Is harvard engineering (Biomedical especially) famous?

College Majors Engineering Majors
21

<p>Sakky, I really don't know... You seem very convinced that people would decidedly choose Harvard over Michigan any day of the week, but I know that I'd have chosen Michigan over Harvard as an engineering major.</p>

<p>I could've gone anywhere with my high school stats... MIT, Princeton, Harvard, CalTech... But I chose Rice because it had a very strong engineering program. I would not have chosen an Ivy simply for the sake of choosing an Ivy. One of my recently-graduated friends with a Harvard degree in languages is floundering to find a job, after settling for a temp position for a year. I really don't think that the "prestige" is worth it, nor is it all it's cracked up to be.</p>

<p>I'd be fine agreeing to disagree, but I just wanted to reiterate that by no means does everyone feel the same way as you.</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
But turning down undergrad Harvard for Michigan(again, except to save money)? I think we can all agree that that's a rare bird.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Very likely that it seems, I would not exactly agree to that. The reason is because many proud technical oriented students dislike the idea that they get into the unpopular Harvard engineering for the sake of Harvard. Many of them would choose to take graduate engineering study in a top engrg school later on rather than 'being laughed' as Harvard engineering students, except of course if they have in mind the probability to transfer to other related scientific courses like applied math or physics.</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
I could've gone anywhere with my high school stats... MIT, Princeton, Harvard, CalTech... But I chose Rice because it had a very strong engineering program

[/quote]
</p>

<p>pardon me for being nosy. I'm just curious, you abandoned MIT and Caltech for Rice because it has a very good engineering program? I believe you have another reason, yes??</p>

24

<p>
[quote]
Another interesting aspect of Harvard is that it is one of the few colleges that confer an AB degreee in Engineering.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>To elaborate on this topic, Harvard actually gives you the choice between getting an AB or an SB in Engineering Sciences. The SB degree requires more technical coursework, and the SB is ABET accredited, for those who care about accreditation.</p>

<p>"What's the difference between the A.B. and S.B. degrees?</p>

<p>The A.B. degree is based on the minimum of fourteen through sixteen half-courses required for its completion. This degree can provide adequate preparation for the practice of engineering and for graduate study in engineering, and it is an excellent preparation for careers in other professions (business, law, medicine, etc.). Because it requires fewer concentration courses than the S.B. degree, the A.B. program is appropriate for students who wish to take advantage of the great breadth of Harvard College course offerings.</p>

<p>The S.B. degree program requires a minimum of 20 half-courses, and the level of technical concentration is comparable to engineering programs at other major universities and technical institutions. The S.B. program is recognized by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. (ABET), the national accreditation agency for engineering programs in the United States. Accredited as preparation for the immediate practice of engineering, this program is also good preparation for graduate study in engineering, the sciences, and other professions."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.deas.harvard.edu/undergradstudy/engineeringsciences/index.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.deas.harvard.edu/undergradstudy/engineeringsciences/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>As a point of contrast, consider computer science at Berkeley. If you go to Berkeley to study CS, you can either get a fully ABET accredited EECS BS degree, or you can get an unaccredited BA CS degree.</p>

<p>Personally, I think that ABET-accreditation is greatly overrated. Except for a few isolated cases, most notably attaining PE designation for civil engineers, nobody is going to care about whether you have an ABET-accredited engineering degree or not. The guys who get BA degrees in CS from Berkeley do quite well for themselves, getting hired as software and computer engineers by leading tech companies in Silicon Valley and elsewhere. I've never heard of any tech company insisting on hiring only ABET-accredited engineers to write their software or design their computer systems, even if those systems are mission-critical. For example, I know guys with Berkeley BA CS degrees working for Boeing, building computer control software for airplanes. Boeing obviously didn't say "Well, since you'd be designing control software for an airplane that will house hundreds of passengers,you must have an ABET-accredited degree or we're not going to hire you." </p>

<p>And like I pointed out on another thread, certain low-end programs are accredited whereas certain high-end programs are not. For example, the BS CS program at Sacramento State is accredited, whereas the BA CS program at Berkeley is not. However, honestly, how many people are really going to turn down admssion to Berkeley to go to Sacramento State just to get the accreditation? All things being equal, how many employers are really going to hire the accredited SacState guy over the unaccredited Berkeley guy?</p>

