<p>Some people on this thread are very cocky. Whats the point of bringing down other schools anyways? Get a life, people.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that MIT would have higher caliber students compared to a "lesser" school and they may go on to do great things. However, an engineering grad from any of those top 25 schools (including Harvey Mudd) will be in great demand.</p>
<p>Bigger companies (such as large energy and engineering firms) look at market rate pay conditions for an engineering grad out of college. All other things being equal, they will likely offer similar compensation packages to the graduate of MIT and OSU. If it comes down to choosing a candidate, the one who will be hired will be the best fit for the company. For sake of argument, say the MIT grad is a super brain, but has extremely poor people/communication skills and the OSU grad has fantastic grades but much better people/communication skills...who would you hire?</p>
<p>That last one is a trick question: Engineers dont have communication skills.</p>
<p>Anyways...the truth is engineers from basically anywhere are capable of getting high jobs. Its more how much effort you put in than where you go. Lots of research makes you awesome anywhere. The problem is (or at least what I think), the 'lower' your school typically the less fun you have when it comes to maxing your effort. College is just more enjoyable at those places. I can do it at Mudd and still have a lot of fun hanging out with people and even doing sets with them. But at Cal-R I had to take night classes if I wanted to get the education that I wanted, and ended up not being available for 'hanging out' 4 days a week, which sucked cuz 2 of the remaining 3 were when all of the people went home on the weekends. </p>
<p>Of course which college you go to has other implications as well, but this statement assign fates based on which college you go to.</p>
<p>^ Haha...The most successful engineers do have great communication skills. Don't underestimate its power in the workforce.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And then you are comparing the remaining 20% to only the 50% mark at Stanford.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think that's the case, really; you're assuming quite a bit.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But that isn't the case. Why in the world do you think that the engineering students at Stanford are "smarter" than those at Berkeley? Really, you should know that Berkeley's engineering program is very difficult to get into, so the students are going to be extremely intelligent (and even the non-engineering students at Berkeley are generally very intelligent).</p>
<p>Ask yourself this: if school X has smarter students in engineering than school Y, then don't you think that those students at school X would be paid more after graduation, especially since school X is considered "better"? Look at some of the average starting salaries in 2006 for engineering grads at Berkeley and Stanford:</p>
<p>Electrical -
Berkeley: $67,570
Stanford: $64,500</p>
<p>Mechanical -
Berkeley: $57,522
Stanford: $58,000</p>
<p>Computer science -
Berkeley: $76,929
Stanford: $71,250</p>
<p>(The other BS degrees aren't available for Stanford.)</p>
<p>As you can see, they're about the same -- hell, Berkeley's even a bit higher in some cases (though I think the differences are negligible). The students get paid similarly because they're of the same caliber -- so discounting Berkeley as a top-4 engineering school (or as being inferior to Stanford in this regard) for not being "as" selective overall is nonsensical.</p>
<p>Service Academies anywhere?</p>
<p>Better check the rankings folks, they're not just LAC's.</p>
<p>^ I agree with you...Thank you for the service to this great country.</p>
<p>Judging how good an engineer by how much money he or she makes is the type of thing I tried to avoid earlier. Such things are also subject to networking and disregard the students who go onto grad school. Speaking of which, do those figures count the 4+1 students at Stanford, which I hear is done quite often? I wouldnt pay attention to those numbers either way but those are just some things I think anyone who views them would need to consider.*</p>
<p>But that isn't the case. Why in the world do you think that the engineering students at Stanford are "smarter" than those at Berkeley? Really, you should know that Berkeley's engineering program is very difficult to get into, so the students are going to be extremely intelligent*</p>
<p>As difficult as Cal EECS is to get into, its still below general Stanford admissions. I know ppl who have gotten into EECS who wouldnt/didnt stand a hell's chance at getting into Stanford. Perhaps I see all to often the ppl that go to Cal for engineering be the type that will take 6-10 APs in highschool to look rigorous and adventurous, but score between 1 and 3 on every exam because they actually cared little to nothing about the subject matter (ie hollow learners). However I will admit that Stanford has the drawback of applying URM to a degree greater than Cal. Hmm I really wish you could whip out some raw numbers more applicable to this than which undergrads that go into industry make more money. </p>
