How come its so easy to get into some top ranking engg. colleges??

College Majors Engineering Majors
41

<p>
[quote]
Ditto on quality over quantity from the employer's perspective. Size is usually a non-factor but in very small program (< 50 graduates each year), the low number could discourage recruiters from even show up.

[/quote]
You seem to disagree with this in your following statement.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In my experience, the top 20-25 engineering schools usually receive the most attention from recruiters - engineering firms, corporations, IBC & MC firms etc - in part because of their reputation and the fact that most of their graduates are usually of high caliber. Beyond that, everyone has their favorite picks based on prior success and regional bias. E.g. my former employer always recruit at a nearby four-tier engineering department because their top graduates that we hired were as surprisingly good as everyone else.

[/quote]
So basically what you are saying is that there is low variability in engineering educations. I mean, your former employer gets graduates from 4th tier colleges and gets good results. In fact, I think this is more true than many on this forum would believe. Engineering educations are very similar across a large range of schools. The major difference is the competition. And this is why I doubt "quality" is as important as quantity. A large program puts many people into hiring positions, and alumni bias kicks in.</p>

42

<p>
[quote]
Mr. Payne - Companies don't know Yale engineering exists? Tell me you wouldn't be surprised if you met a Yale engineering graduate that was unemployed...like it or not there's no way in hell Yale engineers don't have every opportunity to be successful. And let's face it: if any three schools in the world have the resources (read: money) to shoot up the rankings whenever they want, it will be Harvard, Princeton, and Yale.

[/quote]
Sure. They won't be able to build the alumni base (and consequent reputation) of Cal, UMich, or GT in less than 20 years.</p>

43

<p>You honestly don't think the quality of students Yale attracts is any higher than that of GT? Come on, I know standardized test scores and all that **** aren't a very good predictor of performance at the undergraduate level but they are a measure of overall competence. Yale can admit what, under 10% of the incredible pool of people that apply there each year? I'd find it very hard to believe that the average GT grad and average Yale grad (even in engineering) are of the same "quality." Not that there won't be GT grads that are smarter, harder-working, more motivated etc (IE, of higher "quality') than Yale grads but on average I'd go with Yale any day. And it has nothing to do with "prestige," at all.</p>

44

<p>
[quote]
I think I should also add that we have to keep in mind what engineering employers really want. They're not exactly looking for a capable and knowledgeable employee. Not exactly. What they're really looking for is a capable and knowledgeable employee who is also going to be satisfied with the job and the salary that the company is willing to provide, and won't demand too much.. Let's face it. A lot of engineering jobs out there are not very interesting, opportunities for cool projects are few, the technology they use is old and unsexy, the promotion process is highly political and seniority-based (as opposed to merit-based), and in short, they're just not very good jobs. As a result, a lot of the very best engineering students don't really want to take those jobs, when they have other options, and if they do, they will usually quit quickly. Hence, these companies who have these jobs have to find people who are actually willing to take these jobs, and that often times means hiring people who, frankly, aren't that good, but who don't have other good options and so won't complain.

[/quote]
Nice diatribe, but I still fail to see how this relates to the quality/quantity issue at hand.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I've seen this happening at MIT. Some of the, shall we say, 'less desirable' employers are now pulling out of the recruiting process. I think the reason is quite basic - you have so many MIT engineering students getting plum job offers from elite investment banks or consulting firms, or highly sexy and cool engineering companies like Google or Apple, or cool opportunities to start their own tech firm, and those other companies just can't compete against that. They either can't or just don't want to offer equivalent opportunities. So the best thing for these companies to do is to just go to a lesser engineering school where the graduates will actually be satisfied with those kinds of jobs because they don't have the glamorous and cool job offers as alternatives.

[/quote]
Your point is that the top tier schools have better job offers available to all majors. Ok. I fail to see how this refutes the point that quantity is still a huge aspect in getting a good job. Perhaps I should rephrase - with quantity comes name recognition, which gets a good job. Yale Engineering simply doesn't have good name recognition when compared to the giant programs that produce graduates all through industry.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm quite certain that the same thing happens at Harvard and Yale. Regular engineering firms probably don't want to recruit at schools like that because they justifiably don't think they can entice the students away from their other opportunities, like consulting or banking.

