<p>I have been accepted to UCLA and CMU for Electrical Engineering. However, I am finding it very hard to decide between the two. I consulted the recent QS EE and Times Higher Education Engineering and Technology rankings and found that UCLA is better ranked in both the rankings. But, after going through numerous CC posts, I have found that people generally recommend CMU. Why is it so? Please be kind enough to put some light on the matter. Any advice would be highly appreciated.</p>
<p>CMU is ranked higher in US News. I don’t understand QS or Times Higher Education; actually I kinda do and think they are bogus. One of them ranked one of the universities at my hometown, Hong Kong University, in the top-20 before and I thought it was a total joke (no way it should be ranked this high).</p>
<p>lol, CMU is ranked one spot higher on USNWR (23 vs 24)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s a bias on CC towards private universities. CMU will likely have smaller classes, and perhaps facilities, but UCLA might have the better researchers and reputation.</p>
<p>CMU is a great university. John Forbes Nash and the guy behind Dragon Naturally speaking did work there. But UCLA is now slouch either, with connection to people like Lloyd Shapley and Terrance Tao.</p>
<p>If you’re instate, go to UCLA, unless CMU gives you a better financial package. And if you’re international, go for fit.</p>
<p>I thought most of the rankings on US News were QS based. Is that wrong? The only place where CMU was ranked higher than UCLA for EE undergrad on USNews(as far as I have seen) was in a list which was based on a peer survey.</p>
<p>Also, I believe UCLA misreported their NAE member % on the overall graduate ranking. The misreporting appears to be significant.</p>
<p>Here’s what’s on their website:
</p>
<p>The % they reported = 23/156 = 14.7%, not far behnd MIT/Berkeley/Stanford, which got me curious at the first place. Why would a school with such large percentage doesn’t come close to MIT/Berkeley in peer assessment? Why don’t they have any department in the top 10?</p>
<p>It turns out the reason is simply misreporting. According to NAE website, their number should only be around 13. The NAE website shows 19 but 5 of them are <em>emeritus</em> (not active) and 1 of them is in atmospheric science (not engineering school). </p>
<p>Also, they need to include those large number of adjunct faculty/lectueres in the denominator.</p>
<p>The % that they should report is therefore 13/(156+93) = 5.2%, which is what I’d expect based on their peer assessment score.</p>
<p>CMU is generally considered a better engineeing school. I believe EE is one of their better departments and I worked as an engineer in LA before.</p>
<p>UCLA doesn’t have better reputation in engineering. We are talking about engineering here. CMU is widely considered to have more reputated engineering program by a healthy margin, especially in computing and robotics. I am not affiliated with either school and I am speaking as a former practicing engineer.</p>
<p>The smaller class sizes might not make that much practical difference. Although CMU does not list class sizes in its class schedule, one can infer that most of its courses follow the standard research university format of big lecture led by faculty with smaller lab and discussion sections led by TAs.</p>
<p>It may not be that different in a practical sense if the course lecture has 100 students versus 150 or 200. Yes, 100 is smaller than 200, but someone looking for small class sizes is probably looking for under 40 to get the potential practical benefits from the small class size. For example, one can go to San Jose State to find most class sizes to be small enough for that to matter:</p>
<p>This is not to say that small class sizes automatically mean that the school is better, or better for a given student (unless the student prioritizes small class sizes over everything else).</p>
<p>I know that CMU’s Computer Science department is better which is indicated by the rankings as well. But, going back to may original question, why is CMU said to have a better EE department when UCLA has the better rank and better academic reputation score(the criterion I am most concerned with) as indicated in the QS Rankings? </p>
<p>My sole problem is that the general opinion is not supported by the rankings and there is a marked difference in the academic score of the two universities.</p>
<p>I know you have no dog in this fight, and your opinon, imo, is valuable and insightful. </p>
<p>It really depends on which ranking you consult. THE has UCLA at 7 and CMU at 15. Not only is the THE ranking reputable, but given that it has an international focus, and the applicant is international, i think it has more relevance than the U.S. News ranking. You stated above that you were an international student (HK.) Is their a marked difference by how the universities are looked nationally vs internationally? i.e., does CMU have the edge in the states whereas UCLA has the edge internationally? Or would you say that CMU has the edge in both?</p>
<p>OP, i’d be lying if i said that UCLA has a better program than CMU. I’m not that familiar with engineering at either university, but i’d give CMU an edge in the program. That said, you should take several factors into consideration when choosing which school to attend. Is cost a factor at all? You said UCLA is cheaper, exactly how much cheaper is it, and will it’s overall reputation be more valuable to you, as an international student, than the quality increase at CMU?</p>
<p>UCLA’s cost of attendance stands at around 55k per annum whereas CMU’s stands at around 62k per annum. Rigor and quality of teaching are my top priorities. Cost is second. Weather and all, maybe third.</p>
<p>^Those global rankings are a joke because they fluctuate so much from one year to the next. Who knows if CMU would be better the year after. Schools actually change at a much slower pace. </p>
<p>Also, CMU has incredible career prospects for engineers, as shown in their exit survey. For whatever reason, people just got the impression that CMU has great engineering programs in not just CS but others and employers/recruiters seem to act accordingly. That’s what really matters but USN rankings seem to be reflecting that perception too.</p>
<p>I can’t speak for you if 7k per year is not significant for you. But I’d say the actual difference is gonna be less (perhaps significantly) once you take the difference in cost of living into consideration. Pittsburgh is a lot cheaper than Los Angeles, especially the West Los Angeles area where UCLA is. I doubt whatever COA they give you captures this difference fully. It’s not just the rent; lots of other things are more expensive in LA: groceries, parking, traffic/parking tickets (I got quite a few of those, lol), gas, restaurants, etc. They really add up.</p>