<p>Just toying with the idea of spending 4 years with superbrains or 4 years with.. superduperomega brains.</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>I bet you wouldn't notice much of a difference. There would probably be more ridiculously, obscenely intelligent people at Caltech, but the average students at both institutions are probably all the same.</p>
<p>What are you interested in? Have you visited both places? What are your general impressions?</p>
<p>my (highly biased, harvey mudd) opinion of the difference is that at caltech, they're more nerdy. this doesnt necessarily translate to smarter, but it can. but really the main difference, i think, is the attitude toward classes. caltech and mudd are very much the same in that they have small undergrad programs, they're math/science/engineering oriented, and they operate under a strict honor code. at mudd, most people go to most of their classes. the techers ive talked to say they generally dont go to their classes and just learn the material on their own. i don't know that many techers, so this may not be representative of the entire school, but i think it is. whether this is because the profs are sub par compared to mudd profs, or they have better text books, or they're just smarter and are capable of teaching themselves most of the material, i dont know. but if you think you'd rather be taught by a prof than teach yourself, maybe mudd is better. then again, if you like the idea of sleeping in till 2 pm every day, maybe caltech is better. oh, and mudd has way better parties :)</p>
<p>why are either smarter?</p>
<p>we have basically the same quality of students, by the numbers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
we have basically the same quality of students, by the numbers.
[/quote]
Caltech's SAT average is ~1510, while Harvey Mudd's is ~1450. Interpret as you will.</p>
<p>In response to radioactive lead, </p>
<p>I think his impression is pretty accurate in that certain classes are not well attended. As a student who attends roughly ~95-97 percent of my classes though, I personally find that great. As if we didn't get enough interaction with professors, this just makes it even easier for those who want it. </p>
<p>As to why people don't go to class, I think it's a combination of the reasons listed. Some classes don't have the greatest professors (but I think most are very good), some classes are early in the morning (read: before noon), some classes provide great resources out of class - posted lecture notes, good textbooks, etc., some people just get behind on work and need the sleep instead of going to class (which is unfortunately a vicious cycle for those who get behind), and some students just like to learn outside of class either because it fits their style or it's a more efficient use of their time.</p>
<p>In any case, I think radioactive has the wrong impression of how learning occurs outside of lecture at Caltech (at least as I've generally seen it). It's not like most people can just read a textbook and then they understand it - the material is way too difficult for that for most people. Rather, students learn by discussing the concepts and problems with each other, which frankly is much more similar to how learning in 'the real world' is actually done. There isn't always going to be that omnipotent professor who can lucidly explain everything - eventually you will reach topics/questions that no one understands, and I think Caltech can simulate how to cope with that pretty well.</p>
<p>mudd is currently trying to widen the types of people that attend the school. they are trying to bring in more underrepresented minorities. i know that caltech has a similar situation, but i think it is particularly influencial on the SAT average due to the size factor and because i think that they are putting a little more weight on this issue than at caltech. with that said, however, i KNOW that caltech is trying to increase minority representation and stuff. i don't think it is to the extent of mudd though.</p>
<p>interpret/apply that influence on the SAT scores. if caltech were SO much better, than we would never be right up there in academic competitions, PhD productivity, and national academic honors.</p>
<p>cghen, where did you get those averages? According to our admissions department, our average SAT has varied from 1470-1490 these past few years. True, still not as high as Caltech's, but the difference is now small enough to be negligible. And as someone who scored above the average for both schools, I can rest assured that a higher SAT average score does not in anyway translate to smarter students. Otherwise I would be among the smartest people here, which I am nowhere near.</p>
<p>tiyusufaly, you're absolutely correct. upon checking the SAT scores in the annual report, the score is reported as 1490 this last year.</p>
<p>So my original source was from:
<a href="http://www.hmc.edu/highlights/%5B/url%5D">http://www.hmc.edu/highlights/</a>
[quote]
For 2003 incoming students, the average SAT Verbal score is 700; average Math score is 750.
[/quote]
That's a couple years old, and it may have changed, but remember those are the average scores which are of course lower than the median scores for this distribution. I did, though, mistakenly list Caltech's median scores because I actually don't know the mean scores (if anyone knows or can find them, by all means post them). So yes, the gap is smaller than I originally posted. </p>
<p>I'm more inclined to believe that the median enrolled SAT for HMC is 1470. Make sure you check in that report to see if that number is not the accepted SAT average which is naturally higher because of losing some of the higher scoring students to other schools. Caltech's enrolled SAT median is 1510. </p>
<p>Also, last week rocketDA posted:
[quote]
i know for a fact that the median SAT (from mudd's annual report) is 1470 this last year.
