<p>I guess the only reason I got good grades at math and science in high school were because I liked my teachers. Well, some of them.
The other classes, i had to ask for help a lotttt to get the grade, classes mainly like chemistry and physics.</p>
<p>I don’t really like those two subjects, particularly, but for some reason, studying those subjects have helped me gain discipline in order to study and concentrate in my other classes.
I don’t know. I feel smarter and more successful after learning how to think “critically,” and i definitely feel that my attention span has gone up in order for me to have learned these subjects.
I’m better at logical reasoning now (every single personality test/ career test I’ve taken has pointed me towards being a psychologist or a professor) and I feel that if I aim at becoming an engineer, I can contribute a lot to the field of engineering or computer science or what not. (I’m really interested in cognitive science.)</p>
<p>Also, i have a dilemma. I got into UCLA and I want to go there. However, in high school, again the only way I could get good grades was because some of my teachers were just awesome and motivated me to work. I know at Harvey Mudd, the professors are great and motivating, but I know that I was still not at the top of the class. If I go to UCLA, I don’t think I can concentrate in school.</p>
<p>I guess if you asked me if I have a passion for numbers, I would say no. However, I feel that math, physics, and chemistry are all something to appreciate like idk, classical music, and I could learn to appreciate it, so I definitely wouldn’t hate becoming an engineer… (Knowing that almost everyone that goes there gets a good job after is a big motivating factor.)</p>
<p>How do you feel about working your butt off on all of those subjects at once, plus biology and computer science, and being significantly behind your classmates in at least a few of your classes? What will happen if you find yourself in a chemistry or physics course with a professor whose personality, for whatever reason, just doesn’t mesh with yours – in other words, you don’t like your teacher or the subject very much but you’re required to finish the very rigorous class?</p>
<p>I think the attitude you convey in your post would make it difficult for you to succeed at a place like Mudd – not impossible, but it sounds like you’d be working against your nature. Whether that would be a life-changing growth experience or a staggering failure… depends on other factors.</p>
<p>The big picture is that you have already proven to Mudd’s satisfaction that you can handle the material; they wouldn’t have admitted you if you hadn’t. Same for UCLA. Being much smaller, Mudd will likely be more nurturing. Picture yourself happy in the distant future; what are you doing? Something for which Mudd would offer the better preparation, or UCLA?</p>
<p>Vossron is right on the money. If you get the grades, you can get them again.</p>
<p>But there’s a catch. You have to be very careful and not burn out here. There is an insane amount of work compared to high school. Insane. So if you already don’t like chemistry and physics and don’t particularly enjoy math, keep these core requirements in mind:</p>
<p>6 credits (2 semesters) of general chemistry
2 credits (2 semesters) chemistry lab courses, meets once a week for 4 hours
8 credits (3 semesters) physics
2 credits (2 semesters) physics lab courses. The first meets for 2 hours/week, I don’t know about the second.
13 credits (4 semesters) half-semester math courses covering multivariable vector calculus, statistics, linear algebra and differential equations</p>
<p>Your first semester will probably be something like this:
2 half-semester math classes
HUM 1, the required freshman writing and composition course
Physics
General chemistry, with lab
Computer science</p>
<p>It looks like you’ll dislike 2/3 of your classes already (nobody likes HUM 1), making your first semester here a living hell. Your second semester will only be slightly better. </p>
<p>Also keep in mind that Mudd doesn’t offer neuroscience and that UCLA classes will, for the most part, be easier than their Mudd counterparts. Also realize that because of the odd freshman core, many of the classes don’t transfer well to other schools.</p>
<p>Based on what you’ve said, don’t go here. Doesn’t sound like a good choice for you.</p>
<p>If you went to a top end high school then your struggling through some of the material could be justified. However if you were having issues with just your standard IB/AP material, then really think about what Muddslinger said.</p>
<p>wait how many classes do you have to take per semester at mudd?
