Choosing an engineering school -- US News Rankings, to use or not to use

College Majors Engineering Majors
101

<p>Yes, we have strayed from the topic but then again, this topic probably has the most created threads on CC so it’s OK to hijack it. There will be someone next week who will not conduct a search and ask this same question again. </p>

<p>First, I don’t hire. I may contribute to the decision-making sometimes when called upon. If the person gets by my technical grilling, then I merely give a thumbs up or thumbs down and let the rest of the decision-makers decide all of the “good fit” stuff. I don’t look at schools or GPA only to make sure that they HAVE the desired degree (as many federal contracts require a degree).</p>

<p>I rarely manage anymore. I am more of a tech-lead/chief-engineer type. Every so often, I have to be the project/program manager and I am usually pestering upper-management asking “have they found my replacement yet” every other day. Technical management doesn’t pay more that senior technical positions anymore, so why do it?</p>

<p>Again, off the topic of the OP but the OP’s question will be rehashed by this coming Wednesday anyway.</p>

102

<p>hebegebe,</p>

<p>OK, I’ll bite. I’d like to know exactly how to differentiate “talent” and “skill.”</p>

103

<p>Grossly oversimplified: When you are looking for “skill”, you want someone who has mastered a particular task regardless of their ability to succeed in other, even related areas. When you are looking for “talent” you want to see a general record of success even if it does not include the precise areas you are looking for. You expect “skill” hires to immediately contribute in their area but do not expect them to be versatile, making them a better match for large companies. You expect “talent” hires to take a little longer to contribute, but expect them to handle a wider variety of tasks in the long run without the need for additional hires, making them a better match for small companies.</p>

104

<p>i would think as a young mom your main priority should be your child. Choose the best school you can find that is closest to your family support system. It sounds as if your mom is helping with your child. It isn’t worth a few extra usnwr points to lose the closeness you now have with your child by being so far away. Or off with your child without the support of your family. Fortunately you live in California where I would think you would have plenty of good choices.</p>

105

<p>I agree with cosmicfish’s description of talent and skill. It also helps explains the growing pains in one of the companies where I worked about 15 years ago. We went from ~100 people to a few thousand in four years, and the character of the applicants totally changed right around 1000 employees. Whereas the early employees were risk takers unafraid to do anything (20 somethings literally designing the Internet during its boom years), the later applicants were risk averse by comparison. </p>

<p>maikai, one of the national math winners that applied has over 30 years of experience. I thought his listing of his high school award was very relevant, whereas you consider it “filler”.</p>

106

<p>Thanks for the talent v. skill meme. It’s been useful in talking to S, high school junior, about what kinds of education in Engineering he might get at one school v. another. Thanks!</p>

107

<p>Skills, you can learn. Or limp along (say, what was the C++ function to print double wide char strings again?). After an intensive weekend where I taught myself python, I started forgetting semicolons in C++… </p>

<p>Talent, you can’t learn. It’s inane. It’s the ability to see things in different ways, solve problems, learn fast, explain things, troubleshoot, play what-if’s, ask the right questions, and so on.</p>

<p>For my line of work I’ve done very well largely on 80% talent and 20% skill. Luckily for me, there is a fair amount of artistic ability inherent in user experience design…</p>

108

<p>So for Biomedical engineering - Duke or UVA in the Rodman scholars program (OOS tuition)? My S was accepted to both and is now down to this decision. Duke has a highly rated program but he would be in an elite engineering scholars program at UVA with about $10,000 less tuition per year. Thoughts?</p>

109

<p>My son is going to study Mechanical Engineering. Within a University, admission to the College of Engineering can be extremely competitively competitive usually requires higher GPA’s and SAT/ACT scores than the average admission. As we went through hte admissions process, we had to decide between attending a higher ranked University at a substantially higher cost than our state University. We made the decision to attend the lower cost in-state school based on a value or “bang for the buck” assessment. I don’t believe that attending a University at over twice the cost results in that much of a better education (especially when both curriculums are ABET certified). There may be more internship opportunities and more immediate post-graduation job opportunities with the more “prestigious” name on the diploma but not so much more that it justifies the additional 100K in costs.</p>

<p>A motivated and talented student can shine at almost any university and probably even more so when they are at a smaller and less admissions competitive university. There they are almost certain to be within the top group of students.</p>

