Top Engineer School

College Search & Selection
41

<p>


</p>

<p>You really can't make much of a case that Rice is better than UT-Austin. Most departmental rankings would say otherwise. However, it's not just UT's size and corresponding research output and curriculum diversity that makes UT stronger than Rice, but UT-Austin simply has a stronger engineering faculty. Look at National Academy of Engineering (NAE) membership. Not only does UT have a much higher number of faculty with this honor than Rice, but it also has a higher percentage of faculty than Rice. (And even though UT has a higher percentage than Rice, I think it's irrelevant. Despite what advocates of pro-capita numbers tend to press, absolute numbers are more important in terms of breadth and depth of faculty research and scholarly atmosphere.)</p>

42

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You sound like an advertising adcom. CSU is surely a good state university, but top engineer school? It's not even in the first tier. </p>

<p>There are many different engineering competitions and obviously the top engineering schools will not snag all the top spots in all of them. You can't just cite one competition and act as if it represents an entire department and student body. Furthermore, most big public universities have "solid" engineering departments, but I think the OP was mainly asking for "world class" engineering departments.</p>

43

<p>


</p>

<p>Alexandre - I typically agree with you in many posts, but I do wonder how you can discount the quality of UT's engineering faculty in a ranking such as this. UT is #4 after only MIT, Stanford, and Berkeley in terms of pure number of faculty in the NAE. In fact, UT has lost NAE faculty to schools like UVA and GaTech yet still remains #4 in this regard. Yes, there are smaller schools with higher percentages like Harvard (and many are in California like USC), but again, they are not being ranked highly in your methodology anyway. Is it possible there is indeed a regional bias creeping in against Texas in the peer reputation ranking (as I believe Hawkette as suggested in other posts re: Rice).</p>

<p>And I don't have anything against GaTech, but do you find it strange how it seemingly leapfrogged in peer assessments since the 1995 NRC study? Did UT drop below GaTech since then, or did GaTech just become that strong?</p>

44

<p>
[quote]
CMU probably has a better student body, smaller classes, better funding per faculty, etc. (post #35)

[/quote]

If those were the criteria, you would have to conclude that Harvard and Yale have MUCH better engineering than Dartmouth and Brown, which in turns are MUCH bettter than CMU in ALL engineering fields.</p>

<p>
[quote]
They also have a good business program for the engineers who cant make it. heh (post #36)

[/quote]

I'm not sure the Teppers boys would agree with you. Better ask them first. I can assure you that in Michigan if you can't make it in engineering, you have no chance with Ross.</p>

45

<p>
[quote]
you seem to be underestimating A&M’s 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? (post #39)

[/quote]

You're right. Of course not ALL Texan would agree with that, certainly not in Aggieland.</p>

<p>My comments were based on my more than 10 years working in the petroleum industry in Houston. While A&M engineers were highly respected, Rice grads seemed to be in a different league. However, my experience was more than 17 years ago, perhaps the situation has changed since?</p>

<p>What I don't understand is that before I left Houston, A&M was generally regarded as having better engineering than UT. Now the situation is reversed. Would you agree with that assessment?</p>

46

<p>


UT has always had a stronger engineering program than A&M and Rice, as academic rankings have always shown. However, I can see how that very well might not be the general popular view in Texas. Since A&M has always been known as the engineering focused school, and Rice as the very selective private, I don't doubt there are many Texans who think these schools are stronger than UT. Ironically, UT probably has the stronger reputation against them outside the state. </p>

<p>In terms of your petroleum background in Houston, I can't discount your personal experience, but it is interesting (at least in terms of the discipline of petroleum engineering), that A&M would be seen as inferior to Rice when it is one of strongest in the world in this area. I would think if anything, any "Good old boy" networks (if they exist) would tend to favor A&M...??</p>

