<p>Haha, that too. I really shouldn't use the term "failed" engineers -- what I mean is people who decide, for one reason or another, that they don't want to be engineers.</p>
<p>2331clk-
Graduation rates fluctuate plus or minus four percent from year to year due to random variation. It is a little too soon to say whether CMU has made an enduring improvement in their graduation rate. I hope they have permanently improved. I really like CMU. It is an awesome school. The 16-year average is 14% below Cornell's. The 10-year average is still 14% below Cornell.</p>
<p>acceptedtocollegealready-
Did my opinions really sound like facts? I should be flattered, but my opinions are not worthy of that designation. On the other hand, I try to base my opinions on something substantial. </p>
<p>Regarding MIT: although it is probably the best Tech for undergrads and has the highest grad rate among the top Tech schools, one of the things I notice about MIT is the "underperformance" in grad rate mentioned in US News. This means that their graduation rate, although high, is still less than you would expect in light of their superior student body. Historically. the MIT graduation rate is about 4% lower than you would expect compared with other national universities. The other topTech schools also tend to "underperform" in this way, but even more.</p>
<p>Furthermore, MIT is 60% graduate students. Molliebatmit said that faculty attention is not a problem at MIT and she should know. But I do wonder whether there is greater competition for faculty attention when undergrads are in the minority. The conclusion is compelling that undergrads would get less contact with faculty when they are only 40% of the student body. </p>
<p>On the other hand, undergrads are only 35% of the student body at Stanford. This is a negative about Stanford, too, and part of the reason why I prefer Cornell to Stanford. At Cornell and Princeton, graduate students comprise only 30% of the student body, half the proportion at MIT and Stanford. An engineering professor who received his PhD from Stanford once told me that Stanford was not necessarily the best environment for undergrads. That was his opinion.</p>
<p>I also prefer Cornell to Princeton because of the scale of the engineering program at Cornell. I suspect the options and opportunities are greater for undergrads at Cornell in engineering than at Princeton. The engineering program at Cornell is three times larger than at Princeton. (To be honest, however, I sometimes wonder whether the Cornell program is a little too large.)</p>
<p>There are dozens of outstanding engineering schools for undergrads and what I am doing is splitting hairs, really. But, this is how I analyzed things and concluded that Cornell was best. (Not to be confused with fact.) It's all very complex and I tried to think through MY preference as best I could.</p>
<p>Wow. I'm glad I spawned such intelligent discussion, there's a wealth of information in this thread.</p>
<p>you guys forget about olin college,cooper union,etc</p>
<p>Wow, this is an old thread.</p>
<p>These schools are small, aren't they? And no grad programs? They have got to be quite limited in the number of upper-class engineering electives they offer. If a school does not have offerings in a particular sub-area of an engineering specialty then it is impossible for its students to get exposure to that area, much less get training. The very engineer you are likely to become may be limited due to lack of offerings/exposure. </p>
<p>Engineering is a broad field. These schools may have very capable students, and offer stupendous training in the "vanilla" areas. However, at some point, breadth of offerings makes a difference. Nobody going in knows for certain exactly what they will be coming out. Breadth is important. IMO.</p>
<p>On the other hand, cost of education can also be quite important, and these schools are like free or something? Which is certainly worth considering, and often taking, but don't think you're not possibly giving up something in taking the free ride.</p>
<p>If you want undergraduate engineering at a large university, I would say Stanford and MIT are the best.</p>
<p>for undergraduate experience, i would consider Harvey Mudd....but they also require humanities courses and such so it depends what you want...</p>
<p>one school i haven't seen mentioned is columbia. its engineering program is supposedly pretty good for undergrad, but certainly not among the top schools such as MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, etc.</p>
<p>1) Stanford (best of best, for its contribution in shaping modern technology and making our life better)
2) MIT (another leader in technology inventions)
3) Berkeley
4) Caltech
5) UIUC
6) CMU
7) Cornell
8) Michigan
9) UT-Austin
10) UCLA</p>
<p>There are a lot of ties here....</p>
<p>1) MIT, CalTech
2) Stanford, UCB
3) Carnegie Mellon, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Cornell, GaTech
4) UIUC, Michigan, UT-Austin, Purdue, Wisconsin, Princeton, Rice </p>
<p>These are the very best US undergrad engineering programs.</p>
<p>I would switch CMU with Michigan and vice versa. UCLA would not make my top 10 list over the likes of Georgia Tech or Princeton.</p>
<p>Northwestern has more top-10 departments than Rice, RPI, or UCLA. Not sure why people keep missing it!! ;)</p>
<p>Top 10 engineering, imo: </p>
<ol>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Berkeley</li>
<li>Caltech</li>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>UIUC</li>
<li>Georgia Tech</li>
<li>UT Austin</li>
<li>CMU</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
</ol>
<p>I am not sure Stanford is the best place for undergrad engineering because they have such a high proportion of graduate students.</p>
<p>US News tends to underank the smaller schools. For last years freshman class, RPI had SAT scores that were slightly higher than michigan, UIUC, and Gatech and moderately higher than UT Austin.
