<p>I dont know where to research this but... does any one have any suggestions about (you guesses it ) enginnering schools? I already know of Bucknell, brown, cornell, uchicago, but what are sum others that have good.amzing engineering programs?</p>
<p>lehigh, MIT, CalTech, Carnegie Mellon, UT austin, penn state</p>
<p>I think Stanford ranks the second after MIT in engineering. Princeton is also famous for their SEAS programs. Columbia and UPenn both have their independent schools of engineering. These are all excellent engineering schools in the US.</p>
<p>How important is ABET accredation(sp?) for engineering in terms of getting jobs after you graduate? I don't even know what ABET means.</p>
<p>UChicago does not have an Engineering program. If you want a list to start looking for schools, the top US News programs are MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, Caltech, UIUC, Georgia Tech, Michigan, Carnegie Mellon, Purdue, Cornell, UT Austin, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Penn State, RPI, and Texas A&M.</p>
<p>I don't think Brown is known for engineering.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How important is ABET accredation(sp?) for engineering
[/quote]
ABET is crucial. If a program isn't ABET recognized in a field that does have an ABET acreditation available, then you're not considered an engineer by firms in industry. Needless to say, this affects your chances of getting engineering jobs :(</p>
<p>To find out more about ABET, just type it into google.</p>
<p>Here are the top-50 undergrad schools in per capita PhD and Doctoral production from 1994-2003. Rank, followed by name, followed by number of PhDs per 1000 undergrads. This covers all PhDs and doctoral degrees included in the NSF data base. (Note: PhDs would represent the high-end of engineering students. A Masters degree is more common). </p>
<p>Per Capita Undergrad Production of PhDs and Doctoral Degrees<br>
Academic field: Engineering<br>
PhDs and Doctoral Degrees: 1994 to 2003 from NSF database<br>
Enrollment from 2004 USNews<br>
Formula: PhDs divided by undergrad enrollment times 1000 </p>
<p>1 California Institute of Technology 251
2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 179
3 Harvey Mudd College 99
4 Cooper Union 83
5 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 70
6 Rice University 54
7 University of Missouri, Rolla 49
8 Case Western Reserve University 49
9 Carnegie Mellon University 48
10 Worcester Polytechnic Institute 44
11 Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology 43
12 Polytechnic University 43
13 Princeton University 42
14 Clarkson University 39
15 Georgia Institute of Technology, Main Campus 36
16 Cornell University, All Campuses 36
17 Lehigh University 35
18 Michigan Technological University 33
19 Swarthmore College 33
20 Colorado School of Mines 32
21 Alfred University, Main Campus 31
22 Johns Hopkins University 31
23 Illinois Institute of Technology 31
24 Duke University 30
25 Stanford University 30
26 University of California-Berkeley 27
27 Stevens Institute of Technology 26
28 Florida Institute of Technology 25
29 University of Rochester 24
30 United States Military Academy 23
31 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 22
32 United States Air Force Academy 22
33 Lafayette College 21
34 University of Notre Dame 20
35 University of Pennsylvania 19
36 Brown University 19
37 University of Michigan at Ann Arbor 19
38 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ 18
39 Northwestern Univ 18
40 Washington University 18
41 Kettering University 17
42 University of Tulsa 16
43 Virginia Military Institute 16
44 University of Virginia, Main Campus 16
45 United States Naval Academy 15
46 Purdue University, Main Campus 15
47 Tufts University 15
48 Oakland University 15
49 Milwaukee School of Engineering 15
50 Dartmouth College 15</p>
<p>Northwestern has highly ranked (US News 2006) engineering departments:
Biomedical: 12th
Chemical: 12th
Civil: 8th
Computer: 28th
Electrical: 28th
Industrial: 4th
Materials: 2nd
Mechanical: 10th</p>
<p>
[quote]
Formula: PhDs divided by undergrad enrollment times 1000
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Interestedadd's list is the worst list I've ever seen. Something is seriously wrong when you see Stanford/Berkeley/Michigan/Northwestern are ranked between 26th-39th! Schools like Berkeley and Stanford, which we all know have superb engineering programs, are ranked way behind WPI, RPI, or Cooper Union because much larger % of undergrad students at Stanford and Berkeley are non-engineering/non-science majors. PHDs divided by # undergrad science/engineering majors would be a much better measure though it's still pretty flawed!</p>
<p>I don't think the per capita matters too much...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Interestedadd's list is the worst list I've ever seen.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is exactly right.</p>
<p>Sam Lee, thoughtprocess, im_blue:</p>
