then get defensive and bring out the “mid career” salaries. It’s so funny. </p>
<p>Look, no one is saying Mudd is bad. I didn’t come in until someone from Mudd with a clear inferior complex started to put down a top tier school for engineering to elevate him/herself.</p>
<p>I am not even going to bother with any of the Berkeley-Mudd talk, it’s been done to death on this website (just go in history and search), and it is plain that we are not going to agree.</p>
<p>But you do not have to insult Rutgers. For what it’s worth, I got into other more highly-ranked, prestigious schools, but I chose Rutgers because they are better for my research area, theoretical condensed matter physics. I understand that overall they may not be the most prestigious, but they are really a very good place for condensed matter theory.</p>
<p>And still, even overall, by the US-News (you can question how accurate they are, but whatever) they are a top 25-30 physics program, so I don’t think passing out of most of the first year of graduate PhD courses with just a bachelor’s degree in physics is trivial.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>50 is just as random as any other number.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>click this
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/780850-best-us-colleges-8.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/780850-best-us-colleges-8.html</a></p>
<p>and turn to page 8</p>
<p>Exceptional research prowess does not make you a great educator of undergrads. Therefore I find the arguments presented there completely irrelevant.</p>
<p>RML, I never said HMC was far and away better than Berkeley (in fairness, RocketDA may have, but I never did). I think the best school is a largely individual thing. You on the other hand were bashing HMC completely and saying it is not even in Berkeley’s league, and so I was defending it. So seriously you ought to stop.</p>
<p>
You joined the battle and made some comments regarding Berkeley stats, which implicitly said HMC was far and away better than Berkeley CoE. You weren’t defending when you made those comments. </p>
<p>
See, I don’t go around and make fun of Williams academic achievement. I don’t do that to Brown. Ok, maybe I do, but it wasn’t serious. The point is, you earn the right to make fun of TTT schools. You think you’re better than everyone else, so someone, be it me, think Rutgers is TTT. ;-)</p>
<p>tiyusu, </p>
<p>How is emphasizing the facts bashing? How is explaining to you why Berkeley is not inferior to Mudd bashing? There was no bashing from what I’ve said, as far as the truth is concern. And it’s true, Berkeley engineering is superior to Mudd engineering. Whilst Mudd is blessed with gifted students, Berkeley is gifted with gifted students, superb faculty, best facilities, extensive programs to choose from and bigger and more resounding brand name locally, nationally and internationally.</p>
<p>To be frank with you about this, there’s only one school whose engineering is superior to Berkeley’s and that’s MIT. Mudd isn’t MIT. It’s very far from being one.</p>
<p>Well I am sorry if my comments made it appear that I was insulting Berkeley, but I am not, and if you read it that way then you read it wrong.</p>
<p>Just let it be that we have different opinions on what makes a good UNDERGRADUATE engineering education. Peace be with you both.</p>
<p>Man, this thread has turned into a disaster. : (</p>
<p>Well… I’m pretty sure I’ve made my decision. I think I’m applying ED to Harvey Mudd. I’ll be touring this weekend and interviewing next. I think both schools are great. </p>
<p>I think it’s unfair to say Mudd is out of Berkeley’s league. There is so much data you can present showing one is better than the other. Both are great schools. What makes me want to go to Mudd is that the people seem really nice, the teachers are accomodating, and the community it has. The focus on undergraduate education is amazing, the salaries are good out of college (even though I plan to go to Grad school so this really isn’t too big of a deal, but it does reflect a bit on how prepared the students are). Also I am really impressed with their clinic program.</p>
<p>I am by no means saying that these qualities can not be found at Berkeley. I’m not saying it’s better. I personally think I’ll be more happy at Mudd. I like the support you can get at Mudd that isn’t really possible at such a huge school. I also like the suburban area better.</p>
<p>Yes, It’s frustrating that when I tell people I want to go to Harvey Mudd they ask me what it is or if it’s a community college. But the truth is Mudd is a great undergraduate engineering program, and is one of the best in the country. It really doesn’t matter that Berkeley has more name recognition- trust me, I got really hung up on this having a parent who attended Yale. The people who need to know what it is (employers) know very well about Harvey Mudd (I also don’t plan to leave California, so I’ll stay in a good network). Also, Mudd graduates tend to go to good Grad Schools, so there’s always the prestige there. Who knows, maybe I’ll go to Berkeley for Grad school. Ranks can be an indication, but education itself is not a scalar value. There are so many variable that go into creating a good education for every individual. </p>
<p>This is coming from a person who was a hardcore Berkeley fan for the past two years before I had even heard of Mudd. I still think Berkeley is amazing. I have friends who are there/ plan to go there as well. They are both amazing schools. It really came down to fit for me.</p>
<p>Thank you guys for all your input.</p>
<p>RML, yes Berkeley is a great school, and I understand your opinion is that Berkeley is better. Everyone is going to have their own opinion on the matter. It all comes down to this: where am I going to be happier and where am I going to be most successful at? Both schools can give these opportunities to students.</p>
<p>I’m very sorry this thread turned out how it did. I know Berkeley engineers, and some of them are really high caliber, and others are merely good students, nothing more. I know Mudd students personally too. The one very good point brought up here was that one must be careful what exactly is being measured. </p>
<p>I personally am willing to believe Mudd does some things very right that I wish our program did. For instance, I like that its engineering students have to learn plenty of physics and math that probably gets incorporated into their subsequent teaching. It comes down to what one wants out of classes; I tend to believe a class should teach one who to begin to think about a subject (not just teach some material related to it). And it’s good pedagogy to introduce some of the things I think Mudd students get introduced to – this is having read Rocket’s description of the engineering, along with knowing a physics graduate of the school.</p>
<p>However, not everyone wants to go through that kind of program, and just don’t care for the pedagogy or whatever, and for these Mudd may become miserable enough that they won’t absorb as much. </p>
<p>Berkeley is a larger place, and in an absolute sense there is more there; it’s also a research powerhouse. But as a student for 4 years, one can only do certain things. The question really is what one wants those things to be, and how one wants to be trained coming out of school.</p>
<p>I also agree that next time a discussion about engineering comes up, people need to actually talk science and engineering. That is, really talk about what is done in the language. This can bring something new to the table, certainly more than a typical CC ramble about the positives and negatives of big and small schools.</p>
<p>see ya BR, nice having you around the forums these few months, gluck at HM</p>
<p>I’m not leaving the forums and I still need to get in but thank you haha. : )</p>
<p>RML or middsmith-</p>
<p>Are you even engineers? I need to know.</p>