<p>what would separate the rankings for a tier 1 school, a tier 2 school, and a tier 3 school. </p>
<p>I was on US news, and apparently tier 3 began after the top 100 schools list. </p>
<p>So I was wondering where you guys thought the cut off was for a tier 1 school. </p>
<p>Any ideas? ^__^</p>
<p>The USNews type tiers are almost completely meaningless for graduate schools because the things that make a good graduate program in a specific area and sub-speciality are extremely difficult to measure and have very little to do (except in the broadest terms) with university or even department wide factors. They are somewhat relevant to B/L/M-schools but even there, publications specializing in thoses areas will be better sources. That said, do read their methodology and if it makes sense to you then by all means take them seriously - in many fields there is a pretty big drop-off after the first 5-10 programs simply because in any given field there is a limited supply of top researchers/teachers.</p>
<p>Now, the real way to find out what the "first-tier" programs are is this:</p>
<p>First you want to read the first couple pages the Graduate Admissions 101 thread. Then, armed with a subject area (at least) and ideally a limited speciality area, talk to your professors about <em>departments</em> with professors doing work in that speciality. You can go from there to reading recent articles in the subject appropriate journals (again your professors will help locate these) to get an idea of whether or not that material really interests you.</p>
<p>Graduate school is all about reserarch and specialization. For example, here at Penn we have a pretty darn good archaeology program but there are better places for my interest, 1st C. Campagnia. In fact the absolute dead-on perfect matches for my interests happen to be Cincinnat and Virginia. Vanderbilt would have been nearly as good, but the specific professor I wanted to study with will be on leave for the next three years at the AAR. On the other hand, if I were interested in Bronze Age Troy, Penn is the place to be because the "main man" in that field, Brian Rose, is here (and also happens to be a terrific teacher).</p>
<p>amazing o.o;;</p>
<p>I have soo much to look over then XD;</p>
<p>I wish there was just a general rule of thumb... lol...</p>
<p>grad school can be 4-5+ years of dedication. be sure the place you want to go is somewhere you can live for quite a while.</p>
<p>thanks XD; That's why I was thinking about it, because I want to be in california, but I want to be in a tier 1 school (thinking business or law or engineering).</p>
<p>And for law, there's only like... top 5, then the next one comes in the 15-20 range. which is a pretty big gap.</p>
<p>Berkeley, UCLA, Stanford^^^ USC has some great programs too, though i dont believe quite as notable as many of the schools i mentioned</p>
<p>Yeah, but would you call those tier 1 schools? Well Stanford and Berkeley depending on graduate XD; but like, UCLA and UCSD (depending on majors)?</p>
<p>There are a handful of universities out there which are probably at or near the top in a large number of fields. They include:</p>
<p>Harvard
Yale
Stanford
Berkeley
MIT
UCLA
Michigan-Ann Arbor
Illinois-Urbana Champaign
Minnesota-Twin Cities</p>
<p>In my opinion, Michigan is a particularly outstanding research institution which is often ignored by the Harvard-Stanford-Berkeley cheerleaders.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yeah, but would you call those tier 1 schools? Well Stanford and Berkeley depending on graduate XD; but like, UCLA and UCSD (depending on majors)?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think the point is it doesn't matter if the overall school is a "Tier 1" school, but you have to be specific to your area of study. For me, I'm in civil engineering, specifically construction engineering & management, and I didn't even think to apply to MIT, and if I did apply and get an offer, I would've rejected MIT, because they don't offer my concentration. </p>
<p>You don't seem to have an idea of what you want to do after undergrad though. Considering business, law, and engineering? Those are 3 very different fields. I'd suggest figuring that out first before figuring out which schools to apply to. </p>
<p>Rankings are pretty worthless on deciding which school to go to. What they are good for though is getting an idea of which schools to research. A school ranked number 23 might be better for you than a school that's ranked 4.</p>
<p>err, I lied, it was either law or straight master's in computer engineering at UCSD. I can get my master's in 4 years at UCSD because they have this, whenever you get your bachelor's plus one year program to get a master's. And yes I already checked the rank specific for graduate school for UCSD's CSE, and it came out somewhere between 14th-17th. So it was either this, or I just apply to a school like stanford or berkeley, and graduate in 5 years. I guess you can understand why I'm having a dilemma.</p>
<p>bump. Any thoughts about UCSD (4 years) or Berkely/Stanford (5 years) for a master's? Would it make that much difference?</p>
<p>(I'm not thinking UCLA is worth the extra year since it's ranked 13-17th as well) No offense or anything.</p>
<p>Concentrate on deciding what you want to do first. Law and CE are still two very different fields. Really, the rankings are the least of your concerns at this point.</p>
<p>wait wait sorry, I already said CSE o.o; for Grad School.</p>
<p>Law and grad school have completely different ranking 'systems,' if you can call them that. School ranks are relatively well defined for law school, ie. you can actually use US News type rankings with some reliability. The main drop off in law school quality happens after the top 14, not the top 5. Like other people have said, rankings are useless for grad programs. Everything depends on your sub-speciality.</p>
<p>ohhhhhhhh XD;
So there's literally a specialty after CSE Department of a Grad School.
