Seeking clarification of academic rigor at engineering colleges

[Anonymous]

There are almost zero "easier" E Schools.

Any ABET accredited E School will be rigorous and hard. Engineering is a rewarding career field, but no one accidentally graduates with an engineering degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Engineering is hard everywhere... However...

Classes at e.g. Caltech and MIT are ran by professors who do serious research and have hardly any time for their students or by grad students. Undergrads are expected to know how to learn the material on their own. Many kids who can't do this fall through the cracks.

At Harvey Mudd, which is not a research school, professors are paid to teach, and systems are set up to help the students succeed as much as possible.

NP - how would you describe/evaluate Rose Holman in relation to these other programs? Thank you

[Anonymous]

Rose Hulman

[Anonymous]

As others said, all engineering programs are rigorous (hard). They have to be. People can die when engineers mess up. There are two factors for HM that contribute to the "hard" label in my opinion. First, I would call it the most rigorous of the Claremont colleges, so people are reminding you of that. The other factor is size and surroundings. HM total enrollment is smaller than MIT freshman class so you're competing in a very tight space. Also, you don't have the same off-campus pressure release that you do at other schools. I'm an MIT alum who had friends at Harvard, Wellesley, Tufts and BU. If I needed a break from the MIT vibe, I went into Boston or hung out on someone else's campus for a while.

Rose Hulman - I don't know a ton about it but what I do know suggests it's a school that values hands-on learning and collaboration between students and faculty.

[Anonymous]

Great post and genuine discussions. I remember the YCBK (Your College Bound Kid) podcast did a fantastic spotlight on Harvey Mudd which is known as the best college you’ve never heard of. They spoke in detail how the culture is at Mudd.

Even other schools get some monikers. For example, Caltech is known for drinking from a fire hose, CMU is known as intense and non-collaborative, MIT is known as tough, etc.

One of the main reasons is that Mudd is small, and there's no slacking around it. They have the core curriculum for the first two years, which is known as training to be a Mudder. I've heard that you need to take a total of 5 hours of two placement exams to take any advanced (subject) core. Whereas in other schools, you can get credits by submitting your AP scores of 5 except Caltech.

Yes, all engineering schools are rigorous, but to use the Orwellian analogy, "All engineering schools are rigorous, but some are more rigorous than others."

But don't overlook other great engineering schools like Berkeley, GT, Cornell, Michigan, Mines, Olin, etc.

[Anonymous]

Harvey Mudd admissions is basically a lottery.

Even after they filter down to just the "fully qualified" applicants, they have several times more applicants than openings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvey Mudd admissions is basically a lottery.

Even after they filter down to just the "fully qualified" applicants, they have several times more applicants than openings.

That’s true of all the top ranked schools. That’s why kids can’t get away with just a few applications anymore (unless they have a true safety they’d be happy wkth, or get in EA/ED).

[Anonymous]

It’s a really good question — so I assume it’s easier to get into someplace like WPi or Stevens as opposed to Mudd. Does that mean classes will be any easier? Or what does it mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous[b wrote:]There are almost zero "easier" E Schools.
[/b]
Any ABET accredited E School will be rigorous and hard. Engineering is a rewarding career field, but no one accidentally graduates with an engineering degree.

There are certainly easier ones go get into: Olin, Hulman, Delaware. etc

[Anonymous]

I toured Olin with my DC. I thought it was a really neat program. I went to an old school engineering program many moons ago. I think I would have really enjoyed a school like Olin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s a really good question — so I assume it’s easier to get into someplace like WPi or Stevens as opposed to Mudd. Does that mean classes will be any easier? Or what does it mean?

Spouse is a professor who has taught and researched at non-flagship regional public, a public near the top (think UIUC level but it is not that one), and also an ivy with an engineering school that has offered phDs in many areas of engineering before almost every other ivy. The typical first year engineering classes are most definitely more rigorous at the ivy, even combining 2 semesters of content from the regional E school into one semester. The “upper level” E classes taken in typical 3rd or 4th yr for the regional school are taken 2nd yr at the ivy. The good public was closer to the ivy than the regional was to the good public, but there were still differences in pace. Rigor cannot be the same when the average student is so different and also when departments put pressure to not have 2/3 of the class wash out after first year. Engineering school retention figures are important. The top schools can push very hard and still retain 95%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s a really good question — so I assume it’s easier to get into someplace like WPi or Stevens as opposed to Mudd. Does that mean classes will be any easier? Or what does it mean?

OP's question is legit. Dr. Maria Klawe, Harvey Mudd's previous President who also served as Dean of Engineering at Princeton, said, "Harvey Mudd moves through more material during the first few weeks of a math class than you would during the whole semester at Princeton."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]There are almost zero "easier" E Schools.
[/b]
Any ABET accredited E School will be rigorous and hard. Engineering is a rewarding career field, but no one accidentally graduates with an engineering degree.

There are certainly easier ones go get into: Olin, Hulman, Delaware. etc

Olin is not an easy admit. Highly selective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have started to enter into the college admissions process. My DS is a sophomore and is very much interested in studying engineering in college. I know we are a little far from applying to colleges, but in my family, we believe in research and in making well-thought-out decisions about academic, social, and financial fit. I would appreciate some clarification about the rigor, selectivity, job prospects, reputation, etc., of engineering colleges.

Through our preliminary research, we came to know many engineering colleges, both private and public, offer various levels of academic rigor. A little background: I came to know about Harvey Mudd when my co-worker told me her son chose Mudd over Caltech. That piqued my interest in learning more about it. Last year, another student I came across in our school chose Mudd over CMU and Rice.

I have looked at more than 20-30 posts here at DC Urban for unbiased discussions, and whenever anyone speaks about Harvey Mudd, they seem to always add a disclaimer, “it is HARD,” “a pressure cooker,” or “it’s very tough to graduate…”

But at the same time, when talking about top colleges for STEM, names like Caltech, MIT, and CMU are suggested without any such disclaimer. They are also HARD, I believe. Are the students at Harvey Mudd not as meritorious (as other well-known colleges) in handling the rigor?

I understand that It is not a household name, but I know it’s very well-known in the STEM world. Then, why does Harvey Mudd carry such a disclaimer along with its name? Why is Harvey Mudd’s academic rigor emphasized so much when all the top STEM colleges have similar academic rigor?

They don’t all have the same rigor even though they are all rigorous. Caltech is probably the most rigorous, followed probably by MIT and HMC. Those applying usually already know about Caltech’s and MIT’s rigor, but because HMC is an LAC, it is less known, so gets the extra description. They are all amazing, and they are not the only amazing options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s just people not very well acquainted with Mudd. Some engineering students end up falling flat on their face in physics classes and have to take Pomona physics classes, which have better profs/more support, to pass.

This is strange. Do you mean that a prestigious STEM college doesn't have better profs than Pomona? Physics is hard, but that is not a prof's fault if the student is finding it hard. As far as I know, one of Mudd's physics prof is a visiting faculty at Caltech. ALL of Mudd's faculty have a PhD from a prestigious institution, and to be a faculty at Harvey Mudd, one needs to teach extremely well.

Read between the lines a bit - Pomona has easier physics courses