Proposal: The Tech Five (or Ten?)

Parents Forum
21

<p>U of Wisconsin- Madison as long as you are mentioning flagships. The tech only schools are lacking in the electives math and science majors have fun with. Those top 50 schools referenced above lack so much a large university has. Please also note the list was based on a percentage of grads going on to a PhD, not absolute numbers- large schools will have many more students despite lower percentages. The peer group can be larger in the major and the grad level courses and research opportunities much greater than at most of the small LACs. </p>

<p>The best school for any major is the one that is an overall best fit for the student academically and socially. The social aspect is important so the student is happy and can concentrate on the academics.</p>

22

<p>I second Proudpatriot, and would like to throw university of Maryland College Park in if we are getting away from top 10 and not going with “strictly” tech schools.</p>

23

<p>Ucbalumnus asks a question I cannot answer, but I’m pondering. </p>

<p>If I had the time, I think I would look up the number of students graduating in engineering. I suspect U Michigan or U I would have large departments. If I was looking for a college in a stem field, I would like to know the depth of the department, and review the catalogue for the type of courses offered.</p>

24

<p>I think a lot of you have made some very good points. I think maybe one point is that if MIT and Caltech are at the top of your list, the rest of your list doesn’t have to start with HYPS.</p>

25

<p>Swat just got a 50 million donation to make its engineering program stronger. I’m sure an industrious kid could make this a great place for him or herself. Plus, it is an LAC and so it biases FOR guys. FWIW</p>

26

<p>I looked up stats for Carleton college. 29% of the 2000+ students major in STEM fields. That would give one a good size peer group, as well as some diversity.</p>

27

<p>MIT and Caltech really are amazing STEM schools. Here’s how they rank across of range of STEM fields (in order, engineering, math, physics, chemistry, biology, computer science, earth science). Engineering is US News undergrad ranking, all others are US News grad rankings:</p>

<p>MIT 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1; ave. 1.14
Caltech 3, 7, 1, 1, 5, 11, 1; ave. 4.14</p>

<p>But Stanford and UC Berkeley are right there with them, and arguably slightly better than Caltech in all-around STEM strength, with entirely top-5 (or in Stanford’s case, top-4) programs:</p>

<p>Stanford 2, 2, 1, 4, 1, 1, 4; ave. 2.14
UC Berkeley 3, 2, 5, 1, 2, 1, 3; ave. 2.43</p>

<p>Princeton and Cornell are not too far behind:</p>

<p>Princeton 10, 2, 5, 16, 7, 8, 9; ave. 8.14
Cornell 8, 13, 7, 10, 11, 5, 13; ave. 9.57</p>

<p>Followed by Michigan, Columbia, and Wisconsin:</p>

<p>Michigan 7, 8, 11, 16, 20, 13, 9; ave. 12
Columbia 20, 10, 11, 10, 15, 17, 5; ave. 12.57
Wisconsin 13, 16, 17, 7, 15, 11, 13; ave. 13.14</p>

<p>These are the only 9 schools in the nation that have top-20 programs in all seven of the STEM fields I looked at. Of course, if you go beyond top 20 programs (an admittedly arbitrary cut-off), there are some other standouts:</p>

<p>Harvard 23, 2, 1, 4, 2, 17, 8; ave. 8.14
Texas 10, 14, 14, 12, 26, 8, 9; ave. 13.29
Chicago X, 6, 7, 13, 13, 35, 17; ave. 15.17* (*6 programs; does not have engineering)
Yale 34, 10, 11, 13, 7, 20, 12; ave. 15.29
Illinois 5, 20, 9, 6, 30, 5, 34; ave. 15.57
UCLA 20, 8, 19, 16, 24, 14, 17; ave. 16.86
UCSD 23, 20, 14, 21, 15, 14, 17; ave. 17.71
U Washington 23, 27, 19, 26, 15, 7, 13; ave. 18.57</p>

