<p>Is it silly for me to want to go to Duke, possibly majoring in bio-medical engineering, when my in-state school of GA Tech offers a better, more highly ranked program? I mainly want to go for the variety of everything offered at Duke.</p>
<p>No, it’s not silly. It seems at this point you’re still not quite sure what you “possibly” want to major in, and since Duke is clearly more liberal arts-centered than GA Tech you will have a wider variety of options there. It may come down to your financials.</p>
<p>There’s no way that GaTech’s BME program is more highly regarded than Duke’s.</p>
<p>Why couldn’t it be(because Duke is overall more “prestigious” than Tech? Guess what, that doesn’t really work for departmental, especially engineering rankings. To save your discomfort with this idea, it barely ranks 1 below y’all for undergrad and 2 above for grad)? It is indeed an excellent program (my friends love it, and I really like the coursework they do. My friend made a prosthetic foot in his first year engineering class. The curriculum is also problem based which I really respect) . I mean, seriously, it’s an engineering school. Also, it partners w/us to kind of create the program. So it is kind of employing the power of “big engineering school” w/“big health sciences” school. This collaboration has worked wonders. But yes, the Duke name may kind of mean much more than a Tech degree if someone went into say the natural sciences or liberal arts, but Georgia Tech kills many for engineering programs no matter the overall rank of the school in USNWR (which ranks almost all of their programs for engineering in top 10 and many in top 5). A Tech degree will get you pretty far, if you don’t fail lol. Employers respect it a lot. And apparently so does its peers. The program is nothing to scoff at or turn your nose up to.
I’m sorry to burst that bubble. Regardless, I would probably go to Duke because it’s a much less depressing campus. Also, Georgia Tech is pretty hard. The grading curves for the introductory sciences and maths for engineering students (mainly physics and calc.) are absolutely brutal considering how tough the content is (it is probably comparable or tougher than most top 20s minus the two private engineering schools). They are one of the schools (like Purdue for example) that still will only curve a class to a C flat if at all. In fact some averages are below 2.0 in those courses. Also, the workload is generally heavier than most places.</p>
<p>I found it: Here it is: <a href=“http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-engineering-schools/biomedical-rankings[/url]”>http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-engineering-schools/biomedical-rankings</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/engineering[/url]”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/engineering</a></p>
<p>I would say this is pretty close (thus not impossible for Georgia Tech to get just as much if not more respect in some circles than Duke), and Georgia Tech is much cheaper. However, if I had the money or got a scholarship and was interested, I would indeed go to Duke.</p>
<p>^Your post illustrates that both Duke’s and Ga Tech’s BME program are top notch and basically equally respected. I think mathematician’s point was *not *that Ga Tech’s BME program is poor, but rather that it is very unlikely to be *more *highly regarded than Duke’s since the BME department is one of the most well-known that Duke has. However, the OP stated “when my in-state school of GA Tech offers a better, more highly ranked program,” which does not seem to be true. As you stated, Duke’s BME is ranked #2 at the undergrad level by US News (behind JHU), while Ga Tech is #3. Again, that is an insignificant difference.</p>
<p>So, BOTH programs are considered among the finest in the nation and it clearly would *not *be silly to choose Duke over Ga Tech based on department reputation alone since they’re basically equal in department reputation. Thus, other factors are more important. Here is a post I made including some reasons you might choose Duke over more traditional engineering powers (UMich, Berkeley, Ga Tech) not just for BME, but engineering in general (taken some from the below linked site):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Six</a> great reasons…to be a Duke Engineer. | Engineering at Duke University, Pratt School](<a href=“http://www.pratt.duke.edu/high-school-students]Six”>Undergraduate Admissions | Duke Pratt School of Engineering)</p>
<p>Good luck!</p>
