<p>
</p>
<p>No, that’s pretty much the opposite of what I believe education is. Education, at the undergraduate level, is what happens when a motivated and engaged student interacts with challenging material under the guidance of a skilled teacher.</p>
<p>Your paean to the “world class professors” to the contrary, Andrew Roberts says:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it was not relevant because a few cherry-picked course syllabuses off the Internet do not necessarily reflect the rigor of instruction at an institution.</p>
<p>
[</p>
<p>That’s not the issue here - the question is whether an elite university is worth the extra money.</p>
<p>Can i assume you think private high schools are a waste of money also? The few in my area range from 16k per year to 25k…</p>
<p>I would say that MIT and UMASS aren’t all that different at the undergrad level. For grad school, sure, MIT does a lot more top notch research than UMass and it pays to work with the professors who are the top in their field. In terms of your career or grad school admissions, a MIT degree will clearly take you a lot farther than UMass or even Purdue will. Grade inflation is more common at less prestigious schools. However, in terms of the education itself, most ABET accredited schools all cover basically the same material in an engineering program.</p>
<p>The OP is choosing between Brown and McGill. It think everyone will probably line up on the side of their “is it worth it” preferences. I would say McGill, but the OP is underwhelmed. So, I would then say have a really good, long, visit at each school, ask your parents where the extra money will come from, (and where it will go if you choose McGill) and then decide.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When a younger HS classmate who graduated a year after went off to URochester…not sure he was paying SUNY prices…but no one then would have compared URochester to SUNY-Geneseo back then. </p>
<p>URochester was comparable to BC or Brandeis in reputation/difficulty in gaining admission…whereas no one who was in that rage would even think of applying to Geneseo. The only kids I knew who went off to Geneseo were bottom 1/3 kids who tended to be much more obsessed with MTV, starting the next cheesy hair metal love ballad band, and wanted a school where the academics weren’t tough so they could slack for 4 years. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you’re comparing MIT to Purdue…I can see a viable case being made because they’re pretty close in terms of educational quality and rigor from what I’ve heard from colleagues who have hired graduates from both institutions. </p>
<p>MIT and UMASS…the comparison’s sketchy…especially when I’ve known plenty of people who attended both schools…even if we’re strictly comparing Engineering/CS majors. </p>
<p>While one can get an education approaching the rigor of MIT…the main problem, especially back when many of my friends/cousin attended in the 80’s and 90’s was that the critical mass of UMass students were operating on a much lower academic level due to a combination of high school preparation/lack thereof and their tendency to prioritize partying and beer pong over academics. It isn’t that UMass doesn’t have the faculty or the facilities…but that state mandates and the institutional mission often meant that the underprepared or the mediocre partying/beer pong majors end up getting the bulk of the university Profs/admins’ attention and driving many of the highly motivated students to distraction…including several colleagues and a cousin who attended in the mid-late '80s as an in-state student. </p>
<p>As an EE major, he admitted that there’s a good reason why his undergrad was known as ZOO MASS and that his brother who majored in the same field at Caltech was light years ahead of him academically and didn’t have to deal with the effects of having a critical mass of underprepared or worse…inconsiderate partying/beer pong majors.</p>
<p>
You conveniently didn’t mention the bolded part.</p>
<p>Brown vs. McGill for math? Seems like both are considered very good, so it would be hard to justify a large net price difference for one over the other.</p>
<p>(The answer could reasonably be different for different schools. For example, if you substitute Amherst for either school, then the other school would be the better choice in terms of academic offerings due to Amherst’s very limited math offerings.)</p>
<p>If the OP really wanted a useful answer, the OP would have mentioned the specific schools and major in the first post. Not mentioning the schools or major just incited the usual prestige war.</p>
<p>Regarding UMass – that seems to be one of those schools with a mediocre reputation overall, but a good reputation in a few subjects (CS, perhaps physics and math). Stony Brook seems to have similar reputations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, the “emphasis on teaching” goes up, which translates into increased teaching load for the faculty member, not necessarily a better learning experience for the student. There is no reason to think that a faculty member who is spending 100% of their time teaching 3 or 4 courses each term is going to do a better job on the one course you happen to be taking from them than the research U prof who is spending 75% of his or her time on research, but only has to deal with one course. </p>
<p>The classroom experience may be better at an LAC–but that is because the class sizes are small and there is culture where the faculty have close interactions with students. And these schools are just as expensive as elite research U.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d think Stonybrook would be average-respectable overall…not mediocre. If anything…Stonybrook’s almost the polar opposite of UMass. One common complaint I keep hearing from Stonybrook alums I’ve encountered among HS classmates/colleagues is that it’s dead on the weekends because it is a suitcase school and probably a heavy anti-partying influence from the large pre-med/STEM contingent obsessed about med/grad schools. </p>
<p>UMass cannot remotely be described as a dead sedate campus on the typical 4-day weekends…most of their students sure sound like they’re really into parties and beer. Also…for OOS…anyone with a pulse could be admitted from my HS to UMass. The same cannot be said for Stonybrook even as an in-stater. As for their academic gems…they also have good reputation for American History…though one of their noted scholars was accused of plagiarism by other scholars in the field some years back.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A part of it is also a mix of a higher critical mass of intellectually engaged/serious students…especially at the elite/respectable ones and more importantly…that it is nearly impossible for a slacker student who didn’t do the reading or is otherwise inattentive to escape notice from the Prof due to the small class sizes. It’s hard to hide in a class of 20 students…much less a class of 6, 2, or even 1.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry if I’m clueless - is CS Computer Science? My son applied to Chemical Engineering (or general Engineering - I can’t remember between all the schools with 3 kids applying over the last 3 years what specifically CMU required). </p>
