best undergraduate engineering school

<p>What are your thoughts about the best colleges for UNDERGRADUATE engineering? I know the US News rankings: MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, Cal Tech, Illinois, Georgia Tech, U Mich, Carnegie Mellon, Purdue, Cornell, Texas-Austin. Six of the top 11 are Publics, three of the top 11 are private Techs, and only two are "Ivy" (counting Stanford as an Ivy-equivalent). The US News engineering rankings are based completely on a survey of Deans and Senior faculty, not the usual criteria. </p>

<p>I have my doubts about the rankings (which are dominated by Publics). The Publics consist of many large departments with many faculty. Could the survey have been biased by a preponderance of votes from the Publics? Could the opinions of the Deans and faculty, which were supposed to have been directed at UNDERGRADUATE programs) have been affected too much by the graduate program reputation and the research reputation of the engineering school? I wonder whether undergraduates are shortchanged somewhat in terms of instructional quality and faculty access when the graduate program is a priority. (On the other hand, it creates research opportunities for undergrads.) I have this feeling about the large Publics that undergrad students don't get much attention and the instructional quality is not as high as at Privates. </p>

<p>Engineering majors generally have to work very hard. Lots of math and problem sets. Grading standards are high. But, I am not sure what to make of the low marks received by the Techs in the Princeton Review ratings of faculty interest and access. MIT, Cal Tech, and Georgia Tech are among the lowest. Is that because they are HARD or because of something else? It's surprising because they enroll such awesome students. The Publics score a little higher than the Techs and they are much less selective overall. On the other hand, Harvard also gets low marks for the faculty. Studentsreviw.com has Cornell and Rice ranked in the top three for engineering based on student surveys. </p>

<p>Where would YOU rather go as an undergraduate? How do you sort it all out?</p>

<p>You have missed the big weakness of the USNWR college ratings. If you want a job after you graduate, you need the opinions of business people, not deans and professors at universities. I'm not belittling academia, just pointing out that their criteria for ranking colleges is different than the business world's.</p>

<p>Interesting point. What would business managers look for in an engineering program that Deans and faculty would not? How might business managers rank engineering schools? Which schools would be in their top 10? Does it make a difference whether the school tends to turn out practicing engineers versus research engineers? Maybe there should be separate rankings for preparing engineers to go out into the workforce versus going on to graduate school.</p>

<p>The best undergraduate Engineering School in the country is USMA, howerver it is definately not for everybody.</p>

<p>Collegehelp,</p>

<p>IMO:</p>

<p>Caltech or MIT: You don't need to worry about anything else since they claim the highest prestige and you can go to anytype of engineering (research/industry). The problem with these schools that they're really tough and many students burn out before they graduate.</p>

<p>Stanford: This is the best deal, highest prestige and pretty lax environment (at least compared to the other top engrg schools). However, Stanford grads sometimes lose from Caltech/MIT grad for the competition into research type engineering.</p>

<p>Berkeley and Cornell : follow closely in the eyes of the employers, the graduates also command flexibility in engineering and can easily go to research or grad schools since they would typically receive many offers.</p>

<p>Umich, Illinois, and CMU: are in the next layer to join the group. Normally the cream students at these schools have no problem in getting into cutting-edge engineering. However most of their students would typically get into 'second' class engineering process.</p>

<p>Purdue, UT-Austin, GaTech: are in the lowest layer.</p>

<p>Note that all the schools you mentioned are still top engineering schools in the states, hence sometimes the comparison is like splitting hair. The classification of the school I gave above however was more for the average cases.</p>

<p>Consider CalTech/MIT/Princeton. These are the brain schools. The top 3 median SATs in the country.</p>

<p>Actually, CalTech is probably stronger in the pure sciences than engineering. I would bump it down and Stanford up, and bump GaTech up as well.</p>

<p>"Actually, CalTech is probably stronger in the pure sciences than engineering. I would bump it down and Stanford up, and bump GaTech up as well."</p>

<p>LOL, Stanford is probably stronger in business than engineering. Anyway Stanford is exactly on par with Caltech in the eyes of employers, but I group it with MIT because of their similarity. GaTech should remain at its place.</p>

