<p>While we're comparing engr. programs at tops schools... which would be better: biomedical engr at Harvard or the University of Pennsylvania? I believe US News has Penn ranked higher than Harvard (in engr.), but...</p>
<p>
[quote]
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...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps you misunderstood the meaning of Harvard Graduate School(GSAS) NOT accepting "more than three applications from any individual during the course of his or her academic career"</p>
<p>Let me give you an example ::</p>
<p>There are several Biotech/bioengineering related PhD program at Harvard.
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>plus Chemistry & Chemical Biology PhD, BioPhysics, Cellular & Molecular Bio. Organismic Bio, Da Vinci Program (Biotech PhD program from DEAS) , Biology & Systems Biology , Biological Sciences in Dental Medicine & maybe Biostatistics( for bioinformatics ) Harvard Integrated Life Sciences PhD program. and (Biology:Immunology, Biology:neuroscience, Biology:Virology) <- I think these programs are within Medical Science PhD program...</p>
<p>from :: <a href="http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/programs/index.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/programs/index.html</a></p>
<p>That is more than 12 Biotech/Bioengineering related departments, but you can apply to only 3 departments in a single year.</p>
<p>Say, if you apply 3 of the departments listed above in a single year and rejected by all three, then Harvard GSAS(and DEAS) will NOT accept your application FOREVER. </p>
<p>If you apply two the department in a single year and rejected by both departments , then you can submit only one more application next year (or in the future.)</p>
<p>However, at MIT you can apply ALL of the following departments in a single year :: Biological Engineering, Biology, Chemical Engineering (Biochemical Engineering subfield), Electrical Engineering (bioelectrical engineering subfield), Mechanical Engineering( Biomedical Engineering subfield), Chemistry( Biochemistry subfield), Physics ( Biophysics subfield) or maybe Health Sciences & Technology ( Medical Engineering/Medical Physics Speech and Hearing Bioscience, Biomedical Engineering(for MIT undergrads)</p>
<p>If you get rejected by all then you can apply all the department listed above again in the following year. </p>
<p>Some of the departments are very closely related , such as Biological Engineering, Biology, Chemistry( biochemistry subfield), Chemical Engineering(biological engineering subfield) and maybe Health Sciences & Technology ( admission to this program requires admission to one of the engineering or science department) I think many serious students who want to study biotech/bioengineering at MIT will submit more than 2-3 applications : one dream department and 2-3 safety departments..</p>
<p>Many of the MIT programs listed above also offer terminal master's degree program. So you can start at master's level then apply to the PhD level ( to 2-3 different department) after completing masters degree. </p>
<p>I think many serious applicants are willing to apply again one year later, after rejected, while working in a lab. OR start at master's level then apply PhD one year later. Either way, It is very realistic to say that some applicants will submit multiple(about 5-6) applications to MIT within 1+ year period. </p>
<p>I am sure, when unlimited multiple applications are allowed, many will apply to program that is not quite good match with their background. This will definitely decrease self-selectivity of MIT applicants...</p>
<p>Is harvard providing research opportunities for undergrad?</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are several Biotech/bioengineering related PhD program at Harvard.
