Don't Believe The Hype: Prestige/Rankings In Engineering Do Not Really Matter....

[boneh3ad]

<p>

@bearcats

is “all else being equal” or “ceteris paribus” that hard to understand?

</p>

<p>No, nor is your ridiculous superiority complex. However, here in the real world, all things are almost NEVER equal. By the nature of the different type of people the two schools attract, you will rarely find two identical people at MIT and Cal Poly, if ever. That goes for a lot of schools. Sure you could find a lot of similar people between, say, Purdue, UIUC, and Michigan, but those are all similar schools.</p>

[true_mustang]

<p>well if MIT students go on to graduate school, that means that an MIT student needs to learn how to work in the industry even after graduation because they only learn about the textbook aspects of their major.</p>

[kwlmy]

<p>It is true - if you are going into the industry, it doesn’t matter where you graduate from. It is mostly hard work, dedication, and doing what’s best for the company. If you want to go into research or academia, that’s another story.</p>

[pierre0913]

<p>I think the question we have to ask is what schools are considered “good schools” for engineering and what schools are considered “not as good schools” for engineering. There are tons of schools out there that offer engineering.</p>

[nshah9617]

<p>I disagree that your UG makes a huge impact even at graduate level. Your grades, GRE, career goals and more importantly your research experience will dictate graduate school admission.</p>

<p>Anyway, G.P Burdell brings up an important point. Engineering IS NOT a trade skill or vocational program. The goal of any engineering program is to educate the students first and then provide career placement second. Besides, most engineering programs are standardized throughout the nation and therefore all students learn the same fundamentals through coursework and hands on lab experience.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

well if MIT students go on to graduate school, that means that an MIT student needs to learn how to work in the industry even after graduation because they only learn about the textbook aspects of their major.

</p>

<p>Not if they stay in academia for their entire careers, which many MIT students do. If your goal is to become faculty in an engineering department, then you, frankly, never have to learn how the industry really works.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

I disagree that your UG makes a huge impact even at graduate level. Your grades, GRE, career goals and more importantly your research experience will dictate graduate school admission.

</p>

<p>I would argue that some UG programs - notably MIT’s - offer better research opportunities than others. MIT, through its UROP program, effectively guarantees meaningful research experience to anybody who wants it. Most other schools cannot say the same.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

What difference does it make if it is the top 50 schools if the rankings don’t actually matter according to the premise of this thread?

</p>

<p>Uh, because the very premise of the thread is that rankings don’t matter. The way to show that is to then compare all of the schools, or a random sample of the schools and show that some output variable does not change. You cannot prove that rankings don’t matter by simply looking at the top X units in a ranking. </p>

<p>

Oh well, even if it is a poor sample, the fact that this 8.3% of schools has an engineering graduation rate of around 75% or better means that the remaining 91.7 percent of schools have to have an average engineering graduation rate of 15% in order to bring the total graduation rate down to 20%.

</p>

<p>You are not performing your calculations correctly. Those schools do not have a 75%+ engineering graduation rate. They have a 75%+ overall graduation rate, which says nothing about the percentage of engineering students who are actually graduating. There is no doubt that plenty of engineering students switch out of engineering to some other major and manage to graduate that way. But that has nothing to do with the engineering graduation rate, which would be calculated by factoring in all of the students who start in engineering and then actually manage to finish the engineering degree. </p>

<p>

I never said that graduating from engineering was easy, or that it is not an accomplishment to do it. However, based on the fact that such a large portion of schools has a 70%-80% graduation rate, it is pretty foolish to assume that the graduation rate of all the schools is around 20%. That a near practical impossibility due to the fact that it would require so many schools to be so low, and thus hurt their chances for ABET accreditation, and if they are not accredited, then they don’t fall into this argument.

