CIT VS Harvey Mudd?

[cghen]

<p>Let me preface this by saying that two years I ago I had to choose between MIT/Caltech/Harvey Mudd (among other schools, but those were the top three I wanted to attend). Harvey Mudd offered me quite a bit of merit money. I choose Caltech, and MIT was my second choice. I was interested in physics then, and that is my major now. </p>

<p>Let me also say that either Harvey Mudd or Caltech will give you a wonderful education, assuming you want to major in math/science/engineering. Neither Caltech nor Harvey Mudd is the best school for all science/math/engineering disciplines, but they have incredibly strong programs across the board. </p>

<p>There are several reasons I choose Caltech over Harvey Mudd, and I’ll give a few of them here.</p>

<p>1) Caltech has a graduate school
In science/math I strongly, strongly believe a school having a graduate program is advantageous. The caliber and level of the research at a university simply cannot be matched by schools without a graduate program. I do think that Harvey Mudd professors do interesting research (I’ve looked over the physics department a bit), but I don’t believe it’s the Nobel Prize quality of work that is regularly found in Caltech laboratories. Also, I don’t think that Harvey Mudd has enough faculty to adequately provide opportunities in all areas in a department. Caltech barely does for that matter. This could very well limit your interests, which is by no means unimportant. </p>

<p>In terms of getting into graduate school, Professor recommendations play a key role, and I would argue that students have a better opportunity for stronger recommendations at Caltech simply because of how well known the faculty are. The Mudd faculty are also well known, mind you, but many of the Caltech professors are simply at the top of their fields. </p>

<p>2) Caltech 3-1 faculty ratio (Harvey Mudd is what? 7-1?)</p>

<p>

@rocketDA

First, CalTech boasts a very low student to faculty ratio. It is something like 3-1 or 4-1. Unfortunately, they include research faculty in the count, which you will never interact with as an undergrad. (I know this because I actually just talked to my phyics lab professor today who is full-time research faculty at CalTech and is a visiting professor at Mudd but just decided to come to Mudd as a full-time professor.)

This is not true - or is at least not true for the majority of the faculty (from my experience). There are certainly professors who only do research, but this is not a bad thing by any means. Indeed, because there are so many different groups, it’s quite easy for students to actively become involved in research, and again, this research is usually at the forefront of the field. </p>

<p>Consequently the 3-1 professor-student ratio is not advantageous for the standard reasons. Normally, rankings value low ratios because they imply low class sizes. Here, though, the low ratio is indicative of students ability to find research opportunities. This ease for research is intensified by Caltech’s affiliation with JPL, which is a powerful asset. I know Mudd also sends people to JPL, but let us agree that Caltech is more closely tied to it. </p>

<p>

@rocketDA

This leads me to my second point, which is that although CalTech is a world-famous research institute, that does not mean that undergrads are guaranteed any research during their four years. CalTech gets most of their money and prestige from the grad school, not the undergrads. You will be taught heavily by TA’s, like my physics lab professor (when she was doing grad at CalTech).

I can pretty much assure you that any student who wants research (and is willing to email a professor <em>gasp</em>) will get research during their time at Tech. Concerning TA’s, I certainly don’t feel that I’ve been ‘heavily taught’ by TA’s. TA’s mainly run recitation sections, which I actually appreciate. For example, while professors can answer general topic questions, in my time here, I’ve discovered that graduate students are often better at answering questions relating to specific problems – i.e. helping on homework. </p>

<p>

@rocketDA

While CalTech has astounding facilities, they neglect to tell you that 90% of it is off limits to undergrad. I know this from talking to my prof and because I worked at JPL (paid by CalTech) 2 summers ago. This issue is swept under the carpet for undergrad. (As I understand, there are a few acceptions from time to time though.)

While I won’t guarantee that undergraduates can work in every group, this certainly has not been my personal experience (nor that of people around me). Research opportunities aren’t going to come to you, but again, they’re there if you’re looking and capable. </p>

<p>

@rocketDA

one of the distinctive differences is that all mudd profs are here to teach; there is no ulterior motive.

