<p>I want to be an electronic engineer, but i don't know which school is good for that?
Please give me some good colleges for electronic engineer</p>
<p>mit/caltech?</p>
<p>yeah i mean like not ivy league top colleges</p>
<p>oh well ummm </p>
<p>UCB, UCSD, UCLA
georgia tech</p>
<p>Carnegie Mellon and Rice</p>
<p>UIUC, University of Michigan, University Wisconsin, Purdue. Ya, I'm from the Midwest...</p>
<p>What kind of scores do you have? That will change alot of where you need to look at. There is no point in someone telling you to go to MIT if you have no chance in getting in there. Go to xap.com and take the assements on there and it will give you lots of schools in the region you want and what fits your test scores.</p>
<p>Why does Purdue have an 85% acceptance rate if it's that good ?</p>
<p>Middle 50% of
First-Year Students<br>
SAT Critical Reading: 490 - 600
SAT Math: 530 - 650</p>
<p>Purdue is a good school, don't get me wrong, but please do not claim it to be among the best in America. Keep in mind that the engineering rankings are ALL peer assessment based which gives certain advantages to regionally-powerful schools and large schools, both which give Purdue some extra love. It has graduated the most engineers out of any university in the nation and also has a good set of graduate programs to boost its name for its undergraduate ranking. (note that once you view the university as a whole and take away peer assessment it becomes #60+). </p>
<p>That being said, Purdue is a good school for engineering; it made USNEWS A+ schools for B students, so if you screwed around in high school a bit too much its certainly a great opportunity for you as a second chance. But in terms of difficulty and quality of teaching, it ranks pretty poorly on Princeton Review (at least last year) and is around the difficulty level of the mid-tier UCs, at least from the work I've seen. In SoCal its been a good backup for people who couldn't get into UCSD instate. </p>
<p>I think UC Berkeley benefits a notch from the same too, but I wont jump into that mess.</p>
<p>Anyways, in terms of top engineering schools there are various ways you can look at it. If you are looking for job placement then the USNEWS listings are perfectly suitable, but if not then Ill throw down a bit of what my dad (who researches engineering education) has discussed with me.</p>
<p>Top Tier:
MIT, Harvey Mudd, Caltech, Stanford.
-The first three are the most difficult, but the brilliance of people at any of these combined with a more than adequate education produces top notch engineers all the way through.</p>
<p>Tier 1.25
Rose Hulman Institute of Technology, Olin
- very good schools with a focus on education, would need more info on this to figure if they go up to 1 or down to 1.5 I would suspect Olin to be 1 though (its free!).</p>
<p>Tier 1.5
Cornell, UC Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon, Rice
-Overall strong schools with all smart students. Cornell is the strongest Ivy; Cal is the strongest public, and the others are just =).</p>
<p>Tier 2
UIUC, U of Michigan, UW Madison, Georgia Tech, Northwestern
- all solid schools with good research and strong student bodies</p>
<p>Honorable mentions:
UCLA, UCSD, Purdue, Cal Poly SLO, military/navy</p>
<p>Agree with almost everything you said. I don't quite see how Rose Hulman is better than the Tier 1.5 schools.</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong, it's a good school, but again, it's got a 72% acceptance rate DESPITE being a small school. I'd put it in Tier 2.25.</p>
<p>Hmm I guess you could be right; RHIT is probably the school I know least about on that list. I through it up there because I was associating it with the level of Olin (though I was just reminded that what I was thinking I heard about RHIT was actually Olin lol). I wouldnt give it a tier 2.25 though; maybe on the upper limit of tier 2. You cant judge schools like that on just their acceptance rate; the term 'self-selective' comes to mind. For instance harvey mudd is rated the most selective liberal arts college in the country, yet we have a 30% acceptance rate. If you look at RHIT's SAT range it fits just slightly below Cal.</p>
<p>*How are u so sure about this? I think this is just a personal theory. *</p>
<p>"The rankings are based solely on a peer survey of deans and senior faculty that asked them to rate each program they are familiar with on a scale from 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished)." </p>
<p>I'm not really going to explain the method behind my logic; though if you dont agree with me thats personally okay - I just happen to see the biases in that setup.</p>
<p>I find this dumb. How **is* Harvey Mudd and Caltech any better than UC Berkeley? This is just dumb.*</p>
<p>lol sorry, I just had to.</p>
