<p>I think Harvard is around #20 in the country in biomedical engineering. Johns Hopkins is #1, followed by MIT, UCSD, and Duke (not sure about the exact order though). But still, Harvard is Harvard, no doubt about that.</p>
<p>Harvard is not for engineering....its better for hard/natural sciences.</p>
<p>Some are not aware that the engineering faculty at Harvard has grown by more than 50% in the last 5 years as part of a major effort; a huge building project in Allston across the Charles is planned, so that eventually the highly selective Harvard engineering program will be transformed from one of the smallest to equal Cornell's as the largest in the Ivy League. (At least that is the plan)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.deas.harvard.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://www.deas.harvard.edu/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.allston.harvard.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://www.allston.harvard.edu/</a></p>
<p>The Dean's 1998 blueprint for change, which is well-launched as he steps back to teaching:
<a href="http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/10.22/NewDeanSeesAmbi.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/10.22/NewDeanSeesAmbi.html</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
Bill Gates (Founder of Microsoft)
Fischer Black ( Partner of Goldman Sachs and father of Financial Eingeering)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's unclear whether Bill Gates is a DEAS alumni, as he left before he had to declare his major. </p>
<p>I also think that saying that Fischer Black is the 'father' of Financial Engineering is too strong. Robert Merton and Myron Scholes have just as much of a claim to being a father to financial engineering as Black does. After all, Merton and Scholes won the Nobel Prize in Economics for developing Financial Engineering. Black would have won with them if he were still alive (you can't win a Nobel posthumously). But anyway, it's far more accurate to say that they were all "co-fathers" of financial engineering.</p>
<p>Oh yeah, by the way, Robert Merton graduated from MIT. </p>
<p>
[quote]
but most of MIT people usually end up working for Harvard alumni ( or other Ivy Engineering alumni)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's a statistical impossibility. Most MIT grads (and in fact, most Harvard grads and grads of any other school) end up working for grads of no-name schools, for the simple reason that there are far far more graduates of no-name schools than there are of elite schols. For example, there are more undergrads at Arizona State University than there are in the top 10 US News universities combined. </p>
<p>I think what you mean to say that MIT grads tend to work for Harvard grads more than vice versa (although most will end up working for neither). However, I think this has nothing to do with the education, but has to do with the family background. The truth is, a lot of Harvard students tend to come from rich, privileged and powerful families. Look at the Kennedy's. Look at Al Gore. They are going to use family connections to get them a nice job after graduation. A lot of them are going to take over Daddy's company later in their life. </p>
<p>So a lot of Harvard grads become successful just because they were lucky to be born rich and well-connected. It doesn't mean that if you go to Harvard, you are going to be rich and well-connected.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I just have a question: why do people go to Harvard for engineering? Obviously, there must be engineers at harvard, but why didn't they choose the engineering giants like MIT? Does harvard have a clear advantage?
[/quote]
</p>
<h1>1 reason is that they didn't get in. Not everybody who gets into Harvard also gets into MIT, you know. This is particularly true for the graduate school. I've met engineering doctoral students at Harvard, who basically spend all their time at MIT (working with MIT profs, cross-regging at MIT classes), and when I asked why, if they end up spending so much time at MIT anyway, why didn't they just matriculate at MIT, they honestly said it was because they didn't get in.</h1>
<p>The other main reason is that people aren't sure that they really want to do engineering. Government studies have demonstrated that the majority of freshman who come in majoring in engineering never actually complete the engineering degree, either because they switch majors, or because they flunk out because of their engineering grades (it's very easy to get bad grades in engineering), or whatever. Heck, even of those people who complete engineering degrees, plenty of them don't take engineering jobs. For example, 25% of MIT EECS graduates take jobs in management consulting or banking, not engineering. You would think that if anybody would be truly gung-ho about engineering, it would be the engineers at MIT. Yet even plenty of them abandon engineering for something else.</p>
