<p>While I'm a HS student I don't plan on going to MIT for undergrad but what kinda of stats are needed to go to MIT for grad school aerospace engineering. My college choices include Rice, Cal Berkeley, UCLA and Stanford (reach). IF I go to one of these schools what kinda of grades and other qualifications would i need to be in the running for grad school admittance into MIT</p>
<p>MIT</a> Aero/Astro graduate admissions criteria</p>
<p>You will basically need a good GPA (although they state that GPA should be above 4.0... well, I think that's cutting it a little close to the wire), excellent letters of recommendation (often from people who know your research potential firsthand -- so get involved with undergraduate research early), strong preparation in math and engineering, and a well-articulated statement of purpose. You will probably also want an 800 on the GRE math section.</p>
<p>Just as a warning, it's significantly easier to get into the masters' program in aerospace engineering at MIT if you did your undergrad at MIT. Those are lovely schools you have there, but MIT will preferentially admit its own graduates to the program over students from other schools. (Quoth one of the professors in the department, via my boyfriend, "We'll admit all the MIT kids and give them high stipend offers so they don't go to Stanford.")</p>
<p>I get what you are saying. Would Embry Riddle be a good choice also for masters since they are number 1. They for sure are easier to get into but how would employers look at this .MIT arguably the best techy university or embry riddle, the best in aerospace but nothin else spectacular by any stretch</p>
<p>Icer: Yes Ive heard about embry riddle. While I think it is a fine aerospace school, I dont think it has MIT's prestige. Correct me if I am wrong, but is embry riddle a school to teach you how to fly an airplane ? i mean it must have some kind of tech programs like atmospheric flight mechanics, aerodynamics, stability and control, stuffs related to airplane. But I dont think it has any broader aero-related programs (if any). Stuffs like propulsions, combustions, aeroelasticity, structural mechanics, flexible multi-body dynamic and controls like that. In addition, MIT aero dept has a lot of on-going extra-research projects, which can fund your education and be your dissertaion subject. Whether your career goal is in academia or industry, MIT graduate degree will open far many doors for you than the emby riddle- I think</p>
<p>Embry-Riddle is not 'just flight school'. While a lot of pilots do come out of Embry-Riddle, they are an aeronautical university - they offer degrees in many areas related to aerospace. See <a href="http://erau.edu/er/degrees/index.html%5B/url%5D">http://erau.edu/er/degrees/index.html</a> for the list, and their course catalog.</p>
<p>embry-riddle also has a campus in daytona beach, very close to the kennedy space center, and that can't be a bad thing at all. If i remember right, at least one embry-riddle student project went on the space shuttle (i think i saw it in a video they sent me when i was looking at them for undergrad). I wish i could have gone, but USC was alot cheeper and actually really good too.</p>
<p>And I can't see how studying engineering at a flight school could be a bad thing. Pilots still fly the extreme majority of airplanes, and commercial UAVs will be banned the moment one crashes into the Rose Bowl. Cars are designed with drivers in mind, and airplanes should be designed with pilots in mind.</p>
<p>Thanks stasterisk for the link. I did take a look at the E-R aerospace program. Yes, indeed Embry-Riddle has a quite extensive MEAE (MSAE) programs. But, as i suspected, their programs are only related to airplane stuff. Besides, they dont offer Phd program like big research universities. The non-existence of PhD program tells me that E-R lacks both in breath and depth as far as aerospace engineering in concerned.</p>
<p>This also means that E-R graduate may find a job at fixed-wing aircraft or spacecraft industry, and possibly some research & development activities like in NASA or Air Force. But they will be hard pressed if they
try to find a job in academia or in roatary-wing industry (e.g., Boeing, Bell, Sikorsky). On the other hand, MIT graduates will come out ready to tackle any aero-job, be it fixed-wing or rotary-wing related.
For example, at MIT or other Big Research Univ., they teach their graduate students the fundamental concepts of aeroelasticity, which is such a critical subject for aircraft/spacecraft. As I suspected, the E-R doesnt offer any course like that.
