<p>The biggest difference I've seen occurs when the engineer decides that he's not really interested in engineering. At a liberal arts college, you can move out of engineering into art history, antrhopology, etc. without transferring. (Yes, I know there are such departments at some tech schools, but they're very small.)</p>
<p>^ Yeah, and you can't do that at a school like Berkeley or Stanford. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Berkeley and Stanford are hardly LACs, which was the subject of this thread. Someone looking at Swarthmore would rarely be interested in Berkeley or Stanford.</p>
<p>Your statement said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, you're comparing LACs to other LACs?</p>
<p>Sorry if I misunderstood you. I thought you were comparing them to research universities which is what some previous posts were comparing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
The engineering programs at traditional LACs (e.g. Swarthmore, Trinity, Smith) are ABET-accredited, but as "General Engineering" programs. These schools may offer "concentrations" in specific areas like Mechanical or Electrical, but every graduate officially gets the exact same "BS in General Engineering" degree. </p>
<p>In contrast, a typical university will have multiple ABET accreditations in different disciplines, and will offer different degrees, e.g. BSME or BSEE. Each of these specific degree types has further specific coursework and accreditation requirements, beyond those required by ABET generally.</p>
<p>The "General Engineering" option requires approximately the same number of engineering courses, but it gives the LACs more flexibility in the type and the scope of those courses. There are no specific accreditation requirements for "General" degrees, apart from the general ABET requirements that all engineering programs are expected to meet.</p>
<p>It's true, nonetheless, that even the "general" ABET coursework requirements are demanding. Realistically, these requirements do limit the number of courses that can be taken, outside of math, physical science, and engineering. This is probably why so few LACs have engineering programs -- they probably feel that even "General Engineering" is too narrow and restrictive as an undergraduate major.</p>
<p>Even some universities offer both ABET-accredited engineering degrees (as a BS) and "lighter" non-ABET engineering degrees (typically as a BA). At Dartmouth, for example, you can get the non-ABET BA in four years, but you have to stay an extra year for the ABET BS.</p>
<p>Actually, at Dartmouth you can get a BA in 4 years and then get the ABET-BE after an extra year, or you can get the BA/ABET-BE after a total of 4 years.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also in the LAC-like university category (like U. of Rochester, Tufts, Dartmouth, etc. mentioned already) would be Johns Hopkins.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know if I'd call JHU Lac like...(it might depend on your definition, but as someone who grew up around JHU and loves LACs, JHU was REALLY not what I was looking for). Brown, OTOH, is another uni that I would call LAC like that has engineering.</p>
<p>This is my list:</p>
<p>UPenn SEAS
Cornell COE/CAS
JHU
Rutgers</p>
<p>Dartmouth
Swarthmore
Williams
Haverford
Brown</p>
<p>Yeah, the first four are oddballs.</p>
<p>Thanks Corbett. Good info.</p>
<p>Among the differences are the breadth and depth of courses available to the fledgling engineering students. Avaialability of upper-level electives in the various sub-areas 0f engineering can literally dictate what you are exposed to, and limit what you ultimately select to do.</p>
<p>Engineering is a huge field; there is no conceivable way that 8 faculty members can cover it.</p>
<p>Yes, you can be an engineer, and even be well trained in those few areas where you have faculty expertise avaialble, but the opportunity cost of the road not travelled, because never seen, can be significant.</p>
<p>But you'll never know.</p>
<p>With regard to grad school, a while ago someone posted about an LAC grad in his grad program; smart perosn but poorly trained, compared to the others; doing catch-up. Hopefully the benefits of attending the LAC were worth it in other ways. </p>
<p>So there it is: breadth and depth of training in your field.</p>
<p>There is no free lunch.</p>
<p>With regard to grad school, a while ago someone posted about an LAC grad in his grad program; smart perosn but poorly trained, compared to the others; doing catch-up. Hopefully the benefits of attending the LAC were worth it in other ways.</p>
<p>Try not to view one person's case as applicable to everyone's case. Some LACs might miss many important details when they are making their engineers take double humanities, but others are certainly very good at educating their students for grad school and equivalent.</p>
<p>I posted some comments about the possible limitations of LAC engineering degrees in another [url=<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=391905%5Dthread%5B/url">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=391905]thread[/url</a>], and got the following response:
[quote]
as an engineering consulting employer, I'll take some difference with Corbett regarding hirability....broad generalizations for my consulting field at least: LAC engineers make great consultants because they can talk and write well; they also have an edge in management....university types make good design engineers. While all engineers are "dear" in the current market, there are fewer LAC engineers & I have a bias for hiring them when I can find them. As Corbett noted, LAC engineers can end up in law or B-school....we like them for the same leadership reasons. We need both. Just my 2 cents.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's certainly true (in my experience) that one of the most common complaints about new engineering hires is that they can't write. LAC engineers may well have an advantage here. Furthermore, good writing skills never become obsolete or irrelevant -- which is not the case for all of the specialized technical topics that you might learn in engineering school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
