I recently decided that I wanted to major in chemical engineering in college after really enjoying my Chem class junior year. However, my extracurriculars are mainly social studies and community service based with very little STEM (aside from math club). Will this hurt my chances for admission if I indicate my interest in chemical engineering on the application? For schools like UVA where I would need to apply to a specific school, would I even have a shot at getting in the engineering school (since I would be competing against other prospective engineering students who likely have more STEM experience). Would it be smarter to apply to the college of arts and science say I’m undecided? Thanks!
It depends on the admissions policies (and competitiveness) of direct admissions to the school, and on the acceptance policies for students after-the-fact. I believe UVa is rather rigid for direct admits. I do not know their policy for upperclassmen applicants seeking to transfer from arts & sciences.
But… I think your situation begs the question: why not apply to some schools with equally great (or even better) chem programs that are more flexible for kids with your resume??
Everyone thinks that they should apply for STEM programs at these flagship universities, when the truth is… those are really better options for grad school, in most cases.
Here, this list (linked below) is the top 1% of STEM schools. It is from a few years ago, but these things rarely change much from year to year. Also note that, while this list focuses on students who go on to complete STEM PhDs, it is important to understand that is actually a very good indicator of the overall success rates of a program, regardless of whether you plan to pursue a PhD.
A lot of the schools on this list consider “outside of the box” resumes. And several even offer a 5year dual degree Engineering programs, which would give you a jump start on your career, of that is what you choose to do.
Plus – some of these schools, although they are in the first percentile for student achievement, actually have very accessible admissions policies.
Anyway, if you have your heart set on UVa, good luck with your situation. But, if your heart isn’t set, these schools are actually the schools with the most successful undergrad programs (and I don’t think UVa is on it) and some will offer more flexibility in terms of offering you the opportunities you are looking for.
http://www.thecollegesolution.com/50-schools-that-produce-the-most-science-and-engineering-phds-2/
Thanks for the advice! While I am applying to UVA, my heart is not set on it. My question was more regarding schools like UVA that require you to apply to a specific school, and whether or not my extracurriculars will hurt my chances at the engineering schools.
@BB. I think the OP was looking for a chemical engineering program, not chemistry. Very different!
@person89 My son was first turned onto chem engineering via a beloved chem class, too. But, at the urging of his teacher, he spent a ton of time learning about what chem engineers actually do. He spent some time in a chem eng lab at a local university; he watched about 100 YouTube videos of job shadows by chem engineers. And he interviewed a practicing chem engineer who is a friend of his much older brother’s. Be sure to spend some time on things like that. It is not the same as chemistry. The college options for chemistry are MUCH larger than chem engineering. Picking that major brings your list down to only about 120 ABET accredited schools. Good luck! Whatever you choose I am sure you will do really well.
@cypresspat - I was actually talking about engineering programs. But, I was on my phone and just didn’t type it out.
With that said, you bring up a good point, though… you have to take chem for chem engineering, so I would still recommend choosing a school that has a strong chem program.
But no matter what it is for, the principal of direct admit competition for specialty schools at large universities remains the same. It is school and program specific, so I will leave that for someone with specific knowledge to address. All I can say is that it is variable from school to school. But, at lots of universities, the admissions are less holistic, and it is often primarily a numbers game.
The list at the link I includes the top 1% of successful science and engineering undergaduate programs. Whether any of them are a good fit or not, is up to the OP. The OP will have to check them out, if interested.
@BB Agreed. I am a huge supporter of LACs (and an alum) but for most kids, attending an ABET accredited program is important. It is actually debatable that ABET accreditation for Che eng matters at all…and there are a couple of LACs with fantastic chem depts. who combine that with a general engineering degree. But my s20, who is fully aware he will work his tail off in college if he sticks with engineering, won’t take that chance. I tried…for a long time. No sale!
I got a biology degree at a LAC and I felt like I had four private tutors in the profs I had. And I did happen to go on to a PhD. I doubt my son will get that at the huge flagship he most likely will attend. But he wants assurance of employability upon graduation. At least his 17-year old mind does.
