<p>Is this true, or do graduate schools tend to accept students from other colleges instead?</p>
<p>Actually...no. Most graduate programs do not like accepting their own. The exception to the rule are the professional programs (Business, Engineering, Law and Medcine). For students wanting to go into PhD programs such as Psychology, Political Science, Chemistry or Biology etc..., most universities would rather bring in new blood from different schools. The reasoning behind this is quite simple really.</p>
<p>and the reason is.....?</p>
<p>New blood usually means new ideas. Unlike graduate professional schools (like Law or Medicine), where most students studied a different major in a different department with a different faculty, graduate programs in the disciplines (such as Biology or History) usually accept students who majored in that specific field and department...and faculty. So, if a Michigan History major were to apply to Michigan's graduate program in History, Michigan would probably not want to accept him as she/he has already taken many of the Michigan history courses with many of Michigan's faculty. Michigan would rather accept a UCLA or Rice or Duke History major who has taken different History classes with different faculty. That way, Michigan would bring in new thoughts and ideas. I am not certain about this, but I heard many PhD programs think that way.</p>
<p>and for the same reason alexandre mentioned i think it would be just as beneficial to the student to get to work with new professors and become more exposed to other points of view in their field at a different U</p>
<p>The current trend is that an undergrad should go to a different institution for graduate study to get a more wordly view. The reasoning is that if you stay at one place for 10 years, your exposure and views of a field will have a very limited scope. </p>
<p>Although if you look back 30 years, the trend was opposite. Most people stayed at the same institution for both B.S. and PhD</p>
<p>that sounds right shizz. but as far as the schools are concerned, i think they only care about one thing, money</p>
<p>If you know the department head and also exactly who you want to work with, your strong relationships with them can definitely benefit you. You have to be one of those students who have shown exceptional dedication to that field.</p>
<p>It depends on the pedagogical philosophy of the department and of the school. Some schools/departments like taking their own. Others don't.</p>
<p>Take MIT, for an example. It has been estimated that almost half of all current MIT graduate students were former MIT undergrads, and there are entire departments (like EECS) where the majority of all graduate students were former undergraduates. Heck, yesterday I was just talking to a guy who is completing his bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering at MIT, and this fall is going to enter the graduate program in mechanical engineering, also at MIT. </p>
<p>That is why MIT has a colloquial designation called "MIT-cubed" - meaning a person who got a bachelor's, master's, and a PhD all at MIT. Some of the most prominent researchers in the world are MIT-cubed. Ellen Spertus, the "sexiest geek alive" is MIT-cubed.</p>
<p>On the other hand, there are specific departments at MIT (like physics and chemistry) that do not like taking their own. </p>
<p>The point is, each MIT department makes its own rules. The MIT engineering departments tend to like to take their own. Some of the MIT science departments do not.</p>
<p>The same is true for other schools. Many departments at Harvard, for example, are notorious for taking their own. Henry Kissinger immediately comes to mind - having gotten his bachelor's, master's, and PhD all at Harvard (so it would be "Harvard-cubed", if that term existed). Some of the most prominent researchers in the world did both undergrad and their PhD at Harvard. Just anecdotally speaking, I would say that even today a significant chunk of Harvard graduate students who are studying for their PhD's did their undergrad also at Harvard. Just the other day, I was talking to a bunch of Harvard graduate students studying for their PhD's in various subjects, who all did their undergrad at Harvard.</p>
