<p>For some reason I seem to be seeing a lot of Cal Poly threads :P. </p>
<p>But anyways. I need some advice, or recommendations, or anything you guys can give me.. because I'm really trying to make up my mind between these three schools. And I wanted some outside input on them:</p>
<p>I think I'd be extremely happy with any of the majors, but I really wanted peoples input on what they think would be the best choice, based on school ranking or just person experience or even just advice on how I could make this decision! Thanks again :)</p>
<p>uh...academically, there probably isn't a big difference. SC and LA will better prepare you for grad school, but not much else.</p>
<p>LA has a better location than SC.</p>
<p>i dunno how good or bad SC engineering is. on the other hand, SC is private school (smaller classes and not as much competition for them) and they're more likely to give you heaps of money. Cal Poly is cheaper to begin with, though.</p>
<p>If you eventually want to get an MBA and go into management, then I think UCLA/USC would be a better option. Those two schools are better than SLO in terms of teaching theory, which is what makes an engineer marketable in business.</p>
<p>Then again, if your want to be a practicing engineer, then there is no real difference between the schools (aside from cost!)...then again, I've heard SLO is better recruited by firms...</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you eventually want to get an MBA and go into management, then I think UCLA/USC would be a better option. Those two schools are better than SLO in terms of teaching theory, which is what makes an engineer marketable in business.
[/quote]
Disagree.</p>
<p>Previous work experience is what makes an "engineer marketable in business". Work experience has approximately zero to do with theory. It has to do with the quality (and amount, sometimes) of deliverables achieved - and politics.</p>
<p>With UCLA/USC you have better chance with top MBA programs. CPSLO is the cheapest option provided that you don't receive financial aid. CPLSLO also is more focus on undergraduate teaching because it's not a research university, ie Phd granting university.</p>
<p>uh, no, if sakky is to believed, it's the engineering curriculum and way of thinking that makes engineers favorable for MBA programs. he incessantly cites MIT grads, which have no work experience, remember.</p>
<p>anyway, choose based on philosophy and which you can afford. i believe theory is more important than application -- the company can teach me what they want me to do, but they can't teach me the theory behind it. Mr Payne would obviously disagree, some employers would disagree, but some employers would also agree. it is also not impossible to get more experience applying the theory at UCLA or USC, you just have to seek it out and spend extra time doing so.</p>
<p>in addition, Cal Poly doesn't seem to be known beyond the West Coast. USC suffers much of the same but has an alumni network they like to boast about.</p>
<p>Ahh, when I heard "business" I naturally thought MBA. In that case, attending UCLA over Cal Poly has little to no effect.</p>
<p>Now, UCLA has a significant advantage over Poly for going into "business" straight from undergrad. I was assuming the topic starter wasn't planning to do this.</p>
<p>In terms of a bias on theory versus practicality - the marketplace has spoken, IMO. When virtually every major employer in California comes to Poly to get graduates that says enough.</p>
<p>And who cares about the East Coast? We have Silicon Valley, what do they have? Route 128? For some companies, you just need to get an engineering degree from a college that is accredited.</p>