<p>
[quote]
and there's other things i like about the school- location, diversity, flexibility when it comes to electives and a tonne of companies recruit their chem E students. Not everyone looks at rankings, ticks the top ten schools and applies you know
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And similarly, there are other things that some people like about Harvard, i.e. the companies coming to recruit engineering students. Granted, these companies are probably investment banks or consulting firms, but if that's what you like, then wouldn't you consider Harvard engineering? Like I've said on other threads, lots of engineers end up going to banking or consulting. </p>
<p>
[quote]
IMO harvard does not deserve that rank at all. Go look at the harvard curriculum. You're not going to get the specialized training that engineering majors at other schools are getting. It's ' flexibly structured' according to harvard which IMO is a fancy way of saying take whatever the hell you want, regardless of what engr. you're majoring in, plus some 'general engineering courses and we'll give you an engineering degree.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How so? What exactly is wrong with the Harvard curriculum? You talk about "specialized training", yet the fact is, most undergrad engineers in the country do not receive "specialized training". Most undergrad engineers will take just the basic curriculum. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I don't see anything necessarily wrong with a flexible curriculum. What's wrong with that? Personally, I would argue that MORE engineering programs should be more flexible. Let me put it to you this way. I have 3 (that's right THREE) engineering degrees - and I can tell you first hand that the vast majority of what I learned, I never used. Most engineers will tell you the same thing: that most of what they learned in school, they never use. This is especially true of "specialized training". Most of what you learn in a specialized class, you will never use simply because it is highly unlikely that you will actually get a job that pertains to what you learned in that class. For example, I know a LOT of chemical engineering students who took highly specialized biotech processing classes - and then ended up working in the semiconductor industry, or in petrochemicals. </p>
<p>Hence, given the fact that you aren't going to use most of what you learn in an engineering program, what is wrong with making the curricula more flexible? </p>
<p>
[quote]
IMO it should never be mentioned in the same sentence as penn in any conversation regarding ENGINEERING...are you serious?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am indeed completely serious. Look at the rankings. Harvard = Penn in engineering. What - just because Penn engineering is better than Harvard, that by itself makes Penn better? There are plenty of engineering schools out there that are larger than Penn engineering (i.e. Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, LSU, etc.) but that doesn't make them better than Penn. Since when does size automatically equate to strength? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky you're just ridiculous lol.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I believe you are the one who is being ridiculous. Nevertheless, there are rules on this board against personal insults, and you started it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
With your 'harvard/yale are great in engineering because you can become a rich ibanker' posts. What has ones increased chance of getting into ibanking if they go to harvard/yale got to do with the strength of the engineering programs at these schools relative to other schools?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like it or not, that is what many engineering students want. Many of them want to go to consulting or banking. </p>
<p>
[quote]
What happens to the engineering kids at these schools if they dont get into banking/consulting? Engineering firms dont even recruit from these schools. The kids will have to go online or something and post their resumes
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, they don't? Seems to me that they do just fine in engineering recruiting. Google, Microsoft - these companies are recruiting at Harvard. So are many tech startups. Yale is actually located in a manufacturing and research belt (SW Connecticut has a surprising amount of manufacturing and technology). </p>
<p>Nobody is disputing that Harvard and Yale engineering are not as good as engineering at schools like MIT or Stanford. Obviously the myriad tech startups in the Boston area tend to recruit at MIT more heavily than they do at Harvard. But the fact of the matter is that they do recruit Harvard engineers. </p>
<p>What you also seem to miss is that these schools don't NEED large-scale engineering recruiting, simply because of the small number of graduates. Schools like Penn NEED large-scale engineering recruiting simply to satisfy the numerous graduates that are produced every year. Harvard and Yale do not produce many engineering graduates per year. What does it matter if your school has large-scale recruiting, if there are also many students there COMPETING WITH YOU for the jobs you want? At the end of the day, what matters is whether you have a job or not. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Even you(who graduated MIT), despite your constant preaching about how several MIT, ivy grads get into ibanking said you've chosen one of the least lucrative careers. if you truly, genuinely love what ibankers do, give it a try...but dont get into it because sakky thinks its much more interesting than engineering jobs(many MANY engineering majors disagree with you... by the way). I don't think many people have what it takes to be willing to work 80 hour weeks in their 20's..regardless of whatever bonus you get(if you happen to be one the few who is good at it).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have never, not once, ever told anybody to go to investment banking on this board. I am simply pointing out that many engineers do indeed go to investment banking. That's not my fault. They didn't ask me. I am simply reporting what they are doing; I did nothing to cause it. If yo uwant to find somebody to "blame", then go blame those students. Or, better yet, blame those engineering firms for not providing jobs that apparently attract those engineering students. But regardless, at the end of the day, there must be a reason why so many top engineering students do not take engineering jobs. </p>
<p>
[quote]
As far as i'm concerned harvard doesn't have a REAL engineering program yet. Go to their site and check out the engineering curriculum for EE, BME,etc..it's a total joke. It's some 'general engineering sciences/physics' type stuff..really weird.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And like I said, what's wrong with that? How is this a "joke"? It's still better than the vast majority of hundreds of other engineering programs out there. Are you willing to paint them as "jokes" too? </p>
<p>
[quote]
he engineering companies know that their time will be better spent recruiting from other schools..take a look at employers that recruit their kids: </p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ooh, you just hurt your cause badly with this one. I looked at the link you provided, and it seems to actually REINFORCE the notion that Harvard engineering is pretty good. After all, let's look at some of the employers listed:</p>
<p>Apple
BBN Technologies (the inventor of the original Internet)
Cisco Systems
Microsoft
Google
Infosys
MIT-Lincoln Laboratory
Oracle
Pixar
Procter & Gamble</p>
<p>These are some of the most interesting and desirable engineering employers in the world! I certainly wouldn't mind working for Google. Or Apple. Or Pixar. Or Cisco. I wouldn't mind one bit. I think most engineering students DREAM of working for companies like this. Given that Harvard graduates probably about 10 Bachelors of Science (engineering) degrees a year, looks like the odds of you getting a nice engineering jobs are quite good indeed. As good as at MIT? No, I never said it was. But still, a whole lot better than at the vast majority of engineering programs out there. </p>
<p>I also see a whole bunch of tech startups in that list too, but I don't feel the need to name them.</p>