<p>What have you heard, pro or con, about SMU's engineering program? How would you compare it to TAMU's? Thanks.</p>
<p>SMU has a good engineering program but it’s nowhere when compared to TAMU. TAMU is head and shoulders above SMU.</p>
<p>In Texas for engineering
- UT-Austin
2 or 1A) TAMU - Rice
- Texas Tech
- University of Houston
- SMU
- UT-Dallas</p>
<p>I know this is slightly off the topic but UT-Dallas does have a good computer science program. They may not be very high in the rankings but I do know that they get high regard from many companies in the Dallas area.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would rank TAMU below Rice (Rice is a much more prominent overall ranking, produces very good engineers, and TAMU suffers from the image the alumni project) and Texas Tech below Houston (the proximity of UH to major manufacturers is a bonus, UH has excellent industry connections through their business school alumni, and the ChE, ME, and EE programs seem to be top notch). </p>
<p>UT-Dallas really confuses me. As a recruiter for a Fortune 100 company, I knew nothing about the school, and did not meet a single graduate at any conferences or in any of my graduate schools. However, as a researcher, I hear quite a bit about the faculty and the research underway there. I’m not sure what to make of that from a ranking perspective.</p>
<p>GP – I’m not trying to argue that Rice isn’t a great engineering program, and everyone here knows you have very strong opinions, but I’d just like you to try to give better reasons as to why you think it’s better than TAMU… </p>
<p>1.) Rice being a more prominent overall school is a silly reason for saying its engineering program is better.
2.) Rice does produce very good engineers, but so does TAMU.
3.)
</p>
<p>Please elaborate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>TAMU alumni are fiercely antagonistic to other universities. </p>
<p>Let’s leave it at that.</p>
<p>In my experience working with TAMU, Texas, and Rice grads (almost to the point of exclusivity), the best of the best of TAMU and Texas grads are on par with Rice grads. Rice just doesn’t produce anything but those top sorts of graduates, though. The engineering classes are incredibly small… We graduated twelve civil engineers my year. (tweeeellllvvvve.) They went on to Berkeley, MIT, Illinois, Stanford, and then CH2M Hill, Walter P Moore, Wiss Janney, and Thornton Tomasetti. The rest went into business or law. </p>
<p>A&M and Texas both produce some truly excellent engineers and a large number of competent engineers. The smaller numbers and higher selectivity at Rice mean that they end up producing just the type of truly excellent engineers that A&M and Texas produce, but they’re not in the market of producing large quantities of competent engineers to fill the Texas marketplace. Because of the small classes, I think Rice is a better place to learn to be a truly excellent engineer. Still, my A&M and Texas colleagues here at the office could go head-to-head with a Rice grad in an engineering showdown and do just fine.</p>
<p>Engineering at SMU is… well, it used to be better. My dad got his bachelors and masters degrees from SMU, and specifically instructed me to not apply, because he saw the program tank and hadn’t seen it recover enough by the time I was applying to colleges to make him comfortable with my going there. Geoffrey Orsak is doing some great things there, but it’s going to take time to rebuild the program.</p>
<p>I don’t think all TAMU alumni are fiercely antagonistic (this coming from a former drum major of the MOB, too, so that’s saying something!). The ones I’ve met here, all of whom are at the top of their game, are loyal to the maroon and will dish out some good-natured ribbing during football season, but they’re far tamer than the TAMU alumni that I’ve met out in the wild.</p>
<p>I understand that rankings are somewhat important but because engineering and CS has more job openings that available people to fill them…engineering/CS employers are not all into “what engineering school did you attend” like businesses are into “B-Schools”.</p>
<p>I guess everybody has their own experiences with graduates of each school. A friend of my parents is a civil engineer and he has had good experiences from people at Duke (which isn’t even ranked in the top 20 for civil engineering) while he has had bad experiences with Virginia Tech graduates (which is top 10 I think for CE).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Great way of putting it. I was hoping GP could add some meaningful insight into this thread, like aibarr has, however he seems to focus on his personal bias as usual. </p>
<p>I could mention all of the antagonistic and hostile UT alum I’ve encountered as a reason to discount their engineering program, but I haven’t – everyone has their personal likes/dislikes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wanted to avoid this “debate”, and as someone married to a TAMU alumna, I really should, but if you are going to bait me like this, let’s look at the schools:</p>
<ol>
<li> Rice is a more selective university.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>While it is not the only factor, ceteris paribus, better students in leads to better engineers out. Taking a look at the students admitted to the two schools, the average SAT score at Rice is over 300 points higher than the average SAT score to TAMU. The 75th ACT quartile for TAMU is the 25th quartile for Rice. The number of students not in the top 10% of their class: Rice: 17%, TAMU: 50%. </p>
