Top Civil Engineering Schools/ROTC/Tech.

sakky · August 17, 2005, 5:52pm

[quote]
Perhaps this is because I went to a private high school, where most people had a fairly narrow focus of what they wanted to do in college, and am now at Caltech, which has perhaps the most focused student body in the country, but it seems to me that your idea that engineering students would rather go to Harvard is wrong. Some would, of course, given the numbers involved. But I'd say that most high school students have a pretty good idea, especially if they're considering engineering, that they want a science major vs. a liberal arts major.

[/quote]

I've already said that it is true that high schoolers already know that they are "sciency" or "artsy". What I question is how many high schoolers know they are "engineeringy", as opposed to just "sciency". I think we can all agree that Harvard has a very strong science program, so it's not like the sciency people are going to be poorly served there. Heck, the most popular college choice of the winners of the Intel Science Talent Search (aka the "Junior Nobel Prize and which was formerly known as the Westinghouse competition) is Harvard.

So the real question to me is when these "sciency" people decide to try out engineering? I would argue that that tends to happen during the period of time after they see what colleges they got in, and during fresh year when people are shopping for majors. For example, take a guy who is "sciency" who applies to Harvard and MIT, and gets into MIT but not Harvard. I think at about that time, he may decide he wants to try out engineering. However, if he had gotten into Harvard he might have chosen to major in a science at Harvard instead of going to MIT. The point is, he didn't know that beforehand. He knew he was a science-guy (and both Harvard and MIT cater to the science guy) but he hadn't made a decision about engineering until he saw what schools he got into. Either that, or he arrives at MIT still not knowing what he wants to major in, and then he hears other students talking about how engineering offers a relatively high-paying career, and how MIT's core strength is in engineering, etc. etc., so he decides to go down that road.

Think of it this way. I believe there was some study that came out that indicates that most college students will change their intended major quite a few times. Very few students come into college knowing exactly what they want to study, and then stick with it. The fact is. most shop around. We've all seen it with premed, which is not a major, but bear with me. I think we've all seen how many freshmen come in thinking they want to do premed, and then we see how many of people actually eventually apply to med-schools. A lot of incoming people who think they want to do premed will not complete the process. The point is, I would argue that the few people really "know" coming in that they want to do engineering, and will then stick with it all the way. Do they know that they prefer science over art? Yes, I agree with that. But do they know that they truly want to be engineers? I find that dubious.

[quote]
And to address your weeder comment: Yes, weeders exist to weed out the "non-true" engineers from the true engineers. Those weeded out may well prefer Harvard. But for those who stay in the engineering program at UIUC, Duke, MIT, Caltech, and so on, most wouldn't take a transfer to Harvard if you gave it to them.
Basically, this statement of yours just strikes me as wrong, as far as the engineering students are concerned:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sakky
I still don't think that's fair competition. I think even most current Duke, Rice, or Northwestern students,even if they are civil engineering students, would gladly transfer to Harvard (and drop civil engineering) if given the chance.

[/quote]

OK, fine, I will say that my comment is more applicable to the pool of pre-weeder engineers, not the engineers who actually made it through the weeders.

However, I'm afraid I'm going to stick with my guns and say that my comment is STILL applicable to post-weeder engineers. And again, I would ask, why is it that so many MIT engineering students take jobs, or want to take jobs, at McKinsey? Or Goldman Sachs? Or Credit Suisse First Boston? Or Boston Consulting Group? Or Merrill Lynch? Or JPMorgan? Why is that? We're talking about arguably the best engineering school in the world, and yet even there, you got all these people who are completing engineering degrees who want to get into consulting and banking. What's up with that?

I think that what's up is simple. These guys don't really want to be engineers. They may have found engineering intellectually interesting, but they don't really want to work as engineers. Instead, they'd rather work as consultants and bankers. Hence, what that means is that even at an engineering-geek-heaven like MIT, a lot of engineering students are not "true engineers". After all, I doubt that a true engineer would want to work as an investment banker.

[quote]
If one is interested in engineering, in this case, civil engineering, we recommend schools that are known for that. I don't think it's your job to tell them, "Hey, you know what? Chances are you may not like being an engineer in the end; you are better off to go to Harvard". Whether one will continue to become an engineer in the future is his/her own choice and it's not your business to speculate that he/she won't and tell them to pick Harvard.

[/quote]

So, are you advocating censorship? I would point out that I have freedom of speech and so I'm allowed to present whatever opinion I want to present. What's the point of even having a discussion board if not to present a wide diversity of opinions? Look, people are free to listen to my opinions or not. I don't have a gun to anybody's head. If you don't like my opinions, fine, don't read them. But let the people who are interested in them be allowed to read them. What you're basically advocating is the shutting down the discussion of an entire subject. Like I said, if you don't think a post is interesting or relevant, then don't read it.

[quote]
So what, even if many MIT guys decide to get into finance field? It doesn't automatically make MIT a worse choice than Harvard, does it? By the way, Duke/Rice/Northwestern are fine schools. It's not like there's a huge gap between them and Harvard. I would not advice anyone who show even just a slight interest in BME to turn down Duke or anyone who are sorta interested in film to turn down Northwestern for Harvard. I know a guy whose turned down Harvard for Northwestern for its RTF program. Even if people decide BME or film...are not for them, I doubt they will "feel foolish" because schools like Duke would serve him/her just fine.

[/quote]

I never said that any school was automatically worse than another. I am merely stating a fact that Harvard tends to win the cross-admit battles with just about every other school. And furthermore, I am also stating a fact that a lot of engineering students, even at the best engineering schools, aren't all that wedded to engineering. If they really were wedded, then we wouldn't see so many of them running off to consulting and banking.

However, your last part of your post, I have to say, I fundamentally disagree with. Again, the fact is, most college students change their major multiple times. So you say that somebody who has some interest in film studies might take NW over Harvard. But what happens if that person then later discovers that he doesn't really like film studies at all? What then? You're telling me that he would might not like to have that Harvard choice back? Come on, be honest.

[quote]
however i do not agree that many of them if given a choice would drop engineering altogether just in order to go to Harvard for reasons of pursuing another degree altogether

[/quote]

I have to stick to my guns. However, I would proffer a slight change in working, in that perhaps a lot of engineering students wouldn't necessarily want to transfer out to go to Harvard, because the fact is, they've already gone through the weeder hell, and so they figure that they might as well complete the engineering degree. If you're close to the finish line, you might as well get it done. A more accurate question to ask is what would you have done if, as a high school senior, and had gotten admitted to Harvard, would you have turned it down to get the engineering degree you ended up getting? Obviously some would. However, I would argue that many would not.

Why do I say that? Again, I would point to all those engineers trying to get into consulting and banking. Why would they do that if they really wanted to be engineers? That tells me that there were never wedded to engineering, and were just chose it opportunistically. If they really loved enginering, they would not be running off to McKinsey.

sakky · August 17, 2005, 5:54pm

[quote]
of course now i'm an engineering (and i dont mind the hard work) and am doing pretty well in it, and i definitely would not transfer out of it just to attend a more prestigious institution or even change major, but if i had gone into finance or biology, i would likely have the same mindset.

