<p>I know Swarthmore offers core engineering and Williams offers materials science. What other LACs offer engineering or similar?</p>
<p>Bucknell, Union, Trinity College.</p>
<p>Look into Harvey Mudd.</p>
<p>Seconded, Mudd is the best LAC for engineering so you should look into it.</p>
<p>Rose-Hulman, Cooper Union, and Olin have programs on the same level as Mudd, although they're not exactly LACs.</p>
<p>Lafayette and Smith also have good programs. Although not LACs, Caltech (900 students), Rice (3000 students), Stevens Institute of Technology (2000 students), and WPI (3000 students) are small schools with strong engineering programs.</p>
<p>A number of LACs offer 3+2 engineering programs, if you don't mind that route.</p>
<p>Definitely Harvey Mudd.</p>
<p>Lehigh....</p>
<p>Swarthmore has a grand total of eight faculty members (!!) in its department of engineering, several of whom graduated in 60s, 70s, and 80s and haven't published a single journal paper in more than 10 years. </p>
<p>If that's what you want, fine! But you can always study engineering at MIT, Stanford, Cal Berkeley, etc. (I mean, real engineering schools !).</p>
<p>Some small universities with LAC-like fields also have excellent engineering programs: University of Rochester (not Rochester Institute of Technology, which is great, but not liberal arts), Tufts, and University of Vermont are three that come immediately to mind.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What other LACs offer engineering or similar?
[/quote]
Among CollegeConfidential's "Top LACs", the only ones with their own engineering programs are Harvey Mudd, Smith, Swarthmore, and Trinity. Probably all of the other listed schools offer 3-2 programs, but these are not very popular in practice. They probably all offer Computer Science. Williams offers a "cluster of courses" in Materials Science, but there is no official major or minor in this field. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Swarthmore has a grand total of eight faculty members (!!) in its department of engineering...you can always study engineering at MIT, Stanford, Cal Berkeley, etc. (I mean, real engineering schools !)
[/quote]
Swarthmore's BS degrees in engineering -- and those at the other LACs listed above -- are fully ABET-accredited. They legally qualify as "real" engineering degrees, and will be accepted as such without hesitation by any graduate school or state licensing board. </p>
<p>If you go to Swarthmore, then you can study engineering at MIT, Stanford, Berkeley etc. in grad school. In fact, the top grad</a> schools for Swarthmore engineers are:</p>
<h1>1 MIT</h1>
<h1>2 Stanford</h1>
<h1>4 Berkeley</h1>
<p>(#3 is the nearby University of Pennsylvania; #5 is Cornell)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some small universities with LAC-like fields also have excellent engineering programs
[/quote]
Dartmouth would be another possibility.</p>
<p>Also in the LAC-like university category (like U. of Rochester, Tufts, Dartmouth, etc. mentioned already) would be Johns Hopkins.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Swarthmore's BS degrees in engineering -- and those at the other LACs listed above -- are fully ABET-accredited. They legally qualify as "real" engineering degrees, and will be accepted as such without hesitation by any graduate school or state licensing board.</p>
<p>If you go to Swarthmore, then you can study engineering at MIT, Stanford, Berkeley etc. in grad school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The vast majority of MIT graduate students are, guess what, MIT grads themselves! </p>
<p>I submit the OP would be much better off studying at MIT all the way, with a much wider choice of upper-level engineering electives and far more qualified faculty members, not to mention cutting-edge undergrad research opportunities that simply do not exist in LACs (where, let's face it, most faculty don't do research or, at least, don't do any meaningful, state-of-the-art research).</p>
<p>
[quote]
I submit the OP would be much better off studying at MIT all the way
[/quote]
Unless MIT has gotten rid of its 10,253 students, it's not exactly a LAC. This thread simply asks for LACs with engineering. </p>
<p>Presumably the OP has heard of MIT and can make up his own mind about it.</p>
<p>Different strokes for different folks.</p>
<p>It's not exactly a secret that many large universities offer engineering programs. So presumably the OP is looking for an alternative.</p>
<p>Are there good reasons why someone might seek an alternative to the traditional model of engineering education? </p>
<p>Well, maybe. Some people think that the traditional model is too narrow, and that it requires overspecialization in a particular engineering discipline, and in engineering itself, at too early a stage in the educational process. They would prefer to see broader education at the undergraduate level, with specialized technical training in graduate school.</p>