<p>After that it gets a little crowded: </p>

<p>Johns Hopkins 15, 24, 19, 21, 5, 28, 28; ave. 20
Penn State 16, 27, 23, 21, 42, 28, 6; ave. 23.29
Northwestern 13, 17, 30, 7, 26, 35, 39; ave. 23.86
Penn 30, 18, 17, 19, 20, 17, 81; ave. 25.25
Minnesota 23, 18, 26, 21, 32, 35, 28; ave. 26.14
Rice 16, 30, 26, 33, 42, 20, 25; ave. 27.43
U Maryland 23, 20, 14, 38, 56, 14, 32; ave. 28.14
CMU 8, 36, 30, 49, 46, 1, nr; ave. 28.33* (* 6 programs; not ranked in earth science)
Georgia Tech 5, 30, 30, 26, 56, 10, 45; ave. 28.86
Duke 20, 24, 30, 45, 13, 27, 45; ave. 29.14
Brown 39, 14, 30, 53, 34, 20, 17; ave. 29.57
Purdue 10, 27, 40, 21, 56, 20, 39; ave. 30.43
Ohio State 30, 30, 23, 26, 46, 28, 39; ave. 31.71
WUSTL 39, 40, 40, 33, 11, 39, 28; ave. 32.85</p>

<p>Out of all these schools, those “most like” MIT and Caltech would probably be Stanford, Princeton, and Cornell, top private universities that are strong across the board in STEM fields (and in much more). Columbia, Harvard, and Yale are strong in math and basic sciences but less so in engineering. Residents of California, Michigan, Wisconsin (and Minnesota, which has tuition reciprocity with Wisconsin), Illinois, Texas, and Washington State should strongly consider their public flagships as a back-up to MIT and Caltech, insofar as they’re quite strong across the board in STEM fields. After that it gets a little spottier. Some schools, like Carnegie Mellon, Georgia Tech, and Purdue, are outstanding in engineering and computer science, but not as strong in math and basic sciences; others, like Duke and WUSTL, are much stronger in biology than in other STEM fields; still others, like UMaryland, are strong in most STEM fields but with singular weaknesses in one or more fields (in Maryland’s case, biology).</p>

<p>Generally, if I were advising an applicant to MIT or Caltech about other schools to consider, I’d go for those with across-the-board strength in STEM fields. How could it possibly harm you to end up at a school like Stanford or Princeton that also has outstanding econ, poli sci, philosophy, and classics departments, along with STEM strength? (Come to think of it, MIT is outstanding in several of those fields in its own right).</p>

28

<p>^^^^ excellent post. If I had more rep points for the day, I’d give you one for that one. Very informative. I will be back for you tomorrow. :)</p>

29

<p>Polytechnic Institute of New York University</p>

30

<p>But there are no colleges on that list, only universities. What about Harvey Mudd?</p>

31

<p>Harvey Mudd
Franklin Olin College of Eng - The best little college you’ve never hear of ;)</p>

32

<p>Cooper Union</p>

<p>Also, excellence can vary widely depending which field of STEM. The list should look very different for a kid wants CS than for someone who loves Marine Biology.</p>

33

<p>Michael, that’s what I was saying. If you want marine biology, you’d look at u Miami, duke or unc, and a few others. </p>

<p>Bclinctonk, great post. I know I am that rarity that loved Caltech before and after, even if MIT outranks in some departments. It was the ease of getting work in a lab that made a difference, the fact that faculty knew everyone at every other school. There is just so much inbreeding. When the worm was applying to grad school, he met the same applicants at the recruiting weekends. He roommate for past few years is someone he met during all these interviews. The more advanced one becomes in a field, the more they realize that some of the best people are scattered throughout many colleges. As a 17 year old, not sure what they want, I still would advice going to school with a good depth. Many schools fit that definition.</p>

<p>If the worm had been certain he wanted CS, he would have gone to CMU. He wasn’t sure, and the other field he was interested in was weak at CMU, thus he was better off going to a school with wider range. Math moms son did fabulously at CMU, but he was more certain of his goals.</p>

<p>In hindsight, I would encourage someone to research their field of interest, related fields, and apply to a wide range. The big schools already mentioned, as well as the Swathmores, Carleton’s, wellesleys, etc., will provide a terrific education.</p>

