<p>Hey for soem reason i cant start a thread but i have a question: ... i am accepted to Jonhs Hopkins biomedical engineering, MIT, Yale, Stanford, Tufts, an Princeton (I didnt get any rejections WOOHOOO). I really want to study biomedical engineering! Would you advice me to go to Stanford, MIT, Princeton or JHU?</p>
<p>I moved your post to its own thread via my magical moderator powers. :)</p>
<p>Tell us a little about your interests. What do you want from college? What do you want to do afterwards? What do you like to do outside school? What kind of social environment do you want?</p>
<p>At MIT, the engineering classes have a lot more material and you can learn more. However, like Mollie said, you shouldn’t base your decision on that alone. People have different learning styles and preferences, and the most important thing is that you go to a place which fits you so that you can master the fundamentals of engineering. </p>
<p>In fact, arguably the greatest MIT engineer, Vannevar Bush, went to Tufts for undergrad before going to MIT for grad school.</p>
<p>The presence of a biomedical engineering major per se shouldn’t affect your decision. The best way to do biomedical engineering is to learn one traditional discipline of engineering and then apply it to biology.</p>
<p>There are biomedical engineering tracks in MechE here (course 2A in MIT jargon), so I would not worry about that. There are a lot of Biomedical related UROP’s also (too many for my personal taste, but that’s because I’d rather see more physics UROP’s :D)</p>
<p>oops, it seems i never saw these replies. Sorry guys.
Molliebatmit, can you send me the link on the new thread? thx a lot btw (i see you have answered some of my question on th mit vs stanford thread, thx again ;))</p>
<p>ok i have a week to make my final decision.
I have narrowed down my choice to JH and MIT.
i want a school that offers strong programs in protein engineering, medical instrumentation, medical computation, tissue/cellular engineering, computer vision, biomechanics, biomaterials, and neuroengineering. I think all those fields are interesting and i can only choose what i ultimately want to specify in among these after experience.
JH is ranked nmber one in biomedical engineering. It also has a minor in computer integrated surgery (cool!). It has a hospital. The cirriculum is gearted to medical only, more specific than the biologcail major of MIT.
MIT is them most prestigeous engineering school. It also has a strong biological engineering department. Perhaps it is more known outside USA, (true?) Mehcanical, electrical ,computer, and materials engineering are always ranked num. 1 or 2. (JH ranked significantly lower)
In terms of my extracirruclar activities, both schools are division iii, offer squash, and have a table tennis club. They also have virtual arts centers (I believe i will not be able to pursue all these activities as i am planning to double major or major-minor).
They are both difficult schools.
JH is better for premed (which i may or may not do, but probably will)
Boston >>> Baltimore.
Instead of computer integrated surgery or robotics minors of JH, i can double major in computer sciecne and electrical engineering, or course 2A robotics or what ever is available at MIT.
Help now?</p>
<p>If you are really interested in engineering there is simply no contest between MIT and JHU.</p>
<p>JHU is not number one in biomedical engineering. The largest biomedical engineering lab in the world is the Langer Lab at MIT.
[MIT:</a> Langer Lab](<a href=“http://web.mit.edu/langerlab/]MIT:”>http://web.mit.edu/langerlab/)</p>
<p>The Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research is where the genome was sequenced.
<a href=“http://www.wi.mit.edu/[/url]”>http://www.wi.mit.edu/</a></p>
<p>It also has the center for biomedical engineering jointly run by the electrical, mechanical and biological engineering departments.
