Is harvard engineering (Biomedical especially) famous?

[rtkysg]

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would say there would be no contest between Princeton and Harvard if a student is interested to major in engineering or computer science. Princeton's prestige (in most majors) is of no less than Harvard itself for job placement (not public perception) in industry or graduate schools, let alone its much stronger engineering/CS dept.</p>

<p>Things may a little bit more obscure with Cornell. Nevertheless, I would say 10 out of 10 of determined students would choose Cornell over Harvard for engineering. However, Harvard applied science may have better appeal than Cornell engineering for an engineering student wannabe.</p>

[hdotchar]

<p>i would agree with sakky's last statement. i dont believe anyone majoring in finance or accounting, hell any business major actually 'likes' what they are doing. what's there really to like? i don't think anyone LIKES working those 90+ hour stressful weeks. i dont think anyone LIKES crunching meaningless numbers, being a powerpoint whore, and kissing ass all day long. business is a practicality degree and people are inn it for one reason: to make money.</p>

<p>i chose engineering coming out of high school for basically three reasons: i liked math/science, i knew it was marketable degree (and left a lot of options open), and i liked the fact that the degree would challenge me and develop my analytical skills. i think the last for especially important for me, because i get easily bored by meaningless and often trivial subjects. </p>

<p>but ultimately i think most people just want to be happy and do the things they want. money usually enables you to do what you want (because perhaps your interests are not financially rewarding), so they do things they do not like to do in order ot have the opportunity to do what they want.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
I think this example would not make any conclusion since Fresno State is not, in any major, comparable to Harvard.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I use this example to dispel the notion that Harvard has no prominence or name-brand when it comes to engineering, or that people will supposedly be laughed at for choosing Harvard for engineering. Again, Harvard is no MIT, but it is a LOT better at engineering than the vast majority of the other engineering programs out there, simply because the vast majority of them are no-name programs. That's why I have to profoundly disagree with anybody that says that Harvard has no strength or no name-recognition in engineering, or that people will get laughed at for choosing to study engineering at Harvard. Harvard has far more strength and name-recognition in engineering than all the no-name programs, and I don't think anybody goes around laughing at all the people who go to those no-name programs. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have to disagree with this notion as well. You are implying that a Harvard engineering student is either confused or trying to make himself look like something he's not. Well, let me turn the situation around. What do you have to say about all those MIT students majoring in History? Or Literature? Or Spanish? Or Writing? Or how about people who go to Caltech and study English? Or Creative Writing? Or Film Studies? Yes, MIT and Caltech really do offer these subjects, and some people really do study them. Obviously many will choose to do them as part of a double-degree, but some people really will just get a singular degree in those subjects. My brother knows somebody who went to Caltech and got a degree in Literature (and no other degree). Should the whole world laugh and cast aspersions at these people? Should we simply hassle the Caltech Literature guy as somebody who wasn't good enough for Stanford or Harvard? I don't know about that.</p>

<p>Look, people change. I seem to recall reading a study that says that the vast majority of college students will switch majors, and many will switch majors mutiple times. When I say 'switch majors' I don't mean the formal act of filing the paperwork to switch, but rather the mental act of switching majors in their own minds. That Caltech Literature guy probably did intend to major in something technical when he matriculated, but then somewhere along the way, he changed his mind. That's life. People change. So what's so terrible about a guy who goes to Harvard and discovers that he wants to major in engineering? If anything, I would argue that the Harvard engineering program is BETTER than the MIT/Caltech Literature program.</p>

<p>The one thing I have always granted is that the guy who is SURE he wants to be an engineer should probably opt for MIT, Stanford or Caltech (or possibly HarveyMudd) over Harvard. Of course that presumes that he can actually get into one of those schools, and as we know admission to those kinds of schools is something of a crapshoot. I know a person who got into Harvard but got rejected from MIT and Stanford (and didn't apply to Caltech). Obviously there are not a lot of these people, but they do exist. </p>

<p>However, the point I emphasize is, are you really sure? Like I said, the majority of college students will end up majoring in something different than what they thought they would coming in as freshman. This is particularly true for engineering, where any engineering student can attest to the fact that the attrition rates, especially in the weeders, are horrendous. At Berkeley, for example, the attrition rates for EECS and chemical engineering are probably greater than 50% in the engineering weeders, and that's just the weeders. Plenty of other people who came in thinking they wanted to be engineers decided to leave engineering before they even took the weeders, and so they were "pre-weeded". </p>

<p>And, as I have pointed out, even many people who do complete the enigneering degrees decide not to work as engineers. I would point to the continuing magnetic attraction of engineers to non-engineering career paths like management consulting, banking, law school, med-school, etc.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
Princeton's prestige (in most majors) is of no less than Harvard itself for job placement (not public perception) in industry or graduate schools, let alone its much stronger engineering/CS dept.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Speaking specifically about CS, I think that the strength/weakness of Harvard in CS is a bit overblown. The fact is, plenty of extremely prominent computer scientists in the world did not major in CS as undergrads, but rather majored in Math. Take a look at all the Turing Award winners (the "Nobel Prize" of Computer Science) and you will notice that a significant fraction of them were Math undergrads, not CS undergrads (although many obviously later got their doctorates in CS or EE). Of the Harvard CS students that I know, the vast majority of them are double-majoring (or, in Harvard parlance, doing a "joint concentration) in CS and something else, usually Math. And I think we can all agree that Harvard has a very strong Math program.</p>

