<p>I'm looking to get some thoughts/opinions on 3-2 (BS Physics/ BS Engineering) or 4-2 (BS Physics/ Masters in Engineering) programs for engineering degrees. Is it worth the time and money? Has it benefited, to have 2 degrees, in the job market?</p>
<p>I honestly don’t like them. It seems like a waste of time and money as they take longer than it would to just skip the middle man and attend an actual engineering school first. Many engineering programs have accelerated bachelor/masters in which you can finish in 5 years if the masters is your goal. As far as having two degrees, I wouldn’t think that would have any plus side, or negative other than what I mentioned. You will be hired for one job, which requires a specific degree, not multiple.</p>
<p>Two BS degrees doesn’t do anything for you in the job market. As stated, you are only hired to do one job. There isn’t that much overlap between the upper level physics classes and engineering, at least for any engineering job I can think of.</p>
<p>A program where one can get a BS/MS degree has value as long as you kind of have an idea where within the field of specialty you want to start concentrating on for your MS.</p>
<p>I think they are just a gimmick to allow colleges that don’t offer engineering to say they do.</p>
<p>It is portrayed as an advantage to get some of your schooling in a LAC environment, which might be valid, but it creates problems. Many kids don’t want to leave right when they’re getting to be the big dogs. Worse, many are behind the students who they’ll be joining and not used to the bulk and rigor. I see the hook, but our son elected to do straight engineering.</p>
<p>I’d think a lot of students wouldn’t want to miss senior year and graduation at their original school. It also makes study abroad pretty difficult or impossible. And you might move to the engineering school and find that you don’t like engineering. It’s better to find that out your first year.</p>
<p>If you want engineering and liberal arts, you’re better off looking at liberal arts schools with engineering (Harvey Mudd, Swarthmore, Smith, etc.).</p>
<p>That’s a mixed bag because even at the schools that strongly profess a LA bent, the exposure is relatively low since most engineering curricula are so packed. </p>
<p>Go to HMC because you want good engineering. Go to Swarthmore for something other than engineering.</p>
<p>Good luck.</p>
<p>Note that the low rate of transfer to the “2” schools in 3+2 programs is likely due in part to the following:</p>
<ul>
<li>Admission to the “2” school. It may be competitive, or it may be “guaranteed” on meeting certain course and grade requirements, which may be harder in real life than they look to a straight-A high school students.</li>
<li>Financial aid at the “2” school. Some “2” schools are state universities which give little or no aid to out-of-state students. Some are private schools which are less generous to transfer students than frosh.</li>
<li>The extra year of costs, even with financial aid.</li>
</ul>
<p>Note that policies at the “3” schools vary. Some restrict the major (often to physics, maybe chemistry or math), while others allow any major (as long as the frosh/soph engineering preparation courses are taken).</p>
<p>Answering your second question answers your first. It doesn’t help in the job market, so it isn’t worth the time or money. I can understand there could be reasons that might make someone take a 3-2 path, e.g. another shot at being accepted into Columbia or perhaps some uncertainty when first going to college. But based on your questions, it seems that engineering is the goal and what makes the most sense is to find the best possible engineering program for your circumstances.</p>
<p>It’s been all said and done. Lots of smart folks are not impressed by 3/2 programs. Better to major in engineering and utilize a few upper level physics courses for electives in during your traditional 4-year program.</p>
<p>Look up the old 3-2 threads. Most of us that were intrigued by 3-2 and investigated ot decided it was not the best path. </p>
<p>We visited Caltech last summer and asked about the 3-2 program. While I believe that there are about 10 LAC’s that they partner with, they said that only a handful of students come for the program every year. When we asked at associated LAC’s like Reed they had the same story- while it looks good on paper, hardly anyone does it. My son decided to look at LAC’s with engineering instead.</p>
<p>I agree with everyone else, but it “can” make sense for some students. I know of one example, where the student went to Emory(I think Anthropology) , and then Georgia Tech (Environmental Engineering). After graduation, he went to Africa to work on clean water projects. </p>
