<p>I've seen a number of post stating that "it doesn't really matter where you go for undergrad because you learn the same things." However, I find this hard to believe. Is a student from Joe Schmoe University really learning all the same stuff as a student from MIT? If so, how could it be possible that MIT dropout could graduate from XYZ with flying colors? The only reason I can fathom would be that either: 1.) Joe Schmoe U teaches the material like a remedial or dumbed down version or 2.) Joe Schmoe U covers only a fraction of the material MIT would or doesn't go as in-depth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe the student is higher in the grading curve at JS U (you know…Joe S U). In other words…he’s a stand out at Joe S. U but was just sort of below average at MIT. </p>
<p>Or maybe the student just worked harder when he transfered.</p>
<p>My guess is that MIT just goes ridiculously further in depth than JSU. Obviously it does matter where you go to some level, you ultimately come out with the same degree that allows you to get the same jobs. Graduating from MIT might get you a better starting position all else being equal, but then again if you’ve spent your extra time at JSU at some excellent internships etc., it may not really make a difference.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is exactly what happens. </p>
<p>Example:</p>
<p>At Joe Schmoe U, your calc teacher will explain how to use an equation and on the exam will test you on ways of using the equation in various problems. </p>
<p>At MIT, your teacher will show you the equation, prove the equation, and on the exam will make you prove an equation (that you haven’t seen) which uses a variant of the proof he taught you during class.</p>
<p>You walk out of the exam thinking “what the F, just happened??”</p>
<p>Curves. If everyone around you is smarter then you’ll be further down the grading curve and get lower (or even failing) grades. That plus the aforementioned in-depthness makes ‘harder’ schools harder.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it’s actually secret reason #3 - which has been alluded to above - in that you as a student simply don’t have to learn the material particularly deeply at the lower-tier schools. You can get by with not really understanding the material and still pass because the other students don’t really understand it either. On the other hand, students at more rigorous schools know they have to understand the material for they know that if they don’t, others will, which means that the curve will fail them. </p>
<p>Samuel Johnson once said that nothing concentrates the mind more than does a hanging, and at the tougher schools, students are perennially faced with hangings in the form of failing grades. Every moment that you’re not studying, you fear that somebody else in the class is studying, which means that you’re more likely to fail by the curve. </p>
<p>Heck, I remember one engineering student who, even entering his final semester of his senior year, even then still feared that he might flunk out, for his grades at the time were right on the brink of the 2.0 cumulative engineering GPA necessary to graduate, and so if he had just gotten C-minus’s in his final engineering courses, his GPA would have dropped under the threshold which would have flunked him out. In fact, he couldn’t even recruit for jobs because he honestly didn’t know whether he was even going to get his degree. As it was, he got C’s, so he did (barely) graduate.</p>
<p>I think it’s actually secret reason #3 - which has been alluded to above - in that you as a student simply don’t have to learn the material particularly deeply at the lower-tier schools. You can get by with not really understanding the material and still pass because the other students don’t really understand it either. On the other hand, students at more rigorous schools know they have to understand the material for they know that if they don’t, others will, which means that the curve will fail them. </p>
<p>I can accept this. However doesn’t this imply that the student from JSU won’t have an understanding of the concepts and material which means that the student from MIT LEARNED more than the student from JSU. Thus receiving a higher quality education.</p>
<p>Just a question if anyone knows since we are on this topic:
How is the education at UMich, Rose-Hulman, and IIT compared to MIT?
