Which colleges are as good as HYPMS…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there’s an unsung benefit to the next tier down: rich and connected peer group.

I have a kid at HYP and it’s great but his besties at a level down (like midd, etc) are surrounded by a peer group w a lot more money. Those schools juts have less aid to give.

You want a roommate w a mom or dad who can get you an internship? Thats not also HYPSM

Those schools aren't a level down, they're just different than yours. They focus on different things and often attract different kids.

lol I have a kid at middlebury and have no issue saying it’s a level down from Harvard. Beyond languages and humanities, good for finance if anyone cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP wants schools as good as HYPSM without the brand name or recognition. All the suggestions like Mudd or Brown have recognized names. Surely DCUM can do better and give OP a great unrecognized school.

Sure…because unrecognized schools somehow have great networks and career outcomes even though almost nobody has heard of it.

What OP is after doesn’t exist. Harvey Mudd is probably the closest (but would imagine you do need to play the REA/ED game).

A school like Rose Hulman has good career outcomes and not super selective…but it doesn’t have a huge network and won’t provide the career optionality of the usual suspects.

Exactly, this whole thread is nonsense.

I made the Mudd suggestion back on page 1. OP's question does make sense. Here's how I interpreted it.

DCUM loves to stress acceptance rates, but there are schools like Mudd that have higher acceptance rates because the applicant pool is self-selecting. That cuts both ways, of course: greater chance of getting in, but also stiffer competition. But here's the thing: Mudd's results are approximately the same as CalTech's, at the undergraduate level, despite a -- what? 12-percentage-point difference in their acceptance rates? (isn't Mudd mid-teens and CalTech low single-digits? I'm not going to look them up because precision is not the point). CalTech gets far more applications because everyone's heard of it.

My kid got into Mudd last spring (RD, not ED), and it was amusing to see the looks on normie's faces (neighbors, teachers, classmates, coaches) when he told them he was thinking of going there: I think it was pity, actually, because literally no one had heard of the school and its name makes it sound like a stripmall cosmetology operation or maybe a religious cult. The kid was disoriented -- his parents tell him the school's great, but everyone else treats him as an object of pity for considering going there! (He decided against it, in the end, but not for this reason.)

There are other schools like that: relatively high acceptance rates, because a self-selecting applicant pool. Another obvious example is Reed -- not as normie-unknown as Mudd, maybe because the name isn't as weird, but overlooked because of their rankings boycott. Isn't Oberlin a lot better than their acceptance rate would indicate, maybe through a combination of unattractive state or town and bad press from that lawsuit a decade ago? And then there are publics with high acceptance rates and low general 'prestige' but some extremely strong departments and programs -- CU Boulder and UMinnesota come to mind. CU is nearly on a par with some very elite schools (ranked alonside some of HYPSM at the graduate level) in my kid's projected field of study, but even its OOS acceptance rate is wildly high -- unlike Mudd, et al., not through self-selection but through the school's 'qualitative diversity' (to put it diplomatically).

It's a good question what schools should be on this list, and why. The thread is nonsense only if you make it so.

Applicants of Almost every T20 universities or lacs, except a few, are self- selected. They still routinely reject 1600/4.0 applicants. I understand that you are a proud Mudd parent or alum, it’s a good school, but don’t overblown it.

Disagree with this. Mudd is known as a very geeky stem school with a huge workload. Applicant pool is much more self selecting than T20. Many kids will shotgun T20 apps but kids only apply to Mudd if they are high-performing stem nerds.

So you value geeky and stem more than academic and social elites, or more than the go-getters.

Let’s put aside how absurdly wrong that is, let’s just adopt your value system, Mudd would still be way behind Caltech, no matter how you spin it. Mudd is a solid school, but it’s not all that.

And its acceptance rate is low because it ranks relatively low, not so much due to self selection. One cannot be more be more geeky than Caltech kids, yet Caltech has the lowest acceptance rate.

Mudd is only "way behind" Caltech with people who don't know both schools.

And I don't value stem more than everything else. I just think that Harvard gets a higher percentage of unqualified students applying than a school like Mudd.

Be honest.

Kids who likes Mudd often apply to Georgia tech. Kids who like Georgia tech often also apply to Mudd.

