<p>Cornell- Engineering Physics :)</p>
<p>Cornell engineering physics/applied physics has an excellent reputation. Undergrad was ranked #1 by US News. "Engineering physics" lacks the "name recognition" of some other majors like physics & finance. I hear the engineering physics faculty is outstanding. Cornell ECE isn't bad either.</p>
<p>"True, it may not be as easy to get a banking job through a MIT engineering degree as it is through a Wharton degree, but on the other hand, a Wharton graduate has basically zero chance of getting an engineering job. Hence, I would assert that the Wharton degree is a more specialized degree and the MIT engineering degree is a more flexible degree."</p>
<p>You aren't seriously arguing that undergrad business is more specialized than engineering.</p>
<p>You can go to Wharton and do absolutely anything you want and your skill set and knowledge base is SO much broader than that of an engineer's. </p>
<p>But if someone wanted to be an engineer, they would have gone to engineering school, not business school. Wharton grads don't want engineering jobs.</p>
<p>Whartonalum,</p>
<p>What he meant basically is that engineering grads from MIT have higher chances/opportunity to get a job than Wharton's grad. And his argument is that engineering degree holders may work in both finance and engineering/science area whereas business degree holder may not work in engrng area at all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You can go to Wharton and do absolutely anything you want and your skill set and knowledge base is SO much broader than that of an engineer's.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't really think you can back this argument up, esp. when you have no predefined description of what skill set and knowledge base are :)</p>
<p>What would be the most valued degree at Columbia?</p>
<p>The Columbia Law degree, of course. Is this thread asking "what is the most respected major at school X?" What do you mean by "most valued degree?"</p>
<p>"What he meant basically is that engineering grads from MIT have higher chances/opportunity to get a job than Wharton's grad." </p>
<p>I disagree with this. Engineering is very focused, and business is so broad. The academic experience has a lot more flexibility as well as future career options. At Wharton you get both quantitative AND qualitative skills - you have to do the finance, accounting, operations, and stat as well as the marketing, management, legal studies, public policy, etc. as well as taking liberal arts classe. So you don't come out with just a numbers background and analytic ability. You come out with communications skills, presentation skills, teamwork skills, writing ability, speaking ability, etc.</p>
<p>And as I mentioned before - the argument that Wharton students can't get an engineering job is pointless because Wharton students don't WANT engineering jobs (if they did they'd just do M&T or a dual degree in engineering). There are a lot more industries than engineering and Wharton students are better prepared to enter them than engineers. </p>
<p>You can go to Wharton and go on to work in marketing, finance, IT, fashion, consulting, banking, education, real estate, law school, med school, politics, non-profit, film, music industry (these are just examples of people that I know). How many engineers do this many different things, especially straight out of undergrad?</p>
<p>DRab - I myself was wondering what the school is "best known for," I guess. For example, if Columbia's Law degree fit this, then that would mean a law degree from Columbia to most in the field of law would be held to higher prestige than, say, an English degree from Columbia to most English scholars.</p>
<p>I would say Law and English, but I'm sure others would disagree.</p>
<p>Columbia offers an undergrad law degree?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Columbia Law degree, of course.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Try Harvard, Yale, and Stanford.</p>
<p>whartonalum,</p>
<p>You think engineering jobs are very specific? Not at all. How many engineering grad do you think are working in the same area as what they have studied in the college?</p>
<p>An electrical engineer for example, can occupy many positions in any engineering fields such as system analyst, programmer, testing engineer, product manager, technical support, quality control and many others. Furthermore in engineering/software companies, those positions mentioned above have hundreds of variety in terms of the nature of the functions. Simply said the variety of jobs in the engineering would match if not exceed the variety in the business section such as marketing, advertising, finance, and the rest that you've mentioned earlier. Not to mention the positions that are available in terms of quantity. That's why in general, engineering degree is probably the most marketable degree. Now in addition to that, engineers, even at the 'nerdiest' school Caltech, have to take some classes in presentation, writing and communication skill, not to mention MIT. With this regard, MIT engineering grads are qualified to enter business sections such as marketing, banking, financial analysist and product management.</p>
<p>Wharton business grads, although quantitatively are quite strong, have no sufficient technical/quantitative background to support their entrance to any job with engineering/scientific nature.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I disagree with this. Engineering is very focused, and business is so broad. The academic experience has a lot more flexibility as well as future career options. At Wharton you get both quantitative AND qualitative skills - you have to do the finance, accounting, operations, and stat as well as the marketing, management, legal studies, public policy, etc. as well as taking liberal arts classe. So you don't come out with just a numbers background and analytic ability. You come out with communications skills, presentation skills, teamwork skills, writing ability, speaking ability, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look, I'll put it to you this way. If engineering is so focused and specialized, then why is management consulting among the most prolific hirers of engineering students at MIT? McKinsey and BCG were some of the largest hirers of MIT graduating seniors, not only from the Sloan School, but also from the School of Engineering. Why are these consulting companies hiring these supposedly super-specialized engineers who, according to you, have no presentation ability, no communication skills, no teamwork skills, no writing/speaking ability, and all that? Are they being dumb? </p>