<p>This is obviously a viable model, because it is exactly what other professional fields, notably law and medicine, have already done. At one time, these disciplines were studied at the undergraduate level; in fact, there are still older attorneys practicing with LL.B. (Bachelor of Laws) degrees. But now, there are only general "pre-law" and "pre-medical" studies for undergraduates. The specialized professional training happens at the graduate level.</p>
<p>In engineering, it's hard to deny that the MS degree is becoming more and more prominent. The annual production of engineering BS</a> degrees is no higher today than it was in the early 1980s. But the production of MS</a> degrees has doubled over the same period. At least one major engineering society, ASCE, has officially [url=<a href="http://www.asce.org/professional/educ/report100901.cfm%5Dendorsed%5B/url">http://www.asce.org/professional/educ/report100901.cfm]endorsed[/url</a>] the MS, instead of the BS, as the first professional degree. And NCEES has officially [url=<a href="http://www.ncees.org/news/index.php?release_id=1%5Drecommended%5B/url">http://www.ncees.org/news/index.php?release_id=1]recommended[/url</a>] that states adopt the MS as a necessary criterion for PE licensure. If they do, then the MS will become the de facto first professional degree for civil engineers, because the PE is typically required for a successful career in this field.</p>
<p>But if the MS becomes the first professional degree in engineering, then it also becomes less important to have a highly specialized, technically focused BS degree. Future engineers can be educated more broadly at the undergraduate level, just as future attorneys and doctors already are. </p>
<p>This is not to suggest that the traditional, specialized engineering BS degree is going to become extinct anytime soon. But there is growing acceptance of alternative approaches, and this trend works to the advantage of LACs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
not to mention cutting-edge undergrad research opportunities that simply do not exist in LACs (where, let's face it, most faculty don't do research or, at least, don't do any meaningful, state-of-the-art research).
[/quote]
If you want to do cutting-edge research as an undergraduate, then a LAC is probably not your best choice.</p>
<p>But if you want to get a solid grounding in the fundamental principles of math, physical science, engineering, and technical writing, then a LAC may be an excellent choice. Chances are that you will be instructed in small classes (not vast lecture halls) by experienced professors (not TAs) who are selected for their ability to teach (not their ability to win grants).</p>
<p>In 10 years, the cutting-edge research that you do as an undergraduate will be laughably obsolete. But the fundamental principles that you learn as an undergraduate won't be.</p>
<p>name one research school where UNDERGRADS do cutting-edge research.</p>
<p>other than some at caltech, none.</p>
<p>on the other hand, all students at mudd do research. a good amount of this research is cutting-edge...</p>
<p>
[quote]
name one research school where UNDERGRADS do cutting-edge research.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Carnegie Mellon in computer engineering.</p>
<p>I love how bruno comes into a thread that explicitly says "LACs" in the title and goes on a pompous rant about how great MIT is and how much LACs suck. It gave me a chuckle.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some people think that the traditional model is too narrow, and that it requires overspecialization in a particular engineering discipline, and in engineering itself, at too early a stage in the educational process. They would prefer to see broader education at the undergraduate level, with specialized technical training in graduate school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My confusion about this is that ALL engineering programs basically require you to complete the same amount of stuff (assuming they are accredited programs). </p>
<p>When we looked at engineering programs, I really did not see a huge difference in general distribution requirements (humanities, arts, etc) between the tech schools and the LACs. </p>
<p>Not only that, but there was no consistency in when a specific major had to be declared. Some universities/tech schools and some LACs started out with general engineering courses, with students declaring (or applying for) a specialty second year. Some universities/tech schools and some LACs had kids declare a specialty right away. I didn't see it very cut and dry.</p>
<p>Frankly, the big difference I saw between LACs/universities/tech schools was the make up of the student body. Do you want to be with mostly techy kids? Or not?</p>