<p>Columbia is pretty good too. </p>
<p>Columbia and Cornell have the oldest EE programs (Cornell in 1883, the first in the world); so if you like history, go there. :)</p>
<p>Out here on the West Coast the only Ivy Engineering program that is really well known is Cornell.</p>
<p>if one looks at the rankings of the BEST GRADUATE ENG. COLLEGES one will see that Columbia and Cornell are the only Ivies who make it into the top twenty.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Massachusetts Institute of Technology </p></li>
<li><p>Stanford University</p></li>
<li><p>University of California–Berkeley </p></li>
<li><p>Georgia Institute of Technology </p></li>
<li><p>University of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign </p></li>
<li><p>Purdue University–West Lafayette (IN) </p></li>
<li><p>University of Michigan–Ann Arbor </p></li>
<li><p>Carnegie Mellon University (PA) </p></li>
<li><p>University of Southern California (Viterbi) </p>
<ol>
<li>California Institute of Technology<br></li>
<li>Cornell University (NY) </li>
<li>University of California–San Diego (Jacobs)<br></li>
<li>University of Texas–Austin<br></li>
<li>Texas A&M University–College Station (Look)<br></li>
<li>University of California–Los Angeles (Samueli)<br></li>
<li>University of Maryland–College Park (Clark)<br></li>
<li>University of Wisconsin–Madison<br></li>
<li>Princeton University (NJ) </li>
<li>Pennsylvania State University–University Park<br></li>
<li>Columbia University (Fu Foundation) (NY)</li>
</ol></li>
</ol>
<p>i think its basically the same in the undergraduate level, Columbia and Cornell makes it into top 20. [11-20].</p>
<p>Undergraduate Engineering.</p>
<ol>
<li>Massachusetts Institute of Technology </li>
<li>Stanford University
University of California–Berkeley </li>
<li>California Institute of Technology
University of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign</li>
<li>Georgia Institute of Technology
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor </li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon University
Purdue University–West Lafayette </li>
</ol>
<p>"10.Cornell University"</p>
<p>11.Princeton University
University of Texas–Austin
13.University of Wisconsin–Madison
14.Johns Hopkins
Northwestern
Penn State
17.Texas A&M University–College Station
VT
19.Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst.
Rice University</p>
<p>"25.Columbia University"</p>
<p>
[quote]
Columbia and Cornell are the only Ivies who make it into the top twenty.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...and Princeton</p>
<p>"10.Cornell University"
"11.Princeton University"
"25.Columbia University"</p>
<p>Does someone know the admission rate for Cornell, particularly for engineering majors? Also, does this school require SAT for transfer students?Since it ranks so high, I might as well apply...</p>
<p>Oh, I see.</p>
<p>In the undegrad level Princeton and Cornell make it to top 20.
In the Grad level its Columbia and Cornell.</p>
<p>^^ No, Princeton makes the list at #18 at the grad level.</p>
<p>Undergraduate Engineering</p>
<p>10.Cornell University
11.Princeton University </p>
<p>Graduate Engineering</p>
<ol>
<li>Cornell University </li>
<li>Princeton University </li>
<li>Columbia University</li>
</ol>
<p>I fail to see the attraction here. Why are people so fixated on the Ivies when there are better engineering schools out there?</p>
<p>I was just correcting my mistake.</p>
<p>In the engineering world, I think school size is a big factor. Here on the West Coast several companies just recruit at the few biggest schools and don't even deal with the rest. For undergraduates this might be Cal, UCLA, UCSD, Cal Poly-SLO, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and in fact, a lot of the ivies don't even have engineering programs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, actually, ALL of the Ivies have some sort of engineering program. True, they don't all have the plethora of engineering departments that other schools have, and in particular, may be missing certain engineering disciplines, but they still have engineering programs of some kind. Heck, I don't think there is ANY school out there that offers every single engineering discipline. Even a school like MIT doesn't offer, say, petroleum engineering.</p>
<p>
[quote]
why would you want to go to an ivy for engineering? that seems silly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, because they are all very good engineering schools? </p>
<p>Sure, they're not the 'best'. But they're still pretty darn good. Even a school like Brown is ranked somewhere in the 50's for engineering. When you consider the fact that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of engineering schools out there, a ranking in the 50's is pretty darn good - in fact, is far far above average.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In the engineering world, I think school size is a big factor.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It sure seems to me that Caltech engineers are doing pretty well for themselves, despite the fact that Caltech is an absolutely tiny school in terms of population. It has fewer total students (undergrad + grad) than even many LAC's do.</p>
<p>I would argue what matter is is location AND prestige. It seems to me that companies recruit at schools that are (A) close to them (B) has a well respected engineering program</p>
<p>
[quote]
ivy status means nothing to me unless someone gets their phd in a pure science from an ivy. i'm not only talking about ivy status in its importance to me, but when i meet someone (a scientist or engineer) and they go to harvard or yale the first thing i think about is pretension and how they could have gotten a much better education else-where. </p>
<p>basically, i'm crazy. i have the preconceived notion that many of the people who go for undergraduate ivy leagues are fakes. but that's just me and i know a lot of people disagree with that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why do you have to be so judgmental? To each, his own. If a guy wants to get an Ivy engineering degree, then let him do so without getting hassled. It's his life, not yours. Just like you don't want anybody disrespecting you and Harvey Mudd, so why do you feel that you have to disrespect others and their schools?</p>
<p>
[quote]
It seems to me that companies recruit at schools that are (A) close to them (B) has a well respected engineering program
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I think you forgot (C) personal fit between the school and the company. The truth is, while all companies may SAY that they want the best and brightest, in reality, many really do not. Many companies simply want somebody who is happy doing a relatively simple job without demanding too much in return.</p>
<p>This is why, incidentally, a number of companies have cut back on active recruitment at MIT. It's not because they don't think that the students there are good. If anything, the opposite is true - that they think the students are TOO good, and in particular, are afraid that the students will demand too high of a salary. Or they will demand career opportunities and flexibility that the company is simply not willing to provide. A lot of MIT grads want to have a direct path to management, or to work with the latest and sexiest technology, or have lots of opportunities to travel, or a compensation scheme that will make them rich if they do outstanding work, and a lot of companies are simply not willing to offer that. This is why, incidentally, why so many MIT grads are drawn to working at startup companies, because startups can often times provide a better fit to what the grads really want, in particular, the chance to work with cutting-edge technology, a direct path to becoming a manager, and huge upside in the form of stock options if the company becomes big. I know many MIT engineers who turned down offers with big traditional companies to work for startups.</p>