@colorado_mom , And Clarkson has wind tunnels! I was curious when @boneh3ad mentioned wind tunnels and looked up who has them-Maryland, Michigan, Texas A & M, Washington,Alabama, Virginia Tech, UVA, Purdue,PSU, ODU, Oklahoma , Clemson, and Clarkson! I’m sure there are more but that’s what I found.
We had a wind tunnel when I was there too, in Old Main (at the old downtown campus). I see Clarkson now has ve new low speed and high tunnel wind tunnels, which I assume are in one of the impressive new buildings. A nice improvement since my time in the 1980s is consolidation on “The Hill”. Most of my junior/senior classes were “downtown” (a mile away). In senior year my roommates and I rented a house downtown.
It looks like RPI, Bucknell , and Lehigh also have wind tunnels. Bucknell mentions one of the wind tunnels is “small” so maybe it’s not just about the toys but the size of the toys! Sounds like you really enjoyed Clarkson. I can see where the smaller schools would be appealing to lots of people.
I never said that no small programs have large wind tunnel facilities. I only said that it is not nearly as common to have them in small programs. There is also a question of how those tunnels are used and what their capabilities are. Most mechanical engineering programs, for example, will have some form of wind tunnel for teaching purposes. That doesn’t mean they are using it for cutting-edge research. Some of them will and some won’t. It’s a lot more likely at institutions that fall on a higher tier of the Carnegie scale (for what it’s worth, RPI falls into the second-to-highest tier on that scale). There’s also the question of high-speed wind tunnels (and I don’t mean the one cited on Clarkson’s site). You see even fewer supersonic wind tunnels at small schools.
A few schools were cited here that all have wind tunnels, so let’s look at the extremes. On the one hand, you have a place like Clarkson. Their site lists a “low-speed” tunnel and a “high-speed” tunnel (which to them means higher subsonic speeds that are still quite slow). Then you have a place like Texas A&M, where they have a large, low-speed, low-disturbance wind tunnel; a massive medium-speed commercial wind-tunnel; a low-disturbance Mach 6 tunnel; a conventional Mach 4-8 tunnel; a conventional Mach 5 tunnel; several shock tubes; and soon a Mach 8 expansion tunnel. That is only in the aerospace department and doesn’t include any of the teaching tunnels. There are more in the mechanical department and probably civil, petroleum, and nuclear departments as well.
There are other examples other than wind tunnels as well. Nuclear reactors. Cyclotrons. Clean room fabrication labs. Large load cells. There are probably other things that I am not thinking of as well, but generally, the larger the capital expenditure required, the less likely it is that those small schools will have one or more of those sorts of labs since usually those are paid for by large research contracts that the small schools don’t pursue.
Again, these factors might not be (are not) a big deal for every student. However, I think it’s important to consider them when talking about undergraduate research opportunities for students who are interested. The sorts of opportunities available at the two types of schools can be dramatically different.
That was exactly my point about the wind tunnels. I’m not an engineer but it was clear from doing even minimal research that there are major differences in terms of size and types of wind tunnels at different schools. Some may care, others won’t.
To be honest, I’ve assumed all engineering schools have some sort of wind tunnel.
Clarkson is has most focus on undergrad education. I really liked that. Our son also came to that preference. However @boneh3ad makes excellent points relevant to the students that want more intense research experience. Since many high school seniors really don’t know if that’s a relevant factor … you can make an argument to lean toward university setting.
Rather that getting hung up on things that can easily be misleading online (for example, there are wind tunnels and then there are wind tunnels like A&M), just go visit. It becomes VERY clear who has the toys and who doesn’t.
And visiting also makes it clear about things other than the “toys.”
Right - different schools have different vibes.
@boneh3ad @sevmom @colorado_mom The thing that my D and I were most surprised by - and became most tuned into - was the wide range (or lack of wide range) of options available to engineering students. Many engineering schools have more restrictions, rules and “prescribed tracks” than any other curriculum I have seen at the undergrad level. So while variety of courses, electives etc. are important, so is ability to take those courses and electives. For my D flexibility, ability to study abroad and ability to take high-level/high-quality design courses (as well as the option of changing her engineering major) were very important. Not all schools afforded her the option to do all of those things. She was also interested in schools that supported women in engineering. There were quite a few schools (many with lots of great “toys”) that fit these criteria, but there were as many, if not more, that did not, despite being attractive schools in many other ways.
The reality we found when researching engineering programs is while they are all very much the same due to accrediting standards, they are also very different in terms of “non-core” curriculum options.
For students and parents of students, you really have to do a bit of a deep dive at some schools to see how real their “study abroad,” internship, co-op or minor options are, especially with engineering. Many exist in theory, but many are not very practical.
@CaliDad2020 ,The engineering students , in general, have so much that just has to be learned, and the programs are subject to ABET accreditation. While you might be able to get a Bachelor’s in some things with just 120 credits, , many engineering degrees seem to require more like 128-133 credits . I do think that schools that seem especially supportive of women in engineering would be important to students like your daughter. Each engineering school really does have their own vibe and really can be quite different, as you have found.
@sevmom exactly. The thing I’ve seen too many students not realize is that just because a school has certain programs, majors, electives and “toys” does not mean you will have access to them. You have to ask. And sometimes ask a few times. Esp. as an engineering student.
