Hey Guys I have a question. Can someone rank and tell me which is the most rigorous engineering course out there amongst the top schools? Like amongst UIUC, UMich , Gatech , Stanford, MIT , Caltech , UCLA , Harvey Mudd?
From top to bottom (only the ones I’ve researched): MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Gatech, UCLA, UMich
Why are you asking? What do you mean by “rigorous” (how do you want to measure it)?
Maybe Purdue the drop out rate is pretty incredible.
In terms of course content and rigor, probably Caltech and Harvey Mudd over all of the others. Take a look at the content of their “calculus” courses (accelerated and proof-heavy, with regular high school or college calculus listed as a prerequisite).
Drop out rates mean little, you have better students in some schools than others. A less rigorous school can have a higher drop out rate if they are not selective in getting those students who can hack it.
I am from northeast and while nobody would dispute MIT being near/at the top of the list, when you speak to kids
who went to 2nd choice schools, like WPI and RPI, they all say the level of rigor is still very high. Engineering is rigorous no matter where you go, but if you attend as a full merit scholar to a 2nd/3rd tier school, it may seem less rigorous when you do better on the curve than others. You still have to put in the effort to achieve that A.
1 Like
This. All those programs are ABET accredited so they meet the same minimum standard for preparing engineers. And they’ll all be paid the same for the same job.
Thank you guys. @“Erin’s Dad” How can you say that? Berkeley, Umich, stanford grads have much higher starting salaries than the rest. So they dont get paid the same…
You are misinterpreting salary data. When Ford Motor Company or United Technologies or General Mills or ConAgra hire engineers, there is little distinction in starting salary based on the new hires’ alma maters.
^ I believe the comparison is for the same job. If I have two applicants, one from Pitt and one from Stanford, I’m not going to offer one 10k more than the other just because their school has a fancier name.
Big engineering schools may, however, place their graduates into better paying jobs compared to West Podunk U.
At least that’s how I interpreted it.
Yes. Stanford and MIT grads may go into a totally different area than traditional engineering.
The rigor of a school and the suggested correlation to compensation are completely unrelated. The Payscale survey methodology is so flawed, that I suggest it not be considered when deciding upon a college.
To the question asked, I would suggest that you look at the type of experience you might receive. Does the program tend to be collaborative? Are there research opportunities? How large are the lectures; the labs? Are there extracurricular activities that align to your interests?
All engineering programs are rigorous; finding the type of program that fits your interests is the challenge.
From a bay area mechanical engineering perspective: While they are all good schools, they have very different focuses and different requirements for graduation. I believe Caltech sends a very high percentage of students to Phd programs. I would agree with the poster on Mudd and Caltech probably having the highest math emphasis. I know the most about Stanford’s program. They get very smart students in, but they don’t require the breadth of engineering course work other schools in the bay area do. Based on the many MIT graduates I work with, it seems to turn out pretty solid candidates. It really depends on what you want to do after your BS. My current large company really values pure smarts and Berkeley, MIT and Stanford are the top three schools. My previous smaller company valued people who could do a bit of everything and Cal Poly SLO and Santa Clara were the top schools.
“The rigor of a school and the suggested correlation to compensation are completely unrelated. The Payscale survey methodology is so flawed…”
The Payscale data strongly supports such a correlation and conforms to common sense. What data can you cite that is more credible than Payscale? If you discredit Payscale and can’t cite more accurate data, how do you propose to answer the ROI question? FWIW, I’ll go with Payscale, until you (and numerous other CC naysayers) come up with something better. I won’t hold my breath.
“All engineering programs are rigorous”
Good grief, no. SMH. I’m an engineer, and in my experience, this is patently false.
This has not been my experience. My company can no longer be competitive with MIT new grads. This last year we’ve seen multiple BSEE’s who have shown us other engineering offers they’ve received like $115K who ask us to match. We simply can’t compete. We haven’t seen that kind of salary inflation at schools like Northeastern or WPI.
From my engineering husband’s point of view, Harvey Mudd and Caltech above all the others.
“My company can no longer be competitive with MIT new grads. This last year we’ve seen multiple BSEE’s who have shown us other engineering offers they’ve received like $115K who ask us to match. We simply can’t compete.”
Bingo. Like I said, it’s common sense…
FYI, here’s the Payscale ROI rankings:
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mkl45lfdd/1-harvey-mudd-college/
The link that I cited appears to be out of date. Here is the one for 2016:
The latter does not contradict the former. It appears that your company is finding that there are higher paying companies which preferentially recruit at MIT over NEU and WPI. But that does not mean that, for any given company, a new graduate will be paid significantly differently for the same job based on his/her school. But those at different schools may see different sets of companies coming to recruit, which may affect the pay levels of job offers that the new graduates see.
Differences in recruiting may not necessarily match up to the academic rigor level of the course work, although any ABET accredited engineering degree program will meet a relatively high minimum standard.