<a href=“http://web.mit.edu/cbe/www/[/url]”>http://web.mit.edu/cbe/www/</a></p>
<p>The Bioinstrumentation lab is also world famous:
<a href=“http://bioinstrumentation.mit.edu/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page[/url]”>http://bioinstrumentation.mit.edu/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page</a></p>
<p>MIT does not offer a biomedical engineering major because biomedical engineering is not a separate discipline. Biomedical engineering is the application of engineering principles to the field of medicine and includes mechanical, electrical, chemical, biological engineering as well as computer science. There is no such thing as a generally accepted biomedical engineering curriculum: it is a little bit of biomechanics, a little bit of computational biology, a little bit of tissue engineering, a little bit of materials science… . but not enough to make you a specialist at anything. This absence of focus is why of all engineering graduates, biomedical engineers have the toughest time getting jobs on graduation. It is an interdisciplinary field field without a core. I have worked with and for medical device companies for the past 25 years and we never hired a biomedical engineer; we did hire dozens of mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, materials and computer scientists. </p>
<p>Even though they may not describe themselves as biomedical engineers, there are far more engineers at MIT than at JHU involved in biomedical applications. You are much better off getting a degree in one of the specialized tracks within established engineering disciplines such as track 2A in mechanical engineering, any of the biological engineering tracks, the new Course 6-7 in computational biology or study advanced biomaterials in the materials science department. You can also takes classes in the HST program which as joint program between Harvard Medical School and MIT. </p>
<p>As far as JHU being a better place for premeds, that is far from clear. First, premed is not a major but a series of requirements for admission to medical school. JHU has the reputation of being a highly competitive place for premeds which MIT definitely is not. Well over 90% of MIT premeds get accepted to medical school and there is no such thing as weeding out classes. Nearly all of your premed requirements are taken care of within the GIRs, so that you can take your MCATs after sophomore year. My D is a current senior at MIT and also premed and had plenty of opportunities to volunteer at local hospitals affiliated with MIT such as Mass General. She was also able to conduct neuroimaging research every semester since sophomore year working with HMS and MIT faculty. </p>
<p>JHU is a great school but for engineering it is simply not a match to MIT, especially if you want to work in the biomedical field.</p>
<p>whyy thx!! that was really helpful.
What do you think of Stanford vs MIT engineering? will Stanford’s liberal arts dilute my engienering curriculum??</p>
<p>IMHO, Tufts should not be part of a discussion where there are 4 top 10 schools being discussed.</p>
<p>MIT has biological engineering which is the equivalent of Biomedical (they offer Biomedical engg minor for people outside of the dept). Princeton also created a Biological engineering department starting last year as part of their chemical engineering dept. MIT’s is older.</p>
<p>JHU is still ranked number 1 in USNWR rankings. However, if you are not interested in doing medicine in future, it is probably not where you want to go since BME at JHU is considered a stepping stone.</p>
<p>Stanford, Princeton and Yale are about the same (Stanford probably superior for overall engineering among the three). MIT and Stanford are 1 and 2 in engineering school rankings and so if you are interested purely in engineering, those are the places to shortlist. </p>
<p>If you want more liberal arts education, you should throw in Yale and Princeton into the mix.</p>
<p>Again biological engineering at MIT is very different from biomedical engineering elsewhere. It is a fully ABET accredited program much more similar to a chemical engineering degree except that it relies on biology principles as opposed to chemistry. </p>
<p>Course 2-A in mechanical engineering would be the closest to biomedical engineering degree expect that it is fully accredited program and students graduate with a recognized mechanical engineering degree which vastly widens employment opportunities. </p>
<p>There is also a new Course 6-7 engineering program in computer science and molecular biology program that is the first of its kind in the country. You are essentially getting a dual CS and Bio degree. </p>
<p>Stanford only offers an interdisciplinary unaccredited bioengineering program to undergraduates fairly typical of biomedical engineering programs. There is no equivalent at Stanford to the biological engineering program at MIT. Stanford also has biomechanical engineering (similar to Course 2-A at MIT) and biomedical computation (similar to Course 6-7 at MIT as graduate programs although there seems to be options to fashion an undergrad program in special circumstances. </p>
<p>If you want to study engineering clearly MIT and Stanford are the two best choices. There are currently far more choices for undergrads at MIT in the fields of biological engineering, biomechanical and computational biology. The amount of liberal arts requirements is about the same for engineering majors at both schools. (called HASS requirements at MIT).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To be clear, both of them are majors. Biomechanical engineering is an interdisciplinary program (IDP), whereas biomedical computation is an individually designed major (IDM). Both are established undergraduate degree programs (not just under special circumstances), but I’ll add that IDPs at Stanford tend to be more institutionalized than IDMs. BME in particular is one of the very well-respected/established IDPs on campus.</p>