<p>However that statement was not aimed at just the Cal engineers, but rather the student body as whole, unless you view engineers as your only source of friends and company of all 4 years of college. Of course that is not important to a variety of ppl, at which case I wouldnt mind saying they are equal, but after some ****ty ex-girlfriends and bad friends I simply feel much more comfortable in smart-ppl environments. and before that gets taken out of context, i should not that yes, cal students are smart, but a majority of them arent quite at the achievement level of Stanford boys (Yuxi doesnt count. er was that his name? I cant remember. the ChemE + something double major with a 3.9x)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Judging how good an engineer by how much money he or she makes is the type of thing I tried to avoid earlier.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm simply saying: it makes sense that an engineering school that has "smarter" students will be more likely to graduate students that have a higher pay.</p>
<p>
[quote]
do those figures count the 4+1 students at Stanford, which I hear is done quite often?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In computer science, yes, that's common, though it's not quite enough to skew the comparison. (Besides, Berkeley has the same program, though it has a slightly different aim.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
As difficult as Cal EECS is to get into, its still below general Stanford admissions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know ppl who have gotten into EECS who wouldnt/didnt stand a hell's chance at getting into Stanford.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I know people who've gotten into Stanford who usually wouldn't stand a hell's chance of getting in. See, I can uselessly state anecdotal evidence, too. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps I see all to often the ppl that go to Cal for engineering be the type that will take 6-10 APs in highschool to look rigorous and adventurous, but score between 1 and 3 on every exam because they actually cared little to nothing about the subject matter (ie hollow learners).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I really, really think this is far from reality. I have seen plenty of Cal engineers who took 10+ AP classes and scored all 4s and 5s. To be honest, at a top school with a top-notch engineering department, this is going to be closer to reality. (And in fact, on the Berkeley app, there's a place to put AP scores; there is no such place on the Stanford app, I don't think.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
i should not that yes, cal students are smart, but a majority of them arent quite at the achievement level of Stanford boys
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why do you say this? And will this "achievement level" make any difference whatsoever? Answer me this: the University of Chicago is not nearly as difficult to get into as Stanford. Would you say it does not have an intellectual environment because its students are not quite at the "achievement level" of Stanford students? Really, you're reaching for vague differences and you have no way to back them up.</p>
<p>I'll say again: once you reach a certain point in colleges, the intelligence of the students plateaus and any distinction you try to make is going to be at best arbitrary, at worst nonexistent. And the students of two top engineering schools? No, there isn't enough difference there to prevent Cal from being considered a tippy-top engineering school. (Apparently, most others think this too.)</p>
<p>*See, I can uselessly state anecdotal evidence, too. *</p>
<p>Anecdotal evidence turns into data if you get enough of it. By I know people, I know ~15 or who have gotten into Cal EECS, and only 2-3 of them were beyond the AP situation I mentioned earlier.
<a href="And%20in%20fact,%20on%20the%20Berkeley%20app,%20there's%20a%20place%20to%20put%20AP%20scores;%20there%20is%20no%20such%20place%20on%20the%20Stanford%20app,%20I%20don't%20think.">I</a>*</p>
<p>That is because your high school prints your AP exam scores on your transcript.</p>
<p>I really, really think this is far from reality. I have seen plenty of Cal engineers who took 10+ AP classes and scored all 4s and 5s. To be honest, at a top school with a top-notch engineering department, this is going to be closer to reality. (And in fact, on the Berkeley app, there's a place to put AP scores; there is no such place on the Stanford app, I don't think.)</p>
<p>The problem with this statement is that you are remembering a number of people off of your head who stood out under an overwhelmingly larger number of people. (most of whom though you might not have known anything about.)
