How significant is the difference between a top Engineering school and a lower one?

College Majors Engineering Majors
1

<p>I've recently been accepted to University of Illinois-Urbana's undergrad Engineering program. Besides UC-Berkeley, this is the highest rated Engineering undergrad program by US News I applied to. Question is... I would strongly prefer to say in California for college, because I plan on living here after college anywya. I was thinking, just how significantly different would my career and job prospects be affected by going to a top 20 college like UCLA or UCSD (should i get accepted) over a top-notch, top 5 Engineering school like U-Illinois. I know that the decision is ultimately mine to make, but I would like a gauge of how my future career would be affected by this.</p>

<p>Also, if I got accepted to U-Illinois' Engineering program, it follows logically that I would be able to get into UCLA or UCSD's Engineering program right? Maybe even Cal's? <em>crosses fingers</em></p>

<p>Thanks in advance for any input.</p>

2

<p>I doubt there would be much of a difference. And since you plan on staying in California there may even be an advantage in going to a school out there. Don't worry about the rankings, just focus on the school that is right for you.</p>

3

<p>If you just want to work as an engineer, then it probably makes little difference where you go. I once showed in one of my old posts that even the engineers coming out of New Mexico Tech, a school I had never even heard of until a month ago, make 55k on average as a starting salary. That's not substantially different from what an engineer coming out of Berkeley makes, and in many cases is actually HIGHER than what a Berkeley engineer makes (depending on engineering discipline) And that New Mexico Tech is probably making that 55k while working in New Mexico, which is a cheaper place to live than California. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.nmt.edu/about/facts/grad_salaries.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nmt.edu/about/facts/grad_salaries.htm&lt;/a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2004Majors.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2004Majors.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I think going to a top undergrad program is important if you want to go to engineering grad school to get your MS or PhD. But if you just want to work right after graduation, then the difference is minimal.</p>

4

<p>What about if you want to go to graduate business school after?
Will going to something like Penn State be worse than going to MIT?</p>

5

<p>sakky, keep in mind that while it may be cheaper to live in New Mexico, it's also probably quite a bit less desirable (not taking a shot at NM, just saying there's a much greater demand to live near the coast than in a southwestern sauna). I'd be interested to see what the average (if there are even many) NMT grad makes if they choose to look for jobs in CA (and the West Coast) or the East Coast.</p>

6

<p>For some leading international companies, the name/quality of the school is very important. Their attitude is that self-selection helps to differentiate who is best qualified. If you choose to go to a highly competitive top school, get accepted and graduate, in their minds, you are definitely among the top engineers in the country. The University of Illinois is "on" that list. Berkeley probably is too.</p>

7

<p>
[quote]
sakky, keep in mind that while it may be cheaper to live in New Mexico, it's also probably quite a bit less desirable (not taking a shot at NM, just saying there's a much greater demand to live near the coast than in a southwestern sauna). I'd be interested to see what the average (if there are even many) NMT grad makes if they choose to look for jobs in CA (and the West Coast) or the East Coast.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, while that is true that desirability is a factor, the fact remains that in general, salaries (of the average job, not just engineering) tend to be higher in Northern California than in most parts of the country. For example, according to wikipida, the per capita income in the entire state of California is 33.4k, whereas in New Mexico, the per capita income of the whole state is only about 25k. And California is a very big state with large areas that aren't very expensive, like the Inland Empire. Northern California is one of the most expensive places in the state. Surely you will find that the average wage paid in San Francisco is higher than that of, say, Fresno. But of course it is also true that it is also more expensive to live in San Francisco than in Fresno. </p>

<p>So that means that the average Californian is making more than the average New Mexican. But that doesn't seem to hold true with engineering starting salaries - these seem to be the same no matter where you go. It's actually a very odd phenomenom. Engineering starting salaries always seem to be about 50-60k no matter whether you're talking about a high-cost-of-living area or a low cost-of-living area. </p>

