<p>I didn't put MIT because we all know it's #1 without question. (Everyone who disagrees, don't even try to argue)</p>
<p>Flippy,</p>
<pre><code> I disagree! But I don't want to argue this. I would put Harvey Mudd high up on that list, it's an excellent school that focuses on teaching students.
</code></pre>
<p>I have to agree with dr_reynolds, I would not accept the premise that MIT is #1 "without question." But, I also do not want to argue.</p>
<p>Sakky- You make a good point about the narrow focus of Harvey Mudd. If you change your mind about engineering or science at Mudd, there are not many other options. The 83% grad rate at HM doesn't seem as severely deficient when you take that into account.</p>
<p>It is somehow possible to graduate from HM with a degree in something other than eng or sci, but 97% graduate in eng and sci. This focus is similar to Caltech where the grad rate is 88% (a bit higher than HM). At Cornell, the grad rate for engineering students is about 95% from somewhere at Cornell but about 88% from Engineering. The student body at Cornell is about 50% science and engineering. At MIT the percent of the student body in eng and sci is about 88% and MIT has a 92% grad rate. </p>
<p>I still think the 5-9% difference in grad rate between HM and MIT/Caltech/Cornell says something about the Harvey Mudd experience. But, the difference is not huge. On the other hand, the HM grad rate is better than the 75% at Cooper Union and the 74% at Scripps. Pomona and McKenna have grad rates about 90%.</p>
<p>Grad rates can't really say too much, IMO.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Please show me the stats too sakky. I'm willing to change my mind about that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said that I had the stats. However, I do recall seeing them once in the Berkeley section of CC. Perhaps somebody can find them and post them here.</p>
<p>i can't really say it's a 'toss up' between a bunch of these schools.</p>
<p>yeah, harvey mudd has a great engineering program ... but, that's it. Schools like Cornell and Stanford have the benefits being schools with more than just engineering programs. An engineer at Cornell can take a load of electives in music or english or a foreign language. These schools also have ultra-prestigious names that can carry a person far ... HM isn't a household name. </p>
<p>Even if every school on an engineering list was totally equal as far as academics go, there'd still be "better" schools for some people. It'd be tough to argue that one engineering program is far better than another, but it'd be easy to distinguish schools into categories such as social scene, prestige, academic depth, student body, location, alumni connections, etc. All of these must be taken into account and then one should pick a school based on what is best for them.</p>
<p>???</p>
<p>California Institute of Technology = Harvey Mudd College = Stanford University = United States Air Force Academy = 77% (4-year) graduation rate </p>
<p>MIT = 81%
Cornell = 85%
Cooper Union = ?</p>
<p>Scripps = ?
Pomona = 81%
Claremont McKenna = 81%</p>
<p>???</p>
<p>These numbers are from "Best Colleges 2006" Highest Graduation Rates:</p>
<p>California Institute of Technology = Harvey Mudd College = Stanford University = United States Air Force Academy = 77% (4-year) graduation rate </p>
<p>MIT = 81%
Cornell = 85%
Cooper Union = ?</p>
<p>Scripps = ?
Pomona = 81%
Claremont McKenna = 81%</p>
<p>Gomestar, I'm a little unclear by what you mean. If you are saying that Harvey Mudd does not have any strong departments outside of Engineering, I'm afraid I strongly disagree. All our math and science departments are comparatively successful at providing a superb teaching and undergraduate education, and training graduates to get advanced degrees and perform well in their future jobs. Now, if you are saying that outside of math, science, and engineering, we don't have anything else to offer, then I might agree with you.</p>
<p>Furthermore, gomestar, while Harvey Mudd is not a prestigious 'household' name, it is extremely prestigious among employers and graduate schools. As sakky indicated, the average starting salary for Mudd graduates is consistently extremely high. Furthermore, we have the highest rate of Ph.D's in the nation, and our graduates don't go to "easy" graduate schools either. We regularly send students to Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Berkeley, etc...</p>
<p>i am talking about other subjects such as english, languages, history, sociology, anthropology, psychology, economics, etc, etc, etc. </p>
<p>And about the "household name" thing, I'm really talking about the east coast. Here, it's hard to find an engineer that didnt go to Cornell, MIT, Princeton, CMU, RPI, University of Rochester, SUNY Binghamton, and so forth. In New York, alot of people are likely to say "harvey what????"</p>
<p>Link to HMC's common data set for Fall 2003 enrollees (Nos. 20-22; GPAs not weighted):
<a href="http://www.hmc.edu/information.html#general%5B/url%5D">http://www.hmc.edu/information.html#general</a></p>
<p>Link to aggregate Berkeley Fall 2003 admissions (p. 8):