Georgia Tech has 60,000 applicants per year. Harvey Mudd has 5000. So there can't be that many Georgia tech applicants also applying to Mudd as a percentage.

Fine. Limit it to Georgia Tech OOS. Happy? Georgia tech in-state has a low standard.

The overlap between the two is phenomenal.

So what's your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP wants schools as good as HYPSM without the brand name or recognition. All the suggestions like Mudd or Brown have recognized names. Surely DCUM can do better and give OP a great unrecognized school.

Sure…because unrecognized schools somehow have great networks and career outcomes even though almost nobody has heard of it.

What OP is after doesn’t exist. Harvey Mudd is probably the closest (but would imagine you do need to play the REA/ED game).

A school like Rose Hulman has good career outcomes and not super selective…but it doesn’t have a huge network and won’t provide the career optionality of the usual suspects.

Exactly, this whole thread is nonsense.

I made the Mudd suggestion back on page 1. OP's question does make sense. Here's how I interpreted it.

DCUM loves to stress acceptance rates, but there are schools like Mudd that have higher acceptance rates because the applicant pool is self-selecting. That cuts both ways, of course: greater chance of getting in, but also stiffer competition. But here's the thing: Mudd's results are approximately the same as CalTech's, at the undergraduate level, despite a -- what? 12-percentage-point difference in their acceptance rates? (isn't Mudd mid-teens and CalTech low single-digits? I'm not going to look them up because precision is not the point). CalTech gets far more applications because everyone's heard of it.

My kid got into Mudd last spring (RD, not ED), and it was amusing to see the looks on normie's faces (neighbors, teachers, classmates, coaches) when he told them he was thinking of going there: I think it was pity, actually, because literally no one had heard of the school and its name makes it sound like a stripmall cosmetology operation or maybe a religious cult. The kid was disoriented -- his parents tell him the school's great, but everyone else treats him as an object of pity for considering going there! (He decided against it, in the end, but not for this reason.)

There are other schools like that: relatively high acceptance rates, because a self-selecting applicant pool. Another obvious example is Reed -- not as normie-unknown as Mudd, maybe because the name isn't as weird, but overlooked because of their rankings boycott. Isn't Oberlin a lot better than their acceptance rate would indicate, maybe through a combination of unattractive state or town and bad press from that lawsuit a decade ago? And then there are publics with high acceptance rates and low general 'prestige' but some extremely strong departments and programs -- CU Boulder and UMinnesota come to mind. CU is nearly on a par with some very elite schools (ranked alonside some of HYPSM at the graduate level) in my kid's projected field of study, but even its OOS acceptance rate is wildly high -- unlike Mudd, et al., not through self-selection but through the school's 'qualitative diversity' (to put it diplomatically).

It's a good question what schools should be on this list, and why. The thread is nonsense only if you make it so.

Applicants of Almost every T20 universities or lacs, except a few, are self- selected. They still routinely reject 1600/4.0 applicants. I understand that you are a proud Mudd parent or alum, it’s a good school, but don’t overblown it.

Disagree with this. Mudd is known as a very geeky stem school with a huge workload. Applicant pool is much more self selecting than T20. Many kids will shotgun T20 apps but kids only apply to Mudd if they are high-performing stem nerds.

So you value geeky and stem more than academic and social elites, or more than the go-getters.

Let’s put aside how absurdly wrong that is, let’s just adopt your value system, Mudd would still be way behind Caltech, no matter how you spin it. Mudd is a solid school, but it’s not all that.

And its acceptance rate is low because it ranks relatively low, not so much due to self selection. One cannot be more be more geeky than Caltech kids, yet Caltech has the lowest acceptance rate.

Mudd is only "way behind" Caltech with people who don't know both schools.

And I don't value stem more than everything else. I just think that Harvard gets a higher percentage of unqualified students applying than a school like Mudd.

Be honest.

Kids who likes Mudd often apply to Georgia tech. Kids who like Georgia tech often also apply to Mudd.

Georgia Tech has 60,000 applicants per year. Harvey Mudd has 5000. So there can't be that many Georgia tech applicants also applying to Mudd as a percentage.

