<p>sorry guys, my bad.</p>
<p>Ben, if I may make a comment on your claim that Mudd does not have one alumnus comparable to the top tier of Caltech alums:</p>
<p>Believe it or not, I think you are right. I think you are right in that we have not produced someone of the caliber of Linus Pauling. BUT, let me ask you this question pertaining to those top-tier alums: Do you think more than a tad bit of their success might have had to do with their own inherent gifts and abilities rather than the school they attended?</p>
<p>Lets be honest, there are some prodigies and geniuses who would almost certainly achieve exemplary things regardless of where they went to school, as long as it was half-decent. Something that I think Caltech is very, VERY good at is advertising to this crowd: all the top dogs, the cream of the cream of the cream (cream^100 power) of the crop almost definitely know of Caltech and its caliber. So, Caltech is capable of getting a top bunch, as well it deserves to, it has spectacular programs.</p>
<p>However, as I said, these top dogs would do likely do well regardless of where they go to school, so I think the quality of Caltechs alums says at least as much about its ability to advertise and bait in the biggest fish in the sea as it does about its academic programs.</p>
<p>To give an example, I dont think many would dispute that, at least for undergrad, Berkeleys academic program is not quite as strong as that of Harvey Mudd. But, Berkeley undergrad has produced more Nobel Laureates. A part of this might of course have to do with the fact that Berkeley has far more undergrads, but so do a lot of other similar state schools. But, Berkeley is also good at advertising and getting top dogs (not as much as Caltech I think, but still somewhat good). So it gets people who would likely do well regardless of where they went to school</p>
<p>Thus, while I concede that Caltechs top tier alumni are superior to Mudds, I do not believe that this implies that Caltech necessarily has a superior academic program. To add support to my claim, I will mention that I have surfed the Caltech website, and have looked at problem sets and exam questions for core math, physics, chemistry, and just about every course that I have taken analogously at Mudd. I have not found there to be any appreciable difference in difficulty, and I can do most of the problems. Sometimes Caltechs problems are harder, sometimes they are easier, but as a whole I think they are virtually equal to Mudds. Furthermore, I have a friend at Caltech and I questioned her regarding this, and she agreed that Mudds coursework is no cakewalk and not peanuts for Techers, except for a few great geniuses (as a sidenote, she mentioned you Ben as one such prodigy ;)).</p>
<p>Overall, I think the academic programs of Mudd and Caltech are quite comparable based on, at the very least, the reasons I have given. So that is why I have to come to the conclusion that a good part of the reason Caltech has many more top dog alums is because it is better at advertising and getting these people to their school, not because their academics are better than Mudds. I have a physics prof who did her B.S. at MIT, Ph.D. at Harvard, and post-doc at Caltech, and she conceded this point: Caltech has more truly gifted prodigies and geniuses than does Mudd, but neither school is significantly better than the other in terms of quality.</p>
<p>No, tiyusufaly, you're wrong (about Putnam results). The official statistics for 2002 published by the board administering the exam do not rank spots 6-10. HMC was lumped in with that entire group. ("Spots 6 through 10 in unranked alphabetical order.") You can look it up on the official Putnam website. The assertion that Mudd was ranked 6th and the rest 7th-10th is just overzealous HMC PR. Sorry, and good try.</p>
<p>As for your other comment (whose expansiveness is impressive, but which could be summed up by saying "I think it's a selection effect"):</p>
<p>I think it's too convenient (for you) to attribute Caltech's overwhelming success to a selection effect. Over the course of almost 100 years, all Caltech has done better than other places is advertising? I don't think anybody objective about this issue to even a trifling extent would find that plausible. (Especially since Caltech is actually extraordinarily meek in its recruitment and advertising compared to Harvard or MIT, to take some random examples.)</p>
<p>I think that's all there is to say about it.</p>
<p>Ben, no one likes smart jerks. They go nowhere because no one wants to work with them. </p>
<p>Are you at CalTech this Summer? I would like to meet you.</p>
<p>I would love to meet you also. I am surely around. Please feel free to PM me and we can have lunch sometime.</p>
<p>One thing -- while I love good suggestions, I think it's undisputed that you were the one who came to this (very civil) thread with a belligerent attitude and full of insults. I'm probably not going to take etiquette advice from you, much as I appreciate your charity.</p>
<p>my friend was being very polite. perhaps i wasn't, but that does not mean that you must project your anger onto him.</p>
<p>Ben, I'd be interested to see this official Putnam website, could you give me a link?</p>
<p>At any rate, check this out: <a href="http://www.maa.org/awards/putnam.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.maa.org/awards/putnam.html</a>. This I'm sure you will agree is more official than Mudd news. Look at the 1991 results. Admittedly a bit long ago, but you did say Mudd has NEVER beaten Caltech, and I think this speaks to the contrary.</p>
<p>And Ben, I never said ALL of Caltech's success is due to its advertising. I said a good part of it is. Like I told you, I have looked at the coursework and various other academic aspects of Caltech, and I don't think they are appreciably different from that of Mudd. And as I told you, I have at least one friend at Caltech who agrees with me. So, I think I am right in saying that Caltech is better than Mudd at advertising.</p>
<p>about the similarity in courseload...
