<p>Which one would u guys go for engineering as electrical/computer or mechanical?
Let give me rank or advice</p>
<p>Berkeley*</p>
<p>For EE/CS? UCLA</p>
<p>MechE? UCLA</p>
<p>Search the forums for "Gourman [insert engineering field]" and you'll find plenty of undergrad rankings in the desired field.</p>
<p>Here's the NRC rankings (a little old, but still relevant):</p>
<p>NRC</a> Rankings in Each of 41 Areas
NRC</a> Rankings in Each of 41 Areas
NRC</a> Rankings in Each of 41 Areas</p>
<p>If you don't want Berkeley, UCLA is the next best thing. </p>
<p>Cal Poly SLO would be good too.</p>
<p>Cal Poly SLO outranks many of the UC campuses if that matters to you. Pomona does too though I don't know about their eng. programs</p>
<p>As a transfer student from a CSU, I will say that engineering classes at the CSUs have a more practical focus vs. the UCs being more theoretical in focus.</p>
<p>Most state schools have very good engineering program. Cal Poly SLO and Cal Poly Pomona offer more practical experience while the UCs do not. UCs are most expensive then both Cal Polies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the CSUs have a more practical focus vs. the UCs being more theoretical in focus.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Could you elaborate on this? I've heard this claimed many times, but it really doesn't seem to be true. All I can come up with is that CSUs give terminal degrees, which are very career-focused; UCs give degrees that aren't so specific and can be applied to a wider range of careers. In that way, CSUs may be more "practical."</p>
<p>But as far as experience goes, UCs seem to be better, as they're the research universities; doing research--getting really involved in the forefront of the field and seeing the ins and outs of it--is the best kind of experience you can get, IMO. Then of course there are internships, jobs, etc. that you can do while getting your degree.</p>
<p>In short, I don't see what CSUs offer in practicality and experience that UCs don't (here, in engineering).</p>
<p>^ Sure, in my experience with engineering classes at a CSU and Berkeley, Berkeley's curriculum focused more on the whys...for example, in fluid mechanics at Berkeley, we derived the Navier-Stokes equations...this is less likely to be done at a CSU.</p>
<p>In my engineering classes at CSU (I took an intro electrical engineering course, a materials science course, and a civil engineering course) the classes utilized more published data and outside resources to obtain information...this is where I say it was more "practical" because, an engineer in industry is not going to get into the nitty gritty of the physics and derive equations. He's going to utilize published sources and rules of thumb. </p>
<p>I think UC professors are more involved in cutting-edge research...therefore, they have to get down to the nitty gritty to make new discoveries. The CSU professors are not doing this deep level of research. Therefore, their curriculum is more practically focused, using published sources of information. It's what the professors are more accustomed to and it's reflected in their teaching style. I also think that more CSU professors have worked actually in industry rather than being groomed through only academia.</p>
<p>I'm not saying a curriculum is better...it just has a different focus.</p>
<p>I sat through the Parent's Day Engineering presentations, and as a hiring manager, was pretty appalled. If all the UCs are going in the direction of UCLA, I'd say I'd be careful hiring a UC grad with a bachelors degree. The curriculum looks like they are readying students for grad school, by requiring quite the breadth of engineering across different engineering areas, but are not giving them enough depth in their field of choice to actually work in industry after just an undergrad degree. Perhaps the presenter was exagerating, and they get more classes in their own field than he was touting, but it certainly turned me off. I'm hoping the Cal State system is training folks to be engineers with an undergrad degree, or we are going to have a bigger shortage of California trained engineers than we have now.</p>
<p>Note, if you are going into engineering at UCLA because you love engineering, but aren't sure exactly what kind of engineering you are going to love it. If you are going into engineering because you love civil engineering, you might be disappointed with how much civil engineering you actually get to do. If you are planning to go to grad school, a UC is a good choice. If you really don't want to go to grad school, Cal Poly, especially at SLO, is probably a better choice.</p>
<p>"Cal Poly, especially SLO...."</p>
<p>good point. the two Polys are not equivalent. The San Luis Obispo campus is very cool, so is the town. More to the point, the students at SLO score much, much higher than the students at Pomona. SLO is middle-UC equivalent test scores (SB, Davis).</p>
<p>I agree, SLO is like UCI level, and their Architecture program is very distinguished. Pomona would be more like any other Cal State.</p>
<p>actually, the pomona campus has a very solid engineering program. the problem is that most of the rest of the university is very weak and getting worse while other cal states are zooming ahead.</p>
<p>us news and world report once had the pomona campus ranked seventh in the west. now it is tied for 32d. that's a severe slide.</p>