<p>people are always using selectivity pretentiously and it’s very annoying, if we’re talking about selecting the top 5% of all ENGINEERING graduates, then holy **** that’s impressive (ie. selective grad schools). But if your talking selecting the top 5% of high school then that’s completely something else and it’s so pretentiouuuuuuuus…here’s why</p>
<p>engineering programs at schools such as Harvard or Rice have high selectivity but their actual ‘standards’ are not so impressive, they give out a’s and b’s more readily to their students, this evident by their high average gpa and poor gpa distribution. You may reply that a high avg GPA and poor gpa distribution is a result of the fact they took only 4.0 gpa high school students…and that’s a valid response, but to me it’s a poor one because I’ve seen 4.0 high schoolers get mauled in an engineering program very commonly…we’ve all been to high school, we know it’s academic demands are on par with a business program at a community college no matter how many ‘honor’ classes u took, it’s high school people c’mon. </p>
<p>I could care less to glorify a school like Texas A&M, but the fact that it has an ~ 3.0 average GPA and a solid GPA distribution strongly suggests that they actually have ‘standards’</p>
<p>I want to help dismiss the notion that I’m just ragging on schools with prestige… programs like MIT and caltech that have high selectivity AND a solid GPA distribution are indisputably the best…They take the top high school students THEN they ensure that half of em’ get their ass kicked… they seperate the men from the meek… which results in a low avg class GPA and a solid GPA distribution. The top students from MIT or Cal Tech are the something else I won’t deny that. But for the top engineering grads Harvard and Rice are not the only place i’d look, even if it’s Haaaaarvard : ).</p>
<p>I’ve only met a few TAMU grads (and UT) and haven’t had any problem with them. But then again, I’m sure - as they say - everything’s bigger in Texas. In SoCal I don’t have a problem with TAMU grads.</p>
<p>Because TAMU has a good reputation there probably are a few reasons for it - as the school does have a lower SAT score. I’d imagine it’s because it has a much harsher curve than UT (I doubt Rice has a “curve” to speak of).</p>
<p>What experience do you have attending, hiring from, or working with graduates from Rice or Harvard? I’m asking because claiming that a school has no <code>standards</code> is a serious allegation that should not be made lightly.</p>
<p>bringbackpluto: I am in the same situation as your son. The merit aid at UT is non-existent therefore A&M provides the best opportunity for it. It seems like your son likes tamu for many of the same reasons I do. It is nice know that many other students at the top of their classes are seeing past the rankings and aiming for tamu. Can’t wait for college.</p>
<p>I gave a concrete reason that supports my allegation, if you disagree that’s one thing, but I did not make a claim without providing a simple explanation for my reasoning; perhaps you chose to ignore it.</p>
<p>your response is saying what I thought you would say, ur suggesting that the unusually high avg gpa and lack of distribution is simply representative of the quality of the students at Harvard because their so selective of their high school applicants or some reason I’m oblivious too; I say it’s impossible and your just being pretentious.</p>
<p>possibe miscommunicaitons…
I’m talking strictly about engineering
I’m assuming Harvard and rice have a high avg gpa and lack of distribution
I’m talking about undergrad, where selectivity is with respect to high school applicants</p>
<p>I would like to make a second comment to help dismiss the notion that i’m just trying to ■■■■■ or rag on schools with prestige. Harvard and Rice engineering graduate schools select the top % of engineering graduates from across the country and that’s where I see their greatness. Only in this case where selectivity is with respect to engineering students and not highschool students i think establishing a low avg gpa and a distribution (ie. seperating the men from the meek) is inappropriate.</p>
<p>perhaps I’m just being ignorant, or jealous; I still feel like just because it’s harvard what I’m saying, despite my supporting argument, is being received as way off base.</p>
<p>I don’t follow. Your argument works like this:</p>
<ul>
<li>Assume Harvard and Rice automatically give high grades to students</li>
<li>Assume that these high grades are given regardless of performance and are not consistent with other engineering schools </li>
<li>Use these facts to assert that the engineering schools are not rigorous</li>
</ul>
<p>That argument is completely tautological unless you have some evidence to support your assumptions. You can’t even cite the usual grade inflation argument at Harvard since that does not differentiate between colleges; meanwhile we know that Harvard is accredited, and part of the EAC process reviews grading procedures. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, Harvard and Rice (as overall universities) both make their reputation at the undergraduate level. Both schools are much easier to get into at the graduate level.</p>
<p>Again, do you have any experience or knowledge concerning these schools?</p>
<p>GP, thanks for the meaningful insight. I know this thread has geared away from our discussion, however I do see many of your points clearly. I would however like to point out that I was merely speaking from an engineering standpoint, and that I’m not debating the selectivity, prestige, greatness, or strength of other programs that Rice has as an overall school. Your 1-4 points sort of address these issues, with your 2nd point holding true for Rice as well as TAMU. Like AggieEngineer, I too have selected TAMU over UT, after being accepted to both (3 yrs ago) and ironically growing up in Austin as a son to two UT alumni.</p>