25

<p>I chose Rice, after applying Early Decision, because I believe the university offers the best undergraduate engineering experience out there. Having investigated other programs pretty darned extensively, I still feel the same way. It's very much like Harvey Mudd and Olin in the regard that it offers incredible academics, and is very much geared towards education of the undergraduate student. I liked that.</p>

26

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, I really don't know... You seem very convinced that people would decidedly choose Harvard over Michigan any day of the week, but I know that I'd have chosen Michigan over Harvard as an engineering major.</p>

<p>I could've gone anywhere with my high school stats... MIT, Princeton, Harvard, CalTech... But I chose Rice because it had a very strong engineering program. I would not have chosen an Ivy simply for the sake of choosing an Ivy. One of my recently-graduated friends with a Harvard degree in languages is floundering to find a job, after settling for a temp position for a year. I really don't think that the "prestige" is worth it, nor is it all it's cracked up to be.</p>

<p>I'd be fine agreeing to disagree, but I just wanted to reiterate that by no means does everyone feel the same way as you.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Note, I never said EVERYBODY. I've always agreed that there would be some rare birds. However, I think it is not controversial in the least to say that the majority would opt for Harvard over Michigan (again, unless money was a problem). </p>

<p>This seems to be following a thread that I had with Im_blue once where he was sure that he would take Illinois over Harvard, and to that I had to profoundly disagree. Simply put - most high school seniors don't really know what they want to major in, and as a result, most people end up shopping around for majors. Plenty of people come in thinking they want to major in engineering, but end up majoring in something else. I recall reading that the attrition rate of engineering undergrads is somewhere north of 50% - meaning that over half of all incoming freshmen who intend to major in engineering will not graduate with a degree in engineering. Some will change majors, either because they genuinely find something else more interesting, or because they get eliminated by the engineering weeders and are hence forced to find shelter in a "safety major". Others will get such bad grades in engineering that they simply flunk out of the school entirely. And even those who do end up majoring in engineering often times really want to be engineers. I know plenty of people who tried engineering, found out along the way that they hated it, but decided to finish the degree anyway because they figured that since they already invested so much of their sweat and pain into the degree, they ought to complete it. And then of course there are all those people who simply see engineering as a strong "backup career" (for which it emphatically is), but are really looking for something else. I would point to all the MIT engineers who run off to non-engineering careers like banking and management consulting. These guys got engineering degrees from the best engineering school in the world, and yet even many of them prefer to work for McKinsey or Goldman Sachs than work as engineers.</p>

<p>The point is that many, probably most engineering students are studying engineering not because they are really gung-ho crazy for engineering, but simply because they want a marketable degree. Nothing more, nothing less. For many people, getting an engineering degree is simply the most most pragmatic thing they could do given their available options, but they're not exactly wedded to that choice, and certainly not if they had been given other options. </p>

<p>Consider this thought exercise. Let's imagine that we went to the Michigan School of Engineering and offered all the undergrads there guaranteed transfer admission to Harvard. I think even a Michigan-fanatic like Alexandre would agree that a lot, maybe even the majority, of those Michigan engineering students would jump at it. On the other hand, if we were to offer transfer admission for Harvard undergrads to go to the Michigan engineering school, I think very few of them would take it. In other words, there are far more Michigan undergrad engineering students who would rather be going to Harvard than there are Harvard undergrads who would rather be going to Michigan engineering. Come on, seriously, you know it's true. I think even Alexandre would concede that it's true. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Very likely that it seems, I would not exactly agree to that. The reason is because many proud technical oriented students dislike the idea that they get into the unpopular Harvard engineering for the sake of Harvard. Many of them would choose to take graduate engineering study in a top engrg school later on rather than 'being laughed' as Harvard engineering students, except of course if they have in mind the probability to transfer to other related scientific courses like applied math or physics.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, again, I don't see what is to be 'laughed at'. Again, I would point out that Harvard engineering, undergrad or grad, is in fact a quite highly rated engineering program - worlds better than the vast majority of other programs out there. If you say that Harvard engineering students are being laughed at, then what do you have to say about the engineering students at Fresno State? They must REALLY be getting laughed at, right? Let's face it. The vast majority of engineering programs are no-name programs. Harvard engineering is not equivalent to MIT's, but it is still far far better than the vast majority of all the other programs out there.</p>