<p>I do fully agree with you on the crapshoot part though - I heard the analogy years ago (probably here) about monkeys & dartboards. Theory goes that most elite colleges could probably reasonably reduce their applications to the top 1/4 using standard means (test scores, GPA’s, EC’s, awards, etc.). But then to reduce that to the next 1/3 or so that they admit - really, they could have monkeys throwing darts at the applications to decide and no one could tell the difference in the final class composition. Looking through the accepted/deferred/rejected threads of many top schools, I have to believe this to be the case. In both my kids’ cases I saw other students accepted who I thought had lower stats and others rejected who seemed to have higher stats (using stats to mean the overall profile). So yeah - I believe in the crapshoot - or monkeys! ;)</p>
<p>On a different note, I didn’t mean to say that we were unhappy with MIT as a whole. My son is very happy there and I think as he gets further into his major (instead of having to take core classes that are either review or that he has no interest in), his attitude will change a lot. He currently calls it “high school on steroids”. I was just surprised by 500-700 student classes for $55K a year! And while I pay only about 1/4 of it thanks to ROTC, I do have to question if it’s worth the whole price for the next kid! </p>
<p>Thanks everyone for your help - I do appreciate the insights into all 3 schools - I think he’s a little bit afraid that people will think less of him if he tells them he’s going to Purdue versus an “elite” school. I am looking forward to some visits though and hoping that helps to solidify his feelings one way or the other!</p>
<p>“Lol! Shrinkrap, your post made reading through this whole thread worthwhile.”</p>
<p>I’ll be here all week!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From the colleagues/friends I know who hire engineering majors…Purdue is counted among the elite…though not quite with MIT. However, in the greater scheme of things…the difference is small enough that it’s inconsequential. </p>
<p>The environments are quite different…so he should definitely visit if he’s not sure. </p>
<p>And unless your neighbors and son’s classmates/their parents are all going to be powerbrokers in the areas your son is going into for employment/grad schools…their opinions are worth as much as you’ve paid for it.</p>
<p>As for whether being admitted by MIT and yet, waitlisted/rejected by CMU is unusual…no. That was commonplace even back in the '90s at my NYC math/science public magnet.</p>
<p>“Sorry if I’m clueless - is CS Computer Science?”</p>
<p>Yep, it is. And a very low acceptance rate into CMU for that. I think engineering is not an easy school to get accepted into either. There do seem to be a large amount of exceptionally qualified students every year, you do wonder how they all make their choices. The monkey/dartboard theory is as good as any I could guess.</p>
<p>If you have concern about class sizes, see if the school has its schedule of classes on line, and whether it shows the size of each class. The schedule may also allow figuring out how much regular faculty, adjunct faculty, and TAs are used (compare the instructor names to faculty listings).</p>
<p>Usually, introductory courses have the highest enrollment because many students are taking them as base level prerequisites or requirements (e.g. English composition, calculus, introductory economics, general chemistry, introductory psychology, etc.). More advanced courses tend to be smaller, though it depends on how popular the major is (for example, upper level biology courses at some schools are still large, since biology is a popular major at those schools).</p>
<p>@cobrat</p>
<p>The difference between MIT and Purdue is definitely not inconsequential. At least before the housing crash, 30% of MIT’s engineering grads went into finance or management consulting jobs. If you’re suggesting that those same opportunities are available to Purdue students, you’re either ill informed or being disingenuous.</p>
<p>Actually, mathmom, if you’ll check carefully, you’ll find that I’ve been careful to consistently say that a motivated and engaged student can get a high quality education at ** almost ** any college. </p>
<p>On another note, don’t y’all think it’s instructive that no one has either (a) challenged the methodology behind any of the studies I’ve cited to support my position or (b) cited any studies that reached a different conclusion? Instead, we’ve seen a host of unverifiable anecdotes and unsupported opinions.</p>
<p>annasdad What do you think of Marciemi’s situation. Purdue right?</p>
<p>“On another note, don’t y’all think it’s instructive that no one has either (a) challenged the methodology behind any of the studies I’ve cited to support my position or (b) cited any studies that reached a different conclusion? Instead, we’ve seen a host of unverifiable anecdotes and unsupported opinions.”</p>
<p>Perhaps people are disinterested in googling and searching for studies that may or may not exist to support their point of view. Nothing hits home like seeing how a specific situation affects ones own children and acquaintances. People do not consider their own lives as, “unverifiable anecdotes and unsupported opinions,” they trust what they see. And what makes sense to them.</p>
<p>One unverifiable opinion is that there is NO WAY my son would be near as happy, successful and satisfied with his opportunities if he had gone to his local public university (and not gotten into his major of choice, that accepts a tiny minority of applicants—computer science). And is doing extremely well at a pricey private school that is top in his field. You can provide studies all day, and it doesn’t mean jack to what I know is a fact in his life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Funny how you’re now saying there’s a difference when you previously said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which I know is sketchy considering I’ve known dozens of people who attended both schools…including a UMass EE alum cousin with a younger brother who studied the same field at Caltech…a school comparable to MIT in its rigor/student academic level. Even he admitted that his brother was light years ahead of him academically…and that’s not taking into consideration how congenial the campus environment/culture to learning/studying for the academically serious engaged student. </p>
<p>Also…aren’t you moving the goalposts a bit by introducing financial/management consulting into the discussion? Thought we were strictly talking about the strengths of the engineering departments and how they’d look to potential employers in the various areas of Engineering.</p>