<p>
</p>
<p>Mudd doesn’t even have ANY of those departments. We only offer general engineering. Of course our rankings won’t be as good if you try to rank us in things we don’t even offer. </p>
<p>This discussion should be about the general engineering rankings since it’s something that both Rose and Mudd have.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mudd students definitely aren’t the type to study much for SATs. We’re unfortunately procrastinators. Trust me, those scores are pretty reflective of the actual intelligence of the students here. We have a 760-780 Math IIC average (I can’t remember the exact score for last year).</p>
<p>atomicfusion,</p>
<p>My point was, that since Rose Hulman had credibility in all engineering disciplines, its general engineering should be pretty good.</p>
<p>I think I’m confused. Does the “general engineering” category from US News mean the overall engineering program or just the specific major of “general engineering”?</p>
<p>^ Overall engineering.</p>
<p>The title for the ranking is:
“Best Undergraduate Engineering Programs”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To clarify, I don’t think the current question does assume that. USNews ties the schools’ programs at #1…not the quality of the student bodies. Now, yes, obviously these two things are related, but they’re not the same. </p>
<p>No opinion one way or the other. I know nothing about RH, so really can’t weigh in on specifics. Just though it was an important distinction.</p>
<p>“For every case of someone choosing Mudd over MIT partly for its location, I can give you several cases of someone choosing MIT over Mudd partly for its location. It’s a factor, but an insignificant one in the end. Except maybe for a few schools (Pepperdine comes to mind).”</p>
<p>But the question of location is more pertinent to Rose and Mudd. It isn’t simply the weather. Claremont/LA has much more in common with Cambridge/Boston than either has with Terre Haute. My eldest (HMC '11) couldn’t see himself in Terre Haute. That was one of the reasons that his final choice was Mudd vs. MIT–and Rose wasn’t in the picture. Location was not the only reason, but it was one of several important ones. </p>
<p>So too, although my second son (??? '12) ruled mudd out for other reasons, Terre Haute was the reason he didn’t even apply to Rose. (He prefers snowy winters, so Cambridge/Boston is among the attractive cities for him–but not Terre Haute.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well yeah this is my point. It goes both ways. Some people prefer suburbs with warm weather and other people prefer rural areas with seasons. I don’t see how anyone can think that the difference in location for these two schools is really that significant of a factor in the differences of their SAT scores. I’ll give you 10 SAT points, maybe, but that doesn’t explain the other 100+ points of the SAT score gap.</p>
<p>…but who prefers Terre Haute, really? That’s <em>our</em> point. It’s like how nobody goes to Champaign-Urbana unless the benefits of UIUC outweigh the disadvantages of living in Champaign-Urbana. //speaks from experience</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m really lost. I was kind of under the impression that we were saying that more people wanted to go to HMC because more people prefer California to Indiana, which I think is quite possibly valid… Having essentially lived in both (Champaign-Urbana, IL, and then Valencia, CA), I really don’t think Californians have any cause to complain, smog from LA and stink from Chino or no. So, students that are able to get into both would choose HMC over RH, <em>possibly</em> in <em>part</em> because of location.</p>
<p>I certainly don’t think that SAT scores really are linked to location, and unless I’m mistaken, I don’t think anybody else thinks that, either… We’re not arguing direct correlation, here. If anything, the advantages of Mudd (whiz-bang academics, excellent prospects, the clinic program, the caliber of professors, and yeah, to a certain degree, the fact that it’s in sunny SoCal rather than Armpit, USA) make Mudd able to attract a higher caliber of student than a similar-tier school that <em>is</em> in Armpit, USA.</p>
<p>1) The question is, is Rose-Hulman really the similar-tier school to Mudd that USNews says it is? I’m sayin’ no.</p>
<p>2) The other question is, do you really seriously believe that anybody would choose Terre Haute over Claremont, given the choice…? Seriously? Don’t forget that you’re 45 minutes from Disneyland, and 2 minutes from an In-and-Out…</p>
<p>3) Are you <em>from</em> Terre Haute, perchance…?</p>
<p>Caveat: RHIT student here, so I’m obviously going to be slightly on the defensive. It’s just human nature, so give me some slack!</p>
<p>There are a bunch of things I’d like to bring up that I think are somewhat relevant to the discussion:</p>
<p>1) I have to agree with above posters that the ability of students is not a direct indicator of the quality of a program. It is certainly related, but it’s not a guarantor. It’s obvious that the average Mudd student has higher inherent ability than the average Rose kid. But I think that one of Rose’s strengths is that it takes a lot of good students and turns them into great engineers. Perhaps that’s one reason it’s ranked up with Mudd.</p>
<p>A lot of the USN ranking information comes from people who deal with graduates of the institutions. The SAT is taken before matriculation even occurs. I think that there’s a lot to be said for what the schools do with their students between those two periods. I also have to say that aibarr’s opinion is based on a limited number of interactions with a few students. USN has cast a slightly wider net when coming to its conclusions.</p>
<p>2) Something else we haven’t taken into account is school size. The undergrad population at Mudd is 746, while the population of Rose is 1840. Take the top 40% of the Rose scores and you’ll get something slightly more competitive.</p>
<p>3) You’ve heard the time-honored statement that “IQ [SAT score, in this case] is not an indicator of success.” I think that Rose takes more chances on kids who have lower SAT scores but show that they work hard in high school to get good GPAs and class ranks, in the hopes that they’ll work hard to become great engineers. One of my good friends is living proof of this – he had an OK SAT score but is EXTREMELY excited about his field of research and is very dedicated to his studies.</p>
<p>4) I think the aims of the schools are a bit different. This is just a perception, of course. I believe that Mudd is more focused on academia, and Rose is more focused on industry. These are different – neither approach is “better.” But this would explain why the Mudd scores are higher: it wants kids who care about academia more than getting out into industry. But I definitely could be wrong about this.</p>
<p>Just some thoughts. Ever since I started looking into engineering school rankings and such, I’ve been told that all accredited schools in the top 10% of the rankings teach essentially the same stuff. From everything I’ve heard, I would find it difficult to argue that a motivated Rose (or Georgia Tech, Rensselaer, UIUC, etc.) graduate is missing out on any deep insights about the field of engineering that Mudd (or MIT, Caltech, etc.) offers. The environments are different, but the content is not.</p>
<p>WHY CAN’T WE ALL BE FRIENDS? </p>
<p>If location and warm weather mean that much to SAT, then I’d expect there’d be more schools in the south/west with higher SAT; I’d also expect Harvard to have noticeably higher SAT than Yale. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Mudd has been a prestigious LAC with very high stats for a long time, before there’s such thing called USN undergrad engineering ranking, which gives RH high ratings. Kids with high stats want Mudd/Olin (LAC-like) or MIT/CalTech (research) while others with less stats want GaTech/RIT or RH. It’s just this simple. It makes no sense to use USN ranking to say their SAT are supposed to be the same and they are different because of location.</p>
<p>^ Typical elitist view… :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
Mudd was founded in 1955.