There is going to be a lot of very achieved people at Cal, dont get me wrong, but they are only a small portion of a very large place. </p>
<p>*once you reach a certain point in colleges, the intelligence of the students plateaus and any distinction you try to make is going to be at best arbitrary, at worst nonexistent. And the students of two top engineering schools? *</p>
<p>Yes intelligence plateaus, however, the ridiculously large instate 'i can sign up for APs' Cal student population does tone the place down a bit, where it still has a large degree of separation. There are Stanford caliber student at Cal no doubt, and especially in the engineering department where the differences will be minimalized. But, the difference is still there. </p>
<p>Of course the idea of looking such trivial things might seem a bit boggling. I merely used this as an example of the diff some time back in the argument, when i ended the phrase indicating there were other things on my mind but didnt feel like listing them (at least i meant too, i dont feel like going back and checking if i did. bleh. faculty/student ratios are immediately what come to mind (smaller classrooms = awesome), but i digress to what my point some time back was.</p>
<p>No, there isn't enough difference there to prevent Cal from being considered a tippy-top engineering school. (Apparently, most others think this too.)*</p>
<p>The thing was though that I couldnt make an argument for it being the single best engineering program in the country, which could easily be done for MIT/Caltech/Mudd. Then I chose to add Stanford because I felt it presented an alternative to the styles of the previous ones, which just arent right for some people. I added it over Cal which I regarded as similar, but falling behind slightly in a couple of fields (which have already been discussed). Then I randomly decided to draw the line there, which maybe I shouldnt have, but then again I did and thats fine with me. ******Its not like my 1.5 list was a bunch of scrub schools right? ******</p>
<p>keep in mind there are statments such as:*
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>Should I have dropped stanford to tier 1.25 and upped Cal to the same? I really didnt think having so many categories was necessary.</p>
<p>
[quote]
By I know people, I know ~15 or who have gotten into Cal EECS, and only 2-3 of them were beyond the AP situation I mentioned earlier.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I know many more who were beyond that AP situation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That is because your high school prints your AP exam scores on your transcript.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Some do; some don't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The problem with this statement is that you are remembering a number of people off of your head who stood out under an overwhelmingly larger number of people.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I could say the same for you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is going to be a lot of very achieved people at Cal, dont get me wrong, but they are only a small portion of a very large place.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We'll agree to disagree.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But, the difference is still there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In reality, the difference is unnoticeable and thus negligible.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The thing was though that I couldnt make an argument for it being the single best engineering program in the country, which could easily be done for MIT/Caltech/Mudd.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It staggers me that you would put Caltech and not Stanford; and that you would omit Rose-Hulman yet add Mudd. Oh, and:</p>
<p><a href="smaller%20classrooms%20=%20awesome">quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>% classes under 20:
MIT: 61%
Berkeley: 61%</p>
<p>% classes over 50:
MIT: 14%
Berkeley: 14%</p>
<p>Funny, no?</p>
<p>
[quote]
keep in mind there are statments such as:
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Have we not learned that anecdotal evidence is not exactly valid? (I know for a fact -- from my own personal experience -- that problem sets at Berkeley kick just about everyone's butt at one time or another [if not most of the time]; you can get plenty of attention from professors if you even try, by going to the office hours, getting involved in engineering research, etc; and many of the living accommodations at Berkeley are fantastic.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Should I have dropped stanford to tier 1.25 and upped Cal to the same?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I think it's safe to put them in the same tier. To say that Cal's engineering students are not "as smart" as Stanford's and thus Cal's engineering isn't on par with Stanford's is simply wrong.</p>
<p>I notice you're a student at Mudd -- perhaps that's why you find it to be top-tier? Sadly, so few would agree that Mudd is the same quality as MIT (and I believe Mudd only confers general engineering degrees? Correct me if I'm wrong). But there you're mixing LACs and research universities. For the former, Mudd and Rose-Hulman are tops; for the latter, MIT, Stanford, and Berkeley are tops; and Caltech fits into both.</p>
<p>I could say the same for you.</p>
<p>I know the denominator of your ratio.
*
It staggers me that you would put Caltech and not Stanford; and that you would omit Rose-Hulman yet add Mudd. *</p>
<p>If you havent figured it out by now, I have different criteria than you. First and foremost comes the challenge of the curriculum and how much get shoved down your threat, of which those 3 are in a league of their own. Then it came to the other things like student body and whatnot, which is why those things come up. Sure you can try and overplay the values of prestige and networking, but I simply am just a fan of what path gives you the most indepth education. </p>
<p>So when I didn't immediately add Stanford to the list it was because I had to think beyond the right-away obvious.</p>
<p>No, I think it's safe to put them in the same tier. To say that Cal's engineering students are not "as smart" as Stanford's and thus Cal's engineering isn't on par with Stanford's is simply wrong.</p>
<p>So then are we agreeing or disagreeing? I said moving Cal and Stanford into a Tier 1.25 category and yet u began with 'no.' just a little confusing. But regardless, I never attempted to make that argument at least in that form. I said I put Stanford for reasons such as xxxxx, not just cuz of xxxxx alone. If you need a reminder of the other things just look at the USNEWS data on overall university rankings. Mind you I was thinking along the lines, 'if I had to pick one, it would have to be _______, and I went with Stanford. With this new tier 1.25 for 2 schools it solves that though. =)</p>
<p>* Sadly, so few would agree that Mudd is the same quality as MIT *
Well feel free to include the opinions of people in low-level engineering jobs and layman places who have barely even heard of Mudd. I on the other hand am fine knowing that the name of my school matters where it actually counts. </p>
<p>Though I wonder then with a statement like that you attempted this:
*
% classes under 20:
MIT: 61%
Berkeley: 61%</p>
<p>% classes over 50:
MIT: 14%
Berkeley: 14%*</p>
<p>just seems contradictory thats all. </p>
<p>But there you're mixing LACs and research universities. For the former, Mudd and Rose-Hulman are tops; for the latter, MIT, Stanford, and Berkeley are tops; and Caltech fits into both.</p>
<p>Okay now here we are talking about the USNEWS purely peer assessment rankings, which were discussed to hell earlier in the discussion. Personally I think the idea of relying on raw peer assessment is crap but we can beg to differ. </p>
<p>oh and mudd offers one type of engineering degree, however you specialize however well u want, especially in CLINIC. we just make sure u know enough to do any field you want.</p>
<p>
[quote]
First and foremost comes the challenge of the curriculum and how much get shoved down your threat, of which those 3 are in a league of their own.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How are you in a position to make such a statement? Have you taken math, science and engineering courses at all schools (Stanford, CIT, Cal and Mudd) to make a direct comparison?</p>
<p>taken full courses? no</p>
<p>but via the magic of tubes you are able to view exams and whatnot online, on websites (especially Caltech) and through friends at Cal. of course these are only your basic core classes (calc,lin al,mv,various physics, etc) that I have knowledge of, so I'll admit my personal experience is lacking in the realm of upper division engineering courses. </p>
<p>Are you trying to imply though that Cal is just as rigorous as Caltech and Harvey Mudd?