[sakky]

<p>To add some more grist to the mill, here are a few more of my thoughts:</p>

<ul>
<li>Harvard is actually a very strong engineering school.</li>
</ul>

<p>Now, is it as strong as MIT or Stanford or Caltech? Of course not. However, Harvard has attained a ranking anywhere from the 20-28 in engineering (depending on whether you are looking at undergrad or grad). Those are very very good rankings when you consider the fact that there are hundreds of engineering programs out there that only wish they could snag a ranking in the 20's.</p>

<p>And this is why I have to vociferously object to the assertions made in this thread that Harvard engineering is somehow of low quality or is lackluster or all the slings and arrows that Harvard engineering has suffered here in this thread. If Harvard engineering, being ranked anywhere from 20-28, is of low quality, then what does that say about all those hundreds of engineering programs that are ranked even lower than Harvard? What kind of world are we living in when a program ranked in the 20's is considered to be poor or lackluster? </p>

<p>I'll put it to you this way. According to USNews, the Harvard graduate engineering program is actually ranked HIGHER than schools like Virginia Tech, Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute, the New Jersey Institute of Technology, and the Illinois Institute of Technology. These are schools that, by virtue of their very names, are self-proclaimed technical institutes, and yet Harvard graduate engineering is actually ranked HIGHER than they are. </p>

<p>At the same time, Harvard graduate engineering also beats out (and often times badly beats out) such schools like Ohio State, Minnesota, Iowa, Washington, Rice, Missouri, Case Western, Iowa State, Rutgers, NCState, Florida, Colorado Mines, Virginia, North Carolina, Clemson, Auburn, LSU, and many other respectable engineering schools. </p>

<p>The same thing can be found if you look at Harvard undergrad engineering. Harvard undergrad engineering beats out many many respectable engineering programs. </p>

<p>The takehome point is that I believe that Harvard is in fact one of the best engineering programs out there, for the simple reason that it beats out the vast vast majority of other engineering programs. Like I said, Harvard is not MIT, but a ranking in the 20's is pretty darn good in my eyes. There are hundreds of thousands of engineering students and working engineers out there who go to or graduated from engineering programs that are nowhere near being ranked in the 20's. </p>

<ul>
<li>Intellectual elitism?</li>
</ul>

<p>So I've been accused several times of being an intellectual elitist in that I am supposedly pushing the Harvard and Ivy brand-name (which I don't believe I am doing). But leaving that aside, as I said above, Harvard engineering has been dismissed and harangued in this thread as being a poor program of low quality and low reputation. Yet Harvard engineering is ranked in the 20's, and yet apparently a program that's ranked in the 20's is somehow dismissed as low quality. So what does that say about all those people who are in engineering programs that are ranked even lower than that? And I'm the one that's being accused of elitism? Who's ** really ** being the intellectual elitist here?</p>

<p>Besides, consider this. For engineering: Harvard grad ranking = 20, Harvard undergrad ranking = 28. Rice grad ranking = 29. Rice undergrad ranking = 21. Looks like basically a tie to me (and in fact, Harvard grad+undergrad actually has a slight edge ove Rice grad+undergrad). Yet if Harvard engineering is being accused of lackluster quality, what does that say about Rice engineering?</p>

<p>Now look, I am not here to call anybody out or embarrass anybody. I am perfectly willing to agree that sometimes people don't really mean what they say and that sometimes people let their hyperbole run ahead of them. However, I think I need to emphasize the basic point that Harvard engineering is actually one of the top engineering programs in the world. It doesn't compare to MIT, or Stanford, or Caltech, but it is still far better than the vast majority of other engineering programs out there. Most engineering students can only dream of going to a program ranked in the 20's. </p>

<p>*Sometimes you don't have choices. So I don't think it's fair for Harvard engineers to have to put up with accusations of insincerity or confusion. </p>

<p>Not too long ago, I struck up a conversation with a guy who was doing graduate EE studies at Harvard, and who actually spent a lot of time at MIT taking cross-reg EECS classes. When I asked him, since he was spending so much of his time at MIT anyway, why didn't he just choose to do his graduate studies at MIT, he told me, quite candidly, that he didn't get into the MIT graduate program. If he had, he would have taken it, but he didn't get in. This is not a stupid guy by any means - he did his undergrad EE at Caltech. But when it came time to applying to graduate school, he couldn't get into MIT, he couldn't get into Stanford, he couldn't get into Berkeley, he couldn't get into the superstar programs, so he ended up at Harvard. </p>

<p>And to that, I would say, what's wrong with that? Look, not everybody gets to go to the superelite programs. You don't always get to go to the superelite school that is tops in your field. Sometimes you have to settle for a school that is not quite tops in your field. That's life. In life, you don't always get what you want. </p>

