<p>Harvard's engineering rank? Sakky said it in post #31. They're ranked #22 overall.</p>
<p>Thanks Addwit, Sakky actually said it in posts 16,19,20,27,28 and 31. :) Once again sarcasm does not translate well on the net. Sorry. :)</p>
<p>Oh oh oh, haha...I see it now. I'm not usually that dense...</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think what people are trying to get at is Why Harvard engineering? If you could make it into Harvard engineering, you could most likely make it into a top 5 engineering school as evidence by Harvard stating most of the people who don't go to harvard go to stanford or MIT or CMU for engineering. And the liberal arts aspect is bunk as you could go to MIT and cross register. I have a feeling most of these people are going to harvard for the name which is a joke.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that very premise is flawed. Remember, we are talking about graduate school here, as that is what the OP is asking about. After all, I don't think that too many engineering graduate students care very much about taking liberal arts classes. </p>
<p>And, no, I do not believe that "most" people who could get into Harvard for grad engineering could also get into a top 5 engineering grad program. In fact, I met quite a few Harvard grad engineering students who spent a lot of time at MIT (taking classes, working on joint projects between Harvard and MIT engineering faculty) that when I asked them if they why they didn't just go to MIT if they were just going to spend all their time there anyway, they frankly admitted it's because they couldn't get into MIT for grad school.</p>
<p>Look, getting into a top 5 grad engineering program is pretty darn hard. Not everybody can do it; in fact, the vast majority of people can't. So what should these people do - just kill themselves? For many people, Harvard for grad engineering really is the best such program they can get into. Like I've been saying, getting into the #22 ranked program is actually pretty darn good, given the fact that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of programs out there. If the #22 program is a 'complete joke' or other such vituperative diatribe, then what does that say about all the other programs that are ranked even lower?</p>
<p>I'll put it to you guys this way. One of my father's closest friends got his PhD in engineering from RPI and has enjoyed an extremely successful career at Genentech. RPI is ranked #32 in grad engineering, hence worse than Harvard. So does that mean that his degree is "worse than a complete joke"? After all, if Harvard engineering is a complete joke, then RPI must be even worse, right? Maybe somebody should call up Genentech and ask them why they employ somebody whose degree is "worse than a complete joke".</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, I think people are questioning Harvard's relatively high rank because they're not really known for engineering
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I question that premise also. After all, let's face it. How many schools out there are truly well known for engineering, especially at the graduate level? Be honest. Maybe 10 or 15 schools or so? We got , in no particular order, schools like MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Berkeley, Illinois, Georgia Tech, Cornell, CMU, Michigan, and a few others. But other than that group, how many other engineering schools are really well known?</p>
<p>Bear in mind that many schools that claim to be engineering/technical schools are actually not that highly ranked at the graduate engineering level. For example, Virginia Tech is ranked "only" #28. RPI is ranked "only" #32. Illinois Institute of Technology is ranked "only" #68. Stevens Institute of Technology is ranked "only" #80. Of course I say "only" because even a #80 ranking is still decent. And other technical schools like Texas Tech, Louisiana Tech, Rochester Institute of Technology, Florida Tech, Lawrence Tech, and Tennessee Tech, and New Mexico Tech aren't even ranked at all, and hence are ranked somewhere below #92. </p>
<p>Let me make the comparison even more stark. You say that people question Harvard's "relatively high rank" because they're not really known for engineering. Well, let me put it to you this way. Is Northwestern "really known" as an engineering powerhouse? I don't think so. Yet Northwestern is ranked #20. How about UCSB - does that jump out at anybody as an engineering powerhouse? Yet UCSB is ranked #19. Maryland? #17. Columbia? #21. University of Washington? #24. UCDavis? #32. I doubt that any of these schools jump out at us as being extremely well known when it comes to engineering. </p>
<p>I think that fully illustrates the point - that there really aren't that many highly prominent graduate engineering programs out there. Once you get past the top 10 or 15 elite engineering superstars, the remaining schools are not really that well known. Nobody is claiming that Harvard belongs in the top 10 or 15, but at the same time, I don't see that a #22 ranking to be so outrageous.</p>
<p>Northwestern and UCSB are ranked in the top 3 for Materials Engineering. :(</p>
<p>I'm back and for those of you who don't understand about funding at MIT then don't claim that you do. MIT is not fully funded in all departments. Their civil department commonly admits PhD track people into a Masters for the first year. Their website states to seek outside funding. Those that get an NSF or other then go to MIT. Those that don't go somewhere else or are enamored with MIT and are willing to pay for the first year. This is one reason why their Civil dept is not ranked at the top. One person just rec'd an NSF but why go to MIT when Stanford and IL (with the NSF included) now guarantee 4 to 6 years of full (generous)funding ? Again I say, if you get into Harvard or Princeton you're guaranteed full funding that is very liveable.</p>