<p>rtkysg,
I agree with your assessment on MIT and Stanford, especially the part about Stanford engineering having the "highest prestige and pretty lax environment."</p>

<p>However, I'm not sure why Cornell "graduates also command flexibility in engineering and can easily go to research or grad schools since they would typically receive many offers" ... when you are comparing them to Illinois, Michigan and CMU grads. You really think that Cornell engineers are better trained for research/grad school than Illinois grads? And which engineering disciplines are you comparing? Let's take a Cornell civil or ECE engineering grad and one from Illinois, which one do you think has higher market value? You can do the same exercise with a computer/ECE from CMU ... or an aerospace/nuclear/chemical engineer from Michigan.</p>

<p>I am also curious what you mean by "second class engineering process"? If an engineering grad gets into the GM design lab, or the Dow research center, or one of the silicon valley hi-tech company, do you call this a 'first' class or 'second' class job? Do you think you have a better chance finding a Cornell grad there, or one from Illinois/Michigan/CMU/Purdue/GeoTech?</p>

<p>'Purdue, UT-Austin, GaTech: are in the lowest layer.'</p>

<p>Maybe if you are living East or west coast, but in Texas, UT engineers are higly regarded. Think carefully about where you want to get a job, but Caltech, MIT grads can prolly get jobs anywhere.</p>

<p>GoBlue81,</p>

<p>There's no guarantee that Cornell would give you a better education in engineering. However the recruiters do know that Cornell engineering has better selectivity than UMich, UIUC and CMU, in other words, Cornell may have on the average gathered a better pool of talents. Notice that we are not talking about PhD programs here.</p>

<p>What I mean by 'second' class engineering class is that the job offered may not be of the highest importance. We know there're a bunch of engineers (in magnitude of thousands) in GM, but only a few who occupies the pivotal engineering positions.</p>

<p>hopemanjkjk,</p>

<p>I understand that in Texas, or even across the States, UT engineers are highly regarded. But the employers in Texas would also typically know the other top engineering schools and UT-Austin standing among those schools, except of course, if you're talking about small local companies in Texas.</p>

<p>of course. That's why i said MIT, caltech grads will get good offers everywhere. However, would many texas employers choose berkeley grads or cornell grads over UT enginnering honor grads? :) that was the point i was trying to make.</p>

<p>" However, would many texas employers choose berkeley grads or cornell grads over UT enginnering honor grads?"</p>

<p>It depends on which employer you're talking about and for what positions ? :)</p>

<p>As I told you, big companies like Texas Instruments or Lucent would typically come to Berkeley/Cornell career fairs to offer numerous positions. For the pivotal jobs, I would say that Berkeley/Cornell students typically have the upperhand for such positions, even if it's in Texas.</p>

<p>rtkysg,
I don't know whether you are an engineer, or how long you have been in this field. If you are not, the debate is over...you are just speculating.</p>

<p>As an engineer who's been in the business for 20+ years, I can tell you that your conclusion is wrong. I am a chemical engineer and a computer engineer. I started out in the petroleum industry in Houston and later worked for a Fortune 100 computer company. Enigneering is such a diverse field, it is impossible to make sweeping statements like you did. I will just stick to my areas of expertise.</p>

<p>I have many friends and business associates in the major oil and chemical companies, in the IT industry, as well as other multinationals across the country. Many of them are in what you called 'pivotal' engineering positions. I can tell you from experience that what you claimed just isn't happening in the real world. When Chevron or Exxon recruit for engineers for their regional offices in Texas and Louisanna, they will certainly go to UT-Austin. But they will also recruit in Oklahoma, Indiana or even West Point. Major oil companies do not prioritize their recruits according to the selectivity of the school (only CC folks put such destorted importance on selectivity). They know where the good enginerering schools are (many of these rarely appear on this board). Will Exxon pick a Cornell engineer over a UT grad? I doubt it. Cornell does not really have a top ChE program. If Exxon wants to recruit a brainy grad from the Ivies, they will probably go to Princeton.</p>

<p>Actually the questions in my previous post were loaded. Dow recruits heavily at U-M. Dow's HQs is just a short drive from Ann Arbor. Dow funds a lot of projects and donates large sums of money to the university. The Chemical Engineering department is housed in the DOW building. Similarly, the Auto City is within an hour's drive from campus. The Big Three also prefers to recruit Michigan grads. Many GM engineers take classes via remote learning facilities at the Dearborne campus. When it comes to recruiting, do you really believe that GM folks will regard Cornell engineers as more 'elite'?</p>