<p>So the guy didn't get into MIT, or Stanford, or Berkeley, or places like that for graduate school. So should he just give up completely? Or just commit suicide? Like I said, I think Harvard engineering is actually a very good choice, relative to all the other programs out there. If Harvard graduate engineering is the best program you can get into, then so be it. If Wayne State or Michigan Tech is the best you can do, then so be it. </p>

<p>So the guy goes to Harvard to get his graduate engineering degree. Do you really think he deserves to have to put up with people saying that he's somehow 'foolish' for choosing Harvard for engineering or that he's trying to leach off the Harvard name? Look, the guy is doing the best he can with the choices that are available to him. Leave the guy alone. </p>

<p>By the way, I was perusing information about Wayne State, and I noticed that about 44% of applicants to Wayne State graduate engineering get in. That means that the majority of applicants to Wayne State actually get rejected. Hence, there are people who can't even get into Wayne State. And yet Harvard engineers are somehow dismissed as lackluster? That's pretty harsh when you consider the fact that there are plenty of people who can't even get into Wayne State.</p>

<p>Like I said, Harvard engineers may not be equal to the engineers at MIT, but they are far far better than most other engineers.</p>

[wrprice]

<p>I guess my problem, Sakky, is that it doesn't entirely matter what US News or any other entity reports concerning undergraduate and graduate program strengths at the various schools -- you cannot generalize and pigeonhole decisions across the board for everyone. I'm sure you can agree with that, and I'm sure you have.</p>

<p>But I've been trying to keep an open mind on this thread and, honestly, you <em>do</em> come across as pushing the Ivy agenda -- regardless of your intent -- and perceptions are everything. Perhaps that helps explain why you seem to always take the defensive stance. Perhaps not.</p>

<p>Part of why this thread is so darned CONFUSING is because people are arguing different points and mixing them all together. You say that if you have to get out of school with <em>a</em> degree, then a degree from Harvard could give you a leg up over one from another school. Sure, that's reputation. No one's arguing that. So it's pointless to keep beating the dead horse about people switching majors -- mentally, officially, whatever. When a person chooses a school, they'll take the reputation into account; you'd be hard pressed to find someone who <em>wouldn't</em> consider the Harvard name -- or any of the Ivies -- when evaluating their options. Again, that's not where our opinions differ, so there's no need to argue about the Harvard name.</p>

<p>It comes down to the individual. Some will consider the school's reputation to be more important than other factors. Others might actually <em>know</em> what they want to do with life, and they might think that other factors are more important. That's what aibarr is trying to say. She knew she wanted to be an engineer... and now she is one. She felt that Rice's undergrad program would prepare her better than Harvard's, regardless of these numerical "rankings." Whether you subscribe to the accuracy of those rankings is irrelevant. Continuing to use aibarr as an example, she graduated, went on to graduate school, and will soon land an excellent job. There's no way to know whether she would've had it easier or harder if she had gone to any other school. Rice worked for her; nothing wrong with that.</p>

<p>Furthermore, it concerns me when people <em>only</em> want to go to the "best program" they're accepted to or can afford. I was accepted into the computer science program at UIUC. Rice's program is ranked lower, but it was a much better fit for me and, after comparing it to what (admittedly little) I've seen elsewhere, I think rankings can be quite deceiving; I don't place much faith in them. Am I all over these boards pushing Rice? No. People ask about ranked CS schools and Rice almost never shows up. I'm not compelled to defend Rice because it's not the best fit for everyone. Ask yourself if it's really that important to "defend" the reputation of Harvard's engineering program as much as you <em>seem</em> to. If you disagree with what people have said, post your contrary opinion.... but it doesn't help to present pages and pages of lecture about it and rehash the same arguments over and over again.</p>

<p>Finally, compare apples to apples. Compare undergraduate programs to other undergraduate programs, and likewise for the graduate programs. It makes absolutely no sense to "sum" the rankings of a school's graduate and undergraduate programs to come to a school's "cumulative" rank -- it doesn't work that way. Schools focus on different things. The graduate level is completely different from the undergraduate level. And, finally, many students pursue their graduate degrees at institutions OTHER than their undergraduate home. So big deal.</p>

<p>Let's just all chill out a bit and relax. All the schools mentioned are excellent and, even if you're not at a great school, you can MAKE your education work. Let's offer advice to people based on THEIR individual circumstances and not generalize too much. Most of all, let's not bicker so much -- we don't have to agree, but rants don't help anyone.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
you <em>do</em> come across as pushing the Ivy agenda --