</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).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I doubt I or anyone else could get a better math or physics education at a LAC than at MIT, Harvard, Princeton or Caltech whose professors are among the top mathematicians and physicists in the world and whose TAs are among the brightest PhD students in the world working under the supervision of those top professors. As for professional engineering education, going back to the Swarthmore example, I must confess I'm skeptical that a eight-faculty-only department can support a real engineering program with concentrations in electrical/computer, mechanical, civil, and chemical engineering as the Swarthmore site claims. In fact, if you look at engineering class offerings at LACs in general, there are ridiculously few choices available to students beyond those traditional lower-level courses that are required for ABET accreditation (which BTW doesn't mean a lot since ABET standards are actually pretty low IMHO).</p>
<p>Besides, I may be biased here, but, looking at resumes and lists of publications alone, one should really question the academic quality of many LAC professors, especially in math, science and engineering. I agree LAC professors may be better teachers though (after all, unlike their universities counterparts, they actually specialize in teaching). I guess choosing a more supportive teaching environment over a stronger science/research environment and better resources/facilities is OK for students who see college as a continuation of High School with a different crowd (as I see most LACs), but obviously not every student fits that profile.</p>
<p>"It's certainly true (in my experience) that one of the most common complaints about new engineering hires is that they can't write."</p>
<p>This was NOT a common complaint at the engineering firm where I worked.
Because, frankly, they didn't write at all. Or if they did it was a trivial part of the job. If it was important they would have been in big trouble because English was not the first languge for a decent chunk of the staff.</p>
<p>The real concern was getting the work out, on schedule.</p>
<p>
<p>Dartmouth Swarthmore Williams Haverford Brown</p>
<p>Yeah, the first four are oddballs.
It seems like a very reasonable list to me. You might want to add one safety or match, though. You have a list of highly selective schools and one safety.</p>
<p>
Let's start off by comparing Goldwater Scholars from 2005-2007. The maximum for three years is 12.</p>
<p>MIT 8
Berkeley 6
Carnegie Mellon 6
Cornell 6
Michigan 6
Caltech 5</p>
<p>Pomona 9
Oberlin 8
Lafayette 6
Mount Holyoke 6
Reed 6
Williams 5</p>
<p>Now lets compare graduating PhD students at Caltech.
<p>Now lets tackle the opportunity of doing research. As we've already seen, LAC grads have no problem getting into science/engineering graduate programs. These programs are highly selective and essentially require a strong research background. In effect, you're claiming that a) these graduate programs are stupid or inconsistent in admitting LAC graduates with no research background or b) LAC graduates do have research opportunities and have utilized them...which is it?</p>
<p>Finally, let's deal with the issue of courses.
</p>
<p>^ I was an engineering major at Berkeley and had absolutely no problems getting into the courses I wanted.</p>
<p>Did sakky attend a large public university, that he's basing his comments from experience?</p>
<p>
[quote]
In many years, the combination of Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, and Wellesley have more alumni getting PhD's at Caltech than UCLA has, despite the fact that UCLA clearly has many times undergrads than the combination of those 4 LAC's, and despite the fact that UCLA is local to Caltech and thus would be expected to send plenty of their undergrads to Caltech. I am sure that there are plenty of UCLA grads who wanted to go to Caltech to get their PhD, but were not admitted because Caltech decided to admit somebody from a LAC instead.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps UCLA engineering grads were able to find employment after they got their engineering degree and didn't have the need to get a PhD like the LAC grads did.</p>
<p>CIT has a 3/2 program with prestigous LACs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I doubt I or anyone else could get a better math or physics education at a LAC than at MIT, Harvard, Princeton or Caltech whose professors are among the top mathematicians and physicists in the world and whose TAs are among the brightest PhD students in the world working under the supervision of those top professors.
[/quote]
But the LAC advantage -- as was, in fact, acknowledged later in the post -- is that the professors at LACs are selected and promoted primarily based on their ability to teach undergraduates. The professors and TAs at universities aren't. Let's face it, at some universities, you can't even count on your math TA to be fluent in English.</p>
<p>Consider the Haimo</a> Award, which honors "college or university teachers who have been widely recognized as extraordinarily successful and whose teaching effectiveness has been shown to have had influence beyond their own institutions." It has been awarded seven times to professors in Massachusetts, who were affiliated with the following schools:</p>
<p>1 Boston University
1 Northeastern
1 MIT
4 Williams </p>
<p>Now obviously schools like MIT or Harvard have great math departments. But maybe their strengths are leveraged most effectively by graduate students. This would not be the case at, say, Williams.</p>