i can add at least six techer (current and alums) names who can testify to the similarities.
T.L.
S.?.
S.D.
K.L.
J.B.
R.B.
G.L.</p>
<p>Okay, you are right about HMC beating Tech in 1991. Apologies for the misstatement. (I had checked pretty carefully, but the mistake is fully my fault.)</p>
<p>On the main issue: first, I still don't think a 32-0 gap in Nobels is explicable (even partially explicable in any significant way) by "better advertising". What exactly does that mean? Whatever PR tricks Caltech uses (I tell you plainly, we use none -- we are too naive and nerdy) would be trivial to clone. If the way you get Nobels is with good brochures, I assure you it would be a crowded industry.</p>
<p>But let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that we're in the bizzare counterfactual world where you can rack up 32 Nobels like one sells Nikes --- with good advertising. Even then, what does it matter how Caltech got to have so many of the most brilliant people in the world teaching and going there? For all I care, we could have gotten them by pumping beaver serum into their veins. In any case, they happen to be here. And the place to learn with them and from them is at Caltech. </p>
<p>If you printed out all our problem sets and did them in every HMC class, the part of Caltech's added value that comes from being with brilliant Caltech people would escape HMC students completely, except those that come to Caltech to do SURF. (And of course, one way in which we really do attract more future Nobelists is by having a lot of them to begin with.)</p>
<p>I think you guys should be men about it and get out of excuse mode. "Whine whine, our problem sets are as hard as yours, Caltech's Nobels come from the slick brochures and hot women they give to the prefrosh." Snap out of it. What matters in the end is whether you bring the goods. Currently, we do, and you're still an open question. My suggestion: less talk and more doing. Go get 'em.</p>
<p>I've got to be honest guys, if I were being badgered by a clearly-passionate "friend" from Harvey Mudd (which is surely what was happening for you to get SIX Caltech students to supposedly "endorse" your point of view--this must be a sore point that you bring up frequently), there's a chance I might say "sure, they're about the same" just to be polite and/or make the interloper leave me alone. Therefore, I'm not too impressed by the "list of people who say they agree with me" aspects of tiyusufaly and rocketDA's arguments.</p>
<p>"Yes Joe, we have had some Techers come out onto the Mudd board and portray Caltech as appreciably superior to Mudd, and (I don't know if this is intentional) put us down. However, I'll be fair: rocket, I think you do make some valid points, but you could use some less aggressive language."</p>
<p>Hey, maybe I should head over to the HMC board sometime. It would be a little bit like clubbing baby seals, though. I'm pretty comfortable in saying that the difference between the trolling we're seeing on this thread and the portrayal of "Caltech as appreciably superior to Mudd" is that the latter is actually true. It's rude to brag, though, so I'm sorry that they're doing that over on your boards--maybe it's a reaction to guys like rocketDA over here?</p>
<p>For what it's worth, at least from when I was applying to schools way back in 1999, I remember Harvey Mudd's publicity to be much MORE creative and impressive than Caltech's. They sent a very interesting folding triangle-thingie. I don't quite remember but it was probably the most unique college publicity I'd ever seen. I still didn't even bother to apply, though.</p>
<p>So I just checked out the Mudd board. It was kind of funny!</p>
<p>RocketDA is free to spread all the misinformation he wants over there. Try out this unsubstantiated gem, which went unchallenged:</p>
<p>"while mudd costs a **** load of money, you have to keep in mind that mudd alums (per capita) make the most money (eventual salary) of any institution in the country."</p>
<p>Is that supported? Of course not, and I doubt it's true. Just for the record, starting salaries for the class of 2004:</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd: $58,700
Caltech: $60,309</p>
<p>From an outsider's perspective, the arguments in favor of HMC sound rather a lot like sour grapes. This is partly because this thread never concerned HMC in the first place (until they came screaming in to defend themselves from nothing, that is), and the fact you can argue in favor of HMC if you'd like, but it's harder to justify picking it over Caltech if you were admitted to both. Caltech has both a significantly lower admission rate (20% compared to 40%) and a higher matriculation rate (46% compared to 30%) than HMC. You can argue yourself blue in the face about which statistics matter and which don't, give a million and one excuses for why they favor Caltech - and you may or may not have a leg to stand on - but when it comes right down to it, you don't advise students to pick HMC over Caltech.<br>
