<p>Harvard probably wins the battle by a lot. Do note that people don't apply to engineering schools. They may apply to engineering at Cornell and economics at Harvard. Personally, I think at an undergraduate level, Harvard even in engineering is a better choice than Cornell unless you're positive you want to be an engineer (and the thing is that most people aren't positive they want to be engineers).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most people interested in engineering might reasonably apply to Cornell, but not apply to Harvard. Because Harvard is not thought to have significant presence, faculty, breadth of coverage, or courses in the field. This is certainly my impression as well. Maybe they have some horsepower in some specific non-comprehensive areas of graduate research, and that gets them up to where they are in these rankings. Research I said, not engineering practice. </p>
<p>But generally I'd suspect Harvard loses the engineering applicant battle before the applications are even submitted. If someone's extra-sharp and wants to be an engineer they are far more likely to apply to MIT or Stanford, I would imagine. Because, well, these schools actually HAVE engineering, in a meaningful way. And it's probably true that Cornell Engineering loses a lot of these cross-admit battles. But a lot of these people might not necessarily apply to Harvard because it does not really have what they are looking for, in sufficient amounts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To that, I would say that if this is true I find this unbelievably short-sighted. The fact is, college admisions at the top programs are amazingly fickle. I have heard of people applying to all of HYPSMC, and getting into Harvard...but getting rejected from all the rest. I personally know of a guy who, for MBA school, applied to HBS, the LFM program at MITSloan (the elite MBA+MS program), the MMM program at Kellog (the elite MBA + Master's in Engineering Management), Stanford, the elite executive MBA program at Wharton, and Yale... and got into all of them except for Yale, where he was rejected. If you don't see how counter-intuititive that is, you may want to consult a B-school ranking and compare all the programs in which he got radmitted to the one (Yale) where he got rejected. </p>
<p>So I would argue that those people who choose not to apply to Harvard because they 'know' they would rather be at some elite engineering program like MIT or Stanford are clearly not that smart. Because they could end up being rejected by those elite engineeiring programs too. You never really know what's going to happen with admissions at programs like that. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The two Harvard engineering grads I know do not necessarily blow the doors of the IQ meter, leading me to wonder if this major is an intellectual dumping-ground there, relatively speaking. But it wouldn't be fair to draw blanket conclusions from a sample of two.</p>
<p>It is indeed harder to get into Harvard, but not everyone makes it because they are brilliant. Some people are just maybe pretty good, not great, but play the right sport, or are related to the right people. These individuals have to study and get through there someplace/ somehow, now don't they?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Dumping ground? I would argue that certain other majors at Harvard are far more of a dumping ground than is engineering. For example, I rather doubt that any of the Kennedy's seriously thought of majoring in engineering. I seem to recall reading somewhere how Ted Kennedy was just a C student at the Milton Academy, but got admitted to Harvard anyway (because of his family connections), whereupon he proceeded to be caught cheating on his exams twice, one time requiring that he withdraw from Harvard for two years. I believe he ended up graduating with a degree in some liberal arts anyway. </p>
<p>You also talk about some Harvard students making it for reasons other than brilliance. Fine. But what about Cornell students who make it for reasons other than brilliance? For example, certain Cornell engineering students have surely gotten in because of their sports aptitude or other such characteristics. So really, this is a wash. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Just because a place on average draws the best students does not necessarily mean that every student there is better than every student someplace else. And it makes sense to me that there would be specific pockets where the weaker students could hide. And I know those two guys, and I can easily compare them to lots of other Harvard grads I know. And I believe that nobody goes there for their great engineering department. But still, it's just two..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody ever said that every single Harvard eng student is better than every single Cornell eng student, just like nobody is saying that every single Cornell eng student is better than every single UConn eng student. But the averages are pretty clear. </p>
<p>Furthermore, you talk about weaker pockets where the weaker Harvard students can hide. I would argue that there are pockets where the weaker Cornell students can hide. So, again, it's a wash.</p>
<p>Cooldude, you have totally lost me. </p>
<p>First of all, most top universities today expect international students to have mastered the English language. Back in my day, I remember seeing international students with 800 math scores and perfect grades in Math and Science but sub 600 verbal scores and Cs in non-science classes get into top universities like Princeton and Stanford. Not anymore! The competition internationally has just reached the sort of levels that allow US universities the luxury of accepting those internationals that are fluent in English and very well rounded in both the sciences and the humanities. Your English seems subpar by top university standards. </p>