<p>The biggest flaw in your argument is this - "there're a bunch of engineers ... in GM, but only a few who occupies the pivotal engineering positions." No company will recruit for a 'pivotal' engineering position from fresh grads! Your name-brand degree (be it Cornell or Illinois) will only get you into the door, and everyone starts at the entry level. How far one will move up through the ranks depends entirely on the individual and often on his/her character ... never because of the name on his/her diploma. Six months after you come onboard, no one (not your boss or your client) will remember or care which school you graduated from. All they care is whether you deliver your project on time and under budget, or whether you meet your quota this quarter.</p>

<p>GoBlue,</p>

<p>Yes, I'm an engineer myself and although I haven't reached your age I have experienced working in a company with caps bigger than 200B, but for ethical reason I shall not mention its name in this case.</p>

<p>I agree that if Exxon choose an PhD grad in Chemical Engrg then it would prefer UT Austin grads to Cornell grads. But for undergraduate, I would not agree with your view. If you indeed have such experience you mentioned, you certainly know that fresh grads normally know **** about the real engineering job in the industry. How much different do you think the curricula for chem engrg between UT and Cornell? How much different would it make for a mere fresh graduate? However, the recruiters would typically know that Cornell students are on the average academically better than UT students, I also have reasons to believe that Cornell have more rigorous workload in undergraduate engineering in any field than UT, you name it. Do you think the recruiters have never gone through college time ? They do know about the selectivity of the school and they give a credit for it. Of course, a UT alum recruiter may have a strong bias towards his/her alma mater, but in general this is not true. Hence selectivity matters.</p>

<p>Well, when I refer to pivotal positions, I am actually comparing to positions like: Real-time embedded system engineer and component test engineer. While both positions may be available to fresh grads, they have different degree of 'critical' level and perhaps different salary level. And of course if you're already working in the company, only your performance counts regardless of where you graduate from. But before that the name of your school matters a lot.</p>

<p>"...big companies like Texas Instruments or Lucent would typically come to Berkeley/Cornell career fairs to offer numerous positions. For the pivotal jobs, I would say that Berkeley/Cornell students typically have the upperhand for such positions..."</p>

<p>Both were my clients so I suppose I know a bit about these companies. OK, I'm game. Please give us ONE example of these 'pivotal' jobs that are offered at the Berkeley/Cornell career fairs. Remember we are not talking about grad students or business students. We are not talking about management trainees. We are talking about engineering jobs for undergraduate engineers. I am curious to see what kind of 'pivotal' positions TI or Lucent will entrust to fresh grads with little or no experience.</p>

<p>I've given you some examples in my previous post :)</p>

<p>Opinions vary among those who hire engineers and there are often regional preferences. The one thing to be aware of is that the content of the undergrad engineering programs really does not differ that much among the colleges because most of it is dictated by the ABET for accreditation. I deal often with engineers nationwide (as experts and consultants) and know some who are on hiring committees of nationwide consulting firms. What is interesting is that none of those I know place Stanford, MIT, CalTech, Cornell and Berkeley high on their list for hiring out of undergrad. There are various reasons for that, some of the comments: (a) those produce brilliant engineers, but others produce great engineers who can devise solutions within budget; (b) they are more theorectical than practical; (c) expectations are much higher than other hires; (d) they tend to use the first employer as simply a stepping grounds for training and then go somewhere else. Different companies have different favorite colleges but some I have heard mentioned, which include some regional choices, make up an interesting list (no particular order): UIUC, Mich, Rose-Hulman, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, GTech, Carnegie Mellon, Purdue, Texas, North Carolina State, Iowa State, Maryland, RPI, Colorado, Wis, and any military academy with the recruit coming out of the required service.</p>

<p>drusba,</p>

<p>As I mentioned a few times before, it depends on the hiring companies. Small company would typically AVOID hiring students from top engineering colleges, not because they're too theoritical (That's BS), but because they're too expensive to be hired for 'menial' engineering jobs.</p>