<p>Look, the truth is, the vast majority of people end up taking jobs in things that have little to do with what they studied in undergrad. Your undergrad major is just something you use to expand your mind, not necessarily choosing your career for the rest of your life. Very few History majors actually become historians, very few Poli-Sci majors actually become political scientists.</p>
<p>Actually, MIT Engineering a lot easier to get into. Harvard DEAS is extremly selective school with 10.9% admit rate (78% yield). MIT admit rate 24%</p>
<p>I know many MIT engineering students who could not get into Harvard DEAS. </p>
<p>I think MIT is admitting many unqualified applicants because less than 50% of doctoral students can pass PhD qualifying exam at Mechanical Engineering, Materials Science, Nuclear Engineering ( only 30% pass rate) departments etc.. I don't have info for other MIT departments. </p>
<p>At Harvard DEAS almost everyone pass the qualifying exam..</p>
<p>I got following info about Harvard DEAS from other board</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Small: Only 18 PhD graduates (from harvard DEAS) in 2003, vs 205 at MIT, 98 at Cornell, 57 at Caltech, and 51 at Princeton. </p></li>
<li><p>Smart: 2003 entrants had a higher analytical GRE (761) than entrants to any other engineering school. (MIT: 735; Caltech: 754; Princeton: 748; Cornell, 732.) </p></li>
<li><p>Top Faculty: Only Caltech (19.5%) has a higher fraction of faculty in the NAE than Harvard (15.4%), among all schools of engineering. (MIT: 13.1%; Princeton, 12.6%) </p></li>
<li><p>Top output: Research expenditures per faculty member (in thousands): Harvard, $723; Caltech, $502; MIT, $684; Princeton, $442.) </p></li>
</ol>
<p>5: Selective: 2003 acceptance rate: Harvard, 10.9%; MIT, 24%; Princeton, 14.2%; Caltech, 9.7%, Cornell, 24.8%</p>
<p>
[quote]
So a lot of Harvard grads become successful just because they were lucky to be born rich and well-connected. It doesn't mean that if you go to Harvard, you are going to be rich and well-connected.
[quote]
</p>
<p>Well, Harvard Alumnus received more Nobel Prize than alumnus from any other schools in USA. I don't think Nobel Prize is not based on how rich they are nor family connection...</p>
<p>In Putnam Math Competition, the most prestigious math competition in US, Harvard has finished first place 24 times (as of 2004). MIT finished finished first place only 5 times ( as of 2004). I don't think Putnam math exam committee give extra credit for people born rich and well-connected.
And most of top winners of US high school math competition winners choose to attend harvard..</p>
<p>Some Harvard grad maybe become successful because of their good family background, but most Harvard grad become successful simply bacause they are smart and hard working...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, MIT Engineering a lot easier to get into. Harvard DEAS is extremly selective school with 10.9% admit rate (78% yield). MIT admit rate 24%</p>
<p>I know many MIT engineering students who could not get into Harvard DEAS.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I rather doubt it. Selectivity ratings mean little, unless you also believe that the most selective school in the country is the US Coast Guard Academy with a miniscule 5% admit rate. </p>
<p>What you have not included is the aspect of SELF-SELECTION. Those people who tend to apply to MIT are already a highly self-selected group. After all, you're probably not going to apply to MIT for engineering grad school unless you are quite serious about being an academic engineer. This is less so of Harvard, where I suspect that many people try to get in just so that they can say that go to Harvard. This is why admit rates in general are such unreliable indicators of quality. </p>
<p>
[quote]
At Harvard DEAS almost everyone pass the qualifying exam..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would strongly dispute this also. I would like to see evidence that "almost everyone" passes the qualifying exams at Harvard DEAS. I don't think that Harvard DEAS is any better or any worse than MIT on this front, when you contrast comparable departments (i.e. you can't compare the pass rates of Applied Math to EE). </p>
<p>Look, nobody is saying that Harvard DEAS is a bad place. In fact, I myself have stated several times that Harvard DEAS is pretty good. But let's not go overboard. Even Harvard people would concede that DEAS is not as good as MIT when it comes to engineering. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, Harvard Alumnus received more Nobel Prize than alumnus from any other schools in USA. I don't think Nobel Prize is not based on how rich they are nor family connection...</p>
<p>In Putnam Math Competition, the most prestigious math competition in US, Harvard has finished first place 24 times (as of 2004). MIT finished finished first place only 5 times ( as of 2004). I don't think Putnam math exam committee give extra credit for people born rich and well-connected.
