Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I have a Kid at TJ who would love to go to Mudd for Engineering for undergrad. Most kids he knows who are interested in engineering are looking at applying— except the 1st Gen Asian kid whose parents don’t think a school has no value unless it is an Ivy. It’s small— about 200 kids total per class- and it does offer merit aid. No grad school, which I think can be a huge positive. Very small classes and profs focused on the undergrads. Lots of research opportunities. Most classes under 20 kids, and not big lectures.
Flyover America is probably unaware of Mudd, but people who know about STEM definitely know and respect it. A kid who graduates from Mudd will have no trouble going to any grad school, anywhere.
Mudd offers degrees in other STEM fields as well.
75% SATs are 1580. They want kids who can handle STEM and basic humanities. It’s a wonderful opportunity.
Yes, I'm frankly surprised at the number of people claiming they don't know of The Claremont McKenna schools. Mudd in a heartbeat!
Anonymous wrote:Harvey Mudd is an intense, hardcore, very STEMy school - like the college version of TJ. My TJ strongly considered going there, but decided on another SLAC because he wanted to go to a school with a stronger humanities environment.
Anonymous wrote:OP here. Did some research on the topic. Students can do either:
Off-campus major with a Harvey Mudd minor
or
Double major in Mudd + off-campus major
However, regardless of whom the student is, they have to complete Mudd's 2 year STEM core which involves one course in bio, one in comp sci, one in engineering, three semesters of math, two and a half semesters of physics + lab, one and a half semesters of chem + lab, and a designated stem lab course. It's a very regimented STEM education no matter who you are.
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: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 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:I have a Kid at TJ who would love to go to Mudd for Engineering for undergrad. Most kids he knows who are interested in engineering are looking at applying— except the 1st Gen Asian kid whose parents don’t think a school has no value unless it is an Ivy. It’s small— about 200 kids total per class- and it does offer merit aid. No grad school, which I think can be a huge positive. Very small classes and profs focused on the undergrads. Lots of research opportunities. Most classes under 20 kids, and not big lectures.
Flyover America is probably unaware of Mudd, but people who know about STEM definitely know and respect it. A kid who graduates from Mudd will have no trouble going to any grad school, anywhere.
Mudd offers degrees in other STEM fields as well.
75% SATs are 1580. They want kids who can handle STEM and basic humanities. It’s a wonderful opportunity.
Anonymous wrote: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.
You can cross register within the 5c. But OP's concern is what happens if the student doesn't want a STEM major? You still need a major at Harvey?