<p>I was just wondering if anyone on here knew of any good undergraduate engineering programs that were part of a bigger university setting, with a pretty diverse student body, but also provides good faculty/student interaction and has a good focus on undergraduate students, not just graduates and reseach. Basically, a school that offers the attention undergraduates recieve at a smaller, more specialized engineering school, but in a bigger setting where not all of the students are math/science oriented.</p>
<p>the first school that comes to mind is Dartmouth.
i think the Thayer School of Engineering is everything you just described.</p>
<p>Princeton would be a good choice.
Also consider Rice and Northwestern.</p>
<p>FWIW, most of the large public research universities have great engineering programs, class sizes get quite small in the upper division engineering courses and you can get individual attention if you're proactive...plus, the environments are tough to beat if you like a large university setting with lots to offer.</p>
<p>Cornell has great engineering and is 70% undergrads (versus a school like Stanford that is 35% undergrads). Plus, you get to wear a Big Red Carnation at graduation.</p>
<p>^that's a really crooked and twisted way to look at numbers. Both have about the same number of graduate students, if I guess it right. But the reason Stanford has lower undergrads:grads ratio is because it has significantly smaller undergrad population and hence higher undergrad students:faculty ratio. That's a strength but you literally painted it as its weakness by some twisted logic. Wow.... If you were a faculty and dealing with 1 grad student and 1 undergrad student, are you saying you would be giving more attention to each undergrad when the number of undergrad students increases from 1 to 3? You would be getting more projects available for undergrads to work on because of this change (you mention that in your grants proposal?)? I don't think so.</p>
<p>Sam, grad students are more demanding of faculty time than undergrads. I think there is an optimal ratio of undergrads to grad students. Graduate programs provide opportunities for undergrads to get involved in research and to be exposed to the process of graduate education. Some graduate student presence is good. However, grad students require from faculty more individual attention, smaller classes, more research and thesis/dissertation supervision. A faculty member only has 24 hours in a day.</p>
<p>I think the optimum is about 70% undergraduate like Princeton and Cornell.</p>
<p>Berkeley has great engineering and is 70% undergrads (versus a school like Stanford that is 35% undergrads). Plus, Cal usually wins the Axe every year from the Taco Bell headquarters across the bay...:p</p>
<p>What's your problemo, Sam? ;)</p>
<p>Haha! You know he puts 70% simply because that's the magic number Cornell has.</p>
<p>collegehelp,
Yes, a faculty member only has 24 hours in a day. And he has a fixed number of projects which is totally independent of how many undergrads he's teaching.</p>
<p>Let me make this very simple:
Professor A at school A has 2 grads and 1 undergrad and 3 projects
Professor B at school B has 2 grads and 3 undergrads and 3 projects </p>
<p>Which professor you think would have more time for each of his undergrad student? Where do you think you will have an easier time to get a research project as undergrad?</p>
<p>As an anecdote, undergrads that have the easiest time to get projects at Northwestern are usually in the material sciences or applied math/engineering departments. Those departments have the smallest undergrad enrollment and smallest undergrad:grads ratio. Often, there are more projects available for undergrad research than number of undergrads to take them in those two departments.</p>
<p>Also, if 70% is optimal for undergrad research and mentoring, then states or large privates schools should dominate fellowships such as Fulbrights, Rhodes, Marshall, Cambridge Gates...etc. Why is it that the smaller and mid-size universities are the ones that have been dominating not only on per capita basis but also on absolute number, when their undergrad:grad ratio is far from "optimal"?</p>
<p>^ I think that was explained in a thread a few days ago. Larger public and private universities don't have the mentorship for undergrads to guide them through the application process. It says nothing about qualification differences.</p>
<p>Stanford
UC Berkeley
Princeton
Cornell
CMU
Georgia Tech
UMich
UCLA</p>
<p>look at Carnegie Mellon, RPI, Cornell, Princeton, Stanford, Duke, Hopkins, Northwestern, and Rice.</p>
<p>There are others, but these were the ones that immediately came to mind.</p>
<p>how selective should it be?</p>
<p>USC Viterbi School of Engineering sounds like it would be exactly what you are looking for. It also ranks in the top15 engineering programs in the nation.</p>
<p>Caltech, Carnegie Mellon, Georgia Tech and MIT are excellent in Engineering, but they are Math/Science intensive schools. The OP said he wanted a school that is balanced. Dartmouth is balanced, but I think the OP wants a well defined Engineering program and I do not think Dartmouth qualifies.</p>
<p>Schools the OP may want to check out:</p>
<p>Cornell University
Northwestern University
Princeton University
Rice University
Stanford University
University of California-Berkeley
University of California-Los Angeles
University of California-San Diego
University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of Southern California
University of Texas-Austin
University of Wisconsin-Madison</p>