CMU does not provide a well-rounded undergrad experience. It is not strong across the board, and students are too siloed in their specific discipline. Musical theater is such a particular niche. |
The elite science types go to MIT, Stanford, Caltech not CMU, for undergrad. |
| Undergrad engineering is not well-rounded. 4 yrs of required courses with very few electives. CMU isn’t different. Maybe theater is similar. |
Both majors are like that though. |
Well CMU is ranked #3 for computer science behind MIT and Stanford. They are #1 in information technology, and top 10 in 5 other things too. I am not a fan of the school but let’s get real. The school is extremely hard to get into and prestigious. Some people want and will pay for that, especially if the top 5 aren’t biting. There are elite scientist in all of these schools. |
their social sciences are very strong. The only weakness are humanities. |
This is not true. I agree with the original PPs assessment. People don't talk about CMU on DCUM the same way they don't really discuss MIT. It's not really on the radar. |
Frankly, I've never been able to understand why MIT isn't discussed here. It is as elite as HYPs. Why don't people obsess over it the way they obsess over them? |
They are intimidated and worried their kids couldn't handle it. Not popular with a group of parents that are lawyers and lobbyists. |
Because MIT is too small and too specialized. No other schools to compare with other than CalTech which is another very small school. |
Harvard has 22 thousand, while MIT 11 thousand. Only a factor 2 difference. |
But Harvard has many similar schools - Y, P, other Ivys and very top tier SLAC. MIT doesn't. |
ridiculous. there are some many minuscule lacs people discuss here endlessly. |
| Engineers tend not to be hand-wringers so not likely to be endlessly harping on the stats of MIT vs CMU vs Harvey Mudd. |
My DS is considering Pitt because of the Granddad factor. |