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See, once again, there is that accusation. But ask yourself, is that a fair accusation? Have I been touting Yale? Or Dartmouth? Or Columbia? I don't think so. In fact, I am of the opinion that people are probably better off going to Stanford than Yale or Dartmouth or Columbia, and Stanford is not an Ivy. So this accusation of 'pushing the Ivy agenda' is without merit. If I really wanted to do that, shouldn't I be touting ALL the Ivies?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I guess my problem, Sakky, is that it doesn't entirely matter what US News or any other entity reports concerning undergraduate and graduate program strengths at the various schools -- you cannot generalize and pigeonhole decisions across the board for everyone. I'm sure you can agree with that, and I'm sure you have...It comes down to the individual. Some will consider the school's reputation to be more important than other factors. Others might actually <em>know</em> what they want to do with life, and they might think that other factors are more important. That's what aibarr is trying to say. She knew she wanted to be an engineer... and now she is one. She felt that Rice's undergrad program would prepare her better than Harvard's, regardless of these numerical "rankings." Whether you subscribe to the accuracy of those rankings is irrelevant. Continuing to use aibarr as an example, she graduated, went on to graduate school, and will soon land an excellent job. There's no way to know whether she would've had it easier or harder if she had gone to any other school. Rice worked for her; nothing wrong with that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And that is exactly the problem I had with this particular thread. You said it yourself - it comes down to the individual and whether a particular program fits a particular person. Yet interestingly nobody was going around saying that when Harvard engineering was characterized as a program of lackluster quality and no fame. You have to agree that that was a tremendously sweeping and viciously invective generalization. I didn't see anybody talk about how Harvard engineering might fit certain people well as individuals. It's rather interesting that only when I enter the fray do people now start objecting on the grounds of individualism and fit when such considerations were never raised before.</p>

<p>Rice engineering works out very well for some people, and there is nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, Harvard engineering also works out very well for some people, and there ought to be nothing wrong with that either. But apparently according to the people here, there is something wrong with that, and I fail to see what that is. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Finally, compare apples to apples. Compare undergraduate programs to other undergraduate programs, and likewise for the graduate programs. It makes absolutely no sense to "sum" the rankings of a school's graduate and undergraduate programs to come to a school's "cumulative" rank -- it doesn't work that way. Schools focus on different things. The graduate level is completely different from the undergraduate level. And, finally, many students pursue their graduate degrees at institutions OTHER than their undergraduate home. So big deal.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Tell that to all the people who insist on merging graduate and undergraduate prestige rankings. If we just wanted to talk about pure undergraduate engineering education, we ought to be talking about Harvey Mudd, Rose-Hulman, and Cooper Union, 3 excellent undergraduate schools with unfortunately little fame because they don't run graduate programs. The fact is, plenty of people will insist on attending a research university that may actually offer a worse undergraduate education simply for the prestige of the school, which is derived mostly from the graduate programs. Let's face it. The reason why MIT, Caltech, Berkeley, Stanford, Illinois, Michigan and, yes, Harvard, are so famous has to do mostly with their graduate programs. </p>

<p>The point is, it's not like I'm 'defending' the policy of merging grad+undergrad. I agree with you that it should not be done. But it is done by other people, and so I am just playing the game according to their rules. </p>

<p>However, in any case, Rice = 21 undergrad, Harvard =28. What really is the difference between 21 and 28? Neither of them are really comparable to MIT or Harvey Mudd. So if one of them is lackluster, then the other is probably lackluster too. Or is there really a dividing line such that anything 21 or above is a quality program, but anything below 21 is lackluster? </p>

<p>
[quote]
but it doesn't help to present pages and pages of lecture about it and rehash the same arguments over and over again...Most of all, let's not bicker so much -- we don't have to agree, but rants don't help anyone.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As I've said before on other threads, for those people who don't like the style of my posts, then, fine, don't read them. Nobody has a gun to your head. If you don't like how I write, fair enough, then whenever you see my name on a post, then you can just skip right over it.</p>

[wrprice]

<p>
[quote]
See, once again, there is that accusation. But ask yourself, is that a fair accusation? Have I been touting Yale? Or Dartmouth? Or Columbia? I don't think so. In fact, I am of the opinion that people are probably better off going to Stanford than Yale or Dartmouth or Columbia, and Stanford is not an Ivy. So this accusation of 'pushing the Ivy agenda' is without merit. If I really wanted to do that, shouldn't I be touting ALL the Ivies?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, it's fair. It's fair because it's not presented as an accusation but as an observation. From <em>my</em> perspective, as <em>I</em> read your posts on <em>this</em> thread, <em>I</em> get the impression that you're pushing what I called the "Ivy agenda" based on school reputation. Take it as an attack if you must, but I was just trying to explain that some people read your statements in a way you may not have intended.</p>

