<p>Harvard actually has one of the best engineering programs when you consider the fact that there are literally hundreds of programs out there. I believe Harvard was ranked #21 in engineering in the latest US News ranking, which is obviously far better than the vast majority of other programs.</p>
<p>It does not change the fact that the engineering program is A) really small with limited options for graduate programs (even worse for undergrad) and B) just became a school of engineering this year.</p>
<p>Sure, it’s small. But I hardly see that as a fatal problem. Lots of engineering programs are small. Besides, there are plenty of big - in fact, huge - engineering programs that are ranked quite low. </p>
<p>I also don’t see why the fact that it became a ‘school’ of engineering this year is a problem. Prior to this year, the engineering program at Harvard existed within the greater Faculty of Arts & Sciences, an arrangement that is no different from many other universities that do not run a separate engineering ‘school’. Caltech, for example, does not have an engineering ‘school’ that is separate from the greater university. Why does that matter?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, it depends on department, circumstances, etc. I certainly know math Ph.D. admissions are highly insane, and when you’re looking at 10-12 students in the entering class of some of the top programs, a bunch of which will be very talented international students, you’re looking at a very tough game. Very, very tough indeed.</p>
<p>“monydad, is doesn’t make a distribution, but anecdotal evidence is generally all you’re going to get in graduate admissions.”</p>
<p>I don’t know about generally, but there is more than that to be gotten. As I posted previously, I have seen in the past, on a couple occasions, typical admissions data (% admitted to the various programs, and I believe but not certain- GPA and GRE scores as well) for Cornell’s graduate engineering programs. They were included in engineering college mailings to alumni. Obviously it is not cross-admit data , but this type of data is all most people see for undergrad as well. I don’ t know how one gets it, for various schools, but it exists.</p>
<p>But I guess for grad programs, admit difficulty would vary so much by specific research areas within the college that I’m not sure how useful the aggregates by the engineering college as a whole would be anyway, to a particular individual.</p>
<p>does an graduate engineering degree from an ivy carry the same prestige/efficiency factor as a similar degree from a university that’s more well-known in it’s field?</p>
<p>“does an graduate engineering degree from an ivy carry the same prestige/efficiency factor as a similar degree from a university that’s more well-known in it’s field?”</p>
<p>That entirely depends upon how you define “more well-known.” If you depend upon undergraduate prestige or general (ignorant) public view of prestige brand name then forget it. The professionals and academics in your field will know better, I think.</p>
<p>But among your peers, the “more well-known in it’s field” will trump. How do they fare vs. peers in post-doc and industry placement? How do they perform with papers published vs peers? This is what is important for PhD careers.</p>
<p>Undergrad is difficult for Ivy admit. Grad more difficult imho; every stat I have seen show a lower admit rate. The only time Ivy matters in your field and sub-field in grad school is if it is a strength at that program, like Harvard and Princeton have for areas that are strong in Theroy, but not in generally in CS. The only other thing I can think of is that the departments are smaller and it is easier to be a star collaborator.</p>