<p>I am aware that ABET credited programs ensure a student graduates with a certain level of competency. It appears to me the rigor of different engineering programs can vary a great deal. The highly ranked programs, as one would expect, will have a more difficult program and more difficult exams to separate the students along a bell curve. Is it better for a student to go to the best engineering school possible even if the gpa obtained is a 2.9? Will this student actually have learned more than the student at a mid-tier program and who obtains a 3.4. </p>
<p>How should one view academic fit and choice of college? Is it better to be an average student at a top program or a top student at an average program?
texasna is offline</p>
<p>I am interesting in making an informed decision for a student in the above scenario. A top student at a top program has no concerns. Although, I thought that would be obvious.</p>
<p>Name brand only carries you as far as your ability and hard work. When it comes to “rigor” it has less to do with the school and more to do with the professor.</p>
<p>Remember that more selective universities tend to have higher grade inflation, so it is not necessarily a given that your GPA will be lower at a more selective school.</p>
<p>I assume by ‘academic fit’ you mean incoming SAT/ACT scores and GPA, in which case it’s not as cut-and-dried as this.</p>
<p>You can’t necessarily assume that a school with X% higher incoming SAT scores and Y% higher GPA’s will have W% stronger academics and Z% more rigor. I realize it’s normal to want to wrap a formula around everything in order to simplify a rather complex search process, however, there are many inconsistancies and variables that exist in the college search process that make these generalizations irrelevant.</p>
<p>More importantly, you should be looking at program reputation/strength. Some schools (I call them “boot camp” schools) may admit less competitive students while offering a rigorous, high-quality curriculum (Purdue is a classic example here). Those who flourish are essentially brought up to the same level as students in more competitive schools. It’s a sink or swim environment more or less.</p>
<p>Footnotes:
Don’t just assume that the more selective a school is, the better its programs will be.
Look at the big picture… consider ALL factors when assessing college fit.
Find out who is recruiting from your schools of interest. How are they viewed by industry and/or academia?</p>
<p>fractalmstr, Purdue would be considered a top engineering program not a mid tier one.</p>
<p>ucbalumnus, from my readings engineering programs tend to have lower gpas. I am not sure your link would apply in this situation but I maybe wrong. </p>
<p>The overall admitted class at the top 7 best undergrad engineering programs (us news) will have a stronger admitted class than at a mid tier program (50 rank). At the top programs the competition has to be stiffer and the exams harder to separate the group when assigning grades. The mid tier programs will have a class which is not at the same level therefore the exams will be easier. My thought process seems very logical to me. MIT, Cornell, or Berkeley exams are going to be harder than Penn State or University of Maryland exams. Do you disagree with my reasoning? With that in mind, is it better to be an average student at a top program or a top student at an average program.</p>
<p>A “top” school for your major may have somewhat more non-local companies (particularly the smaller ones) recruiting at the career center. If you are at some other school, you would have to be more aggressive at finding and applying to non-local companies if you want to expand your selection of jobs and internships compared to just those local to your school.</p>
<p>OP - It’s hard to say. But as others have pointed out, you can’t always predict which school will give you the better GPA. So go for a school that is the best combo of academic fit, personal comfort zone, and family affordability.</p>
<p>Every applicant, with reasonably high aptitude for mathematics and science subjects (supported by numbers) will aim for the top colleges and their selection of colleges are seldom clouded by their ability to score high GPAs in future! I haven’t come across a single student who will forego the chance of joining MIT, Stanford,Berkeley, Michigan out of fear being average due to course rigor or grading curve.</p>
<p>Apart from it, the recruiters are aware of the quality of the students coming out of the top 10/15 engineering colleges and therefore, are reasonably capable of selecting the ones that are best suited for the job. I don’t think 3.6 vs. 3.8 will a matter of contention. Yes, if it is below 3.0, even if you are from the top 5, you will find it difficult to enter the top technology firms. Conversely, if you are 3.5 from a college, which is not in the radar of the recruiting company, you will have tough time in getting your desired job.</p>
Couldn’t that also be related to the fact that private school students are, on average, better students?
