<p>That’s correct; but that’s because engineers are usually paid higher than most other professions. And that explains why MIT and Caltech grads are paid higher than grads of other schools. </p>
<p>Berkeley, on the other hand, is a multi-faculty university. It produces not just engineers but English teachers, sociologists, historians and the like as well. That also explains why Claremont McKenna and Pomona grads don’t get paid as much as Mudd grads do, yet they’re under the same umbrella --Claremont Colleges, which boast of hving the same academic standard and opportunities. </p>
<p>Thus, if we are to compare Mudd grads to Berkeley grads in terms of opportunities, let’s compare Mudd grads to Berkeley engineering grads alone. that’s apple to apple.</p>
<p>Oh come on. If you really think any prestigious engineering firms in the Silicon Valley haven’t heard of Harvey Mudd, you’re just ignorant. I’d say for undergrad engineering they’re roughly equally prestigious with the edge to Harvey Mudd. The type of education they give at Mudd for engineering is extremely unique especially given the fact its both an extremely selective LAC and very rigorous. Obviously no one is saying Cal doesn’t have a bigger name among the common populace-but if you want a highly respected undergrad engineering degree by those who count, one would be foolish if he thought he couldn’t get one at either school.</p>
I’ve done that. Sakky has done that. I’m sure others have too. Mudd engineers make more on average than their Berkeley counterparts however you attempt to slice the pie.</p>
<p>Come on, these are both top, top schools, both doing well for their grads. Choose Mudd if you want a small school with more individual attention, or if you’re more academically inclined; choose Cal if you want the large university experience. It can be this simple!</p>
<p>There are many reasons to pick one over the other and they all come down to personal preference (if you’re studying engineering).</p>
<p>As for the posts asserting HM is not well-known amongst engineers, well, I’m 1) doubtful that’s true 2) sure that you’re not doing your job if you’re a recruiter for an engineering firm and you’re not familiar with HM.</p>
<p>This thread is ridiculously biased by both sides. Cal surely has the better reputation, but it’s due to it’s graduate engineering programs, which are known worldwide. Harvey Mudd doesn’t have Ph.D. programs and will therefore never reach Cal’s name recognition. A BS from harvey Mudd is also NOT seen as equivalent to a master’s degree from MIT/Caltech (who the **** comes up with stuff like this?). hell, they only give general engineering degrees. It’s true that your peers at harvey mudd will likely be more accomplished and smarter, but this also depends on the field. For cal EECS for isntance, I think the quality differential would be negligible. Both schools garner a lot of respect. In my graduate classes, I’ve defiitely been more impressed by the mudders. but they are few and far between.</p>
Is this your metric for success?<br>
Looks like it’s an aggregated list from several graduating classes.
If you look at San Jose State U, Santa Clara U, both engineering dept also send students to all of these companies.<br>
You can go to any school and is hired by any of the company above.
Wow, perhaps 1% of SV knows about Mudd. Most people in SV don’t. What makes you think Harvey Mudd is known in SV? Working engineers know about other schools usually through DAC, ISSCC, etc… and Mudd aren’t in any of those.</p>
<p>middsmith you have no proof at all for your claims. Look at the companies some HMC grads work in. It’s quite clear that more than 1% know about HMC. My smart high school peers in NJ interested in engineering know about HMC for God’s sake.</p>
<p>and you do, Morsmordre?
Why are you still bringing up companies that HMC grads work in? I just said San Jose State U grads also work in these companies. That alone does not make one prestigious.<br>
Your high school peers vs. real engineers I know. Only in CC where people put HMC on a pedestal.</p>
<p>no only on CC people put Cal on a pedestal. Well look at it this way:
HMC engineers make more than Cal engineers. Looks like those HMC grads aren’t missing out on those (cough…nonexistent) companies that don’t know about HMC.
HMC grads work in companies that are *in *SV so obviously that 1% number is ridiculous. You just made that up. That’s why I’m bringing up the companies.
You still do not have any proof for your claims. Prove to me, and everyone else on this thread, <em>why</em> Cal is more prestigious than HMC for undergraduate engineering. Facts please. Salaries, companies grads work at, not just what you heard from two alums of Cal and Stanford.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, excuse me?
I thought was a discussion about the two schools, but I sort of suspect you’re just ■■■■■■■■.
This is what YOU said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By what you said, you considered it to be a metric of success. You felt that Cal was better because Mudd students would not be hired by SV companies. You considered Mudd to be beneath Cal for this reason. And now you’re scoffing at me for providing a list of SV companies that hired Mudd graduates, saying it doesn’t matter on the school and anyone can go to those companies?</p>
<p>This was not my metric for success. I did my own independent research into colleges before I applied. I had hundreds of reasons for making the choices I did, I started off without even having heard of Mudd OR Berkeley. So I see no reason for to turn around the platform you were arguing on and say it was mine instead. There is no point in discussing things with you if all you’re doing is ■■■■■■■■ and inflaming the argument.</p>
When did I say Mudd students would not be hired by SV companies? I clearly said grads from any school would be hired by SV companies. Being hired doesn’t make a school prestigious. I said the education is too general, that doesn’t make them untouchable. Learn to read. Actually no, learn to read critically.
