national universities-proportion of total graduates who are engineering

College Search & Selection
1

<p>You might find this interesting. The proportion of bachelors graduates at national universities who are in engineering. IPEDS 2004 data.</p>

<p>university, total bachelors, engineering bachelors, engineering proportion
STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 352 213 0.61
WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE 605 331 0.55
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY-MAIN CAMPUS 2594 1380 0.53
RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE 1319 620 0.47
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 1194 503 0.42
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 208 81 0.39
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY 790 235 0.3
LEHIGH UNIVERSITY 1123 290 0.26
CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY 1261 313 0.25
RICE UNIVERSITY 716 142 0.2
PURDUE UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 6242 1183 0.19
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIV 4876 861 0.18
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-ANN ARBOR 5923 1046 0.18
CORNELL UNIVERSITY-ENDOWED COLLEGES 3577 632 0.18
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY 4523 806 0.18
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY 1514 268 0.18
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY 1288 211 0.16
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY 1114 177 0.16
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 1999 329 0.16
TUFTS UNIVERSITY 1336 205 0.15
CLEMSON UNIVERSITY 3020 454 0.15
DUKE UNIVERSITY 1539 221 0.14
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK 1804 251 0.14
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 6763 978 0.14
AUBURN UNIVERSITY MAIN CAMPUS 3917 525 0.13
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 9134 1172 0.13
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST LOUIS 1634 188 0.12
MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY 1549 184 0.12
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY 6650 812 0.12
TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY 7914 972 0.12
STANFORD UNIVERSITY 1713 196 0.11
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA-MAIN CAMPUS 3207 347 0.11
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-SAN DIEGO 4131 462 0.11
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 8574 928 0.11
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-DAVIS 5608 557 0.1
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 8917 912 0.1
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER 1174 120 0.1
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA-TWIN CITIES 6049 587 0.1
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON 6336 630 0.1
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND-COLLEGE PARK 5959 583 0.1
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH-MAIN CAMPUS 3861 368 0.1
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 8288 752 0.09
TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA 1452 126 0.09
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME 2052 194 0.09
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 2797 241 0.09
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI 2155 175 0.08
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE 4633 391 0.08
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 7783 591 0.08
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON-SEATTLE CAMPUS 7194 589 0.08
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES 7026 572 0.08
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY-NEW BRUNSWICK 5734 454 0.08
THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE 4035 315 0.08
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER 5196 363 0.07
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 4344 302 0.07
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA 4086 299 0.07
BOSTON UNIVERSITY 3991 265 0.07
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT 3673 203 0.06
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE 1064 64 0.06
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 4015 248 0.06
SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY 1397 83 0.06
BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY 6829 381 0.06
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY 2798 138 0.05
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 1614 78 0.05
BROWN UNIVERSITY 1490 73 0.05
SUNY AT BINGHAMTON 2285 122 0.05
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE 3392 172 0.05
YALE UNIVERSITY 1339 48 0.04
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-SANTA BARBARA 4564 193 0.04
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-RIVERSIDE 2893 92 0.03
UNIVERSITY OF DENVER 931 23 0.02
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 1993 49 0.02
BAYLOR UNIVERSITY 2296 42 0.02
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-SANTA CRUZ 3053 58 0.02
HARVARD UNIVERSITY 1797 24 0.01
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA 5769 29 0.01
MIAMI UNIVERSITY-OXFORD 3784 32 0.01
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY 4492 12 0
YESHIVA UNIVERSITY 575 1 0
FORDHAM UNIVERSITY 1604 2 0
WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY 1000 0 0</p>

2

<p>on a post on biology you stated:</p>

<p>"The relative size (ratio) of a major within a college compared to the relative size at other colleges is an indicator of quality, departmental resources, and effectiveness."</p>

<p>And you went on to imply that this was an appropriate metric on which to compare different schools to each other.</p>

<p>I don't agree, and this engineering list gives clear reason why.</p>

<p>Applying this premise to your engineering list:</p>

<p>Stevens Tech, Iowa State, etc, are to be preferred in engineering over Stanford.</p>