Quote:
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>plus Chemistry & Chemical Biology PhD, BioPhysics, Cellular & Molecular Bio. Organismic Bio, Da Vinci Program (Biotech PhD program from DEAS) , Biology & Systems Biology , Biological Sciences in Dental Medicine & maybe Biostatistics( for bioinformatics ) Harvard Integrated Life Sciences PhD program. and (Biology:Immunology, Biology:neuroscience, Biology:Virology) <- I think these programs are within Medical Science PhD program...</p>
<p>from :: <a href="http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/programs/index.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/programs/index.html</a></p>
<p>That is more than 12 Biotech/Bioengineering related departments, but you can apply to only 3 departments in a single year.</p>
<p>Say, if you apply 3 of the departments listed above in a single year and rejected by all three, then Harvard GSAS(and DEAS) will NOT accept your application FOREVER.</p>
<p>If you apply two the department in a single year and rejected by both departments , then you can submit only one more application next year (or in the future.)</p>
<p>However, at MIT you can apply ALL of the following departments in a single year :: Biological Engineering, Biology, Chemical Engineering (Biochemical Engineering subfield), Electrical Engineering (bioelectrical engineering subfield), Mechanical Engineering( Biomedical Engineering subfield), Chemistry( Biochemistry subfield), Physics ( Biophysics subfield) or maybe Health Sciences & Technology ( Medical Engineering/Medical Physics Speech and Hearing Bioscience, Biomedical Engineering(for MIT undergrads)
[/quote]
For the record (and not that I think this argument deserves dignification with a response), applicants to GSAS at Harvard can apply under HILS (Harvard Integrated Life Sciences), thus applying to all of the biologically-related programs at Harvard. This is considered a single application to GSAS. </p>
<p>There isn't any reason why Harvard's graduate biology program ought to be any more self-selective than MIT's (indeed, just about everyone who applies to one applies to the other!).</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, at MIT you can apply ALL of the following departments in a single year :: Biological Engineering, Biology, Chemical Engineering (Biochemical Engineering subfield), Electrical Engineering (bioelectrical engineering subfield), Mechanical Engineering( Biomedical Engineering subfield), Chemistry( Biochemistry subfield), Physics ( Biophysics subfield) or maybe Health Sciences & Technology ( Medical Engineering/Medical Physics Speech and Hearing Bioscience, Biomedical Engineering(for MIT undergrads)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think molliebatmit just answered your concern right there - you can write one "application" to GSAS, but have that application go to multiple Harvard programs. </p>
<p>Besides, you have failed to answer MY question, which is who is going to apply to all of these departments, get rejected, and then keep applying over and over again? You are implying that people are so desperate to get into MIT or Harvard that they just apply to a whole bunch of programs at the same school just to see if they can get into one of them, and if they cannot, then they simply apply again the following year. I highly doubt that there are many people who are doing this. </p>
<p>Most to-be-grad students are quite serious about what they are doing and hence will identify the handful of specific programs that they believe are most suited to them and will only apply to them, and will attend the best one they can get into. Practically nobody applies to 5 different departments at MIT all at the same time, just like nobody applies to 5 different departments at Harvard all at the same time. Do you seriously believe that a lot of people are doing this? </p>
<p>This is especially true for doctoral programs. You seem to be saying that is just a game. The truth is, unless you are a true polymath, only 1 or maybe 2 departments at a particular school are going to be suitable for you. Doctoral programs take many years to complete and requires tremendous dedication. If a guy really wants to get his PhD in BioEngineering, but can't get into the MIT BioE doctoral program, it's not like he ought to be going to the MIT EECS doctoral program. This is not a game here. A doctorate is a very serious commitment. You need to make sure that you fit well within the program. This person is far better off simply going to the doctoral BioE program of some other school that he did get admitted to. Or, worse case scenario, he should apply again the following year. The worst thing you can do is enter a doctoral program that does not fit what you want to do. </p>