Fine. Limit it to Georgia Tech OOS. Happy? Georgia tech in-state has a low standard.

The overlap between the two is phenomenal.

So what's your point?

The point is Mudd is a good school. Mudd is Mudd, has its own beauty. Mudd does not appreciate you boot trapping its prestige.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP wants schools as good as HYPSM without the brand name or recognition. All the suggestions like Mudd or Brown have recognized names. Surely DCUM can do better and give OP a great unrecognized school.

Sure…because unrecognized schools somehow have great networks and career outcomes even though almost nobody has heard of it.

What OP is after doesn’t exist. Harvey Mudd is probably the closest (but would imagine you do need to play the REA/ED game).

A school like Rose Hulman has good career outcomes and not super selective…but it doesn’t have a huge network and won’t provide the career optionality of the usual suspects.

Exactly, this whole thread is nonsense.

I made the Mudd suggestion back on page 1. OP's question does make sense. Here's how I interpreted it.

DCUM loves to stress acceptance rates, but there are schools like Mudd that have higher acceptance rates because the applicant pool is self-selecting. That cuts both ways, of course: greater chance of getting in, but also stiffer competition. But here's the thing: Mudd's results are approximately the same as CalTech's, at the undergraduate level, despite a -- what? 12-percentage-point difference in their acceptance rates? (isn't Mudd mid-teens and CalTech low single-digits? I'm not going to look them up because precision is not the point). CalTech gets far more applications because everyone's heard of it.

My kid got into Mudd last spring (RD, not ED), and it was amusing to see the looks on normie's faces (neighbors, teachers, classmates, coaches) when he told them he was thinking of going there: I think it was pity, actually, because literally no one had heard of the school and its name makes it sound like a stripmall cosmetology operation or maybe a religious cult. The kid was disoriented -- his parents tell him the school's great, but everyone else treats him as an object of pity for considering going there! (He decided against it, in the end, but not for this reason.)

There are other schools like that: relatively high acceptance rates, because a self-selecting applicant pool. Another obvious example is Reed -- not as normie-unknown as Mudd, maybe because the name isn't as weird, but overlooked because of their rankings boycott. Isn't Oberlin a lot better than their acceptance rate would indicate, maybe through a combination of unattractive state or town and bad press from that lawsuit a decade ago? And then there are publics with high acceptance rates and low general 'prestige' but some extremely strong departments and programs -- CU Boulder and UMinnesota come to mind. CU is nearly on a par with some very elite schools (ranked alonside some of HYPSM at the graduate level) in my kid's projected field of study, but even its OOS acceptance rate is wildly high -- unlike Mudd, et al., not through self-selection but through the school's 'qualitative diversity' (to put it diplomatically).

It's a good question what schools should be on this list, and why. The thread is nonsense only if you make it so.

Applicants of Almost every T20 universities or lacs, except a few, are self- selected. They still routinely reject 1600/4.0 applicants. I understand that you are a proud Mudd parent or alum, it’s a good school, but don’t overblown it.

Disagree with this. Mudd is known as a very geeky stem school with a huge workload. Applicant pool is much more self selecting than T20. Many kids will shotgun T20 apps but kids only apply to Mudd if they are high-performing stem nerds.

So you value geeky and stem more than academic and social elites, or more than the go-getters.

Let’s put aside how absurdly wrong that is, let’s just adopt your value system, Mudd would still be way behind Caltech, no matter how you spin it. Mudd is a solid school, but it’s not all that.

And its acceptance rate is low because it ranks relatively low, not so much due to self selection. One cannot be more be more geeky than Caltech kids, yet Caltech has the lowest acceptance rate.

Ack, I don't know why I care, but it bothers me that you're still failing to understand the argument. The point isn't about geekiness but about obscurity to normies (people at Walmark or whatever). Mudd is much more obscure than CalTech. I know educated people even in SoCal who have never heard of Mudd, whereas most Americans (even in Walmart) have heard of and vaguely idolize CalTech.

And Mudd doesn't have to be exactly as good as Mudd for the point to hold. Nor is the point even specifically about Mudd -- it's about schools at the extreme end of applicant self-selectivity. (I tried to list some other schools in this category earlier in the thread.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there’s an unsung benefit to the next tier down: rich and connected peer group.