[/quote]

And what you said right there belies EXACTLY my central point. My central point is that most people don't really know what they want to major in, and hence choose their major opportunistically. Obviously some people know exactly what they want to study. However, what I am saying is that most people do not. Again, most people change their major several times before settling on one. A great many people who try out engineering get weeded out because they don't really want it badly enough. And even of those who make it through engineering, a great many of them flock to consulting and banking (or law schol or med-school, etc.).

That all gets down to my central point, which is that most people choose their major opportunistically, meaning that the school which they got admitted to profoundly influences what they end up majoring in, and in particular, if they had gotten admitted to a different batch of schools, they probably would have ended up choosing a different major. Let's take it back to the initial example that started it all. A guy applies to Harvard and UIUC. He gets into UIUC but not Harvard. So he goes to UIUC and then ultimately decides to major in EE. However, if he had gotten admitted to Harvard, he probably would have gone there, and perhaps ended up majoring in Physics or Math. He could have majored in EE at Harvard (Harvard has EE). But that illustrates my central point, which is that what schools you get admitted to ultimately affects what you major in.

Now, of course it is true as Im_blue pointed out that some people already know they want to major in EE before they even start applying to college. However, for the multitude of reasons that I stated above, I would argue that these people are strictly in the minority. In particular, I would point out that only a minority of people know exactly what they want to major in, whereas the majority of students change their intended majors multiple times. Now, if you happen to be a member of that minority, then God bless you, none of this discussion applies to you. You can happily choose UIUC over Harvard. However, if you are a member of the majority, then I think the discussion does apply to you.

im_blue · August 17, 2005, 7:47pm

Even if I were to agree with everything you said, anyone who picks his major based on what his school is strong in is an idiot. If I had gotten into Harvard and UIUC as a freshman, and only those two schools, I most certainly would have picked UIUC. If I then changed my major to math, I would transfer to a better school like an Ivy, grades-permitting. I wouldn't just say "Hey, UIUC isn't the best in math, so maybe I should just pick something else that they're strong in." You just try to make the best decision based on the information available at the time.

NAFTA · August 17, 2005, 7:52pm

Look, they way I figure it is, why visit colleges, why EVEN APPLY if you don't know what you want to do. I don't have the money to explore, nor the patience. It's a gamble, I might hate civil engineering, but I love building anything, especially miniature dams and roads. I figure, pick before college, save some money, and just hammer at it. Personally, my dream job would be, and please don't laugh, a train driver. But my parents would beat me with a bamboo stick if I don't go to college, especially since my grades are good, so I figure civil engineering is the second place college career to go through.

intuit2k2 · August 17, 2005, 10:41pm

Sakky.... After all, how would they know? Few high schoolers learn anything about engineering while they're in high school. Science, yes. But engineering? Not really.

I went to a technical High School. All-around it was a great school in comparison to the local schoole ous we have in Brooklyn. Sadly, more often that not, students (who like me) who took engineering classes were dissuaded from the field, hardly encouraged (for reasons including administration, beuracracy and espeically teachers. Most came out sour about their choice of classes.
This might be different in certain other schools, but i came to the conclusion that it is better off getting a general education in high school even if that would put doubt in college freshman's minds as to what they want to study.

sakky · August 18, 2005, 1:53am

[quote]
Even if I were to agree with everything you said, anyone who picks his major based on what his school is strong in is an idiot

[/quote]

Well, what can I tell you. I guess there are a LOT of idiots out there. Because that's PRECISELY what a lot of people do. After all, let's face it. A lot of people are just out to get a marketable degree, which tends to coincide with whatever the school happens to be strong in.

And I'm not even talking about people who pick a major necessarily just because the school is strong in it. I am talking about ALL kinds of shopping for major. Just think about how many people end up majoring in something that they had never even heard of when they were in high school. That happens for a variety of reasons. For example, they hear an upperclassman or an advisor recommending it, so they try it out and find out they like it. They hear that the major is good for making money. They hear that it's prestigious. Or whatever.

I think you gravely discount the simple lack of information that freshman have about what is available for them to major in. When I went to undergrad (a big state school that shall remain unnamed), I swear, I hadn't even HEARD of many of the majors that were available at that school. And even of the ones that I had heard of, I really couldn't tell you what they were exactly, and certainly not well enough to differentiate between them. For example, if you had asked me when I was 17 what exactly is the difference between, say, chemistry and chemical engineering, and why a person should major in one over the other, I know I wouldn't have been able to give you a good answer. I don't know too many 17 year olds who could. Heck, I would say that many CHEMICAL ENGINEERING students don't even understand the real difference between chemistry and chemical engineering until they reach the upper-division.

Pop quiz. What's exactly is the difference between majoring in English and majoring in Comparative Literature? Be honest. You probably don't know, right? Exactly.

Or I'll put it to you another way. How many freshmen come in majoring in "Undeclared" or some other equally blank category. At most schools, quite a few freshmen come in undeclared. And even those that come in with a declared major are often times "effectively undeclared", which is why so many of them switch majors before finally settling on the one they want.

I'll give you yet another example. I remember when my school finally decided to officially offer BioEngineering as a separate undergrad degree during my sophomore year. When the announcement was made, a whole slew of people who had been previously majoring in other subjects like biology, chemistry, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, and so forth, all applied to switch over to BioE. In fact, I remember some seniors in chemical engineering who switched over (they had already taken most of the BioE requirements anyway, it wasn't that big of a change).

Hence, what that shows is, once again, people will choose their major depending on what is available to them at their particular school. Most people do not know exactly what they are going to major in before they even apply to schools. They may have a general feel for what they like (i.e. art vs. science), but as far as specific major? I found that dubious. Again, how many people already know when they're high school seniors that they're sure they want to major in Comparative Literature and not English? How many are sure they want to major in Chemical Engineering and not Chemistry? How many even know what the difference is? Or take a gander at the BioE example. Those students who decided to switch over to BioE clearly couldn't have chosen to go to that particular school for BioE, because BioE didn't even exist at the time they were matriculating freshmen. And they were clearly perfectly happy in pursuing their biology degrees, or chemical engineering degrees, or mechanical engineering degrees, or whatever they had been majoring in before BioE was available. The point I'm making is that plenty of people do not know what they are going to major in before they apply to college, but rather choose their major from what is available. I'm sure that if my school were to now offer BioMedicalE, then a lot of the current BioE students would switch over to that.

[quote]
Look, they way I figure it is, why visit colleges, why EVEN APPLY if you don't know what you want to do.

[/quote]

Then I guess according to you, the vast majority of college students shouldn't even be applying.