<ol>
<li> TAMU is not the top public engineering school in the state.</li>
</ol>
<p>It is also not in dispute that TAMU is not the top public engineering school in the state. Why does this matter? There are two reasons. First, 95% of TAMU students are in-state. Therefore, at least 95% of the attendees at TAMU as undergraduates passed up the top engineering program in their state. While I’m sure a large fraction of those students felt that TAMU was a better “fit” for them, I’m also sure that a large fraction of those students could not get into the engineering school at UT, making TAMU more of a backup plan than a “destination of choice”. </p>
<p>This also represents a problem because, when out-of-state firms look to recruit in Texas, UT-Austin is the preferred destination (not only because of the better reputation but also because of the non-engineering top tier programs from which the firm can recruit). </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Rice has the BA engineering program (among others). As much as I dislike the BA in engineering program, it serves a useful purpose. At all engineering schools, you get incapable engineering students - those that just don’t get the concepts. At a school like TAMU, those students ultimately graduate with engineering degrees because there is no incentive to leave. Engineering is the marquee of TAMU, and it’s better to graduate with a low GPA but a BS from a first tier engineering school than with a moderate GPA and a BBA from a second tier business school (especially when there is a first tier business school in your state). At a school like Rice, there are other options, including the BA in engineering and other first tier program, that pulls the low GPA students off the engineering course. This leads to more a more consistent product. </p></li>
<li><p>Rice opens many more non-engineering doors. Bankers, Consultants, etc. care about overall rank and prestige. The #17 overall school is much more prestigious than that #61 ranked school. </p></li>
<li><p>TAMU alumni hurt their own reputation. In my experience, and in the experience of others with whom I’ve discussed this issue, TAMU alumni are fiercely antagonistic towards other graduates, and even their own graduates. Some TAMU alumni attack “two percenters” for things as childish as not wearing a class ring properly, they openly attack other universities as being inferior (despite the actuality of the claim), and it’s a very common practice for TAMU graduates to attempt “hostile” takeovers of companies - where they purposefully and subversively decline to hire non-TAMU graduates in favor of TAMU graduates regardless of qualification. There are a good number of TAMU-only companies in Eastern Texas because of this. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>But let’s be clear about something - I’m not saying that TAMU is a bad school. Only that I feel Rice is a better school. What do I mean by better? If tuition was the same, and a student liked both school’s campuses equally, I would recommend Rice. However, TAMU is still an excellent school, and produces top-notch engineers and research. I would take nothing away from that school and would be proud if one of my children attended.</p>
<p>GP the one part of your argument that I fail to understand is why ACT/SAT scores make such a difference when comparing schools like tamu,ut, and rice. Since you are an employer, tell me this: do you even care what a recruit made on their college entrance exams? I don’t see how those tests prove anything about the quality of an engineer a student will become. </p>
<p>“Therefore, at least 95% of the attendees at TAMU as undergraduates passed up the top engineering program in their state”</p>
<p>I am proud to say that I am in that 95%, and I had the choice of accepting the “top notch” engineering school in my state.</p>
<p>No, you’re right–it doesn’t matter, from an employer’s perspective. All employers care about is that they get a good employee. </p>
<p>I think you’re missing the point, though. GP is saying that Rice is more selective, in that we can see that they attract (based upon SAT metrics and top-ten-percent metrics) more highly-qualified undergraduate applicants than A&M does. As GP says, the higher the quality of your matriculants, the higher the quality of your graduates, in a general sense. UT isn’t even coming into play in the SAT comparison argument; that part is just comparing A&M and Rice, and what GP says corroborates what I’ve seen in my field of practice. Brilliant grads from both, just a more consistent level of achievement from Rice grads because of the selective nature of the school. All three, A&M, UT, and Rice, have good programs, though. </p>
<p>I’m giving it all I’ve got, AE, but you’re not really helping the case for A&M here… =</p>
<p>Anyone have anything else to add about SMU engineering? They’ve really gone more into the business direction lately, so their engineers are scarce, particularly here in Houston. I’m just not that familiar with SMU’s current program. Anybody?</p>
<p>I’m sorry but basing the quality of your matriculants on one test like that and nothing else is absurd. But that is only my opinion. Do rice admits have better OVERALL stats in general than most from tamu and ut? Yes, without a doubt therefore they walk into school with the mindset needed to succeed. It isn’t just because they scored 2400 on their SAT.</p>