[/quote]
Yes, further agreeing with my point that Yale Engineering isn't as good for engineering as other programs. This is intimately tied with quantity. There simply aren't enough banking and consulting jobs for Yale Engineers if their ranks swelled 500% (ie: still smaller than large publics). Companies base many of their hiring decisions on previous experience. Large schools have lots of exposure.</p>

45

<p>
[quote]
You honestly don't think the quality of students Yale attracts is any higher than that of GT?

[/quote]
I think Yale's student quality is much higher.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Come on, I know standardized test scores and all that **** aren't a very good predictor of performance at the undergraduate level but they are a measure of overall competence.

[/quote]
They are a great predictor.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yale can admit what, under 10% of the incredible pool of people that apply there each year?

[/quote]
Yep.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'd find it very hard to believe that the average GT grad and average Yale grad (even in engineering) are of the same "quality."

[/quote]
In IQ, no. However, IQ is actually a relatively low predictor in job performance. And job performance is what builds "reputations". Yale engineering doesn't have much exposure.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Not that there won't be GT grads that are smarter, harder-working, more motivated etc (IE, of higher "quality') than Yale grads but on average I'd go with Yale any day.

[/quote]
I agree. However, you aren't approaching this as a recruiter. They are going to go with where they've had previous good experience. And the variability in graduates out of programs is quite low, IMO. </p>

<p>
[quote]
And it has nothing to do with "prestige," at all.

[/quote]
I agree. I think IQ is a way to get a significant edge. This is how some companies operate - by hiring the smartest people they can find. However, many companies look at their current employees and see where the employees come from. And the chance that they come from a large public (Cal) or large private (Cornell) is much higher than Yale. They'll go with their previous colleges any day of the week.</p>

46

<p>
[quote]
Your point is that the top tier schools have better job offers available to all majors. Ok. I fail to see how this refutes the point that quantity is still a huge aspect in getting a good job.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think I refuted this before - that there are plenty of schools with truly huge technical programs out there (i.e. Texas Tech, Michigan State) that don't have particularly strong engineering reputations, and are actually ranked lower than Yale in engineering, and I don't know that graduates from those schools get great engineering jobs (I'm sure they get eng jobs of some kind, just not really from the most desirable employers). The point here is that quantity seems to be a rather weak predictor. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Yes, further agreeing with my point that Yale Engineering isn't as good for engineering as other programs. This is intimately tied with quantity. There simply aren't enough banking and consulting jobs for Yale Engineers if their ranks swelled 500% (ie: still smaller than large publics).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, actually, I think banking and consulting could handle a 5-fold increase in Yale engineers, simply because there aren't that many Yale engineers to start with in the first place. I would surmise that of those Yale grads who enter the workforce (as opposed to going to grad school), at least 40% of them take jobs in banking or consulting. I say that because about 40% of MIT grads who enter the workforce go into banking or consulting, and I doubt that Yale would be much different (in fact, might be higher, because the majority of MIT grads are engineers, and hence some of them will obviously actually work as engineers in cool companies like Google.) </p>

<p>But secondly, I don't see why that's relevant anyway. The truth is, Yale engineering enrollment won't increase 5-fold anytime soon. Hence, it seems to me that Yale engineering is providing precisely the kinds of opportunities that the (few) students who are in there are looking for - namely, setting themselves up for careers in banking or consulting, which is apparently what they want. </p>

<p>I think where we disagree is that you keep bringing up the issue of a program being good "for engineering". However, the truth is, a lot of engineering students don't really want to be engineers. Like I said, even at MIT, a lot of engineering students apparently don't really want to be engineers (unless it's with a cool company like Google). That speaks to my other point, which is that, frankly, a lot of engineering companies aren't really that good to work for. The jobs aren't very good. A school like Yale probably isn't a good school to get you into a job like that, but you don't really want a job like that anyway, not if you have other options. </p>

