<p>Hello all. I would like to hear from prospective engineers as well as people already in the field... what is the main difference between attending RHIT vs. MIT besides geographic location and size?</p>
<p>RHIT is ranked #1 among engineering schools whose highest degree is a Masters
MIT is ranked #1 among engineering schools whose highest degree is a Ph.D</p>
<p>Being #1 among engineering schools whose highest degree is masters, is like being the castmember of Jersey Shore with the highest SAT score.</p>
<p>MIT - universal recognition.</p>
<p>RHIT - who are they again?</p>
<p>Well, to stick up for my school a little bit, I think RHIT holds a fairly unique position as an undergraduate-focused school. And I think the above two posters might be overstating their opinions a little bit…</p>
<p>To be clear, I think there <em>is</em> a difference between the two - not many schools are on the same plane as MIT. MIT has resources, reputation, and education quality that few schools can match. But, I don’t think Rose is what JamesMadison and texaspg seem to be implying…I have a friend that just graduated from Rose who turned down Caltech to come here. Rose isn’t a “who are they again?” school for those in engineering circles.</p>
<p>But, to get at the OP’s question - I think Rose’s focus on undergraduate education is one difference that could be seen in Rose’s favor. On the other hand, MIT dominates in pretty much every facet of engineering and MIT grads are respected universally. Graduating from MIT opens a lot of doors, both for graduate work and in industry.</p>
<p>Did nt mean to trivialize RHIT. I do have a couple of engineering degrees and so I do know the popular engineering schools. </p>
<p>As an immigrant, I heard of MIT when I was around 10. I moved here for my masters, lived here a couple of decades and I only heard about RHIT about six months ago when my kid got a flyer from them. So name recognition wise, I know more about Olin college as a school although it is only a few years old compared to RHIT.</p>
<p>There is a huge difference. </p>
<p>MIT is the pinnacle of engineering schools. </p>
<p>Rose-Hulman does not have a high percentage of students go on to doctoral programs. It’s basically a small nurturing school whose graduates go out into the work force and seem to be able to find good jobs. Admissions are not competitive. In the USNews ranking, they seem to consistently come in first for undergraduate only institutions, but it’s a joke to compare them with Harvey Mudd where 34% of their graduates eventually get a doctorate, or to Cooper Union, which another brutal small engineering school whose graduates consistently do extremely well. Both of those schools are much more competitive. </p>
<p>I do not think RHIT is that well known in engineering circles. I’ve only interviewed one person from their and he didn’t get the job. </p>
<p>There is certainly a niche need for a nurturing engineering school for those that need the nurturing. WPI is another one. Most engineering programs, are more toward the Darwinian end of the spectrum and have very high attrition rates. Engineering is hard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, it is. I’ve interviewed engineering graduates for many years and have many, many friends that do the same. It’s very rare to find an RHIT graduate and even more rare to find a recruiter that can tell you much about the school. I know more than most and I can’t even tell you the city where it is located.</p>
<p>To generate a name for yourself in engineering circles, your school either needs to be top tier (Caltech, Berkeley, Georgia Tech, etc), very large (Virginia Tech, Texas A&M, Penn State, etc), or have very strong industry ties into well known companies (Delaware, Mines, Cal Poly SLO, etc.). RHIT doesn’t seem to have any of those three. Even though it’s top among schools without a PhD program, that’s like being the best hitter in minor league baseball.</p>
<p>I am familiar with RHIT, and know a few graduates, but I would not consider it in the same league as MIT. It is respectable and produces good engineers, but as another noted it tops only one category, a category that omits all the genuinely top schools. RHIT is a fine choice for those who want to go immediately into industry and work for good solid companies, but MIT will place engineers with the BEST companies as well as offering far superior positioning and preparation for graduate school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe it’s just me being defensive about my school (haha), but again, I think this is overstating things. “Rose is on the top of this list…but it’s admissions aren’t that competitive and its graduates don’t go on to PhD programs in high numbers, so it’s ridiculous to compare it to HMC and Cooper Union”… is basically how I read that, and I think that’s a pretty narrow way of looking at things. You make Rose sound like a trade school for kids who need “nurturing”. I don’t think it’s a joke to compare RHIT to HMC when every year on CC there are numerous posts comparing the two, and every year many seniors make a tough college decision between the two.</p>
<p>Obviously both ClassicRockerDad and BanjoHitter have first-hand experience in the hiring process and have a perspective on that than I don’t, but I still find this analysis confusing. Would the arguments be the same if this was about Harvey Mudd instead of Rose-Hulman? It belongs to the “minor league” category of Master’s-only schools. I think it’s name recognition is <em>roughly</em> the same as RHIT’s. Could some of this be regional? I’m not sure where Banjo and Classic are from, but being from Oregon I know that RHIT isn’t well-known on the west coast. Similarly, I doubt Mudd is known that well in the midwest. But that doesn’t make Mudd some cupcake school. </p>