<p>Interesteddad never claimed that the list is a ranking of QUALITY, per se... but I think those stats are still very relevant though... they tell you which schools are producing students of sufficiently high caliber to eventually complete PhDs... again, don't take the rankings too literally... it is just ONE tool... I think it helps identify schools you might not have considered before.</p>
<p>
[quote]
PHDs divided by # undergrad science/engineering majors would be a much better measure
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Be my guest. I'll be glad to e-mail you the raw 10 year totals and you can do the research on the number of engineering majors at each school.</p>
<p>Or, you could use the list to glean information about various schools. For example, obviously having a higher percentage of engineering undergrads should produce more engineering PhDs. I mean, who wouldn't expect to see CalTech, MIT, Harvey Mudd, etc. at the top of this list?</p>
<p>Or, you could note the schools that, despite having relatively few engineering majors, produce high rates of Engineering PhDs. That tells me that the school must be doing something right.</p>
<p>I actually don't see any big surprises on this list. Maybe that Swarthmore produces almost as many future Engineering PhDs per capita as GA TECH is a bit surprising, but perhaps not considering their engineering department has been around for more than 100 years.</p>
<p>Personally, Rice would grab my attention for looking into. They produce a lot of future PhDs in all of the sciences.</p>
<p>Quote:
And don't present the analysis without the requisite caveats about its applicability. </p>
<p>Sounds like people would prefer that I not post the data. That's cool; it's kind of a pain the butt to do, anyway.</p>
<p>To reiterate something I completely agree with:
"Interestedadd's list is the worst list I've ever seen. Something is seriously wrong when you see Stanford/Berkeley/Michigan/Northwestern are ranked between 26th-39th! "</p>
<p>No matter how many people keep pointing out the same issues with this fundamentally flawed procedure as a way to evaluate programs, it keeps coming back!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think it helps identify schools you might not have considered before.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thank you. That's the real value of lists like these. Sometimes you see schools that make you say, "hmmm...I never would have thought of that...I should look into that".</p>
<p>IMO, that's a good thing. I mean, it doesn't take a list to know that Stanford is a pretty good school. Is there anyone who doesn't know that Berkeley and Michigan are two of the best public universities? </p>
<p>But, the average high school junior trying to put together a college list (with stats that may not be straight 800's, intel winner, and valedictorian) might not automatically think of Lehigh or Tufts for engineering and could find this kind of data very useful.</p>
<p>Likewise, a lot of kids might not consider Harvey Mudd, but that little school dukes it out with CalTech and MIT for the top per capita PhD production in all of the science related fields.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sounds like people would prefer that I not post the data. That's cool; it's kind of a pain the butt to do, anyway.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I changed my mind. It's fun to post these lists just to watch everyone get their shorts all tied in a knot everytime I do.</p>
<p>Besides, I've got 'em all saved as Excel files now, so it only takes about 10 seconds to post one and watch the flames erupt.</p>
<p>Well I never said anything about quality, I just said that list shouldn't be that significant in his decision making.</p>
<p>I love the data, don't get me wrong</p>
<p>Interestedadd,</p>
<p>You infer much more than the list says. Notice that all those numbers should be divided by 10 to get numbers per year (therefore, they are NOT number of PhDs per 1000 undergrads like you wrote; they are 10-year total per 1000 undergrads--big difference!). So you are telling me when 3.3 people out of 1000 per year at Swartmore go on to do PhDs in engineering somewhere (you don't know if it's MIT/Stanford or some 3rd-tier school), Swarthmore is doing a better job than Dartmouth (1.5 people out of its 1000 students get PhDs)? 3.3 out of 1000 is hardly representative of anything, let alone the whole engineering program.</p>
<p>I did meet a girl from Swarthmore at Northwestern when she came to pursue MS in chemical engineering there. We were in some class together when I was at the beginning of my junior year. She acknowledged that she was behind because she only majored in "general engineering" before. It did help my ego as I helped her out on some of her homework. ;)</p>
<p>The "flames" only "erupt" because people are warning other readers that these lists may mislead. There are some ways this information can be useful, but without accompanying commentary these lists are, indeed, misleading. In my opinion. And apparently in the opinions of others as well. As posted on this and a number of other threads.</p>
<p>It is a shame that you find it amusing to continue to print misleading information just to see people's reaction.</p>