<p>Hence, rather just looking at a program as being "good for engineering", I think it's more relevant to look at a program as being "good for engineering * students *", and in particular, one that helps its students get whatever it is that they actually want. If many top engineering students actually want to be bankers or consultants, then programs should be judged on whether they help their students achieve those goals. Who cares whether a program helps students get jobs that they don't really want? </p>

<p>
[quote]
In IQ, no. However, IQ is actually a relatively low predictor in job performance. And job performance is what builds "reputations". Yale engineering doesn't have much exposure.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
I agree. However, you aren't approaching this as a recruiter. They are going to go with where they've had previous good experience. And the variability in graduates out of programs is quite low, IMO.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
I agree. I think IQ is a way to get a significant edge. This is how some companies operate - by hiring the smartest people they can find. However, many companies look at their current employees and see where the employees come from. And the chance that they come from a large public (Cal) or large private (Cornell) is much higher than Yale. They'll go with their previous colleges any day of the week.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See, here, I agree with all of this - but I would turn it around to say that this speaks more to the nature of the employers themselves. Again, a lot of employers offer engineering jobs that are just not that good. I agree that you don't have to be a genius to do those jobs, hence IQ doesn't really matter. On the other hand, they don't really offer interesting opportunities, they don't offer good career development, they don't offer strong advancement possibilities, they don't offer much power, they don't offer much of anything. You put a Yale (or even an MIT) engineer in that job, and I can definitely see that he will perform poorly, not because he can't do the job, but because he doesn't WANT to do the job. He'll get bored, he'll get frustrated, and he'll start performing poorly. Especially when he sees his former classmates in jet-setting and glamorous banking or consulting jobs, or working on cool engineering projects at Google or Apple or other sexy engineering companies. Of course a guy like that is going to be ticked off and perform poorly. Basically, a guy like that expects more than that company is willing to give.</p>

<p>What these companies really want are guys who have low expectations, such that they're not constantly chafing when they have to complete their boring jobs. Again, that's why some engineering firms are pulling out of MIT recruitment - they found that they just can't match what MIT students demand, so why bother trying?</p>

47

<p>
[quote]
I think I refuted this before - that there are plenty of schools with truly huge technical programs out there (i.e. Texas Tech, Michigan State) that don't have particularly strong engineering reputations

[/quote]
Disagree. I think their reputations are strong. And their regional reputations are quite strong.</p>

<p>
[quote]
and are actually ranked lower than Yale in engineering

[/quote]
And?</p>

<p>
[quote]
and I don't know that graduates from those schools get great engineering jobs

[/quote]
Disagree, yet again.</p>

<p><a href="I'm%20sure%20they%20get%20eng%20jobs%20of%20some%20kind,%20just%20not%20really%20from%20the%20most%20desirable%20employers">quote</a>.

[/quote]
Please. Getting hired by a desirable employer correlates well with a few things. Coming from a top tier program (not Yale). Or getting hired from a regional feeder school. Hence, why low ranked schools in CA still put a ton of graduates in "cool companies". IE: Google, Apple.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The point here is that quantity seems to be a rather weak predictor.

[/quote]
Show me the data? I think large publics (Cal, UMich, GT) give much better opportunities than Yale Engineering.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think where we disagree is that you keep bringing up the issue of a program being good "for engineering". However, the truth is, a lot of engineering students don't really want to be engineers. Like I said, even at MIT, a lot of engineering students apparently don't really want to be engineers (unless it's with a cool company like Google).

[/quote]
Disagree. I think the vast majority of engineering students want to be engineers.</p>

<p>
[quote]
That speaks to my other point, which is that, frankly, a lot of engineering companies aren't really that good to work for. The jobs aren't very good. A school like Yale probably isn't a good school to get you into a job like that, but you don't really want a job like that anyway, not if you have other options.

