<p>@intparent, I’m beginning to believe that your raison d’être is universal forums defender of HMC. Discounting my replies to you,mI can count on one hand he number of times I can remember even mentioning HMC. Do you have a permanent search that directs you to any mention of Harvey Mudd? </p>
<p>I’ve never said anything bad about HMC. It’s campus is unattractive to most. HMC offers one engineering degree that is ABET accredited, BS in Engineering. That is a fact. </p>
<p>I am not suggesting that students who go there are not well educated or do not enjoy themselves or will not have long successful careers. It is a well respected institution that has chosen a non-standard way in their approach.</p>
<p>There is a reason HMC leads the nation in percentage of undergraduates who go on to attain PhDs in the sciences and engineering. It is the culture and mindset that they’ve been built on, get breadth as an undergrad and depth as a graduate. That approach is attractive to some, but it is an approach that certainly is not mainstream in engineering. That’s also not to say that a Mudd BS is unemployable. We both know it is not the case. </p>
<p>For the record, my son did not apply, (we’ve already been there, too ugly) but based on his record he would have likely been admitted. Of course that has to be taken with a grain of salt because applicants who are fully qualified (great grades, from good schools, with high test scores, ECs, leadership, etc) for the schools they apply to are being rejected right and left these days because there are so many of them vying for a few spaces.</p>
<p>The other reason their students are going on to grad school is because it draws some of the smartest and most intellectual students in the country. Look at their test scores… my kid had a 2380 superscored SAT, subject tests of 800 Math II and 800 Lit, and she is academically in the middle of the pack at Mudd. She may very well end up at grad school, but that is because she loves an intellectual and academic challenge, not because her Mudd degree couldn’t take here wherever she wants to go.</p>
<p>@intparent, we have that dilemma with my son. He is smart enough to know that his fellow students at the college he selects will influence how well he does in college and how much he applies himself. If he goes somewhere with 1200 M+CR for 75th percentile, and he is 1430, it seems like a poor fit. He’s at 50th percentile for most non-HYP Ivies with a 1430.</p>
<p>Sort of related to @eyemgh’s point, I cannot see “saving” $80,000 over four years to have my son have the worst experience of his lifetime, a step down from high school. And both of the “cheap” schools on my son’s list are techs, with humanities only existing to meet HSS degree requirements. The first true university is twice as much as the two cheapest colleges, based on our financial stats.</p>
<p>But we’ll pay for it, if he gets in, so he will get more of a real college experience, and not just focus on where he will work when he graduates.</p>
<p>@intparent, we have that dilemma with my son. He is smart enough to know that his fellow students at the college he selects will influence how well he does in college and how much he applies himself. If he goes somewhere with 1200 M+CR for 75th percentile, and he is 1430, it seems like a poor fit. He’s at 50th percentile for most non-HYP Ivies with a 1430.</p>
<p>He is very interested in tech schools, but the combination of a tech school and stats much lower than his seems really dumb to pursue. Yet we’d save around $80,000 if he picked a tech school where his HS stats were in the top 1% of students entering.</p>
<p>“Step down from high school”? Unless he attends an academically elite high school, it seems that one would have to go pretty far down the selectivity scale to find colleges that are a step down from high school in terms of student ability and motivation – after all, students in college are the ones who actually do go to college, which not everyone graduating from high school does.</p>
<p>@rhandco, Students will always find motivation and challenge no matter where they go, as long as they try. We’re getting pretty far off topic, but it’s been repeatedly shown that where students go to school is not correlated to long term success when you compare like qualified students. What is, is how well qualified they were in the first place. Now that doesn’t mean that everyone who goes to Podunk U will be successful, but it means you likely will be if you had the stats to go to a more selective institution. This is not to malign any school at all and certainly someone will take issue, based on some hypothetical situation. It is simply a caution against spending $80k more if that’s going to jeordize your family’s situation.</p>
<p>Stats repeatedly show that the school matters less for long term success in engineering on the whole when applied to the whole population. Sample size is large. That does not necessarily hold for one individual who may well find themselves intellectually stymied in certain environments. That doesn’t mean that there’s no way to push through that, but why take the chance of you already know a certain place is not ideal for you and can afford other options? College selection and environmental preference are highly personal and there is no general rule of thumb for how to do it every step of the way.</p>
<p>I may have mentioned once that several of my freshman students didn’t know that on a simple graph, halfway between 40 and 60 was 50, not 45…</p>
<p>And most of my students are engineering or science.</p>
<p>Back on topic, I think exposure to, and seeking out, liberal arts is an indication of being able to multitask and see situations in more than one light. I know my son is seeking that, and would be happier with a combination.</p>
<p>Penn for example has pretty good engineering and excellent liberal arts. I work at a place that only has liberal arts taught to meet humanities requirements. That’s it. The instructors have no students who are majoring in their fields. I feel that if my son had a change of heart, and wanted to get a liberal arts degree, it would be far easier at a place that actually has liberal arts degrees.</p>