[/quote]
So do double check to make sure you're quoting the right number.</p>
<p>As for...
It's a bit of a complicated issue. Surely SATs and 'intelligence' (in some working definition) are strongly correlated, but that has a pretty big error for individual students. </p>
<p>On average, though, I do believe the differences are significant. Even if you say that a SAT has an error of 100 point in estimating a students intelligence (i.e. something along the lines of a 1500 student could be as smart as a 1400 or 1600 student, which is pretty generous), then for the population sizes we're talking about, Caltechs mean has errors of 100/root[900] = 3.33 points and Harvey Mudds errors = 100/root[700] = 3.77. So the combined sigma of the two is root[3.77^2 + 3.33^2] = 5.03. So if the difference is average SAT scores is greater than ~2sigma or ~10, there is certainly a statistical difference in the two populations. </p>
<p>Now of course you can always make the argument that SATs dont go a good job of predicting intelligence or future success, and thats a pretty complicated issue to talk about, but its probably not an argument that Mudd usually makes considering it has the 5th highest SAT average in the country. i.e. have a little consistency dont say they matter when talking about schools with lower averages and then say they do with schools that have higher averages. </p>
<p>Also,
Im not overly familiar with college academic competitions, but last time I checked, Caltechs PhD rate was 36% and Harvey Mudds was 25%. Of course theyre both ridiculously high (because theyre both incredible schools for what they do), but thats a pretty sizable difference. My numbers come from: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=1268378&highlight=Mudd+PhD+Caltech+Reed#post1268378%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=1268378&highlight=Mudd+PhD+Caltech+Reed#post1268378</a></p>
<p>If you guys can show me something along the lines of comparable NSF fellowships between the two schools, I would be much more willing to say they give the same academic education. I know there's a list of winners floating around somewhere, but I couldn't quickly find it. </p>
<p>Until then, I'm still probably going to think that Caltech is the absolute best school for an education is science, and I'll debate any notion to the contrary.</p>
<p>As to the PhD productivity, cghen, I agree with Graham, and 25% is nowhere near what we have. I quote from Wikipedia:</p>
<p>"about 40 percent of graduates go on to earn a Ph.D.the highest rate of any college or university in the nation..."</p>
<p>Futhermore, there is a study done by Change magazine on Ph.D. rates over a 30-year period. Look at the rankings:</p>
<p>As for the NSF fellowships, I found this link: <a href="https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/grfp/AwardeeList.do%5B/url%5D">https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/grfp/AwardeeList.do</a></p>
<p>Just looking at the year 2006, I counted 12 NSF fellowships from Caltech undergrads and 10 from Mudd undergrads. So there is a 6:5 ratio while the total undergrad population ratio is ~9:7. So there you have it.</p>
<p>Thanks for the link - very helpful.</p>
<p>Here are the # of NSF winners from the past 10 years (all of the info they had):</p>
<p>Year Caltech Mudd
2006 12 10
2005 11 6
2004 11 12
2003 15 7
2002 12 7
2001 8 3
2000 9 4
1999 9 10
1998 14 7
1997 24 4
1996 10 3
Total: 135 73
Renormalized to population: 105 73</p>
<p>You might want to check my numbers (Caltech especially, because I only exported the first two to excel). </p>
<p>Anyway, this is about as I expected. It's not like Mudd really trails by that far, but I still think that's a large enough difference to claim significance. If you want larger numbers, you could go through the honorable mention lists as they have about 2 times the people.</p>
<p>As for,
Of</a> course you failed to mention that, that 30-year period is from 1951-1981. If you can show me something like this for the next 30 year period (but with actual counts of PhDs), I would be more convinced. Until then, I'm more inclined to believe the numbers I quoted which originated in an NSF study of PhD graduates from 1994-2003.</p>
<p>edit: someone should really check my numbers - I rechecked the 2005 numbers, and Mudd got 3 that year instead of 6. Caltech still got 11.</p>
<p>mudd looks like it is doing a pretty good job of catching up.</p>
<p>I think it should be pointed out tho, that HMC is producing top of the line grads with students that are lower (by Cghens standards) in terms of highschool prepartion/ability.</p>
<p>Im going to adapt a quote from good coaches vs great coaches to this thread.</p>
<p>A good coach can take a great team and lead them to a championship, a great coach can make an o-k team a great team and lead them to the championship.</p>
<p>Perhaps Cghen's numbers are right, and if that is true then the fact remains HMC is able to compete with schools that get a statistically better freshmen class. I think that says something about the quality of HMC in how they prepare people for post-grad life.</p>
<p>Slak, you rock. Welcome to HMC community :).</p>