<p>I shouldn’t argue either way. At the end of the day, engineers from each of these schools will make positive contributions to society.</p>
<p>So to the op, I honestly have no idea about smu’s program.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why are so many Harvard graduates successful? Is it because Harvard provides some magical influence over careers? Not really. It’s because only the most successful high school students get into Harvard. Those students tend to be successful at Harvard and get into top companies, and they tend to be successful in those top companies. So it’s not that Harvard “does” anything necessarily, it’s that successful people are successful, and admission to Harvard is a signal that someone is a successful person (which, in itself attracts more employers).</p>
<p>What does this mean about recruiting and SAT scores? Students who do well on the SAT’s and have high GPAs are successful people. Maybe that’s because they’re smart, maybe that’s because they’re hard working, maybe that’s because they’re incredibly lucky - whatever the reason, they are successful people. So a school that requires a higher SAT and higher GPA has more successful people.</p>
<p>Of course companies don’t look at SAT scores when recruiting; however, they do look at where their successful employees came from. If I track TAMU, Rice, and UT-Austin graduates, and 10% of TAMU graduates are “successful” (promoted, made an important discovery, influential, well respected, etc), 30% of Rice graduates are “successful”, and 0% of UT-Austin graduates are successful I’m going to spend more effort (time and money) at Rice than TAMU and I’ll drop UT-Austin from my recruiting list.</p>
<p>So, indirectly, SAT does impact recruiting (beyond the obvious impact of manipulating the rankings).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…and top-ten-percent of their class. I promise that we’ve both mentioned that a couple of times but you keep missing it. SAT is not the only metric being considered.</p>
<p>ok, somehow I did miss the top 10% being mentioned. Now I realize just how stupid my comments have been. I guess I get frustrated when I hear conversations where people only talk about SAT/ACT when being well rounded is more important. So yes, you can say Rice students are successful going into college but it is up to them whether they succeed in the business world. I think that can be agreed with.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t confuse an aggregate level with an individual level. Are there students at TAMU that turned down UT? Yes. Are there students at UT that turned down TAMU? Yes. But, at an aggregate level, there are more students that took UT over TAMU than TAMU over UT. Therefore, I’m going to favor UT over TAMU. Does that mean that all UT engineers are greater than all TAMU engineers? No.</p>
<p>Well, I did not realize what a can of worms I opened with this thread. I was hoping to get some SMU information, but all of this has been helpful. Regarding the comment made about how many engineering students at TAMU are attending there because they could not get accepted to UT engineering…hhhmmmm. My son is top of his class at very large school, top 1% on ACT & SAT, National Merit, etc. and he did not even apply to UT. Several of his friends are also top students interested in engineering; they also are not applying to UT. Many, like my son, prefer the atmosphere, friendliness, and traditions that TAMU offer. Having attended overnight honors events at both and meeting privately with professors and with each school’s engineering recruiters, the impression made by both could not be more different. For example, when my son asked why he should attend UT over TAMU, the response the recruiter gave was “Well, we let you walk on the grass!” In addition, many of my son’s friends are choosing to apply to TAMU over UT because of the scholarship situation. UT has chosen to eliminate their NM scholarships this year and to concentrate on “need-based” scholarships instead. There are many kids out there, like mine, who will not qualify for the need-based scholarships but certainly don’t have the $ to pay the entire COA. As for Rice, my son has also applied there but currently favors TAMU because it offers AERO. Again, I would love to hear from those of you out there with knowledge about SMU’s engineering program.</p>
<p>Rice is a great school for aerospace engineering… lots of ties to NASA. All the aerospace engineers major in mechanical engineering, so that’s why there’s no specific “aerospace” degree. Aero’s sort of a niche field-- you can approach it from the mechanical, electrical or structural sides of things and still be eminently hireable by an aerospace company. As a result, a lot of schools have great connections to the aerospace industry, but no specific “aero” degrees… Definitely keep that in mind when you’re looking at schools, and don’t rule out schools because they don’t have a specific “aerospace” degree. They may actually be very strong in producing aerospace engineers.</p>
<p>Coincidentally, my dad actually did his undergrad at SMU in engineering, but because they didn’t have an aerospace engineering degree at the time, he did his degree in mechanical engineering. They lost a bunch of their really stellar mechanical engineering profs right after he left, though, and I really don’t get the sense that they’ve recovered the status that they once had.</p>
<p>A&M and Texas are both great schools. I think they’re definitely on par with one another; it’s just a matter of what type of feel you want in a campus.</p>