<p>This conclusion is nonsense. Because the premise that this is an appropriate metric upon which to compare between schools is flawed.</p>

<p>Within one university, yes, I can see where the approach has some merit. If a major is stronger at that university then it might attract a greater proportion of majors at that university. Although I'm not sure how I would apply it even in this case.</p>

<p>However comparing BETWEEN universities this falls down. Because the % size at that school also depends on what else is going on at that school. For example, Stanford is great in engineering, but it is equally great across a wide swath of other majors. Morevoever it offers a broad array of other majors. Hence Stanfords' % engineering will never be that high, even though its department quality is outstanding. So the percentage says absolutely nothing, externally to Stanford itself, about the quality of its engineering department.</p>

<p>In contrast, WPI may not offer many majors besides engineering. And potentially these other programs may be weak at WPI. So WPI's percentage of engineering students will always be higher than Stanford's. But this in no way is any indication whatsoever that WPIs engineering program is in any way better or even remotely equivalent to Stanford's. All it means in this case is that WPI doesn't have much going for it besides engineering, whereas Stanford does.</p>

<p>So the precentage metric is flawed because it depends not only on the targeted department being good. It equally depends on the university's other programs being both ; i)non-numerous, and : ii)worse. That's the
problem. Your measure of quality of one major is diluted because the metric you are trying to use is equally affected by the quality of all the school's other programs besides that major.</p>

3

<p>Actually, now that I think about it, this metric could have some utility as an indicator of the predominant campus cultures at various schools. An overwhelmingly engineering school may have a very different prevailing campus culture than a very diverse school might have.</p>

<p>But as an indicator of quality of a major I believe this measure falls rather short, for the reasons indicated above, and will produce many false conclusions if applied by most users.</p>

<p>If you want to investigate whether a department is strong, look at at the department. Go ahead, compare that department to the same department at other colleges. But don't confound your investigation by throwing in all the other departments, whose abundance and quality at a particular institution are in many cases largely extraneous to the department whose quality you are trying to measure.</p>

<p>If a school has a high % in some major you can't attribute that to the major being so good, because it may equally be the case that the major really isn't that good but the school's other offerings just really bite. So you're left with not knowing what it means. </p>

<p>And probably in some cases drawing incorrect conclusions. Enough cases so that it's not a good metric. I see numerous potential wrong conclusions just in the above engineering list.</p>

4

<p>So is Stevens Tech better in Engineering than Cornell?
Is Carnegie Mellon(25%) better in engineering than Cornell(18%) ?</p>

<p>Or rather is it the case that Cornell is a diverse university with 7 undergraduate colleges with numerous areas and majors of excellence besides engineering, whereas Carnegie Mellon has somewhat fewer of these other outstanding programs that compete for students on its campus?</p>

<p>One can't tell, and the potential for false conclusions is high.</p>

5

<p>And if a particular department at a school is great, does that mean it is going to be huge % at that school? There may be a tendency towards a higher %, but it really completely depends on how good, and how numerous, the OTHER departments at that school are. Which has nothing to do with the quality of the department being investigated.</p>

<p>The potential for exceptions caused by these confounding variables severly diminishes the utility of this statistic as a reliable quality measure.</p>

6

<p>monydad-
I understand what you are saying about this list. I see the same things you see. I concede that this list bears only a rough correspondance to quality (with the better institutions in the top half). </p>

<p>The relative size of a department is just one factor. It can't be understood in isolation; you have to look a little deeper. The relative size of departments does mean something. I think it is most meaningful when you are comparing colleges that are similar in nature, when other things are comparable.</p>

<p>Stevens and WPI are more or less specialty engineering schools. They are primarily undergrad. They are different. At the same time, perhaps the quality of undergraduate engineering at Stevens and WPI tends to be underestimated. The 75th percentile SATs at Stevens is 1390, about the same as UNC Chapel Hill and Lehigh.</p>

<p>Yes, you quoted me correctly from a similar thread about biology departments at LACs. LACs are more uniform in nature than universities. I think the relationship with quality is easier to see.</p>

<p>For example, if you look at the Ivies in the above list, the order in which they are found would be like this:
Cornell
Princeton
Columbia
U Pennsylvania
Dartmouth
Yale
Harvard
That's about the right order in terms of the quality of the engineering programs in the Ivies, I think.</p>