On a perfectly objective scale, I’d expect private school GPA to be slightly higher anyways.</p>
<p>I agree with Colorado_mom. " But as others have pointed out, you can’t always predict which school will give you the better GPA. So go for a school that is the best combo of academic fit, personal comfort zone, and family affordability." Coming from a small public high school (30 years ago for me and now my children), the large numbers of engineering students at many of the universities, sounds intimidating. It’s the notion of sink or swim that is hard for me to feel comfortable with especially for kids on the shyer side. I realize we can’t shield our kids from the real world. Any perspective on the size of programs (regardless of whether it’s public or private universities)? And how to best guide a high school student on the pros and cons of choosing the size of an engineering program or university?</p>
<p>I’m intentionally keeping this brief as possible (i.e. not providing pages of observational evidence). To the OP, the first two years of any standard engineering program, from community college to top ten private, is practically the same. There are easy tests at the top level just as there are hard tests at your local community college. The teacher, and to a lesser extent, the department, determines what is on the test. Regardless, many many schools, from MIT and Stanford on down use the same textbooks for these staple classes, so even if an easy professor doesn’t explicitly test a topic, it may be covered in lectures/hw or the student may self-study. The differentiation of A-B-C students does happen, but it is heavily influenced by factors other than just raw intellect and a curve (I.e. sleep deprivation, laziness, sick, burnout). You need to stop making so many assumptions and/or buying into the US news rankings. The reality is a lot more murky.</p>
<p>I am not sold on your assertion. It just does not make logical sense to me. The students at the top programs are more prepared and I would bet have taken more AP and colleges classes. If the professor was to test at a lower level, there would be very little separation of grades.
Also, top companies would recruit at the lower ranked schools. We know that does not happen. Why?..the talent pool.</p>
<p>I am still wondering if it is better to be an average student at a top program or a top student at an average program.</p>
Personal experience shows that this is far from the truth.</p>
<p>
The simple fact is that there is no good answer to this question. But as a general rule, the student matters more than the program - a good student will find their way, top school or not.</p>
<p>Better in what way? Getting a job? Getting a better education? Getting into a good graduate program? The larger schools with strong programs are logically going to get more recruiters on campus than smaller schools no matter what their reputation merely because of numbers. Recruiters (and I know some post on this sight) I would suppose would rather go to Purdue or Michigan to recruit than say CMU. CMU might have some very bright students and an excellent program but Purdue and Michigan also have excellent programs and probably at least 5 times the students at the same level to interview. Others more familiar with the programs can answer whether a top student at Michigan would have learned the same material as a top student at MIT.</p>
<p>Using your logic high school would be the end all be all decider of a student’s fate. If they are “talented” as you define them, they will go to a top school and get a top job. Yet this doesn’t always happen. In fact in engineering the departure from this extrapolation is significant. </p>
<p>I personally have attended 3 different colleges, a cc, a state flagship, and a top 10 private. I have compared notes on several occassions with family and friends who have attended Stanford, GATech, UIUC, UPenn, UT-Austin, UVA, and GWU. I have also searched old exams and textbooks used at additional schools such as MIT, Cornell, Ohio State, and Purdue. I also compared grades across equivalent courses between 2 year and 4 year schools; their large student bodies afforded a reasonable comparison in average gpas. I found that for roughly equal courses, gpa’s at cc’s were 0.1-0.2 lower than at the 4 year publics. I was not able to compare to privates, grade data is generally only available for public schools. I apologize for hazarding a guess as to why schools are so homogeneous, at least for the first two years of engineering. When I set out originally to try and compare “rigor,” it was out of fear that my cc was not preparing me for “real” universities. I was satisfied when I figured out that was not the case, never attempting to answer why.</p>
<p>As to your question, a student with a 3.5+ from anywhere will generally have an easier time than a student with a sub-3.0 from MIT/Cal Tech. Most HR workers require significant amounts of their available brain power to keep breathing and generally can’t afford look beyond keywords and a gpa, lest they might asphyxiate. Secondly, someone looking to use brand name of school in the hiring process likely is already recruiting at their desired schools. That said, they’re still looking for someone with a 3.5+ first before they move onto the sub-3.0 (if they even bother).</p>
<p>Lastly, just to drive home that high school is not the last word on future success:
I was a top student at a MAPL school with AP’s and Varsity letters and solid SAT scores. I failed at life for about nearly 7 years after graduation. Yes it’s a unique case, but I use it along with my empirical evidence to suggest your model is too simple.</p>