Let's suppose an applicant has a strong interest in engineering, an in-state "safety" college already lined up, and has a reasonably good shot at getting into one of {Caltech, Stanford, MIT}. Would such an applicant, if uninterested in nonengineering courses, have much reason to apply to Harvard's School of Engineering and Applied Science?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Just a minor technical note: one who wants to study engineering at Harvard does not apply to the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS). Prospective undergraduate students apply to and are admitted into ** Harvard College ** where they may major in some field of engineering uopn taking a certain number of classes taught by SEAS and also other classes taught by other academic divisions within Harvard University. </p>
<p>Note that Harvard's SEAS per se does not grant degrees. Bachelor's degrees in engineering are granted, as I mentioned, by Harvard College, whereas master's and PhD degrees are granted by the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. SEAS faculty serve both schools (the College and the Graduate School) by teaching classes and advising students.</p>
<p>bruno123-
I respect the US News rankings very much but I have looked more deeply into the data on each engineering school and sort of added my own weighting. I think the caliber of students (SATs) is very important because it enhances the level of teaching and discussion. It also affects the academic climate and the culture of a school. I also think reputation matters somewhat. </p>
<p>The engineering programs at some of the flagship publics are great. For me it came down to a choice among Cornell, Northwestern, Carnegie Mellon, Rice, Michigan, and Illinois. I chose Cornell. I thought I'd get more attention from faculty and more opportunities for undergraduates than at the publics. I'll never know what Michigan or Illinois would have been like but I certainly was not disappointed in Cornell. I thought there would have been more competition for faculty time at the publics. </p>
<p>CMU gave me the feeling that it was a little too tech-heavy. I didn't want a tech school. They tend to have lower graduation rates. Northwestern and Rice were very appealing. Cornell was closer to home than Northwestern and Rice and had the Ivy culture and prestige. Cornell also had the additional strength and connections with NASA and astrophysics. </p>
<p>I didn't like Stanford because of the preponderance of graduate students but I know that Stanford, MIT and Caltech are very highly regarded.</p>
<p>So, applying my own metrics to the US News rankings I came to the conclusion that Cornell was the best undergraduate engineering school for me.</p>
<p>So much depends on what your kid wants in a college, besides the course catalog! Does he want to be in a very big university? Urban/rural/suburban? Sports/music/debate club? </p>
<p>All the usual factors that enter into a college fit still apply, even if a kid is going into engineering. There are tons of great engineering programs out there - but they are all at different colleges, and hence, the experience is different. He will not have the same OVERALL college experience studying at Cal Tech as he'd have at Penn State. (Depending on the kid, one might be more satisfactory than the other.)</p>
<p>I'd focus slightly less on engineering/college rank and try to find schools that would seem to fit your kid. And of course take affordability into account. At least that's my 2 cents after having just gone through the process (and we'll see how it turns out - ha).</p>
<p>I agree that Cornell is in the most elite class for undergraduate engineering, at least electrical engineering. My experience working with Cornell graduates has been nothing short of outstanding. Actually, I kind of agree with most of collegehelp's thinking.</p>
<p>
[quote]
one who wants to study engineering at Harvard does not apply to the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, that is correct. Any undergraduate at Harvard applies to and becomes a student of Harvard College. That said, we have met Harvard representatives in our town at the National College Fair event who definitely pass out targeted brochures about SEAS to students who have a pre-engineering profile of interests and activities. Harvard would like SEAS to be higher on the list of reasons why students apply to Harvard College.</p>
<p>
[quote=]
The top private engineering schools are more selective than the top public engineering schools. That was the primary basis for my earlier list of unbeatable private engineering schools. On the other hand, the flagship publics have great resources and facilities (and many students are as good as anywhere). So, my list is a subjective attempt to balance everything.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It would be interesting to compare the stats of the students in the engineering programs at publics to the privates. While I no doubt think the data will still likely support your point, I think it would be an interesting angle since I bet the gap is smaller in this regard. In many of the top publics, admission to the university doesn't guarantee admission to the most popular/selective programs like engineering, architecture, business, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote=]
UT Austin has almost 50,000 students undergrad and grad; Rice has about 5,000. UT Austin has 48 members in the NAE. Rice has 13. Per capita, they would be equal if UT had 48 members and Rice had just under 5. Looking at total numbers without considering size of student population is silly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are some issues with this reasoning. Even on a percentage basis, UT has a higher % of faculty with NAE membership than Rice. I don't have the current #s, but they're provided in the USNWR grad engineering rankings.</p>
<p>Regarding UT's population #s, UT is around 50,000 overall INCLUDING graduate students. Undergrad is ~38,000 (still large certainly, but just to clarify). Your point also neglects the fact that UT has a much broader academic program than Rice. UT supports many more highly ranked academic departments than Rice, which contribiutes to the higher total student #. The more accurate comparison would be to compare UT's engineering population with Rice's engineering population. UT will still be much larger, but probably not the 10X ratio obtained just by looking at the total populations of both schools. Either on a purely numerical or percentage basis, it can be argued UT has a stronger engineering faculty. Aside from UT vs. Rice, the main point is top publics have very respectable engineering scholars on faculty.</p>