<p>I already applied early because I really like it there, but im wondering what other people think. Why did I choose Swarthmore over a big engineering field? I want to work in a field related to engineering, but not necessarily be an engineer. For one, money is an important factor for me and the engineering ceiling is something I want to avoid. Also, I am much more of a suit wearing businessman type person. I think Id either want to become a patent attorney, work in engineering management/business end of things, or work for a defense contractor or something similar selling our products instead of making them (but having a knowledge of how they work). I figure if i end up wanted to go into engineering I can always go get a masters degree. At swarthmore, only 1/3 of your classes are engineering courses. You get a basic understanding of engineering (BS in general engineering) but also take couses in other subjects like business or poli sci or whatever you want. Despite all this, Im still worried a little in the back of my head that going to Swarthmore, which is very prestigious but not necessarily for engineering, will screw me over int eh long run. Any opinons on it?</p>
<p>Define "screw me over".</p>
<p>You are making certain choices, and these are as valid, for you, as other choices made by others.</p>
<p>In my opinion: </p>
<p>There is of course no free lunch. Choices have consequences.</p>
<p>If you are :
-attending a school that has a toal of maybe 8 engineering professors;
- and taking many fewer engineering courses than engineers take;</p>
<p>obviously this has consequences as far as your engineering training is concerned. The breadth and depth of your engineering training will be necessarily curtailed. This will be apparent to all evaluators of same.</p>
<p>I think it's likely that there will be whole areas of engineering practice, for which upper level electives exist at most engineering schools, that you will have no exposure to whatsoever and will know virtually nothing about. Those roads will be prematurely closed off to you, due to lack of exposure.</p>
<p>The main risk is that you get there and subsequently decide that you actually are turned on about engineering after all, and, as is typically the case, about a particular sub-area. In this event the limitations of your decision will likely become quite evident. Less so if one of those guys happens to "do" some aspect of that sub-area.</p>
<p>If this were to happen you can certainly still have an engineering career, most likely by having to go to grad school in engineering. This will be more mandatory for you than for your brethren who attended engineering schools. You might well wind up being funneled into one of the areas those 8 guys are involved in, since these 8 guys will likely dictate your upper level courses and research opportunities. Whereas in fact engineering is a very broad world that those 8 guys cannot begin to span. In a school with a broader engineering curriculum you might have wound up doing something else entirely.</p>
<p>Then there's the question of whether this 'engineeer-lite" curriculum will really adequately prepare you to do the activities you envision. Maybe not. Maybe you'll wind up with a vague familiarity of engineering with not enough to apply unless you go further. Sort of like taking Spanish for three years, then dropping it before you can really read or write it. And, having spent all that time on engineering courses, you also have less liberal arts training than your liberal arts brethren. So you're on the light side training-wise if you wind up veering towards the traditional liberal arts destinations as well. Neither fish nor fowl, suboptimal in all respects. Jack of all trades, master of none. That's the risk.</p>
<p>Of course there are pros on the other side as well, and you have thrown your hat into that ring. Hopefully you are sufficiently in touch with your own feelings on the matter to have made a good decision for you.</p>
<p>All of the above is merely my conjecture.</p>
<p>If you want to work in an engineering like field I would recommend getting an engineering degree from a school known for it. Going to Swarthmore adds almost nothing to your career.</p>
<p>I think you would be surprised to find Swarthmore has an excellent engineering program that will get you into any top grad school. Even though you lack experience look at what research they are doing and ask yourself if there is something there you can get interested in. You can also take classes at UPENN which will have more courses due to its size ( reciprocal agreement). Swarthmore is doing some cutting edge research on sun spots, for example, that few places in the world are doing. They have world wide attention in this area and numerous awards for it. See where thier engineering students end up...this is a great way to determine the strength of a program. Good Luck.</p>
<p>If size and undergraduate focus are what you are concerned about, then there are far better choices than Swarthmore. Harvey Mudd, Cooper Union, Rose Hulman, and others can provide a LAC-like environment with a good engineering education. Honestly, I don't see the point of an "engineering-lite" curriculum, as monydad calls it. Why take engineering at all? Personally, I would never seriously consider Swarthmore for engineering even if I wanted to work in the business end of engineering. But again, that's only my opinion and you should go to a school that suits your needs.</p>
<p>I think Swarthmore is an excellent choice. Don't be so concerned over how well-known it is for engineering. For undergrad, the overall school is more important than the department.</p>
<p>I also highly doubt that Swarthmore does not have the resources to train a good engineer. Swarthmore might lack some highly specialized course, but those are not necessary for the undergraduate.</p>
<p>what about lafayette or trinity. I guess trinity will be "engineering-lite" too but lafayette has departments n stuff. What do you think?</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Honestly, I don't see the point of an "engineering-lite" curriculum, as monydad calls it.
