<p>I've heard that US Weekly only ranks nuclear engineering (undergrad) programs every other year, and it's not in the 2008 edition. Is it in 2007? </p>
<p>I've looked all over the place for the rankings... help....</p>
<p>I thought there were only nuclear engineering rankings for grad schools.</p>
<p>Yeah, U.S. News only ranked graduate school for nuclear engineering this year. Graduate school ranking for nuclear engineering (2008) is:</p>
<ol>
<li>Univ. Mich. - Ann Arbor</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Univ. of Wisc. - Madison</li>
<li>Texas A&M</li>
<li>Penn State</li>
<li>Univ. of Cal. - Berkeley</li>
<li>North Carolina State Univ.</li>
<li>Oregon State Univ.</li>
<li>Georgia Inst. Tech.</li>
<li>Univ. of Florida</li>
</ol>
<p>I vaguely recall the undergrad for 2004, and it was something like:</p>
<ol>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Univ. of Wisc. -Madison</li>
<li>Univ. of Mich. - Ann Arbor</li>
<li>Texas A&M</li>
<li>Univ. of Cal. - Berkeley</li>
</ol>
<p>Thanks for the information. I am also interested in Nuclear Engineering and was thinking of applying to Purdue and GATech, but apparently their Nuc. Eng. program isn't top notch, although I should look more into it.
Michigan, MIT, Wisconsin, Texas and Berkeley seem to have great programs, plus they are all well-respected colleges.
Just out of curiosity, would prestige of the university matter relative to the ranking + strong program? (ex. Penn State versus Gerogia Tech)</p>
<p>Hey, from what I hear, where you go to undergrad isn't as important as where you go to grad school, but going to a good undergrad will help you get to a good grad school.</p>
<p>I'm a nuclear student at GT. One of the main reasons I chose GT was because it a) is highly renowned as a difficult engineering school and b) has a strong foundation in all engineering disciplines. When you are doing undergrad, you do a lot more with mechanical, electrical, and math than you would in grad school (which is more specialization and research focused). Since GT is strong in all of those, I feel that I would be getting a stronger engineering degree than a school with a higher nuclear undergrad ranking but a low engineering ranking overall (like NC State). As far as grad goes, I hoping for Wisconsin or Michigan (assuming I rock the GREs). </p>
<p>To be honest, you pretty much learn the same things in each program (reactor theory, radiation physics, detection, protection, etc.) You can get what you want out of it. GT is also a big research school (like Michigan and MIT...and most good schools), which is also important because undergraduate research is major for grad applications. </p>
<p>Another major thing to consider is cost. You do not want to go into too much debt for undergrad; you can spend a little more for grad. Though I am from VA, I get in-state tuition since VA doesn't have a nuclear program (besides engineering at VT and UVA aren't what people in VA make it out to be). If you are from the Southeast, you probably qualify too.</p>
<p>I always look forward to talking to prospective students in nuclear, even if not at GT.</p>
<p>Hope to hear from you soon.</p>
<p>By the way, I'm not sure how old this is, but it seems fairly recent (though I know it's not the most recent set):</p>
<p>World</a> Science & Engineering University Portal: Nuclear Engineering School Ranking in USA</p>
<p>I agree with UraniumMillings. In my experience, real nuclear engineering undergraduate courses usually come after your fifth semester. Hence, there are lots of science and engineering courses before even starting nuclear engineering courses.</p>
<p>However, better rankings "usually" mean more professor/student ratio, more research opportunities, variety of advanced graduate courses, etc.</p>
<p>For graduate school, first choosing your field of interest, and then going to the school that matches your interests would be imperative (Professors, courses, research facilities, other related programs, etc.).</p>
<p>BTW, the rankings above by UraniumMillings seem pretty old according to another site I visited.</p>
<p>Yeah, I know they're not the best, but at least it was a complete list, unlike the USNews, which now lists none for undergrad but top ten for grad.</p>
<p>Mich, Wisc, and MIT are top three. UIUC is four. Berkeley is five...(or something like that).</p>
<p>In my experience, many professors are reluctant to get undegrads for research until they have had upper-level classes like reactor physics or at least thermo and fluids. I'm entering my junior year with a pretty high GPA, and I was only able to snag something in nuclear materials since I have already taken a material science class. I'm not sure how it is at other schools, but I doubt it's that much better. Some freshmen have research positions, but I think they have "contacts" or something. </p>
<p>Back to the rankings...a lot of people say the USNews rankings are bullcrap and not worth paying as much attention as how you like the school. Obviously, schools with higher reputations are better, but so long as it's a top-tier research university, all systems should be go.</p>
<p>If you go to individual schools sites, you can usually find undergrad and grad rankings, but it sucks that USNews holds the good info for the Premium Edition.</p>
<p>If Purdue is on the list.... It's way too old. Purdue's nuke program has had major problems in the past few years... so I've been told by many.</p>
<p>Purdue has its own reactor, i think the only one at a university. i know gatech got rid of theirs.</p>
<p>Uf has a reactor</p>
<p>UCI had a reactor too. Got rid of it years ago as I recall.</p>
<p>UB has one to.</p>
<p>Doesn't U Tenn Knoxville operate ORNL ? They have a nuclear engineering program. How does it rank?</p>
<p>List of schools and other places with research reactors:</p>
<p>Research</a> Reactors - USA</p>
<p>Haha, yeah. A ton of school have reactors. MIT has the largest with 5 MW...the next largest is like 1 MW.</p>
<p>Having a reactor doesn't really help you that much as an undergrad...and probably not that much as a grad. I mean, you can irradiate stuff and simulate reactor operation, but it's not going to make or break a program.</p>
<p>Most reactors from the 60s and 70s are probably out to be decommissioned soon, right? </p>
<p>UT's program isn't that good. The whole engineering program isn't hitting on much. I have a friend in it, and I haven't heard too much good of it.</p>
<p>I think UCI's prorgram is temporarily not accepting future students.</p>
<p>I've heard rumor that some school like UVA are thinking about re-opening their programs.</p>
<p>Having a reactor actually can be valuable experience for people who work at the reactor as reactor assistants or for people who conduct experiments at the reactor for certain projects.</p>
<p>Personally, reactor labs were much more interesting when operating the actual reactor in front of you.</p>
<p>But it's still not helpful to an undergrad, which is more what this thread is about (I think), and since it is not essential to have a reactor to have a good program, it proves that it is not but so valuable.</p>
<p>I admit, all things are more interesting if you can see some sort of physical representation, but can't you just simulate it just as accurately for the labs? I don't get to the reactor lab until the year after next. I'm interested to see what we do since we don't have a reactor.</p>
<p>Look what I found!!! It was on another thread.</p>
<p>Engineering Specialties: Nuclear
New! Ranked in 2007*</p>
<p>Rank/School Average assessment
score (5.0=highest)
1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4.6
2. University of Michigan–Ann Arbor 4.5
3. University of Wisconsin–Madison 4.2
4. Texas A&M University–College Station (Look) 3.9
5. University of California–Berkeley 3.8
6. Pennsylvania State University–University Park 3.7
7. North Carolina State University 3.6
8. Purdue University–West Lafayette (IN) 3.4
9. University of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign 3.2
10. University of Florida 3.1
11. Georgia Institute of Technology 3.0
12. Oregon State University 2.9
University of Tennessee–Knoxville 2.9
14. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (NY) 2.6</p>
<p>Sucks that GT isn't any higher, but it's better than staying in VA and not doing nuclear.</p>
<p>A bulk of these rankings are the opinions of the people who rank the programs and the vibe they get. Only part of it is stat.</p>