[/quote]
In other news, dog bites man. Yale Engineering isn't good because it doesn't have large exposure - which seems to me to be the primary determinant for getting "the best" engineering jobs.</p>

<p>
[quote]
See, here, I agree with all of this - but I would turn it around to say that this speaks more to the nature of the employers themselves. Again, a lot of employers offer engineering jobs that are just not that good. I agree that you don't have to be a genius to do those jobs, hence IQ doesn't really matter. On the other hand, they don't really offer interesting opportunities, they don't offer good career development, they don't offer strong advancement possibilities, they don't offer much power, they don't offer much of anything. You put a Yale (or even an MIT) engineer in that job, and I can definitely see that he will perform poorly, not because he can't do the job, but because he doesn't WANT to do the job. He'll get bored, he'll get frustrated, and he'll start performing poorly. Especially when he sees his former classmates in jet-setting and glamorous banking or consulting jobs, or working on cool engineering projects at Google or Apple or other sexy engineering companies. Of course a guy like that is going to be ticked off and perform poorly. Basically, a guy like that expects more than that company is willing to give.</p>

<p>What these companies really want are guys who have low expectations, such that they're not constantly chafing when they have to complete their boring jobs. Again, that's why some engineering firms are pulling out of MIT recruitment - they found that they just can't match what MIT students demand, so why bother trying?

[/quote]
All this boils down to my original point. Yale engineering, for a myriad of different reasons, does not have a good name. In fact, it's got a nearly nonexistent name. Quantity helps build a good name. Hell, at the very minimum, it helps build name recognition.</p>

48

<p>
[quote]
Disagree. I think their reputations are strong. And their regional reputations are quite strong

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Disagree, yet again.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, consider this. According to USNews, grad edition, the * recruiter assessment * of the engineering program at Yale was a 3.7, for Michigan State, a 3.3. (Texas Tech was not even on the list). Hence, the evidence indicates that recruiters think Yale is better for engineering than Michigan State, and I have to presume, also for Texas Tech. That is, of course, unless you are contending that USNews is lying to us. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Please. Getting hired by a desirable employer correlates well with a few things. Coming from a top tier program (not Yale). Or getting hired from a regional feeder school. Hence, why low ranked schools in CA still put a ton of graduates in "cool companies". IE: Google, Apple.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course! That's why I'm sure that Yale engineering grads do fairly well in SW Connecticut. Don't laugh - there's a surprising amount of manufacturing and technology going on in SW Connecticut. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Show me the data? I think large publics (Cal, UMich, GT) give much better opportunities than Yale Engineering.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The data is exactly what I said. Of course there are some large publics that are very good engineering schools. Nobody has denied that. On the other hand, there are some large publics that are not very good engineering schools. University of Illinois Chicago (note, not UIUC, but UIC). UCRiverside. SUNY-Stony Brook. SUNY-Buffalo. University of New Mexico. All of them huge schools. All of them with LOWER recruiter ratings for engineering than Yale does. </p>

<p>Hence, we have some big schools that are good. We have some big schools that are not so good. Upshot is that size is a weak predictor. </p>

<p>You asked for the data, that's my data. So now, I think it's fair for me to ask where your data is. May I ask: where is the data from which you base your assertions that Yale is not as good as some of those other schools I mentioned? </p>

<p>Personally, I think you've been infused with a certain level of anti-Ivy, or at least, an anti-Yale fever. You seem to just not be able to give credit to Yale for actually building a fairly well regarded engineering program. Is it equal to MIT? Or Stanford? Of course not. Nobody is saying that it is. But it's actually fairly good, particularly when compared to many of the other programs out there. Does Yale have problems? Of course! But so do many of the other programs. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Disagree. I think the vast majority of engineering students want to be engineers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>When given no other good options, of course! But that's the point. MIT engineering students can obviously work as engineers. So why do so many of them choose not to? I think it's fairly clear - they actually have the choice to do something else, so many do so. Not all, but many. You give other people the same spectrum of choices and watch what they do. </p>