Some of it also can be influenced by cost. It was important to us that our kids graduate in 4 years , as we were full pay (for their state schools). The older did get a minor in economics. The younger considered a CS minor but it would have meant extra time and he/we did not think it was worth it , and he has done fine without it. His degree was 133 credits even without any minor .
Yes, engineering has many prescribed courses/sequences. For students/parents unfamiliar with engineering coursework, it can be confusing. . Luckily these days you can find a lot of helpful info online.
[QUOTE=""]
This is a Clarkson example. I am not a fan of this kind of tabular format. Although It does show the MANY required courses, it’s not always obvious which courses need to be taken in a sequence.
http://www.clarkson.edu/mae/pdf/ME%20updated%20curriculum%20sheets%206%209%2016.pdf
This kind of flow diagram is really helpful (examples are random from Google search).
http://www.enme.umd.edu/sites/default/files/documents/BLUE_bw_course%20map_Fall2015.pdf
https://www.unf.edu/uploadedFiles/aa/ccec/engineering/spotlight/docs/2015-2016%20BSME%20Curriculum%20Map_native.pdf
https://mechanical.illinois.edu/undergraduate/mechanical-engineering/mechanical-engineering-course-map
[/QUOTE]
The only minor meltdown either of my kids ever had in college related to courses/sequences resulted from my younger son thinking he was shut out of a course he needed to stay on track. He called pretty upset and I had to calm him down, work through some ideas about being proactive and getting the class he needed (force/add, talking to advisor, talking to someone in the department, emailing a professor, etc.). It worked out but he had to be an advocate for himself at a big school. Not really a bad thing, actually, in learning from that, and he is a tough kid. So, it worked out. For some kids though, a smaller school might be a better fit . That’s when knowing your kid, what they need, becomes important.
@CaliDad2020, all great points, especially the travel abroad and the point about the “toys.” At both Lafayette and Bucknell, when we asked about traveling abroad as engineers they responded “well, engineering is different.” You could travel, but only do GE things. The school he goes to (Cal Poly) has exchange agreements with technical schools in Germany, Sweden, Spain, Taiwan and Australia. It’s certainly not unique to them, but they can take engineering overseas.
Berkeley (and many others) has LOTS of toys, but the question is…do undergrads get to touch them. Again, using Poly as an example, because it’s the one I know the best, their undergraduate fluids lab has four small wind tunnels and one large one. There are others for clubs and projects too, including a supersonic tunnel, which for a school that doesn’t grant PhDs is pretty uncommon. Now I’m sure they aren’t BA wind tunnels like you’d find a big research programs like A&M, but there are quite a few, all for undergraduate use.
Lastly, graduation rate. Lift the covers. Cal Poly has historically had a notoriously low 4 year grad rate in engineering. During the budget crisis, that was largely exacerbated by too few class sections (that’s largely been mitigated). For engineering though, and this is true of many programs, the curriculum is larger. Nearly all non-engineering UG degrees (architecture excluded because it’s 5 years) are 180 quarter hours. ME is 202. Even if a student goes one quarter past, it counts as five years.
So, back to your excellent point, just because school X or Y has certain features, doesn’t mean undergraduate engineers get access to them. It requires developing a list of schools and then vetting them each individually beyond a simple scan of the web page.
To the OP, good luck in the quest.
@sevmom - It’s good your son was on the ball and kept on track. The courses/sequences challenge exists in different flavors in different settings. As you’ve said, at a big school you may need to do more self-advocating. But at a school with small engineering departments, the courses are more likely to be given only once a year or alternate years. That forces a need to plan earlier.
OP wanted to know about small vs. large engineering school regarding resources, opportunities, graduate school preparedness, and job placement. For those who feel bigger is better, I think it is not that easy to generalize. There are so many other variables! Here is a case of a small school that is outside the mold, but a very good choice to consider for some students…
Olin College (Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering) is teeny tiny, but is a hidden gem that is often overlooked. It has a project based curriculum…so totally different than any other programs. They do stellar with their freshman retention rate, graduation rate, internship opportunities, job placement, and graduate school placement (not only with high placement stats in general, but with WHERE those students go for those opportunities). See some of this information here.
http://www.olin.edu/collaborate/careers-graduate-studies/results/
Sorry I’m late to the party, and too lazy to read the whole thread. I have 3 kids, none remotely interested in engineering. But I’d advocate for small schools for 2 reasons, based on a tour of Lafayette. First that school has just one admission portal, so if you’re accepted, you can major in engineering. My oldest D is at NCSU, where applicants have to choose between one of ten schools, and engineering being the hardest to get in. Second, I recall at Lafayette that students could move into or out of engineering the first year or two without difficulty.
If there is an advantage in grad school for grads of bigger schools, I’d want to see a study, not depend on one prof’s opinion.
Do you have some sort of other connection to engineering or are you commenting based on no experience here?
It would be very difficult to compare the relative merits of the strengths and weaknesses of large engineering programs versus small programs based on a single visit to a small program where you weren’t even particularly interested in their engineering school.
I believe what you are talking about here is not one admissions portal, but instead an admissions process where all students are admitted according to the same criteria regardless of major. This is certainly a potential advantage in terms of actually studying engineering, but it really has nothing to do with the quality of the program and its level of preparation for industry and graduate school.
Again, this is a potentially nice feature, especially for students who aren’t 100% sold on engineering as a career path, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the quality of the engineering program.