And most of top winners of US high school math competition winners choose to attend harvard..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>These are completely and utterly irrelevant points, because they have nothing to do with engineering. Everybody agrees that Harvard is a great science and math school. Almost all of those Harvard Nobel Prize winners are from the science departments. Those Putnam winners are from the math department. </p>
<p>The question on the table is not whether Harvard science and math are strong. Nobody disputes this. The question is whether Harvard is a better ENGINEERING school than MIT is. The question is clearly no. There is no Nobel Prize in Engineering. There is no Putnam competition in Engineering. However, when it comes to engineering criteria, Harvard is clearly not as good as MIT is. </p>
<p>In fact, you implicitly proved this yourself. The DEAS grads that you cited all came from the 'AS' part of DEAS. None of the guys you cited (Gates, Ballmer, An Wang, Fischer Black) got engineering degrees from Harvard. </p>
<p>Look, bottom line, science is not engineering. Math is not engineering. They are related to each other, but they are not the same thing. So you need to stop talking about Harvard's strength in science and math when you're talking about engineering. </p>
<p>Bottom line. Do I think DEAS is good? Sure. Do I think that Harvard engineering is as good as MIT engineering? Absolutely not. I think that even most Harvard people would concede that MIT is a better engineering school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
These are completely and utterly irrelevant points, because they have nothing to do with engineering. Everybody agrees that Harvard is a great science and math school. Almost all of those Harvard Nobel Prize winners are from the science departments. Those Putnam winners are from the math department.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>hmm.. you started mention Kennedy, Al Gore and claimed that a lot of Harvard grads became successful because of good family connection.</p>
<p>That is not quite true. I mentioned Nobel prize winners who are Harvard alumni and putnam math competition winners to show you that most Harvard grads became successful because they are smart and hard working..</p>
<p>Please read #27 again...</p>
<p>Hmm...Ok, I am the original thread starter. Let me redirect our discussion. </p>
<p>I am thinking of going to med school. Is Harvard a better place to premed since the grade is more inflated, comparatively speaking, than MIT?</p>
<p>Medical School admit rate from Harvard is more than 90% and average GPA of admitted student is about 3.4/4.0. ( meaning about half of admitted students got below 3.4/4.0)</p>
<p>Med school admit rate from MIT is about 75% and ave. GPA of accepted student is 3.7/4.0</p>
<p>I guess Medical School admission committee view that 3.4 from harvard is equivalent to 3.7 from MIT since Harvard is more selective school. </p>
<p>Harvard is harder to get into but once you are in Harvard, it almost guarantees admission to at least one medical school....</p>
<p>Yea, that is what I hear about MIT and Harvard. But I am hearing different things about Johns Hopkins. Some say it is a somewhat grade-inflated institute, hence better chance at Med. Others say, it is a cutthroat competition. </p>
<p>Do you know anything about JHU?</p>
<p>Yup, I saw that list before. but it is not for Med. Do you think the general chart applies to specifically Med?</p>
<p>Johns Hopkins is a grade DEFLATED institute in pre-med.</p>
<p>
[quote]
hmm.. you started mention Kennedy, Al Gore and claimed that a lot of Harvard grads became successful because of good family connection.</p>
<p>That is not quite true. I mentioned Nobel prize winners who are Harvard alumni and putnam math competition winners to show you that most Harvard grads became successful because they are smart and hard working..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I mentioned Kennedy and Al Gore and those guys for the simple reason to counter your point about how MIT grads tend to work for Harvard grads. I am pointing out that much of this has to do with simple wealth and family connections, and has nothing to do with DEAS per se. </p>
<p>Why don't you read the original post again. The post asked about engineering. I don't see that Harvard engineering grads are any more successful than MIT engineering grads. The most successful Harvard grads, unsurprisingly, tend to be non-engineering grads, especially those who came from rich privileged backgrounds. Like Al Gore. Like the Kennedys. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Harvard is harder to get into but once you are in Harvard, it almost guarantees admission to at least one medical school....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is NOT what it means. That 90% placement rate has to do with Harvard premed who ACTUALLY APPLY to med-school. Plenty of Harvard premeds (and premeds at every other school) don't even apply because they know they won't get in. Let's face it. If you go to Harvard (or anywhere else) and you get a 2.5, you know you're not going to get into med-school, so you probably won't waste time applying.</p>