I'll put it to you this way, Nafta. If people are already supposed to know what they want to do, then why even let any students classify themselves as "Undeclared"? Why even have "Undeclared" as an option? If everybody ought to know exactly what they are going to major in, then there should be no such thing as an "Undeclared" student, right? So why are there so many of them then? As an example, MIT does not force its students to declare a major until their sophomore year. So, by definition, every MIT freshman is an "Undeclared" freshman. Why do this, if every freshman is supposed to know what they are going to major in anyway? Why doesn't MIT simply have every incoming freshman immediately declare their major the day they walk into Cambridge? Why wait? Is MIT being stupid? Im_blue, you go to Stanford, so you tell me. Why does Stanford allow undergraduates to defer declaring a major until their junior year? Why not have all new freshman declare their major the day they walk into Palo Alto? Is Stanford being stupid?

I believe almost every single undergraduate program allows students a great deal of latitude in shopping around for major, trying things out and switching majors until they find something you like. But why? If students are supposed to know exactly what they're going to major in anyway, then there should never be any student who ever wants to switch majors, right? So why even allow people to shop for majors or switch around? It would be easier administratively, and so the schools would save a lot of money, right? For example, if a school knew that they had 100 physics students and 200 mechanical engineering students, and none of them would ever want to switch to the other, then the school could plan and size their resources accordingly. So why doesn't every single school out there simply prohibit any switching of major? Nafta, like you said, people are supposed to know exactly what they want to major in, which means that the schools can prohibit switching, because nobody will ever want to switch anyway, right? So why don't they just do that? Are they all stupid?

I think we can all agree that the schools are NOT stupid. The reality is that undergrads switch majors all the time. Why? Because they don't really know what they want to major in, and they certainly don't know enough that they're willing to constrict their options. So they switch majors over and over again (at least mentally, if not formally) until they find what they like. Let's say you know you like KitKat, but then you walk into a candy store with a multitude of candies, including many that you never even heard of before. Are you sure you're still going to want that KitKat, or is it possible that you'll find something else that you like better? Aren't you at least going to try the other candies out? Or are you really that sure that all you want is Kitkat?

sakky · August 18, 2005, 1:56am

[quote]
I don't have the money to explore, nor the patience. It's a gamble

[/quote]

[quote]
You just try to make the best decision based on the information available at the time.

[/quote]

Which is why it's important for students who truly don't know what they want to major in (which is a LOT of students) to pick a school that offers a wide variety of strong majors.

Which gets us back to one of our original points of contention. I would agree that for somebody who is absolutely 100% sure they want to be an engineer, they should not apply to Harvard. What I'm asking is - how many high school seniors are really like that? I agree that some people are very "techy". But how many of those people are sure they are also "engineeringy"? I would argue that it isn't that many - most high school seniors are unable to differentiate between engineering and science. Heck, plenty of engineering students, especially lowerclassmen, have difficulty differentiating between engineering and science. And the fact is, while Harvard is not a premier engineering school, it is a premier science school. We're not talking about Yale here, which I agree is not that great of a science school. We're talking about Harvard. Harvard is a very strong science school. That's why so many of those Intel Science Talent Search winners want to go to Harvard.

Hence, it seems to me that there aren't that many high school seniors who are so sure that they want to become engineers, as opposed to scientists, that they are able to confidently exclude Harvard. Do these people exist? Sure. But I don't think there are that many of them. Most high school seniors will only know that they enjoy tech, but not to the point where they can differentiate between engineering and science, which means it's perfectly natural for them to consider all strong science schools, including Harvard.

Come on guys, is this really a controversial statement? Even at Stanford, there are plenty of undergrads who switch from engineering to science and vice versa. And there are plenty of undergrads who are Undeclared and are just shopping around. They may know they want a technical major, but not which one, so they shop around. Am I really pointing out something surprising? Do you guys seriously not know about this? It is generally well understood that college students need time to experiment and explore before they declare a major, which is why schools allow students to switch majors, and/or adopt an "Undeclared" rubric for awhile

Look, the bottom line is this. Yes, there are some students who already know from day 1 that they want to be engineers. But there are far more people who don't. The vast majority of students come into college not knowing exactly what they want to major in. They may have some inkling that they like certain things, but not to the point that they are completely 100% sure what they want to major in. As Im_blue said, "You just try to make the best decision based on the information available at the time." Exactly right. So you sniff around, you ascertain what programs seem good, and you make your choice accordingly. The point is, for most students, their choice of major was never a foregone and preset conclusion. Their ultimate choice of major is a function of what schools they matriculated at, which is itself obviously a function of what schools they got admitted to.

Again, take those guys who switched into BioE at that big state school. If they had never gone to that school, they might never have chosen BioE at all. If they had gotten into Harvard, they probably would have matriculated there, and ended up with degrees in Biology instead. After all, many of them were already prepared to do biology at that big state school, and then BioE was opened, so they switched. Hence, what they ultimately majored in was a function of what schools they got admitted to.

But, heck, don't take my word for it. Im_blue, you're in the EE PhD program at Stanford. Yet I think even you would agree that while there are some other students in that program who knew from day 1 of undergrad that they wanted to be electrical engineers, there are others who just sort of "fell into it" in the sense that they tried it out in college, found out that they liked it and went on from there. And those are just the PhD EE Stanford students, which are obviously some of the most dedicated engineers around. Yet even they include some people who just "fell into it". When you then consider all the other engineering students, especially those who are not good enough or are not interested enough to get a PhD from Stanford in EE, I think you must agree that many if not most of them just fell into it.

Sam_Lee · August 18, 2005, 3:52am

[quote]
For example, take a guy who is "sciency" who applies to Harvard and MIT, and gets into MIT but not Harvard. I think at about that time, he may decide he wants to try out engineering. However, if he had gotten into Harvard he might have chosen to major in a science at Harvard instead of going to MIT.

[/quote]

Funny how everytime you put out an "example", it's always about someone getting in MIT/Stanford but rejected by Harvard. Well, how about someone getting rejected by MIT but accepted at Harvard???? In this case, he's stuck with Harvard's limited offering in engineering! Well, I guess he would have to pick science, like you said, based on what's in Harvard (so Harvard isn't always the best for the undecided, in this case, the science type. LOL!) A lot of smart science oriented kids could easily pick MIT over Harvard because MIT is strong in both science and engineering. Picking MIT would give them more options (just in case they do like engineering). That's exactly what I did myself. I didn't know much about engineering but I picked a school with strong engineering program just so I had good options (in my case between chemistry, chemical engineering and biomedical engineering). I'd also say most HS seniors that are good enough to get accepted to MIT are not as clueless as you described. Many probably had read about engineering and quite a few may have done some engineering design before. As far as shopping around and changing majors go, the retention rate of females at Northwestern's engineering school is 90%! Seems to me you are exaggerating the dropout rate. I'd also argue that most MIT students wanted to study engineering and therefore applied and picked MIT, not the other way around. I guess it would be pretty disasterous if most MIT students were there to study engineering because that's basically what they are stuck with. As for MIT engineering grads picking career in finance, it still doesn't mean they didn't like "studying" engineering; they probaly just realize, most likely through co-op and internships, that engineering jobs are not what they've envisioned--don't really pay as well as they wish and many tasks aren't real engineering and don't need a MIT degree to do..etc. They are not opportunitistic about what they study; instead they are opportunistic about what other career paths offer.