I have a kid at HYP and it’s great but his besties at a level down (like midd, etc) are surrounded by a peer group w a lot more money. Those schools juts have less aid to give.

You want a roommate w a mom or dad who can get you an internship? Thats not also HYPSM

Those schools aren't a level down, they're just different than yours. They focus on different things and often attract different kids.

lol I have a kid at middlebury and have no issue saying it’s a level down from Harvard. Beyond languages and humanities, good for finance if anyone cares.

I wouldn't concede that point. My kid and his friends mostly go to T20 schools. The Harvard friends are non-stop complaining about how much Harvard undergrad sucks. I suspect the Middlebury student is having a far better experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP wants schools as good as HYPSM without the brand name or recognition. All the suggestions like Mudd or Brown have recognized names. Surely DCUM can do better and give OP a great unrecognized school.

Sure…because unrecognized schools somehow have great networks and career outcomes even though almost nobody has heard of it.

What OP is after doesn’t exist. Harvey Mudd is probably the closest (but would imagine you do need to play the REA/ED game).

A school like Rose Hulman has good career outcomes and not super selective…but it doesn’t have a huge network and won’t provide the career optionality of the usual suspects.

Exactly, this whole thread is nonsense.

I made the Mudd suggestion back on page 1. OP's question does make sense. Here's how I interpreted it.

DCUM loves to stress acceptance rates, but there are schools like Mudd that have higher acceptance rates because the applicant pool is self-selecting. That cuts both ways, of course: greater chance of getting in, but also stiffer competition. But here's the thing: Mudd's results are approximately the same as CalTech's, at the undergraduate level, despite a -- what? 12-percentage-point difference in their acceptance rates? (isn't Mudd mid-teens and CalTech low single-digits? I'm not going to look them up because precision is not the point). CalTech gets far more applications because everyone's heard of it.

My kid got into Mudd last spring (RD, not ED), and it was amusing to see the looks on normie's faces (neighbors, teachers, classmates, coaches) when he told them he was thinking of going there: I think it was pity, actually, because literally no one had heard of the school and its name makes it sound like a stripmall cosmetology operation or maybe a religious cult. The kid was disoriented -- his parents tell him the school's great, but everyone else treats him as an object of pity for considering going there! (He decided against it, in the end, but not for this reason.)

There are other schools like that: relatively high acceptance rates, because a self-selecting applicant pool. Another obvious example is Reed -- not as normie-unknown as Mudd, maybe because the name isn't as weird, but overlooked because of their rankings boycott. Isn't Oberlin a lot better than their acceptance rate would indicate, maybe through a combination of unattractive state or town and bad press from that lawsuit a decade ago? And then there are publics with high acceptance rates and low general 'prestige' but some extremely strong departments and programs -- CU Boulder and UMinnesota come to mind. CU is nearly on a par with some very elite schools (ranked alonside some of HYPSM at the graduate level) in my kid's projected field of study, but even its OOS acceptance rate is wildly high -- unlike Mudd, et al., not through self-selection but through the school's 'qualitative diversity' (to put it diplomatically).

It's a good question what schools should be on this list, and why. The thread is nonsense only if you make it so.

Applicants of Almost every T20 universities or lacs, except a few, are self- selected. They still routinely reject 1600/4.0 applicants. I understand that you are a proud Mudd parent or alum, it’s a good school, but don’t overblown it.

Disagree with this. Mudd is known as a very geeky stem school with a huge workload. Applicant pool is much more self selecting than T20. Many kids will shotgun T20 apps but kids only apply to Mudd if they are high-performing stem nerds.

So you value geeky and stem more than academic and social elites, or more than the go-getters.

Let’s put aside how absurdly wrong that is, let’s just adopt your value system, Mudd would still be way behind Caltech, no matter how you spin it. Mudd is a solid school, but it’s not all that.

And its acceptance rate is low because it ranks relatively low, not so much due to self selection. One cannot be more be more geeky than Caltech kids, yet Caltech has the lowest acceptance rate.

Mudd is only "way behind" Caltech with people who don't know both schools.

And I don't value stem more than everything else. I just think that Harvard gets a higher percentage of unqualified students applying than a school like Mudd.