<p>The point is, every school and every department makes a choice about whether to be welcoming or unwelcoming to its own undergrads. Some are highly welcoming (i.e. the engineering departments at MIT, many departments at Harvard). Some are not.</p>
<p>Wow thanks for all that info sakky=) Are you a grad student at MIT or something?</p>
<p>Do you want to know something about MIT?</p>
<p>well yeah I was just wondering how common it is for chem engineers to do their undergrad at MIT, and then stay there all the way for their PhDs as well. Thanks!</p>
<p>Actually, I'm afraid to say, not that common. The MIT Chemical Engineering (course 10) department is one of those departments that believe in the 'no-inbreeding' philosophy, which basically means that if you go to MIT for undergrad, you will probably not be admitted there for grad. The idea is that the chemical engineering at MIT is really not that big (relative to huge departments like EECS), so if you do undergrad and grad there, then you will be seeing the same profs over and over again, and so it is more healthy from a learning perspective for you to go elsewhere. Whether you agree with that or not, the point is that the MIT chemical engineering department believes it to be true. </p>
<p>Every MIT department decides whether to follow the 'no-inbreeding' rule or not. Some do, others don't. For example, EECS certainly doesn't, I would say that the vast majority of MIT EECS graduate students were former MIT EECS undergrads.</p>
<p>To be fair, I would say that among chemical engineering departments across the nation, the 'no-inbreeding' rule is fairly common. Berkeley chemE, for example, adheres to it. I believe that Caltech ChemE does as well.</p>
<p>But what if I decide after ChemE undergrad that I would like to do BE at MIT for grad school? (instead of continuing purely with ChemE). Would the department mind at all?</p>
<p>Are there people who do their undergrad in engineering at MIT, and then go on to Harvard for grad school? How is Harvard's engineering grad school?</p>
<p>MIT_Hopefulgirl, a very dear friend of mine majored in Chemical Engineering at MIT. Upon graduation she joined Bain as a consultant. Four years later, she wes admitted into Harvard Business School and she just graduated with her MBA. I hope this answers some of your questions. I am sure Sakky can give you more details.</p>
<p>oh cool thanks alexandre - but I was wondering about PhD programs in ChemE at harvard=)</p>
<p>Why would you want to do that? That's like going from a Mercedes Benz S600 (the ultimate driving machine) to a Jaguar (luxurious but mechanically unreliable and unsound)! LOL It is just not done. Harvard Engineering simply doesn't measure up. For your PhD, you will obviously want to shoot for MIT, Cal, Caltech, Stanford, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Princeton, Michigan, Northwestwen, Illinois, UTA...and that's about it. Harvard is very unremarkable in Engineering. </p>
<p>Here's a ranking of the top graduate Engineering programs:</p>
<ol>
<li>Massachusetts Institute of Technology 100</li>
<li>Stanford University (CA) 95</li>
<li>University of CaliforniaBerkeley 87</li>
<li>Georgia Institute of Technology 83<br></li>
<li>University of IllinoisUrbana-Champaign 83 </li>
<li>University of MichiganAnn Arbor 79<br></li>
<li>University of Southern California (Andrew and Erna Viterbi) 78 </li>
<li>California Institute of Technology 76 </li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon University (PA) 75
<ol>
<li>Purdue UniversityWest Lafayette (IN) 74 </li>
<li>University of CaliforniaSan Diego (Jacobs) 73 </li>
<li>Cornell University (NY) 72 </li>
<li>University of TexasAustin 72</li>
<li>Texas A&M UniversityCollege Station (Look)<br></li>
<li>University of CaliforniaLos Angeles (Samueli) 68 </li>
<li>University of WisconsinMadison 68<br></li>
<li>Princeton University (NJ) 64 </li>
<li>University of MarylandCollege Park (Clark) 64<br></li>
<li>Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park 60<br></li>
<li>Harvard University (MA) 59 </li>
<li>Northwestern University (IL) 57<br></li>
<li>University of CaliforniaSanta Barbara 57 </li>