These aren’t the low-tiered unniversities, but do they give as high quality of learning as MIT?</p>
<p>And with your conversation, I see it this way. It is mostly up to the student for how much depth they want to go into (yes, the university will make a difference). As someone above stated, what if the person at JSU got an internship and therefore had experience in the field. Who would have a better quality of knowledge? I’d say the JSU guy if the MIT guy didn’t get any real field experience. It’s all up to the person, but of course the MIT person probably went more in depth in his subjects, but it is then up to the JSU person to try and do the same.</p>
<p>Please answer my question too above… I’m looking at those colleges.</p>
<p>I’m a chem eng student at McGill in canada. I used MIT opencourseware to get some additional material for some of my classes (especially Transport phenomena where they used the exact same text book , Incopera et al.) I could do all the homework assignments and found the exams and quizzes posted somewhat less brutal than the ones I wrote. Aside from the end of the course, where the material diverged, the course seemed pretty comparable o the one I took, maybe even a little easier. I don’t know if this is true across the board though, as this is a pretty small sampling.</p>
<p>Salve! – Illinois Inst. of Tech. is not on the same level as the other schools you listed. Students at MIT would receive a comparable education at UMich, Stanford, UIUC, Purdue, GaTech. Rose-Hulman (though i have reservations about undergrad only schools) is pretty close. I would not tack IIT onto this list.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Asked DD…she said her engineering program does what MIT does. She does NOT go to MIT. She goes to Joe S.U. or at least some folks would view her school that way.</p>
<p>DH went to JSU (a different one than DD)…he is a very successful engineer in his field (power…he’s an EE). If someone applied for a job with his company from MIT, they would be offered the same pay as someone from JSU. And after a number of years of experience…folks would be hard pressed to know who was the MIT grad and who was the JSU grad.</p>
<p>How would WPI compare to these schools… just wondering. I will be going there this fall. I got into UMich, Case Western, and could have easily got into UIUC or GaTech but turned them down because of cost.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I had several professors (at Georiga Tech) who had PhDs from MIT. Across the board they said the MIT vs GT undergrad are identical. It’s the graduate school that separates itself from the rest. So it’s not just MIT that operates this way, it’s most of the top engineering schools. I have several co-workers from University of Maryland and they experienced pretty much the same as I even though their school/program isn’t top 5.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree, you don’t have to go to one of the best schools to be a good engineer. I also wouldn’t expect someone from MIT to make more than someone from JSU if highered for the same position (assuming they have the same degree). However, I do believe that JSU grads will have less opportunities and would have to make up for their program with coop, intern, or research. They will also have a harder time if their school isn’t on the respective companies college recruiting list.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But does an engineer really need to know how to prove said equation? Maybe that is the reason why Joe Schmo U engineer can do things that MIT engineer can.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say that. IIT is a very good school and actually does have comparable coursework, research, and professors as MIT. At one time, IIT was actually competing with MIT for the top spot. Have you ever looked into the school or know much about it? Just curious, because I think a lot of people on here base their views of schools solely off of rankings. I was even told about one professor at IIT who could do partial differential equations in his head. I think you would be surprised at just how advanced IIT actually is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That, and the state university gives students lower average grades. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They make the engineering students do proofs? I go to an above average engineering university, and a typical exam involves a few problems testing technique and a few testing design skills. Math classes have a combination of proofs and problem solving. I’ve never had to do proofs in an engineering class, because I don’t think that proofs are really used in engineering.</p>
<p>I think that state schools can be harder than the top schools because the lower ranked schools are trying to earn the top spots and therefore push their students harder. My engineering professor told actually told us that she tries to make tests difficult and teach like we were at Michigan or Purdue. I’m thinking if we wanted to have a difficult exam like they do then we would have gone there. Sheesh!</p>
<p>I think it’s the amount of effort that a student puts into it that determines how much of an education the student gets. That being said, I also believe the following might be true…</p>
<p>(1) Better schools generally have better resources and better resources makes putting more into your education easier.</p>
<p>(2) Better schools have better student bodies and you will probably have to work harder to keep up with everybody else.</p>
<p>etc.</p>
<p>Still, fundamentally I believe that most of the universities we’re talking about can provide a student with as much of an education as the student can absorb… and probably much more than that. Anybody who thinks there are 4-year universities (publics or well-known privates) with programs which couldn’t teach one more than one could learn in 4 years is an example of somebody who doesn’t need an education wasted on them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, the real question is *could you survive the curve<a href=“which%20unfortunately%20is%20not%20posted%20on%20OCW”>/i</a>. Surviving the curve doesn’t just mean knowing the material well, it means knowing the material better than the other students do.</p>
<p>I’ll give you an example. I know a guy who scored an 85% on an exam. Pretty strong score, right? Wrong, for the mean was in the mid 90’s with a tight SD which means that his 85 meant that he failed. It didn’t matter that he knew the material well - what mattered is that he scored below the rest of the students.</p>