i got A’s in AP calc and 5 on exam and 750 on sat2 math2. btw i got 3 and chem and 720 on sat2, and physics is kinda hard for me
i am better at math and i did get acheivement award in math subject
i guess im interested in both, but i do like solids a litttle more cuz we use it more in everyday life and its hard 
You will probably do fine with either choice. But … think about the reason for B in AP Chem. Perhaps it is because the class has few As. If it is because you don’t like labs and/or didn’t spend enough time on them (common issues) … learn from the experience and plan better in college.
“What do other people usually say for general rankings of hardness” - In these online forums, for the past few years we’ve referred to the ice cream analogy 
There are a lot of variables by student’s talents and preferences. (Also sometimes it depends on the school.)
also will it be a lot harder at a shcool like UCB compared to SLO or UCLA?
It’ll be hard everywhere, but the difference will be weedout classes where your classmates will be stellar at UCB/UCLA whereas they’ll merely be outstanding at SLO. Think of it as running against Olympians v. running against the national team.
oh really i thought it would be harder at UCLA and Cal
@boneh3ad I’m not talking about general consensus on CC, I’m talking about those who have been through engineering programs as I have. I know more than a few that started in EE/ChemE and ended up as MechE due to difficulty of the program.
I’m not talking about general consensus on CC either. I’m saying there’s no hard and fast rule about what flavor of engineering is hardest just like there’s no hard or fast rule about what flavor of ice cream is best. At the end of the day, it varies by individual. An individual’s interests, aptitudes, and expectations are the primary determiners of how hard an engineering field is for them.
If you use the example of more people transferring or dropping out of a program as the decider for which engineering flavor is hardest, then you are overlooking several variables. For example, maybe chemical engineering isn’t actually harder but instead has more students with misconceptions about what it is going into it. After all, it is called chemical engineering but it is actually much more about physics and transport processes than actual hard chemistry, and a lot of students are seriously thrown off by that. You could make a similar argument about electrical engineering and how many students come in loving consumer electronics and wanting to be involved with that, not realizing what is actually involved in their study and design.
At any rate, if you want to use something like the dropout/transfer rate as your indicator, it is actually often aerospace engineering that has the highest drop rate at universities that offer it. Of course, it isn’t really necessarily harder; there are just a whole lot of high school students who think planes are really cool and want to study them, then arrive at their university and find out that there is a whole lot more math involved than they expected. That doesn’t necessarily make it harder than electrical or chemical or civil or industrial engineering. It just means the attrition rate is high for any number of reasons.
And for the record, @CU123, you aren’t exactly the only one here who has “been through engineering programs”. I’d say roughly 50% of the posters in the engineering subforum seem to have at least one engineering degree. The group here also includes people with graduate degrees in engineering and even an engineering professor or two.
As others have all said, engineering is hard, no matter where you go, no matter what you study.
I have a little insight on Cal Poly, since my son goes to school there. Go there with your guard down and you’ll get your hat handed to you. The median admitted GPA for the CENG was 4.16 on a weighted scale that maxes at 4.2. The median SAT was 1467. ACT…33. Anyone who thinks you won’t be among students that are just as sharp as they are at any of the nation’s top institutions, including UCB and UCLA isn’t keeping track of the current state of affairs. Once you get there be prepared for a challange, especially if you are a ME. They are known for their tough grading. More than 10% of quarter grades are F, something virtually unheard of with rampant grade inflation in college these days.
I’m not sure where @MYOS1634 is getting their information, but every year there are engineering applicants accepted to UCB and/or UCLA and rejected at Cal Poly. All you need to do is search the Cal Poly forum if you don’t believe me. Across the whole College of Enginerring, UCLA and UCB are probably tougher admits, but for the toughest admits at Poly, ME, BME, and CS, Poly is as hard or harder to get in.
Cal Poly has gotten very selective, but still, UCLA and UCB are more so.
UCLA engineering admit rate was 13.7% in 2016, Cal Poly’s was 23%. It’s also not surprising that some students get accepted at UCLA/UCB but denied at Cal Poly, as admissions factors are weighted differently at these schools. UCLA/UCB put more weight on nonacademic factors than does Cal Poly. It creates a different mix of kids (from an admissions standpoint).
I think Bonehe3d is correct in that a lot of individual factors come into play when it comes to picking and staying in a major, or in how “hard” that major is for a person.
Something to consider with MSE programs, they tend to be smaller (based on enrollment) than other engineering programs and they tend to be offered at schools that have large engineering programs. Some students really like the smaller program, as it’s easier to get to know your peers and the handful of professors/faculty that teach most of the classes.
On the other hand, some students may like the larger programs (like Mechanical), and the large number of options available in such a program. It’s really up to what the individual likes or doesn’t like…
@Gator88NE, Cal Poly admits selectively to every single major across the whole university. That means Biology only competes against Biology…ME, against ME, etc. Acceptance rates for BME and CS are both well under 10%. ME hovers around 14%. What pulls the overall number down at Cal Poly are MatE (60%), IE (63%), and Manufacturing Engineering (99%). That’s why I said, across the whole College of Engineering at each school, UCLA and UCB are probably more selective. As you’ve pointed out they are.