<p>Regarding the "Ivy agenda" I mentioned... it's a bit of a misnomer, and I apologize for that. I might as well have said a "top school" agenda, but many people associate "top school" with "Ivy" on this board. My point was that you seemed to be pushing and overemphasizing (in my opinion) the reputation or ranking of a particular school, so please don't distract from that by playing the "fair and balanced" game. Harvard was the school used as an example for this entire thread and that's what we've been discussing. No one is required to mention "all" the Ivies to feel the same way about all or most of them. If you defend Harvard this way, is it much of a stretch to believe you'd say similar things about the other Ivy or nearly-Ivy schools? Please don't change the subject.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You said it yourself - it comes down to the individual and whether a particular program fits a particular person. Yet interestingly nobody was going around saying that when Harvard engineering was characterized as a program of lackluster quality and no fame. You have to agree that that was a tremendously sweeping and viciously invective generalization. I didn't see anybody talk about how Harvard engineering might fit certain people well as individuals. It's rather interesting that only when I enter the fray do people now start objecting on the grounds of individualism and fit when such considerations were never raised before.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, it was someone's opinion and, without concrete evidence, it cannot be more than that. As I said, present a counter opinion if you feel you must. At the same time, you cannot fight a generalization with another generalization. That's how it was perceived and so this thread turned into a big long rant instead of a quick, simple presentation of ideas or opinions. People now wanted to be "right" when there IS NO "right." You didn't cast the first stone, but you may have provided some catalyst. (Again, only my opinion.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
The point is, it's not like I'm 'defending' the policy of merging grad+undergrad. I agree with you that it should not be done. But it is done by other people, and so I am just playing the game according to their rules.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you agree that it's not the right thing to do, then don't attempt to use it to your advantage in a persuasive argument. Present the facts, fine. But to say that Rice's and Harvard's overall programs are nearly equivalent because of these ARBITRARY numbers is condoning the practice you say you don't agree with. Just because it's accepted that people merge the two rankings doesn't mean that you have to perpetuate the practice.</p>

<p>
[quote]
However, in any case, Rice = 21 undergrad, Harvard =28. What really is the difference between 21 and 28? Neither of them are really comparable to MIT or Harvey Mudd. So if one of them is lackluster, then the other is probably lackluster too. Or is there really a dividing line such that anything 21 or above is a quality program, but anything below 21 is lackluster?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First of all, that argument depends on the validity and accuracy of the numbers. What does "21" mean and what does "28" mean? Is it a linear scale, or logartihmic? If the numbers are flawed, the comparison is pointless. If one party believes the numbers and the other has no faith in them, it's also pointless to argue becaue neither will convince the other. Again, present a contrary opinion... even support it with the numbers if you must, but leave it at that. The inital claim was that Harvard engineering was not "famous," but there are plenty of GOOD, and DECENT engineering programs that aren't "famous" either. So let's assume that Harvard's undergraduate engineering program qualifies as "famous," then by your numbers, Rice's undergraduate engineering program is "more famous" and Harvard's is less so. You can spin this any way you want. Frankly, I don't care.</p>

<p>
[quote]
As I've said before on other threads, for those people who don't like the style of my posts, then, fine, don't read them. Nobody has a gun to your head. If you don't like how I write, fair enough, then whenever you see my name on a post, then you can just skip right over it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If it were just me, you're right, I'd go elsewhere. But we, the "older" and "more experienced" members of CC are supposed to HELP the younger ones. You can dump your argument on these threads by sheer force of MASS and quantity, drowing out the smaller voices with lengthy ramblings and confusing points that don't really matter. The only reason I'm writing this right now is because I don't care for THAT. I couldn't care less about the engineering reputations of Rice, Harvard, or any other school.</p>

<p>To be helpful, discussions and arguments should be succinct. These recent posts have been anything BUT that and completely unhelpful to anyone. This is the last I'll say on it, because there's really little point in continuing these volleys... but go right ahead if you like.</p>

<p>P.S. For the record, I agree with a lot of what you say... just not necessarily with the way you say it.</p>

[jma]

<p>Lets look at what Sakky is actually stating rather than making assumptions regarding what he is saying. It is ludicrous to claim that because Sakky believes that Harvard is a solid engineering school, he is pushing the "Ivy Agenda." The reason that Sakky makes lengthy posts is that he is being attacked. Do the attacks on Sakky constitute "helpful, discussions." </p>

<p>I am not trying to attack any poster because all of you have proven to be invaluable in my gaining knowledge of an engineering career. </p>

<p>But Sakky has been of invaluable help and his knowledge is something that should be embraced, not rejected.</p>

[f.scottie]

<p>sakky, i may or may not be the only one with this experience, but my eyes glaze immediately over every time i see one of your multi-paragraph posts. i might consider reading them if they were only shorter. perhaps i'm lazy.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
My point was that you seemed to be pushing and overemphasizing (in my opinion) the reputation or ranking of a particular school, so please don't distract from that by playing the "fair and balanced" game. Harvard was the school used as an example for this entire thread and that's what we've been discussing. No one is required to mention "all" the Ivies to feel the same way about all or most of them. If you defend Harvard this way, is it much of a stretch to believe you'd say similar things about the other Ivy or nearly-Ivy schools? Please don't change the subject

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh come now. This whole thing started because people were out-and-out attacking Harvard engineering as being 'lackluster' and 'without fame'. So apparently that's OK to do, but it's not OK for me to disagree with that assessment, for if I do, then I'm accused of pushing the Ivy agenda. If I am accused of having an Ivy agenda because I defend Harvard, then why aren't people who attack Harvard accused of an "anti-Ivy agenda"? </p>

<p>So bottom line - attacks on Harvard are OK, but defenses of Harvard are not OK. </p>