<a href="http://cds.vcbf.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2003-04.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://cds.vcbf.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2003-04.pdf</a></p>
<p>Link to report on Berkeley's admissions for 2002 (including SAT 1 and GPA breakdown by college and major; GPAs appear to be weighted because of note for definitions in Berkeley's CDS):
<a href="http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/compreview/mooresreport.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/compreview/mooresreport.pdf</a></p>
<p>HMC allows highest math/verbal SAT score from multiple sittings; not sure about Berkeley. This isn't exactly apples-to-apples due to enrolled v. admitted data.</p>
<hr>
<p>Also not sure what you mean by ordering these schools from "best" to "worst" for engineers. I have family members who attended 4 out of the 8, and not one of them applied to more than any one of them (back in the day, I myself was admitted to Purdue and Cornell but didn't attend either). These are very different schools in many ways. Just by personal preference standards alone, consider the differences in climate, size, curricula, state v. private, geographical region, cost and available merit aid, social atmosphere, rural v. suburban v. city, etc. Some prospective engineering majors wouldn't even consider all these schools -- regardless of factors such as perceived prestige or matriculation difficulty -- e.g., aeroE.</p>
<p>"Just by personal preference standards alone, consider the differences in climate, size, curricula, state v. private, geographical region, cost and available merit aid, social atmosphere, rural v. suburban v. city, etc"</p>
<p>totally agree. </p>
<p>Also, the main 'theme' of my posts is the point out that Cornell or Stanford might be a better choice over HM if a student isn't 100% positive about engineering. At least at these other school, there's big enough departments to fall back on if engineering doesnt work out. The same with the other points that Mudder's Mudder pointed out. But, if HM is the exact type of college a student is looking for, i'd say totally go with that over any other place.</p>
<p>I think any of those schools you mentioned would be great. I personally wouldn't choose Harvey Mudd because it doesn't have the research facilities like the other schools. I think it's very important to have some undergraduate research experience, and it can help you get a much better internships or jobs later on.</p>
<p>List of Top 10 Schools for 2005 (Source: U.S. News, <a href="http://www.usnews.com):%5B/url%5D">www.usnews.com):</a></p>
<ol>
<li><p>Massachusetts Institute of Technology- This top-ranking institute has many Nobel Laureates on its staff. --Undergraduate Student Body: 4,136; Faculty to Student Ratio: 1:7; Tuition Costs: $32,300; Average High School GPA of Incoming Freshmen: 3.9; Test Scores of Incoming Freshmen: ACT: More than 80% had scores 30-36, SAT: More than 60% had scores 1400-1600. For more information, try <a href="http://www.mit.edu%5B/url%5D">www.mit.edu</a>.</p></li>
<li><p>Stanford University- This private university is ranked 5th for its overall performance in the nation by U.S. News. --Undergraduate Student Body: 6,555; Faculty to Student Ratio: 1:6; Tuition Costs: $31,200; Average High School GPA of Incoming Freshmen: 3.9; Test Scores of Incoming Freshmen: ACT: More than 70% had scores 30-36, SAT: More than 60% had scores 1400-1600. For more information, try <a href="http://www.stanford.edu%5B/url%5D">www.stanford.edu</a>.</p></li>
<li><p>Carnegie Mellon University- This institution has an average freshmen retention rate of 94% according to U.S. News. --Undergraduate Student Body: 5,529; Faculty to Student Ratio: 1:10; Tuition Costs: $32,044; Average High School GPA of Incoming Freshmen: 3.6; Test Scores of Incoming Freshmen: ACT: More than 50% had scores 30-36, SAT: More than 40% had scores 1200-1299. For more information, try <a href="http://www.cmu.edu%5B/url%5D">www.cmu.edu</a>.</p></li>
<li><p>University of California, Berkeley- For more information, try <a href="http://www.berkeley.edu%5B/url%5D">www.berkeley.edu</a>.</p></li>
<li><p>University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign- For more information, try <a href="http://www.uiuc.edu%5B/url%5D">www.uiuc.edu</a>.</p></li>
<li><p>University of Michigan, Ann Arbor- For more information, try <a href="http://www.umich.edu%5B/url%5D">www.umich.edu</a>.</p></li>
<li><p>University of Texas, Austin- For more information, try <a href="http://www.utexas.edu%5B/url%5D">www.utexas.edu</a>.</p></li>
<li><p>Georgia Institute of Technology- For more information, try <a href="http://www.gatech.edu%5B/url%5D">www.gatech.edu</a>.</p></li>
<li><p>Cornell University- For more information, try <a href="http://www.cornell.edu%5B/url%5D">www.cornell.edu</a>.</p></li>
<li><p>University of Washington- For more information, try <a href="http://www.washington.edu%5B/url%5D">www.washington.edu</a>.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>according to me......Caltech, Cornell, HMC, Berkeley.......except caltech ...all others are pretty much the same.....except HMC has advantages of smaller schools!!.......I cant figure out the rest!!</p>
