Joshs said:
The year I started (97) HMC was slightly higher than MIT for that year. These numbers vary though and are certainly not the only criteron for admission.
Of course not. I was just pointing out the SAT scores for what I imagine is the same reason you were doing so - they are quite impressive, particularly for a school that isn't as well known as some of the other top schools around.
Joshs said:
Actually it is that high, you must have missed
this page. I'm not one myself- the one from my High School in Villa Park went to Pomona College.
Sorry for my error.
Of course, one thing that can affect those numbers is how the Admissions Office decides to accept students. If a school always admits valedictorians, or always admits people with the highest SAT scores, they can create a class that maximizes those particular statistics.
I know that top Ivy League schools like Princeton don't put as much weight on SAT scores or valedictorian status as other colleges, and in fact, reject over 70 percent of the valedictorians who apply!
Joshs said:
That page does say 'acceptance rate', but is that the percent accepted by the school, or offers of admission accepted by the students?
The former - the number of students accepted by HMC, as a percentage of applications. Of course, this is not the only criterion for selectivity. Some schools, including Harvey Mudd (the University of Chicago is another example), have a surprising combination of a relatively high acceptance rate with a student body with extremely impressive academic credentials. Obviously, the only way to do so is to have an extremely qualified applicant pool due to self selection, i.e. those who apply tend to have very high credentials, and those who don't, don't apply.
Joshs said:
A fair amount of applicants apply as 'early-decision', and the admission selects between 20-25% (say 45 students who are guaranteed to attend) from that pool. Then they also accept many many times more regular applicants then there is room for. Because lots of these students who applied to HMC with standard admission also applied to other schools like the ones mentioned in this thread, and the truth is that most students would prefer a big name school to a small one that few people have heard of. Also a reason why the larger schools would have such a low acceptance rate, is the huge number of applications they must get due to their long and distinguished histories.
Yes, early decision tends to bias some of the admissions statistics. For example, at a school like Princeton, 20-25 percent of those who apply early decision are accepted, and the percent of those who don't is even lower than the overall rate of 10 percent. Because those accepted early decision are required to attend, this also biases upwards the "yield" (the number who decide to attend, as a percentage of those who are accepted), which is around 70 percent there (this is the 26 percent figure at HMC).
Joshs said:
You got so many other great numbers you missed the one pertinent to this - true, HMC doesnt offer it's own grad programs on campus, but a HUGE percentage of HMC grads go to grad school, so its an EXCELLENT choice if you want to go to grad school.
I suspect my earlier comment was misleading. I'm referring to where I noted that HMC is unusual in that it has such strength in the sciences and engineering, even though it doesn't offer doctoral degrees in those areas. That comment, by itself, sounds somewhat derisive, but that was not my intention - in fact, quite the opposite! I think the lack of a doctoral program can (potentially) make the undergraduate program even better, because that's where all the emphasis and attention is given. This can be a lot better (for the undergraduate experience) than at a university where the emphasis and attention is geared more towards the graduate students. Schools like Yale even go so far as having a faculty for their graduate schools that is separate from their undergraduate faculty, so they can attract top scholars by telling them that they don't have to instruct undergraduates. This contrasts with other schools, even schools that
have doctoral programs like Princeton, where there is one faculty that teaches everyone, and where introductory undergraduate courses are frequently taught by the chair of the academic department.
I think it's also worth mentioning the small size of HMC. With 200 students each year, it's
very small - which means that it's easier to get to know people, and to get more personal attention.
Of course, there are a lot of ways to evaluate schools - the quality (according to various measures), overall as well as in the specific academic departments you're interested in; the size (some people prefer small schools, some don't); the location (near vs far, city vs college town, etc); emphasis on undergraduate education; and lots and lots of other factors. Again, Harvey Mudd sounds like a very attractive college in a number of ways. Cool place.
nicholas421 said:
Schools like Harvey Mudd, Cooper Union, Swarthmore, etc are excellent schools. Unfortunately most people (including those who are doing the hiring) won't know the difference between them and community colleges. I would never send my kids to these types of schools because of this... regardless of how impressive their academic stats are.
I don't agree with this at all. Sure, the bigger the school, the more well known it tends to be. But some of the very best schools around are small schools. As noted above, many college students prefer, and thrive in, the atmosphere and personal attention that a small school provides. I don't think that a school's reputation should by any means be the
sine qua non when it comes to choosing a college. In fact, a small school may often work in a student's favor,
including when it comes time to apply to graduate school and/or apply for a job - because a small school often has a very dedicated, committed alumni body that is eager to help recent graduates who are fellow alumni, by networking with them and by offering them jobs.
Interesting discussion...