I think I’ve made myself clear how I feel, but for absolute clarity: undergraduates benefit when professors do amazing research – it’s that simple. </p>

<p>3) Caltech’s Honor Code (I’m not familiar with HMC here, but I’m pretty sure it’s different)
Caltech’s Honor Code reads “No member of the Caltech community shall take unfair advantage of any other member of the Caltech community.” This simple rule guides much of Caltech life and has immense consequences on everyday life. Essentially, students/faculty/employees really, really trust each other here. The following are manifestations of the Honor Code:
Nearly all exams are take-home and un-proctored.
Students are given keys/card access to buildings they need access.
You can leave your room unlocked/open without fear of other students or janitors taking your things.
Collaboration on homework is accepted and encouraged resulting in a atmosphere that is both conducive to learning and also a good preparation for future work. </p>

<p>I can give numerous anecdotes of how the honor code makes life infinitely easier at Caltech (than it would be otherwise), but suffice to say that it’s what makes Caltech work!</p>

<p>4) Prestige
Taken alone, prestige is not useful, but it still can be a factor in your decision. This is more applicable to engineering than pure sciences because most science majors will go to graduate school, and I think most graduate schools know about HMC. In industry, however, this may not be the case, and Caltech is more ubiquitous than Mudd (although by no means to the level of say MIT). </p>

<p>5) Caltech’s campus is pretty
I like pretty things. </p>

<p>Those (and other, maybe less concrete) reasons are why I chose to attend Caltech.</p>

<p>Some random responses to what has been said:</p>

<p>

@rocketDA

apparently, CMU grad school has a special “weighting factor” when looking at the GPAs of only two schools: CalTech and Harvey Mudd. (they don’t weight anyone else)</p>

<p>i don’t know if that puts things into perspective.

That’s amusing! Sounds about right to me.</p>

<p>

@rocketDA

last night, i went to a professor’s house (computer science) (with 3 other students) to have dinner with his family. it was an amazing experience. we just had a good time and talked about all sorts of stuff… for 6 hours! mudd encourages this stuff so much, they paid for the food to be catered by a Mediterranean restuarant!

That is more intimate interaction than I generally see at Caltech – sounds pretty cool. It varies from department to department, and I’m not completely familiar with the ‘average’ level of outside academic (classes or research) interaction with faculty. It’s certainly not none, but probably not commonly as much as this case. edit: we do have programs in place for encouraging students to go out with faculty.</p>

<p>

@rocketDA

you’re worrying too much. i suppose that you just have to “trust” and go for the ride. that’s really all i have to say. </p>

<p><<the things=“” that=“” are=“” worthwhile=“” those=“” difficult.=“”>>"

I couldn’t agree more. I was certainly scared that I wasn’t able to cut it at Caltech before I got here and began working. I don’t know if that’s a concern for you, but rest assured that admissions wouldn’t admit you if they didn’t know you could handle it here. </the></p>

<p>

@rocketDA

You might not have as broad a range of topics as could potentially be available at a bigger institution, but there’s definitely a better chance of getting into it, and there’s a pretty good range of project topics anyway.

I’m not convinced you have a better chance of getting research at HMC than Caltech – I think dedicated students will find opportunities at both.</p>

<p>

@rocketDA

Caltech students rip on you because they think that Mudd is a cheap imitation. It is not. In fact, Mudd has pulled up into the ranks (and beating) of MIT, Caltech, Harvard, Yale, and Stanford when our students compete against each-other in academic challenges.

I don’t think Harvey Mudd is a cheap imitation than Caltech. Again, I really think you can get a fantastic education at Mudd; I just think Caltech provides better opportunities and has a better atmosphere for learning. </p>

<p>Now all that being said, your own decision is just that – your own. Once you’re adequately informed, pick whichever one you feel has the best fit for you. I would suggest that you take a look at the individual departments before you choose, though. See which professors’ research interests you. Hell, email professor sand ask what their policies are about taking students in! Read everything you can find about the schools through their websites and the forums here. If you have specific questions, there are plenty of people that can find you an answer. </p>

<p>After you do all of that, the best way to choose is just listen to your gut. The right choice is the one that you are happy with and won’t have regrets about. Good luck and have some fun with this – it’s a good decision to have to make!</p>