<p>Is it bad to get all of your degrees from the same school in engineering?</p>
<p>It's not a "bad" idea, per se, but it's wiser to go to other schools IMO. It gives you a chance to work with different people and explore a new city. It's more fun like that.</p>
<p>It's in fact very common at MIT and I think it's pretty common at Stanford too. Why move down if you don't have to.</p>
<p>While its not bad per say I think its encouraged to go to other schools. Check the Graduate School forum I believe they have a thread talking about the same subject...</p>
<p>As others have said, it's not always bad, but I tend to lean towards the notion of going to other schools if, for no other reason, to expand your network. You don't necessarily need to 'move down'. For example, I would argue that MIT, Stanford, and Berkeley are highly comparable when it comes to graduate-level engineering, so if you go to one for undergrad, you can go to another for grad without having 'moved down'.</p>
<p>Furthermore, as has been mentioned, it is true that some schools allow (and even actively encourage) undergrads to come back for grad school. However, others do not. For example, the Berkeley chemical engineering department specifically states that they will not admit their former undergrads unless they have had significant post-graduation experience. Basically, that department is afraid of inbreeding. Other departments at other schools are less strict.</p>
<p>ClassicRockerDad, I heard the opposite. In fact Richard Feynman in "Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman" writes that his advisers encouraged him to leave MIT for his PhD. Of course that was a while ago and things may have changed.</p>
<p>It's not that bad, but I would encourage everyone to try and make one move during those three degrees. You get a new perspective on engineering and you will make a lot of new contacts. The down side is that you have two or three alumni associations bugging you for money!</p>
<p>
[quote]
In fact Richard Feynman in "Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman" writes that his advisers encouraged him to leave MIT for his PhD. Of course that was a while ago and things may have changed.
[/quote]
The science departments tend to encourage moving around, while the engineering departments tend to do the opposite. MIT is the most common graduate school destination of MIT undergrads.</p>
<p>It's usually looked down upon. If you stay in one school, you work with the same people. When you go to graduate school, your advisers are already people you know. Most of the time, you will already know the research. You won't learn anything new, in a sense, from your old faculty. Science requires new ideas every day, you won't get that by being with the same people for all your academic career. That is why programs, especially scientific, prohibit their undergraduates to apply to their graduates.</p>
<p>Anybody talking about contacts, alumni are wrong. The only reason why they prohibit inbreeding is what I mentioned.</p>
<p>Even though it's not the reason, making new contacts, networking is certainly a benefit to moving around between schools.</p>
<p>no...why is it a bad idea?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anybody talking about contacts, alumni are wrong.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am one of those people who has been talking about it. Why exactly do you think it's wrong? Like it or not, your professional success is often times dictated less by what you know than by who you know. Going to 3 different schools gives you access to 3 different alumni networks.</p>
<p>I'm speaking from a science Graduate point of view. I never said that the alumni networking was bad. I just said that it isn't the reason schools force you to go to a different school.</p>
<p>Go out and explore the world, meet new people, and learn new things</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm speaking from a science Graduate point of view. I never said that the alumni networking was bad. I just said that it isn't the reason schools force you to go to a different school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I understand what the reason is for schools forcing you to go to different places.</p>
<p>While the intent may be good, the actual implementation may not be. As a case in point, I know one girl who did her undergrad in ChemE at Berkeley. Berkeley ChemE does not allow undergrads to come back for their PhD unless they've had substantial post-graduation experience. So what did she do? Simple. She just applied and got into the BioEngineering PhD program at Berkeley. She then ended up working with the exact same * professor in the *exact same lab doing the *exact same project <a href="and%20I%20think%20she%20ended%20up%20even%20getting%20the%20exact%20same%20desk%20and%20lab-bench">/i</a> that she had been as an undergrad researcher. She was able to pull that off because that prof held dual appointments in both the ChemE and BioE departments. </p>
<p>I've always wondered why Berkeley ChemE even has such an 'anti-incest' rule at all if people can circumvent it by just affiliating themselves with a different department, but still doing the same work with the same prof anyway? To be sure, she did ultimately end up with a PhD in BioEngineering, as opposed to ChemE, but, come on. For all effective purposes, she was a ChemE PhD student in all but name. All her colleagues were chemical engineering profs and students (and in fact she ended up marrying one of the other PhD students). She did all her research in the ChemE building. Her office was in the ChemE building. She attended the ChemE colloquia and seminars. So, really, what's the difference? If you're going to let her do all that anyway, you might as well just repeal the anti-incest rule.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I've always wondered why Berkeley ChemE even has such an 'anti-incest' rule at all if people can circumvent it by just affiliating themselves with a different department, but still doing the same work with the same prof anyway?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Well sakky its pretty clear that that particular student found a convenient loophole and made us of it. What I don't get is why Berkely is so strict about it. I mean it doesn't seem to be nearly as strict in other universities. Take MIT for example. According to 2006 MIT post graduation survey (found here: <a href="http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/graduation06.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/graduation06.pdf</a>) The top Graduate/Professional school destination for graduates is by far MIT (176 students compared to #2 Harvard which only got 32 and #3 Stanford which got 19).</p>
<p>thanks for all of the responses. </p>
<p>I guess the root of my OP was if I was(hypothetically) offered full support at my undergraduate school for my grad, whether it would be a mistake to take it....or rather better to try and get outside funding(even if not full support) for grad elsewhere.</p>
<p>I don't know about you but if I was offered full support at my current undergraduate school but not with any other university I'd probably take the offer. There are certain factors that need to be taken into consideration like strength of the program, fit etc thu.</p>
<p>I'd always go with the program that has funding. You should not be paying for Graduate school, they should be paying you. You are doing research for them.</p>
<p>Go with the same school if the funding is significantly more than the other schools.</p>