Be honest.

Kids who likes Mudd often apply to Georgia tech. Kids who like Georgia tech often also apply to Mudd.

Georgia Tech has 60,000 applicants per year. Harvey Mudd has 5000. So there can't be that many Georgia tech applicants also applying to Mudd as a percentage.

Fine. Limit it to Georgia Tech OOS. Happy? Georgia tech in-state has a low standard.

The overlap between the two is phenomenal.

GA Tech in-state has a lower standard but not that low. Plenty of in-state kids with high scores (above 1500/35), high grades (top 10%) and awards/activities in STEM get turned away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP wants schools as good as HYPSM without the brand name or recognition. All the suggestions like Mudd or Brown have recognized names. Surely DCUM can do better and give OP a great unrecognized school.

Sure…because unrecognized schools somehow have great networks and career outcomes even though almost nobody has heard of it.

What OP is after doesn’t exist. Harvey Mudd is probably the closest (but would imagine you do need to play the REA/ED game).

A school like Rose Hulman has good career outcomes and not super selective…but it doesn’t have a huge network and won’t provide the career optionality of the usual suspects.

Exactly, this whole thread is nonsense.

I made the Mudd suggestion back on page 1. OP's question does make sense. Here's how I interpreted it.

DCUM loves to stress acceptance rates, but there are schools like Mudd that have higher acceptance rates because the applicant pool is self-selecting. That cuts both ways, of course: greater chance of getting in, but also stiffer competition. But here's the thing: Mudd's results are approximately the same as CalTech's, at the undergraduate level, despite a -- what? 12-percentage-point difference in their acceptance rates? (isn't Mudd mid-teens and CalTech low single-digits? I'm not going to look them up because precision is not the point). CalTech gets far more applications because everyone's heard of it.

My kid got into Mudd last spring (RD, not ED), and it was amusing to see the looks on normie's faces (neighbors, teachers, classmates, coaches) when he told them he was thinking of going there: I think it was pity, actually, because literally no one had heard of the school and its name makes it sound like a stripmall cosmetology operation or maybe a religious cult. The kid was disoriented -- his parents tell him the school's great, but everyone else treats him as an object of pity for considering going there! (He decided against it, in the end, but not for this reason.)

There are other schools like that: relatively high acceptance rates, because a self-selecting applicant pool. Another obvious example is Reed -- not as normie-unknown as Mudd, maybe because the name isn't as weird, but overlooked because of their rankings boycott. Isn't Oberlin a lot better than their acceptance rate would indicate, maybe through a combination of unattractive state or town and bad press from that lawsuit a decade ago? And then there are publics with high acceptance rates and low general 'prestige' but some extremely strong departments and programs -- CU Boulder and UMinnesota come to mind. CU is nearly on a par with some very elite schools (ranked alonside some of HYPSM at the graduate level) in my kid's projected field of study, but even its OOS acceptance rate is wildly high -- unlike Mudd, et al., not through self-selection but through the school's 'qualitative diversity' (to put it diplomatically).

It's a good question what schools should be on this list, and why. The thread is nonsense only if you make it so.

Applicants of Almost every T20 universities or lacs, except a few, are self- selected. They still routinely reject 1600/4.0 applicants. I understand that you are a proud Mudd parent or alum, it’s a good school, but don’t overblown it.

Disagree with this. Mudd is known as a very geeky stem school with a huge workload. Applicant pool is much more self selecting than T20. Many kids will shotgun T20 apps but kids only apply to Mudd if they are high-performing stem nerds.

So you value geeky and stem more than academic and social elites, or more than the go-getters.

Let’s put aside how absurdly wrong that is, let’s just adopt your value system, Mudd would still be way behind Caltech, no matter how you spin it. Mudd is a solid school, but it’s not all that.

And its acceptance rate is low because it ranks relatively low, not so much due to self selection. One cannot be more be more geeky than Caltech kids, yet Caltech has the lowest acceptance rate.

Ack, I don't know why I care, but it bothers me that you're still failing to understand the argument. The point isn't about geekiness but about obscurity to normies (people at Walmark or whatever). Mudd is much more obscure than CalTech. I know educated people even in SoCal who have never heard of Mudd, whereas most Americans (even in Walmart) have heard of and vaguely idolize CalTech.

