I intend to major in mathematics and physics and later do a Ph.D. in physics (my plan is to go into academia). At Penn, I’d also be attempting to sub-matriculate in both math and physics or just physics if that isn’t possible.
Some of the things I liked about HMC were the small class sizes and focus on teaching, potentially more course rigor, and the more STEM-focused community there. I also received the Harvey S Mudd Scholarship there so it is around 15% cheaper (I don’t think the cost is a significant factor in my decision as a result).
However, I also liked the increased research opportunities at Penn, the Vagelos program, and the ability to sub-matriculate (and take mainly graduate math classes as opposed to their undergraduate ‘equivalents’).
I keep fluctuating between the schools from being pretty certain I was going to HMC, to then deciding on Penn, to now not knowing which to choose, so I was wondering if anyone had thoughts on this?
What I meant was that Penn was an R1 and, as a result, has significant research funding and labs. When I visited HMC, multiple students there told me that research was typically slower paced when compared with an R1 and most students only did research during the summer.
I don’t know. The methodology for the US News article is: In spring and summer 2022, we invited college presidents, chief academic officers, deans of students and deans of admissions from more than 1,500 schools to nominate up to 15 institutions with stellar examples of undergraduate research/creative projects. Colleges and universities that received 10 or more nominations are ranked here.
It certainly suggests Harvey Mudd has some kind of a reputation for research opportunities (or, creative projects). But over PENN? No way.
I agree with the OP. On average, there will be more opportunities to get involved in research at an R1. I just looked up Harvey Mudd’s tenure requirements for faculty and it definitely reads as though teaching is their priority over research. Whereas the pressure I experience as faculty at an R1 to publish or perish fuels me to have multiple projects in the pipeline at all times, all of which need help from graduate or undergraduate RAs (research assistant) or PAs (project assistant). I have to have multiple, ongoing research projects of the highest quality circulating at all times. And I’m glad I do, because I love doing research so much!!
R1 faculty will be more likely to get the grants, to have the labs, to have funding to hire RAs/PAs. They’ll have more TIME, with a likely lighter teaching load. There will be exceptions, of course, but all of that extra contact students get w/ professors at the smaller schools has to come from somewhere in terms of workload.
Edit: and this is not to disparage Harvey Mudd AT ALL. Their faculty can likely excel in the classroom in a way that I cannot. It will be up to the OP to decide what his/her priorities are, but these are two excellent choices.