<p>These are the schools I have been accepted to so far:
UIUC
Purdue
Auburn
Saint Louis University
USC
Embry-Riddle</p>
<p>Schools I have pending:
Stanford
Columbia (not aerospace per se)
Princeton
Cornell
Harvard (not aerospace per se)
Ohio State
Boston University
North Dakota (not aerospace per se, but a huge aviation school. I would earn a minor in aviation at any of theses schools that offer it)</p>
<p>But purely on aerospace, which would be the best bet? And if it is Embry-Riddle, the Daytona Beach or Prescott campus?</p>
<p>I think Wichita state university is also good .Becouse they have very good academic programs of aerospace engineering,many people are attracted to them . Those schools that you wrote on the this are very prospective and competent ,especially ohio state having better efficient instruments ,institutions. Do you think that university of missouri-rolla is also very good university for aerospace engineering ?</p>
<p>Of the schools you applied to, for Aerospace Engineering, here are the best bets:</p>
<p>1) Stanford University
2) Princeton University
3) University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign
4) Purdue University</p>
<p>You already got into two of those, so there is no need to worry. </p>
<p>I don't understand why you applied to Columbia, Cornell or Harvard. None of those schools offer Aerospace Engineering and they are mega-selective. Why didn't you apply to top Aeropsace programs like Caltech, Georgia Tech, MIT and Michigan instead? Not that it matters anyway...Purdue and UIUC have top notch Aerospace Engineering programs anyway.</p>
<p>If you will go to schools that don't offer Aerospace programs ,it's no problems . After you learn physics in the undergraduate ,you can learn aerospace engineering in the graduate school.Maybe it's better choice . Many aerospace engineer had majored in the physics in the university and they studied an aerospace engineering in the graduate school. I think that bmanbs2 is prospective ,if you get admissions from very well known schools like harvard,columbia.</p>
<p>I would disagree that a physics degree would be appropriate for someone trying to study aerospace engineering. Aerospace engineering covers many diverse topics, such as fluid mechanics, structural analysis, system dynamics and control, orbital mechanics, flight mechanics, design, and many other topics. Very few of these would be covered in a physics program. I would say that only for a few select individuals, such as those that want to study orbital mechanics, would getting a physics degree as an undergraduate be of any use. </p>
<p>If the school you attend does not offer aerospace engineering, you would be much better off getting a mechanical engineering degree. You would either be able to directly enter into the graduate program, or catch up quickly if you take a few more fluid mechanics courses.</p>
<p>Sky made a correct answer.I however think that thouth physics cover areas that aren't needed to aerospace engineering ,you can gain many concepts by studying them. In the graduate school You can easily catch up with others who majored in aerospace engineering in the university. Scientists must have huge wide concepts in term of math , physics. Mechanics engineering is very related to aerospace engineering ,so it's no problems , if you'll major in it in the university.</p>
<p>In all reality, the aerospace engineering is just to enhance my chances at getting a job as a pilot, preferrably a test pilot. The military only wanted to make me a linguist, so i had to go civilian. And with schools such as Cal Tech, i would be just that, an egg head with no liberal arts background, and thats no good</p>
<p>i"think they also ranked Embry Riddle #1 for undergrad aerospace"</p>
<p>For schools that do not offer a doctoral degree. This puts ER on a different level. It is still a decent program, but I do not think it would be anywhere near the top 5 programs that offer doctoral degrees, and would be lucky to make it to the top 10. Nevertheless, any program that can call itself a top 20 program (offering doctorates or otherwise) is still a good program.</p>
<pre><code>Remember that programs that do not offer a doctoral degree are often better for undergraduate education because their focus is students, not research.
</code></pre>
<p>"Remember that programs that do not offer a doctoral degree are often better for undergraduate education because their focus is students, not research."</p>
<p>You have a valid point. However, I don't think it's that cut and dry. For one, ER on their website claims that: "We are engaged in leading-edge research in a multitude of areas where the full capabilities of our faculty, staff, students, laboratories and facilities are brought to bear. ERAU is currently performing research under 77 funded grants and contracts valued at over $15.3 million." So it seems that they are very much into research. However, since the professors most likely have less pressures of advising their graduate students and performing a lot of research, I will agree with your statement to some degree.</p>
<p>However, top research institutes are more likely to attract the very best professors and researchers. Therefore, all students benefit from going to top research institutes. While graduate students stand to benefit more, I think that undegraduate students also benefit from having lectures from people at the top of their fields and with the grant money that those researchers bring. That money leads to new facilities, top researchers, top graduate students.. all which benefit the undergraduate population. </p>
<p>But since the OP stated that he wanted to be an AE to be a pilot, then ER might actually be the best program because of their flight training programs. I think going to a place like Stanford or MIT would not be appropriate for the OP because of their reputations for producing many academics.</p>
<p>I think that all the universities have each strong point . Certainly MIT ,Stanford and some well-known universities have provided students with exellent academic programs but universities like wichta state , ohio state , uni of missouri ,that have high acceptance of freshmans are also worth for us to enroll in. Those universities offer undergraduate exellent programs and they have good institutions . How do you think about a statement that we can gain more benefits to attend to the high ranked universities than others?</p>
<pre><code> I don't want to sidetrack this thread. I don't mean to suggest that top research universities are bad. Many are excellent. But when it comes to undergraduate education I believe that the best universities are the ones who focus on teaching students. Top research schools attract the top researchers, not necessarily the top teachers. I saw this when I was at Purdue getting my Master's and PhD. The teaching at smaller, less research driven schools tended to be better.
</code></pre>
<p>I'm not really that woried about how I get my aviation degree however. If i go to a school for AE that does not offer aviation, I have a 19-month associate's program picked out at San Juan College in New Mexico affiliated with Mesa Airlines or there is a two-year program offered in my home state.</p>
<p>What courses in physics would be beneficial? I am studying Mechanical, Electrical Engineering, and Mathematics (yes 3 majors). This is due to my desire to study both Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, but wanting to taking extra math courses, another semester would give me a math degree. Is this a waste of time for me to pursue grad school with? A PhD at my school thought I should just get my degree (note the one) over with and pursue my upper level study goals. Your thoughts?</p>
<pre><code> I totally agree with the PhD at your school. How long will it take for you to get three majors? In the added time you could be getting a Master's. This would typically be more valuable. Try for a bachelor's in one and a master's in the other.
</code></pre>
<p>One thing I have noted with getting a masters or bachelors is the lack of classes required in both. To be honest, I'm not 100% interested in either mechanical or electrical engineering. Yet, I study both of them. I think both are pretty beneficial for fundamental engineering knowledge. For instances, electrical engineering offers signal and systems, electronics, control theory which are important aspects. Mechanical engineering (at least in my concentration) offers alot in basic thermal sciences. By taking a few of one or the other I am 2-3 semesters from a degree in the other. So why not get a masters in one or the other? I think you have to go back and take the 300 level classes required for the 400 level or 500 level classwork. Since it isn't work entirely what I want to do I do not see the effort. I really do want to study aerospace engineering, mostly in astrodynamics. But that isn't offered at the undergraduate level (astrodynamics). I think to fully grasp what goes on, understanding of both engineering discplines is need. The way I see it, I will have gone to undergrad school 5 years (yes, 5 years for 2 degrees which isn't bad). But I guess that is my thought. It might not help me at all later on.</p>