Another example is that even though the E-R does offer FEM course in their graduate student, I don't see any Nonlinear FEM course in their catalog, which requires more rigorous treatment of the numerical analysis.</p>
<p>Therfore, I would cautiously say the E-R is improved version of a flight school. Dont get me wrong, I think the E-R is a fine university- excellent school if you want to be a pilot for airplane or STS.</p>
<p>Hi, all. It seems someone familiar with Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU is the acronym we use) needs to step in so that people are not given false information. I am an undergraduate student at the Prescott ERAU campus. This fall will be the second semester in my sophomore year as I study aerospace engineering. I would like to start by saying that Rabban has been far too hasty in some of his statements about my school - which he has researched hardly at all. The statements I am particulary concerned about are the following:</p>
<p>"...their programs are only related to airplane stuff."</p>
<p>"...But they will be hard pressed if they try to find a job in academia or in roatary-wing industry (e.g., Boeing..."</p>
<p>"I would cautiously say the E-R is improved version of a flight school."</p>
<p>"I think the E-R is a fine university- excellent school if you want to be a pilot for airplane..."</p>
<p>Rabban, you were not cautious enough. I'm not sure what you were trying to say by saying that ERAU is an "improved version of a flight school." In terms of our college of aeronautical science (which would be your major if you were a pilot student) our two campuses hold the number 2 and number 3 spots in the nation after the Air Force Academy; so it is kind of hard to "improve" on that. ERAU has always primarily been a flight school, one of the best, but in the last decade our aerospace engineering degree has also become the best in the nation; over 40% of my incoming class last year were aerospace engineering students (50% were pilots).</p>
<p>To give you an idea of what our engineering program is like, here is a brief list of some of the classes required for me to earn my BS. Last year I took classes in differential equations, statics, and computer aided design to name a few. Next semester I will be studying fluid mechanics, dynamics and technical report writing. Some of the more advance classes I will be taking in my junior and senior years include: space mechanics, space systems, thermodynamics, stability and control (attitude dynamics), propulsion and controls among others. The senior capstone is a 9 month design project with a semester of preliminary design and a semester of detail design. This is a team based project to design either an aircraft or spacecraft. To-scale models are tested in our subsonic and supersonic wind tunnels. So, as you can see, it is far from being "only related to airplane stuff." At the end of your junior year you choose to concentrate in either aero or astro.</p>
<p>You are also very misguided in your idea of what the industry's perception of ERAU graduates is like. Just as almost all major airlines recruit from ERAU, major companies like Boeing, Lockheed, United Space Alliance, Northrop Grumman and others are very interested in the aerospace engineering students coming out of our undergraduate program. Representatives from all the big aerospace companies attend the final presentations at the end of the senior capstone and recruit employees based on what they've done for the project. In fact, just this past May over 30 of our graduating seniors went straight from graduation to their new jobs as engineers at Boeing, in various departments at the corporation.</p>
<p>One of the things that makes the ERAU AE program so great is the faculty. We have an undergraduate ratio of something like 1:13, with no silly graduate student TAs. My academic advisor last year was a PhD from Caltech who specialized in propulsion. My CAD professor spent 20 years as a structural engineer at Northrop Grumman and was a chief engineer on the F-35 project. Almost every single one of my professors is a PhD with a concentration in some field of aerospace engineering, and most have decades of experience in industry. Our program attracts great faculty, and as a result our aerospace program keeps getting better. I have heard from many sources that if you come out of ERAU with a bachelor's in aerospace engineering with a good gpa and great recommendations, you can get into any graduate program in the country you want to, because the program at ERAU is respected that much.</p>
<p>I also believe some of your assumptions about what makes a good graduate program are inaccurate and somewhat silly, but I will stick to what I know, and that's the undergraduate program at ERAU of which I am a student. I don't know much about the Master's program in Daytona, but if the Bachelor's program in Prescott is any indication (Daytona's undergraduate program is supposed to be better than in Prescott) than I'm sure it is a top notch program. Just because we don't have a legacy like MIT (which is of course an excellent school as well) and all of the prestige that comes with it, does not mean that we do not train extremely competent engineers capable of designing the next generation of commercial passenger planes or reusable spacecraft.</p>
<p>Hopefully, those of you interested in ERAU will think about what I've told you about my school. It is a fine institution to study AE. I am at Embry-Riddle because I have dreamed of space and building spaceships my entire life and I am surrounded every day by classmates of similar motivation. I am confident I will easily find a career in aerospace, either by moving into grad school or getting a job in industry after graduation, despite the fact that my school has no PhD program, whatever Rabban seems to think that means.</p>
<p>I imagine I have covered most of what I need to to give you an idea of what ERAU is really like. I hope that helped Icer, good luck!</p>
<p>That was a lovely explication of Embry-Riddle's program, but MIT's program is somewhat stronger.</p>
<p>MIT's student to faculty ratio in the aero/astro department is about 5:1. Many TAs in MIT aero/astro classes are not "silly" graduate students, they're undergrads. The TA's major function is to grade problem sets and hold test reviews; they don't teach classes.</p>
<p>MIT's undergraduate aero/astro curriculum is widely acknowledged to be the most challenging curriculum available. It includes Unified Engineering, a two-semester, 96 unit behemoth which is generally considered one of the hardest sequences at MIT (if not the hardest). MIT's aero/astro students take diff eq as freshmen and thermo as sophomores.</p>
<p>Opportunities for undergraduate research in the department abound -- my boyfriend (a rising senior) has held a UROP, and sometimes two UROPs, since about two weeks into his freshman year. He's actually having trouble in his grad school application process because he doesn't know which four professors he should pick to write his recs -- he's close with about seven.</p>
<p>Interesting, very informative post!!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
despite the fact that my school has no PhD program, whatever Rabban seems to think that means.