<p>@rhandco, Every student’s situation is unique. I think an $80k difference is certainly VERY situational. I read between the lines that the money would be a burden and was simply trying to offer reassurance. If it’s not, the the calculation changes. Just out of curiosity,mho w did the “tech” schools get on the list in the first place if they are unsatisfactory choices?</p>
<p>@boneh3ad, the problem is that the converse can also be true. Students can and do have problems at “better” schools too. When we parse that out into small anecdotal pieces, the examples can cut in either direction. We’ve all heard of healthy people who have heartattacks and smokers who live to be 100. </p>
<p>I’d never suggest a student go somewhere they don’t feel is a decent fit. There are lots of opportunities to create a good fit and experience across the cost spectrum though. </p>
<p>Of course the converse is true, but the point was that citing the statistics that show that engineers can be successful is nearly meaningless in this situation where the OP clearly seems to desire and feel more at home in a location with at least a full offering of liberal arts courses. In this instance, whether the stats say that is necessary for a successful career is irrelevant if the OP is simply not going to be happy at a school that does not meet that criteria. I realize at this point you are mostly arguing with others on topics that are only tangentially related to this thread; my point in the context of the original question.</p>
<p>I’d imagine that the “tech” schools got on the list of the OP in the first place because she went through the list of good engineering schools in her home state (CA) and added them, then went and added schools she thought would be a good fit elsewhere. She also clearly stated:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s why I tried to point out the specific schools that were seemingly inconsistent with her criteria and help her out.</p>
<p>You may like UVA or Vanderbilt. Both Engineering program offer opportunities outside of the STEM. UVA brags about their engineers receiving a well rounded education. </p>
<p>But the more time we spent looking, the more they are third tier safeties, if he doesn’t get into his #1 choice, if he doesn’t get into his #2 choice, if he doesn’t get into choices #3 - #7, or #3 - #7 give zero FA.</p>
<p>The schools are okay, but based on personal experience, the one I teach at is full of far too many unmotivated kids. Kids that my son hasn’t dealt with since 5th grade (I’m sure that sounds elitist, but it is true, I know the stats of admitted students, and many are not college prep even - separation starts in 6th grade in our district, and my friend’s district separates kids in 4th grade).</p>
<p>Only now, with threads like this, are we confirming that if he goes to a tech school, it should have a decent liberal arts program and some respect for it.</p>
<p>“What does “a lot” mean in this context?” - ucb, oops… my error using the term “liberal arts”. </p>
<p>I should know from other threads to avoid that confusing term. I should have said that engineering students often do not have flexibility to take a lot of humanities and other non-STEM courses. Usually when students say they wants more “liberal arts” courses, that’s what they mean. </p>
<p>In my MechE program, I had only 2 free electives. Each semester about 4 of my 5 courses were what I’d consider “STEM” (required courses or choices from set groups of electives) ). Examples of my change-of-pace 5th course included required freshman English courses (I was a rare bird that like them), required econ courses, required management elective. </p>
<p>My D started in Engineering but switched to Econ, which she loved. Each semester she had one or two Econ courses and a few from the large selection of other university courses. Her varied electives included linguistics, astronomy, science writing, and several history courses. </p>
<p>I have noticed that STEM schools that value the Humanities also put a lot of effort and creativity into their “First Year Experience” programs/courses.</p>
<p>I think that “First Year Experience” programs and emphasis on project / interdisciplinary projects is indeed valuable! I’ve seen a big upswing on that even just in the past 8 years that I’ve been researching engineering schools for my kids. </p>
<p>@ucbalumnus, that was my thought too. It must be a school where admission to engineering is not scrutinized as a subset of the general application pool and thus where there’s a high washout rate. Engineering=Pre-Business. </p>
<p>Hey @dissaelguem … You’re female, right? Have you looked at any of the stellar woman’s college programs? Not sure about the specifics at every sister school (Smith, BMC, MHC, Barnard, Wes), but they all offer something similar to MHCs 3/2 program. Students spend years 1, 2, 4 at MHC and years 3 & 5 at either Dartmouth, Umass or CAL TECH. Students finish with two degrees. MHC, Smith are part of 5 college program–which encourage women take classes at Umass, Amherst, Hampshire. In reality, you could take Classics at Amherst, Film at Hampshire, Politics at Smith, engineering at CAL TECH. WC are deeply rooted in LA learning – not just in class room – but rooted the wide spectrum of opperuties offer evey day on campus. Off campus, MHC offers need-funded summers abroad and interships. Plus MHC and Smith (i think the others too) fully meet demonstrated aid. Check it out. Womens’ college aren’t for everyone. Schedule a visit and see if it’s a option for you. Best of Luck. </p>
<p>Evaluate the 3/2 programs very carefully. Apparently very few students complete the program, but instead choose to remain at their “home” school. Lots of threads discussing this here on CC. For my money, two undergraduate degrees will not provide an advantage when you eventually enter the job market. Better to spend that extra year working on an M.S. Engineering degree.</p>
</p>