<p>Secondly, whether you attend an average Engineering school like Boston University or a top Engineering school like Cornell, you will HAVE to be very comfortable with Math and the Sciences and you will have to expend as much of your time in mathematical and scientific classes no matter which of those schools you decide to join. </p>
<p>Finally, if you don't think you can get into MIT, forget Harvard, Princeton and Yale. Cornell is a little easier to get into, but Cornell is also notknown for giving much aid to internationals.</p>
<p>I would check out UT-Austin. They are very affordable and they actually have schollies for internationals.</p>
<p>"Do note that people don't apply to engineering schools."</p>
<p>Unless I misunderstood you: This is not correct. At Cornell they do apply to the College of Engineering. It is a separate college. Each of Cornell's seven undergraduate colleges have separate admissions. </p>
<p>"For example, certain Cornell engineering students have surely gotten in because of their sports aptitude or other such characteristics. "</p>
<p>There must have been some along the way, but this is not where these people usually go. Cornell has seven undergraduate colleges, and there are places better suited there for people to hide academically than its engineering school, or its College of Arts & Sciences for that matter. Harvard has fewer such places, I believe.</p>
<p>"But the averages are pretty clear."</p>
<p>Please post the averages for engineering majors at Harvard, specifically, since this is so clear. Not the whole college, just these majors. My hunch is that they may be lower than those for Harvard College on average, since this is such a relatively weak program there and likely does not attract its strongest students. What I've seen personally would reinforce this notion, for sure.</p>
<p>"shortsighted.." Why is it shortsighted to attend a school that has good programs in the area you want to study? Frankly I think that's just common sense. You and I clearly have different priorities. If you really want to be an engineer , then I personally think it would be better to go to Cornell than Harvard. And in that case I personally would choose Cornell if accepted to both. I don't think I'm alone. I believe most people who really want to be engineers would not apply to Harvard, for curricular reasons alone.</p>
<p>If you don't know if you want to be an engineer, fine go to one of these kind of programs Realizing you will then have to go to grad school in the subject too, to get enough advanced courses. But many people who think they DO want to be an engineer wouldn't consider it as seriously, for good reason IMO.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why is it shortsighted to attend a school that has good programs in the area you want to study? Frankly I think that's just common sense. You and I clearly have different priorities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You have misread my post. You talked about how people who wanted to be engineers would just apply to top engineering programs and not apply to Harvard. THAT is what is short-sighted. Why? Simple. You might not get into those top engineering programs. So let's say that you apply only to the top engineering programs such as MIT, Stanford, Berkeley (from OOS), and Caltech....and then by bad luck you find out that you don't get into any of them, when you could have gotten into Harvard, but you short-sightedly didn't apply. As a point of reference, I know a person who applied to all 5 of those schools I just mentioned and of those 5, only got into Harvard (he also applied and got into his state school, but it's a no-name state school). He's at Harvard right now. If he had taken your advice and never applied to Harvard, he would have been stuck going to his state school, which has a far worse engineering program than Harvard does. </p>
<p>I think it's common sense to spread your applications around. Once you get into a whole bunch of schools, then you can decide where you want to go. If you have a reasonable shot at getting into Harvard, you should probably take it. The worst they can do is say no. </p>
<p>
[quote]
If you don't know if you want to be an engineer, fine go to one of these kind of programs Realizing you will then have to go to grad school in the subject too, to get enough advanced courses. But many people who think they DO want to be an engineer wouldn't consider it as seriously, for good reason IMO.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why? Why do you have to go to graduate school in that subject? Harvard engineering isn't equal to MIT's, but it is a lot better than the vast majority of other engineering programs out there. Most engineers got their degrees from no-name schools, and they seem to be doing just fine with their engineering careers. Yeah, OK, they're probably not working at Google or Microsoft, but for the most part they're gainfully employed as engineers in some capacity. </p>
<p>For example, I know a good number of people with engineering degrees from UMass and UConn and the University of Rhode Island (URI) who are doing just fine with their engineering careers. Ditto with many of the no-name CalStates. Harvard engineering, again, is not as good as MIT's, but it's better than those no-name state engineering programs. Yet their grads evidently seem to do allright without going to graduate school. If they need to go to graduate school in order to get enough courses so that they can have a decent engineering career, well, evidently somebody forgot to tell them that. </p>
