Mudd vs. Caltech

[cghen]

<p>So my original source was from:
<a href=“http://www.hmc.edu/highlights/[/url]”>http://www.hmc.edu/highlights/&lt;/a&gt;

For 2003 incoming students, the average SAT Verbal score is 700; average Math score is 750.

That’s a couple years old, and it may have changed, but remember those are the average scores which are of course lower than the median scores for this distribution. I did, though, mistakenly list Caltech’s median scores because I actually don’t know the mean scores (if anyone knows or can find them, by all means post them). So yes, the gap is smaller than I originally posted. </p>

<p>I’m more inclined to believe that the median enrolled SAT for HMC is 1470. Make sure you check in that report to see if that number is not the accepted SAT average which is naturally higher because of losing some of the higher scoring students to other schools. Caltech’s enrolled SAT median is 1510. </p>

<p>Also, last week rocketDA posted:

i know for a fact that the median SAT (from mudd’s annual report) is 1470 this last year.

So do double check to make sure you’re quoting the right number.</p>

<p>As for…

@tiyusufaly

I can rest assured that a higher SAT average score does not in anyway translate to smarter students. Otherwise I would be among the smartest people here, which I am nowhere near.

It’s a bit of a complicated issue. Surely SATs and ‘intelligence’ (in some working definition) are strongly correlated, but that has a pretty big error for individual students. </p>

<p>On average, though, I do believe the differences are significant. Even if you say that a SAT has an error of 100 point in estimating a students intelligence (i.e. something along the lines of a 1500 student could be as ‘smart’ as a 1400 or 1600 student, which is pretty generous), then for the population sizes we’re talking about, Caltech’s mean has errors of 100/root[900] = 3.33 points and Harvey Mudd’s errors = 100/root[700] = 3.77. So the combined sigma of the two is root[3.77^2 + 3.33^2] = 5.03. So if the difference is average SAT scores is greater than ~2sigma or ~10, there is certainly a statistical difference in the two populations. </p>

<p>Now of course you can always make the argument that SATs don’t go a good job of predicting intelligence or future success, and that’s a pretty complicated issue to talk about, but it’s probably not an argument that Mudd usually makes considering it has the 5th highest SAT average in the country. i.e. have a little consistency – don’t say they matter when talking about schools with lower averages and then say they do with schools that have higher averages. </p>

<p>Also,

@rocketDA

interpret/apply that influence on the SAT scores. if caltech were SO much better, than we would never be right up there in academic competitions, PhD productivity, and national academic honors.

I’m not overly familiar with college academic competitions, but last time I checked, Caltech’s PhD rate was 36% and Harvey Mudd’s was 25%. Of course they’re both ridiculously high (because they’re both incredible schools for what they do), but that’s a pretty sizable difference. My numbers come from: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=1268378&highlight=Mudd+PhD+Caltech+Reed#post1268378[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=1268378&highlight=Mudd+PhD+Caltech+Reed#post1268378&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>If you guys can show me something along the lines of comparable NSF fellowships between the two schools, I would be much more willing to say they give the same academic education. I know there’s a list of winners floating around somewhere, but I couldn’t quickly find it. </p>

<p>Until then, I’m still probably going to think that Caltech is the absolute best school for an education is science, and I’ll debate any notion to the contrary.</p>