<p>Cal a great school, do not get me wrong, but so are the ones I grouped them with. Its just my belief that brain-beating at Caltech, Mudd, and MIT are on a whole different level. As for Stanford being above Cal, its programs are just overall better in my opinion. Smaller classrooms/students, and such. It also has things that my other 3 top ones dont.</p>
<p>Seiken, do you rate U Washington(Seattle) and Virginia Tech?</p>
<p>UW - Seattle is also a solid program, but from what Ive seen its strength lie more in pure sciences and whatnot (CS, biochem, etc). The rankings I gave are meant to be the top you should look at considering your own selectivity. For instance Harvard is not on my list, but I personally think it would give you a better education than any of the honorable mentions. The reason I do not list it is because if you can get in there and are looking for engineering programs, you probably should rather be looking at the tier 1 on my list (or something of that nature). I considered listing UW as an honorable mention, but decided not to for that reason. </p>
<p>edit - I dont know much about V-Tech other than recent events. When I think about what I've heard, I typical compare it to Georgia Tech which is somewhat an unfair comparison. Someone from that area should comment on it. </p>
<p>Anyways, take my list with a grain of salt: its a mix of both logical deductions and personal experiences.</p>
<p>I wasn't talking about the list; just generally .. 'cause I was thinking of applying there ... :)</p>
<p>*Are trying to tell me that you know more than those deans do? *
Are you trying to tell me dean's are perfect? Are you trying to tell me they dont hold regional biases and stronger knowledge of the stronger closer programs? Are you telling me deans are omnipotent of every single program in the nation to the point of making a perfect relative comparison?</p>
<p>*
how sure are you about that because that obviously contradicts the opinions of the deans and those people who are in better position to rank schools than you do?*</p>
<p>Yes I have no clue what I am talking about. My job as a science and engineering student has NOTHING TO do with receiving a quality education in science and engineering. On the other hand, a dean's job is to run around to other schools and inspect individual programs while only occassionally glancing at his own to check up on it. </p>
<p>And once again, I still am not denouncing Cal by any means; its a great school and is placed with Rice, Cornell, and CMU on MY PERSONAL LIST for a reason. Although I will admit, while I do believe I have the right perspective of the place, I might be underestimating it because it was a backup for me.</p>
<p>And as for the Stanford vs Cal thing. I am a transfer student and thus, have a pretty good idea of the awesomeness of small classrooms and smarter students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Cal a great school, do not get me wrong, but so are the ones I grouped them with. Its just my belief that brain-beating at Caltech, Mudd, and MIT are on a whole different level. As for Stanford being above Cal, its programs are just overall better in my opinion. Smaller classrooms/students, and such. It also has things that my other 3 top ones dont.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The only US schools that rank above Cal Berkeley in engineering are probably MIT, Stanford and, perhaps, Caltech (although I think Caltech is a better school for math/science than for engineering properly). </p>
<p>Anyway, my personal rankings for engineering (somewhat different from US News & WR) would go like that:</p>
<p>Group 1: MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, Caltech</p>
<p>Group 2: UIUC, Michigan, CMU, Cornell, Princeton</p>
<p>Group 3: UT Austin, Purdue, GaTech, Rice, JHU, Northwestern, UCLA</p>
<p>then all the rest.</p>
<p>PS: I don't rank LACs and similar schools that don't grant doctorates first because I don't know them well enough to pass any judgement and, second, because I believe the LAC model is not suitable for proper engineering education.</p>
<p>Group 3: UT Austin, Purdue, GaTech, Rice, JHU, Northwestern, UCLA</p>
<p>Again; Rice, GT, NWU and Purdue in the same category ? C'mon !</p>
<p>
[quote]
Middle 50% of First-Year Students
SAT Critical Reading: 490 - 600
SAT Math: 530 - 650
[/quote]
That's the admission stats for the overall campus. Purdue engineering is much more selective.</p>
<p>UIUC has a similiar environment. It's engineering program is extremely selective while the overall school is only moderately so.
Mid-50% ACT for Engineering: 30-33
Mid-50% ACT overall: 27-31</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why does Purdue have an 85% acceptance rate if it's that good ?
[/quote]
That's because if you don't get admitted to engineering, you may still get admitted to other programs (e.g., Liberal Arts or Science) at Purdue. Afterall, it's a big State U.</p>