47

<p>USNEWS 2008 Engineering Ranking </p>

<p>Best Undergraduate Engineering Programs (highest degree is a doctorate)</p>

<ol>
<li>Massachusetts Inst. of Technology 4.9</li>
<li>Stanford University (CA) 4.7</li>
<li>University of California–Berkeley * 4.7</li>
<li>California Institute of Technology 4.6</li>
<li>Georgia Institute of Technology * 4.5</li>
<li>U. of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign * 4.5</li>
<li>Cornell University (NY) 4.4</li>
<li>University of Michigan–Ann Arbor * 4.4</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon University (PA) 4.2</li>
<li>Purdue Univ.–West Lafayette (IN)* 4.2</li>
<li>University of Texas–Austin * 4.2</li>
<li>Princeton University (NJ) 4.1</li>
<li>Univ. of Wisconsin–Madison * 4.0</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins University (MD) 3.9</li>
<li>Northwestern University (IL) 3.9</li>
<li>Virginia Tech * 3.9</li>
<li>Pennsylvania State U.–University Park * 3.8</li>
<li>Rice University (TX) 3.8</li>
<li>Texas A&M Univ.–College Station * 3.8</li>
<li>Columbia University (NY) 3.7</li>
<li>Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. (NY) 3.7</li>
<li>Univ. of California–Los Angeles * 3.7</li>
<li>Univ. of Minnesota–Twin Cities * 3.7</li>
<li>University of Washington * 3.7</li>
<li>Duke University (NC) 3.6</li>
<li>Ohio State University–Columbus * 3.6</li>
<li>Univ. of California–San Diego * 3.6</li>
</ol>

48

<p>
[quote]
My comments were based on my more than 10 years working in the petroleum industry in Houston. While A&M engineers were highly respected, Rice grads seemed to be in a different league. However, my experience was more than 15 years old, perhaps the situation has changed since I left?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>GoBlue, your anecdotal experience aside, I am hard pressed to believe that most employers find sizable differences in engineering grads from A&M and Rice (and Texas for that matter). </p>

<p>
[quote]
What I don't understand is that before I left Houston, A&M was generally regarded as having better engineering than UT. Now the situation is reversed. Would you agree with that assessment?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If U.S. News rankings are your thing, then yeah, UT slightly edges out A&M in most engineering disciplines. However, I would be quite interested to know what opportunities a UT engineering grad would have that his/her A&M counterpart would not.</p>

49

<p>Ricegal, I never said Texas A&M was as good as Rice. We all know Rice is a better overall undergraduate institution than Texas A&M. I said that the Engineering programs at those two schools, although admittedly vastly different in nature, are roughly equal in terms of overall excellence.</p>

<p>As for your claim that CMU is "much better" than Michigan and GT in "many fields", I am not sure I can agree. In fact, CMU is not "much better" than GT or Michigan in a single Engineering field...but the opposite is not necessarily untrue! Below are the latest USNWR undergraduate rankings of all three of the schools in the 11 fields of Engineering. Carnegie Mellon is outranked by Georgia Tech and Michigan in 10 of the 11 fields.</p>