<p>Here is the ranking for the major public universities:
In parenthesis are the rankings according to US News for public universities (i.e. the order in which the publics appear in US News).
Of the top ten according to relative size, 8 are also in the US News top 10. Five of the schools in the second ten are also in the US News second ten. There is rough agreement.
1 (3)Georgia Tech
2 (5)Purdue
3 (9)Virginia Tech
4 (4)Michigan
5 (2)Illinois
6 (10)Penn State
7 (1)Berkeley
8 (8)Texas A&M
9 (19)UVA
10 (13)UC San Diego
11 (18)Florida
12 (17)UC Davis
13 (6)Texas Austin
14 (11)Minnesota
15 (14)Maryland
16 (7)Wisconsin
17 (36)Pittsburgh
18 (16)Ohio State
19 (27)UC Irvine
20 (25)Michigan State
21 (15)U Washington
22 (12)UCLA
23 (29)Rutgers</p>

<p>What happens when you look at size and selectivity together?
If you take an additional factor into account, such as selectivity, then the list looks a little more like the rankings with which we are familiar. Maybe this is a pretty good way to rank UNDERGRADUATE engineering (separate from the graduate program). </p>

<p>Berkeley and Stanford still wind up lower than you would expect. Maybe it is because, as you say, the quality of their programs is uniform. On the other hand, could it be that Stanford and Berkeley are not all they are cracked up to be for UNDERGRADUATE engineering. Perhaps it is the reputation of the graduate program that affects the perception of the undergrad for Berkeley and Stanford. I know that the graduate engineering program at Stanford is huge.</p>

<p>The list below is sorted by the proportion of engineering degrees multiplied by the SAT 75th percentile. This is a way to adjust the relative size of the engineering program by selectivity. Schools with big engineering programs AND smart students float to the top. </p>

<p>I don't fully understand what the relative program size means but I think it has something to add to the profile of information about the quality of a university. It's pretty complex. Don't dismiss it without giving it more thought. </p>

<p>university, SAT 75th percentile, proportion of engineering grads, SAT X engineering ratio
STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 1390 0.61 847.9
WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE 1390 0.55 764.5
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY-MAIN CAMPUS 1430 0.53 757.9
RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE 1420 0.47 667.4
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 1560 0.42 655.2
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 1570 0.39 612.3
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY 1420 0.3 426
CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY 1480 0.25 370
LEHIGH UNIVERSITY 1380 0.26 358.8
RICE UNIVERSITY 1540 0.2 308
CORNELL UNIVERSITY-ENDOWED COLLEGES 1490 0.18 268.2
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY 1440 0.18 259.2
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-ANN ARBOR 1390 0.18 250.2
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY 1560 0.16 249.6
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 1500 0.16 240
PURDUE UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 1260 0.19 239.4
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY 1490 0.16 238.4
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIV 1290 0.18 232.2
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY 1230 0.18 221.4
TUFTS UNIVERSITY 1470 0.15 220.5
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK 1560 0.14 218.4
DUKE UNIVERSITY 1530 0.14 214.2
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 1410 0.14 197.4
CLEMSON UNIVERSITY 1300 0.15 195
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST LOUIS 1520 0.12 182.4
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY 1450 0.12 174
STANFORD UNIVERSITY 1550 0.11 170.5
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 1290 0.13 167.7
AUBURN UNIVERSITY MAIN CAMPUS 1210 0.13 157.3
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA-MAIN CAMPUS 1430 0.11 157.3
TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY 1300 0.12 156
MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY 1280 0.12 153.6
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-SAN DIEGO 1360 0.11 149.6
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1360 0.11 149.6
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER 1410 0.1 141
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON 1390 0.1 139
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND-COLLEGE PARK 1370 0.1 137
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 1510 0.09 135.9
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 1340 0.1 134
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH-MAIN CAMPUS 1330 0.1 133
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME 1470 0.09 132.3
TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA 1435 0.09 129.15
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-DAVIS 1280 0.1 128
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA-TWIN CITIES 1280 0.1 128
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 1280 0.09 115.2
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES 1410 0.08 112.8
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI 1350 0.08 108
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY-NEW BRUNSWICK 1310 0.08 104.8
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE 1310 0.08 104.8
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON-SEATTLE CAMPUS 1310 0.08 104.8
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1440 0.07 100.8
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 1240 0.08 99.2
THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE 1240 0.08 99.2
BOSTON UNIVERSITY 1390 0.07 97.3
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE 1550 0.06 93
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER 1280 0.07 89.6
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA 1280 0.07 89.6
BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY 1320 0.06 79.2
SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY 1300 0.06 78
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT 1270 0.06 76.2
BROWN UNIVERSITY 1520 0.05 76
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 1240 0.06 74.4
SUNY AT BINGHAMTON 1340 0.05 67
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY-MAIN CAMPUS 1320 0.05 66
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY 1320 0.05 66
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE 1280 0.05 64
YALE UNIVERSITY 1560 0.04 62.4
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-SANTA BARBARA 1300 0.04 52
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-RIVERSIDE 1200 0.03 36
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 1370 0.02 27.4
BAYLOR UNIVERSITY 1290 0.02 25.8
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-SANTA CRUZ 1280 0.02 25.6
UNIVERSITY OF DENVER 1230 0.02 24.6
HARVARD UNIVERSITY 1580 0.01 15.8
MIAMI UNIVERSITY-OXFORD 1320 0.01 13.2
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA 1320 0.01 13.2
FORDHAM UNIVERSITY 1290 0 0
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY 1410 0 0
WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY 1410 0 0
YESHIVA UNIVERSITY 1350 0 0</p>

