<p>My son is very strong in math and is considering engineering (or accounting/business) at a college under 5,000 students. He is concerned about going to a 4 year engineering only college like Harvey Mudd or nearby Rose Hulman - great colleges with geat starting salaries! I have heard about various LACs having a 3+2 engineering degree. From my viewpoint, this looks like an VERY EXPENSIVE extra year of college. Does anyone have any experience with such a degree? What advantages in terms of starting salaries or positions or_______ might justify the extra year? We have visited Lehigh and Bucknell that have both engineering and LAC under one roof. While they would be ideal, we would like to have addtional options, thus this post.....THANK YOU in advance for any advise.</p>
<p>TBH, I don’t get the point of this route. Back in the Stone Age, I was a highly-recruited applicant (1st gen, female STEM major, food stamp kid with very high SATs and other stats). Russell-Sage tried to convince me to enroll in their 3-2 program, with my master’s being in engineering from RPI. But, I could get into RPI, do 4 years, and come out with a BSEE–what would be the point of going another year and getting my undergrad in something else? Now, in retrospect, I probably should have looked at this closer–there probably would have been a good scholarship in it for me, and there may have been other positives that I just wasn’t seeing. But, bottom line, I got plenty of financial aid going to a regular engineering school.</p>
<p>I guess I could see it if you wanted a business degree as an undergrad, then the engineering degree. However, the engineers I know went the other way–engineering for undergrad, then added an MBA (at night, generally paid for by their employer).</p>
<p>Something else to consider–engineering schools, for better or worse, tend to be entities unto themselves. It’s possible your son could be happy with a larger campus (more students, greater course selection, many more activities), that had an engineering dept. that suited his needs. My D (Elem. Ed. major–definitely NOT a STEM kid like Mom!) chose her school based on that–small School of Ed., large university. At a minimum, a campus visit or two might be worth your time.</p>
<p>I have a friend who did the 3+2 route, although it was twenty years ago. He loved the small school LAC feel while adjusting to college life. He also felt like it was a lower stress environment than being on a tech-heavy campus.</p>
<p>One advantage of these programs is that you will typically graduate with two Bachelors degrees - one from each of the schools attended. My friend doesn’t think this made any difference in his salary on graduation. Another advantage is that you might be able to gain admission to a more competitive engineering program going this route if your high school record has a blemish or two.</p>
<p>While the huge disadvantage of an extra year of tuition looms large, you might find a program that allows the first three years to be completed at a state school.</p>
<p>A word of caution is that affiliations and agreements for these programs appear unusually fluid. If you go this route, be sure to have firm documentation supporting all the promises you have heard.</p>
<p>There are some LACs in the northeast that offer engineering—Bucknell, Lafayette, and Union, for example. One can do engineering, yet enjoy the offerings of a LAC, while avoiding the fifth year.</p>
<p>And I thought 3+2 would get you a masters.</p>
<p>One major benefit of two undergrad degrees is: An Engineer that can write is worth a lot more than one that can’t. So, if the LAC can teach the kid to write well, that would be a huge benefit going forward.</p>
<p>Another thing to consider: many students end up finding it difficult to finish an engineering degree in 4 years. They end up on the 5-year-plan by default. The 3+2 programs proceed at a somewhat slower pace and the student gets 2 degrees, rather than just limping out with one.</p>
<p>I looked into this briefly when my son was looking at colleges and the thing I disliked the most was waiting 3 years before taking any engineering classes. You need to get into engineering from the beginning in order to decide whether engineering in general is for you and to determine which major. This has been debated before on CC, search for other posts on “3-2” or “3/2” programs.
If your student wants exposure to engineering and business, he can double major or get a minor on the second field and many good engineering schools. Even at STEM-centric schools like RPI there are enough liberal arts offerings to provide the business or STEM kid with a well-rounded education.
If he really likes the vibe of a more LAC-style school, then focus on schools like Bucknell, Lafayette, Union, Tufts - though not all of those have business.