<p>Perhaps the following link will illustrate my point even better. Here are the salaries of the graduates of San Jose State. So now we have 2 Bay Area schools - Berkeley and SJSU. Notice how, with only a few exceptions, the salaries of San Jose State engineers is not hugely lower to that of the Berkeley engineers. Granted, the SJSU data is from 2005, whereas the Berkeley data is from 2004, but still. While it is true that the Berkeley engineers do make more, it's not really THAT much more, especially when you figure how much better Berkeley is of an enginering school compared to SJSU. </p>

<p>So in answer to the OP's question - you want to see the difference between a top engineering school and a no-name engineering school? Compare Berkeley to San Jose State and you can see that from a salary perspective, the difference does not seem to be very large. </p>

<p><a href="http://careercenter.sjsu.edu/download/SJSU%20NACESalary%20Survey%2004%2005.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://careercenter.sjsu.edu/download/SJSU%20NACESalary%20Survey%2004%2005.pdf&lt;/a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2004Majors.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/CarDest/2004Majors.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The part that actually struck me the most is how much more money the average SJSU engineer or business major could make over some of the graduates of the Berkeley liberal arts majors. Seriously - a Berkeley MCB (molecular and cellular biology), chemistry, math or physics students makes less than many of the San Jose State business students. And then of course you got all the Berkeley people who majored in English, PoliSci, Sociology, Anthropology, History, etc. These people really get beaten out by the SJSU Business students.</p>

8

<p>How's the placement rate compare between the two schools though? I imagine that its pretty close to 100% for the top ones, but what about the lower ones? I'm not too familiar with them.</p>

<p>From an employer's point of view, there are so many other factors to consider when hiring somebody that the difference in prestige btwn top 5 and top 20 schools probably won't matter that much.</p>

9

<p>
[quote]
How's the placement rate compare between the two schools though? I imagine that its pretty close to 100% for the top ones, but what about the lower ones? I'm not too familiar with them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Close to 100% at the top ones? I don't think so. You can see for yourself by clicking on some of the various Berkeley majors. You will see that every engineering major at Berkeley has a substantial number of students who are still seeking jobs. Granted, some of them may have offers but just don't want to take them. </p>

<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Major.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Major.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
From an employer's point of view, there are so many other factors to consider when hiring somebody that the difference in prestige btwn top 5 and top 20 schools probably won't matter that much.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, but this is not pitting a top 5 vs. a top 20 school. This is pitting a top 5 vs. a no-name school. Yet as you can see, the salary differences are not large.</p>

10

<p>Heh. Well, actually, I was hoping for input about a top 5 school (UIllinois) versus a top 20 school (UCLA, UCSD). </p>

<p>But that's okay, discuss top versus no-name. That's an interesting discussion as well.</p>

11

<p>sakky, the comparison of Berkeley vs San Jose State is interesting and gets me wondering why I just shelled out the big bucks for my son to graduate from an expensive school for CS...not engineering but the same idea.</p>

<p>A couple thoughts. SJSU starting salaries might be high because of location; many of the grads will get jobs in the area, which is the Silicon Valley/Bay Area where everything is high.</p>

<p>Also those assumptions about the value of engineering programs are based solely on starting salary. I'm guessing (hoping!) that 10 or 20 years down the line the Berkeley grads will be using those skills that got them into and through Berkeley, and will be more advanced (managerially, financially etc) in their careers than the SJSU grads. </p>

<p>In addition I believe the Berkeley grads, though their starting salaries would be similar to the SJ grads, would have "better" jobs with more prestigious firms where opportunities for advancement would be greater...again check 10 or more years into their career when I think the difference will be more evident. And the B grad may be more likely to further his education eventually.</p>

12

<p>Hopefulbruin, my earlier post is based upon firsthand knowledge of HR attitudes for an international engineering firm. Competition for spots at the company is so fierce - 100's of applicants per job - HR makes an arbitrary initial cut using a list of "top" schools. I'm told that although UCLA and UCSD are fantastic engineering schools, they are not on that list. Unfortunately that is the reality. It doesn't matter whether the school is top 20 or top 50, if it is not on their list of the very best schools, you get no consideration whatsoever.</p>