<p>Your 5th point does hold true in some cases. Surely TAMU alumni can attack others, including other TAMU alumni, but I believe this to be a more old-fashioned stigma (as with the TAMU exclusive companies). I won’t debate the hiring practices of some companies favoring TAMU alum (like Blue Bell Ice Cream), however I have personally seen this happen with other school’s grads as well – such as UT. In my experiences the TAMU-only companies are becoming extinct, especially in this economy.</p>
<p>I am a student at SMU, and they are currently finishing up a huge, beautiful building on campus, which is an addition to the engineering program. They also have another one that they just began constructing, and it is also for the engineering school. While this doesn’t have much to do with rankings, I think this is a great sign of a program that is on the rise, and growing! I’m not sure it’s accurate to say SMU’s engineering program use to be better.</p>
<p>Clarifying this statement: This was back in the late sixties/early seventies. There were a couple of professors who were really stellar and very well-known in their field, and they retired around then. That’s fact. </p>
<p>Opinion begins where my dad, an alumnus of the program, claims that the program isn’t as strong as it used to be, and I don’t know whether that’s true or not. </p>
<p>All I know is that from my point of view, the SMU program has dissolved into relative obscurity–I have never met a recent alumnus of the program, so I don’t know one way or another how they stack against graduates of other departments. My background is that I’ve worked for two top structural engineering firms, I got my masters at Illinois, and my undergrad degree is from Rice. I’ve done a lot of work with a lot of folks from a lot of programs, but regardless of the SMU engineering program’s quality (which, again, I really can’t say anything about), for whatever reason, I’ve not been running into any recent SMU engineering graduates. This could be for any number of reasons–maybe the engineering graduates stay in Dallas and don’t venture down to Houston or out to LA or Chicago or any of the places I’ve worked, maybe they don’t produce a lot of structural engineers, or maybe they just don’t make it to the top firms or do top research. I honestly am not sure what the reason is, but it strikes me as being a cause for concern, because I’ve run into at least one person from pretty much every other major program in Texas.</p>
<p>I have talked to Geoffrey Orsak a couple of times, and he seems like a great guy, and it seems like he’s doing fantastic things for the school. As a Mustang double-legacy, I’m really glad to see that they’re building the program up, but it’ll take time to fill those new structures with more top-notch researchers and educators. I wish SMU a lot of luck, but I’m not sure I’d choose to go there to get a degree until their program has started to show some more visible results.</p>
<p>My son, a junior in high school, has named SMU as his first choice engineering school since he attended a very motivating, fun, impressive SMU Engineering orientation event at a local hotel last summer. He was very impressed. So was I. We have visited lots of other schools since that time, and SMU remains his first choice. Of course, he has another year before he applies.</p>
<p>We have also visited the newest engineering building on the SMU campus. It is gorgeous! (Not that that makes a great engineering program.) We know that they’re in the process of building two more engineering buildings. It seems as though SMU is putting a lot of money and energy into rebuilding their program. My son wants to be in on the ground floor of that and is more than willing to excel there rather than pursue a more “prestigious” school just for its name.</p>
<p>But, then again, he is a 16 year old junior in high school! lol.</p>
<p>I’m pretty excited for him, though … just by virtue of the fact that he (so far) loves any school so much.</p>
<p>Another thought I’ve had over the whole thing is this: With the qualifications he has (like so many other kids who apply to our nation’s top, most prestigious engineering schools), why can’t he be very successful no matter where he attends? If he loves a school, and if he plans on going to graduate school, and if he already has the basic skill sets for success (intellect, drive, academic foundation, communication, people skills, sense of humor, etc), then does it really matter whether the school is “very good” or “the best?” (Aside from the fact that recruiters like GP are drawn more to well-known hiring pools like UT or Rice – my son wants a “good job” when he’s done – he doesn’t have to have “THE BEST” job. Know what I mean?) </p>
<p>@bringbackpluto: From what you’ve posted on this thread and another thread, it seems that our sons have similar stats. (Mine is a year younger than yours, though.) I saw that your son was offered an interview for the Presidential Scholarship. Of course, that’s what we’ll be hoping for as well next year! Who isn’t hoping for it?! Can I PM you to discuss more?</p>
<p>UT-Austin students also have more access to top-notch research opportunities and are more heavily recruited by companies than SMU. As a result, a UT-Austin graduate will have more opportunities both in grad school admissions and in early career opportunities than an SMU graduate.</p>
<p>@GP,
If he (my son or OP’s son, doesn’t matter) were to graduate at the top of his class at SMU, let’s say, and have great recs from profs and employers, great internships, study abroad, a whole smorgasbord of great experiences on his grad school resume, I still think he would likely have great grad school opportunities.</p>
