<p>Sakky, could you elaborate as to why you think Stanford is the best overall engineering school or maybe give some of your other choices for best overall engineering schools.</p>
<p>Harvard has one of the "top" engineering programs in the country? I am not sure what you mean by "top". But I'd say it's no top-15. The engineering school only offers three majors: applied mathematics (A.B.), computer science (A.B., A.B./S.M.), and engineering sciences. It's very limited. It may have one of the most talented students and you'd be studying with one of the most talented groups of classmates. But that doesn't necessarily means "top program".</p>
<p>midnightsun,</p>
<p>Stanford is the best overall because it has the whole package; virtually every engineering department is among the top in the nation. If you switch out, like many do as Sakky pointed out, you'd probably still end up in one of the top programs as Stanford's social sciences and humanities are great also; the grade inflation helps law/med schools placement. Not to mention the best overall athletic program (it has won Sears Director Cup for 10 straight years!)!</p>
<p>Harvard actually ranks only 31st on the US News and World's report of the Best Undergraduate Engineering programs where the highest degree is a doctorate.</p>
<p>Those rankings are done by peer review.</p>
<p>Does Stanford have the equivalent to what's called Engineering Physics in other universities?</p>
<p>if u got in harvard, and then u got in penn state, where do you go for engineering? lol.</p>
<p>4th floor,</p>
<p>Stanford has "applied physics" which is in the school of humanities and sciences, not engineering. But it's probably what you are looking for though. Stanford's physics is supposed to be very good.</p>
<p>The University of Pennsylvania has one of the top Biomedical Engineering programs in the country (#6 I think), as well as a great environment (it's known as the "social Ivy"). Also, they're pretty good with giving out need-based aid.</p>
<p>But Applied Physics is only a graduate program ...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Harvard has one of the "top" engineering programs in the country? I am not sure what you mean by "top". But I'd say it's no top-15. The engineering school only offers three majors: applied mathematics (A.B.), computer science (A.B., A.B./S.M.), and engineering sciences. It's very limited. It may have one of the most talented students and you'd be studying with one of the most talented groups of classmates. But that doesn't necessarily means "top program".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is indeed top in the sense that it is clearly better than the literally hundreds of other engineering programs out there. Keep in mind that the vast majority of engineering programs are no-name programs. </p>
<p>Again, I have always said that Harvard doesn't match MIT. I believe Harvard is ranked somewhere in the 20's-30's. That's really good, when you think about it. Most engineering students out there can only dream of going to a program ranked that high. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Harvard actually ranks only 31st on the US News and World's report of the Best Undergraduate Engineering programs where the highest degree is a doctorate
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's exactly my point. "Only" #31? Do you understood just how good a #31 ranking is? That is a great ranking for a program that is clearly not Harvard's forte. Basically, Harvard has historically barely even tried to make a good engineering program, and is also severely handicapped by the magnetic presence of that 'other' engineering school in town. Yet, Harvard can still obtain a #31 ranking. Hundreds of other engineering programs out there can only DREAM of getting a #31 ranking. </p>
<p>So think about what that means. Harvard isn't even really trying, and yet it can still beat hundreds of other engineering programs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The engineering school only offers three majors: applied mathematics (A.B.), computer science (A.B., A.B./S.M.), and engineering sciences
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I completely fail to see what this has to do with anything. Harvey Mudd only offers a single engineering major. That's right - one major. Caltech only offers 4 undergrad engineering majors - Mechanical, Electrical, Chemical, and EAS (Engineering and Applied Sciences). Mechanical has been offered only since 2003. That's right. You can't get a formal undergrad Caltech degree in Civil Engineering, Aerospace engienering, Materials Science, Bioengineering, Environmental Engineering, etc. You can study these fields, but you will be formally awarded an EAS degree. </p>