<p>
[quote]
In other news, dog bites man. Yale Engineering isn't good because it doesn't have large exposure - which seems to me to be the primary determinant for getting "the best" engineering jobs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
All this boils down to my original point. Yale engineering, for a myriad of different reasons, does not have a good name. In fact, it's got a nearly nonexistent name. Quantity helps build a good name. Hell, at the very minimum, it helps build name recognition.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Like I said above, apparently some engineering recruiters think Yale is pretty good - at least enough to merit a recruiting rating higher than those other schools I mentioned. Why would that be, if Yale doesn't have enough exposure? Why would that be, if it doesn't have enough name recognition.</p>

<p>You continue to equate size with strength. But what you discount is not that 'size matters' but rather that only 'proper size matters'. For example, if you produce lots and lots of mediocre graduates, that doesn't help your reputation. In fact, it hurts your rep. Size is a double-edged sword. That's why size, by itself, is a weak predictor, because you have some big schools that are strong, and some big schools that are not-so-strong. </p>

<p>But anyway. You asked me for data. I've shown it - USNews. Now, I think it's fair for me to ask you for your data.</p>

49

<p>sakky's post (#39) does reflect how some companies recruit - they hit certain schools for their leadership programs while going elsewhere for entry-level technical positions. Yes, most companies want to keep their new hires happy and stay for as long as for possible to minimize the hiring cost.</p>

<p>Mr Payne's post (#41) twisted what I said for the weak argument that quantity matters. Let me rephrase, in my experience, <em>most</em> graduates of the top 20/25 engineering programs are usually high caliber. Once you step outside that, the overall quality is far less predictable. It doesn't mean those programs don't produce great new hires - they are just a smaller percentage of their graduating class. Recruiters still go after some of these programs depending on on their own prior experience and, in some case, because of their low yield in the top schools. </p>

<p>sakky, while the recruiter assessment of US News is the only public data out there. Having seen the actual survey form myself, IMO, it doesn't factor in the regional bias. The nationally-known engineering programs have clear advantage over regional ones.</p>

50

<p>Yale as a whole isn't bad for engineering in the graduate level (which is research-oriented), although at the undergraduate level, size does matter because there are not a lot of engineering recruiters around. There are lot of other choices for their grads too, of course.</p>

<p>One subtle aspect of top private schools is that they do not deflate engineering grades as much as their large state-school counterparts. Even at MIT and Cornell, professors do not mindlessly deflate grades because their graduates are expected to be as competitive in law and med school admissions as are humanities majors.</p>

51

<p>Mr. Payne, even using your methodology for recruiting (that companies tend to hire where they've been successful in the past), Yale engineers must still be getting job offers they want from on-campus recruiters. If they weren't, you honestly think recruiters would ignore resumes sent in (online, let's say) from Yale engineers because they've already been successful at their local state schools or the bigger engineering schools (say, Cornell and Cal)?</p>

<p>I can see where maybe less total recruiters would come to Yale - I don't have exact numbers but there were about 200 companies at Cornell's engineering career fair this semester so let's say 70 come to Yale. But I'd bet those are 70 of the "better" engineering and banking/consulting jobs out there. </p>

<p>Also sakky, do you have any idea how many (or what percentage) of the grads from top schools (MIT is the example we've been using) take banking jobs but leave them within, say, 5 years? It just seems like there's a huge drop in happiness (for lack of a better term) going from the top engineering jobs (Google, for instance) to the banking jobs. I don't know any investment bankers myself but I've read a few of those "day in the life" stories and it sounds like a brutally boring job compared to the top jobs in engineering (Google, for instance, where everyone gets 20% of their time to work on their own projects). I guess it could also go the other way around (MIT grad gets engineering job, goes to B-school after 3 years and comes out working on Wall Street) though.</p>

52

<p>
[quote]
Well, consider this. According to USNews, grad edition, the recruiter assessment of the engineering program at Yale was a 3.7, for Michigan State, a 3.3. (Texas Tech was not even on the list). Hence, the evidence indicates that recruiters think Yale is better for engineering than Michigan State, and I have to presume, also for Texas Tech. That is, of course, unless you are contending that USNews is lying to us.