Rice has an even wider margin. The big publics are great but not necessarily better than the smaller programs.</p>
<p>Rico, RPI's SAT range is identical to Michigan's and its ACT range is slightly lower than Michigan's. And that's for all of Michigan. If you look at the CoE, Michigan's ranges improve some more. </p>
<p>But SAT/ACT ranges don't determine quality. Faculty distinction and insitutional power are what determine quality. RPI is not quite as good as Cornell, CMU, Michigan or UIUC.</p>
<p>I don't think you can beat MIT or CalTech.</p>
<p>Alexandre, don't forget RPI is "only" 55-60% engineering and SoE SAT will rise just like Michigan. Also, I think that faculty quality is very important but I personally think the quality of the student body is even more important. </p>
<p>Anyway, I'm not sure how you measure "institutional power" but I'll give you computational power. Look at Rensselaer's new Computational Center for Nanotechnology Innovations. At this moment it is the most powerful university based supercomputer on the planet. Something else will be faster eventually but for now it holds the title. </p>
<p>RPI eng is every bit as good as Michigan,UIUC, Cornell, etc.</p>
<p>rico, I disagree with your assessment of the importance of student quality. Student quality matters to a limited degree, but not nearly as much as quality of faculty. Why would the quality of the entire student body matter? Students don't teach each other and if they do, they do it poorly and as a result of a lack of faculty involvement. At any rate, I was not saying anything bad about RPI, it was you who was claiming that RPI had better students than Michigan and UIUC. It does not.</p>
<p>And by institutional power (which is not as important as quality of faculty), I mean the overall quality of a university, its overal endowment, its influence over and impact on industry and academe, its research activity level, the overall quality of its resources etc...</p>
<p>I definitely agree that RPI is excellent, but I do not think it is quite as good as the top 8 or 9 Engineering programs.</p>
<p>This is quite old but it is in need of resurrection. OK, so debating over which of the top 10 engineering schools is really #1 is pointless. It just leads to bickering and stubborn people fighting against stubborn people. Frankly once you get into the read world and an employer sees you graduated with a degree from any of those top 10 schools, you are well infront of much of the competition. So moving on..</p>
<p>I know in US NEWS, big public schools are often ranked higher than small private schools. I dont know why. For example Penn State, the #2 party school in the land, is ranked along side Johns Hopkins U in engineering and infront of Rensselaer, a very strong school. Why is this?</p>
<p>This is why i think that at times their ratings can be flawed. Don't get me wrong i found US News & World Report to be very helpful, i just dont see the justification in rankings such as the one i have just mentioned.</p>
<p>Now, for all those kids out there who wont be applying to MIT or Stanford or any ivy school, what schools are you looking towards?</p>
<p>I know im looking towards Rensselaer, University of Rochester, and Villanova. Now, in your opinion (Please have it be based off of something) which of those 3 has the best program for mechanical/civil engineering and engineering in general??</p>
<p>If you read all of that, awesome.</p>