<p>Olin has intrigued me, even though I'm at Mudd. Check them out.</p>
<p>You cannot judge a school by its classes. You need to look at whats taught in those classes. Engineering is not as much what you learn, but do you learn how to learn. Do you learn how to react when new things are being flung at you? Engineering school give you a foundation for how to learn. Harvey Mudd, Olin, Rice. Are all amazing engineering schools. They teach you what the real world will be like. Its not somewhere will someone will hand you everything you need to know on a platter. No, they will say here's what you need to do, figure out how. These schools are teaching you to work hard and how to think. Harvard engineering is not given much credibility in the real world since it doesnt do this as well. Mudd may only have a general engineering degree, but it teaches how to think. I know amazing engineers who have come out of mudd, and amazing profs who have taught at Mudd. Olin also has an amazing program. Olin was founded as a reaction to the desire for change in engineering education. and Its changing it. When students are told as freshmen they are doing at least sophmore level work, they classes taught as they are in grad school, things are changing.
All the Ivies have is name, nothing else. There are many other engineering schools with little name, that are a lot better. Go find a person in industry who hires, ask them what they think of colleges. Most of the time, I don't think they would really care as long as you knew what you were doing. Different schools could teach you that to different levels.</p>
<p>"All the Ivies have is name, nothing else. There are many other engineering schools with little name, that are a lot better."</p>
<p>Sure, you can say that about mediocre Penngineering, not-so-good Harvard, and crummy Brown, but what about Princeton and the superior Cornell?</p>
<p>yeah but if you want great classes for engineering, you can goto harvard and take some classes at MIT (though I say that just because harvard isnt top-20, doesnt mean it isnt good for engineering)</p>
<p>Georgia Tech-Also, as a note, your daughter should apply here at least as a match/safety because the admit rate is 70% (though, the program is still in the top-10 for public universities, #1 for industrial engineering, #1-2-3(depending on year) for aeronautical engineering, top-10 for bio engineering, etc... so, it's well rounded), and the 70M-30F gender ratio makes it really easy for women to get great scholarships; and, after one year, she can declare residence in GA and attain the HOPE scholarship (tuition, fees, and a small book stipend are provided FREE as long as she maintains a 3.0+ average) There is a heavy workload, but it has one of the most sociable student bodies so it isn't "all work, no play."</p>
<p>MIT- Well, it's MIT so of course I'll list it, hehe. The environment isn't so cut-throat. And, despite popular belief, people are sociable (but it isn't a party school). MIT has a humungous endowment and should probably give you some good financial aid.</p>
<p>Johns Hopkins-Best undergrad bio-engineering program. Not sure about financial aid.</p>
<p>Duke- 2nd best bio-engineering; decent financial aid with large endowment.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sure, you can say that about mediocre Penngineering, not-so-good Harvard, and crummy Brown, but what about Princeton and the superior Cornell?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Mediocre Penn, not-so-good Harvard, and crummy Brown, eh? All of these schools have engineering programs that are far above average. Keep in mind that there are literally hundreds of engineering programs out there, most of them no-name. Brown, Harvard, and Penn engineering are not the equal of MIT, but they are far better than average. If Brown engineering is so crummy, what does that say about all those eng programs that can only dream to be as good as Brown's?</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>I think many graduate engineering program don't require you to have a BS degree in the same field and some don't even require you to have a degree in engineering (though usually have to be some sort of science at least). I met this girl from Swartmore at Northwestern and what NW asked her to do was to take "prereq" courses and that's why she was my classmate in few undergraduate courses. Mudd engineering is of course more known than Swarthmore but the idea behind is similar. CalTech knows students from Mudd are talented and very solid in all the basics and foundation (they also have more breath). My guess is the students from Mudd would be required to take certain undergrad courses at CalTech to "get up to speed" with the rest (just as far as prereq goes, not talented level which I am sure they are as good as anybody).</p>
<p>"Sure, you can say that about mediocre Penngineering, not-so-good Harvard, and crummy Brown, but what about Princeton and the superior Cornell?" </p>
<p>"Mediocre" Penn engineering also happens to have the 6th-ranked bioengineering program in the country..</p>
<p>
[quote]
think many graduate engineering program don't require you to have a BS degree in the same field and some don't even require you to have a degree in engineering (though usually have to be some sort of science at least).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would actually say that few graduate eng programs actually formally require that you have a degree in engineering to apply. I know one guy in the graduate Civil Engineering program at MIT who did his undergrad in biology.</p>
<p>dean of pton engineering just went to mudd so i guess pton isnt so terrible if they are after the dean of the pton E school</p>