<p>I'll make the choice simple and stark. Let's you want to get your MS in electrical engineering. Let's say that money was not an issue. Would you rather get that MSEE at Harvard, or at Fresno State? Or let's say you wanted to get your PhD in EE. Would you rather do it at Harvard, or at UCRiverside? You tell me.</p>

27

<p>Sakky, what's your background in engineering, out of curiosity? I know that the majority of my engineering colleagues really love engineering, and that's why they're doing it. It isn't "just a job" for the people I know. I'm just wondering why you think that dedication to the field isn't an important factor for those of us pursuing careers in engineering.</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
I know that the majority of my engineering colleagues really love engineering, and that's why they're doing it. It isn't "just a job" for the people I know. I'm just wondering why you think that dedication to the field isn't an important factor for those of us pursuing careers in engineering.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Spoken as a bonafide engineering graduate student. I know that engineering graduate students are highly likely to feel the burning love for engineering (that is, after all, why they're engineering graduate students). </p>

<p>Look, I don't talk about my biography publicly. If you really want to know about me, my PM and email are open. But trust me, I know of what I speak.</p>

<p>Also, I don't want to repeat some of the arguments I have made before about precisely this discussion. I can provide you with links to some of my old posts if you wish where I talk about this subject in great detail. However, what I will say is that engineering, just like any other profession, is subject to market forces. An engineering undergraduate degree offers a relatively high-paying and stable career (at least, relative to other undergrad degrees) and therefore attracts a number of people who are interested in the degree solely for those reasons. Market forces would dictate that people are susceptible to incentives, and if engineering provides that financial incentive, then people will, on the margins, be attracted to that incentive. However, it is also precisely those same people who will then be attracted to competing market signals, like the siren song of management consulting and banking. Again, I would point to the persistent penchant for consulting and banking amongst many of the engineers at MIT and Stanford. I believe that for the last few years, the largest single employer of MIT engineering students was not a tech/engineering company, but was McKinsey. So here are engineering students at the best engineering school in the world, and even many of them would rather not work in engineering, which means that they clearly don't love engineering THAT much.</p>

29

<p>I put out my qualifications -- I'm a grad student at UIUC. I don't think it's asking much for you to do the same. After all, you're projecting yourself as an authority upon which young minds should base their decisions. That's a lot of responsibility, and that sort of responsibility begs publication of credentials.</p>

<p>I don't understand why a person wouldn't do what they love. I'm of the mind that if you choose a profession that you're good at and that you love, then money will follow, regardless of where the market lies. We've only got one shot at life on this earth, and spending our lives doing investment banking because that's where the money is... I think that's ridiculous. If you're interested enough in engineering to pursue it, why wouldn't you go to a school that offers the best resources, the best professors, the best opportunities in engineering? At the very least, if you're not sure, why wouldn't you choose to attend a university that offers good programs in engineering, as well as other fields that you're considering? It smacks of intellectual elitism and of buying into the hype of the Ivy reputation. There are plenty of things Harvard does well, and engineering is not among them.</p>

<p>Choosing Harvard just isn't a good option for anybody who's planning on majoring in engineering. I couldn't in good conscience as an engineer recommend that anybody who has the stats to get into Harvard go there for engineering, if that's what they are planning on majoring in.</p>

30

<p>Yes, I meant it was a good thing that Harvard (along with a few other schools) offers an AB in Engineering IN ADDITION to the ABET certified SB in Engineering. The flexibility in the AB degree makes it possible for students to pursue a broader range of intellectual or professional objectives. I wish more schools would offer both the AB and SB in Engineering.</p>

<p>aibarr, I generally agree with you, but I will tell you that I have worked with a bunch of people with Engineering degrees from places like MIT, Stanford, Princeton, CMU, and Minnesota (Chemical), and NONE of them currently work as engineers, though all of them do appreciate the analytical skills and problem-solving attitudes they learned thru their engineering studies.</p>

