<p>Hello All ..After 3 yrs. experience as an electrical engineer, I applied and got into Stanford and Harvard for Master's in EE this Fall. While 99% of people would say pick Stanford in a heartbeat, I see myself much more comfortable in the Boston area, and being able to cross register for many courses at MIT makes it worthwhile. Why not apply to MIT directly? I saw a better campus life and interaction with people outside of engineering at Harvard.</p>
<p>What are your opinions in the matter? Is Harvard Grad Engineering really that undervalued? How much weight do employers in the area place on name alone (even if taking several of the classes/research at MIT)? Is a transfer to MIT possible once I've started? Please let me know your thoughts.</p>
<p>You won’t be doing graduate research at MIT while enrolled at Harvard. Why on earth would they pay you to go to school somewhere else? It just doesn’t make sense. You may be able to take the classes, but you won’t be doing the MIT research. Honestly, go to Stanford. Getting an engineering degree at Harvard is not the same as getting one at MIT or Stanford as you seem to think.</p>
<p>Then again, in graduate school, it is more about your advisor than your school, so if there is an advisor at Harvard doing exactly what you want to do, then go to Harvard.</p>
<p>I believe the OP made it clear that he was only pursuing an EE master’s degree, which does not require any research whatsoever at Harvard, or even at Stanford for that matter. Coursework is all that is required, much of which surely can be fulfilled through Harvard-MIT X-Reg. </p>
<p>The S.M. degree is awarded for the successful completion of eight semester length courses at Harvard. The S.M. degree is non-research based degree and no dissertation, foreign language, or general examination is required.</p>
<p>Generally speaking, plenty of MSEE programs at even the top schools do not require research, and even those programs that do require research often times will accept relatively undemanding and fringe research. For example, MIT, in addition to coursework, also requires a research thesis in order to earn a MS in EECS (or any master’s degree at MIT other than the MBA), yet I know one guy who obtained the requisite thesis signatures that discussed the historical business strategy of Cisco Systems. {No, no the actual technology of Cisco, but the business strategy of Cisco.} Obviously that type of work would never be published in any engineering academic journal or leveraged for admission to any EECS PhD program. But he never cared about that, as all he cared about was obtaining a MS in EECS from MIT, which he now has. {Note, regardless of what you might think about the propriety of accepting such a thesis, I would argue that that represents a level of rigor higher than that of a program that doesn’t require any thesis whatsoever, as in the case of Stanford.}</p>
<p>Thanks for your input guys. Bonehead, I do not disagree with you, I know that Stanford might offer greater possibilities when it comes to research, but my career is industry-oriented, i.e. design of actual products that go into the market (which is what I have been doing at General Electric the past 3 years) as opposed to publishing papers or staying strictly in an academic environment. I am looking for formal training and a master’s degree, but would take research opportunities if they are available while in school.</p>
<p>I just wonder if employers place that much emphasis on name alone. If I take most specialized courses at MIT (in my case, the Digital Communications area), is there really that much of a difference? Harvard simply does not offer these courses; students have no other choice than to take them at MIT. In retrospect, I guess I should have applied to MIT as well to begin with, but when I visited Cambridge a few years back, I saw Harvard’s beautiful architecture, as a true University whereas MIT’s buildings and student life seemed (at a day’s glance) plain and uninteresting, something typical of an Institute (this was just my impression; I understand if other people’s opinion here differs greatly from mine).</p>
<p>I do not think Harvard stands at the same level as MIT or Stanford; but taking my two choices, will picking Harvard cripple my career as an electrical engineer in industry.</p>
<p>Led directly to me talking about research. In light of his more recent post, my comment applies much less.</p>
<p>andresgruiz, Harvard would in no way cripple your career… at least in any way that I can see. I personally just feel like if given the choice, I would go to the school that gives me the greatest advantage in my given field. In this case, I would think that would be Stanford. I don’t think that by going to Harvard you will be hurting yourself; you just won’t be helping yourself as much as far as I see it. Then again, I am just one person with one opinion.</p>
<p>Well, even the OP’s original post discussed how much emphasis employers placed on the name of the school alone, and has nothing to do with research per se. </p>
<p>And let’s face it, at the master’s (as opposed to the PhD) level, most employers don’t care much about research anyway. All they really care about is the brand-name of your school and all you should therefore care about is the access to recruiters that you want. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, Harvard main campus, where the engineering department is located, has interesting architecture? I can agree that certain parts of the university set apart from the main campus - not least being the business school - do indeed display interesting architecture, but you wouldn’t be studying there. I don’t think that Maxwell Dworkin is an interesting-looking building, certainly not comparable to, say, the Stata Center. {Note, you may not like the look of the Stata Center, but you have to admit that, if nothing else, it surely is interesting.}</p>
<p>I won’t argue that point, because in most cases it is true. I would add that they typically care about the brand name of the school and/or the advisor depending on the situation, but on the whole, what you said is generally true. I will argue that in mentioning research in his initial post, it is not unreasonable for me to make the point about research in my original response. Other than that, I don’t think we disagree anywhere.</p>
<p>I agree the Stata Center is wonderful. I meant Harvard’s campus as a whole has more of a university feel than MIT’s campus, once again, as a whole, where you can actually set it apart from the rest of Cambridge. As I walking through, I did not even notice I was at MIT until I saw the signs next to the buildings. The campus looked like a regular business district, with no real boundary to set it apart from the rest of the city. However, I must admit, I have never lived in Cambridge; this is the impression I had from a few days’ visit.</p>
<p>Back to your comment, there is an item that actually does concern me. Are engineers actively recruited at Harvard, be it via specific events for each company or at a career fair? Is MIT’s career fair open for Harvard students, and if so, are Harvard grads shunned in favor of MIT grads, even if the coursework most likely is the exact same taking into consideration the whole cross-registration aspect? I guess I’d just like to garner more knowledge about recruiters’ attitude towards these type of things.</p>
<p>And don’t sweat it boneh3ad, I appreciate any input you can give. Even though I am not particularly interested in research, I am not opposed to pursuing good research opportunities, even if I am there for 3-4 semesters max. I am sure MIT will not pay me to go to Harvard, but I do not see why they would not take me (unless of course, they see me as a bad fit for other reasons) if I want to pursue research there solely to gain experience.</p>