<p>
[quote]
And as I mentioned before - the argument that Wharton students can't get an engineering job is pointless because Wharton students don't WANT engineering jobs (if they did they'd just do M&T or a dual degree in engineering). There are a lot more industries than engineering and Wharton students are better prepared to enter them than engineers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>By the same logic that a lot of Wharton students may not want to be engineers, a lot of engineers don't want to enter those other fields that you mention. But the point is, they could. If MIT engineers are being snapped up by McKinsey and BCG (which they are), then why wouldn't they also be able to get into all of those other fields that you mention? That is, unless you are prepared to take the position that McKinsey and BCG are just being strange. </p>
<p>The real point is that I believe that an MIT engineering degree gives you more total option than a Wharton degree. Whether you want to use those options is an entirely different question. The point is, the options are there. I agree that Wharton guys have an edge in banking/finance over the MIT boys. However, there is nothing that would stop an MIT engineer from entering fashion, music, politics, or nonprofit, just like there's nothing to stop the MIT engineer from going to McKinsey.</p>
<p>nspeds - the issue in this thread is not which college has the best of which program, but which programs are the best and held to highest prestige at specific colleges. Even I, despite how much I like Columbia, believe a Harvard Law degree would be more valued by the general public than a Columbia Law degree.</p>
<p>If you're looking to get a really good business career, you go for Wharton.</p>
<p>If you're looking to get a really good engineering career, you go for MIT engineering. </p>
<p>If you're looking to get a really good career but you don't know if it's going to be in engineering or business, then you go for MIT engineering.</p>
<p>If you're looking to get a really good career but you don't know what you want to do, then you probably go for Wharton. </p>
<p>There's also two different "flexibilities" being described here.
The engineering degree is flexible because it covers the engineering field and can be used for the business field as well. The wharton degree is flexible in how broad business opportunities are. Basically, the engineering degree is flexible across fields while the wharton degree is flexible within a field. So both of you guys are right.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Even I, despite how much I like Columbia, believe a Harvard Law degree would be more valued by the general public than a Columbia Law degree.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry, I do not recall disagreeing. My post claimed that Harvard, Yale, and Stanford are more prestigious in law than Columbia.</p>
<p>Engineering is definately more specialized than Business. Engineers can do anything, yes, but that quality lies in the person rather than his education. Some of you are getting this confused.</p>
<p>It is like arguing how a physics major is flexible because he can go to law, medical or business school. Physics prepares thinking skills needed for lawyers etc., but what is learned is not <em>directly</em> relavant.</p>
<p>Flavian, you're getting the wrong idea. Engineering degree is more flexible than Business deg, but not Physics. Tell me, how many MBA students were from physics major, now compare that with the ones from engineering major. We say engineering degree is more flexible because engineering grads can enter business section but not vice versa in addition to the huge pool of engineering jobs. Physics degree is not that flexible because the demand is low and its nature is often too theoritical, a turn off for business people. But on the contrary engineering field teaches you how to be realistic and practical, an attribute which is highly esteemed in business sector.</p>
<p>nspeds - I know you didn't disagree--that was the point. Most people are aware that Harvard, Yale, and Stanford have more prestigious law programs than Columbia. I was simply reminding you that which schools have the best programs wasn't the original topic of this thread.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you're looking to get a really good business career, you go for Wharton.</p>
<p>If you're looking to get a really good engineering career, you go for MIT engineering. </p>
<p>If you're looking to get a really good career but you don't know if it's going to be in engineering or business, then you go for MIT engineering.</p>
<p>If you're looking to get a really good career but you don't know what you want to do, then you probably go for Wharton.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agreed with everything except your last sentence. I would say that if you want a really good career but don't know what you want to do, then you should go for MIT engineering (not Wharton), because MIT engineering is more broadly based. Yes, Wharton can take you many places. But MIT engineering can also take you many places, including working as an engineer. Like rtkysg said, MIT engineers can do everything that a Wharton grad can do - perhaps not as well, but they can do it. But a Wharton grad can't take an engineering job. </p>
<p>
[quote]
It is like arguing how a physics major is flexible because he can go to law, medical or business school. Physics prepares thinking skills needed for lawyers etc., but what is learned is not <em>directly</em> relavant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like rtkysg, I would point to how many engineering grads end up with jobs in consulting, and ultimately go to B-school, compared to the physics grads who do such things. One can argue that engineering is not related to consulting, but apparently McKinsey would disagree. You can say that engineering is unrelated to business skills, but apparently the elite B-schools who admit all these engineers would disagree. Again, the top B-schools entering classes are generally 25-35% former engineering undergrads , a remarkable figure when you consider that engineering undergrads comprise a bare 5% of all bachelor's degree recipients in the US. </p>
<p>So the question is, why are the consulting companies hiring all these engineering students, if engineering is so specialized? ? Why are the elite B-schools admitting a hugely disproportionate number of former engineering undergrads? Are they being dumb?</p>