<p>
[quote]
Heck, I know plenty of older people who don't really know what they want to do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, you have to choose <em>sometime</em>. Unfortunately, in order to be in a lot of these careers, you have to take a running start.</p>
<p>Most dancers and violinists and pianists I know started dancing or playing piano or violin when they were around four. That's awfully early to get started on a career, but it's what the field demands.</p>
<p>I agree with ken285. An Ivy isn't the best thing for all students. It just happened to be a fit for me and my interests. I don't think people should be discouraged from applying to an Ivy for engineering just because it isn't as respected in the engineering community as Penn State or MIT. I don't know about Harvard, but I know I have plenty of engineering resources here and I'll have no problem finding a job in engineering if I desire one in the future.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why not just go to MIT then?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, I don't know - because they didn't get in? I've encountered quite a few such Harvard students. Heck, one was at MIT so often that I thought he was an MIT student, and when I found out he wasn't, I asked him why, and he said simply that he didn't get in. Admissions to the top schools are random: not everybody who can get into Harvard can get into MIT. </p>
<p>Then there are plenty of students who didn't know they wanted to become engineers when they were still high school seniors. Like I said, plenty of people just don't know what they want to do.</p>
<p>Finally, especially nowadays, it would not surprise me in the least that, given the new reforms, that quite a few people will get better financial aid at Harvard than at MIT. Harvard has recently announced a dramatically more generous aid policy that effectively makes Harvard free for any family making less than $60k and only 10% of family income for those making less than $180k. Heck, Harvard is now cheaper than state schools for many students. MIT has sadly refused to match this policy. </p>
<p>Harvard</a> announces sweeping middle-income initiative — The Harvard University Gazette</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most dancers and violinists and pianists I know started dancing or playing piano or violin when they were around four. That's awfully early to get started on a career, but it's what the field demands.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, and I was one of those kids. But I didn't choose to pursue that as a career. Heck, the vast majority of people who start dance or music at a young age will not pursue it as a career. </p>
<p>
[quote]
[You're right in that many students don't know what they want to do, but there are also many that do know. I object to the idea that an Ivy is the best for all students. There are many who are better served going elsewhere.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree with ken285. An Ivy isn't the best thing for all students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I have never said that an Ivy was the best for all students. Obviously there are some students who truly are better served elsewhere, including those who truly are sure about what they want to do. </p>
<p>What I am saying is that an Ivy is a risk-averse choice, and most people are risk-averse (or should be) simply because most people don't really know what they want to do. For example, what if you turn down Harvard for Juilliard because you want to be a pianist, and then find out later that you don't really want to do that anymore? </p>
<p>I've said it before and I'll say it again. Most students who enter engineering undergrad programs will not complete them for one reason or another. Those that do complete it will often times not pursue engineering upon graduation but will instead choose to do something else. Even those that work as engineers after graduation will often times want to transition to something else later in their career, like the example of Mark Stevens that somebody else raised, who did indeed work as an engineer at Intel, but then later got his MBA at HBS and became a venture capitalist. Hence, there are numerous points at which people 'leave' engineering, and I think it is clear that the vast majority of people in the initial pool will eventually leave. </p>
<p>Besides, how bad is an Ivy, really? What are we really talking about? According to USNews Graduate Edition, the "worst" Ivy engineering school is Dartmouth at #57 or so. ( I doubt that the undergrad rankings would be much different). I happen to think that's pretty darn good considering there are literally hundreds and hundreds of engineering programs out there. So even in the worst case scenario, you still end up going to an engineering program that is still considered to be significantly better than the average program.</p>
<p>Sakky is so right. Its refreshing to see someone put the truth out there amongst all the "noise" in the college process. Bottom line: If you want to change the world in any way the better the business/ social rep of the school school (and I'm talking Ivies, Duke, Amherst, Stanford, etc) the stronger the likelihood that you will be very successful. Would you rather be an engineer at boeing or someone like Vinod Khosla (Silicon Valley VC- Stanford MBA), Hank Paulson (Treasure secretary, Goldman CEO- Dartmouth, HBS), or Larry Page (Google- Stanford PhD, Michigan). If its the latter than the Ivies/ Stanford/ MIT/ Duke/ top schools overall are the ticket. Its often hard to talk on these boards without coming across as elitist, but the truth is that if you have big dreams, big schools, not engineering ranks, matter.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'll give you an example. Berkeley is obviously a Bay Area school and Harvard is not. But if I'm looking for venture capital in Silicon Valley, a Harvard connection is clearly more important, as Harvard (along with Stanford) clearly dominates the SV VC community. In other words, the Berkeley network is inarguably far bigger than the Harvard network in Silicon Valley, but the Harvard network is far more powerful. </p>
