Anonymous wrote:Harvey Mudd is TINY. 850 total students.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Well that's easy - Pomona, Scripps, Pitzer, Claremont. Take classes or enroll there. One of my friend's DDs who could not get into Clarement enrolled at Scripps at takes classes on the other campuses.
Anonymous wrote: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.
Anonymous wrote: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.
Europeans and others should be advised that we have undergraduate-only residential colleges in addition to the research universities, which of course include undergraduate colleges. A select few of these small colleges attract students with dazzling academic qualifications. Students emerge from these specialized undergraduate programs extremely well-prepared to take their places in graduate programs at prestigious research universities. Harvey Mudd, with its famously high test scores and rigorous work expectations, is one of those small colleges.
For whatever it may be worth, next year, my own DC will attend The College at a highly selective research university-- with my enthusiastic blessing, so I see both sides. But there's no need to dismiss a very effective segment of the undergraduate education options in the US just because your experience is limited. Small colleges are often much more effective at developing students' analytical skills, empowering them to become both better scholars and better citizens.
Anonymous wrote: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.
Europeans and others should be advised that we have undergraduate-only residential colleges in addition to the research universities, which of course include undergraduate colleges. A select few of these small colleges attract students with dazzling academic qualifications. Students emerge from these specialized undergraduate programs extremely well-prepared to take their places in graduate programs at prestigious research universities. Harvey Mudd, with its famously high test scores and rigorous work expectations, is one of those small colleges.
For whatever it may be worth, next year, my own DC will attend The College at a highly selective research university-- with my enthusiastic blessing, so I see both sides. But there's no need to dismiss a very effective segment of the undergraduate education options in the US just because your experience is limited. Small colleges are often much more effective at developing students' analytical skills, empowering them to become both better scholars and better citizens.
Anonymous wrote: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.
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.