[/quote]
What I meant is what I said: The lack of PhD program in graduate school is never a good thing for prospect graduate students who are serious about aeronautic/astronautic engineering research. </p>
<p>Without the PhD program, the school would lose its relevance over time because they are not involved in current, state-of-the-art research.</p>
<p>If Im not mistaken, the OPs main interest was on graduate school. Again, the E-R is a fine school for graduate aero study/job. However, if you are serious about aerospace engineering, MIT or other big research Univs would be your best bet!!! </p>
<p>P.S. I guess you failed to realize: Boeing has two aircraft divisions: fixed-wing and Helicopters. Boeing helicopter is located in the suburb of philly. You should know that I mean Boeing helicopter, especially when I listed it along with Bell and Sikorsky :)</p>
<p>Yeah, but prescott and daytona beach do have location. NASA space flight operations still originate from florida, and even more manned space flights have been launched just across the border from AZ in NM the last couple of years by Scaled Composites. I don't imagine that anyone's launched anything into sub-orbital flight or orbit from New England recently. I guess what I gathered when I looked at ER was that it is more hands-on than purely academic, and EmbryRiddle_AE13 will back me up on that.</p>
<p>And while your at E-R for your masters, why not get a pilot's licence? Being a pilot can only help you when designing aircraft, and it sure beats driving.</p>
<p>thanks molliebatmit, also good info. My point was not to turn this into an argument between "which is better" but simply to show that Embry-Riddle has an excellent undergraduate aerospace program from which a student can move onto grad school, MIT included. It sounds like MIT's program is also excellent (I remember that it is listed somewhere in the top five with the two ERAU schools, according to the Princeton Review).</p>
<p>Rabban, ERAU will not "lose relevance"; my school continues to be an excellent springboard from which to enter grad schools at MIT, Stanford and the like. And I am in no way disagreeing that those programs might be better than the master's program at Daytona. But, again, please keep in mind the reputation of ERAU's UNDERGRAD programs. I'm not sure what your point is about helicopters in the first place. As I said the 30 students this year went to various divisions of Boeing, and I'm sure some of them got jobs in Philly. My bachelor's degree does not involve any courses specific to helicopters, however much of what we learn can be applied, and I know of many students interested in helicopters and professors who have experience in the industry working on helicopters. But in the end, who considers helicopters more exciting than satellites, manned spacecraft, cargo planes with 500 foot wingspans and mach 9+ scramjets? (all topics covered in ERAU senior design projects at some time)</p>
<p>bmanbs2, the Prescott location was originally chosen because we have 350 days of flying weather a year. However, it is true that the new private space industry is based on the west coast, in the rocky mountain region and the southwest (Scaled Composites is actually based and launched from the Mojave Spaceport in Southern California). Since you mention it, I actually plan on driving to New Mexico (about 5 hours) on a weekend in October to attend the X Prize Cup event. I definitely agree from my experience so far that ERAU is very hands on. In every class that it is feasible, the students are put into a teambased engineering environment. In my CAD class this spring I was partnered with 4 other students and we were required to design, within certain constraints, a mobile missile launcher similar to the PAC-3 system (we're not quite at the point that we can do aircraft stuff, but that comes soon enough). We had a packet of 30 CAD drawings, a 15+ page design report - all done according to my profesor's professional specifications - and we had to give a full presentation outlining our design during finals week. Very hands on.</p>
<p>So, once more for emphasis:
Embry-Riddle = excellent choice to earn a bachelor's in aerospace engineering</p>
<p>OK, Dude. I am totally convinced:
Embry-Riddle = excellent BS flying school, best bang for the buck alternative to service academies. Rock on!!! </p>
<p>Taking off is optional Landing is compulsory :)</p>
<p>Rabban, please. You keep generalizing it as a "flying school." However, I am at ERAU strictly for engineering, not for aeronautical science. There's a big difference.</p>