31

<p>jesus by the way you guyys r saying people are going to consulting jobs instead of engineering from MIT im starting to think engineering is boring lol</p>

<p>cuz id have to think that they could get a great job in engineering out of school</p>

32

<p>
[quote]
I put out my qualifications -- I'm a grad student at UIUC. I don't think it's asking much for you to do the same. After all, you're projecting yourself as an authority upon which young minds should base their decisions. That's a lot of responsibility, and that sort of responsibility begs publication of credentials.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Like I said, if you want to know, you have the means to find out. But that's very different from saying that everybody needs to publish their credentials. Trust me, I am on unbelievably solid ground on what I speak of, but if you really need to find out for your own peace of mind, I provide you the means to do so.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't understand why a person wouldn't do what they love

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because they need the money? Because they need to support their families? I can think of a multitude of reasons why people are doing things they don't really like. </p>

<p>Look, in a perfect utopic world, everybody would get to do what they want to do. We don't live in that world. Sometimes you gotta do things you don't like to do in order to get to do the things you do like to do. That's life. Hey, I don't like washing the bathroom, and I don't like taking out the trash. But it's gotta get done. If everybody in the world only did the things they liked to do, there would be no janitors, no ditch-diggers, and no garbagemen. Who likes doing those kinds of jobs? People do those jobs not because they like it but because it puts food on the table. I would say that 95+% of the people in the world have jobs that they don't really like, but do it because it pays the bills. </p>

<p>
[quote]
We've only got one shot at life on this earth, and spending our lives doing investment banking because that's where the money is... I think that's ridiculous.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why not? Like I said, sometimes you gotta do things you don't like in order to get to do the things you do like. I know lots of guys who are in the military, and they enjoy the military experience...but not a single one said that they enjoyed boot camp. Who does? Nobody likes bootcamp. I know one guy whose cousin joined the Navy Seals, and he really likes that, but the months-long process to becoming a Seal was absolute hell. Sometimes I really hate getting up early in the morning to go to the gym to work out. But, hey, life is not always about doing things you enjoy. Sometimes you gotta do things you don't enjoy, because it will help you get things that you do enjoy. That's life. </p>

<p>Hence, I don't particularly see studying engineering, even if you don't enjoy it, as any different. Heck, if I only did what I enjoyed, I wouldn't have gone to college, I wouldn't even go to work. I'd just spend the rest of my life parked on a couch watching sports all day, every day. There are many days in which I don't really want to get up and go to work. But you gotta do it. If you want to make money, you gotta get up and go to work. How is that any different from choosing to get an engineering degree not because you really like it, but because you want the money? What's so strange about that? Like I said, if everybody did only what they enjoyed, then the vast majority of people wouldn't bother showing up to their jobs. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If you're interested enough in engineering to pursue it, why wouldn't you go to a school that offers the best resources, the best professors, the best opportunities in engineering? At the very least, if you're not sure, why wouldn't you choose to attend a university that offers good programs in engineering, as well as other fields that you're considering? It smacks of intellectual elitism and of buying into the hype of the Ivy reputation. There are plenty of things Harvard does well, and engineering is not among them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because, like I said, these decisions are often times made after-the-fact. As I have pointed out, a lot of people who are interested in engineering never get degrees in engineering, often times because they find out it's too hard for them. So consider the scenario. A guy gets admitted to Harvard and to Michigan. He says he may be interested in engineering. So should he choose Michigan? What if he turns down Harvard for Michigan and then ends up being one of those people who decides to switch out of engineering and into something else? That decision to turn down Harvard would look pretty darn foolish then. Hence, in this scenario, I would actually say that Harvard is by far the safer choice. If he chooses Michigan, he has to know that unless he really does complete that engineering degree, which is by no means certain, he probably would have been better off going to Harvard.</p>

<p>Furthermore, you're talking as if perfect choices are available to everybody. Take MIT or Caltech as an example. I'm sure you're probably thinking that a person who wants to do engineering should choose MIT or Caltech over Harvard. Yeah, but the same thing applies to that situation, only in reverse, which is namely, what if a guy turns down Harvard for MIT, but then discovers that he really wants to major in humanities? Or a social science (other than economics)? Once again, I would posit that Harvard is probably the safer choice. Keep in mind that a guy who goes to Harvard can still choose to get a top-of-the-line natural science or mathematics education, which is not tremendously different from engineering. For various personal reasons, I love MIT and Caltech, but I would be the first to acknowledge that they are not exactly the most balanced schools in the world, and in particular, don't serve their humanities students very well. I would argue that you can get a FAR better engineering education at Harvard than a humanities education at MIT or Caltech. </p>

