<p>
[quote]
I never said that faculty size would imply the strength of the program
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am not talking about faculty size either. I am simply talking about the production of graduates per year. You previously mentioned that this was important. I would assert that it is not. A program can produce a lot of graduates per year, or only a few, and still be strong (or weak). Simple graduate production by itself tells you nothing. </p>
<p>
[quote]
In fact, generally, when a humanities degree is coupled with an engineering/science degree, people would regard the engineering degree as the main major. Hence, it's hard to say that Harvard engineering students only take engineering as their minor. However, this would raise an eyebrow since Harvard is not famous for engineering. This shouldn't be compared to the double degree (engrg/hum) holders at MIT/Caltech
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I fail to see your point. As ariesathena has pointed out (and I agree), Harvard only allows double-concentrations in closely aligned fields. Hence, I would expect Harvard doubles to be something like EE with physics or EE with math. In those cases, why couldn't the physics or the math be considered the "main" major? The natural sciences and math are not jokes at Harvard by any stretch of the imagination. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, I would stress that those students who end up with humanities (but started with engrg/science) at MIT/Caltech are often the 'burned-out' cases; they don't have interest in the humanities in the first place. I don't think in this case they would even care to transfer to a university with good humanities program. But this is not the same for the Harvard cases, they choose engineering arguably as their main interest, hence they should care about the strength of the engineering program.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have 2 very serious objections to this line of logic. First off, I would argue that even if these Tech'ers are burned out, why wouldn't they leave? After all, the Tech core science requirements are not exactly trivial. You still gotta complete the core if you want to graduate from Tech, even with a humanities degree. If you are really burned out of science, I would think that the best thing for you to do is transfer away so you don't have to finish the core. </p>
<p>Secondly, and even more importantly, why do you keep talking about all these Harvard people as if they are primarily choosing engineering when they walk in? Like I said to ariesathena, if you are truly 100% sure you want to work as an engineer, you would not be going to Harvard. The fact that you even stepped foot into Harvard means that you're not sure, and so you're willing to play the field. After playing the field, you may decide that you want to be an engineer. Ok, then you do Harvard engineering. But that's very different from saying that you are coming into Harvard from day 1 knowing for sure that you want to be an engineer. </p>
<p>Again, I would stress my basic points that many, arguably the majority, of freshman who want to be engineers will not get engineering degrees. And even of those that do, many will not work as engineers. That is the reality on the ground that makes me defend Harvard. It's not that I think Harvard engineering is the greatest (although, like I said, it is still very good). It's that when somebody says that they want to be an engineer, quite frankly, I don't believe them. And I have good reasons for not believing them. The odds tell me that only a minority of people who say they want to become engineers actually do become engineers.</p>
<p>Now, like I said, if we want to talk about the reasons for why I don't believe them, that would be a very interesting conversation indeed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Biomedical engineering still falls in science and engrg category, Caltech is quite good at both.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And Harvard is also quite good at both, especially in science, and even in engineering, compared to all the hundreds of no-name engineering programs. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Believe me, its biomedical engineering program is not to be compared with its Literature program. Although people know that this guy in your example choose Caltech for the sake of its name, it is more 'tolerable' since biomedical engineering still falls in the field where Caltech is good for.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How so? Caltech is ranked in the 20's for biomedical engineering. That's about the same ranking as Harvard engineering gets. So how is that any different? </p>
<p>
[quote]
May be true, but it doesn't change the fact that these engineering students at Harvard may get a boo from the engineering since they stress too much on prestige rather than the quality of the program. This is not the same case for the Caltech bioengineers, Caltech bioengineering program is perceived generally to be more solid than Harvard engineering program, and the comparison is not just.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again how so? Look at the ranking of the Caltech bioE program, and explain to me me how and why it is perceived to be so much more solid than Harvard engineerng. If the Caltech BioE program is perceived to be so good, somebody apparently forgot to tell the people who made the rankings.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you have hard data for this? I would think that many undergrad engineering students at schools like Florida Inst. Tech may crave for Harvard grad engineering degree to give leverage to his undergrad degree.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, why should they, if they can get an even easier Harvard degree, like a Harvard M.Ed., if all they're after is the Harvard name? Why work your butt off to get an engineering degree if you don't have to? </p>
<p>I don't think your FIT example holds water because Harvard engineering is BETTER than FIT engineering. Hence, the guy would get a boost by going to ANY engineering graduate school that is better than FIT. </p>
<p>
[quote]
This means that in order to obtain one's PE license, one would need a masters.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You live in a field where the PE field is actually important. I'm afraid I don't. In all my years in high tech in Silicon Valley, I have never met a single person who was a PE, nor did they feel it was necessary. You just don't see the need for PE status in high tech, computers, software, information technology, biotechnology, materials engineering, nanotech, or anything like that. I would be surprised to find a lot of PE's working for, say, Microsoft. Or Intel. Or Cisco. Or Oracle. Or Google. Or Yahoo. </p>
<p>Note, that doesn't mean that I don't think that the industry should move to making the PE more important. Indeed, I think it probably should. But that doesn't change the fact that there are giant swaths of engineering in which PE status is just not seen as important. Bill Gates isn't a PE, and he never could be because he doesn't have an accredited engineering degree (in fact, he has no degree at all), yet he built was is probably the greatest engineering company of our lifetimes. The guys who founded Google weren't PE's, but they are completely redefining information technology and software as we know it.</p>