<p>And, like I said, even if he does apply again, I highly doubt that this person is going to apply more than twice, and certainly not more than 3 times. Like I said, if you can't get in after 3 application rounds, I think it's pretty clear that you're not getting in. You might as well go to some other school. How many people apply to the same doctoral program 4 or more times? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Many of the MIT programs listed above also offer terminal master's degree program. So you can start at master's level then apply to the PhD level ( to 2-3 different department) after completing masters degree.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And this is a completely irrelevant point because Harvard DEAS does the same thing. DEAS offers plenty of terminal master's degree programs after which you can apply to the doctoral program. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I am sure, when unlimited multiple applications are allowed, many will apply to program that is not quite good match with their background.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See, there it is again. You're basically saying that this is all a game - that there are all these people out there just want to go to MIT just for the sake of going to MIT, so they're going to apply to all of these MIT grad programs over and over again just to see where they can get into. I highly doubt that this is the case. Nobody "needs" a graduate graduate degree from MIT, just like nobody "needs" a graduate degree from Harvard. And certainly very few people are thinking that "Well, I couldn't get into the MIT bioE grad program, so I'll just go to the MIT EECS grad program". If it doesn't fit what you want to do, then you don't apply. </p>
<p>And besides, you keep missing the ultimate point that I am making - which is that we are talking about ENGINEERING here. Why are we even talking about all of the Harvard programs in biology or chemistry or biophysics or whatever it is? Or the MIT programs in Biology or Chemistry? What does THAT have to do with engineering specifically? All of this talk about self-selectivity has to do with engineering, and specifically DEAS engineering vs. MIT engineering. </p>
<p>I have always agreed that Harvard's science and math programs are great and are completely on par with MIT's. Both are excellent science and math schools. The question on the table is what about the engineering programs. I think that most serious observers will conclude that MIT's engineering is better than Harvard's. The rankings certainly say so. USNews says so. Gourman says so. The NRC says so. Name me one respected ranking that indicates that Harvard engineering is better than MIT's engineering. You can't do it.</p>
<p>Note, that's not to say that I think Harvard DEAS is bad. Indeed, I think it's pretty good. So if you feel more comfortable at DEAS than at MIT, then you should go to DEAS. But that's a far cry from implying that Harvard DEAS is better, on the aggregate, than is the MIT School of Engineering. </p>
<p>Look, mdx49, if you happen to think that Harvard DEAS is better for you, then good for you, go there. Just come right out and say that you find it a better fit for you. But there is no need for you to go around insulting other schools. You need to respect other schools. I have defended Harvard DEAS on many occasions on CC, because I respect the program. A lot of people on CC have stated that they think Harvard DEAS sucks, but I counter by saying that it's really not that bad. Hence, I have respect for Harvard DEAS. You need to develop some respect for MIT.</p>
<p>How don't know how this grad school argument came about, but I am choosing undergrad :)</p>
<p>Hey, it's mdx49 who implicitly brought up grad, when he talked about the selectivity of different programs. As an undergrad, all Harvard, whether they study engineering or Art History, have to survive the same admissions process. Hence, there is no such thing as different selectivities for different programs.</p>
<p>You are correct that for undergrad there is only one admission at Harvard. Note that I meant to say I am choosing among different undergrad universities (I mentioned MIT, Harvard, Johns Hopkins.).</p>
<p>How is harvard undergrad research opportunity?</p>
<p>
[quote]
you have failed to answer MY question, which is who is going to apply to all of these departments, get rejected, and then keep applying over and over again?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Harvard Integrated LIfe Sciences(HILS) program was created recently ( I think it started this year) and applicants had to submit multiple applications to be considered for multiple departments in the past.