And Mudd doesn't have to be exactly as good as Mudd for the point to hold. Nor is the point even specifically about Mudd -- it's about schools at the extreme end of applicant self-selectivity. (I tried to list some other schools in this category earlier in the thread.)

I meant, obviously: exactly as good as Caltech. And, yes, there's also a typo in my first attempt to type 'Walmart.'

[Anonymous]

This entire thread laced with so much copium. So fascinating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in terms of education rigor, quality of peer group, faculty, campus experience, research opportunities, employment outcome, networks…but just not as prestigious? We want very high-stat DC to apply to the best quality schools without wasting REA/ED for the brand name

It depends on the kid and their interests. There are many schools with more rigor than Harvard or Yale. Generally, all the T6-20 colleges are exceptional and offer very good outcomes to their graduates. I'd focus on fit if you have an extraordinary student. But for intensity of experience, network, and career outcomes, I'd say West Point and Annapolis. For rigor, research opportunities, and campus experience, Rice. For network, probably Notre Dame. For money, Penn. For raw brain power, CalTech. For overall experience, Duke, Vanderbilt, and Brown.

Fit is always the question, but perhaps even more so here. There isn't just one kind of extraordinary kid. If you dig deeply, there are significant differences in schools that you would superficially think are similar, among the Ivies +, among publics, among urban privates (BU, NYU, USC, Georgia Tech), among SLACs. I'd start with fit and then decide the boundaries of your universe (Ivies +, Top25, Top SLACs, whatever it is), and then go from there. Especially important if applying ED, which I assume is the case.

This is really spot on. I always scratch my head when people treat HYPSM or the Ivies as interchangeable. They are very different places.

[Anonymous]

Top 20 LACs are not equal to T25 colleges. Pomona/Wellesley are the same level as Georgetown/Emory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvey Mudd? Insiders know it's great, but normies have never heard of it and the name sounds sus to them. A true stealth school: zero branding with a silly name, so undetected by normie radar.

Normies also don't know that it ranks #12 nationally in liberal arts colleges according to the obscure USNWR, and that they only admit about one out of ten applicants because no one knows about it. Hard to find this stuff out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP wants schools as good as HYPSM without the brand name or recognition. All the suggestions like Mudd or Brown have recognized names. Surely DCUM can do better and give OP a great unrecognized school.

Sure…because unrecognized schools somehow have great networks and career outcomes even though almost nobody has heard of it.

What OP is after doesn’t exist. Harvey Mudd is probably the closest (but would imagine you do need to play the REA/ED game).

A school like Rose Hulman has good career outcomes and not super selective…but it doesn’t have a huge network and won’t provide the career optionality of the usual suspects.

Exactly, this whole thread is nonsense.

I made the Mudd suggestion back on page 1. OP's question does make sense. Here's how I interpreted it.

DCUM loves to stress acceptance rates, but there are schools like Mudd that have higher acceptance rates because the applicant pool is self-selecting. That cuts both ways, of course: greater chance of getting in, but also stiffer competition. But here's the thing: Mudd's results are approximately the same as CalTech's, at the undergraduate level, despite a -- what? 12-percentage-point difference in their acceptance rates? (isn't Mudd mid-teens and CalTech low single-digits? I'm not going to look them up because precision is not the point). CalTech gets far more applications because everyone's heard of it.

My kid got into Mudd last spring (RD, not ED), and it was amusing to see the looks on normie's faces (neighbors, teachers, classmates, coaches) when he told them he was thinking of going there: I think it was pity, actually, because literally no one had heard of the school and its name makes it sound like a stripmall cosmetology operation or maybe a religious cult. The kid was disoriented -- his parents tell him the school's great, but everyone else treats him as an object of pity for considering going there! (He decided against it, in the end, but not for this reason.)