<p>If your only purpose is to seek only the very best available jobs at the very best companies, you should go to the Top 5 school. If that is not your purpose, UCLA and UCSD would be excellent choices.</p>

<p>But every company has a bias. I am familiar with three different engineering companies in Chicago that are each dominated by graduates of the same university as the founder: Purdue, Illinois and Notre Dame. You'll probably find the same in Los Angeles with UCLA and USC.</p>

13

<p>Okay, thanks for the info.
It makes the decision I have to make soon tougher though. Argh.</p>

14

<p>go to UCLA man. live a good life.</p>

15

<p>Goto Illinois. Most of the big name companies in California( Apple, Google, etc) make frequent trips to Illinois and are always on the lookout for students to fill up their openings as interns or full time employees. Its pretty obvious they would prefer Illinois grads over say SJSU or even UCSD/ UCLA grads or they would not be making these long distance trips considering how many decent schools there are in Cali. I also totally agree with what Daad said coz i worked at the Engineering expo here at UI and I was told that several companies had only sent recruits to the top 4-5 schools in the country.
So if you wanna "live a good life" and not spend countless hours on Monster come to Illinois.</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
A couple thoughts. SJSU starting salaries might be high because of location; many of the grads will get jobs in the area, which is the Silicon Valley/Bay Area where everything is high.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You would think so, wouldn't you? But then we see the New Mexico Tech engineers making 55k. We see that the Montana Tech engineers are making nearly 50k. In many cases, this actually EXCEEDS the salaries of many Berkeley engineers. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.nmt.edu/about/facts/grad_salaries.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nmt.edu/about/facts/grad_salaries.htm&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.mtech.edu/career/Grad%20Statistics.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.mtech.edu/career/Grad%20Statistics.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Think about that. Berkeley is a highly ranked engineering school and is located in an expensive place. Yet here are these engineers from no-name schools and in cheap locations that are actually making highly comparable salaries to the Berkeley engineers. Heck, in some cases, they are actually making higher salaries. </p>

<p>Nor do I mean to single out Berkeley. You can check out the salaries from engineers from MIT, Stanford, Cornell, Princeton, and other elite engineering schools and you will see the same thing - the salaries are not substantially higher than what you could get from a no-name school. </p>

<p>Now, I do agree with the premise that the Berkeley engineer is more trained for the long run. Yes, that Berkeley engineer will probably rise faster and get into management quicker or be more likely to go to graduate school.</p>

<p>I also agree with the premise that going to a top-ranked school vastly increases your chances of getting into a large and famous employer. To echo what daaaad said, it is true that companies like Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Intel, General Electric, IBM, ExxonMobil, and the like are extremely selective and tend to hire from only the top programs. </p>

<p>But then that just means that those top companies simply aren't paying all that well. After all, while these Montana Tech and New Mexico Tech engineers may not be working for the most glamorous employers in the world, somebody out there is hiring them and paying them well. Probably a lot of no-name unprestigious companies, but who cares? At least they're getting paid. </p>

<p>And that just leads to the killer questions which have no answers, questions that I have been thinking about for quite a while. They are: why don't these high-prestige companies pay higher starting salaries? And, why do engineers at these top companies continue to work for these prestigious companies even though they honestly don't pay all that well? </p>

<p>Now, you might say that maybe they're going in for the stock options. This might be true of Google, maybe. But not so much for Microsoft or Intel and certainly not for GE or ExxonMobil. Let's face it. Thos companies are so big already that they will probably never experience hypergrowth ever again, and if you don't experience hypergrowth, your stock is never really going to rise very dramatically. If you had gotten into Microsoft when it was still a startup, you'd be a very rich man right now. But getting in now, you're probably not going to get rich. </p>