I have seen students applied 2 programs and got 2 offers in a single year in the past especially in Bio-related area. I guess harvard created HILS program because there were too many people submitting 2-3 applications to bio-related departments which are all very closely related. </p>
<p>And not all bio-related programs are part of HILS, BioEngineering at DEAS, Medical Engineering/Mecial Physics at Physics department, and/or Engineering and Physical Biology at Molecular & Celluar Bio do not participate in HILS. If you are specifically interested in Bioengineering-related programs you have an option to choose one of these theree. </p>
<p>Some people who are interested in statistics also tend to submit multiple applications: Statistics, Biostatics, Applied Math..</p>
<p>I agree with you that very few people, would apply over and over again. I brought up the Harvard's polycy of limiting number of applications to 3 ( two applications per year) , because you claimed that ::
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
This is totally untrue. Because one can submit maximum 2 applications per year ( maximun 3 in one's lifetime), only very extremely serious applicants tend to apply to harvard. Harvard is a very self selective school. At MIT, almost every engineering department has Biomedical or Bio engineering subfield as well as independent Bioengineering department. Since unlimited applications are accepted in a single year, I am sure some will apply thinking " Why don't I apply biomedical engineering program in this department and see what happens .." etc.... If you go to FAQ section of the asmissions web site, you can see that many applicants are frequently asking about 'Reapplication policy'. I am sure reapplying one more time one year later is quite common...( I agree with you that applying more than 3rd or 4th is quite uncommon) </p>
<p>You claimed that Harvard DEAS is not as self-selective as MIT. What is it based on ?</p>
<p>Besides, I also want to point out the ridiculously high admit rate of some of the MIT Engineering department. Ocean Engineering used to have 75% admit rate. And some engineering department, such as Nuclear Engineering, Civil and Environmental Engineering has 50% admit rate. Mechanical Eng. is about 30%. And overall admit rate of whole engineering school is about 25%. Harvard DEAS admit rate is only 10.4% and I don't think Harvard DEAS is less self-selective at all.</p>
<p>You also claimed that people go to Harvard engineering because
[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.</h1>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The truth is quite the opposite. I know 1-2 MIT department is quite hard to get into but most of engineering department are a lot easier than DEAS to get in. MIT engineeing has big student body and many openings, but unfortunatley not that many people are interested in studying engineering at graduate level. That is why admit rates are so high at most US engineering schools </p>
<p>I also strongly disagree with the following claim .
[quote]
I have always agreed that Harvard's science and math programs are great and are completely on par with MIT's
[/quote]
I thinnk most people would agree that Harvard science & math is better than MIT's. Harvard -MIT science & math program share approximately same applicant pool, but most cross-admits choose Harvard Math& science graduate program over MIT graduate program.. Harvard alumnus received more Nobel prize ( mostly in science) than any other school(including MIT) in US and harvard frequently finished first place in putnam math competitions.<br>
I think MIT engineering is a great school if you want to be an engineer working in a lab building things, designing circuits, writing computer code etc.. However, Harvard DEAS can be better place if you are interested in Business side of engineering. I know that there are many MIT engineering grads who became successful in business world. but there are more than 1000 people getting engineering degree from MIT(both graduate & undergrad) each year and about 70 ( under & grad) are getting degrees from DEAS each year. How many MIT engineering grads are as successful as Bill Gates, Steven Balmer, An Wang, Fischer Black ? MIT Engineering is 15 times bigger than Harvard DEAS but I don't think there are 15 times more MIT engineering alumnus on the same level as these 4 people from DEAS.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is totally untrue. Because one can submit maximum 2 applications per year ( maximun 3 in one's lifetime), only very extremely serious applicants tend to apply to harvard. Harvard is a very self selective school. At MIT, almost every engineering department has Biomedical or Bio engineering subfield as well as independent Bioengineering department. Since unlimited applications are accepted in a single year, I am sure some will apply thinking " Why don't I apply biomedical engineering program in this department and see what happens .." etc.... If you go to FAQ section of the asmissions web site, you can see that many applicants are frequently asking about 'Reapplication policy'. I am sure reapplying one more time one year later is quite common...( I agree with you that applying more than 3rd or 4th is quite uncommon)