<p>Don't believe it? Take a gander at the Caltech commencement data. Find me a single person who has graduated with a BS eng degree in anything other than the 4 choices I mentioned. You can't do it. And in fact, try to find me a person before 2003 who graduated with a formal BS ME degree. Again, you can't do it. Prior to 2003, ME's were wrapped into the EAS superset. </p>
<p><a href="http://pr.caltech.edu/commencement/05/bs.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://pr.caltech.edu/commencement/05/bs.pdf</a>
<a href="http://pr.caltech.edu/commencement/04/bs.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://pr.caltech.edu/commencement/04/bs.pdf</a>
<a href="http://pr.caltech.edu/commencement/03/bs.html%5B/url%5D">http://pr.caltech.edu/commencement/03/bs.html</a>
<a href="http://pr.caltech.edu/commencement/02/bs.html%5B/url%5D">http://pr.caltech.edu/commencement/02/bs.html</a>
<a href="http://pr.caltech.edu/commencement/01/bs.html%5B/url%5D">http://pr.caltech.edu/commencement/01/bs.html</a></p>
<p>The point is, I completely fail to see why the fact that Harvard offers only 3 engineering majors, by itself, has anything to say about the quality of Harvard engineering. If that's true, what does that have to say about Harvey Mudd or Caltech?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, could you elaborate as to why you think Stanford is the best overall engineering school or maybe give some of your other choices for best overall engineering schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course this all depends on how you choose to define 'best'. If you just want to talk purely about academics and employer respect, I would say that the best engineering school is MIT.</p>
<p>However, in the context of this thread, I would say that 'best' is a combination of both strong academics, employer respect, along with a friendly and healthy student environment. This is why I think Stanford edges out the other schools. Simply put, I think the emphasis on harsh 'macho' weeding that is so prevalent in most other top engineering schools is the mark of a highly deleterious and reactionary culture. While Stanford still weeds, it does so to a significantly lesser extent than its peer schools do. I think Stanford engages in a quite enlightened form of engineering education - admit only those people who are actually going to be able to graduate, and then help those students graduate. Furthermore, as Sam Lee pointed out, you are free to switch to pick from a full portfolio of majors if engineering doesn't pan out. </p>
<p>The point is, I see Stanford as having the best combination of the widest breadth and best flexibility of all the schools. Some public schools have arguably an even wider slate of majors to pick from, but the problem is that it's not entirely trivial to switch from major to major.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The engineering school only offers three majors: applied mathematics (A.B.), computer science (A.B., A.B./S.M.), and engineering sciences. It's very limited. It may have one of the most talented students and you'd be studying with one of the most talented groups of classmates. But that doesn't necessarily means "top program".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would furthermore point out that because of Harvard's extensive crossreg policies with MIT, you can go to Harvard and basically get a semi-MIT engineering degree. Such a program will be branded as a Harvard degree (which will impress the layman), but can consist of largely MIT coursework (which will impress the eng grad schools, should you choose to go down that road). In fact, I would say that it's basically a "wink-of-an-eye" understanding that if you are a Harvard engineering student, you will probably spend quite a bit of your time at MIT. </p>
<p>As to why, if you're going to cross-reg at MIT a lot, why don't you just simply go to MIT in the first place, I would say that first of all, that presumes you have that choice. As you know, admissions tends to be fickle. I know people who got into Harvard but not MIT (although, granted, vice versa is more common). There are also people who matriculate at Harvard fully intending to major in something like physics or mathematics at Harvard, but then later find out that they like engineering too so they either switch into that or try to pull off a double-major. For example, I would say that a Harvard double in math and CS is a pretty darn strong combination. And then of course there are those people who aren't really sure that they like engineering and just want to try it out, but with the option for a full slate of humanities and science courses (and also couldn't get into or don't want to go to Stanford). MIT, despite all its latest efforts, still has weaknesses in offering a full portfolio of non-tech majors, something that Harvard clearly does not suffer from.</p>