What is his concern with engineering schools? Too many nerds? Not enough other majors in case he doesn’t like engineering?</p>
<p>In theory 3/2 programs sound great for some students. What you will find in the actual programs is very few students actually finish. Faced with leaving their friends after three years, knowing everyone else is going on to their Sr. years to graduate most really don’t want to leave. They finish up with a math or physics degree and then go on to graduate school if they are still intent on engineering. Others find they are perfectly content to study a STEM major offered at their school. When a school talks about this option ask the percentage of students that start that go on to finish with the 3/2 degree. I think you’ll find at most schools it’s staggeringly low.</p>
<p>As previously pointed out there are more then a few schools that are very strong in LAs that offer good engineering degrees. If your student changes their mind on engineering, or wants to minor in a LAs it’s easy to do. You don’t have to sacrifice that LA’s vibe for a 4yr engineering degree offering.</p>
<p>Engineering is one of the more popular majors these days. I think 3+2 is just a marketing gimmick so LAC’s can say they offer engineering. The reality is that very few students actually complete 3+2.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Learning how to write well is not limited to students going to (non-Harvey-Mudd) LACs. Indeed, some of the most engineering-heavy schools like MIT, Caltech, and Harvey Mudd have relatively heavy humanities and social studies breadth requirements. Also, ABET accreditation requires humanities and social studies breadth requirements.</p>
<p>Not all 3+2 programs allow unrestricted choice of major at the “3” school. Some may limit the choice of major to physics, chemistry, or math, which makes them unsuitable for someone who wants to use the extra year to get in a second major in humanities or social studies (of course, any 3+2 student still needs to take the lower division math and physics and engineering prerequisites while at the “3” school).</p>
<p>In addition to an extra year of costs with a 3+2 program, admission to and financial aid at the “2” school may be uncertain and subject to a competitive application process.</p>
<p>I would echo that Harvey Mudd is not engineering only. It requires all students (whether engineering or one of the other STEM majors) to take core classes in all the STEM fields and on top of that take a heavy humanities load. That is why it is classified as a LAC in the various listings. And nearly everyone graduates in 4 years. The 3+2 programs seem better for those who decide after they start that they want to go into engineering than those who think at the beginning it is the route they want. Very few who start out with the 3+2 actually go on to complete the engineering piece for the reasons stated by the others posting on this thread.</p>
<p>
Where can we find the data to support that?</p>
<p>Our S and most of his friends did get their engineering degrees in 4 years at USoCal, without limping. They attended a large U, but there were about 200 in freshman engineering class, which was about the size of S’s graduating class. </p>
<p>We did look at some Us that said they had a 3/2 arrangement for engineering, but personally, we thought it would be tough adjusting to a new campus after 3 years at another U. Even tougher is finding out at that point when you finally can take an angineering course that you don’t like or aren’t suited for it! </p>
<p>When you start as an engineer in freshman year at a large U, there are many options if you decide it isn’t the right fit and you can remain at your U. You could double major as well.</p>
<p>We looked into it for my oldest when he was being recruited for baseball - it opened up a bunch of schools that did not have engineering. Some don’t transfer to the “2” school when they find they can get a funded MS in engineering with a physics degree.</p>
<p>LACs have a 3/2 coordinator who can answer the questions. 3/2 kids are often not sure about the engineering path. For most of the ones we looked into, they sent between 0 and 10 kids per year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not a new or recent marketing gimmick. An uncle got his engineering degree at Columbia SEAS in the late '50s through a 3-2 program with an LAC. Ended up being a PE for several decades before retiring a few years ago.</p>
<p>Attended an engineering school program at Columbia 3 years ago where someone asked about the retention rate through graduation in SEAS. </p>
<p>They said it is hard to provide realistic numbers since they graduate more than they admit as freshmen due to the 3+2 programs.</p>
<p>Too many nerds?</p>
<hr>
<p>If that is a concern, engineering is certainly not a good career path (says the woman who went to an engineering school & still feels most at home among her engineer friends).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They can track retention and graduation rates separately for those who entered as frosh and those who entered as junior transfers.</p>
<p>Some information can be found here, but not quite enough to figure out how many incoming transfers there are to Columbia SEAS:</p>
<p>[Columbia</a> University - 2012](<a href=“http://profiles.asee.org/profiles/5876/screen/20?school_name=Columbia+University]Columbia”>http://profiles.asee.org/profiles/5876/screen/20?school_name=Columbia+University)
[Planning</a> and Institutional Research Office of the Provost](<a href=“http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract.html]Planning”>Columbia OPIR)</p>
<p>Looks like this page indicates that Columbia claims only 20 engineering transfer students:</p>
<p>[Columbia</a> University - 2012](<a href=“http://profiles.asee.org/profiles/5876/screen/17?school_name=Columbia+University]Columbia”>http://profiles.asee.org/profiles/5876/screen/17?school_name=Columbia+University)</p>
<p>This is far smaller than the 97 student increase from soph to junior listed here:</p>
<p>[Columbia</a> University - 2012](<a href=“http://profiles.asee.org/profiles/5876/screen/20?school_name=Columbia+University]Columbia”>http://profiles.asee.org/profiles/5876/screen/20?school_name=Columbia+University)</p>
<p>So it looks a little strange that the 20 incoming transfers are far fewer than 97 or so needed to account for the growth in class size from soph to junior years. Perhaps internal transfers from Columbia College or General Studies to SEAS?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very unlikely due to the following factors:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Unlike 15+ years ago, internal transfers are now treated no differently than external ones from other universities. This was done partially to discourage students with strong math backgrounds or from STEM-centered HSs like BxScience from taking advantage of the past internal policies to use SEAS as a backdoor to Columbia College which was much harder to get into 15+ years ago if one looked at average GPAs of students admitted to each branch. </p></li>
<li><p>Columbia College Students aren’t likely to be inclined towards engineering and if they change their mind, have the 3-2 program available with SEAS. Transferring would also mean having to take more of the SEAS Core as the extensive Columbia College Core won’t fulfill all its more STEM-oriented requirements. Some may also conclude they’re better off getting the Columbia College Bachelors and then doing an engineering MS. </p></li>
<li><p>Columbia GS students aren’t likely to be transferring to SEAS in great numbers because many came in with lower stats than their College or SEAS counterparts, are comprised of many non-traditional students looking to graduate ASAP, have the 3-2 engineering program available to them, and may also conclude the GS bachelors and then doing an engineering MS is the better path for them. It would also beg the question “Why Columbia GS?” if they wanted engineering…especially for the non-traditional students who are older and upon researching GS…may conclude its lack of engineering in that division is a minus and thus, rule out applying there in the first place.</p></li>
</ol>