<p>I think some of this is due to the comparison to MIT. I think everyone agrees that there really isn’t a whole lot to compare. As ClassicRockerDad said, MIT is the pinnacle of engineering schools. Rose isn’t at that level. But, I don’t think that means Rose should be thrown to the curb (ie, a “minor league” school).</p>
<p>A comparison between Mudd and MIT would be very valid - they are each elite schools with different focuses. If a MIT-Mudd comparison is valid, seeing as Mudd and RHIT are frequently compared, I have a hard time seeing RHIT comparisons as a “joke”.</p>
<p>I actually looked it up, and “Snooki” from Jersey shore holds a BSEE from Rose-Hulman.</p>
<p>That explains why she got paid $32,000 to speak at Rutgers. ;-)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is indeed how I view it when I want to hire someone awesome. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No it could be an excellent choice for those who after HS are less competitive for top schools but want to be good engineers anyway. Ask the many people who have changed majors from engineering if they would have preferred to have a nurturing environment. IMHO, the nurturing environment is a plus for many students. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What you are comparing is high school seniors making a decision on the way in. I’m comparing how recruiters and graduates schools make a decision on the way out. Both are useful measures. Harvey Mudd is a top source of future PhDs. Rose Hulman is not. Harvey Mudd requires you to have shown more evidence of talent on the way in. Rose Hulman does not. </p>
<p>I’ve definitely heard of Harvey Mudd on the East Coast, and we’ve had interns from there. </p>
<p>I think you should compare the outcomes of RHIT grads not with MIT or HMC grads, but with those that have been “weeded out” from less nurturing programs. In that regard, I have no doubt that RHIT excels. It’s nothing to sneeze at. </p>
<p>I mean no disrespect, I’m just giving you my frank opinion on the value of the USNews Rankings that places RHIT ahead of HMC and Cooper Union.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, do recruiters and graduate schools view Georgia Tech, UIUC, Umich, etc. the same way? They don’t require you to show more evidence of talent on the way in, and they produce PhD’s at a similar lowly percentage as Rose-Hulman. Taking a random student from Rose and a random student from Georgia Tech, they will generally have demonstrated the same talent to get into their school, and will generally have the same likelihood of going onto get a PhD after graduation. Does Georgia Tech get evaluated the same way that Rose-Hulman does?</p>
<p>I’m not a grad school admissions dean or recruiter, but I doubt that most base their decisions off of undergrad admissions stats and PhD production results. The US News undergrad engineering ranking that placed Rose at #1 for Masters is based solely on deans and senior faculty assessments, so we know that at least the deans don’t base their judgement on it… If that is all that grad schools based decisions off of, Stanford would have missed Sergey and Larry (UofMaryland and UofMichigan) as well as many other quality graduates.</p>
<p>I hope I don’t sound argumentative. I’ll plainly admit that I’ve never been in on any admissions or hiring decisions, so I’ve got much less to base my knowledge off of than you do. I’m just trying to reconcile the data that I <em>do</em> have: what you’ve said here as someone who knows the industry, and what I’ve heard about Rose-Hulman from others in industry and academia.</p>
<p>I think you have your facts wrong.</p>
<p>Georgia Tech had a 2102 average SAT and 3.94 GPA average this year, RHIT had an 1870 average SAT and didn’t release the GPA. They are not the same “evidence of talent on the way in”. </p>
<p>Georgia Tech has over 50% of its students go to grad school, so it’s certainly not sending students to PhD programs at a “lowly percentage”. According to their websites, HMC sends 47% to grad school and RHIT sends about 20%. So GT has both beat in that area.</p>
<p>I compared the incoming ACTs at GT and Rose. GT incoming 25/75 ACT range is 27-32, while Rose’s median ACTs are 29 English, 32 Math, which means the composite median is somewhere around 30. That’s right in the middle of GT’s range. I only looked at ACTs because Rose is in the midwest, where ACTs are more predominant from what I’ve heard. Freshman admissions GPA considerations are pretty worthless, IMO…HS GPAs vary so much and don’t really indicate much when you’re talking about everyone being top 10% of the class.</p>
<p>So, I would say the admissions stats are pretty similar.</p>
<p>As for PhD production…where do you see 50% of its students going to grad school? If that’s right, I’m definitely wrong. I just got my data from another thread…for the time span of 1994-2003: GT had 757 graduates receiving PhD out of a total 18,825. 4.0%. ([data](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/532397-list-top-phd-producing-schools.html]data[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/532397-list-top-phd-producing-schools.html)</a>). Now, that’s total graduates, not just engineering…but assuming the trend [url=<a href=“http://www.swarthmore.edu/Documents/administration/ir/baccorsum1995-2004.pdf]here[/url”>http://www.swarthmore.edu/Documents/administration/ir/baccorsum1995-2004.pdf]here[/url</a>] for other schools holds for GT as well, the percentage of PhDs in engineering and science is less than the total for the whole school.</p>
