Could anyone please give me some insight on where VT stands when compared to these other schools? Interested in hearing about engineering program, rankings, campus environment, social life, anything really! Thanks!
Stats:
GPA – 4.0 unweighted
SAT – 2050
Maryland – waiting for decision
Pitt – accepted
Rutgers – accepted
Michigan – deferred
Lehigh – waiting for decision
Bucknell - waiting for decision
Go to wherever is cheapest.
You won’t appreciate this now but you’ll appreciate it later. All of those schools are fine.
My comments here are limited to the academic side of your question.
I know very little about undergrdauate engineering at Rutgers. I suspect in terms of academic rigor it is in par with other major state universities. If you are a NJ resident, you should give the school a serious consideration.
With respect to academics, Virginia Tech, Maryland and Michigan are more or less the same. They offer similar programs, similar courses, and more or less similar learning experiences for undergraduate engineering. They are ABET accredited, meaning that each engineering department goes through a rigorous evaluation by an independent body every four years to ensure the quality of the program. In fact, most engineering schools in the U.S. are ABET accredited!
In my view the three schools employ similar caliber faculty, they have similar amount of instructional resources (labs, facilities,…) and generally do a very good job drawing upon regional industries for internship and employment opportunities for their students.
Lehigh and Pitt are similar in size (engineering student population and faculty) but a bit smaller than the state universities. In my professional bubble, Lehigh has a better name recogniztion gained primairly through research activities and productivity.
Bucknell is small in size and primairly a teaching institution. No PhD program, no research $$$. In theory that is good for undergrduate studies: more faculty time for students, more engaging classroom activities, personal attention to students who need it,… But you need to examine the school/program more closely to see if these elements are in place. Couple of years ago we looked at an undergraduate engineering school (not Bucknell) with a very high national ranking and name recognition; I was disappointed!
You should look at US News an World Report for ranking of undergraduate engineering programs which is done solely based on engineering dean and faculty survey(s). But do so without falling into this silly number game. At the end, what you are looking for is a meaningful and rewarding learning experience, and the schools that best provide it.
Some raw data on your schools.
The number are for year 2013 and approximate.
Bucknell:
Number of undergraudate engnieering students: 687
Number of MS students: 14
Number of PhD students: 0
Number of engineering programs: 7
Number of engineering faculty: 67
Engineering research expenditure: $0
Lehigh:
Number of undergraudate engnieering students: 2000
Number of MS students: 250
Number of PhD students: 600
Number of engineering programs: 16
Number of engineering faculty: 120
Engineering research expenditure: $22 Millions
Maryland:
Number of undergraudate engnieering students: 3700
Number of MS students: 1000
Number of PhD students: 900
Number of engineering programs: 10
Number of engineering faculty: 208
Engineering research expenditure: $135 Millions
Michigan:
Number of undergraudate engnieering students: 5700
Number of MS students: 1600
Number of PhD students: 1600
Number of engineering programs: 16
Number of engineering faculty: 381
Engineering research expenditure: $234 Millions
Pitt:
Number of undergraudate engnieering students: 2600
Number of MS students: 550
Number of PhD students: 420
Number of engineering programs: 10
Number of engineering faculty: 119
Engineering research expenditure: $84 Millions
Rutgers:
Number of undergraudate engnieering students: 3400
Number of MS students: 560
Number of PhD students: 420
Number of engineering programs: 10
Number of engineering faculty: 143
Engineering research expenditure: $51 Millions
Virginia Tech:
Number of undergraudate engnieering students: 7000
Number of MS students: 850
Number of PhD students: 1350
Number of engineering programs: 15
Number of engineering faculty: 317
Engineering research expenditure: $170 Millions
@CloudyCloud Money is obviously a huge factor in this decision, so I’ll definitely keep that in mind!!
@Emotive Wow thanks for all that info! I forgot to add that I have also applied to Florida. Where would you rank that with the rest of my schools (particularly VT and Maryland)? And would you give either Maryland or VT an edge over each other?
In my view U of Florida is similar to the other 3 (or 4) state universities on your list. They all have top-notch engineering programs and are well regarded nationally. I would be hard pressed to rank them in any meaningful way for engineering undergraduate studies in terms their academic curricula.