<p>
[quote]
At the same time, you cannot fight a generalization with another generalization.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why not? I play the game according to the rules that are set up. But I didn't set up the rules. Don't blame me for the rules. If you don't like the rules, take it up with the person who set them up in the first place. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If you agree that it's not the right thing to do, then don't attempt to use it to your advantage in a persuasive argument. Present the facts, fine. But to say that Rice's and Harvard's overall programs are nearly equivalent because of these ARBITRARY numbers is condoning the practice you say you don't agree with. Just because it's accepted that people merge the two rankings doesn't mean that you have to perpetuate the practice.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I do that to illustrate that the entire logic is false. In mathematics parlance, it's called proof by contradiction. You follow a line of logic and show that it leads to an absurd conclusion, which proves that the logic is faulty. Mathematicians use it all the time. Why can't I? </p>

<p>
[quote]
sakky, i may or may not be the only one with this experience, but my eyes glaze immediately over every time i see one of your multi-paragraph posts. i might consider reading them if they were only shorter. perhaps i'm lazy.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
If it were just me, you're right, I'd go elsewhere. But we, the "older" and "more experienced" members of CC are supposed to HELP the younger ones. You can dump your argument on these threads by sheer force of MASS and quantity, drowing out the smaller voices with lengthy ramblings and confusing points that don't really matter. The only reason I'm writing this right now is because I don't care for THAT. I couldn't care less about the engineering reputations of Rice, Harvard, or any other school.</p>

<p>To be helpful, discussions and arguments should be succinct. These recent posts have been anything BUT that and completely unhelpful to anyone. This is the last I'll say on it, because there's really little point in continuing these volleys... but go right ahead if you like.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, guys, I'm not trying to be overly combative. But like I said, for people who don't like what I write, fair enough, don't read it. Some people like the way I write. Others don't. It's not my job to please everybody. </p>

<p>I write the way I write because these issues are complex, requiring complex answers, which are not amenable to short posts. If anything, short posts are even more vulnerable to the very generalizations that you dislike. </p>

<p>But Ok, let me distill my point to something succinct:</p>

<p>I think there has just been a lot of shoot-the-messenger going on here. I never said that Harvard was the greatest engineering school in the world. I am saying that there are hundreds of programs out there and Harvard happens to be one of the better ones. Nothing more, nothing less. Hence, any attempt to castigate Harvard engineering as being lackluster or fameless is necessarily a vicious insult at everybody who goes to the many engineering programs who can only hope to be as good as Harvard's.</p>

[ariesathena]

<p>From my perspective...</p>

<p>Harvard engineering, if you want to be an engineer, is not the best route to go. If you can get into Harvard, you can probably get into a bunch of engineering schools that are top-notch - so let's stop arguing about lousy, two-bit engineering schools. Harvard does not have an engineering school. It has a major, but not an engineering school. From what I understand, it's not the same ABET requirements and heavy math/science rigor. You'll also take a lot of courses at MIT.</p>

<p>It depends on what you want. If you want to be an engineer, don't go to Harvard. If it's even an option, you can go to an actual engineering school with an awesome reputation - MIT, CalTech, Stanford - or full-boat rides at schools like BU. If you are thinking of grad school (esp. in a related field to engineering - maybe medicine, law, etc, but not engin.), then Harvard could be a fantastic option, esp. with the emphasis on liberal arts work.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
Harvard does not have an engineering school. It has a major, but not an engineering school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not sure that really matters. True, Harvard doesn't have an independent, free-standing engineering school, but it does have a division, the Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences. Caltech doesn't have an independent engineering school either, but rather also has a Division of Engineering and Applied Science. I don't think anybody is seriously accusing Caltech of having weak engineering program just because it doesn't have an independent engineering school. There are plenty of places that run fine engineering programs without housing them in independent engineering schools.</p>

<p>
[quote]
From what I understand, it's not the same ABET requirements and heavy math/science rigor.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would also disagree with this. Like I said, you have 2 options to getting a Harvard engineering degree - the nonaccredited way (which gets you the AB degree) , and the accredited way (which gets you the SB degree). So if you want accreditation, you can get it. So I don't think lack of accreditation is an issue.</p>

<p>I would further point out that plenty of highly prestigious engineering programs are unaccredited. For example, BioEngineering at MIT and Stanford are not accredited by ABET. Petroleum Engineering at Stanford is unaccredited (and in fact, isn't even run by the School of Engineering at Stanford, but is instead run by the School of Earth Sciences). Does it then follow that these programs are not rigorous? I'm fairly certain that the people majoring in BioE at MIT would bristle at the notion that their program is not rigorous. </p>

<p>
[quote]
let's stop arguing about lousy, two-bit engineering schools

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ouch, why don't you tell us how you really feel about those schools? I'm sure that must have stung for all those people who are going to such places. </p>

<p>But hey, I'll give you credit for being honest about your opinions about those schools. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Harvard engineering, if you want to be an engineer, is not the best route to go.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And that really gets down to the heart of the matter, at least for me. How many people are really THAT sure they want to be engineers that they are willing to turn down admission to Harvard for it? Like I said, plenty of people who come in thinking they want to study engineering never actually get an engineering degree. And of those people who do finish engineering degrees, the sad truth is that even many of them don't really want to be engineers, as evidenced by the persistent popularity of non-engineering career fields chosen by engineers at even elite engineering programs like MIT, Stanford, and Berkeley. </p>

