<p>I could get instate tuition for the University of MN and WI which as far as I can tell are both good schools but I was wondering whether an employer really notices a difference between those 2 schools and other colleges that are better at engineering such as Urbana-Campaign, Ann Arbor, Rose Hulman, Princeton, or Georgia Tech. It seems as though there is a significant difference when comparing those first 2 to the likes of MIT, Cal Tech, etc but if someone could clarify that as well it would be very appreciated. </p>
<p>I guess what I am asking at what point does someone who hires engineers recognize a school as wow thats a great school or are most of those just lumped into the same equal category of good engineering programs?</p>
<p>Minnesota and Wisconsin are both good. I haven’t seen any evidence of a difference from an employment perspective, though some may try to claim otherwise.</p>
<p>There is definitely a difference between the likes of MIT, Caltech, Rose-Hulman, etc. and the others, not so much quality but definitely in terms of experience. It’s hard for me to imagine that you would be equally happy at a tech school vs. a state flagship.</p>
<p>Do you know what area of engineering you are interested in? What kind of employer do you want to work for?</p>
<p>If you have any specific questions about Minnesota, I can answer those too.</p>
<p>I enjoy biology, the other sciences, and engineering so I am choosing between bioE, biomedE, and chemE. As for the kind of employer, I haven’t been exposed to what it’s like to work at many companies. I’m pretty confident about the job opportunities for the chemE, I know the twin cities also have some large companies for biomeds but I know very little about who employs a bioE major.</p>
<p>You are in luck. Minnesota and Wisconsin are two of the very best ChemE schools in the country. MIT and Cal-Berkeley are comparable, but you won’t find anywhere substantially better.</p>
<p>I’d recommend against BME at the undergrad level.</p>