<p>Yeah, it was moreso the way they said it. There is “no way”. It seemed to be implying that Tech is far less . Also, I agree w/those 6 points especially number 1. The quality of instruction at Duke will generally be higher because of the size (I’ve sat in some of the natural/hard sciences at Tech w/my friend once because I was curious, I like Emory a lot more, so I would gather that Duke is more way more similar to us than it is Tech). Also, Georgia Tech is for those who are dead set on being an engineering major. It could very be risky if you are not. Also, I find the trend of STEM majors going to ibanking as weird however, the same happens at MIT. Tech also seemed rigid w/everyone doing traditional lecture, very low engagement, but that may be true of many top schools according to my research on it (note this only refers to intro. level, not upper levels. It also refers to the lecture component and not recitation). For some institutions similar to our size and rank, we seem to have some of the smallest intro. courses among them, so I was projecting that bias/preference on my opinion of Tech. I’d imagine there are specific social events for each type of engineer at Tech so I don’t know if that sets them apart. And yes, double majoring is extremely tough. It is a very heavy load to do just one in 4-5 years. However, many people will do Tech’s co-op, which is awesome (some people may find it as important as study abroad, depends on their desires), which automatically prevent many from graduating in 4 years. As for research, I am sure that plenty of undergrad research happens at Tech by undergrads, and it hardly has to do w/level of motivation that may thus correlated w/class-rank. For example, explain how my friends over here were able to just waltz over there (she was a sophomore, one is a freshmen) with no experience, go into the Whitaker building (BME complex) and simply stop by some labs and offices (they did not even e-mail the profs. to warn them), and obtain a position. If you don’t call that easy, than what is. While 90% may not be doing it, it probably isn’t because they are “prized” positions difficult to obtain, is because many students aren’t legit trying to do so. They may be too occupied w/their workload, doing a co-op, or prepping for competitions like InventurePrize. 5 and 6 are about right. </p>
<p>Again, if dead set about engineering, Tech will get you there. If this were the case, you should follow the money. If you are not sure about your career and you think “BME” simply sounds cool, head on over to Duke, it’s possible that Tech engineering will kill your grades if you are not serious (Duke can too, but Tech will certainly kill it faster), and any fallback or additional opportunities like ibanking could flying out of the window.</p>
<p>And yes, I agree, it certainly isn’t silly, unless it costs a lot more for you to do so. Duke is a sure bet if you have the money.</p>
<p>Well here’s the thing. Duke and GA Tech would both cost the same for me. And GA Tech’s BME program IS ranked higher than Duke. Tech’s is nationally ranked at #2, right behind JHU, while Duke is ranked #4.</p>
<p>No, skittlescutie, Georgia Tech is not ranked higher for undergraduate. It ranks 1 below for undergraduate (It is 3, Duke is 2), and 2 above for grad (It is 2 and Duke is 4). I posted this above. Also, you shouldn’t be following the rank. Choose which school is better for you. If you like Duke more, go there if it costs the same amount as Tech, if you think Tech’s BME is more interesting and you are dead set on engineering, perhaps go to Tech (and if you don’t like it, you could transfer, not necessarily to Duke, but some top 20s have reasonable transfer in rates). The rank difference between them is negligible. If you like the more engineering oriented/Techie scene, go to Tech. If you enjoy a more mixed scene, Duke. This isn’t easy, but you certainly shouldn’t follow the rank when they are that close and cost the same amount. I think for the most part, those 6 reasons are something to really think about. Look into Tech’s program and/or ask what people do in it and decide.</p>
<p>I’ll just say this: undergrad departmental rankings are bullsh1t and grad departmental ranking are complete trash. For undergrad, there’s really not much to go on except maybe student outcomes and stats. Course offerings, especially for nebulous and all-encompassing fields such as biomedical engineering can vary greatly between schools and are often influenced by the professor who teaches it who may or may not be an expert on that particular field. </p>
