I have two kids in highly ranked ENG schools. One is top 10, other still very high but not top 10.
So far more satisfied with the lower ranked of the two, but it’s not that much further behind.
Did make me question the rankings though, my observation of my two kids.
As others have said, fit is much more important than ranking. I’ll use CS as an example, as I know it better - not quite engineering, but close. UC Berkeley’s CS department is ranked very highly. But it (and the school) is huge. Intro to CS courses have overflow rooms where you watch on video I believe. But it’s unquestionable that there are great research opportunities there, if you’re willing to seek them out.
Compare that to Rose Hulman. Rose is well respected, but I suspect it will be universally ranked a lot lower than Cal. But Rose is a small school, with lots of small classes, and the professors are probably more focused on teaching than research (compared to Cal anyway). I suspect the in-class learning environment is better, but research opportunities are more limited.
You can get a great education and a great outcome at both places. But it’s easy to imagine that a student that would do well at one might be unhappy at the other.
In short, there are many big public schools whose CS departments have excellent reputations - Cal, Michigan, Purdue, UI Urbana, maybe even UMass Amherst. Assuming you don’t mind large classes, and are somewhat independent, those are great values IMO.
Wow, like Stanford not many of Cal Tech’s programs are ABET accredited.
Most programs at MIT and GT are accredited.
Quite a bit of variation even in the top ranked schools.
Accreditation = inflexibility
Unless in a field where career prospects need it, not so important, maybe even a negative.
For ME and EE, probably a must. For CS and some other fields, not so much.
IMO accreditation = minimum standards, not inflexibility.