Rose-Hulman was founded in 1874.</p>
<p>Meh.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this hits the nail on the head.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…and a previously-stated familial-based bias towards Mudd! ;)</p>
<p>I think they’re both very strong schools. I think Mudd’s better. I am biased.</p>
<p>Honestly, though, when it comes right down to it, USNews rankings are more or less used (at least, around here) for school selection. I think USNews is correct in that it flags both schools as places to strongly consider. I think everyone’s correct in the general, not-really-contested opinion that RHIT and HMC cater to different sorts of students, and I think the logical conclusion is that if high school students are considering an engineering education, that it would behoove them (I love the word behoove… I get to use it so seldom, too…) to check out both schools and see which one fits them better.</p>
<p>Look for fit! That’s pretty much my flagship point around here, anyhow.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>lol…i was just describing a elitist view. 
a lot of top students choose because of elitist reason. is there any reason why duke’s engineering students have much higher stats than GaTech’s even though GaTech pretty much dominates the ranking in every engineering discipline outside of BME?</p>
<p>what i meant by “long time” is 15 or 20 ago …blah, stanford is younger than a lot of other schools but it’s been prestigious for quite a while.</p>
<p>^ Fair enough. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This argument is always so ridiculous. Take the top 40% of Mudd scores and you’d have an average greater than any other school in the country. I don’t even know what the top 40%'s average would be but it’s probably something absurd like 1550+.</p>
<p>When we are talking about samples of 700+ students, we don’t really need to be that concerned about statistical variation. I’d expect a Rose student to know that.</p>
<p>If you meant that the best students define a school, then you are missing some logic. You can’t just compare the best students in one school to the average in another and somehow say that the schools are more equal if the top from one are competitive with the average from another. That’s completely ridiculous. I’ll give a quick example:</p>
<p>Top 20% of random community college = average of a Cal state school
=> random community college = Cal State school
Top 20% of Cal State school = average of UCI
=> random community college = UCI
Top 20% of UCI = average of Berkeley
=> random community college = Berkeley
Top 20% of Berkeley = HMC
=> random community college = HMC</p>
<p>Also, what is Rose’s core like? </p>
<p>I’ve looked up Caltech and MIT’s core. Mudd’s core is essentially as big and difficult as Caltech’s. MIT’s is slightly shorter and easier. </p>
<p>Mudd might be at a disadvantage for the engineering rankings because of its massive core.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=atomicfusion]
This argument is always so ridiculous. Take the top 40% of Mudd scores and you’d have an average greater than any other school in the country. I don’t even know what the top 40%'s average would be but it’s probably something absurd like 1550+.</p>
<p>When we are talking about samples of 700+ students, we don’t really need to be that concerned about statistical variation.
[/QUOTE]
You’re missing his point - at least how I saw it. </p>
<p>Colleges don’t admit a random sample of the applicant pool - they typically would admit the top performing portion of an applicant pool. So, using your example, while Berkeley might have lower aggregate SAT scores than HMC, HMC admits fewer students and therefore selects just the top students of the applicant pool for admission. If Berkeley admitted fewer students their scores might be similarly as high.</p>
<p>I don’t necessarily agree with y2kwizard in that this is an explanation for the question at hand - but by no means is his argument fatally flawed and “so ridiculous”.</p>
<p>And do we really need something like this?
C’mon.</p>
<p>Yes, my point was essentially what gobeavs said: if Mudd allowed more students in, perhaps its SAT average would be skewed downwards a bit.</p>
<p>Perhaps I jumped the gun on that particular explanation: the top 700 students at ANY university will be high performers. I suppose it does make more sense to look at the student body as a whole.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, I still submit that this discussion has very low utility. In comparable academic environments, the post-graduation success of an individual student is up to him and not the school he attends OR his raw academic ability. So let’s all just chill out a bit, shall we? :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But why is this meaningful? I could have said if some XYZ community admits just two people, its average SAT score is as high as Harvard.</p>
<p>HMC actually admitted higher percentage of applicants than Berkeley did. The fact that HMC still has significantly higher average means its applicant pool is very strong whereas Berkeley’s pool has larger variance in terms of caliber.</p>