<p>EDIT: I think I misinterpreted the science and engineering data in the 2nd document to be a percentage of total science and engineering students rather than a percentage of total graduates. So, that doesn’t really tell us anything about GT…but I still don’t know where Banjo’s 50% comes from.</p>
<p>I just ran some quick numbers, and I still can’t find 50%.</p>
<p>[US</a> News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/georgia-tech-1569]US”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/georgia-tech-1569) says 57% of 2009 GT grads were engineering majors, 4% are biological and biomedical science majors, and 6% were computer science and support services majors. Making the rough assumption that that distribution holds for the timeframe I had above, ~67% of the 18,825 total GT grads were engineering or science majors (12,612 total). Even using this number for the total engineering and science graduates - which is a healthy underestimate (math, physics, chem, other hard sciences are not included) - the 757 GT grads that earned PhDs would only be 6% of total engineering and science graduates…pretty close to the 5.4% at Rose-Hulman. (and that 6% is an over-estimate, remember)</p>
<p>Now, this is making several assumptions that aren’t completely accurate, but I think it’s a reasonable estimate. I certainly don’t see a significant percentage of that 50% going on to get PhDs, which is the number we’re comparing. (not just going to grad school, but number obtaining a PhD)</p>
<p>Just to check the math, can you give a reference for the 5.4% PhD rate for RHIT? Also, where did you get the “757 GT grads that earned PhDs” from? I am concerned that you are comparing two different figures here.</p>
<p>I’m not really sure what you’re arguing. I think you’re trying to argue that RHIT is as good as HMC. I think HMC would push one much further if they can handle it. They tend to have more raw talent to work with. Then you argue that RHIT is as good as Georgia Tech, UIUC and UMich. I certainly have a lot more experience with those schools, and I tend to doubt it. I think those schools would push you very far too, whether you can handle it or not. A lot of people can’t. If you’re not making it at GT, you probably would have been better off at RHIT. Don’t forget how hard to get into a school does not indicate how hard it is to get through. </p>
<p>Actually, recruiters view Georgia Tech, UIUC, Umich as large schools where you can go to interview a LOT of talent. It costs me just as much to recruit at UIUC as at Rose-Hulman and I will meet many more students, including those getting a Masters and PhD. I have met outstanding undergrads from all of these schools, but I have met some real losers from Georgia Tech. Obviously the school does not matter as much as what you do there. </p>
<p>In the end, what matters is how much you have learned and what your capabilities are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your total is clearly off. First of all, in a 10 year period Tech has about 30,000 graduates, not 18,000. Second, Tech grants more PhD’s than that to it’s own undergraduates. The number I quoted was undergraduates to graduate school, and Tech is over 50%. The 2007 comprehensive survey is apparently not online, but you can see it referenced in the student paper [here[/url</a>] “More than 50 percent of Georgia Tech undergraduate students go on to graduate school after graduation and the numbers are projected to increase.” The same survey has the number of students enrolled in doctorate programs at graduation at 22% (and remember that excludes the students going GT BS -> MS -> PhD).</p>
<p>With regards to your ACT comments, along similar lines, no one takes the ACT in Georgia unless they struggle with the SAT. GT stats for this year are here: [url=<a href=“http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/georgia-tech-applicants-will-876073.html]Georgia”>http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/georgia-tech-applicants-will-876073.html]Georgia</a> Tech applicants will learn their fate | ajc.com](<a href=“http://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/27475/buzz_spring_09.pdf]here[/url”>http://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/27475/buzz_spring_09.pdf) 2104 SAT is roughly a 32 ACT average.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The second post in [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/532397-list-top-phd-producing-schools.html]this[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/532397-list-top-phd-producing-schools.html]this[/url</a>] thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Same thread, 4th post. I’m concerned that I’m comparing two different numbers as well - haha. I tried to find a raw number from GT or elsewhere, but I couldn’t…so I had to do some calculations.</p>
<p>The 2nd post has percentages, the 4th post has raw numbers. GT doesn’t show up in the first post because the number of GT grads obtaining science and engineering PhD’s as a percentage of total grads isn’t in the table - about 4%. So, my calculations were all trying to reorient GT’s numbers to obtain the number of GT science and engineering PhDs as a percentage of total science and engineering grads, which would be much closer to the percentage at RHIT (because <em>all</em> of Rose grads are science and engineering).</p>
<p>Also: BanjoHitter said 50% of GT grads go to grad school. We were talking about PhD-bound graduates, so I assume that he was citing that 50% implying that a significant portion of those would be PhD-bound. If he wasn’t implying that, then I have nothing wrong with his statistic…it’s just not what I was comparing.</p>