<p>I'm a senior in HS looking to major in Chemical Engineering. I got accepted into both Rice and Mudd (I also got into Wash U. in St. Louis and Swarthmore, but Wash U seemed like a less fun Rice when I visited, and Swarthmore doesn't technically have Chem-E, so I'm not really considering them). I will definitely major in science/engineering, but I am not 100% sure on chemical, even though I like it the best at the moment. I also enjoy the humanities and English, and I will likely pursue a PhD and/or an MBA in addition to an engineering B.A. I am on the waitlist for Franklin W. Olin and Yale, and Olin is my absolute #1 school. I like both Mudd and Rice, but I need help deciding.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It sounds like Mudd would be a good choice. HMC emphasizes humanities in addition to whatever you major in, offers nearly unparalleled research opportunities, and its size means that you’ll see more interaction with your professors. Size is not a limitation though, since you can take classes at the other 5C schools</p>
<p>And they have a great sense of humor on their admissions materials and website lol!</p>
<p>Rice definitely. harvey mudd seems like no fun.</p>
<p>RICE. is awesome. :)</p>
<p>What a wonderful predicament to be in! You can’t make a wrong choice here–but IMHO, Mudd is the most like Olin.</p>
<p>Does Harvey Mudd even have a chemical engineering major ? I thought it offered only “general engineering” like other LAC’s. Well, I guess I was wrong then.</p>
<p>Anyway, I’m generally biased in favor of research universities vs. LAC’s. In your case specifically, I’d choose Rice. Since it is a small, private university, you will get the same level of individual attention you’d get at a LAC, but with superior faculty, research resources/opportunities, and name recognition.</p>
<p>Rice! </p>
<p>The social scene at Rice is a million times better than Mudd’s, and the quality of education is just the same. It also has a better name recognition nationally and internationally.</p>
<p>For ChemE, I’d choose Rice. </p>
<p>It’s located in the ChemE capital of the world - Houston.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh ok, because college is all about fun, especially for engineers. Protip: read the forums more before giving college advice. definitely.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A lot of BS here. The quality of education is higher at Harvey Mudd. HMC provides probably a top 5 quality education in the country and while Rice is good, it can’t match that. HMC has just as good of name recognition among those in the know, if not better. And who cares about international name recognition?</p>
<p>I’d recommend Mudd. It has a better engineering program and you will be able to pursue your humanities interests more. Also, you can’t beat our PhD numbers, unless you’re Caltech. Olin is also very similar to Mudd and has in fact began to implement some of our engineering programs.</p>
<p>I think it’s obvious that you’ll receive a great engineering education at either Rice or HMC. So the question really comes down to which school you like better - where can you envision yourself for 4 years?</p>
<p>Have you visited HMC? Other than their engineering strengths, the college environments (in my opinion) are very different. HMC has what, 700 students total? That is TINY! Rice on the other hand has ~3,000 undergrads and is slowly increasing its student body size (however, 3000 undergrads is still very LAC-like). </p>
<p>I have not visited HMC so I cannot speak for it, but Rice has an amazing social life and was rated as one of the best undergraduate experiences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What evidence do you have to back up that claim ? </p>
<p>I can’t comment on Chemical Engineering, which is not my area, nor can I tell you anything concrete about quality of undergraduate education. However, in the areas I know best, namely electrical engineering and, specially, signal processing, Rice has an outstanding faculty. Research-wise, some of most important contributions e.g. to the theory of signal representation (wavelets, compressive sensing, etc.) have been actually made by Rice professors or graduate students. By contrast, I haven’t seen one single Harvey Mudd paper in any major conference or journal in my area in ages . </p>
<p>A few HMC research contributions occasionally show up though , mostly in conferences. A friend of mine who is a professor at CMU 's ECE department recently mentioned e.g. a guy at HMC working in algebraic signal processing, but that’s pretty much all I know (not much name recognition then, at least not among the research community anyway).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While HMC might not be as acclaimed in terms of the research that’s put out, I think it’s easy to say that there are a lot more undergrad opportunities for research at HMC than at Rice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s not forget the Claremont Consortium, which altogether is about 5,000 undergrads</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What evidence do you have to back this up? As an undergrad at Rice, I would say that there are TONS of undergrad research opportunities available at Rice. It is after all undergraduate-oriented, and do not agree with your statement of “there are a lot more undergad opportunities” - have you been to Rice as an undergrad? Have you looked into undergrad opportunities at Rice?</p>
