<p>One can be measured in their abilities in science and math very easily; certainly easier than the subjects like history and literature.</p>
<p>I'm wondering how at places like MIT or other top schools like Cooper Union, they manage the difference in the students abilities. Surely, at those top schools, there are bound to be IMO winners, USAMO qualifiers, or other olympiad contestants. Wouldnt there be a B I G gap in the abilities of the students? Generally speaking, the olympiad winners have a depth of knowledge equivalent to a sophomore of a college student. Can anyone tell me how these gaps are minimized and solved?</p>
<p>because i feel that I'm too mediocre in science or the engineering aspect, I'm heavily conflicting over pursueing a career in economics/business or math/science. Math and economics are the two subjects I most enjoy learning and the two that I'm best at. </p>
<p>In the long run, I think you are better off pursuing the subjects you love most: math and econ. MIT is a great place to study these subjects, as are Chicago and many other colleges and universities. The first two years of college are somewhat exploratory and there is always an opportunity during those first two years to change majors if you have a change of heart. </p>
<p>At the elite colleges, the decision making process is very complicated, weighing factors that the general public doesn't think about. They are trying to build a class with the right mix of students. Only they know what that right mix is. The asdmissions process is not an exact science. Although it is easier to "quantify" a science/math applicant, the admissions committee will look for many different kinds of distinctive qualities in addition to awards and statistics. Committee members may advocate for different applicants. Admissions isn't completely a hard science, although you have to have the right numbers to make it into the pool. I hope my comments are helpful.</p>
<p>Math and Econ go hand-in-hand perfectly. There's a good amount of overlap, meaning you would have a good chance of a double major. Many of the top LACs do those majors exceptionally well, and if you have a shot at MIT, you would have a shot at them as well. </p>
<p>One other thing: engineering undergrads have a very different experience than most other majors. The course/work load is intense, and if you're not totally committed and confident you can handle it, it can run over you like a freight train. The consensus among current and former engineering undergrads that I know who attended elite engineering schools is that there is very little time for any kind of ECs at all. So if you want to have a more typical college experience, go for your math major undergrad, and that will be an excellent foundation for grad schools in any number of areas--engineering, economics, computer science, etc. when you're more sure of what you want to do. And you can have a little fun during your undergrad years as well.</p>
<p>jeffl: yes I know. 1300 3.5+ international was admitted with no distinct EC's. But isn't Cooper Union considered as a very presitigous engineering school? My friends say its elite.</p>
<p>Driver and collegehelp: Thanks for the advices. I'll reconsider my strengths and weaknesses and test whether I can handle the courseloads. I am awfully good at procrastinating. I need to change the habit... </p>
<p>but what are the benefits for taking undergrad engineering program? Are grad school admission mostly based on the gpa?</p>
<p>Undergrad engineering, like undergrad business, or nursing, or any of a number of undergraduate professional programs probably make you more employable right out of college. I have friends who went this route....but they all ended up going back for MBAs or graduate engineering degrees in order to advance in their careers. In other words, as a Chem engineer, upon graduation, you will be heading for a higher paying cubicle than your roomate the Chemistry major from the college of A&S. But you're both likely to need graduate work in order to move up to senior positions. An undergrad degree in engineering would likely make your graduate chem engineering graduate program easier, but you will have sacrificed some of the self-analysis opportunities that come from a BS program in related studies. Many students change majors. Engineering students have a harder time doing this, because their coursework is so specific to that discipline. It's a tough road, and there's not much opportunity to have a traditional college experience. Problem sets to the nth power.</p>
<p>The difference is... As a ChE you only need to get a master degree, while in Chemistry, you need to go for a PhD... a difference of at least three more years.</p>
<p>Btw, I don't think you can get into a ChE grad program if your undergrad degree is in chemistry. You will be missing way too many engineering courses.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think you can get into a ChE grad program if your undergrad degree is in chemistry. You will be missing way too many engineering courses.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's a little tougher, but I know people who've done it. Below quote is from the Cornell graduate admissions dept. for chem engineering.</p>
<p>"Most applicants have satisfactorily completed the equivalent of the fundamental work required by an accredited curriculum in chemical engineering. Outstanding students with undergraduate majors in chemistry, materials science, microbiology, or physics are also encouraged to apply. For such students extra semester or summer term of residence is normally required. All applicants are required to submit GRE general test scores."</p>
<p>hmm.. so you basically re-learn all of the undergrad academics courses in grad engineering programs? and unless you truly enjoy the subject or want to be employed after college, there is no evident reason to suffer in the 4 year undergrad courseload?</p>
<p>Hey, I have a big question. I'm bent on going to MIT, but I know I can't afford it, without scholarships and loans (which i will apply for). So, who recommends that I skip MIT for undergrad, try for grad, and go to a less expensive university first? It doesn't seem like a well-known or well-publicized game plan; kids are generally looking to get into the one they want when they want it. THanks for any advice.</p>
<p>"so you basically re-learn all of the undergrad academics courses in grad engineering programs?"</p>
<p>No, you don't. Look up the respective BSE/MSE requirements and see for yourself. Besides, ChE courses tend to be seqential so you can't cram all the missing fundamental courses in one or two semesters. For example, at Michigan, 528-Chem Reactor Engineering is a required course for the MSE program. The prerequisite for 528 is 344-Reactor Engr & Design, which in turn requires 330-Chem & Engr Thermodynamics AND 342-Heat & Mass Transfer. Both require 230-Material & Energy Balance. As a grad student, you can probably skip a couple of the basic engineering courses, but you are at a disadvantage in the graduate courses without the relevant background.</p>
<p>The statement in the Cornell catelog is more relevant if you are going for a PhD degree as you are more focus in a specialized (or interdisciplinary) area. For a master degree, it is not worth it. And the statement "For such students extra semester or summer term of residence is normally required" ... is probably missing a couple "s".</p>