There are plenty of schools where not having STEM ECs won’t hurt you but I agree with the posts above that chem does not equal chem e and I would not make a decision about your intended major without more exploration. My D is starting her second year in college as a chem e and it’s extremely physics and math heavy. IMO, AP physics C is a better indicator if you are on the right path for engineering, even for chem e. I also agree with trying to find a shadow opportunity and then doing a deeper dive to see what kind of course work is going to be required and if it sounds interesting to you.
For many schools that interview you are going to need to have a solid answers for why you are picking your major. “Loving chemistry” is not going to be what they are looking for.
Another note, applying undecided can backfire at some schools if you do end up deciding you want to study engineering. D’s school has a competitive transition to major after a common first year engineering curriculum, and the popular majors can reach capacity before they even open up for undecided students. It can also be difficult for non engineering students to get the courses they need to even be eligible to transition. You’ll need to do some digging to see how easy it will be to transfer majors at each school on your list.
Too many kids don’t know what engineering really is or does. The advice to learn about this, and the differences between chem and chem E, is golden. Same for kids who think being “strong in math” is a good enough reason to want engineering.
The common kid view is that engineering is a way to help people, solve world problems. While that’s true, in part, it’s an incomplete view of the work itself.
As for the ECs, there’s a collaborative mindset needed for engineering. Math team offers some of this. But the value in other stem ECs is that teamwork and sharing of ideas and critique, to reach a goal, whether individual or the group. See if you can get that sort of expanded experience in math-sci activities. Depending on the college, adcoms can want to see that.
There are very few or no STEM related Chem Eng ECs. DD had none, just all of the chem, physics and bio available in HS and their AP scores plus great recommendations from HS science and math teachers. She is writing PHD apps during senior year from an ABET program at a research university not on the above list with published work, both academic and industry research.
UVA was on her short list but she preferred the city life. You would have access to the medical school for interdisciplinary research and their business school.
Yes, ME & CS son had ECs but programs were available and easier to integrate in an Eagle Scout project for example. Lots of rules around chemical and pharmacy companies for good reason.
Write about why you want to problem solve using physics, chemistry and if applicable biology. Your ECs should show how you will contribute to the campus community- volunteering, leading, teaching, etc.
I couldn’t disagree with you more heartily. I think that argument holds true for some schools, notably places like Caltech, but you’re painting with an awfully broad brush by saying that about “state flagships,” which are as diverse as the people who attend them.
I also disagree with this as a metric for determining the quality of a school’s STEM program. Different types of schools favor different types of student outcomes for a whole variety of reasons. Some schools’ admissions policies tend to result in a student body that is demographically more likely to consider graduate school. Some schools don’t offer, say, engineering, so the students in their physics program who wanted the LAC experience but have engineering as a goal will be more likely than students elsewhere to pursue a graduate degree. Students at large state engineering powerhouses (e.g. Purdue) are drawn from extremely diverse backgrounds and have so many companies coming to actively recruit on campus that they aren’t really predisposed to graduate school.
There are a lot of factors in play here affecting the percentage of students who eventually earn a PhD. It’s not a strong indicator of program quality.
Generally, a “strong chem program” is going to be judged by the quality of upper level chemistry courses and research output in most circles. So, while chemical engineers at that school are almost certainly taking their general chemistry series through the chemistry department, likely a few up to 300-level, the ranking of the chemistry program has almost no impact on the quality of the chemical engineering program in most cases. Chemical engineering is a lot less pure chemistry than many people realize.
He won’t get it by default at a large flagship, but that doesn’t mean he can’t have it. At most flagships, the personal contact with faculty is there if the student want it and seek it out. True, there are simply too many students for faculty to personally reach out to every single one, but the vast majority are willing to work closely with undergraduates who show a genuine interest.
I am not trying to pile on, but I do want to expand on what some others have said here. Chemical engineering is obviously intimately related to chemistry. However, it is not pure chemistry and most chemical engineers don’t spend a lot of time in a lab using a pipette to run chemistry experiments. Most are more involved in studying and developing chemical processes and the equipment and infrastructure that allow them to be commercialized. You’ll deal with as much pure physics and mass/energy/momentum transport (e.g. fluid mechanics) as you will pure chemistry.
This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t pursue chemical engineering. It just means you should be aware of what it is and what it isn’t.