<p>Quote:
Not really, Mark Stevens went to USC in the 1980s for engineering, back then USC was not even prestigious. </p>
<p>Ok, but Stevens also went to Harvard Business School (graduating with his MBA in 1989) and only then did he join Sequoia Capital.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sakky, read the OP question? He is asking for undergraduate engineering school. According to people on this board, a guy went to USC undergraduate engineering school is going to get thrown to the dog house.</p>
<p>Actually, I'm not saying that Ivies rule all. I happen to think that Stanford just may be as close to perfect as you can get, simply because it offers the entire balanced package - strong engineering, strong non-engineering, strong brand name, strong networking, and so forth. MIT is also very very good because of not only its engineering strength, but also the cross-reg access to Harvard. Heck, one could make an argument that MIT may be even better than Stanford because MIT actually offers an elite undergrad business program, whereas the Stanford GSB does not offer an undergrad major. Undergrads can still access the highly entrepreneurial and VC-oriented network of the GSB - and many do - but they can't actually formally study at the GSB. Berkeley has the potential to be very good, but has to get rid of the stupid impaction policies that hinder students from freely switching among all majors, as well as stop admitting so many relatively mediocre students. But even as things stand, I'd probably prefer Berkeley over, say, Cornell. </p>
<p>On the other hand, I am far more skeptical about places like Georgia Tech, or (sorry RacinReaver) Caltech, at least for undergrad. Don't get me wrong. I respect Caltech. In fact, my brother went to Caltech for undergrad and did very well, graduating with honors. He says what I've said about Caltech: that it's an excellent school if you want to study something technical at a very deep level. His criticism is also the same as mine: what if you go there and then find out that you don't really want to major in a technical subject anymore? That happened to a number of his colleagues.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, read the OP question?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am not answering the OP question. In fact, most of the posts in this thread are not, including yours. I am answering the questions that have been raised in subsequent posts. </p>
<p>If I was directly answering the OP's question, then I would have said something like "To the OP:"</p>
<p>
[quote]
According to people on this board, a guy went to USC undergraduate engineering school is going to get thrown to the dog house.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said that. USC is a very good engineering school. </p>
<p>The question on the table is what is better - an Ivy or a non-Ivy if you want to be an engineer. I happen to disbelieve the very premise of the question, which is that you have to know that you want to be an engineer for that question to be valid, but how do you know that? More importantly, how many people actually know that? I think that's highly uncertain. Like I said, the attrition rates in engineering programs are high. Surely all of us who did major in engineering can think of the myriad people who were with us in the beginning but who didn't finish with us. Many (probably most) people who start out in engineering programs will not actually complete the engineering degree, either because they find something else more interesting to do, or because they find engineering to be too hard. Hence, it is an entirely valid concern to wonder what if you don't actually finish the engineering degree? What happens now?</p>
<p>sakky, and I mean this as a joke: what do you do for a living?!
I've posted a lot since joining, I know a few tend to have long posts, like Alexandre, but some of your posts are ridiculous, and you follow up lengthy posts with multiple posts that are just as long. </p>
<p>I'd say if you re just going to class, doing homework and taking tests in engineering, the prestige schools are better.</p>
<p>I'm a very fast typer. Long posts don't take me a lot of time to write.</p>
<p>sakky, would you say Stanford's reputation/name is really popular world wide?</p>
<p>if you get into harvard, you better ****in go there. prestige in engineering is no different than any other field.</p>
<p>The reality is that most people who are very ambitious realize that being an actual engineer is much less fulfulling than operating the work of many engineers at a start-up or at a venture firm. For this group going to a place like Dartmouth or Harvard will be much better than a higher ranked undergrad engineering program.</p>
<p>IMO there is no better place than stanford for a would be engineer. Being at the heart of the startup culture is just plain awesome. You get the best of both worlds.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky, would you say Stanford's reputation/name is really popular world wide?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Harvard is still (probably undeservedly) king of kings when it comes to brand name, and Yale and MIT are perhaps next in line when it comes to brand, but Stanford's brand is also very powerful internationally, especially in Asia. Silicon Valley is the envy of the world - as lots of nations have attempted to replicate it with only middling success - and Stanford is the central dynamo of the Valley.</p>
