<p>I am an international student who has been accepted to Purdue First year engineering and UIUC for chemical engineering. I know that both of them are located in the midwest, and UIUC is ranked higher than Purdue for engineering. UIUC is also slightly more expensive for me. I have heard that since engineering a difficult major, Purdue encourages a lot of working in groups and it is also easy to get help if you are willing to seek it, also they have setup learning communities for freshman to settle to college life.
Also I am not sure of which engineering speciality (chemical or mechanical) I will pursue, and Purdue's First year engineering program seems attractive for that reason. But Illinois' top ranking in engineering keeps bringing me back it as I plan to work in the states after graduation. </p>
<p>If anyone has any opinions or advice to offer regarding this, it will be helpful.</p>
<p>I went to Purdue but I am from Illinios originally...the engineering rankings of both schools are about the same (check them out and see). I think both are around 5th or 6th overall. But rankings are pretty deceptive and in both schools you will have huge classes and graduate students teaching a lot of the first two years.</p>
<p>You are right about Purdue though, they do a lot to try and get students into groups (because it's the only way you really learn when you have huge classes like that) and they do a good job of trying to provide resources for students. I really don't know what U of I does.</p>
<p>Dr Reynolds -- have you done any work in the "real" world (as opposed to academia)? If so, what kind of work did you do? Its nice to see a perspective from someone who has walked the walk in comparison to the views of other hs/college students perspectives.</p>
<pre><code>I have been mostly in academia but I have spent some time in industry (two companies) and worked with several others in research. My background is in controls and I worked in research on engine control and in microchip manufacturing. Interesting work but I love teaching too much to do that!
</code></pre>
<p>What I find interesting about engineering from a career point of view is how its considered kind of a profession but once one graduates, it seems like there is immediate pressure to throw them into the fire and expect an immediate return from them. This is in contrast to something like medicine, where there are clearly defined post graduate training periods (residency, internship, etc...) where the experienced actually teach the inexperienced. Why is it that an engineers training stops immediately (for the most part) as soon as they are working? I think its a pretty sketchy approach! Its one thing to learn the theory and underlying math/science, but in practice it seems to be a different story!</p>
<p>Kiddly when you graduate and want to go into industry, you have to enter EIT (engineer-in-training) under an experienced engineer after passing the FE exam. After a while (few years) you will take another exam and receive your P.E. (professional engineer) registration. Then you can stamp/sign documents etc.</p>
<p>Thanks. I do realize this, but I think the engineering profession needs to care more for its young, so to speak, and incorporate a more formal method of training those entering the profession. EIT is a concept ( a good one, IMO) that only applies to certain engineering disciplines. Also, Its one thing to pass an exam (a worthwile screening process but yet more proof of just understanding theoretical knowledge), but another to actually learn what is truly practical and applicable in terms of "real world" engineering. To keep the medical analogy going, there are plenty of people who understand the science of medicine, but they won't necessarily make good doctors without the practical training they get while doing residency/intern and dealing with patients in low risk situations. </p>
<p>My apoligies for pulling this thread so far off topic!</p>
<p>Agreed. But my contention is that there isn't a formal process in place for training and most of the time, the experienced engineers will forgo training the freshly minted engineers because the company is looking at the bottom line (ie experienced engineers need to bill customers/clients for billable work). The whole training approach is then tossed out the window!</p>
<p>I would agree that this happens a lot, I have heard this quite a few times. That's why I tell my students that engineering is not just "plug and chug" with a few equations but that it requires critical thinking and a deep understanding of physical principles. For example you probably won't remember Bernoulli's equation by heart but you should know how fluid pressure and speed are related.</p>
<p>U of I is ranked fourth in the nation overall. I think the chemE program is great but which major were you accepted to boomer1? Was it chemE? MechE and ChemE are different college so you better check. Also with ChemE much harder than average chemistry courses are recommended. They both have a lot of hours but chemE is definitely harder even if lower in rank nationally than U of I mechE. ChemE is 7th and I know purdue is not above it. As far as ME I think it is 3rd or 5th but don't quote me on that. Have fun deciding boomer. Glad I picked U of I though.</p>