7

<p>absolute size of a department, regardless of the size of other departments at the same university, is clearly relevant. To the extent that relative size correlates with absolute size it will not be completely off.</p>

<p>However I believe there's little value to be derived from relative size that absolute size doesn't convey better, with less error for the reasons I've indicated.</p>

8

<p>There are many factors that determine the number of students who enter a particular major, with quality of the major being just one of those factors.</p>

<p>For example, one key factor is the reputation of the major for being easy, in the sense that you can do very little work and still pass. It may be hard to get A's in a particular department, but if all you want to do is pass, then it might involve just a warm pulse. For example, George Bush majored in history at Yale. John Kerry majored in poli-sci at Yale. Both history and poli-sci are among the top-ranked departments at Yale. Yet both Bush and Kerry have publicly admitted that they were lackluster and unmotivated students while at Yale. Bush has admitted that he was just a drunk fratboy while at Yale who cared more about hanging out and partying than in studying. John Kerry actually got slight worse grades at Yale than Bush did (77 vs. 76 average), including 5 'D' grades, and admitted that he spent more time learning how to fly airplanes than in his studies. Kerry even once admitted that he told his father that "D stood for distinction". </p>

<p><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student?mode=PF%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student?mode=PF&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Look, the point is not to bash Bush or Kerry, but simply to point out that a lot of students choose a major not because the department is good, but just because it's easy and they know they'll be able to graduate without much effort. </p>

<p>The other aspect is that a lot of students choose a major simply because it pays well. For example, the engineering students at even a no-name school will tend to make higher starting salaries than the Art History majors at even the best schools. A lot of people are attracted to the money.</p>

9

<p>Yeah, but does anyone know what proportion go on to earn PhDs in engineering?</p>

<p>(ducks and runs)</p>

10

<p>monydad-
I agree that absolute size is one indicator of program quality in engineering. It has to do with resources, opportunities, course selections, and so on. Absolute size can be misleading by itself. For example, I think Cal State Sacramento graduates three times more engineers than Caltech (absolute number).</p>

<p>It occurred to me that some of the questions you raised about absolute size versus relative size can be answered mathematically:
With regard to engineering, there is only a small non-significant correlation between absolute size and relative size (.23). So, they are mostly different things. </p>

<p>But, the interesting thing is that both absolute size and relative size (for engineering) are related to the US News ranking for PhD granting universities. The correlation between US News ranking and absolute engineering size was .44. Between US News ranking and relative size the correlation was .30. Both are statistically significant. ( I hope you can follow this jargon.)</p>

