<p>Simple. Some universities are more involved in research and have larger graduate programs than others.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Take the argument to its logical conclusion. Harvey Mudd is arguably the best purely undergrad engineering school in the world. But it doesn't have dedicated "departments".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd has the best "general engineering" program. But it doesn't have the best EE, ME, AE et cetera programs. Taking the argument to its logical conclusion, employers that are looking for a specific engineering discipline to fill a spot will favor an engineer with the backgrond in that specific discipline (all else equal) over someone with a "general engineering" backgrond.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Look, the point is, there is no need to go around attacking other schools. If you want to promote GT, then that is your prerogative, but there is no need to go around trashing other fine schools.[
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look, nobody is trashing other fine schools. I am just simply pointing out the fact that Caltech's department is much smaller and has fewer resources than the other top schools. You deny this? Caltech may be very good in what it is known for (research.. and in specific areas) but you can't unbiasedly tell me that Caltech has as many labs, personnel, and funds dedicated to aerospace engineering as the other schools. In this sense, it is not as good MIT, Georgia Tech, UMich..etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
LOL, in California when we say Tech, we refer to Caltech. But in general, Tech refers to <em>MIT</em>.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>MIT doesn't hold the rights to the distinction "Tech." You even say yourself that Tech refers to Caltech in California.. The same way Tech refers to Georgia Tech to students there.
I bet students at Virginia Tech also call their school Tech. Tech is just short for technical institution.</p>
<p>Admittedly this report is a little old, but in terms of research universities, Princeton is certainly in the mix, as is Brown.</p>
<p>
First of all, I'm not actually convinced that Georgia Tech spends more on aerospace research than Caltech when you include JPL (1.4 billion dollars a year is no small chunk of change). </p>
<p>But let's suppose that Caltech does have smaller aero resources for the sake of argument. In that case, then the Caltech aero program would undeniably be less broad than those of larger schools, because Caltech wouldn't have the same number of labs that could cover all of the various fields. However, besides the lack of breadth (which you get in any small school - and Caltech is much better than other small schools at this), a smaller department is not a bad thing at all - and especially not for the average student. </p>
<p>Frankly, for most purposes, what matters is not the total resources of a school but rather the resources per student. What does it matter if you have 12 labs if 150 students are competing for spots in those labs? Wouldn't you rather go to a school where there might only be 8 labs, but only 15 students looking for spaces in those labs? In effect, not only would you have a better chance of getting research at the smaller school, you would actually end up having more choices (for the average student). </p>
<p>Indeed, this is exactly what Caltech provides - in all areas of engineering and science - a slightly smaller pool of research resources but an incredibly small student body so that each student has a real chance to do great work. In fact, Caltech was ranked first by USNEWS in 2000 when they took out the logarithmic scale in spending/undergrad, because Caltech level dwarfs all other schools. Moreover, Caltech has an incredible 3:1 faculty/student ratio, and there is a Ph.D. on Campus for ever undergrad, which translates to more research opportunities for students. </p>
<p>Im not trying to push that Caltechs aero program is better than other top programs (frankly I dont know enough to do that), but I do want to make it clear that its foolish to claim Caltech is worse because it has fewer resources without even acknowledging how small its student population is and consequently how many resources there are per student.</p>
The competitive nature of Cornell Engineering and the undergraduate research offered really makes the experience. The work load is intense but doable. The people are competitive but helpful - very train together, win together mentality. I did my undergraduate and master’s there. Many students who transferred from engineering programs in state schools were surprised at the intense atmosphere. My friend from Europe, who did a Master’s, was amusing because he asked me how people deal with the workload without going insane. The program at Cornell definitely provides a challenge if that’s what you’re looking for.
Well, looks like we’ve got a thread necromancer.
Let’s look at the stats here. A thread necromancer is classified as a “creature”, subset “moron”. “[Playing a thread necromancer] resurrects the target thread from a page other than the first. Post must be inane or not significantly contribute.”
Seems to fit the description.
While we’re on the topic again, here are some anti-elitist remarks. I was afraid my curriculum wasn’t rigorous enough, so I stumbled across Cornell’s calculus for engineers tests/finals in my online search for elite school mana just in time to study for my calc II final. They were a good study resource, covering most of what we covered in my math class. But technically speaking Cornell’s calc II equivalent tests were easier and covered less material than my class… at the community college. Don’t be fooled by brand name, you can get the same medicine with generics, the question is the filler used (yay for apt pharmaceutical metaphor!).