110

<p>There are several topics on here about whether or not colleges rankings are useful and what they are based on which often includes a number of subjective factors. Important factors you need to consider when choosing a college: 1) cost (i.e. can your family afford it)?, 2) location and 3) does it offer the major(s) you are interested in? (some college students will decide to switch majors after they start) Those things should matter far more then the various rankings you can find published in various places on the net.</p>

111

<p>And USNChief, you just pointed out another consideration that students should think about.</p>

<p>Some schools allow direct admission into their engineering program. Some schools allow you declare engineering is your major at the end of Soph year as long as you have the minimum GPA. And then there are those schools that you have to be admitted to their engineering program after you have already been a student there for 2 years. Univ of Washington is one like that. </p>

<p>Obviously direct admission or maintaining a GPA for admission is better than having to go through the application process again, particularly if you are an OOS student and are paying OOS fees. You could easily be hung out to dry and have to transfer or reapply the following year.</p>

112

<p>

</p>

<p>Both are highly respected schools. If the $10000 per year matters significantly, go with the UVA program.</p>

113

<p>When choosing an engineering school (undergraduate level), should one take into consideration the US News and World Report rankings? Or should one go to the least expensive ABET accredited program that they are admitted to?</p>

<p>I’m interested in Chemical Engineering, and was looking at the US N&WR 2013 Chemical Engineering (Undergrad) list. I live in California, and even though I’d LOVE to travel and attend a school elsewhere again (I’m a non-traditional student), at this time in my life it would be better for my mom and my child for us not to have to relocate too far.</p>

<p>BUT–I don’t want to compromise my chance at good job prospects after graduation, and I don’t want a significantly lower starting salary than grads from some of the top institutions.</p>

<p>I would also like to keep the door open to be able to apply to (and have a chance at getting accepted to) MIT for graduate school, after viewing their ChemE research website. I definitely want to earn a master’s degree but who knows, I may consider a PhD so I can teach at the university level–one day.</p>

<p>Should I take into account the US N&WR rankings when choosing schools to apply to, or is it all about the experience you gain in undergrad/on the job?</p>

<p>Does it really matter what school you attend for chemical engineering as long as it is ABET accredited?</p>

<h2>Thanks in advance for your help.</h2>

<p>You have tossed out several factors so let me speak from my experiences:</p>

<p>Rankings: may have some bearing on your choice if you want to attend grad school and possibly teach. Prestige and rep will matter to those who will consider you for the prestige you would bring to their faculty. At minimum attending a research based university would be preferred. My S is considering Cal Poly SLO engineering but it is a more hands on program, for example.</p>

<p>Also rankings may affect who will be interested in you. Some companies recruit only from certain schools. So knowing your area of interest early, if you can, will help you decide where to go. I work at a pharmaceutical and they like pulling from MIT, Penn, Lehigh, etc. In other words there is a regional aspect to your choice. </p>

<p>Reputation will matter to employers whether academic or industry.
A great GPA at a very low rep school may not get you into MIT for grad school.</p>

<p>Having said all this you also should consider culture and where you will be happy. My S also accepted to Va Tech and NC State and I love their culture and friendliness. On the other hand Rensselaer is very techy but I did not like the vibe (S was waitlisted there).
A friend of my other S attended Tufts but everyone including him were really unhappy.
If you want the brass ring and the “best school” and do not care about this aspect, then go for the most prestige.</p>

<p>Also find out which ChemE programs have the specialties you want - eg Petroleum (old tech), or Bioengineering/Biofuels (cutting edge)</p>

<p>I know 2 PhD ChemEs. One went to Princeton/Yale the other went to KState. Both are very skilled. But the former went the pedigreed route and is an executive. So prestige can play a role in your potential to be a professor or an executive.</p>

<p>Thus to some extent you need to figure out early what is really important to you.
If you want to be happy I’d say go to good schools and places like Va Tech, NC State, Cal Poly SLO (the route my S is going). If you want prestige, go to the best school possible that fits in with some of your values, wants, needs.</p>

114

<p>hebegebe,</p>

<p>In nearly three decades of experience I have yet to come across a highly “skilled” person who was not also “talented”, by the definition given. They are not exclusive traits. In fact, I’d argue they go hand in hand.</p>

<p>Oh sure, you could use an example of someone who became good at something through rote, but seriously… how would that not be immediately exposed somewhere (anywhere) in the hiring process?.. probably earlier than later. </p>

