<p>I didn't recommend Swarthmore to this poster. Nor would I recommend it to most students who are looking for a traditional engineering track. I think I stated quite explicitly that a conventional engineering track would be a much more direct route to immediate employment as a working engineer after graduation. </p>
<p>My personal view is that, if a student has already decided on a career as a working engineer, then he/she should go to a dedicated tech college or to a university with a dedicated Engineering Program resulting in a specialized engineering degree. Do you disagree?</p>
<p>Since this poster had at least on school on his "engineering" list that offers only a B.A. or B.S. with a major in general engineering and since it was pretty clear that he/she hadn't researched the issue enough to know the difference, I was trying to outline the difference in the programs so that he could evaluate engineering at that school viz-a-viz a traditional engineering program. Sorry I didn't use Harvard's engineering curriculum, but I find their website tedious, if not impossible, to navigate.</p>
<p>Alexander stated that Harvard wouldn't be a top choice for someone looking to get a PhD in Engineering. Sure enough, the historic data supports that view. Relative to virtually every other department at the school, Engineering there produces very few PhDs. and very few relative to about 100 other colleges that offer engineering. In fact, I believe that Alexandre's ranking of engineering programs is supported quite nicely by the historic PhD data -- all of the schools Alexandre recommended produce a very high relative rate of future Engineering PhDs.</p>
<p>BERKLY SUX (j/k :) ), i just think of berkeley as excelling in graduate rather than undergraduate, so if you are referring to graduate you will get no argument here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The reason I find the PhD data interesting is that it is the ONLY available widespread, long-term, scientifically-collected data on college outcomes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What do you think of the Baccalaureate and Beyond study? Not 85 years of data, but I think one can argue that results from 1941 aren't as useful for most of the questions CC students are asking.</p>
<p>HERI's 10-year follow-up survey would also have some merits, I'd think.</p>
<p>I don't think NSF research is as lonely on the bookshelf as you portray it to be.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If I posted MD production rates for colleges, people would lap it up like hungry kittens over a bowl of milk. Yet, more than twice as many college grads get PhDs than get M.D.s each year.
[/quote]
Apples and oranges. </p>
<p>If you posted MD data people would love it because they're interested in becoming MDs.</p>
<p>On the other hand, few entering the engineering field are interested in pursuing PhDs. There are about 5,000 Phd's earned per year in engineering.</p>
<p>The MD data is of direct interest, the PhD data is used to estimate the quality of another variable. And the connection is quite tenuous.</p>
<p>
[quote]
On the other hand, few entering the engineering field are interested in pursuing PhDs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Only two fields produced more PhDs than Engineering over the most recent 10-year period. Engineering is one of the major fields where graduates do get PhDs.</p>
<p>You argument would be stronger for Economics, a field that produces very few PhDs.</p>
<p>Also, MD numbers are of potentially greater interest to CC readers because students who aspire to an MD start forming that goal earlier--even while they are searching for their baccalaureate degree. I don't think that's the case for PhD study. I believe PhD aspirations tend to develop after one is enrolled in college, after a student knows more about his/her chosen field and what an academic degree may offer. </p>
<p>PhD productivity means something, but what it measures directly (PhD productivity) isn't of direct interest to most CC readers, even most prospective engineers. And what it measures indirectly, and how that should influence a students' choice, isn't terribly clear (as mikemac says).</p>
<p>Besides to become a professor and teach, would the benefits outweigh the time and effort of earning an engineering Ph.D.? Isn't a master's sufficient for a solid career?</p>
<p>
[quote]
My other classmate rejected Cal-Tech for Harvard (even though he got a full-ride to Cal-Tech) because he said the students at Cal-Tech are very very very "weird." They only talk about science--for fun. They can't hold conversations whatsoever.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's ********. I know people who attend Caltech. Some of them could easily discuss "The Tempest" or "Hamlet." Others might be more interested in talking about the 1990 NBA finals. </p>
<p>And no offense, but how did your friend receive an axline scholarhips, meant for the academically strongest applicants, and then fail miserably?</p>
<p>Zipzoo, could you add READING to your sitting back and chilling? </p>
<p>Posters are discussing the relative qualities of undergraduate programs. </p>
<p>So, your post "Check these rankings up elsewhere---you'll see what I mean. Not just me fabricating or offering an unwarranted opinion!" is, alas, grossly irrelevant and entirely inaccurate.</p>
<p>Xiggi--The thread is called "please rank these engineering schools" and thus does it say "please discuss the undergraduate engineering departments with scientific analyses and much verbose?" Uh, no.</p>
<p>Anyway, how are we supposed to know what the engineering departments are really like without studying at all of them!! Thus we turn to USNews or some other "instititutions" for the ranks.</p>
<p>And you tell me to "read"--what's with that condescension? (Just because some people chill once in awhile doesn't mean we don't know how to read & comprehend.) (In the past 2 weeks I've read 10 novels--ones I don't " study" but enjoy.) </p>
<p>I've also done other exciting things this summer, including backpacking, vacationing, and yes CHILLING and doing nothing. I like having the ability to relax in the summertime, as well as the weekends.</p>
<p>So, please, you say that the links I provided are "grossly irrelevant"? </p>
<p>The first was the one who got the full-ride to Cal-tech but rejected it for a lesser scholarship to Harvard. He isn't failing miserably. (He got a 140 or so on the AMC--American Mathematics Competition, which btw is very difficult to do.) He is also the one who rejected Cal-tech because of the people in it. And frankly, I trust his judgment. Students at Cal-tech are very smart in math and science, but at the sacrifice of the other half of their brain. </p>
<p>The second was the one who got into Cal-tech without a scholarship and had the mental breakdown and needed pills because of stress.</p>
<p>Yes, sorry for mixing the two. However, that doesn't make your statement any less blatantly wrong. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And frankly, I trust his judgment. Students at Cal-tech are very smart in math and science, but at the sacrifice of the other half of their brain.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How can you make this statement? First, do you know any caltech students personally? (I do, as my school sends a couple there every year, and I get a chance to talk to them during the summer.) Did your friend live at caltech, meet all the people there, and thus evaluate them and decide not to attend? Your statement is stereotypical, unfair, and flat-out wrong. </p>
<p>"you can't slump caltech and mit with...Berkely!"</p>
<p>The Times Higher Education rankings (from England) ranked Berkeley as the number 1 engineering school in the world. Berkeley's engineering (undergrad or grad) is one of the best programs in the world. Getting into Berkeley engineering from out-of-state is just as (if not harder) hard as MIT or Caltech engineering.</p>