GOTCHA!</p>
<p>Yeah, I didn't quite get that at first.
I guess I was thinking closely to software.</p>
<p>Quite honestly, this sounds like a conversation you should first have with your advisor. He/she will help guide you through the process, help you choose programs, and help you understand the grad school process.</p>
<p>Sorry, I already talked to my advisor. They oppose everything I say >.>;. I took a lot of AP's so I plan on getting my Bachelors of Sci in Computer Engineering in 3 years. And even that they said I should some how make it 4 >.>;. What take 3 classes a quarter so they can get more money off of me? lol... I think not. 4 classes is fine. </p>
<p>I plan on specializing in Software Engineering. So I asked the advisor, "Do you think it would be best for me to just use the +1 year from when I get my bachelor's Program at UCSD, or should I goto a +2 year grad school, like Stanford or Cal to get my Master's?" It was quite obvious my advisor didn't know what to say after that. I guess because the advisor was never faced with this kind of problem before..</p>
<p>People here on CC are so much more experienced with these kinds of weird questions by obnoxious teenagers like me. But it would be great if someone could give me some input.</p>
<p>UCSD (3 years + 1 year) for Masters in CE</p>
<p>Stanford or Cal (3 years (from UCSD) + 2 years) for Masters in CE
<em>Even schools like Carnegie Mellon and MIT and Caltech I would like to include in this as well</em></p>
<p>For all schools <em>I wish to specialize in Software Engineering</em>
I at least know what's good as a programming specialty.<br>
CM > Stanford >/ Cal. UCSD is around 17. </p>
<p>Do you think the extra year at one of these schools to get my Masters, is better than geting my Masters at UCSD for 4 years?</p>
<p>TheOneZ - it sounds like you are just starting college right? </p>
<p>First - give your advisor the benefit of the doubt. S/he has seen hundreds of kids just like you and just might know what's up. Believe me, s/he HAS seen your situation before. Really. If s/he is a generic freshman advsor, just chill until you have an actual departmental advisor.</p>
<p>Now, as to the future. Forget about anything but nailing your first year classes. You won't have to commit to the +1 MS program for at least another year anyway. And you might not qualify. Also, don't assume you'll be admitted to any of those "higher ranked" programs.</p>
<p>Next, forget the ratings. If you're already at UCSD you're fine. You might want to check in with career services and find out what the incremental benefit of the MS actually is. You may find that it is not worth the extra effort. </p>
<p>Last - relax and have some fun. This is (likely) the last chance before retirement that you'll have to expand your horizons. Take some classes that will stretch your brain. Like Ancient Greek for example.</p>
<p>As a data point, I've been involved in all phases of IT from big corporate to government to tiny startups for 32+ years. To be perfectly honest, I've never seen any real difference in the skill levels of new BS vs. MS hires. At my current workplace, the MS commands a small starting pay increment - however, I'm out east and I've heard that there is some "credential inflation" in your part of the country, so that may also be relevant to your decision.</p>
<p>Good Luck!</p>
<p>WilliamC, thank you for your response.
You're right, I am just starting college. Yeah, you're probably right about my advisor. Just that I didn't think she would know the specialties about computer science and to what degree each college would affect me. </p>
<p>You're right, I should just focus on my classes. But it's so hard not to think about the future you know? >.>; <---- a little too ambitious</p>
<p>I think I will stay at UCSD then. However, I want to see the difference between the masters. You're right, I found a starting salary average for Bachelor's range of 45,000 - 56,500. And then I found the starting salary with a Master's 52,000 - 77,000. I've seen a few UCSD graduates with a bachelor's come out at 78,000 (very minimal though). </p>
<p>Yes, I think I will start to relax. I figured that I should just get a Master's because 3 years is just too short to not enjoy college. And since I'm a prospect for the program anyways, then why not? It's only another 1 year, and it'll be cheaper too. No GRE's either.</p>
<p>Credential inflation? Meaning those people who have "credentials" are seen higher than someone without it? mmm, I actually want to perfect my skill in computer engineering. I'm not sure if work experience will do the trick better than getting a Masters. </p>
<p>But thank you so super duper much for your time. ^__^</p>
<p>WilliamC are you in engineering too? As far as my own personal work experiences goes, it "usually" requires a MS/PhD to move into some sort of management or research position in industry. Well, I am a BS and all my bosses were higher degreed, haha. Although I'd admit, intelligence doesn't increase with credentials.</p>