<p>As for grad rankings, sure they can measure overall departmental productivity, citations, impact factors, funding levels, # of tenured positions, etc etc. but that completely obscures the fact that as a graduate student (and by that I mostly mean PhD students), you are only tangentially considered part of a departmental and mostly considered part of a lab. That means the quality of your education (read: thesis research) is 99.9% dependent on the mentor you choose, the niche he works in, whether he personally is well-known in that area, and the quality of the research coming out of his lab. You could go to Harvard, work in a sh1t no-name lab under a young prof who is pushing for tenure and working you like a dog for data, get published in low IF journals, and end up SOL when it’s time to scrounge for funding as a postdoc or junior PI. Conversely, you could go to a low profile school, work for a big-shot who actually spends time to mentor you because he’s not worried about funding or tenure or getting scooped, get name recognition, publish in Nature/Science/Cell/PNAS, be really productive, get a good postdoc, get funding, and get a good faculty or industry position and more importantly that K99 or R01 that’ll start you on your career (if it’s academia that is).</p>
<p>Aren’t grad. rankings also often associated w/the size of a department (number of faculty members and popularity of the dept.)? So larger programs also sometimes have advantages along w/those that are very high profile in the research realm?</p>
<p>Usually more faculty = more funding as most faculty salaries carry some stipulation that they be funded in all or part by research grants. Same principle applies to high profile PIs who tend to have good track records of publishing high IF papers and thus their grant proposals tend to be funded at a higher rate. Funding is probably the most important component of grad ranking as funding literally makes the academic world go round. It pays for salaries, lab equipment, reagents, conferences/travel, and especially graduate students. Having stable sources of funding and plenty of it means the department is stable, there are less attrition, people can explore new ideas, productive work is done, the department is more attractive to prospective students, postdocs, faculty etc. That’s why when you look at these rankings and compare it to funding data by institution published by the NIH, it’s practically the same.</p>
<p>Could the same sometimes be said for departments associated w/strong funding in specialty areas. For example, we’re really good w/Drug discovery and design (like 4th in funding or productivity or something like that). Can that sometimes trump a lower rank (like 40 or a little higher, not bad considering its size. Also, some really good investigators) in places such as the chem. dept. I mean, surely some people may be attracted at least to the biological sciences because of it, or would it make a place like Emory more of a post-graduate venture?</p>
<p>Sure strong funding and good productivity for any department can boost its reputation regardless of the institution’s reputation as a whole. The problem is that this is pretty esoteric stuff. Places like UCSF, Hopkins, Harvard, etc that get consistently strong funding across the board will always have broad name recognition for people from all fields and backgrounds which is good for recruitment. But to people interested in a particular field or niche and who keep up with literature, specialty places like Emory can compete head to head with the big boys.</p>
<p>Weirdly enough, or not, it seems that public universities perform much better in graduate rankings, especially for the natural sciences, regardless of the fact that they don’t have the name recognition of Harvard, or any top private institutions. Perhaps they are top heavy (but the same could be argued for Harvard I guess as many complain about the quality of the UG instruction, perhaps moreso than at other top privates).</p>
<p>Anyway, it doesn’t seem as if it is necessary to directly compete with the big boys as much is it necessary to merely remain strong in that area. Admittedly one of the coolest things, is that the guy who did the Emtriva drug teaches organic chemistry at least one semester of the year (as in UG organic). He’s actually a great lecturer(albeit easy). It may be nice that places like Emory and the LACs don’t take themselves too seriously. At some places you won’t see such faculty members teach below the grad. level (or maybe upperlevel if you are lucky). This upcoming semester, we have 3 high profile researchers (including that guy. Actually maybe 4 if you count Gallivan. He’s excellent too) teaching orgo. and the other two are lecture track (these too, despite the researchers being great, are somehow superior). And a big time inorganic (Craig Hill. Arrogant, but still a good lecturer) researcher is teaching gen. chem. How in the world they talked them into it, I don’t know. The biol. dept. is nowhere near as humble (they have researchers teach, but not the high profile researchers). I’d imagine similar things happen at Duke, but I haven’t looked into it (if they follow the same pattern as other peers, it’s probably a no, but Duke is a top 10 non-Ivy, so maybe they do it differently from say, Harvard. Places like Vandy and Cornell only have like 2-3 people teaching orgo. in the first place)</p>