</p>

<p>See above. The fatal flaw in your argument is that you have confused engineering graduation rates with overall graduation rates. I think most people who have actually majored in engineering will have strong memories of many people they knew who started in engineering but never finished - but did manage to earn a degree in another major. These students would therefore count as far as overall graduation is concerned, but not engineering graduation.</p>

<p>As a case in point, consider Berkeley. Berkeley’s 6-year graduation rate is nearly 90%. But the engineering graduation rate is far lower - probably around 50%, or perhaps even less. Many of those engineers switch to some other major. Many others simply flunk out or drop out completely, but there are since there are relatively few engineers at Berkeley - being about 11% of the undergrad population - it doesn’t greatly affect the overall graduation rate.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

And you are right in that job performance is hard to measure, but that is still what your future success will be based on. If you work for a big company, your success will be based on your superiors’ perception of your job performance. In most places, your performance will be fairly accurately quantified on most occasions. Are some of your good performances going to slip through the cracks and be unnoticed, sure. Are you likely to also get better reviews than deserved on some project once or twice. Probably. Regardless, your school is not going to play a difference in how your performance is perceived once you get to 5 years into your career, because at that point, everyone is judging you on your career.

</p>

<p>I agree - but that means that it behooves you to find a job where you can leverage the brand name of your school to obtain the most exclusive job that you can. 15 years ago, the ‘high prestige’ employer in software engineering was probably Microsoft, recently it was (and to some extent still is) Google, now it is Facebook or perhaps Twitter. Those employers serve as gold-plated brand names in the labor market. So even if you are hired by Facebook and do mediocre work, you still can list Facebook on your resume. </p>

<p>Keep in mind that other employers won’t really know how well you performed in your past jobs. Nowadays, many companies are loathe to provide bad recommendations regarding former employees for fear of being sued. Furthermore, it’s usually hard to ferret out who exactly you as a prospective employer should be talking to in order to assess the worthiness of a particular job candidate. That candidate may provide you with the names of 3 references, but those are surely going to be 3 of his old friends or other such colleagues who he knows will sing a positive tune. </p>

<p>

Consulting offers an obviously different set of circumstances, like you said, and you won’t get hired as a consultant most likely if you came from East Bufu State, but that is a very small subset of “engineering jobs.”

</p>

<p>It is indeed a very small subset of all engineering jobs, but it represents a highly prominent subset of jobs available to students from the top-ranked engineering schools such as MIT and Stanford. See below.</p>

<p>

Now I won’t proclaim to be an expert in consulting since I have only worked in more traditional engineering industry jobs and as a grad student, but I would imagine that you could get into consulting from one of these small schools if you supplement your school with several years of quality work experience. You can correct me if I am wrong on that of course, but I would think that if you worked as a successful project engineer at GE or something, that would look pretty good to consulting firms looking to hire.

</p>

<p>No, it wouldn’t. The same is true of investment banking and other careers in high finance. If those are the jobs that you want - and that is indeed what many engineering students at the top schools such as MIT do want - you essentially have to join those companies right out of school, for that is where the hiring takes place. Seldom do firms such as McKinsey or Goldman Sachs conduct hiring outside of campus recruiting, which means that if you don’t join such firms right out of school - whether undergrad or MBA - you probably never will. That is why so many engineers who decide that they want to change careers to consulting or banking go back to school for their MBA’s, for they know that’s the only pathway they have to recruit at those companies. </p>

<p>In recent years, nearly half of all MIT undergrads who enter the workforce will take jobs not in engineering, but in consulting or banking. The numbers will surely dip now due to the recent travails of the banking industry, but I rather doubt that the combined fraction will dip much below 1/3. What that means is that one of the best -if ironic- reasons to go to MIT is not to get a job in engineering but rather to get a job in consulting and banking.</p>

[kwlmy]

<p>If you want to be an academia, stay in school and do a PhD. If not, come out and work, and learn other things - after few years, you degree doesn’t count anymore - just your experience, knowledge, technical and communication skills, and how you carry yourself.</p>

[Salve]

<p>sakky has a tendency to argue and say that everyone’s arguments are flawed except his own. Watch, he’ll probably argue that my argument about his arguments is flawed.</p>