There are other schools like that: relatively high acceptance rates, because a self-selecting applicant pool. Another obvious example is Reed -- not as normie-unknown as Mudd, maybe because the name isn't as weird, but overlooked because of their rankings boycott. Isn't Oberlin a lot better than their acceptance rate would indicate, maybe through a combination of unattractive state or town and bad press from that lawsuit a decade ago? And then there are publics with high acceptance rates and low general 'prestige' but some extremely strong departments and programs -- CU Boulder and UMinnesota come to mind. CU is nearly on a par with some very elite schools (ranked alonside some of HYPSM at the graduate level) in my kid's projected field of study, but even its OOS acceptance rate is wildly high -- unlike Mudd, et al., not through self-selection but through the school's 'qualitative diversity' (to put it diplomatically).

It's a good question what schools should be on this list, and why. The thread is nonsense only if you make it so.

Applicants of Almost every T20 universities or lacs, except a few, are self- selected. They still routinely reject 1600/4.0 applicants. I understand that you are a proud Mudd parent or alum, it’s a good school, but don’t overblown it.

Disagree with this. Mudd is known as a very geeky stem school with a huge workload. Applicant pool is much more self selecting than T20. Many kids will shotgun T20 apps but kids only apply to Mudd if they are high-performing stem nerds.

One would think this but a girl at my kid’s NYC private is attending this Fall and we nearly fell off our chairs. High stats but not a STEM bone in her body and all she talks about are the LA clubs she is planning to visit.

Just completely out of left field such that one parent asked like three times if she was really talking about Harvey Mudd and not maybe another Claremont school.

I guess we will see how it works out.

Being a girl is a hook for Mudd. But if they accepted her, she is smart enough to do well. She's going to have to give up the idea of spending time partying in LA though lol.

Plenty of high stats kids drop out of STEM because they don’t actually like it and actually don’t have a knack for it. Hard to brute force your way through it in college vs HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvey Mudd? Insiders know it's great, but normies have never heard of it and the name sounds sus to them. A true stealth school: zero branding with a silly name, so undetected by normie radar.

Normies also don't know that it ranks #12 nationally in liberal arts colleges according to the obscure USNWR, and that they only admit about one out of ten applicants because no one knows about it. Hard to find this stuff out.

Okay, at least that's an empirical objection, rather than a complete misunderstanding of the point. But now we're back to the earlier issue: the OP obviously wasn't asking about schools so obscure that no one could possibly learn about them! It's comparative: Mudd is more obscure-to-normies than other schools that are not significantly better. Maybe I'm wrong, though. I haven't actually done a survey in Walmart. For all I know, the average Walmart shopper regularly consults the USNWR LAC rankings. More to the point, don't forget that many kids apply to college without even knowing what a 'liberal arts college' is (most of my kid's peers are in that category), so they'd never think to consult that list, even if they consulted USNWR. (Also, I think Mudd's acceptance rate is closer to 15%.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvey Mudd? Insiders know it's great, but normies have never heard of it and the name sounds sus to them. A true stealth school: zero branding with a silly name, so undetected by normie radar.

Normies also don't know that it ranks #12 nationally in liberal arts colleges according to the obscure USNWR, and that they only admit about one out of ten applicants because no one knows about it. Hard to find this stuff out.

Insufferable. Colleges' clients are high school kids. There are tons of discussions on any school including mudd on reddit. No one cares if a Walmart employee knows about it. To an average GenZ high school student today, there is nothing obscure about this school, or any school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvey Mudd? Insiders know it's great, but normies have never heard of it and the name sounds sus to them. A true stealth school: zero branding with a silly name, so undetected by normie radar.

Normies also don't know that it ranks #12 nationally in liberal arts colleges according to the obscure USNWR, and that they only admit about one out of ten applicants because no one knows about it. Hard to find this stuff out.

Okay, at least that's an empirical objection, rather than a complete misunderstanding of the point. But now we're back to the earlier issue: the OP obviously wasn't asking about schools so obscure that no one could possibly learn about them! It's comparative: Mudd is more obscure-to-normies than other schools that are not significantly better. Maybe I'm wrong, though. I haven't actually done a survey in Walmart. For all I know, the average Walmart shopper regularly consults the USNWR LAC rankings. More to the point, don't forget that many kids apply to college without even knowing what a 'liberal arts college' is (most of my kid's peers are in that category), so they'd never think to consult that list, even if they consulted USNWR. (Also, I think Mudd's acceptance rate is closer to 15%.)

Not 15, it's 12%.