<p>Furthermore, I would point to the perennial fascination that a lot of the top engineers have with management consulting and investment banking (and its cousins like asset management, sales/trading, etc.). A lot of engineers from MIT and Stanford end up taking jobs in those fields. When I asked some MIT engineers who accepted Wall Street banking offers why they did that, their answers were simple - it pays a lot better than engineering does. They had gotten offers from the top engineering companies like Microsoft and Oracle. They could have taken them. But the banks were willing to pay them better. Which again leads me to ask why don't these top engineering companies simply increase their pay? The more you pay, the less that these MIT engineers will turn you down for banking or consulting. </p>

<p>As a corollary, these issues have gotten me thinking about the entire nature of engineering education in the US. Surely we've all heard business leaders like Bill Gates and Craig Barrett (former CEO of Intel) riff about how the US needs to produce more engineers and to get more American kids to study engineering in order to meet the challenge from China and India, and how we're in a global war for brains, blah blah blah. Well, it seems to me that the most straightforward way to get more Americans to study engineering is to simply increase engineering pay. That's simple economics - the more you pay, the more you get. But they don't want to do that. These top companies aren't willing to increase their salaries and then they wonder why many top engineering students turn down their offers to become investment bankers or management consultants instead. So basically, what that means is that companies like Microsoft and Intel say they want more engineers, but they're not willing to pay to get them. </p>

<p>The truth is, if American engineers got paid 100k to start, we'd have guys coming out of the woodwork to study engineering. That would solve all of the country's engineering problems in a flash.</p>

17

<p>
[quote]
So if you wanna "live a good life" and not spend countless hours on Monster come to Illinois.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think that's just a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? After all, looks like the SJSU engineers aren't exactly hurting for jobs. Sure, maybe you won't get a job with a prestigious employer. So you might end up working for a no-name company. But so what? You're still going to be paid pretty well. Look at the SJSU engineering salaries. Sure, Google may not be hiring from SJSU, but hey, those SJSU engineers are getting paid by SOMEBODY. </p>

<p>Or, again, let's look at the New Mexico Tech and Montana Tech engineers. Again, probably not getting hired by Microsoft, but they're still getting paid pretty well by somebody. Seems to me that if you're making 55k to live in New Mexico, that's a pretty darn good life. Certainly beats making 55k to try to live in Silicon Valley where you can't afford to live in a place much better than a tin shack.</p>

18

<p>I think sakky is quite right on this. Eng is a flat income field more so than most. Also there are 1000's of unemployed eng. that Msft and others won't even talk to due to age. Very strange.</p>

19

<p>Sakky, I agree with much of what you raise and am as perplexed as you by many of these questions. But as you have pointed out to me yourself, not too many professions give starting employees great salaries. How many people do you know outside of IBankers and consultants that would turn down a salary of 50,000+ coming out of school. </p>

<p>And lets be honest. The average joe is not going to get into consultanting and Ibanking. Only the best superstars get those great jobs. </p>

<p>I guess a fair way of thinking of the situation would be like this. What do you think is harder- getting a job at an "elite" engineering company like Microsoft or getting hired by McKinsey.</p>

<p>I think we can both agree that McKinsey is probably more difficult. </p>

<p>So if it is harder to get a job at McKinsey, then it should not be shocking that these McKinsey employees are getting paid better. </p>

<p>I believe you have stated that 25% of MIT engineers go into the business area and that 50% want to go into this field. If this is true, then this means that 50% of MIT engineers who want to get into consulting and Ibanking cannot. </p>

<p>On the other hand, however, I feel confident in saying that 0% of MIT engineers who want to go into engineering cannot.</p>

20

<p>Yep, starting salaries do tend to be the same across the board. But Sakky, as you said, going to a top tier program does have its advantages; it just takes a while to experience them. What then, is the point of this debate? A Berkely engineer will be more successful in the long run than a SJSU grad, correct?</p>

<p>I would definitely prefer to work for a big company than a no-name company even if salaries were the same. Why? Because larger companies tend to get more prestigious projects (For the civil engineering profession at least). maybe it's more of the same for other fields). If you're working at a small 50 person office, chances are your company won't be contracted to work on a skyscraper. You'd probably end up working on smaller projects. It's simply a matter of pride.</p>