<p>Also, Stanford does not initially fund all PhDs for the first year. Again Civil I know a person who was initially only offered tuition deferral only. No stipend. I know another person currently at Stanford first year with no funding. Again, I say ranking in grad school should be looked at by department and broad grad school statistics are irrevelant. Plus Stanford's Engineering, as far as I know, doesn't release funding statistics. So Blah where are you supposedly getting them from ?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Northwestern and UCSB are ranked in the top 3 for Materials Engineering.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, so? I don't recall anybody here talking about materials engineering specifically.</p>
<p>Besides, we can look at it from another angle. Harvard actually has a higher ranking in grad EE than does Northwestern. Harvard has a higher ranking in grad Environmental Engineering than does UCSB (because UCSB isn't even ranked). And Harvard has a clearly better ranking in grad computer science than either Northwestern or UCSB.</p>
<p>
[quote]
IMO, the reason Harvard is ranked high despite not "being known" for engineering is because:</p>
<ol>
<li>they have a really strong math and biology department, and they are leveraging the strengths of those departments to create strong interdisciplinary research projects</li>
<li>despite not being "known", they still manage to attract many talented students who like the Harvard name and who prefer to stay in the northeast</li>
<li>they have the money
[/quote]
</li>
</ol>
<h1>3 is going to become a far more prominent factor in the near-future as Harvard has announced that they are going to spend a large chunk of their endowment in expanding their engineering capabilities.</h1>
<p>I would also add several other factors to what you have mentioned:</p>
<h1>4 - Close collaboration with MIT, which stretches beyond just cross-registration (which is a killer feature in itself), but also to research collaborations and dissertation committees. For example, Harvard and MIT faculty members frequently write papers and conduct research jointly. In other words, Harvard engineering grad students have access to the entire wealth of resources at MIT.</h1>
<p>Now, of course, some might ask if a Harvard student is just going to utilize MIT resources, why doesn't he just go to MIT in the first place. Of course that's true, but that also presumes that that person was actually able to get in to MIT for graduate study, and not everybody can. In fact, I would venture to say that the vast majority of Harvard's grad engineering students couldn't get into MIT. Hence, for them, going to Harvard is the next best thing. I would argue that a Harvard grad engineering student has access to far more engineering resources (via MIT) than do students at most other engineering programs. </p>
<h1>5 - Attractive to students who aren't sure that they can or want to be engineers in the long term. Let's face it. Not every engineering student - even at the graduate level- will actually end up working in engineering after they graduate. Some of them don't want to, or some of them will work in engineering in only a highly specific setting, and will otherwise choose not to work as engineers at all.</h1>
<p>Let me give you some examples, drawn from MIT. I know one particular guy who is getting his PhD in engineering at MIT and has specifically stated that what he really wants is to stay in academia and become a professor of engineering. And not just at any old school, but at a good school, which presumably means something in the top 50 or so. But he also realizes that that's not easy to get, so he has said that if he doesn't get that, fine, he's just going to get a job at an investment bank or a hedge fund instead, and in fact, he has taken advanced finance classes at the Sloan school and consults part-time for a hedge fund right now, all to set himself for a potential career in finance if he doesn't get the academic position he wants. His rationale is quite simple - his wife is an MBA student and she wants to start a career in finance which means that she would strongly prefer to move to New York. She's willing to forgo that if he can get a strong academic position somewhere. But if he can't, then she's going to want to take a position on Wall Street, which means that he too will most likely end up working in finance. </p>
<p>Nor is this an isolated incident. In fact, every year, a significant fraction of MIT engineering PhD graduates end up taking non-engineering jobs, usually in banking or (especially) management consulting. Either that or they even stay in school to get a non-engineering degree like an MBA. {In fact, the MIT Chemical Engineering department runs a special program in which some students can get the ChemE PhD and an MBA at the Sloan School simultaneously}. </p>
<p>The upshot is that Harvard is a 'safer' choice for graduate engineering students because its brand name gives you great career flexibility. If even plenty of MIT grad engineering students don't end up taking engineering jobs, that must mean that plenty of other grad engineering students at other schools also aren't going to be engineers. Harvard therefore offers people a way to hedge their bets. You can leverage the Harvard name - and more importantly, the Harvard alumni network - to find a decent non-engineering job relatively easily. </p>
<p>Let me give you a stark choice. What if you turn down Harvard for, say, Purdue for grad engineering studies, and then later find out that you don't actually want to work as an engineer anymore? Like, as stated above, what if you end up marrying a woman who wants to move to a place where there aren't a lot of engineering jobs available (but plenty of non-engineering jobs)? Or something else happens that makes you no longer want to stay in engineering? Then you probably wish that you had chosen Harvard instead. </p>
<p>Look, again, nobody is saying that Harvard is an elite engineering school. What I am saying is that Harvard is relatively decent and is highly attractive for a certain type of person, especially those who are highly risk averse regarding their career and who simply can't get into a school like MIT or Stanford.</p>
