<p>Great posts everyone. I am in California and grew up in Virginia. I completely agree with UCBChemEGrad and ucbalumnus that Virginia Tech and UVA are good choices. UVA will be more competitive to get into. Both are great top flight schools.</p>
<p>When it comes to engineering schools, there are basically two major categories and then within those categories there is another split. The two major categories are (1) research orientated institutions; and (2) hands on practical learning institutions. Then within those two major categories there are (a) public and (b) private institutions.</p>
<p>A public research institution would be like UCLA or UC San Diego. A private research institution would be like Cal Tech or MIT. Public hands on practical learning institutions would be like Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly Pomona or any of the US Military Academies. Private hands on practical learning institutions would be like Rose-Hulman, Harvey Mudd (general engineering only with a strong liberal arts and academic orientation) or Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.</p>
<p>I completely agree that if you are not sure, then mechanical or electrical is the best route.</p>
<p>In general, the research institutions tend to be more focused on university research and publishing and not on your personal needs or the quality of your education. You will have fewer professors teaching your classes and more TA’s. The hands on practical learning institutions are teaching colleges and the primary focus is on you and the quality of your education. Research is there but takes a secondary position to your needs as a student. Most if not all your classes will be taught by professors not TA’s.</p>
<p>My kid goes to Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo and he has never had a TA teach a class. Not even a lab had a TA – all 100% professors. Harvey Mudd made it very clear that they were completely focused on student learning and achievement. UCLA on the other hand made no bones about being a research institution and proudly introduced many of the TA’s that would be primarily responsible for our kids’ education. At that school, each department had a hierarchy with the professor acting like a VP and managing research and directing PhD and grad students. The lowest priority in the hierarchy were the undergrads. This is common and there is nothing wrong with it. The goal of many students is to prove themselves through academic performance and hope to get picked to assist with research. A noble goal.</p>
<p>We as a family are more vocational in orientation and wanted value for every dollar we spent on our kid’s education. So we went the hands on practical learning direction. I wanted my kid to be the main focus. Call me selfish, but I had no interest in funding someone else’s research. I wanted my kid and his education to be the main focus of his professors.</p>
<p>Granted, I am very biased. There are many kids who dream of being part of ground breaking institutional research and plan to be professors themselves. This is very important for our society. I am 100% industry oriented and want my kid to have a job at graduation and have his innovation and development happen in the private business sector where he can participate financially in the company’s successes.</p>
<p>When and if my kid decides to go to grad school then I would back him going to a research institution. Then, he would be right in the middle of the game as a master’s student or PhD candidate. I get it at that level. Not for undergrad.</p>