Diffrence between MIT, Berkley, Georgia Tech and Stanford?

<p>After you finish your engineering major, do companies care what top schools you go to or not?</p>

<p>I know that Georgia Tech and Stanford are pretty close to each other in engineering. Since they are both so up there, does it really matter which one i go to? I have gotten into both Georgia Tech and Stanford, but i am leaning toward going to Georgia Tech. Plus it is cheaper.</p>

<p>So if i did go to stanford, would it even matter. To me since these tech schools are so up there, i would go with the cheaper one.</p>

<p>What would be the more lucrative one in the long run?</p>

<p>The more lucrative one would be the school you fit in better at and will be able to get more out of your education with. It's what you get out of school that matters in the long run, not where you went.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The more lucrative one would be the school you fit in better at and will be able to get more out of your education with. It's what you get out of school that matters in the long run, not where you went.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's a joke. Cost is a major impact. That matters <em>a lot</em> in the long run.</p>

<p>You may want to check the salary surveys at the respective schools' career placement offices. I don't know specifically between Stanford and Georgia Tech, but I know that MIT starting salaries are much higher than Georgia Tech's. I suspect that Stanford starting salaries are also higher for the same degree. I don't know that they should be, but I think supply and demand leads to a difference. Your starting salary is very important because all future raises are compounded increases from it. </p>

<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/career/www/salary/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/career/www/salary/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>If you're going to go to graduate school anyway, it may not matter.</p>

<p>Dunno if it's true at Georgia Tech or not, but I know the average incomes of students at my undergrad school (CMU) in engineering was inflated by the number of people that got hired by finance companies.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You may want to check the salary surveys at the respective schools' career placement offices. I don't know specifically between Stanford and Georgia Tech, but I know that MIT starting salaries are much higher than Georgia Tech's. I suspect that Stanford starting salaries are also higher for the same degree. I don't know that they should be, but I think supply and demand leads to a difference. Your starting salary is very important because all future raises are compounded increases from it.

[/quote]
The higher salary difference between <em>engineers</em> (not engineering graduates who go into finance) of all three schools is almost entirely due to geography.</p>

<p>
[quote]
After you finish your engineering major, do companies care what top schools you go to or not?</p>

<p>I know that Georgia Tech and Stanford are pretty close to each other in engineering. Since they are both so up there, does it really matter which one i go to? I have gotten into both Georgia Tech and Stanford, but i am leaning toward going to Georgia Tech. Plus it is cheaper.</p>

<p>So if i did go to stanford, would it even matter. To me since these tech schools are so up there, i would go with the cheaper one.</p>

<p>What would be the more lucrative one in the long run?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, it depends on what kind of job you want. If you want to work at a large, established engineering firm, then it probably doesn't matter. </p>

<p>However, I can think of some important sectors where Stanford would help quite a bit: the first being consulting/banking. If you're planning to try to be a management consultant or an investment banker or venture capitalist, especially at one of the top firms, you should clearly choose Stanford. Those firms are highly elitist in nature. Granted, some will recruit at GTech. But many more will recruit at Stanford. </p>

<p>The second one is entrepreneurship and the tech startup environment. I think it is no secret that Silicon Valley is the most fecund sector of technology entrepreneurship in the world, bar none, and Stanford is without a doubt the engine that drives the Valley. Yet to this day, no other university has been able to replicate the entrepreneurial culture that permeates Stanford and Silicon Valley, despite repeated attempts. Not MIT, not Caltech, not Illinois, not Georgia Tech, not anybody. Heck, not even Berkeley has been able to do it, and it's only an hour away. Compare the entrepreneurial activity that happens in the East Bay to that in Silicon Valley, and there is no comparison to be made. </p>

<p>Yet the fact is, startups don't really "recruit", at least, not in the traditional sense. That's because when startups are small - which is precisely when you want to get into them - they don't have the resources to conduct nationwide recruiting searches. Hence, the founders just do the natural thing of hiring their friends (and their friends' friends, etc.). That's generally the only viable option for a startup to be able to staff up. For example, many of the original engineering team members at Google consisted of Larry and Sergey's old school pals. Many of the original employees at Yahoo were Jerry and David's old school pals. Granted, not all of them stuck through with the company to IPO, but those who did became millionaires many times over. But if they had never gone to school with those founders, then they would never have been hired for those jobs and hence they wouldn't be rich right now. </p>

<p>Similarly, another major reason why Stanford serves as such a dynamic tech entrepreneurship incubator is that the largest and most prominent cluster of venture capital firms in the world is literally just a few miles down the road. Venture capitalists strongly prefer to fund local companies because they are easier to oversee (i.e. a Silicon Valley venture capital partner who has made investments only locally can set up an impromptu meeting with any of his investments in about an hour, but not so if they have invested in firms halfway around the country). The upshot is that it is far easier to obtain funding if you are in Silicon Valley (which has prompted pundits to argue that the first thing that a tech startup should do if it is not located in Silicon Valley is to move there). Hence if your goal is to maximize your chances of joining a startup that makes it big (and much of the reason to join a startup is that you think it has a chance of making it big) it is probably better to go to Stanford. </p>

<p>The third reason has nothing to do with engineering, and inherently so. The question is - what if you switch out of engineering? Studies have shown that the majority of incoming engineering students will not actually complete the engineering major. Many of them will switch to something else. {Some will flunk out completely.} Hence, what if you go to GTech and then find out that you actually want to major in one of the humanities or social sciences? Stanford is a better humanities/soc-sci school than is GTech. </p>

