Right, but that still depends on someone wanting to do the kinds of work that “molecular engineers” are likely to do, which is pretty fundamentally different from what most of the people who call themselves “engineers” do. If a kid today says, “I want to be an engineer,” it’s misleading to imply that Chicago’s interesting, nearly unique program that essentially fails to prepare anyone for 99% of the engineering positions available to engineering grads is equivalent to the high-ranking traditional engineering programs for undergraduates at places like Cornell and Penn.
The right answer is, “There are really interesting things going on at Chicago around the cutting edge of chemical engineering at the nano level. However, if you want a traditional engineering program with a full range of options for concentration, and you reasonably expect to be accepted at Penn, Duke, Cornell, and Columbia, any of those places is a safer choice than Chicago. They have full-spectrum, widely respected engineering schools, and they are peers of Chicago in non-engineering academics if you decide engineering isn’t for you.”
The University of Chicago is a great, great university with a wonderful college program that I love. But that doesn’t mean it should be the first choice for every student.
Agree with what I understand the JHS position to be. If one wishes to finish undergraduate education in the best position to practice as an engineer, then Chicago is not a very good option. Even if the nascent molecular program was “engineering,” Chicago also has very broad general education requirements, something that also “detracts” from technical education. General education at some state schools only take up about a fourth of the curriculum, and those students typically have much greater flexibility in meeting those more limited requirements.
Separately, the alternates of Penn/Duke/Cornell/Columbia (ok, but not awesome engineering programs) seem odd for one whose goal is getting set up to practice as an engineer. For instance, while Harvard has an engineering program, I can’t imagine many choose Harvard for engineering, especially when the Great Dome is just down the river. MIT, Caltech, Berkeley, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Purdue, and Carnegie Mellon are places that I can think of off the top of my head that probably have better high-end engineering reputations, and there’s a slew of great, technically-focused, schools, too: Harvey Mudd, Rose-Hulman, Bucknell, Lehigh, etc.
Would also offer my sense, rightly or wrongly, someone who frames an inquiry in terms of “I want to be an engineer, but Chicago doesn’t have engineering” probably just shouldn’t go to Chicago–there’s a whole different flavor of Kool-Aid being peddled there. If one wants a focused trade-school experience, then Chicago is a (really) poor choice. By contrast, a student who wants a strong hard science education, which also comes with the opportunity to build a worldview that permits an engaged future technical practice in which one can consider technology’s role in society, its appropriate uses, and potential misuses, then Chicago might be one of the best five places in the universe to go to college.
“ok, but not awesome engineering programs”
FWIW we Cornell people tend to think our engineering program IS awesome, actually.
USNWR rank ranging from #8 to #10 each year 2011-2015 (got tired of looking beyond that)
WSJ Job Recruiter Ranking #7 (2010)
I’ll gladly concede about the other schools though.
@monydad: No disrespect meant to Cornell, or any of the other fine (indeed, awesome) universities mentioned. In CC world, many folks seem to have the view that their schools are “right” or “good,” and that all others are “wrong” or “bad.” Sometimes, in service of trying to make distinctions, one can write things that appear more like the prevalent “my way or the highway” screeds on these boards. Was only attempting to elaborate that there’s a much richer set of targets for someone who’s tightly focused on engineering.
@JHS: Of the schools I mentioned, I think that all would regard themselves as comprehensive universities, and they would also be generally regarded as such in the academic community. Rose-Hulman, perhaps, is the lone exception.
Actually both MIT and Rose-Hulman are part of the [url="<a href=“http://theaitu.org%22%5DAITU%5B/url”>http://theaitu.org"]AITU[/url] and consider themselves Technical Universities.