to make a comparison, </p>
<p>how many courses do you take per semester?
how many of your finals are unlimited time, open book, take home exams? or maybe even some mix of these?
is research mandated for you to graduate?</p>
<p>
[quote]
taken full courses? no
[/quote]
then ****</p>
<p>
[quote]
but via the magic of tubes you are able to view exams and whatnot online, on websites (especially Caltech) and through friends at Cal.
[/quote]
Pulling some course syllabus or exam off the internet to make a judgement about the quality and rigor of a program is very shortsighted.</p>
<p>
[quote]
how many courses do you take per semester?
[/quote]
At Cal, I believe the average is 5 courses per semester...but there is a personal preference for each student so you will have variability.</p>
<p>
[quote]
how many of your finals are unlimited time, open book, take home exams? or maybe even some mix of these?
[/quote]
I can only speak of my experience during my academic career at Cal. All finals were 3 hours, no take home, maybe some open note/book for advanced courses. Calculators are not allowed for math courses.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but via the magic of tubes
[/quote]
If Seiken is referring to cathode ray tubes, they must have some very old equipment at Mudd.</p>
<p>Pulling some course syllabus or exam off the internet to make a judgement about the quality and rigor of a program is very shortsighted.</p>
<p>Perhaps..though I dont think judging how difficult a class is by the final exam is too bad, unless its like 95% to an A or something of that nature.</p>
<p>*
At Cal, I believe the average is 5 courses per semester...but there is a personal preference for each student so you will have variability.*</p>
<p>And thats a double major, which seems to avg around 5 (and look at that last semester lol) , so i would assume a single major would have to do less, possibly in the realm of 4 - 4.2 each? </p>
<p>Calculators are not allowed for math courses.</p>
<p>DAMN RIGHT!</p>
<p>*If Seiken is referring to cathode ray tubes, they must have some very old equipment at Mudd.
*
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE%5B/url%5D">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE</a></p>
<p>Seiken, yes, you're right it likely does average 4 courses per semester. However, General Chemistry is 4 units as well as Math and Physics. Organic Chemistry is 5 units - so total unit load averages about 15-17 units per semester.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If Seiken is referring to cathode ray tubes
[/quote]
I know what you meant...I was just teasing you. ;)</p>
<p>Seiken, you seem to have a lot of time on your hands to post to this message board. Perhaps Mudd isn't so academically challenging as you claim it is...:D</p>
<p>I was thinking the exact same thing when I was throwing these together, but it seems like the posters of this thread seem to be active right when I wake up (normally snooze button-spam time) or when I am trying to look for an excuse not to start homework.
coincidently these past 3 days have been the first days that I havent showed at least once per day since I got to MUdd, I blame this thread as the shower was just jacked again while I was typing this.....</p>
<p>" Sadly, so few would agree that Mudd is the same quality as MIT (and I believe Mudd only confers general engineering degrees?"</p>
<p>ooOoo. kyledavid, you better be careful.</p>
<p>yes, it is true that the layman would say MIT > HMC. however, if you are in "the know" you'd find this to not be necessarily true.</p>
<p>don't ignore indicators and don't play this "untouchables" game. (look at PhD %, MCM/ICM, Putnum, job placement.) you are misinformed (or not informed) and are responding to seiken on prejudice.</p>
<p>so, yes, PM me if you want to know what caliber mudd students really are. i defend my school only because i see at necessary to shield a sapling of a mighty redwood.</p>