[quote]
I am merely stating a fact that Harvard tends to win the cross-admit battles with just about every other school. And furthermore, I am also stating a fact that a lot of engineering students, even at the best engineering schools, aren't all that wedded to engineering. If they really were wedded, then we wouldn't see so many of them running off to consulting and banking.

[/quote]

Thanks for stating that Harvard wins the cross-admit battles..as if some of us don't know or need to be constantly reminded of. So, besides making sure we all know Harvard wins the cross-admits, what is your point as far as picking colleges goes?? People shouldn't pick a school based on what their tentative interest is? If not, what is a better pointer? Ignore one's interest and stick with Harvard (if he's offered admission of course) because its Harvard?

[quote]
However, your last part of your post, I have to say, I fundamentally disagree with. Again, the fact is, most college students change their major multiple times. So you say that somebody who has some interest in film studies might take NW over Harvard. But what happens if that person then later discovers that he doesn't really like film studies at all? What then? You're telling me that he would might not like to have that Harvard choice back? Come on, be honest.

[/quote]

You really lost me. Where did I say he might not like to have that Harvard choice back IF he changes major?? First of all, I have no way to tell if someone is going to change major. Because of this uncertainty, even a good decision based on best available information doesn't always lead to the best outcome. If he picks NU and doesn't change his major, then NU is a very good choice. If he does change, then of course he may want to have the Harvard choice back. I can't say which choice is better and no one can travel both roads. One probably makes the decision according to how strong he feels about film program. He may pick NU because he thinks he's pretty sure about film. He may pick Harvard because he's not sure and Harvard is too good to be passed up. Most probably do the later like you pointed out. On rare occasion, one may just pick NU anyway even if he's not so sure about film because he thinks it's worth the "gamble" and NU isn't too shabby. The choice becomes very personal. I tell people which schools are good for what disciplines but I myself wouldn't make the call for others for such personal decision.

sakky · August 18, 2005, 4:53pm

[quote]
Funny how everytime you put out an "example", it's always about someone getting in MIT/Stanford but rejected by Harvard. Well, how about someone getting rejected by MIT but accepted at Harvard???? In this case, he's stuck with Harvard's limited offering in engineering! Well, I guess he would have to pick science, like you said, based on what's in Harvard (so Harvard isn't always the best for the undecided, in this case, the science type. LOL!) A lot of smart science oriented kids could easily pick MIT over Harvard because MIT is strong in both science and engineering.

[/quote]

I never said there were no people who got into Harvard, but not MIT or Stanford. Of course there are such people. However, my example illustrates the point the plenty of students who go to MIT do not really know what they want to major in when they arrive, and consequently shop around until they find a major they like, and obviously that final choice is heavily influenced by what is available at MIT. If MIT eliminates a major (like they just did to Ocean Engineering), then obviously nobody is going to choose that major. On the other hand, if MIT opens a new major, like they just did with BioE, then some students will choose that. That includes some current MIT students who were already pursuing degrees in other majors, but now that BioE is open, they want to switch over.

The point is, your ultimate choice of major is not preset. It is highly dependent on the offerings of your school. If MIT didn't open BioE, then those current MIT students who are now trying to switch over would instead simply be pursuing whatever their original major was. Hence, MIT changed its offerings and in response some students then changed their majors. Hence the major that students choose is not constant, but is rather a function of the school. Is this really a surprise to anybody?

And certainly you're not serious when you say that students who like science should never choose Harvard over MIT, are you? If so, then explain to me why Intel STS winners tend to name Harvard as their #1 choice more often than they name MIT? Why is that? Are they being dumb?

<a href="http://www.sciserv.org/sts/63sts/winners.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.sciserv.org/sts/63sts/winners.asp</a>
<a href="http://www.sciserv.org/sts/62sts/winners.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.sciserv.org/sts/62sts/winners.asp</a>
<a href="http://www.sciserv.org/sts/61sts/winners.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.sciserv.org/sts/61sts/winners.asp</a>
<a href="http://www.sciserv.org/sts/60sts/winners.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.sciserv.org/sts/60sts/winners.asp</a>

Look, the fact is, I think if nothing else, we can all agree that Harvard is extremely popular with PLENTY of science-oriented students. Does anybody want to seriously dispute that?

[quote]
As far as shopping around and changing majors go, the retention rate of females at Northwestern's engineering school is 90%! Seems to me you are exaggerating the dropout rate.

[/quote]

Oh am I? Are you sure you want to stick to that story? Consider these quotes:

"In a 1993 study, the attrition rate in science and engineering was reported to be 44.1%..."

<a href="http://www.physics.uni.edu/%7Epascarel/Research/Thesis/ChapterOne.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.physics.uni.edu/~pascarel/Research/Thesis/ChapterOne.pdf</a>

"The Semiconductor Industry Association noted that approximately 50 percent of all students majoring in electrical engineering drop out of their major before completing their studies."

<a href="http://www.sia-online.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=363%5B/url%5D">http://www.sia-online.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=363</a>

"...reduce the attrition rate of college engineering programs, which exceeds 50 percent nationally."

<a href="http://www.pltw.org/news/BaltSun.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.pltw.org/news/BaltSun.shtml</a>

"[Georgia Tech Dean of the College of Engineering John] White called Georgia Tech's attrition rate in engineering "absolutely ridiculous..at Tech it is close to 50 percent,"

<a href="http://gtalumni.org/Publications/techtopics/win91/confronting.html%5B/url%5D">http://gtalumni.org/Publications/techtopics/win91/confronting.html</a>

"Students continue to drop out of engineering majors at high rates..."

<a href="http://www.mathsoft.com/press_room/PressReleases/2001/1910.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.mathsoft.com/press_room/PressReleases/2001/1910.asp</a>

So perhaps you could explain to me again how I am exaggerating the numbers? Or perhaps you could contact the people who wrote the above articles and tell them that engineering does not have an attrition problem.

[quote]
I'd also argue that most MIT students wanted to study engineering and therefore applied and picked MIT, not the other way around. I guess it would be pretty disasterous if most MIT students were there to study engineering because that's basically what they are stuck with.

[/quote]

How's that? Why? You can study science at MIT. Plenty do. Like I said, I have always agreed that high schoolers know whether they are artsy or sciency. A sciency person would consider MIT. If that person goes to MIT and finds out he doesn't like engineering, he can just major in a science.

[quote]
As for MIT engineering grads picking career in finance, it still doesn't mean they didn't like "studying" engineering;... They are not opportunitistic about what they study; instead they are opportunistic about what other career paths offer.