34

<p>Kids become interested MIT and CalTech because they have heard about its great reputation, made mainstream due to famous grad schools. Then some (like my son) decide that a school with undergrad-only emphasis is a better fit. There is no right or wrong answer here… just thoughts to ponder.</p>

35

<p>This is a great post. </p>

<p>ucbalumnus, can you explain about LAC ceiling issue at Harvey Mudd? </p>

<hr>

<h2>Among specialty schools, there is also Harvey Mudd, although highly advanced students in some subjects may want to be aware of the “LAC ceiling” issue.</h2>

36

<p>Georgia Tech
Purdue
Colorado School of Mines
Michigan Tech
RPI</p>

37

<p>

</p>

<p>LACs or undergraduate-only schools without strong graduate programs in the student’s major may impose a “ceiling” on the student’s ability to take advanced courses – i.e. graduate level courses, which are readily available at schools that also have PhD programs in the same subject. Math is the subject where students are most likely to hit such a “ceiling”, due to the relative frequency of students getting very advanced in math (e.g. calculus BC as high school juniors = 2 years ahead) compared to other subjects.</p>

<p>Harvey Mudd does offer a few graduate-level math courses (presumably recognizing that some of its math majors are advanced enough to want such courses), but nowhere near what a school with a strong math PhD program has. So the math course “ceiling” is higher there than at other LACs, but a highly advanced student in math may want to think carefully about whether s/he would hit the “ceiling”.</p>

<p>An analogy for the course “ceiling” would be a high school student who is advanced in math and likes math attending a high school where math courses stop at precalculus, and there was no way to take calculus or other more advanced math, whether through AP/IB-HL courses at the high school, or enrollment in a local college.</p>

<p>(Yes, this may be an unpopular view here, given the “LACs are always better for undergraduates” orthodoxy here, but students considering LACs need to carefully consider how well each LAC fits them individually, and note what disadvantages come with the territory. LACs in general are certainly good for some students, but less suitable for others.)</p>

38

<p>There is an entire association of such schools, [Association</a> of Independent Technological Universities: AITU](<a href=“http://theaitu.org%5DAssociation”>http://theaitu.org) and MIT and CalTech are part of it too, along with many of the suggestions above. These are all private “Tech” schools and have a lot in common. Of course there are wonderful engineering and science programs at many state universities and liberal arts colleges too.</p>

39

<p>ucb - I don’t dispute the “LAC ceiling” phenomena you describe - it’s real in many ways for some fields, but I think it’s misdirected at Harvey Mudd here.</p>

<p>To come to HMC’s defense (and no, I’m not an alumna/parent/staff member there!), it is the only college in the country that I know of that REQUIRES ALL students to have taken a year of calculus for admission (yes, some schools “recommend” it, and others may require it for a particular division/school/major, but even MIT and CalTech don’t REQUIRE it). Additionally, it has a common core that requires ALL students to take 3 math courses, 2.5 semesters of physics with lab, 1.5 semesters of chem with lab, a course in computer science, a course in biology, and a course in engineering, in their first 3 semesters.</p>

<p>The most basic/introductory math course at HMC “assumes prior mastery of single-variable calculus.” Even MIT and CalTech offer an introductory calc course (Math 18 for MIT, Math1a for Caltech).</p>

<p>Of course the point of your comment wasn’t about where schools’ classes start, in terms of complexity/knowledge/level, but where they top off (I get that) - and I don’t mean to suggest that there aren’t more opportunities due to the graduate programs at either MIT or CalTech in general - but I think Harvey Mudd is one of those “outliers” that doesn’t fit neatly into our general assumptions about LACs.</p>

40

<p>ucb… </p>

<p>Interestingly, I’ve been somewhat surprised to see that at DSs midsized university (included in the above lists) that the undergrad math/physics offerings are pretty meager once one goes beyond the standard 9-10 courses required for the degree (which DS will compete by the end of his jr year even as a double major). The students are encouraged to move onto the graduate courses beyond that and the availability thereof lets the school off the hook of offering more specialized courses at the undergrad level. Not sure whether this is good or bad.</p>

<p>I did take few grad courses as an undergrad, did fine in them and felt challenged, so maybe it’s all good.</p>