Here are the numbers for Florida:
Number of undergraduate engineering students: 6000
Number of MS students: 1600
Number of PhD students: 1000
Number of engineering programs: 17
Number of engineering faculty: 264
Engineering research expenditure: $64
If I were to pick between Maryland and Virginia Tech, based on engineering curricula only, I would try to compare the two programs with respect to my specific academic interest(s). For example, if I was interested in robotics, I would try to find out which school provides more opportunities for undergrads in the area of robotics. What type of projects they work on? Would I be able to get involved? Would these opportunities be available throughout the year including summer? Would I be able to get a paying position during summer? Would these opportunities/experiences pave the way for graduate school or employment after graduation? Are the research faculty receptive to working with undergraduates? Would they be good mentor(s) for me?..
In short, I will think beyond coursework and try to answer a wider range of questions with very important long term implications.
From academic standpoint, any edge that one school may have over the other is dependent on your specific academic interests.
My son is studying engineering at VT in part because of the ongoing robotics research work and opportunities at the school.
@Emotive thanks for sharing your perspective. Is there an easy place to get the data for Ohio State and Illinois Urbana Champaign too? My d also has Villanova in the mix as well. We are aware of the College Navigator database which breaks out the number of engineers by discipline. That has helped us compare the size of engineering programs.
Yes, you can find the stats (profiles) for all US engineering colleges, published by ASEE, here:
http://profiles.asee.org/
This applies only to EE (also Comp Engrg) and CS for the universities in your list. I couldn’t tell about Mech, Chemical, Civil, or other engineering programs (really elec/comp engrg is so different from the others, they can hardly ever be clubbed together with the others)
@MD0058: This type of (numerical) ranking, to go beyond a mere opinion, needs to be supported by data. It would be great if data can be complied to effectively measure the degree of difficulty of courses being offered at various institutions. Then we would have a rational basis for such a comparison. Personally, I would be surprised to see much variation among major engineering schools in this regard.
@Emotive: I agree with you to a certain extent, e.g. I believe that it is possible to turn out better prepared with say a math or engineering degree from George Mason University than from UCBerkeley, depending on how one has approached the required coursework, and followed up on teaching oneself more after each semester and ultimately long after graduation. Curricula do not vary that widely across schools no matter what their “rank.” That might perhaps explain for example why a particular grad student at say UIUC with a BS from Bucknell does as well or better than another with a BS from UMich.
However, perceptions still linger, and when such perceptions are collated and codified, they are called “data.” To be fair some elements of “data” used for compiling ranks are indeed objective, e.g. amount of research funding, number of publications per year etc. But then again, getting larger federal grants or generating more papers does not necessarily imply better quality. So we fall back upon soft data such as translating peer-surveys to reputation scores (which again depends on “mere opinions”) and perhaps weighting them together with the aforementioned hard (but sometimes meaningless) data, to get composite scores. I don’t think these composite scores are better measures than the widely perceived faculty quality of various departments, when such perceptions are held and voiced by those actually working in the fields in question, and when there is good consensus among these perceptions. What’s more, these perceptions don’t seem to conflict very much with the ranking scores either!
You have raised several interesting points that worth further analysis and discussion, though I am not sure this forum is the right place for it.
Again, I am going to limit my comments to the academic work quality and rigor.
Overall, I agree with your analysis on how schools are generally ranked and what that means. Even though such rankings may be of use at the graduate level, it is of little significance for undergraduate education.
For undergraduate education what is central is its outcome! Do students learn properly and graduate from the program with the necessary competencies (problem solving, critical thinking, communication, teamwork,…) in their field of study? And, would they be able to pursue advance studies or secure desirable employment after graduation? This largely is a function of the ability of the teaching faculty to engage and direct undergraduates in meaningful learning activities. And then, the ability of the school to cultivate a strong relationship with the industry.
Given the nature of PhD-granting universities, faculty (research) excellence unfortunately does not translate into teaching excellence. In fact in many cases the reverse is true. Now if one can argue that university X is ranked higher than university Y in part because of the quality of its teaching faculty and the effectiveness of the curricula, then we have something.
I am confident, in time, we will be able to devise meaningful tools for measuring the success of undergraduate engineering programs based on what they actually produce (should be producing) competent graduates.