<p>Hence, the way I see it is, if you have an admission letter to Harvard in your hands, what are the circumstances that would make you turn it down in favor of a better engineering school? What happens if you go to that better engineering school and then find out that you don't really want to be an engineer? It's not like you can just turn back time and reactivate that Harvard admission letter. </p>

<p>Look, that doesn't mean that I advocate that everybody should always go to Harvard. I didn't say that. What I advocate is that people should understand the ramifications of the choices that they make, and in particular, ought to understand that college is a time of growth and change, and what you think you want to study coming in may differ radically from what you actually end up studying.</p>

[aibarr]

<p>Ariesathena, we've tried it already. Harvard doesn't offer most of the prerequisites that are required for any ABET accredited program (as opposed to just not being ABET accredited), and doesn't even offer any of the basic engineering courses that a mechanical or civil engineer wouldn't think about leaving an undergraduate program without... Unfortunately, arguments like this have no effect...</p>

<p>Looking at Harvard as an engineer, I know that I wouldn't have been able to become an engineer in either mechanical or civil if I'd gone through that program. That's all I'm saying about that.</p>

<p>So, if Harvard doesn't offer many of the essential engineering courses, if it doesn't offer a full range of engineering opportunities, I don't understand why a potential engineering major would find it advantageous to attend Harvard for the sake of getting a marketable and prestigious degree. There are plenty of very good engineering schools out there (Princeton, Cornell, Duke, Northwestern.... and yeees, Rice) that also offer excellent non-engineering opportunities for undergraduates. Harvard's not a guarantee of success, and contrarily, not going to Harvard if you decide not to get an engineering degree will not guarantee failure.</p>

<p>If you are considering going into engineering, and especially if you are even <em>possibly</em> considering going into mechanical or civil or structural or aeronautical engineering, Harvard's just not a good choice for you. It doesn't offer the solid engineering foundation that a good undergraduate engineering school should, in my opinion.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
Harvard doesn't offer most of the prerequisites that are required for any ABET accredited program (as opposed to just not being ABET accredited

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yet Harvard has somehow managed to get itself accredited anyway.</p>

<p>"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>
[quote]
and doesn't even offer any of the basic engineering courses that a mechanical or civil engineer wouldn't think about leaving an undergraduate program without... Unfortunately, arguments like this have no effect...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's no less extensive than the engineering program at, say, Swarthmore, which has a highly respected engineering program (or is that a matter of debate?). </p>

<p>
[quote]
Looking at Harvard as an engineer, I know that I wouldn't have been able to become an engineer in either mechanical or civil if I'd gone through that program.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Civil? No. However, Harvard offers mechanical engineering in its mechanical+materials science option. Lest you find it odd that Harvard combines those 2 disciplines into 1, I would point out that Duke does the same thing.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So, if Harvard doesn't offer many of the essential engineering courses, if it doesn't offer a full range of engineering opportunities,...It doesn't offer the solid engineering foundation that a good undergraduate engineering school should, in my opinion

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, obviously the unstated premise is that if you go to Harvard and wind up in engineering, you are almost certainly going to take advantage of the highly liberal cross-reg policy that Harvard has with MIT. Harvard and MIT, in many ways, act almost as if they are one unified school, because of the extensive cross-collaboration and crossregistration that occurs between the 2 schools. So by going to Harvard, you effectively have the entire MIT course catalog available to you too. I would argue that those aggregate course resources are vastly superior to the resources available at most other engineering schools, and certainly better than the aggregate engineering course resources available at, say, Duke or Northwestern or, yes, Rice.</p>

<p>So then of course the next logical question is, if you are going to end up taking all these MIT courses anyway, why don't you just go to MIT then? Well, again, first of all, that presumes that you can get in. I know a good number of people who got into Harvard but not MIT. I would argue that if you get into Duke, Northwestern, Rice, and Harvard, but get rejected from MIT, I would argue that going to Harvard and cross-regging a lot at MIT might actually provide you with a SUPERIOR engineering education than your other choices could. </p>

<p>And second of all, that presumes that you are sure that you want to be an engineer. Like I said, if you are absolutely 100% sure that you want to be an engineer, then I have never disputed that you should choose MIT over Harvard. But the question I keep posing is, what if you're not sure.</p>

<p>So consider this scenario. You're admitted to both Harvard and MIT. You don't know what you really want to major in. Maybe engineering, maybe not. Maybe humanities, maybe not. So basically, you want the freedom to explore. So you could say that if you choose Harvard, you are hurting your chances to do engineering (although, again, I would assert that the MIT cross-reg opportunities would remedy much of that pain). On the other hand, what if you choose MIT and you find out that you want to do humanities? Yes, again, the cross-reg can help you out. But, like I said before, a Harvard guy majoring in engineering is far better off than an MIT guy majoring in humanities. Hence, Harvard is the safer choice. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Harvard's not a guarantee of success, and contrarily, not going to Harvard if you decide not to get an engineering degree will not guarantee failure.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nobody ever said that there was a guarantee about anything. Heck, I can't even guarantee that we will all be still alive 5 minutes from now. There are no guarantees in life.</p>