<p>sakky,</p>
<p>Sorry for not being clear. When I mentioned Harvard only had 3 majors, my point was to say it's program is "limited". It's not a top-15 program to me because, well, I just haven't seen anything that lists it in the top-15. You brought up Caltech; well, Caltech looks more limited than, say, Berkeley, but it still offers much more (in terms of number of concentrations, courses offered, majors that are "major" engineering disciplines (ChemE, ME, EE)) than Harvard. Applied math and computer science are technically not major engineering fields and some schools even put them in their arts and sciences division instead of engineering (Harvard actually awards them as "bachelor of arts"). Within the ES major, none of the concentrations is equivalent to a full-blown major elsewhere. Harvey Mudd is limited in engineering. The program looks more like a mini-EE than anything else. That's probably the reason their webpage mentions only EBay, Google, Microsoft (instead of biotech/chemical/manufacturing/auto/geotechical/civil/environmental firms) as some of the companies their recent graduates work for. Good luck if you want to have choices for courses in biomedical/chemical/mechanical/material sciences..etc. An astonishing 50% of graduates go to grad schools and that's where they get to study civil, chemical, biomedical engineering..etc.</p>
<p>Vanderbilt is the number one party school of the SOUTH </p>
<p>GO TO VANDY!</p>
<p>people shouldn't goto schools for just the department, nobody smart gonna choose Penn State engineering over Harvard/Upenn engineering.</p>
<p>I don't deny that. Harvard beats most even in engineering (perhaps except CalTech/Stanford/MIT) when it comes to winning cross-admits!</p>
<p>sakky:
I posted the US News ranking, only to point out that you do not have to go to an Ivy-League school to be at one of the top engineering schools in the country. Many people just hear "Harvard" and think you are at the BEST - which may not be true for all engineering students, that's all.</p>
<p>Sam Lee,
I cannot stress how absolutely wrong you are about Harvey Mudd. You can't judge a school by its website like that. The timing of this argument is funny because today, the website is going to start to be overhauled. Mudders have been complaining about the ineffectual website for awhile now. Numerous people have volunteered to overhaul it, but the administration was opposed to that for some reason.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.eng.hmc.edu/EngWebsite/DeptHbook/05-06AdvisingHandbook.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.eng.hmc.edu/EngWebsite/DeptHbook/05-06AdvisingHandbook.pdf</a>
This document clearly indicates the intention of the engineering department.</p>
<p>Does it not say anything when I tell you that EVERY Mudder (core) must take Computer Science, Biology, Chemistry, Physics (Sp. Rel/Quant. Mech)/Classical Mech., and a whole slew of Math**? What does it say when EVERY single student at HMC knows the basics of computer programming and Java? I'm a frosh engineer, and already, I have restriction mapped a bacteria plasmid DNA. I'm not a physicist but I will know how relativity will affect the charge of an electron. Not everyone is an engineer, but they know the Diff Eq's behind mechanical/electronic resonance and such.</p>
<p>** math= Calc of single/complex var., Lin. Al. I, Diff Eq I, MultiVar Calc I,Lin. Al. II, Diff Eq II, MultiVar Calc II, Prob/Stats. </p>
<p>The engineering major is considered the hardest major at Mudd. Before they reduced the number of credits awarded for each class, you had to overload for 2 years to meet the minimum requirements for an engineering degree. </p>
<p>I chose Mudd over every other school because I genuinely wanted my @$$ to get kicked. Mudd has lived up to this expectation with flying colors.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When I mentioned Harvard only had 3 majors, my point was to say it's program is "limited". It's not a top-15 program to me because, well, I just haven't seen anything that lists it in the top-15.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look, I am not saying that Harvard is a top 15 engineering program either. But so what? It's still better than the vast majority of other engineering programs out there, if, for no other reason, the vast majority of them are no-name programs. Surely nobody will dispute that. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Within the ES major, none of the concentrations is equivalent to a full-blown major elsewhere.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First of all, I'm not even sure that's true. Take a gander at the requirements for the Engineering Sciences SB major (the ABET-accredited version). From a curriculur standpoint, it basically matches up quite well with the engineering major at most other schools.</p>