<p>And I don’t know about your company, but when a req opens around here, there is a reason. We have a job to do. I don’t have the luxury… nor do I know any other managers who have the luxury… of entertaining supposedly “talented” applicants without the necessary “skills” for the immediate position we have. We need both (talent and skill) and we need them now… not tomorrow, not next week. The only hiring time we can remotely do this is when we hire a brand new graduate.</p>

<p>And in the context of hiring a new graduate, where do you find the ear marks of skill versus talent? From the school transcript? From the few months they worked as an intern? I think not.</p>

<p>I don’t know how you can see what you claim to see in a new graduate, unless you bring a lot of preconceptions into the hiring process with you. I try very hard not to do that. Their credentials got them in the door. They are all qualified for the job or I wouldn’t waste the team’s time with them. We may have some questions based on their resume and letter, but at the point of an interview, these are minor questions. </p>

<p>Hiring young people is very hard for me personally. I know my associates feel similarly. We are constantly second guessing our decisions to cut someone from the process. If talent and skill were anywhere near exclusive of each other, our lives would be a lot easier, but as it stands, most kids we consider seem to have both… or neither… there’s just not enough experience for them to talk about with us to tell one way or the other.</p>

<p>We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this. </p>

<p>Because of you, I’ll probably give an advantage to the next kid who puts winning a spelling bee in middle school on their resume. ;-)</p>

115

<p>biotechmgr,</p>

<p>Great point about teaching. People in the education industry are fully invested in rankings. I have a couple of friends who went in that direction and it’s a constant prestige thing about producing a better bio. </p>

<p>From the outside, it seems like performance and actual work be damned, when pursuing a chair it’s all about your bio, not your “skill” or “talent”. ;-)</p>

116

<p>

</p>

<p>1) It won’t be significantly lower</p>

<p>And…</p>

<p>2) If you learn the latest “hot thing”, you can job hop and make up the difference very soon.</p>

<p>Don’t get me wrong, if the employers took into consideration a “total body of work” approach to recruiting that included college (or even pre-college) academics, I would probably film TV commercials for CMU, Stanford, UIUC and all the other top CS schools. Maybe to help the “fairness” to the more “talented” folks, employers should restrict access to the new technology to their former top recruits…or maybe 3rd-party vendors with training/certification paths should take into account one’s college academics for admission to these certifications.</p>

<p>…and maybe some grad schools should not “aim for profit” and still hold experienced engineers to the same academic requirements for graduate admission as the M.S.-Thesis students (would have sucked for me).</p>

<p>All of these “back doors” allows us “average-ranked State School” grads to sneak into the same levels and salaries as the folks from Top-schools (who did not start a business or go the wall-street/quant/finance route).</p>

<p>Just my $0.05</p>

117

<p>

</p>

<p>The creative arts and professions are full of skilled people who are not very talented, and some that are vice versa. Ultimately, the talented people build skills but the skilled people may not develop their share of the ‘talent’ as much.</p>

<p>To understand how different those two are, barge in to your local architecture school and walk around a studio or jury area. You’ll be blown away by the display of skill, talent, both, or neither :). </p>

<p>As Mrs. Turbo has found out, her team is full of skilled (offshore :)) developers who have memorized Oracle 11i documentation and know how to apply it yet lack the ‘talent’ that allows one to troubleshoot effortlessly or pick the best solution ‘just because’. </p>

<p>You’re right tho - we need both skill and talent…</p>

118

<p>

</p>

<p>What?..“Ask Tom” has never let me down for Oracle…with the Rampant Books folks being also helpful.</p>

119

<p>Books give you skills. The talent gives you insight you can’t find in books.</p>

<p>Books or Ask Tom tell you how to fix it. The talent tells you what happened, which is a lot harder for many people. </p>

<p>Some people see the forest, some see the trees, and those with the talent are able to selectively zoom in and out - to see the high level details of an enterprise level system one minute, and three lines of code that croaked the next.</p>

120

<p>

</p>

<p>You are 100% correct. The problem/issue is that very employers nowadays are paying for talent. The engineer who “see the high level details of an enterprise level system one minute, and three lines of code that croaked the next” SHOULD get paid more (in theory), but that is not the rarely the case. Plain 'ole human nature is going to think “why should I spread myself that wide when I can spread myself thin for the same money?”…kind of like managing or leading teams vs. being a subject-matter expert engineer. “Why should I be responsible for several engineers work…when I can be responsible for MY work only for the same or even more money?”</p>