<p>Mudder's Mudder, Harvey Mudd has way better stats for admitted students than UC Berkeley's average, I know. But UC Berkeley's EECS have much stronger stats because EECS is much harder to get into than the rest of Berkeley. I'm thinking that EECS students have superior SATs.</p>
<p>Mudder's_Mudder-</p>
<p>The graduation rates at the link you posted are 4-year graduation rates. I am not sure why US News even posts them on their web site under "Honor Rolls, Top 100 Lists" because these 4-year rates are misleading. These are not the official college graduation rates. The official rates are listed in the US News tables for Top National Universities and Top Liberal Arts Colleges, which is the source I used.</p>
<p>Under federal law, colleges are required to publicize their freshman graduation rate. The time frame for graduation rates is 150% of the length of its longest program. This would be 6 years for colleges with 4-year programs and 7.5 years for colleges with 5 year programs. Universities with active co-op and internship programs have to allow students more than 4 years to graduate. So, the 4-year rate is an underestimate, especially for universities with engineering schools.</p>
<p>Flippy-
If SAT scores are the best single index of student quality, graduation rates are the best single indicator of college quality. Grad rate overperformance and underperformance tells how well the college does with the students who enroll there, controlling for student quality (SAT scores). Grad rates are meaningful in comparison with PEER institutions. Peer institutions would be about the same with regard to selectivity, student quality, public-private, religious affiliation, co-education, and proportion of students in engineering/science majors.</p>
<p>I think US News is mistaken when they report a 16 percent grad rate underperformance for Harvey Mudd. They probably applied the formula for liberal arts colleges to Harvey Mudd because it falls in that classification but HM is really different from other Lib Arts colleges. The "underperformance" at HM is probably more like 5%.</p>
<p>Research support in total $ for engineering, sciences and math at Caltech is 70 times greater than at Harvey Mudd. At MIT, research support is 200 times greater than at Harvey Mudd. But, HM is all undergrad, I believe.</p>
<p>At Harvey Mudd, about 27% of the students who are accepted will enroll. At Caltech, it is about 37%. At MIT it is about 59%. </p>
<p>So, there are differences. But, I am convinced that Harvey Mudd is a terrific school for engineering, one of the best in America. Students who go there should be proud. And, I love the name "Harvey Mudd". Any college with a name like Harvey Mudd has gotta be cool.</p>
<p>I was wondering whose figures you were using. That did help.</p>
<p>Here are the 1998 4-, 5-, and 6-year grad rates for HMC from the NCES site through the CPEC site:
<a href="http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool/GRS.asp?UNITID=115409%5B/url%5D">http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool/GRS.asp?UNITID=115409</a></p>
<p>CPEC
<a href="http://www.cpec.ca.gov/collegeguide/Institution.asp?E0032A%5B/url%5D">http://www.cpec.ca.gov/collegeguide/Institution.asp?E0032A</a>
also lists HMC's Carnegie classification as "Specialized Institutions - Engineering and technology" which was accurate in 1998. In the 2004 college annual report (pub. 2005), Pres. Strauss noted that Carnegie reclassified HMC to "Baccalaureate College - Liberal Arts." The US News "underperformance" may well be due to the change. I don't follow the US News reports as I'm not a fan of theirs... but I am a fan of Smuckers :)</p>
<p>As for the research figures... am assuming this includes graduate education at Caltech and MIT--? [Yes, HMC is strictly undergrad with a rare master's issued in conjunction with other Claremont institutions.] A fairer comparison might be with Olin (how does Olin's funding stack up against Caltech and MIT?) because HMC students, depending on major, either do clinic projects with industry partners or research theses. HMC is also an REU site for chemistry and CS and involved with lots of other ongoing research through grant and other funding. Also from the annual report: Over 100 Mudders (out of a total enrollment just over 700) spent Summer 2004 on campus doing research.</p>
<p>You wouldn't be the first to scratch his/her head when trying to come up with a valid comparison for HMC. How many schools are there for a kid who is tech-lopsided or tech-focused and wants a strictly UG college with its concomitant teaching/mentoring emphasis and the chance to do research? Olin only offers a limited engineering curriculum (leaving out pure science and math majors), and Rose-Hulman (let's be honest) suffers a location disadvantage for many kids -- excellent schools though they both are. Which leads us yet again to agreement: that no school is a perfect fit for every kid and comparative rankings are suspect.</p>