[/quote]

I think the more likely story is that they are opportunistic the whole way through. When they went to college, engineering seemed to be the best option available at the time, but then when they went looking for jobs, something better came along.

Let's face it. People are opportunistic. Like I've said many times, many high schoolers do not know what they are going to major in. They go to college and then make a choice, often times opportunistically.

Finally, let's be clear about one point. I think we can agree that there are LOT of engineering students, even those that make it all the way through, that don't like engineering, and never did. So why did they do it? Starting salary. Prestige. Seemed like a good idea at the time, yet by the time they realized they didn't like it, they were already so deep into it that they figured they might as well complete it. Let's face it. There are PLENTY of engineering students who are in it just for the salary (i.e. they want a backup career). Or the prestige. Or reasons having nothing to do with whether they actually like engineering. Come on, you know it's true. You know there are plenty of students there who don't really enjoy it. And these tend to be precisely the kind of people who will run off to consulting and banking the most, because the fact is, they were never particularly tied to engineering in the first place. Don't try to tell me that every engineering student is there because they actually like engineering. You know and I know that it's not true.

[quote]
Thanks for stating that Harvard wins the cross-admit battles..as if some of us don't know or need to be constantly reminded of. So, besides making sure we all know Harvard wins the cross-admits, what is your point as far as picking colleges goes?? People shouldn't pick a school based on what their tentative interest is? If not, what is a better pointer? Ignore one's interest and stick with Harvard (if he's offered admission of course) because its Harvard?

[/quote]

Well it seems to me that if some people still don't want to believe it, I have to keep pointing it out.

And who said anything about ignoring interest. Again, we're not talking about Yale here. We're talking about Harvard, which is a premier science school. I am well aware that people know whether they are science-oriented. And as we can all agree, science-oriented people are not badly served by going to Harvard.

What this has to do with picking schools is that I am pointing out that many if not most students don't really know what they want to major in. What if you pick a strong engineering school because you think you want to do engineering, and then find out, as many do, that you'd rather not major in engineering? THAT'S THE POINT. So here we have these people who say that they might choose UIUC over Harvard because they are sure they want to major in EE, ignoring the point that what happens if you find out that you don't want to major in EE anymore? The upshot is that people change majors all the time, so I would strongly question a radical maneuver like turning down Harvard for Illinois. If you do that, you better be pretty darn sure you know exactly what you want to major in, and you have to be cognizant of the fact that you might be wrong.

[quote]
You really lost me. Where did I say he might not like to have that Harvard choice back IF he changes major?? First of all, I have no way to tell if someone is going to change major. Because of this uncertainty, even a good decision based on best available information doesn't always lead to the best outcome. If he picks NU and doesn't change his major, then NU is a very good choice. If he does change, then of course he may want to have the Harvard choice back..... The choice becomes very personal. I tell people which schools are good for what disciplines but I myself wouldn't make the call for others for such personal decision.

[/quote]

You know, your paragraph right there is basically the same as what I've been saying. You said it yourself - it's a matter of hedging your bets in the face of uncertainty. Those who are really sure might choose NU to go study Film. I have always agreed with that.

Where we differ is that I question how many people are really that sure, and I point to all the students who change majors over and over again as evidence. I myself know plenty of people who were "sure" they were going to major in one thing, only to eventually switch to something else. I'm sure we all know such people.

Also note, I am not 'telling' people to do anything. I am laying down the facts as I see them. Again, if you are absolutely 100% sure (and I mean really 100% sure) that you want to do EE, then sure, you can take UIUC over Harvard. But I would simply caution you that plenty of people who thought they were sure about their major ended up switching. So if that concerns, you, then clearly the safer choice is to take Harvard over UIUC.

intuit2k2 · August 18, 2005, 7:15pm

There are also social issues here. What if some people like me for example might feel rather uncomfortable with harvard student body and its community. Price is also an issue to many, especially to the one's from Illinois who recieve in state tuition rates. Otherwise, i totally agreed with sakky. In fact i was leaning towards engineering but yet decided to go to in order to have many other options.

sakky · August 19, 2005, 2:41am

Clearly there are social issues and also pricing issues. For the purposes of thie discussion, I chose to ignore them because they can actually go both ways. For example, some people might find a state school's size to be intimidating and would therefore be more comfortable at a smaller school like Harvard. And then of course there is the interestingly aggressive twist that a school like Harvard puts on financial aid, such that Harvard might actually be CHEAPER than Illinois, after financial aid is determined. Harvard has announced that they will guarantee 100% full-grant-rides to anybody whose family makes 40k or less. I know 2 Californians who got into Berkeley and to Harvard, and actually found it was cheaper to go to Harvard, once financial aid was figured in. One of them drolly told me that he 'really' wanted to go to Berkeley but he couldn't afford it, so he had 'no choice' but to go to Harvard. He had a pretty dry sense of humor.

But anyway, the point is that social factors and price can and do cut both ways. For some people, the social atmosphere is better at state school. For others, Harvard is better. For some people, state school is the better financial choice. For others, Harvard is better. Either that or they're so darn rich like the Kennedys that they don't mind paying full Harvard tuition anyway.

However, the real central point I've been trying to make in this whole thread is that few people know exactly what they want to major in while they're still in high school, that people change their minds all the time about what they want to do, depending on what choices are available to them at the time. The road to major selection and career selection is rarely a linear process. Many people take years to discover what they really want to study and what they want to do with their lives.

As a final lemma, I was just reading the book "In an Uncertain World", which is Robert Rubin's autobiography. For those who don't remember, Rubin was Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury after having an illustrious career in high finance rising all the way to Co-Chairman of Goldman Sachs. From what I can tell, Rubin as a young man had no set path or set goal for his career or his education. His early career path was evidently quite itinerant and by his own admission showed no deep planning or preparation. He just basically drifted along, taking advantage of the opportunities that presented themselves to him, and obviously did extremely well with those opportunities that did present themselves.

I quote:

p. 57 - "Academically, my plan at Harvard [College] was conventional. Most people who were headed for law school, as I loosely assumed I was, majored in government. I started doing that and then switched to economics."

p. 59 - "I had applied to Harvard Law School as well as the Harvard PhD program in economics. I was admitted to both but couldn't decide what to do. I wasn't at all sure I wanted to do either. I went back up to Cambridge in the fall and spend three days at the law school, but I wasn't ready to roll up my sleeves and cope with the street of it hafter having just finished four intense years of college..." [Note, Rubin dropped out of Harvard Law to spend a year studying at the London School of Economics and just bumming around England, and then later matriculated at Yale Law - this is all covered in p.60-63].