[/quote]
Sure, people can apply to more than one department at MIT, but how many are going to? Applications cost money, and they cost quite a bit of it, too.</p>
<p>I also think it's completely ridiculous to try and assign a "best" label to a single school in science and math. There are a few schools (Harvard and MIT among them) that have astounding department strengths. It's silly to insist that one has to be "the best", particularly when you consider that a faculty member at Harvard/MIT/Stanford/Berkeley is likely to have done his or her undergrad/grad school/postdoc at any combination of the other three schools.</p>
<p>When picking between Harvard and MIT, nobody in the sciences or math is picking based on department strength -- they're equivalent departments in most fields. They're picking based on the number of people in their subfield and on overall fit with the program.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is totally untrue. Because one can submit maximum 2 applications per year ( maximun 3 in one's lifetime), only very extremely serious applicants tend to apply to harvard. Harvard is a very self selective school. At MIT, almost every engineering department has Biomedical or Bio engineering subfield as well as independent Bioengineering department. Since unlimited applications are accepted in a single year, I am sure some will apply thinking " Why don't I apply biomedical engineering program in this department and see what happens .." etc.... If you go to FAQ section of the asmissions web site, you can see that many applicants are frequently asking about 'Reapplication policy'. I am sure reapplying one more time one year later is quite common...( I agree with you that applying more than 3rd or 4th is quite uncommon) </p>
<p>You claimed that Harvard DEAS is not as self-selective as MIT. What is it based on ?</p>
<p>Besides, I also want to point out the ridiculously high admit rate of some of the MIT Engineering department. Ocean Engineering used to have 75% admit rate. And some engineering department, such as Nuclear Engineering, Civil and Environmental Engineering has 50% admit rate. Mechanical Eng. is about 30%. And overall admit rate of whole engineering school is about 25%. Harvard DEAS admit rate is only 10.4% and I don't think Harvard DEAS is less self-selective at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said that Harvard DEAS was, overall, less self-selective than is MIT. I said that I don't know. What I said is that you simply cannot look only at admissions percentages. See below. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The truth is quite the opposite. I know 1-2 MIT department is quite hard to get into but most of engineering department are a lot easier than DEAS to get in. MIT engineeing has big student body and many openings, but unfortunatley not that many people are interested in studying engineering at graduate level. That is why admit rates are so high at most US engineering schools
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly. There it is. You said it yourself - admit rates as high at most US engineering schools, because only those people who really want to be engineers will apply to US engineering schools.</p>
<p>The difficulty in your analogy is this. DEAS includes a number of fields that are not engineering. The "AS" part of DEAS are NOT engineering fields. And in fact, the distinguished graduates of DEAS that you cited previously all came from the AS part of DEAS. </p>
<p>Hence, what you are doing is comparing the MIT School of Engineering vs. the entire Harvard DEAS. What you should be doing is comparing the MIT School of Engineering vs. just the "E" part of DEAS. I freely agree that the AS part of DEAS will most likely have quite low admit rates, because there are a lot of people who want to get in. The question is, what about the engineering part of DEAS? You said it yourself - not a lot of people are applying to US engineering schools. That includes the E part of DEAS. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I thinnk most people would agree that Harvard science & math is better than MIT's. Harvard -MIT science & math program share approximately same applicant pool, but most cross-admits choose Harvard Math& science graduate program over MIT graduate program.. Harvard alumnus received more Nobel prize ( mostly in science) than any other school(including MIT) in US and harvard frequently finished first place in putnam math competitions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So when you say "most people", which people are you talking about? The USNews departmental rankings don't seem to agree. The NRC doesn't seem to agree. These rankings state that Harvard and MIT are about the same when it comes to math and science. Are you saying that all these rankings are wrong and you are right? </p>
<p>
[quote]