Echoing other posters engineering majors depend on the person. It’s like how some people are good at football and others are good at basketball. Same sport similar fundamentals but totally different game. Like @boneh3ad said Chem e isn’t really a chemistry major and EE isn’t necessarily for people who like tinkering with radios or electronics. I’m a EE and I can barely set up my email on my computer yet I can code large 5k+ programs and do circuit analysis. So it all depends on how you think and how hard you are willing to work. Also Cal Poly SLO is tough to get into for engineering. UCLA and Cal are also hard.
is Cal Poly good for Materials?
it has a strong engineeirng program, but materials appears to be one of the weaker types?
it also has a higher acceptance rate for Materials, so does this make it bad?
You can’t really judge quality by selectivity at Cal Poly. They admit competitively by major. That means, if you want to be a MatE, you compete only against other MatE candidates. The popularity of a major, and nothing else influences how many will apply and thus how competitive it is.
MatE and BME are similar in size, both taking 50 or so new students a year, but BME takes less than 10% of its applicants. Why? BME is a hot major right now (for reasons I don’t agree with, but I digress). Not many students think about MatE as a major, hence less apply.
For all I can tell, CP has a solid program. They have lots of toys accessible to undergrads and seem to place their grads into good jobs. They are very involved in composites and additive manufacturing. They have one of the coolest toys around, a stainless 3D printer! Someone in the industry would be better qualified to comment though.
What I can tell you is that it would be an easier admit than the others you’re considering at Cal Poly and an easier admit than any engineering major at UCB or UCLA. IF you want to be a MatE, I think it’s a good opportunity to get into a well regarded engineering school. The bottom line is, it doesn’t matter how strong UCLA or UCB are…if you don’t get in.
You can’t judge quality by using selectivity at ANY school.
so would MatE be better off at Cal Poly than Berkely and UCLA
Berkely has a higher regarded MatE program, and so does UCSB but UCSB doens’t have undegrrad program which sucks because its my dream
anyways if u compare Cal Poly and other UC’s such as UCLA, UCD, UCI ,etc… i think class size is same
so would Cal Poly be better becuase it is more hands on- which is good for material enineering?
I heard CP focuses on undergrad more so is it better than UC’s?
GREAT point @boneh3ad!
I can only tell you what I know based on my son’s decision to choose CP from out of state. He was a high stats student with lots of opportunities.
Cal Poly has many attractive qualities. The class sizes are small. Most classes have about 25 students. The biggest lecture hall on campus, The Silo, holds 200 students. He’s had two classes in there. All classes, including labs and discussions are taught by professors, not TAs. They don’t offer PhDs, so all the equipment is there for the use of undergrads and they have quite a bit. There are more than 80 labs in the college of engineering alone. They have quite a few wind tunnels, 5 in the ME fluids lab alone, and a Mach+ tunnel, which from what I understand, is fairly uncommon in undergraduate programs. @boneh3ad would know better that I if that’s meaningful or not. AE has its own wind tunnels. Nearly every Cal Poly class has a lab. That’s where the Learn By Doing motto comes from. The clubs are 100% student driven and they have quite a few cool one. In addition to the usual suspects like Formula SAE, and Supermileage they are the founder of CubeSat. They have their own club, but also maintain the standard, build launchers (PPODs) and launch for other schools. Look up PROVE Lab. It’s also an innovative project 100% student run. Lastly, it’s a great value, even from OOS.
Now, what’s not to like…
They don’t do world class, Nobel potential research. You can get research experience, but it isn’t easy and is much more likely to be part of a completely student run project rather than as a cog in a big question answering professor’s program. Just because there aren’t TAs doesn’t mean all the teaching is great. It isn’t (anywhere). The campus food is bad. Off campus housing is hard to find and expensive.
What you need to do is to dig deep into each program and learn as much REAL information as you can and then see how they align to YOUR priorities, both academic and non-academic.
Good luck!
It really comes down to your preferences. What type of program do you like?
You can use the ASEE online profiles for a “high” level comparison on these and other engineering programs
.
http://profiles.asee.org/
It’s VERY difficult to vet programs online. Every school tells you they are the cat’s meow. Their web pages are all great. ASEE profiles help, but they are all self reported, so again, everyone will seem awesome.
It’s expensive, but the best way to really evaluate a school is to spend a full day there in person. With some you will know immediately that they aren’t a good fit, for a multitude of reasons. There are SO many good options, don’t overlook your gut feel no matter how good their ranking or reputation is. Then once you make it through the initial “I could see myself here” response, look at the lecture halls, engineering labs USED BY UNDERGRADS, and talk to students, lots of them. You will develop an understanding of where students seem happy, where they don’t, and why. You will be left with a small list. Apply to them all and decide where you’ll go based on your final acceptances and aid offers.
Disregard any advice that tells you to overlook your gut and intangibles that are important to you, and to simply choose your school based on reputation. Many schools with great reputations can be poor fits for you.
This is the bottom line…read carefully…make the most of your opportunities, work hard, and you’ll do fine no matter where you go. It’s FAR more about WHAT you do than where you go. A NASA Fellow or Fulbright recipient from Podunk U will be far more in demand than a C student who didn’t do anything notable from MIT, Caltech or Stanford.
Good luck.
Is it good if i attend Slo for undergrad and I might go grad school?
I heard UCs are better for grad school admission
But can I still go from Slo?
For grad Im interested in Berkley northwestern and my dream school UCSB