<p>The other major advantage that Stanford offers is that its engineering program is not only elite, but also relaxed, relative to other top engineering programs. Basically, they're not going to put you through the gauntlet to try to weed you out. Granted, it's still hard to get A's, but you're not going to flunk out either, which is a distinct and dangerous possibility at other schools. I am convinced that a lot of people that I know who had flunked out of engineering at other schools would have successfully graduated if they had gone to Stanford. Granted, they would have gotten mediocre grades, but at least they would have graduated, and that's clearly a heck of a lot better than ending up with no degree at all. </p>
<p>Put another way, Stanford is the one school that offers an engineering education that is not only top-notch, but allows you to play the "GPA-protection game" so that you are still highly competitive for top law or medical schools or for international scholarships like the Rhodes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
what if you go there and then find out that you don't really want to major in a technical subject anymore? That happened to a number of his colleagues.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'd argue that's more of a function of Caltech's system of teaching than anything else. I would have hated it here if I had gotten in and decided to attend for undergrad. There's a saying here of something like this is where your love of science goes to die.</p>
<p>I wonder what the attrition rate at schools such as Georgia Tech, Rice, CMU, RPI, Case Western, MIT, Caltech, Harvey Mudd, Olin, and other schools whose primary focus is engineering/technology versus schools like Berkeley, UIUC, Stanford, Cornell, and others who have very strong engineering programs, but also significant programs in many other fields.</p>
<p>In the case of MIT, students have the very nice option of the Sloan School, which I am convinced is MIT's hidden gem. You get a highly marketable degree with both the MIT and Sloan brand names, you get access to excellent recruiting opportunities in consulting/banking/venture-capital/etc. as well as access to the powerful Sloan alumni network (as well as the greater MIT network, obviously). It's also significantly easier than engineering at MIT. Granted, it's still hard to get A's, but it's almost impossible to actually fail as long as you do the work. The Sloan undergrad salaries are high, in fact, higher than even many of the MIT engineering majors. Furthermore, people will think you're technically brilliant just because of the MIT brand name. All in all, it's a quite fantastic deal. </p>
<p>MIT is also strengthening other programs. For example, political science is already ranked #10 in the nation according to USNews, a tremendous feat when you consider that poli-sci has been an independent department only since the 60's. Philosophy was ranked #9 in the NRC and linguistics was ranked #1. MIT also has well-regarded city planning and architecture programs. And of course, like I said, MIT students have full cross-reg access to Harvard. Hence, MIT students have extensive opportunities to pursue non-technical interests. </p>
<p>I feel rather sad that Caltech does not offer comparable opportunities for those students who find that they no longer want to be technical. Those students basically have little choice but to try to transfer out.</p>
<p>For someone unsure about engineering, but is considering it, MIT and Stanford are better than the Ivy's. The Ivy status does not trump schools like these. Agree?</p>
<p>Here's a hypothetical situation. Let's say you're considering studying petroleum engineering or chemical engineering. You're not 100% certain but that's what you want to go for at this point. You apply and are accepted to Harvard (which doesn't offer either) as well as UT-Austin. What do you do? Do you go to Harvard where the overall prestige is better but study something you don't like? Or do you go to UT where the courses you like are offered, but it doesn't quite have the reputation of Harvard?</p>
<p>sakky, you seem to be from the Bay Area. What do you think about SJSU's engineering program? It doesn't seem all that to me...big companies would rather advertise at SCU, Stanford, and Cal, no research opportunities, and the engineering alumni seems nonexistent.</p>
<p>Lol Sakky never thought about Sloan within MIT. You're spot on. I could never ever see myself at MIT, but what a great concept.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Here's a hypothetical situation. Let's say you're considering studying petroleum engineering or chemical engineering. You're not 100% certain but that's what you want to go for at this point. You apply and are accepted to Harvard (which doesn't offer either) as well as UT-Austin. What do you do? Do you go to Harvard where the overall prestige is better but study something you don't like? Or do you go to UT where the courses you like are offered, but it doesn't quite have the reputation of Harvard?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And what if you go to UT and then find out that you actually don't like engineering at all (or that you do poorly in it)? I've said it before and I'll say it again, most freshmen who enter engineering programs will not actually finish them, and even of those that do, many of them that do will choose not to work as engineers. Heck, there's a guy here whose office is two doors from mine who completed his degree in EE from UT-Austin...and then went to work for Goldman Sachs (then got his MBA at Harvard Business School and then took a job in venture capital). Maybe if he had gone to Harvard for undergrad then he could have just gone to venture capital directly. We'll never know, but we do know that he's never worked a single day in his life as an engineer despite having an engineering degree. </p>
<p>What is also true is that you never see the reverse. I've never heard of anybody working in Ibanking or venture capital and deciding that they don't like it and would rather become an engineer instead.</p>