<p>Here was a comparison someone used at one time about these “top schools”. </p>

<p>Prestigious schools are like Abercrombie. All you are paying for is a brand name.</p>

<p>Sakky, for the record it wasn’t me who said that. So don’t go all crazy with your quoting and attempts at refuting.</p>

[boneh3ad]

<p>He/She can feel free to call my argument flawed. After all, he/she would have a valid point based on the fact that the top 50 isn’t a random sample if not for the fact that the top 50 represents a sizable portion of the total number of schools, so, while not a mathematical impossibility, it is a mathematical improbability that my conclusion is false. <em>shrug</em></p>

[noimagination]

<p>

Here was a comparison someone used at one time about these “top schools”.</p>

<p>Prestigious schools are like Abercrombie. All you are paying for is a brand name.</p>

<p>Sakky, for the record it wasn’t me who said that. So don’t go all crazy with your quoting and attempts at refuting.

“A comparison someone used at one time” is not a valid piece of evidence, and the idea that it can’t be refuted because somebody else said it is absurd. Sakky’s “quoting and attempts at refuting” are part of a little something we call debate. You have to actually address your adversary’s points and provide some sort of analysis - otherwise you have contributed nothing to the topic.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

sakky has a tendency to argue and say that everyone’s arguments are flawed except his own. Watch, he’ll probably argue that my argument about his arguments is flawed.

</p>

<p>Your argument is indeed flawed. </p>

<p>Note, that’s not to say that my arguments are never flawed. Sometimes they are. </p>

<p>

Prestigious schools are like Abercrombie. All you are paying for is a brand name.

</p>

<p>You’re speaking as if brand names have no value. Look, whether we like it or not, we live in a branded world, particularly when it comes to recruiting. Top students are drawn to top schools, thereby drawing top employers, which then draws even more top students, and so forth. It’s practically impossible to obtain an offer from McKinsey coming out of SouthEast Missouri State - in fact, you probably won’t even obtain recruiter facetime. Fair or not fair, that’s the reality of this world. </p>

<p>Look, I’m not defending the practice. Perhaps the top employers should cast wider nets in a broader search of talent. But as long as those employers continue to insist on recruiting in only within the rarefied patina of brand-name schools, then if you want a chance of obtaining a job with one of those employers, you will have to go to one of those schools, whether you like it or not. You can complain all you like about how those employers should not be recruiting in that manner, but they’re not going to stop. </p>

<p>

He/She can feel free to call my argument flawed. After all, he/she would have a valid point based on the fact that the top 50 isn’t a random sample if not for the fact that the top 50 represents a sizable portion of the total number of schools, so, while not a mathematical impossibility, it is a mathematical improbability that my conclusion is false. <em>shrug</em>

</p>

<p>Absolutely wrong - the top 50 may represent a sizable but skewed fraction of the hundreds of ABET-certified engineering programs out there. </p>

<p>But far more importantly, as I said before, you have fatally confused overall graduation rates with engineering graduation rates. For example, I have no doubt that over 80% of all students at Berkeley will graduate, but I would vigorously dispute that 80% of starting engineering students will graduate with degrees in engineering, for many of them will switch out to some other major (and others will not graduate at all), while relatively few students will switch into engineering. An examination of the overall graduation rate is therefore meaningless in this context.</p>

[GoOakland]

<p>I personally believe that rankings affect opportunities and such more so than income. MIT student obviously get recruited more than anybody else. No one can argue that. Someone else even pointed out their ability for research through UROP(or whatever its called). Higher ranked Universities simply have more at their disposal. HOWEVER, higher rankings do still affect salaries. Is it a massive differance? No, not unless your comparing MIT to some small school like DeVry. But there is definately a differance worth measuring/considering. </p>

<p>[Best</a> Engineering Colleges By Salary Potential](<a href=“http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/best-engineering-colleges.asp]Best”>Best Engineering Schools | Payscale)</p>