<p>So, absolute size and relative size are both (moderately) related to US News rankings. Absolute size is a better predictor than relative size but they apparently capture different qualities. I was surprised that relative size had only a low-moderate relationship with US News rank. I would say that my statistical analysis actually weakened the case I was trying to make.</p>

<p>Using a technique called multiple regression analysis, I discovered that combining SAT 75th percentile with absolute size was much more closely related to US News ranking than US News SAT 75th percentile combined with relative size. The US News SAT 75th percentile/absolute size combination explained about 60% of the US News engineering ranking. The SAT/relative size combination explained only 18% of the US News engineering ranking.</p>

<p>This sort of suggests that you are more correct than I am about the size question, at least as it applies to engineering at national universities.</p>

<p>I still wonder whether relative size might be a useful indicator with schools having a similar nature, like LACs. Unfortunately, there is no USNews ranking for subjects like history and English to use as a criterion for answering this question. </p>

<p>My initial interest in relative size of departments stemmed from a desire to find a way to compare departments at LACs. How do you know whether econ is better at Claremont McKenna or Swarthmore? Maybe relative department size works, maybe it doesn't.</p>

11

<p>It seems to me that you are trying to reverse engineer the USNews ranking. But why? The fact that you can find some predictors of USNews rank does not validate the predictors, all it says is that these are the factors that drive the USN rank. Both the USN and the NRC rankings have been criticized for emphasizing size. Thus small but high quality programs are discounted.</p>

<p>Outcome measures would be far more useful, but they are hard to come by. How do the econ grads from CMC do relative to those from Swarthmore? Then you have to define "doing well". If you mean "make seven figures as an investment banker", then perhaps CMC grads are more likely to do that (I have no idea, just illustrating the point). If you mean "get tenured in econmics at a major university", then perhaps Swarthmore grads are more likely (again, I don't know). But saying that there are relatively more econ majors at one place than the other says nothing about the relative quality or nature of the experience at either place.</p>

12

<p>The relevant outcome measures are indeed hard to come by. It takes a lot of digging. Most high school students don't know where to begin. My theory is that size is correlated with these outcome measures and can be used as a surrogate for quality when other things are more or less equal. If relative size is related to US News ranking, then at least it agrees with someone else's opinion. The US News data is readily available. To check relationships with the relevant outcome measures...I just don't have that much time to devote to it.</p>

<p>From another thread...which is better for math, U Chicago or Amherst? U Chicago has 5% of its students graduate in math, Amherst 1%. I'd lean toward Chicago. I wouldn't choose any school only on the basis of relative size, but I'd consider it as part of a bigger picture.</p>

13

<p>Amherst vs Chicago for math? It would depend on what else one wanted out of college. If it is lots of graduate courses, then any university with a graduate program would be a better choice than Amherst. If it is an LAC experience, then of course, Chicago is out.</p>

<p>Remember that the rankings to which you refer are based on the academic reputations of the graduate schools, while the SAT scores are for the undergraduates. The graduate rankings are not based on the selectivity of the graduate students, and certainly not on the overall selectivity of the college.</p>

<p>Are you familiar with the large percentage of LAC grads who end up getting doctoral degrees in the sciences? Even though LAC's tend to have fewer students majoring in science?</p>

<p>Remember that some universities admit students to specific programs. So they are assured a large number of students in certain programs, even if those programs are not the best, because the students are a captive audience. Lots of engineering programs are like that. The notion that the distribution of majors reflects choices made by the students once they arrive does not apply in these cases.</p>

14

<p>What I'd be concerned about in the Amherst situation is not the %, it's again the absolute size. Small size can be an advantage if it means smaller student-teacher ratio, however below some threshold the actual resources available becomes a concern. How many courses are offered at the advanced level ? And how frequently are they offered? That's what I'd be most concerned about. Conversely, in the case of Chicago, I'd be concerned if perhaps too many majors meant comparatively little contact with professors.</p>

<p>But once again my own concerns would be about parameters of the math department itself, as an absolute matter. Without introducing whether its % is big at that school because the classics department at that same school is bigger or smaller than the math department. Or whatever.</p>