<p>Virginia tech
Penn State
Washington (Seattle)
North Carolina State
Ohio State
Colorado (Boulder)
Iowa State
Case Western
Michigan State
Alabama</p>
<p>Notes:</p>
<p>Alabama: solid engineering school, but not a top 50 if you’re looking for that. They’re on their way up, but still not quite a premier engineering school. Great scholarships for 32+ ACT.</p>
<p>Case Western: Lots in scholarships - I personally know of two people who received 30k+/year in scholarships.</p>
<p>Iowa State: Low prestige, similar to Alabama, but much better engineering school. Likely top 50. You’d likely receive a full ride (or close) with your stats. </p>
<p>To answer your question above, in my opinion, no. I would go to UT Austin for engineering over a more expensive school (Unless it is MIT or Cal Tech). If it turns out to be only slightly more expensive, then maybe. But when it comes down to it, UT Austin is an excellent engineering program at a reasonable price for instate students. But, it really comes down to your personal finances and how much you can afford.</p>
<p>Unless your parents are wealthy, I do not think it is worth paying more to attend a program that is marginally better, unless we’re talking about MIT, Stanford and perhaps Princeton. The reason I think it may be worth paying a little more for those three universities is because the overall strength of the university is hard to ignore while they also have very strong engineering programs. That combination makes them hard to ignore. Of course, should you get a merit scholarship to Cal, Georgia Tech, Michigan or UIUC, it may take the cost of attendance down sufficiently to make it worth your while, but even then, Texas holds its own against those schools.</p>
<p>How much more expensive? UT Austin is very good, and very attractive to recruiters for engineering jobs (though less so if your real goal is investment banking). So it is hard to see any school being worth paying a lot more for if you want to go into engineering with engineering as your career goal.</p>
The “overall strength” of these universities is irrelevant to the OP. Besides Stanford and perhaps MIT due to their amazing locations next to job hubs, you can’t beat UT-Austin if your career goal is to be an actual engineer. Austin has a very robust hiring market for technology and only Silicon Valley can top it. Princeton won’t provide nearly as many opportunities.</p>
<p>If the OP’s actual goal is investment banking and consulting, then all the Ivies+Stanford+MIT+Duke+Northwestern would be better options.</p>
<p>My goal is to be an actual engineer and not an investment banker. I, however, have no interest in computer technology. My only problem with UT is that I live less than 30 minutes from campus, and I’d like to be farther away from home.</p>
<p>“My goal is to be an actual engineer and not an investment banker.” That’s the case with most people who intend on studying engineering at top programs. Obviously, the goal is to eventually become chief engineer, join the executive team or own one’s own company, but only after having actually worked as an engineer. I am not sure why Investment Banking even entered this conversation. That is a very strange tangent that has nothing to do with this thread. Besides, at most universities with elite Business school (McCombs qualifies as elite), qualified students who are interested in careers in IBanking are advised to major in Business.</p>
<p>Penn State-University Park, Purdue, Wisconsin-Madison and Virginia Tech are all excellent options. If you are interested in Chemical Engineering, the University of Minnesota is amazing…and a great bargain.</p>