<p>"Medical School admit rate from Harvard is more than 90% and average GPA of admitted student is about 3.4/4.0. ( meaning about half of admitted students got below 3.4/4.0)</p>
<p>Med school admit rate from MIT is about 75% and ave. GPA of accepted student is 3.7/4.0</p>
<p>I guess Medical School admission committee view that 3.4 from harvard is equivalent to 3.7 from MIT since Harvard is more selective school."</p>
<p>None of that is true until you cite it.</p>
<p>Oh yes, and Byerly pulls out his terribly biased WSJ rankings. Look at the methodology: graduate schools were chosen in order to continue HYP dominance at the top.</p>
<p>You are probably better off at Harvard for premed. I have not seen the data on average GPA of medical school admits for Harvard (can you cite your source?), but I believe the 3.4, since that is about the same as Princeton. The MIT figure is published. I don't recall whether it is as high as 3.7, but it was relatively high. (Did your source for this correct for MIT's 5-point grading scale? A 3.7, uncorrected, is not particularly high by premed standards). So it does make one wonder whether going to MIT is a disadvantage at application time. Of course, most of the best students at MIT go to graduate school in science or engineering if they continue their educations, so it is difficult to compare the student bodies at these two places. </p>
<p>Many more students enter college planning on premed than actually apply 3 years later. The real statistic you would like to see, which is impossible to get, is the proportion of freshlings who enter as premeds who end up being admitted to med school. Hopkins withholds recommendation letters from students who they consider to have poor chances at admission, this artificially inflates their admission rate. When you get down to selecting colleges for premed, find out whether your college does this. With a lot of hunting you can often find this online. At the schools to which you have been admitted, it is worth contacting the premed advising office to get the facts.</p>
<p>Further, you do not need to major in science to go to medical school, and Harvard offers a broad array of possible concentrations in case you change your mind about potential majors, which most college students do. At MIT it is almost science, engineering, economics, or "why did you come to MIT?"</p>
<p>MIT is a wonderful university, and perhaps overall the best there is in engineering and one of the top in math and science, but if you are certain about your desire for medical school, MIT is not necessarily the best place to be.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What you have not included is the aspect of SELF-SELECTION. Those people who tend to apply to MIT are already a highly self-selected group. After all, you're probably not going to apply to MIT for engineering grad school unless you are quite serious about being an academic engineer. This is less so of Harvard,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This not true. DEAS which is part of GSAS "does not accept more than three applications from any individual during the course of his or her academic career." However, at MIT ,if you are interested in Biotech, you can apply several bio-releted MIT departments such as Biology, Bioengineering, Medical Engineering, Bioelectrical Engineering, Biophysics, Biochemical Engineering...etc. If you get rejected by all of these MIT graduate departments you can still reapply 1-2 years later after some research experience. I don't think MIT is that self-selective</p>
<p>However, at Harvard, you can apply only three times. I think most harvard applicants are extremely serious when they are applying to harvard and definitely quite self-selective.</p>
<p>And some MIT graduate school departments have very high admit rate. I know that about half of MIT Engineering departments has nearly 50 % admit rate. Oceans Engineering has more than 70% admit rate a few years ago and Civil Engineering has about 50% admit rate. Nuclear Engineering also has nearly 50% admit rate. etc</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, at MIT ,if you are interested in Biotech, you can apply several bio-releted MIT departments such as Biology, Bioengineering, Medical Engineering, Bioelectrical Engineering, Biophysics, Biochemical Engineering...etc. .