<p>To the OP: I’d say this decision should be based most on fit and where you can see yourself for the next four years. MIT, JHU, and Stanford would afford you the most, both in terms of your interests and other opportunities. So the decision should definitely come down to your personal ‘feel’ for the school – have you visited all of them?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have to take a comparable number of liberal arts courses at MIT. I would not say that they would dilute your education. Either way, it’s not very important for you, since Stanford is currently doing an overhaul of its undergraduate curriculum, with the goal of reducing requirements. The impetus behind this change is actually largely from engineering–students have sometimes complained of not being able to study abroad, etc. without really early planning, because their schedules were so packed with engineering classes and GERs. In fact, once they finish revising the curriculum, it’s very likely that you’ll have to take more humanities at MIT. (Currently, there are 8 humanities, arts, and social science requirements at MIT, and at Stanford there are currently 9 similar HASS requirements, but since Stanford is on the quarter system, it’s actually less HASS–that’s 9 reqs * 10 weeks each = 90 cumulative weeks, versus 8 * the average # weeks in a term on the 4-1-4 system = over 100 cumulative weeks. When Stanford finishes the new curriculum, that gap will be even larger.)</p>
<p>MIT is the school where the education will be the most cutting edge, the most comprehensive, and the most rigorous, and with the greatest ability to open doors in biomedical engineering. That said, the point of undergrad is to put you on a trajectory to become very skilled and creative in a profession. You don’t have to know everything coming out of undergrad. If there is something that bothers you about a school, it can interfere with learning. MIT can be a love-it-or-hate-it school, moreso than other schools. However, if you don’t have a particular preference or gut feeling for attending a liberal arts school with a more typical undergrad experience/campus/atmosphere, then the choice should be MIT. I think in the long run the extra cost is worth it.</p>
<p>If you want to go to a liberal arts school with a very strong engineering program and high general prestige, probably you should pick Stanford.</p>
<p>I am a little confused. MIT will provide me with a more rigorous engineering program, more humanities, and harder problem sets than stanford does?</p>
<p>i am down to Stan and MIT btw…</p>
<p>i think i want the “broadest” engineering program, S or M?</p>
<p>you will get an equally fantastic education at either MIT or S. it should now probably come down to personal preferences- more overtly intense east coast or more laid back[ on the surface only] west coast? More sun , year round great weather and outdoors activities at S or a cooler, more urban environment at MIT? Where do you see yourself wanting to be in 5 years? You really can’t make a bad decision here. Go with your gut.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You will have to do a bit more HASS at MIT, but I’m almost certain that engineering at MIT is not more rigorous. We’re talking about the top 2 engineering schools in the country (or the world, according to most rankings), and both are going to offer you an excellent education. I’m finishing at Stanford now and probably starting at MIT for PhD soon, and my impression is that the whole “IHTFP” (where P =/= paradise) is rather prevalent. On the other hand, I’ve never seen that attitude among STEM people at Stanford, so that might indicate that MIT is more rigorous, but I think that the annoyance that people feel toward the difficulty in STEM fields manifests differently at Stanford. They express more frustration with the classes or the material than with the place itself. The quarter system engenders this; while most students love the quarter system (you get to take more classes, etc.), there’s at least once each term where you think “I hate the quarter system!!11” but that’s always temporary–around midterms and finals. The quarter system makes it tough by squashing 15 weeks into 10 weeks, constantly bombarding you with assignments, projects, quizzes, exams, etc. so it keeps you on your toes. </p>
<p>At the same time, Stanford has more grade inflation, so in the end students are happier with how they do; but during the quarter, Stanford pushes students pretty hard, in terms of the material, the class structure, and the speed of the quarter system. It seems Stanford’s philosophy is to push you past your limits, make you think you’re probably not going to do well, and then inflate the grades in the end. Students work hard because they have no idea just how much it’s going to be inflated, or where they stand relative to others; so students err on the side of caution and work harder, possibly thinking they’re not doing as well as they should, then ending up with a B or an A (though C’s can and do happen). This was something I realized in CS freshman year, and friends in other majors agree–the grades may be inflated (though less so in engineering than in HASS), but nobody gets off easy. The material, class structure, and quarter system just don’t allow you to. In the end, you get a really rigorous education and strong grades to get into grad school or to get good jobs. (There’s a reason that Stanford isn’t cracking down on inflation–students do better post-grad and they get an excellent, rigorous education in the meantime.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What do you mean by “broadest”? Are you saying you might want a non-specific engineering degree (a la Harvard or Harvey Mudd engineering degrees)?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is. The rankings correlate primarily to strength of the faculty and department resources, not academic rigor. The only equal MIT has in rigor in the engineering program is Caltech. Berkeley probably would be next. </p>
<p>Engineering anyplace will require a good deal of time and effort, but MIT is unique.</p>
<p>^ what is your reasoning that MIT is more rigorous (in the disciplines that it and Stanford both have)? I’m not even asking for a citation, just a reason.</p>
<p>1) It’s common knowledge.