So anyone who disagrees with you is a ■■■■■? You, my dear, are pathetic. </p>
<p>
One graduates 1000+ engineers.
The other has about 30-40 going to the work force.
Law of large number will depress the average pay at Cal. It’s that simple. Hard to understand?</p>
<p>middsmith, you clearly don’t know what the law of large numbers is lol. Are you even an engineer, much less at Cal? If so, they should teach you better statistics. The law of large number predicts that outliers have less effects on the average salaries since you have so many engineers at Cal. It has nothing to do with depressing the average. What you *could *have said, is that because there aren’t a lot of Mudd engineers who graduated their average salary is much more variable. However, if you look at the career surveys, the average salaries are pretty stable. So you have no point.</p>
I know what it is, that’s what i meant. Got you to look up wiki, eh?
On average engineer salaries are the same, adjusting for location. So a smaller sample does not make statistic. Could have been clearer by adding law of large number depressed Cal average, making it comparable to the industry average.</p>
<p>I bolded that for you last time too. You say now it doesn’t make them untouchable, but before you said their resume would not get a second look. Cal engineers far outnumber Mudd engineers, one would assume that the top SV companies would not get a Mudd applicant without several Cal applicants as well. And you explicitly stated that their resume would not get a second look, you did not say “most of the time”, you did not say “for the most part”, you said it quite specifically and simply. I read what you said. If you disagree with yourself now or feel you exaggerated, at least have the grace to say it instead of personally attacking me.</p>
<p>Now let me get this sequence of events…
You make several posts saying that Mudd graduates are not well known, will not be hired by SV companies, won’t have a reputation to on, etc. see the posts you made:</p>
<p>
I assume these points were meant to be negative against Harvey Mudd, that you felt this was detrimental to the success of the school, not having graduates hired by SV companies.
2) I posted a list of the top SV companies that did hire Mudd graduates, a good deal of them.
3) You replied asking scoffing at using such a list as a measure of success for a school. Now I may have misunderstood you, but it seemed to me that you were using it as a negative point against Mudd. Now, if you can say that Mudd grads not being hired by SV companies is a negative thing for the school, cannot I use the fact that Mudd grads are, in fact, hired by SV companies as positive thing? You told me no, that it was a silly “metric of success.” But apparently not a silly metric of putting down the college? I ask that you explain this to me, for if it is not ■■■■■■■■, I have severely misunderstood you, and I will apologize for my comments. But as it stands, it still seems that way to me.</p>
<p>Now, as for your response itself… Wow. First off - anyone who disagrees with me is a ■■■■■? What are you disagreeing with that I said? The SV companies weren’t my idea - they were yours, I was merely providing data. I never said myself that I thought it was a measure of success, I never said myself that it was what I measured the school on, it was what you did, and I responded to it. However, you seem to not have read what I said, so let’s be clear. I did not say you were ■■■■■■■■ because you disagreed with anything I said or believed in. I said you were ■■■■■■■■ because as soon as a “metric of success” you used turned in Mudd’s favour, you scoffed at it and made it sound worthless. A ■■■■■ is not someone who disagrees. You can disagree with me all day long, and if you knew me, you’d know that I’d delight in it, for debate it something I thrived on. But this is not debate - you are merely being inflammatory.
Consider if you say X is Y, and because of Y, X is Z, and I illustrate that X is in fact not Y, and therefore not Z, we could move on to another point or you could concede or present a counter-argument that X really is Y or etc.
What just happened is you said X was Y, and because of Y, X was Z, and I illustrated that X was not Y and there not Z. You then proceeded to tell me that Y was a stupid way of showing X was Z, and put me down for using it as such, when you yourself had just used it in the same way. That is not a civil debate. That is dumping what you said and turning it on the other person. That is inflammatory. That is ■■■■■■■■. I never said you were a ■■■■■ for disagreeing. Furthermore, nothing warranted a personal attack, nothing warranted calling me pathetic and unable to read. I am not here for petty personal attacks, I am here to discuss colleges. If you want to go insult someone, please do so elsewhere and leave the real discussion intact.</p>
<p>“and you do, Morsmordre?
Why are you still bringing up companies that HMC grads work in? I just said San Jose State U grads also work in these companies. That alone does not make one prestigious.
Your high school peers vs. real engineers I know. Only in CC where people put HMC on a pedestal.” middsmith</p>
<p>Hmm. Nope, no SJSU grads or similar working at my company…which is not on the SV list but super high-tech list. But I’ll tell you what - of 40 engineers in the SMG dept at my company, the guy with the corner office graduated from HMC in 2005 and “owns” spacecraft hydraulics and control surfaces. Technically, he IS matched with masters and PhD hires in the company that have 20+ years of experience.</p>
<p>I’m not saying that this is the norm, but just that here is one anecdote.</p>