While I agree with others in that it will depend on the school, I would generally take the position that STEM-specific extracurriculars are dramatically oversold on this forum. Yes, they can help you tell a better story about why you want to study your STEM field of choice, but the overwhelming majority of students who get admitted to these programs do not have any. Obviously, this isn’t true at every school, and I am sure that most MIT admits (for example, I have no direct knowledge of actual MIT admitted student profiles) have some pretty stellar backgrounds from high school, but this is the exception, not the rule. Most engineering programs recognize that engineering ECs just aren’t all that common, and limiting admission to students who have them is going to be debilitating to most programs. This includes schools that do direct admissions.
On a quick read I did not see any discussion from OP regarding at least second and third possible choices for major. This is actually basic and often ignored.
Many, if not most students do not graduate in their originally intended major. Pick universities that offer possible majors before AND AFTER you have applied with a listed major. Look at the time frame of respective majors. When/how does one switch or how can these related interests be merged? How do you minor and what are the options? Does the university allow for and encourage interdisciplinary thinking? How do they deal with interests such as community/public/social service? Is it a “club” activity or is is deigned into the program? Can you get involved in the design of your program. ABET can be more flexible than structured at many Universities. Three/two programs are an expensive option.
@boneh3ad “I couldn’t disagree with you more heartily.”
Well, that is the beauty of these sites, I guess. The OP gets feedback from everybody. I stand by my statement which is reinforced by CDS data.
@boneh3ad “I also disagree with this as a metric for determining the quality of a school’s STEM program. Different types of schools favor different types of student outcomes for a whole variety of reasons. Some schools’ admissions policies tend to result in a student body that is demographically more likely to consider graduate school. Some schools don’t offer, say, engineering, so the students in their physics program who wanted the LAC experience but have engineering as a goal will be more likely than students elsewhere to pursue a graduate degree.”
We track the data on the students who go through our mentoring program. My former students who have graduate degrees in Engineering (usually from 3/2 programs at the LACs) generally get paid more and/or promote more quickly than those with bachelor’s from public universities)
@boneh3ad “Students at large state engineering powerhouses (e.g. Purdue) are drawn from extremely diverse backgrounds”
Not sure what you are meaning by “diverse.” But I am in Indiana, so I can tell you that Purdue is 67% white, and about 60% male. Also, only 18% of Purdue students are eligible for Pell Grants. So – I am not sure what you were imagining about diversity at Purdue, but… it isn’t the first adjective that comes to mind for me.
I have three engineering students at Purdue right now who have been in touch with me this week. The two sophomores have decided that they hate the major and contacted me to talk through switching schools, because Engineering wasn’t what they thought it was. (Once they are there, I send them to their advisor for these discussions, but…) One of those kids was never sure of her major to begin with so I encouraged her to consider undergrad LACs, where it would be easier to switch majors without losing time and money, and now she feels trapped in the major, because she can’t afford for some of her credits not to count if she switches to another major.
So, as you said: “There are a lot of factors in play here…”
@boneh3ad “Generally, a “strong chem program” is going to be judged by the quality of upper level chemistry courses and research output in most circles.”
Actually… Research output is an indicator of a strong UNDERGRADUATE chem program. Schools that have a lot of research output are NOT focused on their undergraduates, and may not even have full professors teaching intro-level classes. Research universities rarley offer undergraduates (and certainly not underclassmen!) opportunities to participate in that research.
So… research output is an indicator of a strong GRADUATE program… which brings us back to the point I was making to begin with.
Anyway – the OP will have to make his own decision.
But, I mentor kids who are doing college applications, and I think it is important for them to understand that there are options.
I think this forum is great to get different input on what they may want to look at, so that they can have enough information possible to make the decisions that will be the best ones for them, personally.
Without controlling for factors such as geography, raw salary is a pretty meaningless indicator of program quality.
I wasn’t necessarily trying to imply ethnic diversity. I was more intending to comment on the fact that state schools generally serve a broader, taxpayer-supported mission to their states than do small private schools. As such, the incoming students at state schools may or may not be ethnically diverse, but there is generally a much greater degree of diversity in the level of preparation and previous scholastic achievement for admitted students. State flagships also generally draw in students from all over the state, which may or may not be true of private schools. To use Indiana as an example, a school like Notre Dame will certainly have a similar geographic reach to that of Purdue (or larger, really), but a school like DePauw probably will not.