<p>lol.. harvard engineering... is that an oxymoron?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Uh, so? I don't recall anybody here talking about materials engineering specifically.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I just mentioned it because I was surprised to actually find out that Northwestern and UCSB weren't considered good engineering schools when everything I had always heard about them had been that they were top-notch places to go.</p>
<p>jmilton: Don't poke the bear. :)</p>
<p>Besides, everyone knows Harvard engineering is ranked at least in the top 92. I am not sure what the actual number is. ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
lol.. harvard engineering... is that an oxymoron?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, I don't know. Like I've pointed out repeatedly, Harvard's grad engineering ranking is #22. That's better than the vast majority of all other grad eng programs out there.</p>
<p>I think the real problem is with those "tech" schools that, frankly, aren't that good at the grad engineering level. For example, what's up with Louisiana Tech, a school that can't even merit a ranking within the top 92? Or how about Tennessee Tech? These schools have the word 'tech' in their names. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I just mentioned it because I was surprised to actually find out that Northwestern and UCSB weren't considered good engineering schools when everything I had always heard about them had been that they were top-notch places to go
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, where exactly have you heard such stories? I have never heard of UCSB as being "top-notch" for engineering, if by that, you mean at the level of a MIT or a Stanford. </p>
<p>Look, I'll say it again - Northwestern and UCSB are indeed very strong schools for materials engineering. But they are far less strong in other fields of engineering. Furthermore, let's be honest, materials engineering ain't exactly the biggest engineering discipline. Far from it, in fact.</p>
<p>harvards engineering program is garbage. Just wanted to establish that. Now carry on with your argument........</p>
<p>sakky, that's where I had actually heard it, in materials engineering circles. =</p>
<p>
[quote]
harvards engineering program is garbage. Just wanted to establish that. Now carry on with your argument........
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Raccna's latest comment is garbage. Just wanted to establish that. </p>
<p>Now, let's carry on</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky, that's where I had actually heard it, in materials engineering circles. =\
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, well, like I said, that doesn't exactly translate into excellence in all engineering fields.</p>
<p>I understand, it was meant as a comment as to when you asked where I had heard they were strong engineering schools.</p>
<p>I think this kinda goes to show that "Engineering" rankings as a group are kinda junky, as individual places can specialize in exactly what you want to do and not get the recognition they should for it. For example, I still have a hard time understanding how well CMU's engineering school is ranked when they only offer five engineering majors and two which can only be gotten as a double on top of their other majors. I mean, if you don't want to major in ECE, mechanical, civil, chemical, or materials, CMU is worthless.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I see a Berkeley EECS student who ended up going to EE grad school at UCDavis. I see one who ended up going to CS grad school at NYU. These schools are all worse than Harvard for engineering, both overall and in terms of the specific programs in question.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>At the PhD level, it's the specialty, the lab, and especially the research advisor that counts more than the overall departmental ranking. There are top researchers at many departments beyond the top-ranked five or ten. Just from the above example, if you are interested in scientific computation , NYU (Courant) is one of the three best cs departments (MIT and Stanford being the other two). Harvard is barely a blip compared to NYU in that particular area, having pretty much missed the boat in computation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I mean, if you don't want to major in ECE, mechanical, civil, chemical, or materials, CMU is worthless.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, considering that the first four are widely considered to be the 'Big Four' in engineering, I think CMU has its bases covered quite well.</p>
<p>Besides, I'll put it to you this way. Louisiana Tech has all kinds of engineering majors - far more than CMU does. Would anybody rather go to LA Tech rather than CMU? </p>
<p>
[quote]
At the PhD level, it's the specialty, the lab, and especially the research advisor that counts more than the overall departmental ranking. There are top researchers at many departments beyond the top-ranked five or ten. Just from the above example, if you are interested in scientific computation , NYU (Courant) is one of the three best cs departments (MIT and Stanford being the other two). Harvard is barely a blip compared to NYU in that particular area, having pretty much missed the boat in computation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And similarly, Harvard surely has specific areas of engineering in which NYU is barely a blip. </p>
<p>That's the point I've been making all along: why is Harvard always singled out for criticism when it comes to engineering? For example, like I said, Harvard actually has a higher overall ranking in CS than does NYU. Yet nobody goes around criticizing NYU. Harvard seems to be the school that attracts the haters despite the fact that by any ostensible measure, Harvard is actually one of the top engineering schools in the country - far better than most of the other schools out there.</p>