<p>I like a small, homely campus atmosphere where the primary concentration for the school is undergraduates. However, I am interested in the sciences and engineering. Does this screw me over and force me to attend a huge research university? Why are there only small liberal arts colleges like Amherst and Swarthmore but not small science schools. I know places like cooper union and Olin are there, but they are ONLY good for engineering and what if I decide thats not what I want to do. Is there a small place that is good in BOTH humanities and the sciences/engineering?</p>
<p>bump please</p>
<p>Bucknell, Lafayette, Lehigh, Tufts. All small schools with an undergradutate focus, engineering, and plenty of alternatives.</p>
<p>I’m bumping this very old thread because I am interested in the same subject. My son wants to major in either physics or chemistry. The best schools for those subjects seem to be large research universities, but I want to give him some small-school alternatives that may offer a better undergraduate experience. Thanks!</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd, part of the Claremont Consortium.</p>
<p>Clarkson in Northern NY</p>
<p>How small is small? I mean, MIT and Caltech may be research universities, but I wouldn’t describe either of them (particularly Caltech) as “large”.</p>
<p>Check out CASE WESTERN RESERVE, UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER and RPI. There are a lot of engineering and science schools that are small. And Rochester and Case both boast of a student to faculty ratio of 9:1</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd is exactly what you want, but admission is extremely competetive. Do you have what it takes?</p>
<p>Otherwise, you might want to look at Colorado School of Mines or New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. Both are small engineering schools.</p>
<p>I second Harvey Mudd and Olin. Oh, and Rose Hulman</p>
<p>Rose Hulman for sure</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd, Bucknell and Villanova</p>
<p>Clarkson and Rose-Hulman and Case Western/RPI are strictly technical schools, not a place to go for humanities</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd is a technical school but it is part of the Claremont consortium, a group of 5 LAC’s right next to each other so you can cross-register at the other institutions</p>
<p>Also, URochester isn’t exactly the best school to go for engineering so I wouldn’t recommend it</p>
<p>I’m not engineering, but was science in general (ended up doing organic chemistry). When I looked at schools 4 years ago I settled on Brown, Case Western, and URochester as my choices. I still think they are great choices for someone who wants really strong undergraduate sciences. Brown was ideal because of how how strong the rest of the university is without compromising research opportunities in the slightest.</p>
<p>I’m graduating in a week and I couldn’t be happier with my choice and would do it over and over again. I really do think this is one of the best places to be an undergraduate scientist, so long as you don’t want to be surrounded by only science/engineering people all the time.</p>
<p>Check out Reed and Harvey Mudd as well. I didn’t want to go West Coast or I may have looked at both.</p>
<p>harvey mudd and caltech.</p>
<p>If you are female, Smith, which has its own engineering program.</p>
<p>The head of Smith’s Picker Engineering program, Linda Jones, is really really nice. <3</p>
<p>I would look at Rose Hulman, rated number 1 for the last 10 years by US news for engineering schools without a phd</p>
<p>How about Rice…undergrad focused and strong in engineering and sciences…other programs are pretty good as well.</p>
<p>Rice for sure. When I read your title, Rice came immediately to mind. </p>
<p>Definitely check it out!!</p>
<p>Rice is good but not as good as a Harvey Mudd, Olin or Rose-Hulman for engineering</p>