<p>AEROSPACE ENGINEERING:</p>

<h1>2 Georgia Tech</h1>

<h1>3 University of Michigan</h1>

<p>Carnegie Mellon unranked </p>

<p>BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING:</p>

<h1>3 Georgia Tech</h1>

<h1>9 University of Michigan</h1>

<p>Carnegie Mellon unranked</p>

<p>CHEMICAL ENGINEERING:</p>

<h1>11 Georgia Tech</h1>

<h1>11 University of Michigan</h1>

<h1>14 Carnegie Mellon</h1>

<p>CIVIL ENGINEERING:</p>

<h1>5 Georgia Tech</h1>

<h1>7 University of Michigan</h1>

<h1>12 Carnegie Mellon</h1>

<p>COMPUTER ENGINEERING:</p>

<h1>2 Carnegie Mellon</h1>

<h1>6 Georgia Tech</h1>

<h1>7 University of Michigan</h1>

<p>ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING:</p>

<h1>5 University of Michigan</h1>

<h1>6 Georgia Tech</h1>

<h1>10 Carnegie Mellon</h1>

<p>ENGINEERING PHYSICS:</p>

<h1>5 University of Michigan</h1>

<p>Carnegie Mellon and Georgia Tech unranked</p>

<p>ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING:</p>

<h1>3 University of Michigan</h1>

<h1>8 Georgia Tech</h1>

<h1>10 Carnegie Mellon</h1>

<p>INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING:</p>

<h1>1 Georgia Tech</h1>

<h1>2 University of Michigan</h1>

<p>Carnegie Mellon unranked</p>

<p>MATERIAL SCIENCES:</p>

<h1>3 University of Michigan</h1>

<h1>9 Georgia Tech</h1>

<p>Carnegie Mellon unranked</p>

<p>MECHANICAL ENGINEERING:</p>

<h1>4 University of Michigan</h1>

<h1>6 Georgia Tech</h1>

<h1>10 Carnegie Mellon</h1>

50

<p>
[quote]
UT has always had a stronger engineering program than A&M and Rice, as academic rankings have always shown. However, I can see how that very well might not be the general popular view in Texas.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You’re quite right, that is not the general popular view. All three schools are highly regarded, with many “Good-old boy networks” favoring A&M, and to a slightly lesser extent, UT.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Ironically, UT probably has the stronger reputation against them outside the state.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would not doubt that for a second. Too bad most UT grads remain in Texas when they graduate. ;)</p>

51

<p>
[quote]
UT has always had a stronger engineering program than A&M and Rice, as academic rankings have always shown.

[/quote]

Was that also true in the '80s?</p>

<p>
[quote]
it is interesting (at least in terms of the discipline of petroleum engineering), that A&M would be seen as inferior to Rice when it is one of strongest in the world in this area. I would think if anything, any "Good old boy" networks (if they exist) would tend to favor A&M...??

[/quote]

The petroleum industry is not just petroleum engineering. Downstream hire a lot of traditional engineers in ChE/MeE/EE/CE. I don't know...may be it's just perception. While A&M engineering was certainly highly regarded, Rice seemed to have a unique position as THE premier university...at least based on the people I met in the business.</p>

52

<p>


</p>

<p>yes... and the 70s, 60s, etc. look at old data from the NRC, etc. Rice wasn't even a member of the AAU until 1985, and A&M until 2001. UT has been a member since 1929. Also, UT has more faculty in the NAE than every school other school in Texas combined.</p>

<p>Again, this is not to discount Rice or A&M in any way, as they are both excellent engineering schools. It's more to recognize how strong UT really is. (And I agree with kyler 242 that within Texas the perceived difference is nil.)</p>

53

<p>
[quote]
Regarding the term overwhelmingly I meant that a majority of students

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
As for the 'guaranteed' quote, I didnt mean literally.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Seems like you need to speak more clearly, then.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Cal does not have crap shoot admissions

[/quote]
</p>

<p>OOS admission is definitely a crapshoot; in-state, less so, but far from obvious. While in-state admission is not nearly as unpredictable as, say, Stanford admissions, it's still not an easy thing to predict. I myself have been surprised numerous times by Berkeley admissions -- especially in this past admissions cycle, when everyone noted that UC admissions are getting extremely tough, especially at Berkeley (with over ~45,000 applicants, they get pretty competitive).</p>

54

<p>Oh i know OOS admissions are a *****, but still thats only 7% of the student body. It actually has to hurt for them, working so much harder to in the end pay like 15k more per year than all of the in-state students.</p>

<p>and give me a break on my clarity, im up to 40+ hours now without sleep. =P</p>

55

<p>
[quote]
It actually has to hurt for them, working so much harder

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'll add that there are an even greater number of students in-state who are the same caliber of out-of-state ones and who choose to attend Berkeley. There is a much larger number of great students who are not quite as awesome, but still very strong nonetheless. (And of course, there are a few average students.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
to in the end pay like 15k more per year than all of the in-state students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, it's more like 20k. =p</p>

56

<p>Its more like the lower 80% (thats basically doubling the OOS % to estimate the # of equal instate people) that I am thinking about when mentioning the Stanford/Cal relations. And then you are comparing the remaining 20% to only the 50% mark at Stanford. And as far as the number of classes you have to take and the amount of work vs those two schools, I doubt there would be much difference. However, you would think that the slightly smarter group of engineers at Stanford might give a boost to the difficulty of curves. Now you think that might not be much, but the difference there as well as the nice-value of being around smarter students is general is enough to separate them in the awesome and slightly-less awesome categories. </p>