<p>I am totally confused by what you mean by "alternative to service academies" but it sounds to me like you are still trying to belittle Embry-Riddle. You are painting a false picture of a great undergraduate school for the purpose of saying how great MIT is and I think it's detrimental.</p>
<p>And to get back to the original topic of this thread. I believe that a strong student from Embry-Riddle has a very good chance of being accepted to the MIT graduate program (after those who are given preference as MIT grads) or any other big-name grad program in the country. I for one intend to attend Stanford to earn a Master's degree or a PhD after I graduate from ERAU with my Bachelor's in December 2008.</p>
<p>Edit: I realized that by service academies you mean the air force academy. Yes, that is a true statement for both Embry-Riddle's aeronautical science AND aerospace engineering programs. The school specializes in two areas, not just in training pilots.</p>
<p>wow. both schools seem pretty awesome. to bad i can't go to either for undergrad.</p>
<p>Where else have you (or will?) applied other than the 4 listed above?</p>
<p>I am limited to schools that offer basketball scholarships but its pretty likely that I'll get one because of the program I'm in. I'm also applying to Rice (probably my favorite one), GA Tech, Purdue, U-Mich, USC, UCLA, UC-Berkeley</p>
<p>If you could get a basketball scholarship at UCLA or GA Tech, I'd definitly do that (pains me as a USC student to say go to UCLA, but their basketball program is so much better than ours).</p>
<p>Embry-Riddle has a NAIA men's basketball team, and I would imagine they offer scholarships. It definitly wouldn't be the Pac-10 or ACC (not many people can say they played at Cameron Indoor), but if you really like E-R, go for it.</p>
<p>i meant erau for grad school. i think i would get a better more well rounded education at one of the other schools.erau is any easy school to go to. alot of people (affluesnt) people go there for aerospace and get weded out since their program is tough. btw do u know jeremy barr. he is on the usc basketball team and he was in the same program as me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What I meant is what I said: The lack of PhD program in graduate school is never a good thing for prospect graduate students who are serious about aeronautic/astronautic engineering research. </p>
<p>Without the PhD program, the school would lose its relevance over time because they are not involved in current, state-of-the-art research.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This I have to strongly dispute. While I don't know about ERAU specifically, I would point to Harvey Mudd. Seems to me that Mudd is extremely successful in producing graduates who will later earn PhD's despite itself not having a graduate program. I believe one study showed that Mudd has the highest percentage of alumni (over 40%) who go on to attain technical doctorates. </p>
<p>In fact, I did an analysis in some of my old posts where I investigated the undergrad alma maters of newly minted PhD's at Caltech according to the Caltech commencement data, and I showed that more newly minted Caltech PhD's had completed undergrad at Mudd than from either UCLA or USC, despite the fact that UCLA and USC are much larger schools. </p>
<p>Hence, that means that either Caltech is being stupid in admitting so many unqualified Mudd graduates for its PhD programs, or Mudd produces some pretty good graduates, despite the fact that Mudd does not have a graduate program. In any case, it doesn't seem to me that Mudd has lost its 'relevance', and if Mudd graduates are not involved in current, state-of-the-art research (which I don't think is true), then that evidently hasn't hurt them when it comes to PhD admissions. </p>
<p>I would also point to the service academies. Take the graduate aero program at MIT. In fact, a significant percentage of the MIT Aero grad student alumni are former service academy undergrads, i.e. Buzz Aldrin, Charles Duke, etc. The service academies don't have PhD programs. Does that mean they are 'losing their relevance' because they are supposedly not involved in cutting-edge research? If so, then why is MIT stupidly admitting them for graduate school? While I don't know the exact figures, I would surmise that service academis comprise some of the most common undergrad programs represented within the MIT graduate programs, especially because of MIT's long-standing ties to the Pentagon and to the military-industrial complex.</p>