<p>^ And Harvey Mudd doesn't grant degrees in professional engineering majors...your mileage may vary...</p>
<p>
[quote]
We had a math major transfer to Harvey Mudd from Princeton this past year. According to her, the relative teaching quality at Princeton is pure crap.
[/quote]
IMO, no matter how crappy the undergrad teaching is,
Princeton degree > Harvey Mudd degree</p>
<p>But, if she's in a happier place for herself...okay.</p>
<p>Actually, for some fields I would expect Harvey Mudd is at least comparable. Mudd is up there with MIT and CalTech for many engineering/science fields.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Mudd is up there with MIT and CalTech for many engineering/science fields.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For a general, broad-based engineering education...yes.
But Mudd is not going to grant a BS degree in electrical, chemical, mechanical, or civil engineering. If you look at the USNWR rankings for engineering disciplines, Rose Hulman is a better choice.</p>
<p>"Princeton degree > Harvey Mudd degree"
Hahaha. You don't know what you are talking about. It is great.</p>
<p>I just got back from my clinic presentation and lunch-in. I talked to my team about what they were doing after graduation. Responses: Robots at either MIT or CMU (two best programs in the nation), SwRI, Northrop Grumman. </p>
<p>For me, I've had numerous job offers and a couple top-tier grad schools lined up.</p>
<p>But let's not just talk about me. My space structures class (of 15) has several going into aerospace/aeronautics at Stanford, GaTech, Caltech and numerous industry places. Also, about 5% of Mudd grads get (directly out of Mudd) at JPL. Mudders also acquire jobs at other notables such as SpaceX and Blue Origin. Roughly 50% get masters and roughly 30% get PhDs in engineering-related fields. Average starting salary (for 2005) was $58k.</p>
<p>Inasmuch respect I have for Princeton, an engineering degree from there does not equal one from Mudd. If you have worked with a Mudd grad you would have known that. My boss at JPL used to favor particular (unnamed) tech students though once he started working with Mudders he made a point to get several of us on his projects.</p>
<p>I won't even go into the NSF details and the fact that more Mudders get published as undergrads than probably 99% of schools. (I don't have the figure but it is something like 1/3 of Mudders) While the curriculum may be broad it establishes the tools in many different fields...which is the important thing.</p>
<p>Just my 3 cents.</p>
<p>So if:
Tech schools > Princeton
Tech schools ~ Harvey Mudd (similar)
Harvey Mudd > Princeton (ceiling)
Harvey Mudd ~ Princeton (floor)
confidence level by proof has floor of 50% and ceiling 100%.</p>
<p>you select your sigma and i'll tell you that with the given assumptions there is an associated confidence level.</p>
<p>Dartmouth spends the most among the Ivies per student on student resources and advising (COHE) followed by Yale. My list would be the top (and richest) LACs (Amherst, Williams, Swat, mayeb Wellesley), the top undergrad focused universities (Dartmouth, Princeton, Yale), and the top tech institutions (MIT, Caltech, Harvey Mudd)</p>
<p>A Harvey Mudd degree more valuable than a Princeton one? Keep dreaming.</p>
<p>A Harvey Mudd degree being about as valuable? Possibly, even likely. (Though I'd say that in general, a Princeton degree is going to carry more "weight." Whether that weight has any real consequences to you is another matter.)</p>
<p>rocketDA, </p>
<p>Seiken was saying the Princeton student was a math major, not an engineering major. </p>
<p>I have no doubt the quality of Mudd engineering students and the employment opportunities. I should have clarified, but IMHO, a Princeton math degree > Harvey Mudd math degree. </p>
<p>Princeton does have some good engineering programs as well...you can get a BS in chemical engineering from Princeton...you can't walk away from Harvey Mudd with that degree.</p>
<p>
[quote]
you select your sigma and i'll tell you that with the given assumptions there is an associated confidence level.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uhhh...+/- 3 sigma? =P</p>
<p>Just because your degree doesnt say 'Chemical Engineering' on it doesnt mean you arent educated in chemical engineering. Thats like saying just because my degree will say 'physics' on it implies I'll be clueless in mathematics. Chemical engineering IS engineering. </p>
<p>A Princeton degree in math is very heavy I'll admit, but it doesnt mean you are better educated than if you went to Mudd. The person in question was doing perfectly fine at Princeton. She just wasnt the savant that some Princeton mathematicians are, so she ACTUALLY needed an education. Go figure.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just because your degree doesnt say 'Chemical Engineering' on it doesnt mean you arent educated in chemical engineering.
[/quote]
I disagree. At colleges that have a full chemical engineering program, you will have chemical engineering experts in the subject teaching you a wider variety of classes.</p>
<p>I'm sure Mudd has courses in general thermodynamics and such, but does it have a reaction kinetics course, transport processes, separation processes, chemical process design, dynamics and control of chemical processes, and biochemical engineering?</p>
<p>Here's Berkeley's Chem E cirriculum:
College</a> of Chemistry - University of California at Berkeley - Chemistry Courses</p>
<p>engineering courses taught in realm of chemE:
chemical and thermal processes (required for all eng majors)
fluid mechanics (incompressible)
fluid mechanics (compressible)
heat transfer
chemical reaction engineering
advanced thermodynamics
mass transfer and separation processes
biochemical engineering
advanced transport phenomenon</p>
<p>source:
<a href="http://www.eng.hmc.edu/EngWebsite/DeptHbook/05-06AdvisingHandbook.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.eng.hmc.edu/EngWebsite/DeptHbook/05-06AdvisingHandbook.pdf</a></p>
<p>Obviously, more pure topics can be supplemented with chemistry classes.</p>
<p>I'm not saying there is as much variety as Berkeley...but surely, the commonality between specialty classes and the principles are great.</p>
<p>^ Fair enough. Is it normally one or two professors teaching all these courses? How many professors are on staff that have PhDs in chemical engineering?</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd entire engineering faculty:
<a href="http://www.eng.hmc.edu/EngWebsite/index.php?page=People.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.eng.hmc.edu/EngWebsite/index.php?page=People.php</a></p>
<p>(22 currently in residence for all engineering)</p>
<p>Berkeley chemical engineering faculty:
Department</a> of Chemical Engineering - University of California at Berkeley - Faculty</p>
<p>(21 just for ChemE)</p>
<p>If our professors are here to teach, we dont need as money per student right? Also, and more important; just how many students do you think we have?</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd has what, about 750 students?</p>
<p>Cal's chemical engineering department has about 484 students total (373 undergrads, 111 grad students)
College</a> of Chemistry - University of California at Berkeley - College Facts</p>
<p>So you have more chemical engineering students than we have total engineering students, yet we have more engineering professors than you have chemical engineering professors.</p>
<p>Do something with pigeonhole to make some conclusions.</p>
<p>^ Hehe...don't you have homework to do? :p</p>
<p>
[quote]
So you have more chemical engineering students than we have total engineering students
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Er, 484 > 750...?</p>
<p>750 is all students, including non-engineering.</p>
<p>The truth is a great majority of Princeton engineering majors go into high finance or elite consulting, rather than engineering which pays much less in the long run.</p>