Columbia or Harvey Mudd?

[Anonymous]

Pros of Columbia:
- Ivy league school with worldwide recognition
- Major research university with top of the line professors and opportunities
- Endless range of events featuring the brightest minds
- In the heart of NYC, tons of internships available and easy to participate in the cultural richness of the city
- Strongly emphasizes the liberal arts with a global focus
- More balanced experience; can major in something else if one decides not to do STEM

Cons:
- Didn't connect as well with the student body
- Not undergraduate focused; couldn't feel a great sense of community among students or professors
- Stressful culture- administrators and support networks aren't very good. No hand holding (independence can be a pro too)
- Expensive (full cost)

Pros of Harvey Mudd:
- Received full tuition merit aid scholarship
- Highly distinctive computer science program and major pipeline into Silicon Valley
- #1 for return on investment based on starting salaries of grads
- Professors genuinely seem to care for students & the community is close-knit; inclusive vibe for women
- Warm weather, better food and dorms, seems to have a better quality of life/happier students
- Nearby Claremont Colleges expand opportunities, course options, friends, and social life so it isn't too small

Cons:
- Ugly campus
- Ehh college town, LA is not too accessible. Not a life in the city (can be a pro to be in a peaceful college town, too)
- Rigid required STEM and humanities core; less flexibility to explore than at Columbia. Only offers STEM majors
- Poor name brand on the east coast and as a whole compared to Columbia
- Grade deflation, very intense workload

[Anonymous]

Your pros and cons are skewed to favor Harvey Mudd.

But as a European living in this country I say take Columbia, I have never even heard of this ridiculously named place, Harvey Mudd. Who cares how much money they pay you? They should be paying you a WAGE to attend if you are eligible at Columbia.

[Anonymous]

Harvey Mudd

[Anonymous]

University professor here. Liberal Arts Colleges are better for undergraduates. They'll receive more attention from the professors, and are easier to navigate and for individual students to shine. Harvey Mudd is much better known in the science/tech fields than Columbia. Generally speaking, big name brand "ivy" universities are better for graduate/professional school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:University professor here. Liberal Arts Colleges are better for undergraduates. They'll receive more attention from the professors, and are easier to navigate and for individual students to shine. Harvey Mudd is much better known in the science/tech fields than Columbia. Generally speaking, big name brand "ivy" universities are better for graduate/professional school.

LOL, no it's not.

[Anonymous]

Harvey. Full pay v. Full ride. Not sure why you are confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:University professor here. Liberal Arts Colleges are better for undergraduates. They'll receive more attention from the professors, and are easier to navigate and for individual students to shine. Harvey Mudd is much better known in the science/tech fields than Columbia. Generally speaking, big name brand "ivy" universities are better for graduate/professional school.

LOL, no it's not.

+ 1,000,000

It sounds like a mortgage brokerage.

[Anonymous]

19:29 here. Sure, whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvey. Full pay v. Full ride. Not sure why you are confused.

[Anonymous]

I’ve never heard of Harvey Mudd. I do have friends who graduated Columbia engineering (seas) and are doing well career wise. oP will need to weigh the cost and preferences for two very different schools.

[Anonymous]

with the full tuition and merit scholarship : Harvey Mudd, hands down !

[Anonymous]

Academics in STEM will know Harvey Mudd well. It sounds like some PPs are reigniting the debate DCUM so often seems to fall into re. name recognition among lay people and other factors pretty distant from the academic environment.

That said, I agree there are pros and cons to both. You've made a good list, OP. What is your DC thinking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your pros and cons are skewed to favor Harvey Mudd.

But as a European living in this country I say take Columbia, I have never even heard of this ridiculously named place, Harvey Mudd. Who cares how much money they pay you? They should be paying you a WAGE to attend if you are eligible at Columbia.

I never understand why some people are so eager to tout ignorance. Harvey Mudd is top of the line when it comes to STEM. Here are some articles to do some research so you don't have to give out any more poor advice.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/01/pf/college/harvey-mudd-college-tuition/index.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/harvey-mudd-college-tour-photos-2017-9
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2013/12/17/the-top-10-colleges-that-fuel-the.html
https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13323/ (Table 4)

[Anonymous]

All you have to do is look at the starting incomes of Harvey Mudd graduates, the school usually ranks pretty high in that factor. Not that starting income is everything, but the liberal arts college will be best for undergraduates. Or a state university to keep costs down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Academics in STEM will know Harvey Mudd well. It sounds like some PPs are reigniting the debate DCUM so often seems to fall into re. name recognition among lay people and other factors pretty distant from the academic environment.

That said, I agree there are pros and cons to both. You've made a good list, OP. What is your DC thinking?

We can finance Columbia. Daughter definitely prefers the vibe at Mudd, but is afraid about what could happen if she decides she doesn't want to do STEM. All her friends/family are puzzling over Mudd as well, so while she knows Mudd has good tech outcomes, what happens if she didn't want to do that?

Mudd seems like a riskier option, basically.