i thought the number of math and science classes would be balanced out with humanities and social science classes…
i was actually really excited for mudd because i thought i would be able to take lots of classes at the other claremont colleges too, which i thought would be a huge part of the nurturing at harvey mudd. (i know at ucla it’s hard to get into other classes…)</p>
<p>also, even though mudd doesn’t offer neuroscience, the surrounding schools do, so it should be fine right? i heard pomona is tops for neuroscience.</p>
<p>vossron: i feel like i can’t picture what i will do in the future, because i feel like i haven’t explored through each discipline enough. i felt like being at harvey mudd will give me a set job, while i can explore other disciplines to minor or double major in.</p>
<p>geekmom: is it bad to work against your nature? it makes me feel content when i do so… and when i just try to do what i like to do i feel like i’m becoming lazy and dimwitted. hmm good point though. </p>
<p>idk… i feel like if i went to harvey mudd, it would be the school bringing out hidden talents in me, and… right now, i really want a school that’s completely unique and would make me unique too, whether that be good or bad.</p>
cuppa: Whether it’s good or bad, that depends on you. My point was that you would have to, so it’s worth factoring that into your decision. You might find it character-building, or you might find it exhausting. Depends on what makes you tick.</p>
<p>But in your original post, you seemed to indicate that you derive your motivation in math/science from “liking” your teachers. No matter how good your profs are at Mudd, there’s no guarantee that you will like all of them. Do you have the stamina to push yourself through a very intense course in a subject you “don’t really like,” if you find that you don’t like the instructor either? Do you have the stamina to push yourself through two or three such courses in one semester?</p>
<p>Only you can answer that. My suggestion is only that you ask yourself before committing. Good luck!</p>
<p>You have to take 5/6 classes per semester and at the minimum you have to take on average 1.5 hums per semester. If by balanced you mean # hum = # sci/math, then a big a no. You can of course take more, (6 hums need be on campus) however your ability to do so depends heavily on your major. If you are an engineering major for example, you get little freedom to take hums beyond the minimum 12. If you are a physics major on the otherhand, you could very possibly do an off campus double majors worth of extra material.</p>
<p>Seiken, I hope to major in physics there, but I’d like to heavily supplement my physics education with math and computer science. Will it be possible for me to take a considerable amount more than the required courses in both of those areas?</p>
<p>Of course. So you end up picking an option in your major, such as mathematical physics or computational physics. These alone allow you to supplement your education in those desired fields. And of course its entirely possible to just take extra classes in those subjects using up your elective slots.</p>
<p>I am going to venture to say “it is bad.” I could make a more cautious response here very easily, but this is what I genuinely feel. The reason being, this is not high school – it’s college, and serious business. If you really want to achieve something great, I believe you should either have extreme talent or extreme liking for the given area of study, because none of these subjects is close to easy even for those who like them. </p>
<p>When you’re faced with mounds and mounds of work, some of which stretches your abilities to the max, it isn’t purely discipline that gets you through them, in my own opinion, it is something else entirely which sparks the drive to work. And also, even if you can survive the bare minimum curriculum at a school, you will naturally do more and exceed your own expectations if you fall in love with what you’re doing. </p>
<p>So please be introspective and honest, and figure out what you like, and go to a school which will help you do this. I firmly believe it is energy, more than any sort of “raw intelligence,” which makes a student tick, and discovering where you derive your energy from is something to be considered.</p>
<p>Ｈｍｍ。 Ｍａｔｈｂｏｙ, what do you mean by going to a school that will help you find what gives you your energy?