but most cross-admits choose Harvard Math& science graduate program over MIT graduate program..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really? You have evidence of this? Please present it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Harvard alumnus received more Nobel prize ( mostly in science) than any other school(including MIT) in US
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh really? You have run the numbers and you have shown this to be true? I think the numbers are roughly the same. Keep in mind - don't count Nobel's in Peace or in Literature, as they have nothing to do with science or math. I would also be very wary of including Nobel's in Medicine if they came from Harvard Medical School, as they simply serve to unfairly punish MIT for not having a medical school. </p>
<p>
[quote]
How many MIT engineering grads are as successful as Bill Gates, Steven Balmer, An Wang, Fischer Black ?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again, not a fair comparison. These people all graduated from the "AS" part of DEAS. And Bill Gates never even graduated, so we will never know if he would have really graduated from DEAS or if he would have switched majors to something like pure Math. </p>
<p>The fundamental problem that I have with your analysis is that you constantly insist on comparing the Applied Science part of Harvard to the MIT School of Engineering. This is not a fair comparison. What you should be doing is comparing Harvard ENGINEERING to MIT ENGINERING. That is, after all, the point of the OP's post.</p>
<p>I'll make it easy for you, md49. How many famous Harvard ENGINEERING alumni can you name? By engineering, I am not talking about the people who graduated in Applied Math or Applied Physics of any of the other things that the AS part of DEAS teaches. I am talking about (in the case of undergrads) those who actually got the ABET-accredited S.B. engineering degree from Harvard. Or if we are talking about graduate school, then we're talking about the fields of BioEngineering, Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, or those sorts of things. Obtain a list of illustrious Harvard grads who have degrees in those fields. Not easy, is it?</p>
<p>harvard doesn't have chemical engineering right?</p>
<p>wut engineering does harvard have at undergrad?</p>
<p>i only heard GENERAL ENGINEERING.. whatever that means</p>
<p>correct me if i'm wrong please.</p>
<p>True, the major is called Engineering Science. Within it, there are different tracks, one of which is biomedical engineering.</p>
<p>At Harvard, Applied Physics is same is Engineering Physics, Applied Math is same is Engineering Mathematics and Computer Science( some subfileds) is Computer Engineering. ( Cornell calls it Engineering Physics and harvard calls it Applied Physics.. ) They are all engineering degree. </p>
<p>That is why Harvad awards Master of "ENGINEERING" (ME) degree in Applied Physics, in Applied Math and in Computer Sciences...</p>
<p>MIT offers Master of "SCIENCE" in Aeronautics and Astronautics. Is this engineering degree OR a science degree ? I think it is engineering degree even though I can not see the word 'Engineering' in both degree name and subject name.
It is same as Aerospace Engineering...</p>
<p>What about PhD in Materials Science from MIT . I think it is an engineering degee. MIT also offers Master of "ENGINEERING' in Logistics, and again I can't see the word 'Engineering' in subject name but I consider it as a engineering degree. </p>
<p>An Wang got his PhD in Applied Physics but PhD work is same as Electrical Engineering and/or Computer Engineering. and He is frequently considered as an American "Engineer". His company 'Wang Electronics' was actually based on his PhD work at Harvard. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh really? You have run the numbers and you have shown this to be true? I think the numbers are roughly the same. Keep in mind - don't count Nobel's in Peace or in Literature, as they have nothing to do with science or math
[/quote]
</p>
<p>wikipedia.com conveniently shows list of Nobel Laureate by University Affilication. About 40 Harvard Alumni (plus 3 additional alumni this year won nobel prize in physics & chem). More than 30 Harvard Alumni won Nobel in Sciences and I think about 17 MIT alumni won nobel in science. It is possible that Columbia University has more Alumni who won Nobel in sciences (than Harvard) </p>
<p>
[quote]
At Harvard, Applied Physics is same is Engineering Physics, Applied Math is same is Engineering Mathematics and Computer Science( some subfileds) is Computer Engineering. ( Cornell calls it Engineering Physics and harvard calls it Applied Physics.. ) They are all engineering degree. </p>
<p>That is why Harvad awards Master of "ENGINEERING" (ME) degree in Applied Physics, in Applied Math and in Computer Sciences...</p>
<p>MIT offers Master of "SCIENCE" in Aeronautics and Astronautics. Is this engineering degree OR a science degree ? I think it is engineering degree even though I can not see the word 'Engineering' in both degree name and subject name.