I must reiterate here that I am not intending to disparage one class of schools of the other. I’m merely trying to point out that there are a number of factors outside of program quality that will have an effect on student outcomes at and after graduation, and simply looking at salary or number of PhDs does not capture the effects of those factors.
I believe you meant that to say “GRADUATE,” correct? I am well aware that research output is much more directly correlated with the quality of the graduate program. However, it is that output that usually drives institutional reputation, fair or not.
While I certainly understand what you are saying here, I think you are painting with an awfully broad brush. I think if you took the median R1 university and looked at these factors, you would likely be correct, but there are plenty who do still care about the undergraduate education, and the number who do is increasing.
I absolutely call BS on this. I’ve been involved at various levels of three different R1 universities (as an undergraduate student, a graduate student, and a faculty member) and every single one of them had undergraduate research opportunities available and I rarely heard of qualified undergraduates not finding a lab somewhere that would hire them. When I hire undergraduates, I do obviously tend to screen them first to make sure they are doing well in relevant classes, but I do hire them and in relatively large numbers (13 have worked in my lab in some capacity over the past 3 years). I’ve also hired underclassmen on a few occasions, though it certainly is less common.
Anecdotal evidence based on conversations with various friends and colleagues of mine from a variety of undergraduate institutions seems to indicate this trend is more or less universal. If a student at a typical R1 wants to get involved in research and is a decent student, they likely won’t have too much trouble. Anecdotal? Sure, but I don’t know anyone who quantitatively compiles this sort of data so it’s all I have to use.
To be clear:
Both in my job at a national lab prior to joining the faculty at my current institution and in my current role, I have seen lots of quality students coming from diverse educational backgrounds, including powerhouse publics, powerhouse privates, small privates, branch campus publics, and everything in between. Ultimately, it’s a lot more about personal fit than it is about one broad class of school being better than another broad class of school. If you like where you are and feel comfortable there, you are a lot more likely to excel.
OP, the answer depends on the type of colleges you’ll apply to. I haven’t seen any successful applicant to Caltech/MIT (or other tippy tops if the applicant applied specifically as a STEM major) without meaningful STEM ECs. On the other hand, there’re plenty of STEM students at various other colleges who didn’t have meaningful STEM ECs in HS. In any event, you need to convince the college you have the right background, passion and drive to be a successful student in STEM.
The answer to the question whether primarily liberal arts schools (most Ivies, some Ivy-like schools, and LACs) are good options for engineering majors also depends on the student. Some will benefit more from the depth of an engineering education while others will benefit more from the breadth of an liberal arts curriculum. Some in the latter group tend to pursue graduate degrees or switch to a different field (but still getting the benefits of a more quantitative training).
Research universities offer the certain types of research opportunities for their students (top privates for almost everyone and public flagships for their top students) that undergraduate-focused colleges generally don’t (with some exceptions in some of those colleges in a few disciplines). For engineering students, research experience is highly valuable, even indispensable. Those who don’t intend to pursue graduate degrees need to take that into consideration.
@BB The % of Phd degrees from an engineering undergraduate population does not define success and may not be the mission of an engineering program. Most engineers in R&D do not have a PhD. They do innovate and manufacture products to improve society, run departments, divisions, companies and may have an MS in engineering and/or an MBA. Also, the data you refer to is for STEM PhDs and does not quantify # of engineering. Getting your PhD to teach or a requirement for your industry research (Pharma one example) are the only reason to spend 5-7 more years in school without an industry salary, otherwise work and get your company to pay for school.
You keep mentioning a 3/2 program plus a PhD as a financially beneficial option. You are comparing that to a 4 year state school undergraduate engineering degree. I’m confused. Private school for 5 years will be an extra $120-$160K, plus $70k for year 5, plus $70k loss in salary for year 5. Without considering financial aid that’s $260-$300k difference before factoring in the industry salary loss during the years of a fully funded PhD program. I’m not sure where your financial data point starts but it needs to consider the tuition difference, annual salary loss and maturity level of a 22 versus 28-30 year old.