<p>I would say both institutions offer many opportunities for undergrad research, but would not go so far as to say one would offer “a lot more” than another.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh right, because as a HMC undergrad you will mingle into the “collective” student body of the Claremont Consortium. Just because there is a consortium doesn’t mean your student body of 700 is actually 5,000 - however, yes you can take classes at Pitzer, Claremont McKenna, Pomona and so forth. Bryn Mawr has a consortium with Swarthmore and Haverford, but each university retains its own campus life and culture.</p>
<p>I would honestly argue that one generally has a better social experience at Rice than at HMC.</p>
<p>^ actually, you would more than you think, considering that all the campuses are contiguous (unlike most consortium).</p>
<p>Anyways, if the OP’s first choice is Olin, then I think he/she should choose HMC, because they are more similar than Rice vs Olin.</p>
<p>Rice is very undergraduate focused + it’s a research university. Best of both worlds IMHO. Plus, you’ll get a BS Chemical Engineering degree. </p>
<p>If you’re more interested career-wise in working in industry as a chemical engineer, Rice is the way to go. Rice will be more widely recruited by Houston-based energy/tech firms.</p>
<p>Go to HMC if you want to get a PhD and do research later on…but a PhD in engineering is really unnecessary, unless you want to go into academia.</p>
<p>Looking at HMC’s engineering faculty webpage, looks like it has one prof that received a PhD in ChemE from U Minnesota in 2004. Granted, not all profs have websites, so maybe there is one or two more.</p>
<p>[Faculty</a> and Staff](<a href=“http://www.hmc.edu/academicsclinicresearch/academicdepartments/engineering1/people.html]Faculty”>http://www.hmc.edu/academicsclinicresearch/academicdepartments/engineering1/people.html)</p>
<p>Sorry, but one prof cannot possibly teach and have expertise in the multitude of chemical engineering disciplines.</p>
<p>Compare this to the chemical engineering faculty at Rice:
[Chemical</a> Engineering - People - Faculty](<a href=“http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~che/people/faculty/index.html]Chemical”>http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~che/people/faculty/index.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How is any of this even relevant? The focus of HMC faculty is on teaching, not research. The fact that they have all these research submissions just mean they have less time to focus on teaching. You’re arguing against yourself. And you really think undergrads are doing vital work on that research? Who are you kidding?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well hmmm, the OP did say “I will likely pursue a PhD and/or an MBA in addition to an engineering B.A.”…</p>
<p>^ I’m saying a PhD isn’t necessary…he did ask for ChemE specifically too.</p>
<p>BS ChemE + MBA = golden ticket.</p>
<p>If you really like both, get the best of both worlds: choose Mudd for undergrad and Rice for grad school. All the schools you mention are world-class for undergrads.</p>
<p>Everyone, thank you so much for your input- I honestly did not expect half this much posting in such a short time. </p>
<p>I visited Rice during the OWL days (for prosbies) and Mudd during a normal visiting day. Rice seemed like more fun, but I arrived at Mudd the day after a huge party, and my tour guide was an overall depressing person at Mudd, so I’m not sure I got a realistic impression. Mudd doesn’t technically offer chemical engineering, but you are able to focus in it to a large degree, so it isn’t a big deal. Both places deal with a lot of undergraduate research, but Rice seems to focus a little more on research, while Mudd is all about the teaching. Mudd also is ranked as #1 in undergraduate Chemistry, according to their letters. Does anyone know if Rice can lead to Chem-E jobs outside of Houston, or are you mostly confined to Houston job opportunities? As for size, they are pretty similar due to the consortium, which totals roughly 5500 (and ends up having a similar feel to one school having 3000). Also, I’m curious, how much is a Chem-E PhD worth? Because from what I have read, it is getting more valuable due to the increasingly specific nature of engineering fields. If I do pursue a PhD, I will probably aim for MIT or Sanford, even though Mudd-Rice would be pretty awesome. </p>
<p>I realize Olin and Mudd are similar, but Olin had a completely different feel, one of more “Let’s experiment and be ridiculous and do things that aren’t engineering too,” whereas Mudd was more," We will learn a crazy amount in small classrooms, do tons of hw, and party!"</p>
<p>Again, thanks for all the input- it’s really helpful.</p>