<p>SMU is well-connected, too. Employers in the area seek out SMU students for internships, finance scholarships, and fund exciting new programs. Opportunities abound there – and I’m sure at other similarly “ranked” institutions across the country. Not everybody has to go to “the best” school to succeed.</p>
<p>UT doesn’t just accept UT grads for their undergraduate program. Neither does any other school (that I know of). A kid who has the stats to get into any of our country’s top engineering programs likely has the stats and personality to do well at any program across the country. Therefore, if that kid chooses a school that has the facilities, faculty, and program to put out a decent engineer with a decent breadth of experience and knowledge, even if that school is NOT recognized widely as a TOP 10 Engineering School or what have you, then I think that kid will be just fine. He will be respected and re-evaluated for the resume he brings to the table come grad school time. We ARE talking about undergrad degrees here, aren’t we? </p>
<p>I’m thinking parents and students could save the money on the undergrad degree and focus their energies on finding a school that your kid loves, that has a “good enough” engineering program, and that will practically pay your kid to go there (large scholarships). The rest will take care of itself for those kids who were lucky enough to be born with a great intellect and have the drive to succeed.</p>
<p>I’m not trying to discount SMU, or any college, but if you’re asking “What’s the value of a Top 10 engineering program?”, I gave you the answer. At a top program, your son will have (1) better access to “top” internships, (2) better access to cutting-edge research labs, (3) better access to well-known faculty (which leads to more impressive references and more opportunities for publication), and (4) a more respected name on his CV. All of these things combine to give the student a better shot at a top graduate school placement.</p>
<p>Does that mean that attending SMU precludes him from a top grad school placement? No, of course not. A top student at SMU will have a better chance at a top graduate school than a lazy student at MIT. However, a student at MIT will have better chances at a top grad school placement than that same student as SMU because of the reasons listed above.</p>
<p>Of course, as with everything, it is a balancing game. You have to balance (1) the fit of the campus life/environment with your student, (2) academics, and (3) cost. My post was to counter the assertion that #2 does not matter (i.e. that a successful student is equally successful independent of the school attended). That is not true. Attending a lower ranked school does cost the student some opportunity for success. That might be balanced out by the gains in #1 (if a student is miserable, he loses some opportunity for success) and #3 (if a student is heavily debt burdened, he might make poor decisions that cost him opportunity for success), but to pretend that the quality of the school doesn’t impact success is just lying to yourself.</p>
<p>+1 for GP’s post. I actually agree with not spending a ton of money for undergrad school IF you’re not talking about engineering. For my son who’s interested in biology, we’re looking at several schools that are not well-known at all. If he wanted to go into engineering, though, I would steer him to as highly-ranked school as he could get into. As an engineering student, you’re learning how to do YOUR JOB when you graduate - it’s professional training. It makes a big difference if you get professors who are at the top of their field and do world-class research. When I tell fellow engineers that I knew professors like Joe Yura and Richard Klingner, they find it hard to believe!</p>
<p>I will share that I made the mistake of taking my first steel design class from a visiting professor. Ouch! He was horrible. I can’t figure out why Texas hired him, so it shows even good schools make mistakes. At least the experience made me appreciate the rest of my professors (many of whom are now in the National Academy of Engineering).</p>
<p>I also got my master’s degree at Texas. I got to know grad students from all over the country, but most of them WERE from top schools. UT is selective enough they can pick who they want!</p>
<p>^^^This is a long-running argument in all sorts of fields, not just engineering. “How important is the prestige of the undergraduate school?” There are a lot of people who agree with you, but there are others who are knowledgeable about the subject and disagree. It will probably never be settled, as it is a matter of opinion and too subjective to qualify or quantify.</p>
<p>That there will be <em>more</em> opportunities for graduates from prestigious schools is less debatable. A prestigious name on your degree will almost always open doors. Whether there will be <em>enough</em> opportunities for a standout, top-of-the-class graduate from a lesser known school is more debatable. I still believe that a talented, smart, standout young man can do well for himself without breaking the bank to go to one of the prestigious “top 10’s.” In fact, I think it’s ridiculous to believe otherwise.</p>
<p>Most of the kids posting here on this site, even as skewed to the “talented” side as CCer’s tend to be, will end up in regular engineering jobs, doing regular day-to-day things, with regular spouses and children, and have regular lives. Not to say they won’t be enjoying themselves or happy with their lives. Whether they graduate from SMU, UT-Austin, TAMU, or Rice (as undergraduates), and IF they go on to get their graduate degrees, the vast majority will likely end up with the same type of career and the same type of life. That’s just my opinion.</p>