<p>This is really about making safe choices. Harvard is a very safe choice. Again, consider the situation. You get admitted to Harvad. You think you want to do engineering. So you turn down Harvard for Duke (?!). So you get to Duke and then find out that you don't want to do engineering anymore. I think you may want to take back that choice of turning down Harvard. But you can't. That decision you made was irrevocable. It's not like you can call up the Harvard Registrar and ask to be admitted again. It doesn't work that way. You can't unring the bell.</p>

[aibarr]

<p>Sweet monkey on a stick, Sakky. That ABET accreditation is for their general engineering degree, not for any specific engineering degrees, and I dunno about you, but I really wouldn't want to shuttle back and forth between two campuses in order to get an engineering degree from Harvard. Seems like an awful lot of angst and extra work to get the courses that you need to get, whereas there are plenty of other very good options out there for someone who wanted more than just an engineering school.</p>

<p>As long as you're making up hypothetical situations... Likewise, if you don't like Boston weather, you might wish you hadn't turned down that admission to Duke's engineering program! I think you may want to take back that choice of turning down Duke! But you can't! That decision you made was irrevocable, etcetera etcetera. Too bad we have to make choices in our lives, isn't it?</p>

<p>This is ridiculous... aaaaand this is my last post on this thread. Jeeminy.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
That ABET accreditation is for their general engineering degree, not for any specific engineering degrees

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, that's because ALL of Harvard's engineering degrees are for general engineering degrees. Every Harvard engineer formally gets a degree in "Engineering Sciences". You may choose EECS or ME or whatever as an option, but you will wind up with a degree in "Engineering Sciences".</p>

<p>Lest you find that odd, I would point out that Harvey Mudd only hands out general Engineering degrees. You can study EE or ME or whatever at Mudd, but you will still end up with only a general Engineering degree. But that obviously doesn't seem to hurt the Mudders.</p>

<p>
[quote]
but I really wouldn't want to shuttle back and forth between two campuses in order to get an engineering degree from Harvard.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, let me tell you. Believe me, schlepping back and forth between MIT and Harvard is pretty darn easy. It's just 2 T-stops away. I would argue that getting between MIT and Harvard can often times be actually EASIER than trying to get around some of the mega-campuses of, say, Berkeley or Michigan or, (especially) Stanford. </p>

<p>
[quote]
As long as you're making up hypothetical situations... Likewise, if you don't like Boston weather, you might wish you hadn't turned down that admission to Duke's engineering program! I think you may want to take back that choice of turning down Duke! But you can't! That decision you made was irrevocable, etcetera etcetera. Too bad we have to make choices in our lives, isn't it?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Obviously we have to live with whatever choices we make, which is why I am constantly stressing SAFETY. You want to make the choice that punishes you the least if it turns out that what you thought you wanted is not really what you want. So, again, I would repeat, unless you're very sure you want to be an engineer, than taking Harvard is a very safe choice, and certainly safer than, say, Duke, Northwestern, or Rice. Again, take Rice as an example. Rice = #21 for engineering. Harvard =#28. So if you take Harvard over Rice, the worst case scenario is that you end up doing engineering and so you end up in a program that is 7 ranking points lower than what you would have had if you had chosen Rice. That's really not that bad in the grand scheme of things. </p>

<p>I know I know, what wrprice said, rankings don't matter that much anyway, and certainly not as much as personal fit. Again, I'm not saying that you should choose Harvard if Rice fits you better. However, if the fit is the same, I would argue that Harvard is the safer choice. </p>

<p>Again, I would reiterate, Harvard engineering is not that bad. It's certainly better than MIT/Caltech humanities. Hence, Harvard is a very safe choice.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>Just to make a quick "The more you know plug..."</p>

<p>MIT and Caltech poli sci, however, are in some areas better than Harvard. Useless info, I know. But hey, knowledge is power!</p>

[sakky]

<p>Polisci is supposed to be a science. That's why they call is poliSCI. </p>

<p>I would also point out that while MIT polisci is quite decent, Caltech's is not so much. Caltech's (and MIT's) economics is good, but not so much Caltech's polisci.</p>

[aibarr]

<p>Okay, I lied... <em>This</em> is my last post! ;)</p>

<p>Yeah, I've got some reservations about Mudd's all-in-one engineering degree, but seeing as how my brother's a Mudd engineering sophomore, I've been getting a running first-hand account on how well that's going to end up serving him. I'm interested, but I'm still skeptical. The jury's still out for me. Ask me again in another three years! =)</p>

<p>Meanwhile, prospectives: listen to both the pros and cons that Sakky and I have mentioned, and decide carefully. I'm agreeing to disagree with him on this one. </p>

<p><em>Shakes hands with Sakky</em> Good show, old boy. Good show. We'll have to do this again sometime.... but not soon. =)</p>