2) I’ve known a lot of people who went to Stanford and MIT engineering and I listened to what they told me about it. Obviously, I am familiar with the difficulty and breadth of MIT’s curriculum firsthand. I suppose an undergrad at one who TA’d at the other could say more definitively. </p>
<p>Not saying Stanford isn’t a good education…just not at MIT’s level. On the other hand, there is more time to daydream about the material, something which I think may be important to creativity. So I’m not just putting down Stanford. It’s just not the same thing.</p>
<p>Regardless, making judgements on the difficulty of the curriculum based on rankings doesn’t work. Caltech is most definitely behind Stanford in engineering rankings, but it is far more difficult.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s an ad populum argument (just because people believe it doesn’t make it so). I think it’s actually a common misconception. I would say that people tend to see MIT as more rigorous on the whole because it’s a tech school; I can agree with that logic. But that “common knowledge” fails to account for the differences in focus, and if you were to look at just engineering, I’m certain that they are equal in rigor and quality.</p>
<p>And the rest of your evidence is just anecdotal.</p>
<p>You know, I try to keep myself from reading the MIT forum, for fear of being influenced in my PhD decision by what I’ve perceived to be a nearly insufferable arrogance (which I had assumed was mostly on the part of immature high school students who are applying to or deciding on MIT). When I communicated this perception once, molliebatmit expressed surprise and seemed to disagree. But when I do read this forum, inevitably posters here will prove my perception right: they truly do believe that MIT is superior. What’s more, a discussion of rigor is not explicit about quality, but you are quite explicit about it here: “Not saying Stanford isn’t a good education…just not at MIT’s level.” Statements like this just floor me–people here really, truly, completely believe that MIT is a step ahead of all other engineering schools and that there *is *a difference in quality. Newsflash: there isn’t–not at the very top engineering schools. MIT people are great, yes, but there are others who are equally great; the programs at MIT are amazing, yes, but there are others that are equally amazing. Going to MIT does not make you a better engineer. Having an engineering degree from Stanford does not mean your undergraduate education was inferior to MIT’s. My goodness, “not at MIT’s level”?? Hearing statements like the above makes me want to bang my head into the wall… and regret a little having chosen MIT. I got this vibe from a few people when I visited MIT recently, but I brushed it off. Then I see the same attitude on here, not just among applicants, but undergrads and, apparently, alums too. It’s extremely off-putting.</p>
<p>(mollie, I hope you’re reading this and seeing that I’m NOT crazy for seeing a continual, unabashed sense of superiority on this forum)</p>
<p>asianhater,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, they’re both ranked right behind MIT. If that’s “sweeping clean” to you, okay then. (As evidence that there cannot possibly be that much of a difference according to those rankings: the CS ranking puts Stanford at #2, and there is no conceivable way that MIT could be beating Stanford in CS, at least not by any sizable margin.) Not that it matters anyway, because nobody listens to the QS world rankings, which change with the wind–schools often jumping 10 or 15, sometimes 50 or 60 spots, in just one year.</p>