It is same as Aerospace Engineering...</p>
<p>What about PhD in Materials Science from MIT . I think it is an engineering degee. MIT also offers Master of "ENGINEERING' in Logistics, and again I can't see the word 'Engineering' in subject name but I consider it as a engineering degree. </p>
<p>An Wang got his PhD in Applied Physics but PhD work is same as Electrical Engineering and/or Computer Engineering. and He is frequently considered as an American "Engineer". His company 'Wang Electronics' was actually based on his PhD work at Harvard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think the best way to figure it out is to ask a simple question - what is accredited? Is Applied Physics at Harvard accredited by ABET? No? Then it is not a real engineering degee. Is Aero/Astro accredited by ABET? Yes? Then it is a real engineering degree. </p>
<p>So tell me who among these Harvard alumni have degrees from an accredited engineering program? </p>
<p>
[quote]
More than 30 Harvard Alumni won Nobel in Sciences and I think about 17 MIT alumni won nobel in science. It is possible that Columbia University has more Alumni who won Nobel in sciences (than Harvard)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly. First of all, I think we can both agree that both Harvard and MIT are probably better than Columbia in science , even if Columbia has more Nobel winners. </p>
<p>Secondly, like I said: 30 or 24. These numbers are roughly the same. Particularly when you consider the fact that Harvard a much longer history and has therefore been much better established. Keep in mind that MIT was founded only in 1865, more than 200 years after Harvard was, and for the next 50-75 years after that, MIT was really a small regional school of no consequence. MIT didn't even have one of its graduates win a Nobel until 1956, and didn't start winning consistently until the 1960's and beyond, whereas Harvard grads had been picking up plenty of Nobels before that.</p>
<p>But this isn't a history lesson. Yes, Harvard was a far better school than MIT in the early 1900's, simply because MIT was still very young at the time. What we need to be doing is talking about Harvard vs. MIT right now. So the fact that Harvard was better than MIT 100 years ago is irrelevant to the situation right now. </p>
<p>So 30 vs. 24. When you consider that MIT started later in the game, I think that's highly comparable.</p>
<p>
[quote]
An Wang got his PhD in Applied Physics but PhD work is same as Electrical Engineering and/or Computer Engineering. and He is frequently considered as an American "Engineer". His company 'Wang Electronics' was actually based on his PhD work at Harvard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that's stretching it. By the same logic, you have to agree that Robert Merton is an "engineer". After all, you yourself called Fischer Black an "engineer" for his contributions to financial engineering. Yet it was Merton who won the Nobel Prize in Economics for financial engineering (granted, Black would have co-won it if he hadn't died). Merton's PhD is in Economics from MIT. Yet he won the Nobel for financial engineering. Merton is just as much of a father of financial engineering as Black is. So does that mean that Merton is an engineer? </p>
<p>Besides, why stop there. Why not talk about Genentech, one of the biggest biotech companies in the world, founded by Robert Swanson, who graduated with MIT degrees in chemistry and management. Is he an engineer? He did found a major biotech company. Is that considered "engineering"? I can come up with many examples of MIT grads in the sciences or other fields who nevertheless have had people call them 'engineers'. Does that make them engineers?</p>
<p>One interesting question.</p>
<p>Ok, Harvard Undergrad offers the Engineering Science major and with exception of the Engineering Physics track, I can get Bachelor of Art or Bachelor of Science, which has more concentrated required courses.</p>
<p>But how come on my Certificate of Admission from Harvard says that I am a "candidate for Bachelor of Art" degree?</p>
<p>Most harvard DEAS students get BA degree instead of BS...<br>
and it is very easy to change from BA to BS once you finish all the course requirements.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Secondly, like I said: 30 or 24. These numbers are roughly the same
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is 31 vs 17
31 Harvard Alumni won Nobel Prize in Natural Sciences
17 MIT Alumni won Nobel in Natural Sciences</p>
<p>31 vs 17 is not comparable...</p>
<h1>of times Harvard Math team won Putnam Math competition = 25</h1>
<h1>of times MIT math team won Putnam Math Competition =5</h1>
<p>(as of 2005)
It is 25 vs 5 and I don't think it is comparable...</p>
<p>Sakky & MDX,</p>
<p>Wouldn't it be easier to just agree to meet somewhere, whip them out and measure who has the biggest? I mean, that's all this is...</p>