<p>So why is it that the Harvard engineer supposedly 'needs' to go to graduate school to get enough courses, but the engineers from, say, URI, seem to be doing fine without it? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Please post the averages for engineering majors at Harvard, specifically, since this is so clear. Not the whole college, just these majors. My hunch is that they may be lower than those for Harvard College on average, since this is such a relatively weak program there and likely does not attract its strongest students. What I've seen personally would reinforce this notion, for sure.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh come on. We both know that you are asking for the impossible. We both know that Harvard doesn't break data like this and release it publicly. </p>
<p>But let's think through this clearly. If you refuse to see that engineering is going to be one of the most difficult majors at any school, Harvard or anywhere else, I really don't know what to tell you. We both know that there are plenty of majors at Harvard that are very easy and hence require very little effort to graduate from. It is the same reason that technical courses in general (like math, physics, etc.) tend to be more difficult than nontechnical courses at all schools, Harvard included. </p>
<p>Look, if you just want to slide by at Harvard (or any other school), then you probably don't want to major in something technical. There are plenty of students at Harvard who just want to slide by. Case in point - Ted Kennedy. Mediocre student who got caught cheating twice at Harvard. He clearly wasn't a very motivated student. If engineering is easy, then why didn't he just choose to major in that? Why not? Harvard had engineering back then. </p>
<p>In fact, I think we all know that many students at Harvard have no intention of actually pursuing as a career whatever it is that they are concentrating in as undergrads. For example, most Harvard History concentrators don't actually intend to become historians. Most Harvard Literature concentrators don't actually intend to become literaturists. They are just looking to get a degree that doesn't make them work too hard before they head off to law/med school or to banking or consulting or taking a job working for their Daddy's company. So if Harvard engineering really is so easy, then why don't more of them just choose that route?</p>
<p>"Why? Why do you have to go to graduate school in that subject? "</p>
<p>Because it's likely you won't have taken all the courses you may have wanted to take in the areas you are interested in. The guy said they only offer 15 courses total in their whole engineering department, right? That's hardly a program at all IMO. There are undoubtedly whole areas of engineering that are not available there at all.</p>
<p>I suggest anyone contemplating this should investigate the program, and consider its adequacy for their needs, very carefully.</p>
<p>As an addendum to my last post, I would add that Harvard and MIT have an extensive cross-reg policy such that you can basically end up getting a quasi-MIT engineering education through Harvard. Yeah, your engineering degree will 'say' that it came from Harvard, but much of your coursework can be done at MIT. </p>
<p>So one might say that if you're going to do that, why not just go to MIT instead? My response to that is, what if you don't get into MIT? Like I said, I know people who got into Harvard but got rejected from MIT and other top engineering schools. Faced with a choice of going to some not-so-prominent engineering program or going to Harvard and doing much of my engineering coursework at MIT, I think I'd probably take Harvard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Because it's likely you won't have taken all the courses you may have wanted to take in the areas you are interested in. The guy said they only offer 15 courses total in their whole engineering department, right? That's hardly a program at all IMO.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, I don't know exactly what that guy was referring to, but it seems to me that Harvard EECS offers far more than 15 courses.</p>
<p>Secondly, welcome to the club. There are plenty of no-name engineering programs that aren't exactly busting out with a huge number of course offerings either. Yet their graduates seem to be doing just fine. So I don't see why Harvard engineers would require supplementary coursework when those no-name school grads don't seem to need it.</p>
<p>Thirdly, obviously the understated premise is that you will probably take some offerings outside of the engineering department, either in a related science department (i.e. math, physics, chemistry, etc.), or through cross-reg at MIT. Like I said, depending on how aggressive you are with cross-reg, you can basically end up with a quasi-MIT engineering degree. </p>
<p>I would argue that the resources available at Harvard engineering plus the resources you can get access to through MIT cross-reg exceeds what is available at the vast majority of engineering programs.</p>
<p>Sakky-
My count of 15 Harvard courses related to electrical engineering came from the Harvard Register for 2005-2006. Following link is to a list of all Harvard ES courses. I counted the EE courses by checking the titles.</p>
<p>The 15 did not include courses taught in the Computer Science Dept., only Engineering Science. The link you posted included both CS and ES courses. This is not to say that the CS courses wouldn't be relevant to electrical engineering.</p>
<p>Dont mistake Sakky's comments for intelligent remarks. He's a troll for Harvard. </p>
<p>Now back to OP's original post, I can't help but notice he/she said,</p>
<p>"...i'm gonna consider the ivies since they provide aid...and i cant even consider the public universities,cant pay much(i'm assuming that they wont give aid)..."</p>