<p>The one school that I could perhaps grant to you may be a better choice is Stanford. Yet even here I would argue that the choice is not as clearcut as you make it out to be. Let's face it. Admission to Harvard and Stanford (as well as MIT, Caltech, and the other elite schools) is very much a crapshoot. Some people get into Harvard, but not Stanford. I've known a few such people. It's not like you can just wake up one fine day and decide that you want to get admitted to Stanford. And again, I would say that unless you are fairly sure about engineering, or unless you feel that Palo Alto gives a better fit, then I would still give the edge to Harvard over Stanford. Don't get me wrong, I belive that Stanford is probably the 2nd best school in the country, but it's still behind Harvard. </p>

<p>And why do you keep accusing me of Ivy hype? Am I sitting here touting Yale? Or Dartmouth? Or Columbia? If I was really pushing Ivy hype, then I should be pushing ALL the Ivies, not just Harvard, right? I have no problem in saying that I think that Stanford is probably better than most of the Ivies, and that MIT is clearly a better technical school than almost all of the Ivies, maybe all of the Ivies, and yet Stanford and MIT are not part of the Ivy League. Hence, I think your accusations of Ivy-bias are way off-base.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Choosing Harvard just isn't a good option for anybody who's planning on majoring in engineering. I couldn't in good conscience as an engineer recommend that anybody who has the stats to get into Harvard go there for engineering, if that's what they are planning on majoring in.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And that's why we see things differently. You're an idealist, I'm a realist. In particular, I fully recognize that lots of people who think they may want to get engineering degrees never actually do so, and even of those who do, plenty of them have no intent of actually working as engineers. Obviously I fully agree with you that if a person is ABSOLUTELY 100% SURE that they want to work as engineers, then sure, take Michigan, or even Illinois, over Harvard. But my point is, almost nobody is really that sure. Even the most ostensibly hardcore engineering freshman will have to admit, if they are being truthful, that they might consider majoring in math or physics. </p>

<p>
[quote]
aibarr, I generally agree with you, but I will tell you that I have worked with a bunch of people with Engineering degrees from places like MIT, Stanford, Princeton, CMU, and Minnesota (Chemical), and NONE of them currently work as engineers, though all of them do appreciate the analytical skills and problem-solving attitudes they learned thru their engineering studies.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
jesus by the way you guyys r saying people are going to consulting jobs instead of engineering from MIT im starting to think engineering is boring lol</p>

<p>cuz id have to think that they could get a great job in engineering out of school

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What can I say? You CAN get a great job in engineering with an engineering degree from a place like MIT or Stanford. However, my point is, you can often times get an EVEN BETTER job in consulting or banking with that engineering degree from those kinds of schools. The MIT Infinite Corridor is filled with ads for people who are interested in pursuing careers in consulting and banking. That might not be so conspicuous if they were all located on the East side of campus where the Sloan School is (and there are PLENTY such ads over there too), but this is the Corridor we're talking about, which is traversed by the greater MIT community (of which the majority are engineers). </p>

<p>And like I said, the largest employer of MIT engineering graduates in the last few years has been not a tech company, but has been McKinsey. Why is that? Why are all these engineers taking jobs in consulting? Are they being stupid?</p>

33

<p>"Harvard is ranked 20th in graduate engineering, which is pretty good."</p>

<p>...and 31st in undergraduate engineering, which is less so.</p>

34

<p>Just take a gander at some of the "consultant profiles" that McKinsey is touting, and look at their backgrounds. Note, these aren't just randomly selected McKinsey people, these are some of the people that McKinsey has specifically identified as 'examples' of strong employees that the firm touts. </p>