P. 66, "I entered [Yale] Law School not really intending to practice law but feeling that it would be good training for whatever I might do and would help to keep open a broad array of options. I didn't have any career path in mind but I had a vague sense of wanting to do something financial and entrepreneurial. In the back of my mind was the idea that I might eventually return home to Miami and go into the real estate business, perhaps drawing on my rather's knowledge in some way. But I felt I should go to a big law firm for a time, to see what it was like..."

p. 69 - "...so I sent my resume to several investment firms. But I didn't receive a single response, not even a note. Back then, a law degree didn't mean much in the financial world. The dominant traders on Wall Street had gotten where they were on the basis of street smarts and savvy, while the investment bankers mostly came from society backgrounds or business schools. Moving from a law firm to an investment bank was a strange choice in those days..."

p. 39 - "I was an odd choice for Goldman Sachs when the firm hired me, at the age of 28, to work in its storied arbitrage department. Nothing about my demeanor or my experience would have suggested I mught be good at such work. The stereotypical personality type of the arbitrageur was, in those days forceful and confrontational. I was then, as now, a low-key, not manifestly aggressive person. As for my qualifications, I don't think I'd ever even heard of the phrase 'risk arbitrage' before i started the job search that led to Goldman Sachs..."

The point is, here's a guy who as a young man never really knew what he wanted to do with his life, and sort of drifted along for his entire young adulthood, yet he obviously became extraordinarily successful. He didn't really know what he wanted to major in when he went to college, he ended up switching majors from what he thought he wanted to do, he got admitted into 2 top law schools (Harvard and Yale) and a top PhD program (Harvard econ) without having a good idea of whether he really wanted to go or why. He ended up going to Yale Law while still, by his own admission, not having a firm idea of why he was going there, and certainly not intending to work in law for the rest of his life. And he eventually successfully made the transition from lawyer to financier which, by his own words, was a "strange choice". Yet he obviously did just fine despite (or perhaps because of) his peripatetic youth.

hdotchar · August 19, 2005, 4:38pm

i think sakky is generally correct. now if i was already enrolled in a college that was very good at that the major i was already enrolled in, there is no way i would transfer to Harvard or whatever just because i had gotten accepted to it for whatever reason.

however, i do agree that most people i meet are interested in a marketable degree. i did quite a bit of research about engineering/science fields in high school and other paths that could take me to law school. i applied to some schools as a physics/math major and others as an engineering major. i chose engineering because it seemed more applicable in the job market than a science degree and then became interested in patent law later (this is the road i'm currently on.)

the fact is that a lot of smart people simply aren't hugely passionate about what we're doing. of course we have an interest in them and i believe that i'm at least talented in math/science/engineering type things, but i would have no problem working at a finance corporation if they paid well and the work wasn't horribly boring. for a lot of people a career does not define the life in which you life. my goal in life isn't to obtain a million degees and solve some great mystery of the universe (although this would be nice). the fact is for a lot of people a career is something you work at and try your best at in order to pursue your true interests. i would like a job with benefits. i would like a a job that paid well. i would like a job that gave me a lot of vacation. most people desire these things, but i dont think they desire them because they want to have 20 cars and a mansion, but becaues these things ENABLE them to pursue their real interests (which are more likely not be economically productive most likely). this doesn't mean i dont work hard at what i do, it just isn't the focal point of my life.

NAFTA · August 20, 2005, 4:59pm

That's right man, you basically spoke what I think. Personally, and unlike my parents, I am not an achiever, interested in being famous and rich. I just want a job I'm interested in, but if I'm not 100% pleased with it, I don't care, it's work. I just want vacations, an 8-10 hour workday and a decent wage, money ain't a big deal. If I make a huge monument, or I strike it rich, cool, if not cool too as long as it's all chill. Ergo, civil engineering. Practical job, marketable degree, I'm most interested in it, and it seems cool.

sakky · August 20, 2005, 8:32pm

[quote]
however, i do agree that most people i meet are interested in a marketable degree.

[/quote]

[quote]
the fact is that a lot of smart people simply aren't hugely passionate about what we're doing.

[/quote]

Honestly, I'm quite surprised that I've been getting so much pushback on this point, because I think everybody knows deep down that that's the truth. The truth is, many if not most college students, even the top ones, aren't really going to college to pursue their passions. They're going to college to advance their careers, nothing more. Many are going to college just because they want to set themselves up to get a job. Honestly, if a college degree was of no use in the job market, I think there is little dispute that many, probably most, current college students would drop out. Others are going to college just to prepare themselves for graduate school, and they go to graduate school with no other rationale except that they, once again, think it willl advance their careers. Let's face it. Many biology students aren't really passionate about biology per se. They just want to be doctors and biology is a common premed major. A lot of people in the humanities or social sciences don't really care about the subject in question, but are just doing it to prep themselves for law school.

Not to sound like a broken record, but Rubin choose his educational path not from passion, but rather from considerations of marketability and of general utilitarianism. He started at Harvard without having any real sense of what he wanted to study. He first chose to major in government. Why? He didn't really have a well-defined reason for why, and certainly didn't feel passionate about the subject at the time (as demonstrated by his career choices - he did end up working on Wall Street for 25 years before entering politics). He just thought that law school would be in his future, and the Harvard government major was a common way to get to law school (although he admitted he didn't really know why he wanted to go to law school). He also knew that government was a strong major at Harvard, which belies the notion put forth by others in this thread that you'd be foolish to choose a major just because your school is known to be strong in it, for Robert Rubin is certainly no fool. Government was a strong major that was known for sending people to law school, and that's the honest reason why Rubin chose it. So basically, he 'fell into' the government major. Hence, it was pure utilitarianism. If some other major at Harvard was known to be a strong "prelaw" major, he probably would have fell into that major instead. He then took a few economics courses and found econ interesting, so he then 'fell into' econ. He performed extremely well in econ - graduating summa cum laude and Phi Betta Kappa, and getting admitted to the Harvard econ PhD program - but he didn't show a whole lot of passion for econ either, opting for Yale Law. He admitted himself that he didn't have a whole lot of passion for law either, and never did.

So here's a guy who managed to graduate at the top of his class at Harvard in econ and win admission to the Harvard doctoral econ program, yet admitted that econ was not his passion. Here's a guy who got admitted to both Harvard Law and Yale Law, yet admitted he never was gungho about becoming a lawyer. He didn't even find his true calling in life until his late 20's.

I bring him up because he is living proof that people can and do float in and out of majors and career paths without really knowing what they want to do, and yet still turn out to be tremendously successful. While obviously most college students won't be as successful as Robert Rubin is, the fact is, most people will also float in and out of various majors and various career paths. As stated before, the average college student changes majors a number of times before finally settling on something. And many college graduates, either immediately after graduation or a few years afterward, end up taking jobs that have nothing to do with their major.

As another example, consider Lawrence Summers, current President of Harvard, who became Treasury Secretary after Rubin after an illustious career as an academic economist, and attaining full tenure as a professor of economics at Harvard at age 28, one of the youngest tenured profs in Harvard history. Yet what exactly was his initial choice for major as an undergraduate at MIT? Was it econ? Nope, it was physics.