<p>But here is something else I want to point out. I think the 20% graduation rates for engineers is absurd. I have no problems calling you on that sakky. Is 80% right though? No I don’t think that is incredibly accurate either. I believe there is like a 65-70% rate right now. I just emailed someone in the nuclear department at Berkeley about it. I’ll let you know when I get an answer. Then we can solve this for good and everyone can shutup about the rates.</p>

<p>Yall are arguing over philosphies too much. No one will ever win this way. Someone find some numbers and back their shiz up. There’s no point in arguing like this. Find your numbers and land that knockout punch. We’re engineers for christ sake! Not theorists. Use your stats!
<em>steps off soap box</em></p>

[sakky]

<p>

But here is something else I want to point out. I think the 20% graduation rates for engineers is absurd. I have no problems calling you on that sakky.

</p>

<p>Exactly what are you calling me on? Did I make the claim regarding that 20% graduation rate figure? I think not. If you disagree with that figure, you are free to take it up with the poster (the OP) who actually proposed it. </p>

<p>My point is simply that you absolutely cannot determine engineering graduation rates by examining overall schoolwide graduation figures. I think that’s a rather elementary point, and I’m quite surprised that it’s garnered so much pushback. </p>

<p>

I believe there is like a 65-70% rate right now. I just emailed someone in the nuclear department at Berkeley about it. I’ll let you know when I get an answer. Then we can solve this for good and everyone can shutup about the rates.

</p>

<p>No, that would not solve the riddle for good, for you would still be looking at one engineering department - and a tiny and highly misrepresentative one at that - at only one school. </p>

<p>See below.</p>

<p>

Yall are arguing over philosphies too much. No one will ever win this way. Someone find some numbers and back their shiz up. There’s no point in arguing like this. Find your numbers and land that knockout punch. We’re engineers for christ sake! Not theorists. Use your stats!

</p>

<p>You want figures? You can have figures galore.</p>

<p>Roughly fifty percent of the students who begin in engineering leave the field before receiving
their engineering degree</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.engrng.pitt.edu/~ec2000/grant_papers/Shuman+ASEE-99.PDF[/url]”>http://www.engrng.pitt.edu/~ec2000/grant_papers/Shuman+ASEE-99.PDF&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>research has found that engineering programs are particularly vulnerable, with attrition rates exceeding 60% (Besterfield-Sacre, Atman & Shuman, 1997)</p>

<p>[Engineering</a> students’ perceptions of academic activities and support services: factors that influence their academic performance | College Student Journal | Find Articles at BNET](<a href=“http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCR/is_4_38/ai_n8589838/]Engineering”>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCR/is_4_38/ai_n8589838/)</p>

<p>The Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) has awarded grants to five leading engineering schools to support innovative programs to address a high drop-out rate among engineering students. The SIA noted that approximately 50 percent of all students majoring in electrical engineering drop out of their major before completing their studies</p>

<p>[Press</a> Release Detail | Semiconductor Industry Association](<a href=“http://www.sia-online.org/cs/papers_publications/press_release_detail?pressrelease.id=160]Press”>http://www.sia-online.org/cs/papers_publications/press_release_detail?pressrelease.id=160)</p>

[Calcozzo]

<p>posting in ***** thread</p>

[GoOakland]

<p>There we go! stats. Engineering aint doing so hot… end of story.</p>

<p>And I know I emailed a nuclear guy but I asked for their overall rates as well. I used berkeley because thats the school that was being used in the example.</p>

<p>and my bad for stating you as the one who said 20%. my fault.</p>

[Darko21]

<p>dont higher prestige schools have higher starting salaries? so isnt it like a career head start by a few years?</p>

[Salve]

<p>

sakky has a tendency to argue and say that everyone’s arguments are flawed except his own. Watch, he’ll probably argue that my argument about his arguments is flawed.

</p>

<p>Your argument is indeed flawed. </p>

<p>Note, that’s not to say that my arguments are never flawed. Sometimes they are.

</p>

<p>Thanks for proving my point sakky. :)</p>