<p><a href="http://apd.mckinsey.com/jump/consultant.asp?pid=1%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://apd.mckinsey.com/jump/consultant.asp?pid=1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.mckinsey.com/aboutus/careers/people/profile/profile.asp?PER_ID=494968%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.mckinsey.com/aboutus/careers/people/profile/profile.asp?PER_ID=494968&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.mckinsey.com/aboutus/careers/people/profile/profile.asp?PER_ID=450550%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.mckinsey.com/aboutus/careers/people/profile/profile.asp?PER_ID=450550&lt;/a> </p>

<p><a href="http://www.mckinsey.com/aboutus/careers/people/profile/profile.asp?PER_ID=494693%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.mckinsey.com/aboutus/careers/people/profile/profile.asp?PER_ID=494693&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.mckinsey.com/aboutus/careers/people/profile/profile.asp?PER_ID=494451%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.mckinsey.com/aboutus/careers/people/profile/profile.asp?PER_ID=494451&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Now don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to imply that all McKinsey consultants are former engineers. In fact, McKinsey, just like most consulting firms, is still heavily dominated by MBA's. However, the point is that consulting firms recruit engineers quite actively, which begs the question that if all these engineers are really so happy in engineering, then why are so many of them running off to other fields like consulting?</p>

35

<p>
[quote]
"Harvard is ranked 20th in graduate engineering, which is pretty good."</p>

<p>...and 31st in undergraduate engineering, which is less so.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Compared to the (at least) several hundred undergrad engineering programs out there? I would argue that that's still pretty darn good. Like I said, would you rather go to Harvard to do your undergrad engineering, or would you rather go to Fresno State?</p>

36

<p>Sigh. Allow me to rephrase: I don't understand why anybody getting a Harvard education wouldn't do what they love. Anybody who can get into Harvard isn't gonna end up digging ditches or being a janitor. Stay on track, man! =)</p>

<p>Hey, everyone else! Engineering, if you enjoy it, is a lucrative and excellent career. I enjoy what I do! I do what I love, I get to design buildings and bridges that push the limits of engineering and the imaginations of architects! I'm an average gal, workin' hard, and I've put in enough hard work that I'm getting offers from plenty of really awesome companies, with accompanying salaries that will <em>more</em> than pay my rent. I didn't choose Harvard because I wanted to go somewhere where I could have access to the best engineering resources, and in my opinion (and the opinions of many very qualified engineers), Harvard doesn't offer that. That's the end of my story here. Y'all can quibble about the rest of the details, but that's all I'm saying.</p>

37

<ol>
<li>People want different things.</li>
<li>Harvard has certain good and less-than-outstanding reputations.</li>
<li>Keeping in mind #1, #2, and equal opportunity, some people would choose Harvard if given the chance; others would shun it.</li>
<li>Some students will change their minds in school -- at Harvard, Michigan, Rice, or elsewhere. That's a common fact. Many will stick to their original goals, too. In short: moot point.</li>
<li>Reputations can open doors, but not always the ones that you want.</li>
</ol>

<p>Point of all this: people do things for different reasons, and they get what they make out of their situations. It's called "life."</p>

<p>Now, wasn't that a lot easier than reading pages upon pages of expert opinions?</p>

38

<p>
[quote]
Allow me to rephrase: I don't understand why anybody getting a Harvard education wouldn't do what they love. Anybody who can get into Harvard isn't gonna end up digging ditches or being a janitor. Stay on track, man! =)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then perhaps I should rephrase. PLENTY of newly minted Harvard bachelor's degree recipients end up as taking jobs as analysts in investment banking, private equity, LBO's, venture capital, hedge funds and other such high-finance jobs right after graduation. And I think it's safe to say that almost nobody actually 'likes' these jobs, as these are the fiercely savage workaholic, cutthroat positions. Everybody who takes those kinds of positions reports how the lifestyle just sucks. Finance jobs are absolutely notorious for their 90+ hour workweeks, their all-nighters, and their ridiculous stress levels. They're not doing what they love, because nobody could possibly love a job like that. </p>

<p>So why do you they do it? Simple - money. Or, more to the point, the potential for money. Look, this is what you have to go through if you want to have a chance to be a star on Wall Street. That's part of the game. If you want the chance to make it to become managing director at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse First Boston, JPMorgan, or other such companies where you really can make the 7, 8, sometimes 9 figures per year, you have to pay your dues at the bottom. That's how the game is played. </p>