<p>Wow, it sounds like you like to just come here and take from the generosity of some of the best schools in U.S, without so much as a wince. Have you given any thoughts to that?</p>
<p>Keep it up with the insults edvest1, I have no problem in getting you banned from the board. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Wow, it sounds like you like to just come here and take from the generosity of some of the best schools in U.S, without so much as a wince. Have you given any thoughts to that?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If those US schools want to give him money, then that's their prerogative. If you don't like it, take it up with those schools. If somebody is offering you free money, you'd be a fool not to take it. </p>
<p>Besides, I don't see it as any different than all these international students studying for their PhD's under full fellowship and stipend, and then after graduating, immediately returning to their home countries. How is that any different?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky-
My count of 15 Harvard courses related to electrical engineering came from the Harvard Register for 2005-2006. Following link is to a list of all Harvard ES courses. I counted the EE courses by checking the titles.</p>
<p>The 15 did not include courses taught in the Computer Science Dept., only Engineering Science. The link you posted included both CS and ES courses. This is not to say that the CS courses wouldn't be relevant to electrical engineering.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, I would say that 15 EE courses is at least comparable to what is available in many no-name EE programs. And again, the unstated premise is that you will take advantage of what is available at MIT through cross-reg.</p>
<p>Look, again, nobody is saying that Harvard engineering is comparable to engineering at MIT or Stanford or schools like that. But most engineering programs in the country are not comparable to MIT or Stanford. Compared to all of the engineering programs out there, I don't see how anybody could not say that Harvard is one of the top ones out there. If nothing else, Harvard eng is clearly better than most of the no-name programs out there. You may say that Harvard eng doesn't have strong research, strong name-recognition, highly prominent profs, etc. etc.. Yeah, but most of the no-name programs don't have any of that either. </p>
<p>Harvard engineering is ranked somewhere in the 20's-30's. That is an excellent ranking. Most engineering programs could only dream of getting ranked in the 20's or 30's. Most practicing engineers can only wish they could have gone to a program ranked that highly. Lots and lots of engineers graduate from low-ranked schools - schools ranked in the 100's or 200's. </p>
<p>Frankly speaking, I am a bit appalled that people would insult relatively high-ranked programs as being "crummy" or "not-so-good". So Brown has an engineering ranking of around #45 or so. That's crummy? That's far far better than average.</p>
<p>Cornell has a very talented engineering student body - 25% of enrolled students scored above a 1550 on the old SAT. </p>
<p>Also, the college of engineering has an incredible amount of courses to offer. I think that those who truly value education over name should pick Cornell over Harvard. Cornell offers and incredible amount of electives for engineers to take. Also, they dont have to travel to another school just to take these classes. Other than being a name prestige whore, i can't think of any concrete reason why somebody would pick a program like Harvard's over Cornell's. </p>
<p>Harvard isn't great at everything. Sorry.</p>
<p>yes, but the OP inquired about which ivies for EE. Though Harvard engineering is better than many state school programs, in the ivy league it is not at the top.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Other than being a name prestige whore, i can't think of any concrete reason why somebody would pick a program like Harvard's over Cornell's. </p>
<p>Harvard isn't great at everything. Sorry.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody is saying that Harvard is great at everything. I am simply saying that Harvard engineering is better than the vast majority of programs out there, if, for no other reason, because the vast majority of them are no-name programs. </p>
<p>Besides, I can think of PLENTY of reasons why somebody would pick Harvard over Cornell for engineering. It's no different than how certain people pick other lower-ranked programs over Cornell for engineering. Like I said, I know some guys who picked UMass over Cornell. In their case, it was mostly because of the money, although being close to home had a lot to do with it as well. Harvard guarantees full rides in the forms of 100% grants to anybody whose family makes less than 40k, and that includes internationals. I am not aware of Cornell matching that offer. Hence, it may actually be CHEAPER to go to Harvard than to Cornell. </p>
<p>Couple that with the fact that lots of people live in the Boston area and don't want to move, want to be close to family. If you're from Boston, you can live at home, saving money, and seeing your family all the time. While I have nothing against Ithaca, let's face it, it isn't exactly a big city. Some people want to be near a big city. It becomes a matter of personal fit. While some people like to be in the countryside, others like being in an urban environment. </p>
