<p>Actually he spent a couple of days living there--I believe in the dorms-- and did meet all of the students (the school is pretty small), which is why he didn't choose to go to Cal-Tech. He preferred students at Harvard--who are better conversationalists-- over Cal-Tech. (And yes, he did get $120,000 or so to go to Cal-Tech.)</p>
<p>And actually remember my previous post? The other person who eventually attended Cal-Tech was one of my classmates whom I was semi-close with. So yes, I do know Cal-Tech students personally. Not to mention one of my cousins went there. </p>
<p>Why is my comment "blatantly wrong"? People can't have everything. You can either be a prodigy of one thing and have lessened talent in another area, etc. So Cal-Tech students are very smart in math and science (and trained to be that way since birth for most of them) while their other halves are lacking.</p>
<p>ZZZ, how about reading the POST of the OP or check his profile? That is what I meant by "reading". </p>
<p>Unless you haven't noticed, all conversations on CC are by default meant to cover undergraduate. We have specific forums for graduate schools, or the posters can specifically state that the scope is different. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Why is my comment "blatantly wrong"? People can't have everything. You can either be a prodigy of one thing and have lessened talent in another area, etc. So Cal-Tech students are very smart in math and science (and trained to be that way since birth for most of them) while their other halves are lacking.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know how to respond. Wow. Could you stereotype anyone anymore? It's really too bad Ben Golub might not see this post. He (as a Caltech student) might have something to say...</p>
<p>Top 25- USNEWS
1. Massachusetts Inst. of Technology 4.9
2. Stanford University (CA) 4.8
3. University of CaliforniaBerkeley * 4.7
4. California Institute of Technology 4.6
U. of IllinoisUrbana-Champaign * 4.6
6. Georgia Institute of Technology * 4.5
7. University of MichiganAnn Arbor * 4.4
8. Carnegie Mellon University (PA) 4.3
Purdue Univ.West Lafayette (IN)* 4.3
10. Cornell University (NY) 4.2
University of TexasAustin * 4.2
12. Princeton University (NJ) 4.1
13. Johns Hopkins University (MD) 4.0
Northwestern University (IL) 4.0
Univ. of WisconsinMadison * 4.0
16. Pennsylvania State U.University Park * 3.9
Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. (NY) 3.9
Texas A&M Univ.College Station * 3.9
19. Rice University (TX) 3.8
Univ. of MinnesotaTwin Cities * 3.8
Virginia Tech * 3.8
22. Duke University (NC) 3.7
Univ. of CaliforniaLos Angeles * 3.7
Univ. of CaliforniaSan Diego * 3.7
Univ. of MarylandCollege Park * 3.7
Univ. of Southern California 3.7
University of Washington * 3.7</p>
<p>Do you think Ben would appreciate you posting his name on this?
And not to throw flour on the fire or anything, but you think he'd actually have something to SAY about this? I mean, he is at Cal-Tech. </p>
<p>400 metres--</p>
<p>I'm jealous. I love England & Europe--I lived there for a few months, not to mention am obsessed with the culture. </p>
<p>You are one lucky bloke for studying there. Are you American?
Did you actually do the personal interviews for it? I heard those are tough--they ask extremely specific questions about your intended major.</p>
<p>But in case you're intimidated, a student at Oxford told me a fellow student microwaved tin foil and set it on fire...</p>
<p>Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, Illinois and Michigan are excellent, but if you ask me, as a non-engineer mind you, I feel that they are not quite as strong as Cal, MIT and Stanford.</p>
<p>there is little little difference in the top 10 for undergrad engineering programs. All will work you hard and all are good, but they do have an different emphasis on your future. </p>
<p>At MIT, where my brother and many friends went, and Berkeley, where I went to grad school, the undergrads aren't exactly thought highly of. It's kind of a job that the profs do because they have to, then don't want to deal with them. But, these schools also push undergrad research hard and they are preparing students more for grad programs than corporate world, I'd put Cal-Tech and Stanford here. </p>
<p>I went to Purdue for undergrad, and would choose it 10 times out of 10 over Berkeley for undergrad. I had a Berkeley professor tell me that I received a better education there than any undergrads in Berkeley's ME department. At Purdue we were a huge school and the engineering profs were at the top of their field, but they did really care about the students, but this has began to shift slightly under the new president (as he cares much more about research)</p>
<p>Overall, I'd say MIT/Berkeley/Stanford/CalTech are about the same</p>
<p>UofM, Carnegie Mellon, Purdue, UIUC are about the same. </p>
<p>All of them will get you into the others for grad school. If you are top 10 or 15% at any of them, you can go to any of them for grad school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
not really true, at least when considered in context. The only reason this more engineers do this than other folks is that there is no "1st professional degree" equal to a MD, law degree, or MBA in engineering. Its not that people in other fields don't pursue advanced degrees, and in fact far more of them do, its just that its not a PhD. The number of these graduates dwarfs the 5,000 PhD's in engineering awarded each year. Furthermore, only a minuscule portion of the working engineer population has a PhD, where minuscule equals 3%. And only about another 20% have a MS. So its hardly the case there's a stampede for engineering grads to get a PhD.</p>
<p>But lets keep focus on the OP's question. What are the good schools? interesteddad likes to trot out the PhD rates, and he's going to keep on doing it no matter what. There's really nothing else to say about this, except to keep warning new posters who ask about engineering careers that this isn't a very useful measure.</p>
<p>FWIW, I knew someone who got his engineering masters at Stanford after doing his bachelors at Cornell, and he said that Cornell was much, much tougher.</p>
<p>Too much sunshine at Stanford; distracts from studies. collectively. His words, not mine.</p>
<p>MIT has 100+ members in national academy of engineering, followed by Stanford (80+ members), and Berkeley (70+ members).</p>
<p>MIT has advantage for its huge size and its long history. But in the past 20 years, Stanford and Berkeley may have made more contributions to engineering than MIT, especially in computer science and Electrical Engineering. That is why Silico Valley is better known than route 128.</p>
<p>According to rankings by the national research council in 1995, Stanford is #1 in EE, CS, ME, and environmental engineering.</p>
<p>DRab, no. Harvey Mudd offers many electives in each category, which you would take to develop your skills in that discipline. You may not get a mechanical engineering degree, but you may still take the classes for it. </p>
<p>And like I said before, Upenn has a full fledged engineering program; Harvard does not.</p>
<p>Really? I'm surprised. I went to a claremont college thing (i was interested in them), and Harvey Mudd came across as a fantastic place for people who wanted the intensity of MIT or Caltech, the attention of those places, and the liking for the liberal arts. I mean it seemed like the place for the engineers that had a humanities side, unlike Caltech or MIT (which seem less like that).</p>
<p>Drab, its specialty is engineering, so its not going to skimp on engineering like harvard does. Now, the particular philosophy of the school holds in high esteem liberal arts. That, and you can take classes at the other amazing claremont colleges.
Harvey Mudd does have a humanities side, but it is still superb in engineering unlike say harvard. It's probably number 4 or 5 in engineering if you lumped it with universities.
I repeat: HMC is not watered down engineering like harvard. The general degree is a misnomer.</p>
<p>ashernm, i'm not even implying that harvey mudd is watered down engineering. I can imagine a school with two fantastic and completely different programs, i don't understand why that's hard to believe.</p>