<p>So everybody who works at Goldman Sachs as an analyst hates the lifestyle. But they still covet the job. And for every one person who wanted to work at GS as an analyst, there are plenty of other people, from Harvard and elsewhere, who wanted the job but didn't get an offer. </p>

<p>The same thing happens in plenty of other fields. You want to become a doctor? Then you have to go through the grueling years of med-school and the even more grueling years of residency, where you're working 80+ hours a week for little pay , often times pulling all-nighters. Who could enjoy that? Does anybody actually enjoy staying up for 2-3 days straight seeing patients? I think it's safe to say that no doctor actually enjoyed their residency period. But that's what you have to do if you want to become a doctor. Similarly, if you want to make partner at a major law firm, you have to put up with those brutal years of climbing the ladder as an associate. That's part of the game.</p>

<p>The point is, you don't always get to do what you want. Not even Harvard people do what they want. Sometimes you have to put up with years, even decades of doing things you don't like in order to get the chance of doing something you do like. Sometimes you have to, as the athletes would put it, play through pain. </p>

<p>Hence, I don't see a guy getting an engineering degree just for the marketability of it, and not because he actually likes engineering, as being any different from a guy choosing to take the analyst job at Goldman Sachs, even though he doesn't really like it, or the guy fresh out of law school slaving away as an associate at a major law firm who doesn't really like it, or the guy undergoing the brutal Navy SEAL qualification crucible. None of these people are doing what they really like. I'm sure all of them would prefer to be kickin' it at the beach. They're doing what they're doing to advance their careers. </p>

<p>Now you might say that all of these people are being stupid. Ok, fine, but that means you think there are a LOT of stupid people in the world. For example, the entire finance industry, or at least all of the low-level grunts, are therefore stupid. </p>

<p>
[quote]
3. Keeping in mind #1, #2, and equal opportunity, some people would choose Harvard if given the chance; others would shun it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, but a LOT more of the former than the latter. There is such a thing as the yield rate, and Harvard beats every other school when it comes to cross-admit yields, even Stanford, and beats most schools decisively. The point is, a lot more people at Michigan would rather be at Harvard, but didn't get in, than vice versa. Come on, seriously, does anybody seriously dispute that? </p>

<p>
[quote]
4. Some students will change their minds in school -- at Harvard, Michigan, Rice, or elsewhere. That's a common fact. Many will stick to their original goals, too. In short: moot point.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not a moot point in the least, because you then have to ask what will happen if you are one of those people who does change his mind. Speaking of the Harvard and Michigan example, there are many more disciplines where Harvard is better than Michigan than vice versa. The upshot is that it is safer to choose Harvard over Michigan. </p>

<p>Seriously, I don't understand why I am getting so much pushback on this basic point. I don't even think Alexandre would seriously dispute that the majority of people would rather go to Harvard than Michigan. Is that really such a controversial statement?</p>

39

<p>What do you think about Princeton and Cornell? They both have higher-rated Engineering departments than Harvard, yet retain many of the other benefits Harvard has, such as strengths in Math, the sciences, and humanities if a student decides to switch out of Engineering, and (certainly in Princeton's case) excellent name recognition in Wall Street and McKinsey.</p>

40

<p>
[quote]
I'll make the choice simple and stark. Let's you want to get your MS in electrical engineering. Let's say that money was not an issue. Would you rather get that MSEE at Harvard, or at Fresno State? Or let's say you wanted to get your PhD in EE. Would you rather do it at Harvard, or at UCRiverside? You tell me.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think this example would not make any conclusion since Fresno State is not, in any major, comparable to Harvard. But let's take Cornell or Michigan, would you better off with a MSEE/PhD EE from Harvard or Michigan? I would strongly argue for the later in this case. I would also argue that most engineering students would be more proud to say that they study engineering in Michigan or Cornell rather than Harvard. I am not comparing, however, the appeal of admission to Harvard engineering or Michigan engineering, since as you said, people may at a certain time switch their majors and hence Harvard may have been a safer choice. Let's face it, graduating from Harvard engineering would probably make you look like someone who is not good enough for MIT/Caltech/Stanford but yet you want the big name rather than better program.</p>