@whatisyourquest … Deciding which college might help you make more money based on a self-selected sample of job seekers is an perfect example of using data to say whatever you’d like it to, without consideration for the reasons.
For example, maybe the MIT results are skewed because only the bottom of their barrel logs in and posts compensation data, whilst the average and above average graduates don’t ever have to look for jobs…jobs find them. Engineers who stop looking for engineering jobs aren’t on Payscale posting about their comp. in a sense, schools that are active on the site might be those to avoid, as their graduates appear to need help finding jobs.
Knowing something isn’t right, and not having an alternative (possibly because none exists), doesn’t add credence to Payscales methodilogy.
As for rigor, I wouldn’t consider it materially different amongst the level of program listed in the initial question. Should have clarified.
Sure, I will challenge that wager. Chico graduates lots of very well qualified engineers who may not have qualified for Cal, CalTech or wherever out of high-school - but mature a bit later and bring every ounce of intelligence, discipline and rigor into their jobs exhibited grads of elite schools. I’d argue many have a more rounded perspective and less of a sense of entitlement than the elite school grads. Check LinkedIn to see how many Chico engineering grads work at top companies.
This is one of several CC threads that I’ve participated in that addresses the quality/rigor of engineering programs. In all of these threads there have been some posters that fervently believe that any accredited engineering program is as good as another. That is, there are only two buckets. One for non-accredited programs and another for accredited programs. All programs in the latter bucket are, for all practical purposes, identical. It’s binary only. There is no spectrum, no continuum, no scale, no relative measure of any kind that matters. Graduate anywhere; it’s all the same.
I disagree but, no worries, it’s natural for people to have different opinions and experiences. Nevertheless, I wonder why posters that hold this position bother to weigh in on a thread entitled “most rigorous engineering school.” I guess that it’s because these posters disagree entirely with the premise that there can even be a MOST and wish to provide a contrarian view. I can’t think of any other reason.
@whatisyourquest I agree with you. If all engineering programs were the same, based on admissions statistics it would be an easy major for students at Berkeley as compared to students at someplace such as SF State. But I think most people would agree that engineering is not easy anywhere.
I’ve talked to some engineering graduates who didn’t do any (or minimal) hands-on projects at an ABET accredited school whereas freshmen at some schools are doing more hands-on work than those graduates. Are all graduates from either type of school only good or bad, of course not, but there are differences.
It’s a bit off topic but I wonder if a CC thread on the “most rigorous” or “best” programs in math (M) and science (S) would consistently get such push back. I doubt it. I imagine that, regarding the first and last letters of STEM, there is a pretty good sense about which programs really are “most rigorous” or “best.” I don’t think that many people would regard all accredited S or M programs as essentially equivalent.
@whatisyourquest…I think you’re correct with E vs. M or S. I would suggest that’s its the pre-occupation with money and employment, and the ability for engineering grads from most schools to find jobs. As for rigor, engineering is more rigorous than most / all majors at a college or university, so anyone posting on these boards considers engineering rigorous, because it was (based on their experience).
If you ask most people about their own major…they will confess that their school wasn’t as rigorous, was really tough, etc. If they have kids who are E…it’s incredibly rigorous regardless of college. Perspective is everything, which is why the responses you get on boards like this are nearly worthless.
Can’t say about engineering (except that some of the engineering majors at my alma mater are very tough), but when it comes to CS, you’ll find a vast variation in rigor if you look at the problems/questions on OS finals.
Maybe the following thought process will find consensus here:
Some engineering programs are more rigorous/tougher than others. (Think MIT, Caltech, HMC, etc.) But the vast majority of engineering jobs only requires a certain amount of training/rigor, and any program that receives ABET accreditation will be plenty good enough for these typical engineering jobs. However, a minority of engineering jobs exists that does require a level of rigor above and beyond that found in most accredited engineering programs. (Think academia, corporate R&D, etc.) For this small subset of engineering jobs, the level of rigor found at MIT, Caltech, HMC etc. is worthwhile and often necessary. In conclusion, even though there is indeed a spectrum of rigor/toughness exhibited across all accredited engineering programs, most engineers find this kind of specificity meaningless in their work world.
I realize that some of these points were made upthread. I’ve simply tried to pull a summary together that perhaps we can all agree to. Feel free to tweak.
I was the benefactor of far too much rigor as a Cornell engineer back in the ancient 80’s - literally 20 boards of calculus across every classroom left a permanent mark on me. I survived . . . but barely. These were some of the best students in the country and I really wonder how many understood the bulk of the lectures. Will never forget the Quantum Physics midterm that had an 11 as a mean - crazy stuff and rigor to the MAX.