Reply to Which colleges are as good as HYPMS…

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Which colleges are as good as HYPMS…"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

Exactly, this whole thread is nonsense. [/quote]
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.[/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Be honest.

Kids who likes Mudd often apply to Georgia tech.  Kids who like Georgia tech often also apply to Mudd.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

The overlap between the two is phenomenal.  [/quote]

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics