<p>
[quote]
Keep in mind that the engineering rankings are ALL peer assessment...
[/quote]
Purdue's recruiter assessment score is 4.1 which places it at #10 in graduate engineering.</p>
<p>Personally I'd rank it a little higher for practical engineering.</p>
<p>When you are comparing SAT range between RHIT and Cal you are not comparing apples and oranges. You need to compare the SAT range of the engineering students at both schools. When you do that I think you will find the SAT range of Cal is much higher.</p>
<p>There are several schools you left off the list that probably fit in there somewhere: UTexas and RPI come to mind. UTexas deserves honorable mention at least.</p>
<p>I try not to mix LACs with research universities. </p>
<p>TIER ONE:
California Institute of Technology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Stanford University
University of California-Berkeley</p>
<p>TIER TWO:
Carnegie Mellon University
Cornell University
Georgia Institute of Technology
University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor</p>
<p>TIER THREE:
Johns Hopkins University
Northwestern University
Princeton University
Purdue University-West Lafayette
University of Texas-Austin
University of Wisconsin-Madison</p>
<p>TIER FOUR:
Columbia University (Fu Foundation)
Pennsylvania State University-University Park
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Rice University
Texas A&M University-College Station
University of California-Los Angeles
University of Washington
Virginia Politechnic Institute and State University</p>
<p>TIER FIVE:
Duke University
North Carolina State University-Raleigh
The Ohio State University
University of California-San Diego
University of Maryland-College Park
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
University of Pennsylvania
University of Southern California</p>
<p>My husband did a head-to-head comparison against UCB and Rice by attending both schools. Rice won by a long shot. The problem sets at UCB were not as hard, there was little or no attention by professors, living accommodations were much worse at UCB, etc.</p>
<p>Alexandre: There is no way I can agree with your rankings. There is no way Rice and Texas A&M are at the same level. Anyone in Texas will tell you that. Rice also has a better program than U Texas or JHU. It's very small so you aren't going to hear as much about the graduates. I also think CMU is much better than UMich and GaTech in many fields, particularly computer engineering.</p>
<p>Alex, I think Columbia should be atleast Tier 3 if not Tier 2.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I also think CMU is much better than UMich and GaTech in many fields, particularly computer engineering.
[/quote]
OK, I'm game. Besides computer engineering, which other engineering fields is CMU MUCH better than Michigan and GaTech?</p>
<p>Aerospace? Agricultural? Bio/Biomedical? Chemical? Civil? Electrical? Environmental? Industrial? Material? Mechanical? Nuclear? Petrochemical?</p>
<p>p.s. I agree with you... that's no way any Texan will put Rice and A&M in the same tier, engineering or otherwise.</p>
<p>**What do you mean? Cal student are not as smart? s That's another dumb statement you made.</p>
<p>If you do a side by side comparison of Stanford and Berkeley you will find that Stanford has an overwhelmingly smarter student body as a whole. This is due to the mass number of instate students like me who were basically guaranteed in barring no criminal record. It is much closer in the engineering department, but Stanford still shows a higher standard of admittance. </p>
<p>**How huge is the gap b/coz from what i've gathered, the difference is very small to really affect the students' learning. I believe Harvard, the most famous school on earth, holds a class of 400 students too.</p>
<p>Its not necessarily just the size of the students, but also the quality of the teachers. When it comes to difficult fields such as engineering you really want to have solid access to your teachers, which is when the smaller environment becomes really helpful. That is the reason I would NOT have gone to Harvard for the life of me – well maybe if it were free.</p>
<p>**[random stuff about deans]</p>
<p>I think you were missing my point. I wasn’t saying dean’s were ignorant retards, but rather that they both don’t devote their time to this study and are also subject to the glamour of names. You cannot help but associate a school with its overall name, even an engineering name WHICH INCLUDES THE GRADUATE SCHOOL, of which Cal gets a huge boost. Does it not have the most top-rated grad programs out of any school? I forget. Purdue also gets some love from that.</p>
<p>Also, deans and students MIGHT have a different perspective on what constitutes a solid education. A student is more likely to look at the quality of education, whereas a dean is more likely to simply look at the ends; ie job placement which often has a ‘self-fulfilling-prophecy’ attachment to it. </p>
<p>If you wish to weigh that heavily like them, go for it, but if you are looking at the quality of the program, not the quality of the results, find a different ranking system – because the US News is then relatively bad.</p>
<p>That being said, I’ve done problem sets at Cal helped engineers study at Purdue over the internet. It is not that hard, but relative to the people studying it is. After transferring to Harvey mudd, it became quite obvious which is harder. Take a student body with a 2200+ median SAT score and destroy their hopes with no curves and an avg GPA of 3.0 for doing 5-8 hours of HW per night. EEP!</p>
<p>The problem however, with both Harvey Mudd and Caltech, is that they are very different in their approach to education: we simply aren’t practical. Our educations are very theoretical rather than practical. They want us to know WHY everything does what it does, not just how to work it with the ability to fudge an explanation. </p>
<p>PAY ATTENTION TO THIS: I do not have anything but respect for Cal and if you think I am underestimating it you are false. Rather, I think it is you who is underestimating the other colleges. </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>Actually Cal Berkeley is ranked 2nd overall in universities with a 4.7 PA score. MIT has 4.9, Stanford has 4.7 as well, and Caltech has a 4.6. And the claim that Caltech is a better school for math science isn’t really true; a large chunk of the study body are engineers/app science majors. Its just its graduate programs in the sciences rape face compared to the engineering ones so that idea gets around. </p>
<p>**I believe the LAC model is not suitable for proper engineering education.</p>
<p>Oh you would be surprised at how amazing it is. And its not that much different from practice than say Caltech, though the student bodies themselves are somewhat different in character.</p>
<p>
[quote]
OK, I'm game. Besides computer engineering, which other engineering fields is CMU MUCH better than Michigan and GaTech?</p>
<p>Aerospace? Agricultural? Bio/Biomedical? Chemical? Civil? Electrical? Environmental? Industrial? Material? Mechanical? Nuclear? Petrochemical?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>CMU probably has a better student body, smaller classes, better funding per faculty, etc.</p>
<p>They also have a good business program for the engineers who cant make it. heh</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>You never been to Cal, Michigan, Illinois, Purdue, or other engineering schools you have mentioned in your post. You have never experienced their curriculum, and yet you claim that Mudd has a harder curriculum than the schools you have mentioned?</p>
<p>" **I believe the LAC model is not suitable for proper engineering education"</p>
<p>"Besides computer engineering, which other engineering fields is CMU MUCH better than Michigan and GaTech?</p>
<p>Aerospace? Agricultural? Bio/Biomedical? Chemical? Civil? Electrical? Environmental? Industrial? Material? Mechanical? Nuclear? Petrochemical"</p>
<p>These allude to an issue y'all should think about.</p>
<p>If a school is good, even superior, in one particular thing, or even a couple things-
does that make it superior as an engineering school, in one's overall evaluation, to another program that offers comprehensive coverage of the field?</p>
<p>I mean many kids come in with one vague idea of what they might want to do, but then change their minds following exposure to other fields and sub-fields. </p>
<p>The shortcoming of the LAC approach in engineering is exactly the same as its shortcoming in regular liberal arts colleges: lack of breadth and depth of upper-level course offerings in what may eventually become your sub-field of interest.</p>
<p>If over the course of your career some sub-area comes to interest you, but your college doesn't have any faculty who practice in that area, well you're just out of luck. You will still be an engineer, with presumably excellent training in what they teach there, but this path will be a road not taken.</p>
<p>The "rankings" do not evaluate, or address, breadth and depth of available course offerings, or coverage of the field as a whole. They give a top-20 ranking to a school which seems to have stong research groups in only a couple particular sub-areas of a particular field; presumably they are really good in that. But the school has a tiny faculty that can't possibly begin to comprehensively cover virtually any field and doesn't even offer one of the major branches of engineering (I think Chemical) at all. </p>
<p>So in your evaluation, consider the relative merits of : great one-trick pony (or less)vs. all-around comprehensive offerings in the field.</p>
<p>You need to differentiate this point for yourselves, because the rankings don't seem to.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is no way Rice and Texas A&M are at the same level. Anyone in Texas will tell you that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>ricegal: Anyone? That is quite a statement. There is no question that Rice beats A&M academically in most areas. But when in comes to engineering you seem to be overestimating the difference between the two. What is your basis for making such an absolute claim? </p>
<p>
[quote]
p.s. I agree with you... that's no way any Texan will put Rice and A&M in the same tier, engineering or otherwise.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>GoBlue: No arguments on the or otherwise part, but like ricegal, you seem to be underestimating A&Ms engineering programs and the strong reputation they have in Texas. What is it exactly that is leading you to make this claim on behalf of all Texans?</p>
<p>I love when the "We're just as good as Caltech, we swear!" Berkeley whining starts. For graduate level you have a case, but for undergraduate give me a break.</p>
<p>kyler: I exaggerated when I said ALL as, of course, A&M graduates have strong alumni loyalty. However, if you compare the two engineering departments on any measure that is done through percentages and not through sheer size, you will find Rice in the lead.</p>
<p>I tried not to add my two cents, but really, this has to be addressed:</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you do a side by side comparison of Stanford and Berkeley you will find that Stanford has an overwhelmingly smarter student body as a whole.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is such a stupid statement, it's unbelievable. Only here on CC will you find anyone who finds such a statement to be true. Do you honestly think that a random student you find at Berkeley will be less intelligent than a random student at Stanford? No, not really. Setting aside of the fact that there is currently no method to measure intelligence definitively, I'll assert that those who get admitted to Stanford, etc. are usually those with hooks of some sort -- URMs, athletes (Stanford's the only top-10 college I know of that gives athletic scholarships, even), legacies, and other 'hooked' applicants, such as winners of USAMO and such. Do you really believe that someone who isn't extremely distinguished (but distinguished enough) is automatically inferior to someone who is very distinguished? I'll add, there are heavy disparities among students in terms of opportunity to distinguish oneself, though that's an issue for another day. But really, the most you can support your claim with is SAT scores, which we know are a flawed measure for comparison. Once you reach a certain point in colleges, you'll see that the intelligence of students plateaus.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is due to the mass number of instate students like me who were basically guaranteed in barring no criminal record.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Berkeley does not guarantee anyone admission, even in-state students. It is not a lower-tier school such as Riverside or Cal State Humboldt; it is an extremely selective institution (albeit not quite as selective on average as top-5 privates, obviously).</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is much closer in the engineering department, but Stanford still shows a higher standard of admittance.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you mean "admission."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Its not necessarily just the size of the students, but also the quality of the teachers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone of authority who thinks that Stanford professors are somehow more adept at teaching than Berkeley professors. Stanford, too, is a large research university, and there are going to be good and bad professors at both.</p>
<p>Regarding the term overwhelmingly I meant that a majority of students at Stanford have the lead over their Berkeley counterparts, not that the disparity was overwhelming. </p>
<p>As for the 'guaranteed' quote, I didnt mean literally. Unlike Stanford, Cal does not have crap shoot admissions, especially for those instate. From my own public high school, and as well as many other top ones among the nation people knew if they were gonna get in or it (barring a few per chance exceptions) since they were just ranked in the top 25 or so in the class. And at my school, the difference in academic rigor/strength between those 25 and the 1 or 2 that managed to get into Stanford was blatantly noticeable.</p>
<p>Yes I did mean that. I missed sleep last night for E@M, special relativity, and humanities homework. bleh.<br>
*
You never been to Cal, Michigan, Illinois, Purdue, or other engineering schools you have mentioned in your post. You have never experienced their curriculum, and yet you claim that Mudd has a harder curriculum than the schools you have mentioned?*</p>
<p>my point was that I have (cal and purdue), not Illinois and Michigan. Granted Ive never taken a full length course at either but Ive gone over exams and whatnot. The 'weeder' class exams were not what I expected from the reputation.<br>
*
You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone of authority who thinks that Stanford professors are somehow more adept at teaching than Berkeley professors.*</p>
<p>That wasnt aimed at that particular debate, but rather the comment that because Harvard has large classrooms small ones arent good. (Was that what he was getting at?)</p>
<p>Olin is clearly the best, since average SAT is obviously the main criteria. Being free doesn't hurt.</p>
<p>
[quote]
kyler: I exaggerated when I said ALL as, of course, A&M graduates have strong alumni loyalty. However, if you compare the two engineering departments on any measure that is done through percentages and not through sheer size, you will find Rice in the lead.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>ricegal: Please be more specific. Which measures? And are we talking the engineering schools as a whole, or individual departments?</p>
<p>Colorado State University came in third in the world ahead of all those other schools in the robotics competition. ME rocks, but all their engineering departments are solid. Their Engines and Energy Conversion lab has been featured in leading science magazines for their work in algae biodiesel and their photo voltagic cells are 100% more efficient than what has been done anywhere else. In addition, CSU will be the first university to be completely powered by wind power in 2008. It's a beautiful campus, reasonably priced, people are incredibly helpful and friendly and you can be the one to benefit from everything that's going on there. Do some research and you'll see it's true.</p>