I second @boneh3ad. Research is readily available at R1 universities, often with pay. Especially interdisciplinary research, very beneficial to undergraduates deciding their science or engineering discipline. The lab is often where they observe the differences between the thought processes of a scientist versus an engineer. During college tours, I had assumed undergraduates would be doing menial tasks in labs, WOW was I wrong.
I’m not saying that a 3/2 program is not a good option but there are disadvantages of moving campuses. Parents worry about a student’s interaction with professors. A better measure of success for an engineering career is working with peers on problem sets, group projects and competitive engineering teams. Hence, the reason to find your peers early and learn from each other. BTW, every sophomore engineering student has a panic attack when they start their core curriculum. Most power through, some switch to a science major and graduate on time.
Sending recruiters to an SAE racing competition is a creative way to observe teams, individual leadership skills, interdisciplinary and major specific abilities, and the reaction to pressure because something always breaks. Similar EC options are not likely to be available at a LAC. At a university a student can always dip into CAS or the business school to take classes with different populations.
3+2+MS = 6-7 years or 3+2+PhD = 9-10 years versus regular BS = 4 years. One would hope that the longer and costlier education ending in a higher degree is compensated in employment…
Huh? Any college department tends to have a mix of faculty of various ranks: full professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and possibly various other titles (lecturer, etc.). So a student will likely see instructors with a mix of ranks and titles as s/he takes courses at college (e.g. the intro-level course may be taught by an associate professor).
My D is a Chemical Engineer. She graduated college last May. Her primary EC was being a violist in 3 different orchestras. She did belong to a robotics team but that was a rather small part of her time spent and really had little to do with her current career. I would say have a good math and physics backround and chemistry if your interested in Chemical Engineering.
“Chemical engineering is a lot less pure chemistry than many people realize.”
I agree with this (and @boneh3ad has much stronger credentials concerning this than I do). My D had Gen Chem 1 and 2, 2 semesters of OChem, Physical Chemistry (hers was more a survey course on Quantum Mechanics) and Bio chemistry. It was enough to get her close to a Chemistry minor but nothing like what a Chemistry Major would take. What she did have was a lot of Engineering based Physics courses such as Thermo Dynamics, Heat and Mass Transfer, Fluids, Reactions, Separations etc. She currently works in maintenance which requires her to keep track of and replace equipment, piping, pumps etc. in the plant she works in. She works with suppliers, shippers, storage etc. Most of the products she works on have specific requirements and she has to factor in the products and their makeup to be sure they fit their uses. Safety is always a major consideration. I’m not an engineer, only the father of one, so my description is probably woefully incomplete but Chemistry and Chemical Engineering are two completely different creatures.
If you want to be an engineer, you should apply to the engineering school (if that is a thing at the school).
I used to do alumni interviews for Case Western and I don’t think having a ton of STEM ECs were a factor…People had a ton of ECs, and those ECs included leadership, and usually some were STEMish.
But even ECs can be different than what you think they might be…
. I had a student that didn’t appear to have many ECs. But we were talking about that…and it turned out that he watched his little brother after school. His parents were getting divorced and he started to notice his brother falling through the cracks. So he started making sure he did his homework, and also signed him up for a baseball league. He took him to practices and games.
So not only did he babysit his brother, he showed leadership in making sure his brother had opportunities and support.
First, you need to get past adcoms. Collaborative math-sci ECs can be needed for several reasons. Think about it: you don’t get into some competitive college just for saying you “liked” chem. That’s one course, one teacher. Sure, it can be the inspiration for an interest, but there’s more to show, more to do, more to prove.
And helping at home isn’t generally a replacement for the two key elements: showing you’re right for that major, have the sort of problem-solving mindset (incl collaborative,) prepared for the rigors and peer competition, in class. And showing you’re right for that college.
Again, too many kids who want “engineering” don’t know the first thing about what engineering is and does. By the time someone is interviewing job candidates, presumably that applicant made it through and has the package. But right now, we’re talking front end, getting into an engn track (whether a CoE or not) and only saying, so far, that they liked one course.