The real point is, while this might sound terrible, the fact is, the initial choice of your college major, in the grand scheme of things, really not that important for most people. Your choice of major might affect your first job coming out of college. For those people who absolutely know they want to get doctorates in a particular subject so that they will become academics, your choice of major will be important. But most people don't care about that. For most people, your initial inklings of what you might think you might want as college major isn't going to matter that much, and certainly not enough to pull a dramatic move like turning down Harvard for Illinois. Like Hdotchar and NAFTA said, most people aren't going to college to become the next great academic, they just want something that will help them advance their careers.

Look, the fact is, most people will end up changing their majors, like Rubin and Summers did. And even of those who complete a certain maor, not all of them really like it that much enough to pursue a career in it. As an example, take Rubin, who got a Harvard degree in econ, summa cum laude, but turned down the Harvard PhD Econ program for law school. He was a genius at economics, but he didn't want to work as an economist. Similarly, many graduating engineering students never work as engineers but run off to consulting and banking, or to professional school. Even those who do work as engineers often times switch out. I know many people who worked as engineers for a few years, got tired of it, and changed careers to become salesmen, go to law school, go to med-school, etc. In fact, one of the most common exit strategies of engineers who are tired of engineering is to go to business school and get their MBA's and hence switch careers to management, or to the aforementioned consulting and banking.

So when you look at it that way, and you see all these people who once considered engineering as a major who either never get their engineering degree, or who do but eventually leave engineering for some other career, it seems to me quite risky to make a radical move like turning down Harvard for Illinois just to major in engineering. Again, if you happen to be one of those rare people who is just 100% sure that you want to be an engineer for your whole life, then OK, sure. But how many people are really like that? I think most people are like Robert Rubin in that they don't really know what they want to do, don't feel a burning desire for anything, and so they'll just hang around, picking up degrees that they think might help them in their career, while waiting for opportunities to present themselves.

CC_Admin · January 6, 2006, 11:33pm

sakky said: "I still don't think that's fair competition. I think even most current Duke, Rice, or Northwestern students, even if they are civil engineering students, would gladly transfer to Harvard (and drop civil engineering) if given the chance."

As a former Duke student and current Duke faculty in engineering, I strongly disagree with the idea that most of our CEE students would both transfer to Harvard and drop CEE. The people we get are interested in the combination of a small, dynamic, top-20 engineering school with close ties to a medium-sized, internationally renown liberal arts college, bookended by awesome business, law, and medical schools and punctuated by facilities that students can actually use and athletics that students can actually cheer for. Harvard's great - but contrary to your proposition, not everyone (or even I would say most of everyone) wants to live there... Heck - our CEE Department has had a Harvard faculty member transfer down here (full prof, no less) so apparently faculty at least would gladly transfer to Duke (and stay in CEE).

sakky · January 7, 2006, 12:41am

Hey think what you want. But from what I've seen, the commitment to engineering amongst most students even at the elite schools is fairly shallow. After all, why is it that so many MIT engineering students are so eager to run off to consulting and banking? You would think that if any school had engineering students that truly were dedicated to engineering, it would be MIT. Yet the fact remains that one of the largest employers of MIT engineering students for the past few years has been McKinsey. Another has been Goldman Sachs. Another has been BCG. Another has been Bain. Another has been Morgan Stanley. Another has been Merrill Lynch. Ask yourself, if engineering students really were so dedicated to engineering, then why are they so eager to work for companies like that?

I know the same is true at Stanford. Ask yourself, why are so many Stanford engineering students jumping at the chance to get into consulting and banking?

From what I see, the commitment to engineering is pretty thin. The mentality of most engineering students is that choosing engineering is the best they can do given the circumstances at the time. It's mercenary. Career advancement is on their mind.

Look, the truth is, if Mckinsey or Goldman Sachs or similar companies went around guaranteeing job offers to students as freshman, a lot of them would choose not to major in enginering. Heck, a lot of them probably wouldn't even bother to graduate. The truth is, most college students go to college because they want to get a good job. If college did not offer the promise of a good job, then the truth is, very few people would go to college. Come on, you know it's true. Similarly, if engineering didn't offer the promise of a better than average job, you know that a lot of people would choose not to study it.

The point is, it's all a matter of career advancement. The truth is, many if not most people choose engineering not because they really love it, but because they want to advance their careers. If something better came along, they would choose that instead. That's why plenty of MIT engineering students jump at the chance to work for Goldman Sachs.

Heck, if you're a Duke faculty member, you should know exactly what I'm talking about. You know that a lot of engineering students don't really care about engineering. You know that they're not really enthused about the subject. You know that a lot of them don't really want to be there. You know that they're there just for the relative job security. Come on, you know it's true.

karthikkito · January 7, 2006, 2:45am

[quote]
Ask yourself, why are so many Stanford engineering students jumping at the chance to get into consulting and banking?

[/quote]

$$$.

Ibanking salaries and bonuses are high enough that a good deal of people will go for such a position even if they really enjoy engineering. If engineering firms paid nearly as much, well, we likely wouldn't see so many jumping ship.

[quote]
if engineering didn't offer the promise of a better than average job, you know that a lot of people would choose not to study it

[/quote]

Tons of people study psychology and English, but that doesn't guarantee a good job. So why the demand?

We've all seen statistics about how low the percentage of students in the US studying engineering is. If students choose engineering simply for the guarantee of a good job, it certainly seems like the majority of American college students don't want a good job when they graduate. After all, engineering is, as you say, the most versatile degree. Given that, why isn't everyone studying it? From what I gather reading your posts, one needn't enjoy a subject to major in it so no argument to the tune of "I'm really not interested in it" would hold water. Given its versatility, it wouldn't preclude anybody from working his or her dream job.

Considering the amount of work needed to graduate with an engineering degree, it seems that you feel the entire engineering student body is massochistic. That is, whiling away all hours doing work they don't want to do when they have the option of not doing it and majoring in something else. How many kids do you actually believe repeat "must study more vibrations so I can become an Ibanker...must study so I can become an Ibanker..." in the wee hours of the night? There are easier paths to the same goal.

aibarr · January 7, 2006, 3:30am

(Said it before, I'll say it again... I had a choice between the ivies and I chose Rice. I wouldn't have transferred out. Think what you want, Sakky, but I've talked about this with my colleagues at Rice, and very, very few of us would have chosen any other university...)

sakky · January 7, 2006, 11:09am

[quote]
$$$.

Ibanking salaries and bonuses are high enough that a good deal of people will go for such a position even if they really enjoy engineering. If engineering firms paid nearly as much, well, we likely wouldn't see so many jumping ship.

[/quote]

There it is. So you agree that the money has something to do with it.

[quote]
Tons of people study psychology and English, but that doesn't guarantee a good job. So why the demand?

[/quote]

Well, look, I never said that personal enjoyment had nothing to do with it at all. It's a mixture of personal enjoyment and career advancement that drives people's choices.

