I don’t think that you can use school name to say that any major at this school will be superior. Based on my research I think it is true for only one school – Stanford.
@“Miles Perrara” - Laughing at the translation of ‘Harvey Mudd’ to ‘Harvard Med’ 
I was trying to get some metrics of strength of schools in the sciences, and analyzed the baccalaureate origins (where awardee got their BS) of NSF Graduate Fellowships from 2010-2016. The full tables are here:
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1881324-table-of-colleges-and-university-that-produce-awardees-of-nsf-graduate-fellowships-p1.html
But here are your three schools. Note Harvey Mudd is much smaller than the others and this is not normalized by the sizes of the schools or numbers of majors. So you’ll need to factor that in.
ChemComSciGeoSciLifeSciEnvSciMathPhysicsPsychSocScitotalname
_2240105383650720246MIT
1915716320213__2106CA Inst of Tech
9130451360050_Harvey Mudd Coll
Thank you @liska21 Do you have this information for UCLA?
@liska21 that is great stuff, thank you. Though a slight quibble, HMC is not that much smaller than Caltech.
Enrollments:
MIT: 4500
Caltech: 1000
HMC: 800
So as a percentage by student, Caltech>HMC>MIT …
@Ballerina016 looks like it is 137 for UCLA. Out of 30,000 students though.
By the way @liska21 @Ballerina016 these results that @liska21 posted are very in line with the percent of students headed to grad school:
http://www.thecollegesolution.com/the-colleges-where-phds-get-their-start/
You can see Caltech and HMC dominating. And to a lesser extent MIT.
Here’s another article, with Ballerina016’s daughter’s 3 options in the top 3:
http://www.thecollegesolution.com/50-schools-that-produce-the-most-science-and-engineering-phds/
I keep trying to jump in but @csdad2 is putting it beautifully. At this level, choose for overall compatibility with the school. Not for bragging rights of the name, anyone who is relevant in her future will know. Don’t choose on QS rankings of grad departments research and PHD production and think this has much to do with the undergraduate education, that is just a bad way to choose a school. Choosing a school that is right for her where she will thrive is much more important than splitting hairs over the very bestest bestest department when that just can’t be measured even crudely by proxies and when there will be ample opportunities at any.
If you are thinking Harvey Mudd is in any way LESS intense, here’s an anecdote: I attended HMC commencement (a friend’s son) a few years back, and noticed in the program a number of students had asterisks by their names. Looking up this “distinction”, it meant that the student was anticipated to have completed all requirements by commencement! So, at the time the graduating(?) class’ program was printed, a significant minority of the class was not absolutely sure to have passed all requirements!
This is an entertaining thread to follow! I can happily say that my daughter didn’t have to make this decision because she didn’t apply to MIT or CalTech (and maybe wouldn’t have been accepted either) so we are all thrilled she’ll be attending HMC even though none of our friends have heard of it and we rarely get to brag! Honestly, there is so much more to life than which of one of the top STEM schools did you graduate from. As has been said many times already, this decision really should be based on fit. Where can the OP’s daughter feel comfortable living for the next four years? IMHO, these kids will grow up to find success no matter what! Be proud of their hard work and enjoy life a little!
From Caltech presentation today: “After 4 years 71% go for PhD, 15% for MS, 10% MD” and 2% for something else I don’t remember. Who is going to work?
^ Mom and Dad.
LOl! I don’t know about Caltech, but for Mudd it’s 64% in 2015. If you are interested in those types of numbers check out this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzR_KHZNACM_cjZTWTlPOHkybEk/view
I think I just came up with very important criteria: I want school that will allows my kid to have reasonable earrings after 4 years.
I think your kid would do just fine in the job market after MIT or Caltech – I would not worry about that. Just because a lot of the students DON’T go into industry doesn’t mean they couldn’t. I wonder if the Caltech numbers are right out of undergraduate, too, or whether they mean eventually students go for those advanced degrees.
Just checked the Caltech website, and they say: “About half of Techers go on to graduate school immediately after receiving their BS degree.” So while a lot of their students go on to graduate degrees, they often go into the workplace first. My opinion – Caltech students LIKE school, they are very good at it, and the industries they work in reward additional education after undergrad. I don’t think it is a negative for Caltech at all to have a high number of students who eventually pursue graduate degrees.
Again… you are splitting hairs between MIT/Caltech/Mudd. Your kid will probably have a good idea after visiting, give her free rein to choose.