Anonymous wrote:I think Mudd gets that comment because people aren't familiar with it and it's technically a liberal arts college vs a tech school so the rigor may be underestimated.

This. It is a LAC but STEM focused. It is much harder than other Claremont colleges.

Mudd is great but it is not particularly harder than other E Schools. All E Schools are rigorous.

Anonymous wrote:Be aware that engineering anywhere is ‘hard’.

+1 What jumped out in OP's post is the idea that there are engineering schools that don't have rigor -- that's simply not true. What makes some schools have a "hard" reputation is the number of cut throat, type A students you get in the bunch, all trying to out do each other to get the same research jobs and internships. At other schools, the content is just as hard, but the student body will spread it out more, and you'll have somewhat fewer stivers to compete with.

Also pay attention to schedules with engineering schools: some have mandatory off sight internships that make graduating take longer (but help with getting jobs); some are so big that getting needed classes is a struggle making graduating on time difficult; some are semester based, while others have 10-week quarters, and at least one has a not-for-slackers 7-week quarter system (yikes!!); some have reputations for key classes being taught by TA's who's ability to be understood can vary widely; and so on. Dig deeper than surface rank and generalized reputation.

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.

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?

Well, that was the first mistake. This forum is skewed towards east coast, elite institutions. There are other places for a more diverse point of view.

I think it also may have to do with the other opportunities at the schools. At big state schools you technically can do more (perceived) "fun" things like go to football games and frat parties, so there is a more "fun" atmosphere in general, even if the engineering majors aren't doing all of those "fun" things.

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.

OP here. I know engineering is hard, and after reading through many posts here, I was seeking answers about perceived rigor.

While my son works through the high school years, I want to learn more about many engineering colleges through friends and family and from experienced parents and counselors. Thank you for clarifying my queries. Yes, I know these are all top programs in the country. I need to dig deeper and expand my research to learn more about them.

I would think they need to get through at least Calc BC, if not higher and as many related classes as possible, as not all schools offer much.

Anonymous wrote:Be aware that engineering anywhere is ‘hard’.

Yes. ABET certification means that any ABET program will be rigorous.

Programs can be more collaborative or more cutthroat. Schools can provide more support or be more sink or swim. Sometimes, the ones with support (I'd put Mudd in this group) feel harder because taking advantage of study sessions and extra conferences is hard work.

I think people here like to pander in ranking/tiering gossip. I have a kid in engineering at a school that some people dismiss because it's not mit or a big state school, but the engr work there has been far more involved than a friend's at a state school known for engr. I just suspect that my kid's program has more layers, so less sink or swim.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Be aware that engineering anywhere is ‘hard’.

This. Plus the programs are very difficult to get into. OP, rather than fretting about Mudd vs CalTech, you should be helping your son get the best education possible, take the most rigorous courses offered by his high school, espevially in math, prep for the PSAT. SAT and ACT, and engage in some interesting ECs. And locate some interesting summer internships. THEN, after he gets in start distinguishing between programs. Chances are by then your DS won't be interested in engineering or his stats will mean applying to safeties far less prestigious

Be aware that engineering anywhere is ‘hard’.

I think Mudd gets that comment because people aren't familiar with it and it's technically a liberal arts college vs a tech school so the rigor may be underestimated. Of course everyone knows MIT, Cal Tech are hard.

All the colleges you mentioned are hard. There isn't an easy way through an engineering degree at MIT or Rice or CMU. I'm guessing people are adding the hard moniker to Harvey Mudd because it is part of the Claremont Colleges. And as the STEM school in the consortium it is notably harder than the other consortium schools - Pomona, Scripps, CMC, and Pitzer. Because engineering is hard everywhere.

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?