<p>But even if it is limited, so what? I will explain this below. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Harvey Mudd is limited in engineering. The program looks more like a mini-EE than anything else. That's probably the reason their webpage mentions only EBay, Google, Microsoft (instead of biotech/chemical/manufacturing/auto/geotechical/civil/environmental firms) as some of the companies their recent graduates work for. Good luck if you want to have choices for courses in biomedical/chemical/mechanical/material sciences..etc. An astonishing 50% of graduates go to grad schools and that's where they get to study civil, chemical, biomedical engineering..etc
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Which only goes to show why, even if it is limited (a premise that I do not fully accept), so what? You said it yourself - an astonishing number of their graduates go to graduate school where they will complete degrees in civil, chemical, biomedical, etc. But don't you see what that means? It means that even if the HMC curriculum really is so limited, it's apparently still good enough to get their students into graduate programs for civil, chemical, biomedical, etc. Keep in mind that before you can do such things in graduate school, you first have to get ADMITTED to these graduate programs. Why are these programs stupidly admitting all these HMC students if their education really was so limited? </p>
<p>In fact, this reminds me of a discussion I had on the Caltech section of CC. Some people at Caltech were insinuating just what you were saying - that Mudd was somehow deficient. My response was that Caltech itself admitted plenty of Mudders for graduate school, so why was Caltech doing that if Mudd really was deficient. Is Caltech being stupid? Basically, if the top eng graduate programs are admitting Mudders, then clearly the Mudd engineering education couldn't be THAT bad. </p>
<p>Consider the following Caltech commencement data regarding their PhD grads. I notice a lot of people who Caltech awarded various kinds of engineering PhD's in (civil, chemical, etc.) who did Mudd for undergrad. But why did Caltech ever stupidly admit these Mudders in the first place, if the engineering education at Mudd really is so limited? For example, in 2005, Caltech awarded a PhD in Civil Engineering to Steven Wayne Alves, who graduated from Mudd in 2000. How did Alves even manage to get admitted to the Caltech civil engineering graduate program in the first place? Caltech also awarded a PhD in Geophysics and Civil Engineering to Georgia Cua in 2005, who graduated from Mudd in 1998. Again, how did she even manage to get in? </p>
<p>I would also point out that in 2005, 2 people were conferred engineering PhD's from Caltech who had done their undergrad at Mudd. That's equivalent to the number of people who got their Caltech engineering PhD's in 2005 who did their undergrad at MIT or Caltech, and actually MORE than the number who came from Berkeley and Stanford. {Caltech conferred a lot of science PhD's upon people who did their undergrad at Caltech, Berkeley, Stanford, and MIT, but we're just talking about engineering here.}. That doesn't mean that Mudd engineering is "better" than those other schools. I didn't say that. What I am saying is that it's clearly not that bad.</p>
<p>In fact, I am fairly certain that other people who came from "broad-based" engineering schools still got beaten out by Mudders. For example, when the Caltech Civil Engineering department admitted Steven Alves and Georgia Cua into the PhD program, other people who had actual Civil Engineering degrees from broad-based engineering schools got rejected. So what's so good about getting a eng degree from a broad-based school if you end up getting beat out for grad school admissions by somebody with a 'limited' engineering degree? </p>
<p>The point is, I don't see what is the problem with 'limited' engineering education. The truth is, engineering is pretty much the same across disciplines. ChemE thermodynamics is not significantly different from ME thermodynamics. ChemE fluid mechanics is not significantly different from AeroE fluid mechanics. Circuits are circuits. Heat transfer is heat transfer. That's why people can move across disciplines. That's why engineering companies hire from a wide swath of engineering majors. For example, Intel hires EE's, ChemE's, MatSciE's, ME's, IndustrialE's, chemists, physicists, ec.</p>