<p>But like I said, if you don't really care about any of that, then you could do just fine at GTech.</p>

<p>I am not becoming an engineer for the money. I am doing it out of the love of science. If pure science actually made some money, I would become a theoretical physicist. But since they dont, EE is the closest thing i can get to all the physics. I am going to try at Georgia Tech to take at least every physics course that i can possible take, even if it will cost me money. </p>

<p>Also after engineering undergrad, i might go to medical school. Medicine is also fascinating to me, and the field is very lucractive. </p>

<p>So I am saying that i am going into engineering with medicine as my back up. </p>

<p>I will never have and never will intention to do any type of bank work.</p>

<p>
[quote]
f you're planning to try to be a management consultant or an investment banker or venture capitalist, especially at one of the top firms, you should clearly choose Stanford. Those firms are highly elitist in nature. Granted, some will recruit at GTech. But many more will recruit at Stanford.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>FYI, the top firms also recruit heavily at MIT. I am not pulling this out of my a**; I went to enough MIT career fairs as an undergrad.</p>

<p>To address the OP's original question, all three of these schools are great and engineering companies are generally proud to get people from any of them. However, depending on where, geographically, you want to work, your choice might matter. Networking is the key to getting many jobs. If your network is concentrated in a certain region, it will give you an advantage jobhunting in that region, and probably a slight disadvantage in a region where your network is weak (compared to someone from a school of similar caliber in that region).</p>

<p>I'm a GT alumnus and so you might think this is bias, but if you are going to work in engineering/science, tech is the best bet because it's by far cheaper. You will have absolutely no problem finding a job with any of the top engineering firms/ defense contractors. I didn't use it, but tech has one of the top Coop programs you could join if you're willing to take time off to work. From a relative standpoint, you’ll probably make around the same around graduating from any of these schools. I can't tell you how many people I met that have all kinds of crazy student loans because they went to these private engineering schools. On another note, if you are planning to study medicine, you might want to figure that out asap. I heard that the admission office for medical programs don’t take into account if you went to a hard engineering school or not. So be prepared because if you do go to GT for engineering, it's no joke.</p>

<p>From my experience, there's no difference in pay as Engineers from these schools. However, MIT/Stanford/Berkeley will offer a higher starting salary and higher chance to break into other lucrative careers.</p>

<p>Also, Georgia Tech might not be necessarily cheaper, a very good financial package a lot of times can make a private school cheaper. (ie. Harvard)</p>

<p>Well are there any jobs in Georgia that play well.</p>

<p>I would like to go to Georgia Tech because i have been to Atlanta a lot of times. </p>

<p>I like the city and it is close to home.</p>

<p>So after graduation, would i be relocated to some big city NYC , or would i generally stay in the south?</p>

<p>I am flexible and absolutly no problem moving to a different state, or even canada. </p>

<p>I was just wondering out of my own curiosity.</p>

<p>Also since living in big cities have a generally higher cost of living, there would be living compensation,right?</p>

<p>what engineering are you planning to major in?</p>

<p>rixtehstix: I love your attitude! You'll do great. Sounds like you should go to Georgia Tech, it's a great but intense school. There are plenty of jobs around Atlanta. </p>

<p>To answer your other question, you often get a larger salary in a higher cost area, but usually not enough to achieve the same standard of living if you measure that by the size of the house you can buy. However, for places with a high cost of living, there is a REASON it's so expensive. Many people find them vibrant and highly desirable places to live. There are a lot more professional and educated people so if you're one of them, you can end up a lot lower on the food chain than in a place where an engineer is on the top of the food chain. </p>

<p>Some people prefer the vibrancy to a big house.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm a GT alumnus and so you might think this is bias, but if you are going to work in engineering/science, tech is the best bet because it's by far cheaper

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As mentioned by others, this actually depends strongly on your financial aid package. The top private schools are often times cheaper than (or comparable to) public schools, once financial aid is factored in.</p>

<p>We'll obviously financial aid is a factor. But that really wasn't what he was asking. Of the 3 schools, especially if you're discussing in state tuition, GT is nickles and dimes compared to the other two.</p>

<p>As far as engineering jobs go, coming from someone with a EE/Cmpe background, I wasn't that impressed with the number of large engineering companies (this was back in 2004). If you are planning on doing EE/Cmpe you should be prepared to move to either California, Texas, or MD/D.C. I'm not saying you can't find a job in ATL (or other cities), but you'll have way more options going elsewhere.</p>

<p>CMU is a private school, not public. Why are you talking about CMU anyways? The poster hasn't mentioned CMU at all on this topic.</p>

<p>Somewhere buried in a thread about engineering schools, there was a engineering firm recruiter (sorry I can't remember even what engineering field) quoted that said that there was great competition to get the top recruits among undergraduates at MIT, Berkeley, and Stanford. Overall, the quality was top-notch and they were all well-regarded, particularly their top students.</p>

<p>I can't believe that Georgia Tech would be far off, since it's one of the best engineering schools in the nation.</p>

<p>If you want engineering, there is very little premium over top programs.
Go to the school that is cheaper for you...all the schools you listed are fantastic.</p>

<p>I'd have no qualms choosing Georgia Tech.</p>

<p>yeah thanks for all the posts guys</p>

<p>do you guys think that the quality of students at georgia tech would be the same as stanford, MIT, berkley? </p>

<p>would the students have the passion for studying science and math and would the mean iq distrubtion be generally the same?</p>