[/quote]
Ummm. I agree that in grad programs quality matters is very much a bigger factor. For undergraduate engineering jobs, the skills required are often far less than graduate jobs (hell, you've basically admitted this already). I'd be surprised if Yale undergraduates have chances at getting top quality engineering jobs when compared with the large publics.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Of course! That's why I'm sure that Yale engineering grads do fairly well in SW Connecticut. Don't laugh - there's a surprising amount of manufacturing and technology going on in SW Connecticut.

[/quote]
I agree.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The data is exactly what I said. Of course there are some large publics that are very good engineering schools. Nobody has denied that. On the other hand, there are some large publics that are not very good engineering schools. University of Illinois Chicago (note, not UIUC, but UIC). UCRiverside. SUNY-Stony Brook. SUNY-Buffalo. University of New Mexico. All of them huge schools. All of them with LOWER recruiter ratings for engineering than Yale does.

[/quote]
Did I ever say that quality didn't matter? Nope. I did say that quantity matters a great deal than most people think.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Hence, we have some big schools that are good. We have some big schools that are not so good. Upshot is that size is a weak predictor.

[/quote]
A weak predictor...of what?</p>

<p>
[quote]
You asked for the data, that's my data. So now, I think it's fair for me to ask where your data is. May I ask: where is the data from which you base your assertions that Yale is not as good as some of those other schools I mentioned?

[/quote]
I said did not have as good an engineering name.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Personally, I think you've been infused with a certain level of anti-Ivy, or at least, an anti-Yale fever. You seem to just not be able to give credit to Yale for actually building a fairly well regarded engineering program. Is it equal to MIT? Or Stanford? Of course not. Nobody is saying that it is. But it's actually fairly good, particularly when compared to many of the other programs out there. Does Yale have problems? Of course! But so do many of the other programs.

[/quote]
Ummm. I said it's not a big program and therefore doesn't have as good a name as many other schools. I fail to see how this is anti-Yale, if I believe this to be a fact. Facts can't be anti-anything.</p>

53

<p>
[quote]
Mr Payne's post (#41) twisted what I said for the weak argument that quantity matters. Let me rephrase, in my experience, <em>most</em> graduates of the top 20/25 engineering programs are usually high caliber.

[/quote]
Agreed.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Once you step outside that, the overall quality is far less predictable.

[/quote]
Well, it probably correlates with GPA...making it decently predictable.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It doesn't mean those programs don't produce great new hires - they are just a smaller percentage of their graduating class.

[/quote]
Agreed.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Recruiters still go after some of these programs depending on on their own prior experience and, in some case, because of their low yield in the top schools.

[/quote]
Agreed.</p>

<p>Where do we disagree? You think the skillset for engineers coming out of a top quality program is much better than those coming out of a low quality program. I suppose that's reasonable, but I think the difference is less than what many think. Especially because many engineering jobs do not necessarily require high IQs (similar to what Sakky said).</p>

54

<p>
[quote]
Yale as a whole isn't bad for engineering in the graduate level (which is research-oriented), although at the undergraduate level, size does matter because there are not a lot of engineering recruiters around. There are lot of other choices for their grads too, of course.

[/quote]
Definitely agreed.</p>

<p>
[quote]
One subtle aspect of top private schools is that they do not deflate engineering grades as much as their large state-school counterparts. Even at MIT and Cornell, professors do not mindlessly deflate grades because their graduates are expected to be as competitive in law and med school admissions as are humanities majors.

[/quote]
Agreed.</p>

55

<p>
[quote]
Mr. Payne, even using your methodology for recruiting (that companies tend to hire where they've been successful in the past), Yale engineers must still be getting job offers they want from on-campus recruiters.

[/quote]
I've never said otherwise. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If they weren't, you honestly think recruiters would ignore resumes sent in (online, let's say) from Yale engineers because they've already been successful at their local state schools or the bigger engineering schools (say, Cornell and Cal)?