Anecdotal? Somewhat. But also undeniable.<br>
QED.</p>
<p>Rocket, you said "no one likes smart jerks. They go nowhere because no one wants to work with them." Let's assume that you are correct in stating this (admittedly a large assumption). A lot of people like Ben. Ben probably has the biggest following on these forums--in fact, there is almost a cult dedicated to him. I personally like Ben. Therefore, since people like Ben, he must not be a smart jerk. Likewise, it is quite obvious that Ben is smart; he recieved an axline scholarship from Tech and was recently named a Goldwater Scholar--also anyone that has met Ben can easily testify to his intelligence. Therefore, since Ben is smart, but he is not a smart jerk, we can safely say that Ben is not a jerk. I knew that all along :-P</p>
<p>There are very few actual jerks at Caltech. Some, of course, but not many. Most people are just very genuine and down-to-earth.</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd's workload == Caltech's ?? Give me a break!! surpass that of MIT's and we can compare again then if it's close to Caltech's</p>
<p>I've told you rtkysg, I've looked at Caltech's workload and problems, and my considered opinion is that it is no greater than that of Mudd's.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've told you rtkysg, I've looked at Caltech's workload and problems, and my considered opinion is that it is no greater than that of Mudd's
[/quote]
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Merely looking as an outsider doesn't give you the experience of an insider. For example, when I was a high school senior, I thought MIT was harder than Caltech, but after having experienced both schools, I'm now sure that Caltech is harder than MIT. Simply said, being in HMC and skimming through Caltech's coursework will not give you the experience of living through the coursework.</p></li>
<li><p>The environment should also be taken into consideration. Given a coursework of same difficulty, it will actually be much more difficult when your peers are stellar students. I was an international students, and believe me, more than 1/3 of int'l students at Caltech are Int'l Olympiad medallist.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Personally, I think arguing about the workload is a little pointless. No one knows for sure, unless you did the same classes over again at the other school.</p>
<p>What we CAN definitively say is that Caltech's results in terms of alumni achievement are substantially and significantly greater than those of Harvey Mudd. Yes, Caltech students are ahead numbers- and experience-wise to start with, but I doubt that 40 SAT points or whatever the difference is accounts for, e.g., the huge disparity between the 32 Nobel Prizes that Caltech has racked up over ~86 years and the 0 that HMC has racked up over ~50 years.</p>
<p>Wow, what a little argument I missed on my short vacation...</p>
<p>
I think tiyusufaly is actually referring to a couple of posts I responded to on the Mudd forum.</p>
<p>The first case (<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=2107188&%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=2107188&</a>), was a thread called "CIT vs. Harvey Mudd?". It turned out that CIT was referring to Carnegie Melon (d'oh!), but I was responding to rocketDA's anti-Caltech rhetoric:
In another post (<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=182327&%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=182327&</a>) titled "Mudd vs. Caltech":</p>
<p>I gave a Caltech perspective on/clarified:
I corrected:
<p>we have basically the same quality of students, by the numbers.
I explained my position on:
And I showed that the NSF awards for last year were not indicative of long term trends as suggested by:
<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.
So tiyusufaly, if you were referring to someone else coming over to the Mudd board (and I looked and couldn't find anyone), then I'm sorry that I posted this here. Here and in my posts on the HMC board, I've never intended to put Mudd down, but when a) students are asking advice over which school to attend, and b) some people on your board are making false claims, I'm certainly going to at least give my perspective. </p>
<p>Also, I think anyone who read this entire thread will be pretty confused why rocketDA felt the need to bring up Mudd in the first place - post #44 is just silly.</p>