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ok, first of all, mdx49, you need to start doing your homework, as you clearly have not put in the time to study the issue. </p>
<p>I have NEVER heard of any distinct programs in "Bioelectrical Engineering" or "Biophysics" or "Biochemical engineering" at MIT that you can apply to. These programs exist as subfields within specific departments. But you can make only ONE application per department. For example, you can't write 4 applications all to the MIT BioEngineering department, where one application is for "Bioelectrical Engineering", another application is for "Biochemical engineering", and whatnot. You submit 1 application per department per year (at most), and you designate what specific field you want to study in that application. </p>
<p>Now, in theory, you could apply to more than 1 MIT department - the departments being Biology, BioEngineering, and (maybe) Chemical Engineering. But that's no different from applying to multiple Harvard departments and/or schools. For example, I could apply to the PhD BioEngineering program within DEAS, and also to the PhD Biology program within the Harvard GSAS, and also to the PhD Biology/BioMedical Science program at Harvard Medical School, and the PhD program in Biological Sciences at the Harvard School of Public Health. </p>
<p>Uh, that is NOT what self-selection means. Perhaps you need to look it up. Self-selection has to do with the fact only quite serious students of engineering will tend to apply to a particular school. </p>
<p>
[quote]
DEAS which is part of GSAS "does not accept more than three applications from any individual during the course of his or her academic career."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I highly doubt that this stipulation makes a difference when it comes to graduate admissions. How many people do you honestly think are applying more than 3 times to the same graduate program? Just think about it - whether we're talking about Harvard or MIT or Stanford or anywhere else, it doesn't matter. The truth is, the vast majority of people are going to apply to a range of schools and then choose the best one they can get into. Maybe they might wait one more year and then apply again. But very very few people are going to keep applying to Harvard or MIT or any other program more than 3 times. </p>
<p>Just ask yourself - how many people are really honestly going to be willing to delay their degree by 3+ years just because they want to get into a specific program, but can't get in? If you want to get a graduate degree, you generally want to get it NOW. You aren't going to wait for years and years to apply over and over again to one particular program, when you could have gone elsewhere and made progress on your career. </p>
<p>Think of the thought process. So you say that somebody is really trying to get into Harvard (or MIT). He applies to DEAS. He doesn't get in. So you say that he spends a year working in a lab.. He applies again. Once again, he doesn't get in. So maybe he spends another year working in a lab. So he applies a 3rd time, and doesn't get in again. Do you really think this guy is going to work for another year in order to apply a 4th time? I think this point would never be reached. Instead, he is going to go to some other school that did admit him. </p>
<p>The point is, this stipulation of DEAS that you can only apply 3 times hardly makes any difference.</p>
<p>And again, keep in mind that this restriction only applies to DEAS. Like I said, Harvard has many programs in its many schools. You could be applying to the doctoral programs at Harvard Med, Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard this, Harvard that, etc. </p>
<p>
[quote]
If you get rejected by all of these MIT graduate departments you can still reapply 1-2 years later after some research experience. I don't think MIT is that self-selective And some MIT graduate school departments have very high admit rate. I know that about half of MIT Engineering departments has nearly 50 % admit rate. Oceans Engineering has more than 70% admit rate a few years ago and Civil Engineering has about 50% admit rate. Nuclear Engineering also has nearly 50% admit rate. etc
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you need to understand what it means to be self-selective. Maybe you need to go learn what the concept means. Self-selection means that the people who are applying tend to be highly qualified. </p>
<p>Your examples only prove my point. How many people in the world really want a MIT Nuclear engineering grad degree? Generally, it's only those people who are highly serious about Nuclear engineering, and these people tend to be highly qualified. The same is true of MIT Ocean Engineering. </p>
<p>Besides, I also have stories how in the past, Harvard DEAS was much less selective than it is today. For example, it used to be quite easy to get into the Harvard ME graduate program. </p>
<p>Look, the bottom line is this. Nobody is saying that the Harvard DEAS is bad. Indeed, I think it is a perfectly respectable program, and among the world's best. I also agree that MIT is not for everybody. So if Harvard DEAS works better for you than MIT does, then good for you.</p>
<p>But at the same time, there's no need to go around slamming other programs and deliberately spread lies. I respect both MIT and Harvard DEAS. You should do the same.</p>