<p>Ultimately it boiled down to this for Cal placement imo. You could make an argument for the top 4 as to why each of them were individually the single best engineering program in the country. However, if you attempted that with Cal I do not think you would be as successful. </p>

<p>PS 4 hours of sleep last night. #$&)#&$(*#^(@#</p>

57

<p>
[quote]
PS 4 hours of sleep last night. #$&)#&$(*#^(@#

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What the hell? You either must have terrible time management or stay up all night knowingly wasting time. I have a tough workload this semester and yet I'm managing to get 6.5-8 hours of sleep and still get my homework done. I've had to cut out all the time I waste, but I think it's worth it for my sanity.</p>

58

<p>I planned to do my physics 23 hw last night after mixed-martial arts and jujutsu (2.5 hours long)</p>

<p>big mistake, I just laid there on the couch from 9 until 1, then went to sleep, woke up, and did the work. though on the plus side, after taking exedrin (caffein + aspirin) with Mountain Dew for a migraine soon as i got back, coupled with the perfect timing of endorphin mass release, made me feel like a god for about 2 hours - though I was still too tired to read the crap.</p>

<p>other than that, ive basically dont what you have. no video games, no TV etc....waiting for first physics midterm though if u catch my drift.</p>

<p>so on a topic related note, no matter where you go. do homework before nighttime PE</p>

59

<p>
[quote]
USNEWS 2008 Engineering Ranking </p>

<p>Best Undergraduate Engineering Programs (highest degree is a doctorate)</p>

<ol>
<li>Massachusetts Inst. of Technology 4.9</li>
<li>Stanford University (CA) 4.7</li>
<li>University of California–Berkeley * 4.7</li>
<li>California Institute of Technology 4.6</li>
<li>Georgia Institute of Technology * 4.5</li>
<li>U. of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign * 4.5</li>
<li>Cornell University (NY) 4.4</li>
<li>University of Michigan–Ann Arbor * 4.4</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon University (PA) 4.2</li>
<li>Purdue Univ.–West Lafayette (IN)* 4.2</li>
<li>University of Texas–Austin * 4.2</li>
<li>Princeton University (NJ) 4.1</li>
<li>Univ. of Wisconsin–Madison * 4.0</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins University (MD) 3.9</li>
<li>Northwestern University (IL) 3.9</li>
<li>Virginia Tech * 3.9</li>
<li>Pennsylvania State U.–University Park * 3.8</li>
<li>Rice University (TX) 3.8</li>
<li>Texas A&M Univ.–College Station * 3.8</li>
<li>Columbia University (NY) 3.7</li>
<li>Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. (NY) 3.7</li>
<li>Univ. of California–Los Angeles * 3.7</li>
<li>Univ. of Minnesota–Twin Cities * 3.7</li>
<li>University of Washington * 3.7</li>
<li>Duke University (NC) 3.6</li>
<li>Ohio State University–Columbus * 3.6</li>
<li>Univ. of California–San Diego * 3.6

[/quote]
</li>
</ol>

<p>All of these are wonderful schools for engineering. You will get similar job offers/comparable pay for engineering fields if you attend any of these schools.</p>

<p>Pick a school you like best based on student life, location, cost and other aspects.</p>

60

<p>
[quote]
All of these are wonderful schools for engineering. You will get similar job offers/comparable pay for engineering fields if you attend any of these schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I find it hard to believe that the average MIT engineering graduate will get similar job offers and pay as the average Ohio State engineering graduate. I say this because I know a few MIT engineers and they are total geniuses, while the engineers I know at OSU are maybe a little above average?</p>

<p>Also because my uncle works for an engineering firm and told me that he wouldn't advise I take an internship there (even though if I really wanted it he could get me it) because the company usually hires a "lower level" of engineers than the top tier (Stanford, Caltech, MIT, Berkeley, Mudd, Cornell, etc) and then went on to say that they target a lot of OSU kids. So I can't see how engineering firms would automatically go "one applicant is from Ohio State... one from MIT... same GPA... it's a toss up!"</p>