<li>Columbia University (Fu Foundation) (NY) 56 </li>
<li>University of Washington 55</li>
<li>University of Florida 54 </li>
</ol></li>
</ol>
<p>Here's a ranking of the top graduate Chemical Engineering programs:</p>
<ol>
<li> Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4.8
University of MinnesotaTwin Cities 4.8 </li>
<li> California Institute of Technology 4.7
University of CaliforniaBerkeley 4.7 </li>
<li> Stanford University (CA) 4.5
University of WisconsinMadison 4.5 </li>
<li> University of TexasAustin 4.4 </li>
<li> Princeton University (NJ) 4.3
University of IllinoisUrbana-Champaign 4.3 </li>
<li> University of CaliforniaSanta Barbara 4.2
University of Delaware 4.2 </li>
<li> Georgia Institute of Technology 4.0
Northwestern University (IL) 4.0
Purdue UniversityWest Lafayette (IN) 4.0
University of MichiganAnn Arbor 4.0 </li>
<li> Carnegie Mellon University (PA) 3.9
University of Pennsylvania 3.9 </li>
<li> Cornell University (NY) 3.8 </li>
<li> North Carolina State University 3.6
Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park 3.6
University of ColoradoBoulder 3.6 </li>
<li> University of Washington 3.5 </li>
<li> Rice University (Brown) (TX) 3.4
University of CaliforniaLos Angeles (Samueli) 3.4 </li>
<li> Johns Hopkins University (Whiting) (MD) 3.3
Texas A&M UniversityCollege Station (Look) 3.3
University of CaliforniaDavis 3.3
University of Florida 3.3 </li>
<li> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (NY) 3.2
University of MassachusettsAmherst 3.2
University of Notre Dame (IN) 3.2 </li>
<li> Iowa State University 3.1
Ohio State University 3.1
Washington University in St. Louis (Sever) 3.1 </li>
<li> University at BuffaloSUNY 3.0
University of Houston (Cullen) 3.0
University of MarylandCollege Park (Clark) 3.0
University of Virginia 3.0
Virginia Tech 3.0 </li>
<li> Case Western Reserve University (OH) 2.9
University of Pittsburgh 2.9
Yale University (CT) 2.9 </li>
<li> Columbia University (Fu Foundation) (NY) 2.8
Lehigh University (Rossin) (PA) 2.8
Michigan State University 2.8
Rutgers State UniversityNew Brunswick (NJ) 2.8
University of Southern California (Andrew and Erna Viterbi) 2.8 </li>
<li> Arizona State University (Fulton) 2.7
Colorado School of Mines 2.7
CUNYCity College 2.7
Illinois Institute of Technology (Armour) 2.7
University of Arizona 2.7
University of Connecticut 2.7
Vanderbilt University (TN) 2.7 </li>
<li> Auburn University (Ginn) (AL) 2.6
Colorado State University 2.6
Louisiana State UniversityBaton Rouge 2.6
University of CaliforniaIrvine (Samueli) 2.6
University of IllinoisChicago 2.6
University of Iowa 2.6 </li>
<li> Clemson University (SC) 2.5
Tufts University (MA) 2.5
University of CaliforniaSan Diego (Jacobs) 2.5
University of MissouriRolla 2.5
University of Oklahoma 2.5
University of South Carolina 2.5
University of Uta</li>
</ol>
<p>Oh wow thanks=) It never really occured to me that Harvard's engineering program was ranked so low. Hrm.</p>
<p>Well, Alexandre, not everybody can get into the top engineering graduate programs. Harvard isn't the best engineering graduate program, but it's still better than the vast majority of them out there. #20 is actually very good, considering the fact that there are hundreds of graduate engineering programs out there. Sure, if you can get into a better one, you go there, but what if you can't? It's not like everybody can just automatically get admitted to the very best places for graduate school. </p>
<p>I actually worked with a guy who went to Caltech for undergrad EE, and then went to Harvard for graduate EE. When I asked him why he didn't just go to MIT for graduate EE, his answer was simple - he didn't get in. To extend your analogy, sure, you'd rather have a Benz rather than a Jag, but what if the choice is between a Jag and a Kia, or taking the bus? Sometimes you have to make the best out of what your actual choices are, not what you would like them to be. </p>
<p>However, none of this is here nor there for one simple reason. Harvard doesn't run a graduate chemical engineering program. So this is all a moot point. But the point is, you can't just base your choices on where you would like to go. You also have to base them on where you can go.</p>