<p>Then there is the simple aspect that a lot of people are simply not sure about engineering. I seem to recall somewhere how Cornell stated that less than half of all incoming engineering students will never complete an engineering degree. Most switch out to another major that is less taxing. Harvard students may be thinking along a similar vein - that they might want to try engineering, but they aren't sure, so they want full freedom to complete some other highly respected program in case engineering doesn't pan out. Then of course there are those people who double-major at Harvard, combining engineering with some science or math. I've heard of a guy who did this - his "real" major at Harvard was physics, but he also picked up an engineering degree (I think in EE) on the side. What's wrong with that? </p>
<p>Look, I never said that the Harvard engineering program is better than Cornell's. That's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that life is not always about trying to get into the best possible program. Just like you might say that you can't fathom a reason why somebody would choose Harvard over Cornell for EE I could similarly argue that I can't fathom a reason why anybody would choose Cornell over MIT for EE. But people do it. So if some people have their reason for choosing Cornell over MIT, then why is it so hard to believe that other people might have their reasons for choosing Harvard over Cornell?</p>
<p>Agree with GStar about Cornell Eng program. Also Brown being rated #45 out of about 1200 UG eng programs in the country means it is ahead of 1155 others. That's pretty good to me. </p>
<p>RE: Sakky. Maybe what I said that got you angry was off-the-cuff. I do appre you scholarly contrib to this board, although not always agree with where you place your emphasis. But isn't it common practice to say "ignore so and so, he/she is a troll for XXXX school" when someone is getting too over-zealous for one school ?</p>
<p>Lastly, it is the school's perogative to where to spent its $. I would replace that with responsible decision. And schools should hear from ppl that support them, like parents and alumni. Scholarships should be awarded to exceptional students that overcome their circumstances outside of US. And I think for the most part act responsibly in handing out these awards.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But isn't it common practice to say "ignore so and so, he/she is a troll for XXXX school" when someone is getting too over-zealous for one school ?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, look, I don't think I was being overzealous. I never said that everybody ought to go to Harvard. What I think was overzealous were the attacks on Harvard. I agree that Harvard eng is not as good as the very top schools, but it's still far better than the vast majority of other programs out there. A ranking in the 20's to the 30's is pretty darn strong. You could do a lot worse. That's like hearing people diss, say, MIT Political Science, despite the fact that it is a top 15-20 program. </p>
<p>Look, the truth is, unless you're gung-ho about going to a top eng graduate school or in working for a superstar employer like Google, it doesn't really matter where you get your undergrad eng degree from. I wrote a number of posts previously which you can search for where I showed that even the engineers coming out of schools like Montana Tech or New Mexico Tech, 2 schools I had never heard of until recently, still get quite high-paying engineering jobs and strong job placement - in some cases, better than the placement from certain elite engineering schools like Berkeley. The difference between graduating from a very top school like MIT and just an average school is not that big. And the truth is, after a few years of working, nobody is going to care where you got your degree from anyway. All they're going to care about is what you've accomplished on the job. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Lastly, it is the school's perogative to where to spent its $. I would replace that with responsible decision. And schools should hear from ppl that support them, like parents and alumni. Scholarships should be awarded to exceptional students that overcome their circumstances outside of US. And I think for the most part act responsibly in handing out these awards.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I personally see nothing wrong with a school like Harvard handing out money to foreigners. It's not like Harvard is exactly hurting for cash. Hey, if some highly prestigious foreign university was going to offer me a free education, you're darn right I'd take it, and I wouldn't think twice about it.</p>
<p>Yale has the strongest engineering program in the United States, in terms of research/professor quality (read the rankings above), ranking above UC and Stanford. Princeton, Harvard and Cornell also fare very well, though, although they rank below Stanford.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yale has the strongest engineering program in the United States, in terms of research/professor quality (read the rankings above), ranking above UC and Stanford. Princeton, Harvard and Cornell also fare very well, though, although they rank below Stanford.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is one factor among many to consider, but an interessting surprise. I am curious as to how they classify each, but I probalby wouldn't understand the criteria. :)</p>
<p>I would imagine they're using the journal impact factor, which is a method I've seen used several times before when scientists want to puff out their chests.</p>
<p>Basically, it ranks a journal based on the number of times in the past n (usually ~5?) years that papers published in that journal have been cited in other journals (and then, presumably, this study ranks schools based on the number of times researchers have published in highly-cited journals). More information [url=<a href="http://scientific.thomson.com/products/esi/%5Dhere%5B/url">http://scientific.thomson.com/products/esi/]here[/url</a>].</p>