<p>Been accepted to both Rice and Texas A&M....which school is best for Engineering-Rice or Texas A&M? Have not declared which type of engineering yet.</p>
<p>Texas A&M certainly has a much larger alumni network, but in my experience, Rice produces the better engineers. It comes down to teaching philosophy: you can either teach people theoretically (teach them fundamental laws then let them figure out how things work) or you can teach people practically (just tell them how things work). Schools operate somewhere between the two extreme cases, but TAMU is much more on the “practical” side than Rice.</p>
<p>So why is theoretical a better teaching method? Consider two auto mechanics. Mechanic A was taught practically how to repair a gas engine (someone showed him a part, what it does, and how to fix it), and Mechanic B was taught theoretically how engines work (he learned the fundamentals of the internal combustion engine, etc.).</p>
<p>When placed in a job, Mechanic A can start faster, because he knows where things go. Mechanic B is a little slower, because he first has to figure out why things exist, what they do, and where they should go. However, although Mechanic B started slower, he now has a better understanding of why things work the way they do and why the designer put it there. </p>
<p>After a while, let’s say that both mechanics have a diesel engine roll into the shop - something neither of them have seen before. Who do you think is better equipped to handle it? What about if they were asked to design a new engine from scratch? I see this all the time with engineers from more practical schools. They know what to do until something changes, then they’re unable to adapt because they don’t have a good fundamental understanding. </p>
<p>Beyond just the teaching style, you’ll see several differences in post-graduation employment. The “throw on a tool belt and climb a tower” type of engineering positions (i.e. plant and oil rigs) hire heavily from TAMU. On the other hand, Rice does better with the design firms, professional school (MBA, JD, and MBA) and non-traditional positions (consulting, banking, etc.).</p>
<p>Thank You G.P. Burdell for you perspective on how engineering is actually taught through these two schools. Based on your own personal experience, did you attend either of these schools and do you teach engineering?<br>
Your example describing Mechanic B describes how my Dad approaches all the auto repair jobs he diagnoses and fixes! No matter what year, make or model he fixes them all.
The insight you have given me helps confirm the better choice I will need to make.
College Confidential has been a very valuable tool in helping to make the final decision.
Thanks Again!</p>
<p>Judging by his name, I would say G. P. went to Georgia Tech. =D</p>
<p>I might not be as experienced out in the world as G. P. but from what I can see, the schools are both excellent engineering schools, and deciding between them should probably take into account cost, and what you plan to do with your degree after you graduate.</p>
<p>Good catch, bonehead. George P Burdell was a ficticious GT student, first “enrolled” at Tech as a practical joke in around 1927. He’s been a legend at Tech ever since, been awarded several degrees, been on the BOD of Mad magazine, etc. There’s even a store at Tech named in his honor. Congrats, GP!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve attended several engineering schools (three different ones for four degrees), two were taught using the fundamental approach, one was taught using a practical approach), in addition, I’ve hired hundreds of engineers from a wide range of engineering schools, including Rice and TAMU.</p>
<p>There really does appear to be a distinct difference in the two approaches and how students perform after college. The practical students hit the ground running and do well in “firefighting” type positions, but the fundamental engineers produce better results when faced with a non-standard decision or when asked to innovate.</p>
<p>Personally, I feel much better with the disciplines I learned from a fundamental approach compared to the disciplines I learned from a practical approach. It’s the difference between knowing what to do and knowing why to do it.</p>
<p>In engineering professor circles, it’s a pretty hotly debated topic (how to teach undergrads) based primarily around what undergraduates can absorb. It’s similar to the HBS approach vs. MIT-Sloan approach in MBA programs.</p>
<p>I have to say that I agree with you about personally preferring the fundamental approach vs. practical approach. Probably not a coincidence that I nearly double majored in physics since I wanted to know how everything worked and why it went. Either way, I think there are still merits to either approach depending on what your career goals are. If you want to go be a petroleum engineer and work out in the field, there is hardly a need to know the physical basis of the Navier-Stokes equations or anything like that, but if you want to go design brand new planes from scratch at the Skunk Works or something, you are probably better off with the fundamental approach.</p>
<p>FWIW, I have talked to quite a few professors from quite a few schools in my search for a grad school, and they all had a very high opinion of TAMU, though that is from a graduate school perspective, which is more theoretical by nature. I still think you aren’t really screwing yourself at either school, but then again, I have never looked at either one from an undergraduate perspective, only graduate.</p>
<p>It is very possible that the two schools teach a very similar curriculum, and that the students who attend Rice are more theoretical prior to their undergraduate studies. A more fair comparison would be the Rice Chem Engs vs. the better Texas A&M Chem Engs Those folk at least start out with more comparable skills.</p>