[/quote]
Well, I've been a big subscriber to having a connection for the hiring process. Knowing an Alumni being the biggest one.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I can see where maybe less total recruiters would come to Yale - I don't have exact numbers but there were about 200 companies at Cornell's engineering career fair this semester so let's say 70 come to Yale. But I'd bet those are 70 of the "better" engineering and banking/consulting jobs out there.

[/quote]
This is just pure speculation. I'd think that Yale probably gets more and better banking and consulting booths. However, I just highly doubt the presence of that many engineering firms.</p>

56

<p>
[quote]
You think the skillset for engineers coming out of a top quality program is much better than those coming out of a low quality program. I suppose that's reasonable, but I think the difference is less than what many think. Especially because many engineering jobs do not necessarily require high IQs (similar to what Sakky said).

[/quote]

Is this based on your professional experience or pure speculation? There is definitely a very noticable difference between the average graduates (i.e. the middle of the pack) of the top and the lower-tier programs. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I did say that quantity matters a great deal than most people think.

[/quote]

I suppose this is where we disagree (among other things). :) With all due respect, I still don't get what you reach this conclusion.</p>

57

<p>
[quote]
Is this based on your professional experience or pure speculation? There is definitely a very noticable difference between the average graduates (i.e. the middle of the pack) of the top and the lower-tier programs.

[/quote]
I actually agree with that. I've never said quality was a non-factor. Infact, I've agreed with IQ and ability differences. My main argument has been that quantity is overlooked. I'll illustrate.</p>

<p>Lets say Yale engineering outputs 50 students a year. They have an average engineering ability of 1000. They have a standard deviation of engineering ability at about 100 (a low value, because competition into Yale is highly competitive.</p>

<p>Lets say Cal Engineering puts out 1000 students a year. They have an average engineering ability of 800. Noticeably worse than Yale. However, their standard deviation in ability is 150, illustrating the greater variability in the student body due to more relaxed admissions. This is why quantity matters. Cal will have many people at all ability levels. The best employers will be going to Cal, also the worse employers will be going to Cal. </p>

<p>Having more students means more employers will show up. All things being equal, higher quantity is better.</p>

58

<p>I'd just like to throw my two cents in. I was accepted ED to Princeton, and I'm planning on studying chem E. I chose to apply to Princeton over schools that are "better" in engineering for several reasons, including a more academically diverse student body, more focus on undergraduates, and a less cutthroat environment.</p>

<p>Sure, I know MIT probably offers a better program than Princeton in engineering, but that doesn't really bother me - I want a more liberal arts-based education. For me, that means the chance to take classes in other departments without sacrificing quality, and I think I will get that at Princeton. I happen to be a math/science kid that also loves English, so there weren't too many options for me.</p>

59

<p>Mr. Payne, but that standard deviation also means that there's a greater chance an employer gets a "lower-tier" person from a school like Cal. So why would they go to Cal and not Yale (accepting this model) if they KNEW only some 2.5% of the students at Yale were below the Cal average? That model doesn't really make sense.</p>

<p>And JTC007: MIT kids can take classes at Harvard so I don't think there's much sacrifice there. I know what you mean though - I didn't apply to any "tech" schools because I didn't want that environment (not that I'd stand much of a chance getting in MIT but you know what I mean).</p>

60

<p>
[quote]
Mr. Payne, but that standard deviation also means that there's a greater chance an employer gets a "lower-tier" person from a school like Cal.

[/quote]
Because GPA is a decent predictor, and they won't hire anyone below 3.0 at Cal?</p>

<p>
[quote]
So why would they go to Cal and not Yale (accepting this model) if they KNEW only some 2.5% of the students at Yale were below the Cal average?

[/quote]
Volume, obviously. There more top tier(engineering ability greater than 1000) engineers at Cal, even accounting for the lower average. GPA is a decent predictor of engineering ability, they can screen for engineering ability relatively easily.</p>

<p>
[quote]
That model doesn't really make sense.

[/quote]
Disagree.</p>