Also, to clarify, Ｉ ｇｕｅｓｓ ｔｈａｔ ｍｙ ｐｒｏｆｅｓｓｏｒｓ ｈａｖｅ ｊｕｔｓ ｉｎｓｐｉｒｅｄ ｍｅ ｔｏ ｌｉｋｅ ｍａｔｈ ａｎｄ ｓｃｉｅｎｃｅ， ｂｕｔ Ｉ ｄｏｎ’ｔ ｒｅａｌｌｙ ｇｅｔ ｅｎｅｒｇｙ ｆｒｏｍ ｄｏｉｎｇ ｐｈｙｓｉｃｓ ａｎｄ ｍａｔｈ。 Ｉ ｍｅａｎ ｏｆ ｃｏｕｒｓｅ， ｗｈｅｎ ｉ ｇｅｔ ａ ｐｒｏｂｌｅｍ ｒｉｇｈｔ， ｉｆｅｅｌ ｈａｐｐｙ ａｎｄ ｓａｔｉｓｆｉｅｄ， ａｎｄ ｉｎ ａ ｓｅｎｓｅ ｉｔ ｇｉｖｅｓ ｍｅ ｅｎｅｒｇｙ。 Ｙｅｔ。。。 ｉ ａｈｖｅｎ’ｔ ｒｅｌａｌｙ ｆｏｕｎｄ ａ ｄｉｓｃｉｐｌｉｎｅ ｔｈａｔ ｅｘｃｉｔｅｓ ａｎｄ ｅｎｅｒｇｉｚｅｓ ｍｅ。 Ｇｒｒ。 Ｉ’ｌｌ ｈａｖｅ ｔｏ ｔｈｉｎｋ ａｂｏｕｔ ｔｈｉｓ ｍｏｒｅ。 Ｉ just visited HMC, and to be honest, I don’t think Iｆｉｔ ｉｎ ｖｅｒｙ ｗｅｌｌ ｔｈｅｒｅ。。except i do like the core because it allows me to explore all of engineering and computer science because i can change majors without wasting credits, but… i don’t know if i want a core in math and science. sigh.</p>
That’s probably a good sign to stay away from Mudd. I refrained from posting here because I’m waitlisted, so I have an interest in what you choose to do. But if you aren’t sure that you want to do a core in math and science, Mudd doesn’t sound look a good choice for you.</p>
<p>^^ Yeah agreed. I frankly would not have been happy with a core like that either, because I am very set on math, and what’s more, have a narrow interest. On the other hand, if you’re an engineer or something, the core may actually give you the foundation necessary to handle Mudd’s curriculum, but a subject like pure math is certainly its own thing.</p>
<p>To the OP – you seem to already know what I mean, from the way it looks. I mean to say that if you don’t explicitly see yourself doing nothing but math and science for long stretches of time, and if you’re not naturally into that stuff, Mudd does not seem the place for you. It’s not a place to sample math and science, unless you’re already into that stuff and are trying to figure out which SUBFIELDS of it you like best. Trust me, college work will wear you down and tear you apart if you don’t actually naturally like it. As I said earlier, when the material is already tough for people who naturally love it, it’ll be almost impossible for someone who doesn’t have prodigious motivation for it.</p>
<p>So I’m in the top few of my class, and in the highest math class available, AP Calc BC.
I do have some trouble with Calculus. (I got a 4 on the exam, and it sounds like most at Harvey Mudd could easily get a 5, since the exam somewhat covers basic knowledge)</p>
<p>I don’t expect to be at the top of the class when I get to HMC, I don’t expect get a 3.8+ GPA. I do hope to get above a 3.6, maybe 3.4 by working my ass off. Is this realistic? If I sometimes struggle with a class, will I not be able to succeed? Will anyone look down on me and think I’m stupid if I’m having Calculus trouble that others may see as simple?</p>
<p>I do have some doubt of my Math and Science abilities, although obviously to even consider Harvey Mudd/ get in you are above average in these subjects. I am very passionate about them, and am willing to work hard to be an engineer. I like Harvey Mudd for many reasons, one being the well-roundedness its core provides. I don’t mind having to struggle with some of the material, which is inevitable, I just don’t want it to be at the point where I feel I can’t succeed no matter how hard I try (get the grades I want and understand the material) and I don’t want other people to think I’m stupid (even if they don’t admit they think that).</p>
<p>Just wondering if anyone could offer some insight on this… I want to go to the place where I can get the best education… but I don’t want to feel like a moron and be at the bottom of my class… I want to be happy…</p>
<p>No one is going to judge you if you struggle. I do think, however, you are underestimating how difficult pulling a 3.4 will be.</p>
<p>i got 5’s on all my AP tests (calc AB, calc BC, physics, chem) and perfects or near perfects on the SAT subject tests and i still managed to barely get a 3.0 at mudd doing engineering. of course, i’m not the greatest student but it was quite a challenge. hopefully you’ll have mudd’s testing figured out a little better than me.</p>
<p>it was like mental drum corps for a few semesters there…</p>
<p>No one will think you’re stupid, (nearly) everyone has trouble with some part of the core. Not being good at Calculus is unfortunate since a large part of core math, physics, and engineering requires it, but if you can get the hang of it and go to all the tutoring sessions and talk to the profs often, it’s certainly possible to get a 3.4 if you work really (really) hard.</p>