But I'll put it to you this way. Why are these people even in college at all? I think there is no dispute that if college graduates didn't make more money than non-graduates, very few people would go, and certainly very few parents would pay for it. Let's face it. A major reason, probably THE major reason, why most people go to college at all is to get a decent job. Honestly, of the 1.3 million new bachelor's degrees granted in the US every year, how many of them go to people who went to college solely because they wanted to learn for the sake of learning, and how many went to people who are trying to advance their careers?

[quote]
We've all seen statistics about how low the percentage of students in the US studying engineering is. If students choose engineering simply for the guarantee of a good job, it certainly seems like the majority of American college students don't want a good job when they graduate. After all, engineering is, as you say, the most versatile degree. Given that, why isn't everyone studying it? From what I gather reading your posts, one needn't enjoy a subject to major in it so no argument to the tune of "I'm really not interested in it" would hold water. Given its versatility, it wouldn't preclude anybody from working his or her dream job.

[/quote]

The difficulty of engineering serves as a major drawback. So is the obscurity of the subject. Plenty of students start out wanting to be engineers but then find out how hard or boring it is, so they drop out.

Besides, consider this. Far and away the most popular choice of bachelor's degree is in business. About 22% of all bachelor's degrees conferred are business degrees. More than twice the number of Americans get bachelor's degrees in business than in any other subject.

<a href="http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/tables/dt252.asp%5B/url%5D">http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/tables/dt252.asp</a>

Ask yourself why? Is it really because there really are all these people out there who have a burning academic curiosity about business? Come on.

[quote]
Considering the amount of work needed to graduate with an engineering degree, it seems that you feel the entire engineering student body is massochistic. That is, whiling away all hours doing work they don't want to do when they have the option of not doing it and majoring in something else. How many kids do you actually believe repeat "must study more vibrations so I can become an Ibanker...must study so I can become an Ibanker..." in the wee hours of the night? There are easier paths to the same goal.

[/quote]

It's not because they are studying engineering IN ORDER to become bankers. It's that they are studying engineering IN CASE THEY DON'T become bankers. Or consultants. Or whatever it is they really want to do. Hence, it's really just a backup career. The mentality is that if they don't get the job they really want, they can just fall back into engineering.

Look, not every MIT or Stanford student who wants to become a banker or consultant gets an offer. This is true whether you are an engineer or not. Anecdotally speaking, I would say that at MIT, maybe about half of the students who want such jobs actually get them. So you have to be constantly thinking of what you are going to do in case you don't get it. Keep in mind that consulting and banking hiring processes tend to be highly fickle and unpredictable. In many cases, you can have a great interview and have great credentials - and still not get hired (and yes, then they might turn around and make an offer to somebody with quite mediocre credentials). The point is, you just don't know what is going to happen. At least with an engineering degree from Stanford, you know you can get an engineering job. If you get an Econ degree from Stanford, you may or may not get a banking offer. Who knows?

[quote]
Said it before, I'll say it again... I had a choice between the ivies and I chose Rice. I wouldn't have transferred out. Think what you want, Sakky, but I've talked about this with my colleagues at Rice, and very, very few of us would have chosen any other university

[/quote]

Well, I don't think I have to say much. All I have to do is point to the yield rates. Why is it that Rice has a lower yield than Harvard or MIT? Why is it that Rice loses the cross-yield battle to Harvard or MIT?

Look, I'm not saying this stuff to unduly bang on Rice. The truth is, almost every school out there has some students there who don't really want to be there but are there only because it's the best school they got admitted to. Let's face it. The vast majority of people do not get to go to their first-choice school. For example, the truth is, a lot of students at Berkeley would rather be going to Stanford but didn't get in. Similarly, a lot of students at UCDavis would rather be going to Berkeley, but didn't get in. A lot of students at San Jose State would rather be going to UCDavis but didn't get in.

In fact, that's why the whole concept of 'reach' schools and 'safety' schools exist. You probably won't get into a reach school. That's why it's called a reach. You probably will get into a safety school. That's why it's called a safety. The idea is that you will lock down a safety school that you don't really want to go to, but you will go to if all else fails and you can't get into the other schools that you really want to go to. Most people are unable to get into any of their reach schools. And then of course there are the 'super-reach' schools that you would love to go to but have no chance at. A lot of people would love to go to Harvard but don't even apply because they know they won't get in. If you have mediocre grades, mediocre test scores, and mediocre EC's, you know you're not going to get into Harvard, so you don't even apply, even if you'd like to go.

So look, I don't see what's so bad about admitting that Rice has a lot of students who would rather be going to some other school but didn't get in. Heck, almost every school out there has plenty of students who'd rather be going to some other school but didn't get in. Or you can look at it this way. How many Rice students went there not as their first choice? Probably not a lot. And again, I don't see what's so wrong about admitting that. Most college students do not get to go to their first choie. If you happen to be one of them, count yourself very lucky.

Besides, look at it this way. Ignoring ED for a moment, even of those students who knew that Rice was their first choice, did they all just apply only to Rice? No I don't think so. You still apply to a bunch of schools anyway. Why? Because you know you might not get into Rice. Hence, that means that even if Rice is your first choice, you have to prepare yourself for the possibility that you might not get your first choice. But think about what that means. If everybody in the country always got their first choice school, nobody would ever need to apply to more than one school. Furthermore, there wouldn't even need to be an admissions process at all. Everybody would just apply only to their first choice knowing that they will get in. All admissions percentages would be 100%, precluding the need for any admissions officers. The fact that there even is an admissions process, and the fact that most people apply to 6-10 schools inherently means that a lot of people don't get their first choice.

CC_Admin · January 7, 2006, 12:20pm

Your proposition was that most Duke CEE students would drop Duke and CEE in order to go to Harvard. That is the proposition I disagree with.

I am not arguing that most Duke engineering students go into engineering as a profession. On the other hand, I don't think that means their commitment to an undergraduate engineering education is thin - it just means that they know how many doors an engineering undergraduate education can open and they posses the talents required of a rigorous engineering program.

Beyond that, your statements of:
"You know that a lot of engineering students don't really care about engineering. You know that they're not really enthused about the subject. You know that a lot of them don't really want to be there. You know that they're there just for the relative job security. Come on, you know it's true."
are completely off target. There are too many students that spend too much of their precious time doing things at the school that are not related to classes. There are too many students that are working on independent study project, or working as teaching assistants, or working as laboratory students to allow your unfounded statement to stand.

I have no idea where you are getting your information about Duke or its School of Engineering but I would certainly appreciate your leaving us out of the equation unless you have something more informed to go from.

Thread		Replies	Views
Is harvard engineering (Biomedical especially) famous? Engineering Majors	182	1052	April 16, 2021
Unsure Engineering Student, Princeton, Harvard & Cal University of California - Berkeley	24	113	April 17, 2021
yale for engineering Engineering Majors	99	655	April 16, 2021
Prestige-pure engineering v ivy league Engineering Majors	42	1723	April 17, 2021
Ivy for Engineering College Search & Selection	36	359	April 15, 2021

Top Civil Engineering Schools/ROTC/Tech.

Related topics

CONNECT WITH US