Columbia no longer has guaranteed 3+2 transfer admission for meeting specific grade and GPA requirements.
It also does not promise FA to “meet need” for 3+2 transfers, unlike frosh and other transfers.
I have no idea what the stats are in terms of who completes a 3-2 program vs a traditional engineering program. THe drop out rate for aspiring freshman engineers is very high. I can see how getting well involved in a college that requires transferring to get that engineering degree to squelch one’s taste for the field, but in the schools with engineering as an up front major, a lot of kids drop that major because they can’t keep up with the courses or get the required grades in the subject. I think a nurturing LAC can help in that regard. Dropping engineering plans may be more likely to be because of lack of motivation to continue on that course rather than failing the courses.
I’ve been seeing a increase in the number of 5 year programs in the last 10-20 years. As I said before, Pitt now has a 5 year program. Some specialty engineering areas do require 5 years. I wonder if it isn’t to increase the retention rate in that major. Or to allow those who want to transfer into the program after a year or two of college to have the possibility to do so. Engineering is one of those majors that have a lot of students drop and nearly no one joining after freshman year. The class count only goes down for engineering.
3-2 is an option available to those who are interested in it, and I have no doubt that it benefits some students. It’s there and available as an option as of now, and for those who want to go to a liberal arts college rather than an engineering school at age 18 years old, but want that option to pursue an engineering degree through a program that offers guide posts and a worn path to that end, this is it.
The reason our S19 thinks he wants a LAC despite being interested in physics is (1) he’s not 100 percent sure and who knows could end up a philosophy major and (2) he’s no way ready to commit to being an engineer right now. So, he’s most likely going to a LAC to begin a major in physics and then see what he thinks. If he ends up sticking with physics but wants to be an engineer then he will go to a two year grad school program at some point. Not everyone knows they want to be an engineer (or honestly even know what an engineer does) at 17 years old.
Bowdoin told us that no one ever does 3/2 even though they offer it. We were at a college fair and the student behind us asked as well and the AO repeated herself and added, “if you know you want engineering then start in engineering. Kids hardly ever go to a school with a 3/2 and then go that route.”
Which bachelor’s degree programs at https://www.engineering.pitt.edu/ require more than 8 semesters of school? (Yes, co-ops extend the calendar time to graduation, but not the number of semesters of school.)
One disadvantage of transferring for years 4 & 5 is that students have already started working together in major specific classes. Engineering problem sets, labs and projects are collaborative. I get the advantages of a LAC, but they can be found at a university with a very strong CAS, an engineering school that limits class size where if makes a difference (recitations, labs, foreign language, any discussion/project based, creative writing, etc…).
30 years ago, 3-2 programs were more popular and some of the LAC schools were all male or female. A close friend is is a Bowdoin-Columbia grad from a different era.
Yes, year 5 of full tuition at a selective school without merit was not in our budget. Our children did not want to invest 5 years unless it included an MS in engineering. During undergraduate tours, professors told D1 not to apply for her masters degree and pay, but to apply for a fully funded PHD.
I know quite a folks who attended liberal arts colleges, mostly majoring in Chemistry, or Phyiscs, who went on to earn PhDs in engineering from prominent engineering programs… None of the folks I know were in their colleges 3-2 program @homerdog @cleveland132
Not sure if this is a relevant question to the OP but does anyone know if most PhD programs for engineering are paid for by the university? One of my cousin’s sons is at Wisconsin doing a PhD in engineering and I thought it made it sound like he had a stipend and he wasn’t paying tuition.
PhD programs worth attending should be funded (tuition waiver and living expense stipend), often in exchange for doing teaching assistant or research assistant work.
What @ucbalumnus said is true for PhD programs in both science and engineering (and some other departments that need a decent amount of TAs & RAs)
@homerdog Accepted wisdom is that you never do a PhD unless it is fully funded. That will either be a TAship or an RAship, both which include full tuition. RAships have the advantage of gaining experience, and are preferred by engineers, since the majority of engineering PhDs work in industry. For fields in which the majority go into teaching, the TAships are critical, since teaching experience is very important on an academic job application, and most academic jobs are at teaching-heavy colleges.
I attended a university that offered a 3-2 engineering program and my roommate of 2 years was in that program. He had grown enormously attached to his girlfriend and his group of friends. Leaving after 3 years was hell on him, but he did it. Just having seen how hard it was on him I would not recommend this route for people who want to be engineers.
“Engineering is one of those majors that have a lot of students drop and nearly no one joining after freshman year. The class count only goes down for engineering.”
Except for transfers. Many state schools keep their upperclassmen engineering numbers up by taking in a decent number of transfers (from CC’s and elsewhere).
How easy is it to get accepted in to a masters program in Engineering with an undergrad science degree (e.g. Chemistry or Physics)? Most Engineering Masters programs here in Canada require a Engineering undergraduate degree to be admitted. Also while an undergraduate Engineering degree will qualify you for a P.Eng to be a registered professional engineer, a M.Sc or MASc in Engineering without an undergraduate Engineering degree first will not (or at least not without jumping through a ton of hoops and doing supplemental examinations). Is that the same in the U.S.?
For most US engineering graduate programs, a bachelor’s degree in that engineering field is the preferred undergraduate preparation. Some may be flexible with other bachelor’s degrees, though the further the bachelor’s degree field is from the field of the graduate program, the less likely admission tends to be, and the more likely the student will need to take “catch up” courses.
For Professional Engineer licensing, completing an ABET* accredited degree is at least strongly favored, and most such degree programs are bachelor’s degree programs.
*Engineers Canada is the analogous accrediting organization in Canada. EC and ABET have a mutual recognition agreement: https://www.abet.org/global-presence/mutual-recognition-agreements/
Arrgh- the concept of “nurturing” at a LAC. Good grief- need remedial hand holding by the time they are college age??? Guess I’m used to independent people. Large schools are composed of many smaller groupings just like big cities have many neighborhoods. But, I guess people at those small schools have self selected for those like themselves and avoid being exposed to others who are so unlike them they are eye openers.
Question- does the student want many others with similar interests to interact with? With the exception of some tech specific schools most colleges/universities with good engineering programs also have plenty of others with diverse interests around but also plenty of others with the same interests. People are multifaceted and it is nice to run into many more in different classes than the same small cadre in all of one’s STEM classes. Given the many engineering majors there would also likely be more than one or two with the exact major.
@wis75 At 18 they’re still kids. That is a fact with which I became very aware over my teas in the military. Two weeks after my 18th birthday I was conscripted into the military, where I proceeded to spend the next 3 years of my life. All the kids who were drafted with me were also 18, and so were about 1/3 of all the kids with whom I interacted for the next three years.
They draft kids at 18, and not, say, at 22, specifically because they’re still kids at 18. At 18 they don’t give almost any though about the consequences and implications of any of their actions. At 18 they think that it’s all fun and games, even when they start dying. Common sense is antithetical to being a combat soldier, and so is critical thinking. Guidance at 18 has profound affects, which is how commanding officers and NCOs can get kids to run into a firefight on their commander’s say-so.
So, based on my 3 years in regular service alongside kids in the 18-21 age range, and to my 11 years of serving alongside kids of this age when I was a reservist in my 20s, I can say that yes, these kids would definitely benefit from guidance and support.
Swarthmore.
I ended up getting a science MS rather than a MEng because I would have been required to take some undergraduate engineering courses (statics for example) that I did not take as an UG science major. It may have made a positive difference in my career path but I have done fine. However, it really depends on the type of engineering and the UG degree. I have heard of kids with bio majors going onto biomedical engineering masters.