<p>Both universities are in Atlanta, both are member institutions of the Atlanta Regional Consortium for Higher Education (ARCHE), so he could cross-register for a few classes at Tech, while working to complete the “3” portion of the program. Then, when he went to Tech, he didn’t have to “move”; he stayed in the same apartment with the same roommates. </p>
<p>For him, his love of Anthropology made the extra year (and cost) worth it. So, for some students it can work out, but it has to be someone that can buck the trend (and can afford the additional cost) and be willing to make that transfer after 3 years. They also should have a passion for both majors (which is rare, IMHO). </p>
<p>The example by Gator88NE really is about the only way to consider 3+2 programs. Namely, the LAC degree is relatively unrelated to the engineering degree. I do not understand why somebody would take 5 years to get one degree in physics (or chemistry or math) and another degree in engineering. Pick physics or engineering, but not both, and finish in 4 years.</p>
<p>Also, partnerships which are geographically close to one another, like Emory and GT, sound like the best way to go – not, say, Ohio Wesleyan and Cal Tech.</p>
<p>I agree with others on this thread in not being a fan of 3/2 programs. If a student is going to spend a 5th year in college, career-wise it is much better to get a masters degree than a second bachelors. </p>
<p>W&M offers this with Columbia U. but my kid #2 just doesn’t think it is worth it with VT and UVA as instate options for engineering. </p>
<p>Agree. No reason for an instate kid to go to W & M if the goal is engineering. My older son did the W & M tour as he thought about being a physics major. W & M was not his cup of tea (he wanted a bigger school with more of a sports scene) and it was totally off the list when he decided to do engineering. Younger son would not even take the tour at W & M since he knew he was interested in engineering. I would imagine very few students at W & M actually end up doing the program with Columbia.</p>
<p>All the advice being given is good for the 3+2. We have such agreements with a number of LACs in the Chicago area and there are only a few students who actually complete the engineering degree. Your second question, however, concerned a 4+2 B.S./M.S. combination. That is more or less what it would take you to get both degrees at two separate colleges so there is really no advantage to such a program although the B.S./M.S. combination is a good one. A number of universities have what they call co-terminal B.S./M.S. degrees which only take a total of 5 years and those do save you some time. usually they are within the same university, however.</p>
<p>I am not a fan of 3-2 programs, especially when the are not near each other. What kid wants to leave friends before senior year? (Think of your current hs juniors). </p>
<p>Just to add a couple of thoughts. My biggest problem is that starting the engineering program in year 4 of college means that you have to do it in 2 years. Most engineering prerequisite trees are deeper than that, so I think that it engineering portion would be brutal. </p>
<p>Now what I could see, and I looked into this for D2 when she was looking at colleges is for example double majoring in Biochemistry and Chemical Engineering. This can be easily done in 5 years for example at the University of Wisconsin. The engineering courses can be paced with the liberal arts courses and can make an engineering program more manageable if there is a lot of overlap between the degrees. </p>
<p>I also looked into a 3-2 program between Mt Holyoke and UMASS. These schools have cross registration, so theoretically, the student can start engineering classes earlier than year 4 through cross registration. The biggest problems I had with this program are that hardly anyone does it, and 3-2 students are given no consideration in seeing if classes at the two schools line up thus assuring problems in scheduling required classes among the two schools. Furthermore, Mt Holyoke expected 4 years of tuition for this even though 2 years were spent at UMASS. This Mass resident found the idea of Mt Holyoke charging full tuition for the year that an in-state student actually spent at UMASS to be pure chutzpah! LOL</p>
<p>She never ended up applying because she ultimately decided just go for an engineering, but she would have just gone to Mt Holyoke for 2 years for the LAC experience and just transferred to UMASS getting both degrees from there. With this plan, she would have been able to take 1 engineering course per semester at UMASS during freshman and sophomore years. Local friendships could have been maintained. </p>
<p>I would add that a Macalester-UMinn combination seemed feasible, but Macalester wouldn’t count Minnesota courses toward a degree. What a weird dynamic. </p>