[/QUOTE]
Swarthmore's "General Engineering" degree is not "engineering-lite". It's true that many schools offer unaccredited "General Engineering" degrees, commonly as BA degrees, which are less rigorous and require less coursework than the "professional" BS degrees. But that's not the case at Swarthmore.</p>
<p>Swarthmore's program leads to a BS degree with full ABET accreditation; in fact, it is one of the oldest ABET degree programs in the US (since 1936). A Swarthmore engineering BS has the exact same legal status, as a professional degree, as any BS from MIT or Stanford. It's a "real" engineering degree, it just happens to be less specialized than most engineering BS degrees. </p>
<p>A Swarthmore BS might not be the best choice if you wanted to practice as an engineer after college. But it might be a great choice if you planned to get an advanced degree. Swarthmore does very well at placing students in top MBA and MS/PhD programs. </p>
<p>If you are interested in engineering and liberal arts, you might also look at Dartmouth. If you go for 5 years, you can get dual degrees: both an ABET BS degree in engineering and a BA degree in a liberal arts major.</p>
<p>thats for the opinions guys...interesting to see the conract in opinions on the matter</p>
<p>"See where thier engineering students end up...this is a great way to determine the strength of a program. "</p>
<p>I really don't agree with this. I think it's a great way to determine the strength of the students. To determine the strength of a program, one must actually look to the program. Breadth and depth of course offerings, variety of possible research/ design projects opportunities, internship/ coop programs to get some practical experience and insight to inform upper level course selection, etc.</p>
<p>The same great students, who can get into grad programs based largely on their native intellect alone, from any reasonable undergrad school, might find that they might be better served professionally by a "real" engineering school. They might be able to make better decisions about their future path given greater access to a wide array of electives in jr-sr year, and engineering coop opportunities. And, with sufficient comprehensive training at undergrad, they may more readily decide to avail themselves of the employment option at the outset instead of being forced into grad school due to insufficient depth of training. Options are nice to have.</p>
<p>FWIW, the engineering firm I worked with did not seek to hire generic "engineers". They hired according to the major functional branches: civil, electrical, mechanical, chemical. Most engineers get degrees in one of these functional areas, with specialized upper-level electives in certain sub-areas of these fields. The engineering employers I interviewed with expected to see these discipline specializations in their hiring. </p>
<p>So you can look to see where the people end up, and they will probably end up at good places because these people are brilliant. But that does not mean that they would have ended up at the same places that they might have otherwise, or that they were optimally served by their undergrad choice. Maybe the right measure is to look and see where these people end up, and compare them in breath to where equally smart people, say people at MIT, end up. Then maybe one can judge how comparable the range of available paths/ career choices are.</p>
<p>If you can get admitted to Swarthmore, go there. This is a phenomenal school with some of the best professors...anywhere. Wall Street, Hedge Funds, The Big Consulting Cos, and Private Equity Funds all know Swarthmore. If you study Math, Physics, or Engineering. You will have done right.</p>
<p>Some people are interested in taking engineering from a more liberal arts perspective. In this case, the breadth of the program is not as important as the fundamentals, which are the same in every school. Your experience in the program does not depend on how many courses you take, or how many strange topics you've learned.</p>
<p>(To Moneydad), the OP stated that he wanted to study engineering but did not want to be an engineer and that he was interested in law. Swarthmore gets people into law school pretty well so I think it's a good choice.</p>
<p>"Your experience in the program does not depend on how many courses you take, or how many strange topics you've learned."</p>
<p>My own observation is that engineering training is highly colored, tailored and individualized by the upper-level electives taken in junior and senior year. And that these matter a great deal.</p>
<p>Apparently your experience has been completely different.</p>
<p>Just curious, Aurelius, mind outlining your personal experience completing the last two years of an engineering program, and subsequent professional engineering work experience?</p>
<p>FWIW, I personally would not undertake study of engineering if I did not plan to be an engineer or a researcher in a closely related field. It's simply too much work to attain this large body of highly specialized technical knowlege if you don't plan on using it. And it's hard. I think you will likely NOT acquire enough technical proficiency in this manner to be highly useful as a patent lawyer, and you'll have suboptimally spent about a third of your undergrad course of studies. You might, in the end, find that your intensive study of thermodynamics, etc, may not enrich your adult life, years from now, as some other things you could have alternatively been spending time on. </p>
<p>YMMV.</p>
<p>"Wall Street, Hedge Funds, The Big Consulting Cos, and Private Equity Funds all know Swarthmore."</p>
<p>Interestingly, the NY investment bank I worked at years ago actually did NOT recruit at Swarthmore. Or, I should say, as far as I know they didn't. I know I never interviewed any candidates from there. </p>
<p>It was a notable omission. It's not that the kids weren't considered smart enough, it's that, at that time, few of these kids were deemed to be positively disposed towards a business career, and it's very small to start. So too few candidates to merit a visit. </p>
<p>I don't recall a single person I worked with there, in over ten years, who went to Swarthmore.</p>
<p>This situation is quite likely to have changed though.</p>
<p>With law school as your goal I wouldn't recommend Swarthmore. GPA will take a hit.</p>
<p>Moneydad is right that Swarthmore is a little too small for many business firms (as are all LACs) for on campus recruiting. However, that won't prevent you from getting the job if you really seek it. </p>
<p>As for law, Swarthmore is excellent in getting people into law school, despite GPA deflation. For law school application, swarthmore's GPA is more favorably compensated for "deflation" than almost every other school, including MIT, etc. </p>
<p>"My own observation is that engineering training is highly colored, tailored and individualized by the upper-level electives taken in junior and senior year. And that these matter a great deal."</p>
<p>In general, that's true. But that's not the case for ALL students, especially in this case here where the OP is interested in law. In fact, this would be a less common case because law school classes consist of less than 10-20% of students from math-sci-engineering undergrads. Basically, some people aren't interested in "training".</p>
<p>
[quote]
As for law, Swarthmore is excellent in getting people into law school, despite GPA deflation. For law school application, swarthmore's GPA is more favorably compensated for "deflation" than almost every other school, including MIT, etc.
[/quote]
Do you have a recent source?</p>
<p>Granted, this isn't the most recent data. However, since schools change very little over even decades, I'll take this as fairly accurate to today's trends.</p>
<p>Ah yes, the oft quoted UC Berkeley data. Is there any other source, on the entire internet that can be cited?</p>
<p>IE: One 10 year old set of data means so, so little.</p>