I would talk to Tulane admissions and see which classes will actually be accepted. I believe there is a limit of dual enrollment classes that can be accepted. There is also something on the graduation audit about completing minimum of 66 hours above the 1000 level at Tulane. I don’t know how any of this fits into the specific program. I just know from experience that getting Tulane to accept credit from other schools can be difficult.
I have to admit, I see @ClarinetDad16’s logic.
My concern with 3+2 programs is that they seem a little too “neither fish nor foul” - ish for my risk meter. Of course they can work well for some students though.
Well of course the 3+2 is not designed for students that want only a CE, EE or ME degree from the start. It says as plain as day that it is a DUAL DEGREE PROGRAM. That was so obvious no one needed to say that. How foolish do you think people are that they would choose a school from the start that doesn’t even have their ONLY intended major? Yeesh. That was NEVER the discussion. You were apparently having your own conversation. No wonder it made no sense.
It is for students like the ones being discussed here that either want a 5 year path to two degrees or start out at Tulane as physics majors and decide they want to add on the engineering degree. I don’t think Tulane had any illusions or intentions that students that wanted to get the normal CE ME or EE degrees would pick Tulane because of this program. It’s an option for a very particular subset of students.
@fallenchemist - I wish I, myself, had known of Tulane as a high school student! Would have loved it! Took 6 years of French between high school and college, and love anything with a French flair or vibe. Still do!
I have to disagree, there is no logic in it because he was apparently operating under the assumption that the student chose Tulane wanting one of those three engineering degrees and this was some kind of risky path to get there. People that choose Tulane and this program do so because they like the idea of two degrees. It is not “neither fish nor fowl”, to use your phrase, it is both fish and fowl. Hence the two degrees.
FYI, the French department at Tulane is considered one of the strongest.
Well, I can only answer from my own perspective having just run the college admissions gamut with our own son, and for me the 3+2 would feel too risky. Now if I had a student who wasn’t as sure what he/she wanted (even in the STEM areas), and had a real or possible interest in liberal arts combined with STEM - I’d probably consider it less of a risk.
My perspective could be completely wrong for another family/student though. Tulane has much to offer and it may work out great.
Not surprised about the French program! 
I still don’t understand the use of the word risky. It is a program in and of itself, and like a lot of programs people can get denied or flushed out. It’s a choice people make to go for it. But to say it is risky only makes sense if your premise from the start is that your “real” goal is a CE, ME or EE degree and for some reason you have chosen this circuitous path to get there. That just isn’t the case.
The real goal, if one chooses this program, is to get both a physics degree and one of those engineering degrees, and this is a choice of a path to do it in 5 years instead of 6 or 7, which is how long it would take if you spent 4 years getting the one degree (either engineering or physics) at one school and then decided you wanted to get the other degree at another, or even at the same school if you hadn’t planned ahead.
So the liberal arts thing is nice, but again is irrelevant to this discussion. It has to be that the student wants to study both physics and engineering, and so the program makes sense for them. Under the premise ClarinetDad16 was apparently operating, then he would be right. If you only wanted a CE, ME or EE degree, this path would be risky and foolish. But who would do that?? None of us were ever talking about something like that. The assumption from the start for anyone asking about this program is that their goal is the dual degrees, not that their goal is really only the engineering degree in question.
Let me use an example from another program. Tulane has a program called the Altman, wherein a student earns two Bachelor’s degrees in 4 years, a BA from the school of Liberal Arts and a BSM from the business school. So like the 3+2 program we are discussing, the student could instead choose to earn those degrees separately. But instead they choose to join a very intensive program where they get both degrees in 4 years. Given the intensity of the program, is it riskier than the other path? Sure, in that sense it is, but their goal wasn’t to just get a BA in a liberal arts major or a BSM in a business major, but to do both. So they chose this path to do it The 3+2 is far less risky in that sense since the time compression is not nearly so intense, but it has some similarities in that broad way.
But just like doing the Altman would make zero sense if you only wanted one degree or the other, or to go back to your liberal arts example in conjunction with another degree, if they wanted some degree other than the one the program is designed to accomplish, similarly it would make zero sense to even talk about this 3+2 if the goal isn’t both a degree in physics and a degree in CE, ME or EE. It just happens to have the wrinkle that it is at two different schools, and grew organically out of Tulane discontinuing those particular majors. In theory, there is no reason Tulane couldn’t offer a similar program all at Tulane where the engineering major was one that Tulane offers, if it makes any sense to do that.
You make good points @fallenchemist.
That being said, in my ideal world my kid would go to a college that has most of the potential majors he might ultimately want to pursue. I think my son will stick in his major, but what if he wants to change? If he gets in a 3 + 2 track, does that pin him down excessively to a certain path, or does it delay him rolling forward in a different major but with the same basic gen-eds?
Simplistically speaking I don’t want there to be any more contingencies once we get him on the college track. But that could be wishful thinking on my part! Anyway, that’s where I would feel the risk factor the most.
ETA: sorry for the liberal arts tangent . . . it’s how I tend to think of Tulane which is probably an incomplete picture.
@blountwil2 @Wien2NC What a shame. It was a great ENG school when I was there. Small but great professors. I had assumed they recovered fully, since Tulane has become a very popular school again recently. There are small LAC in the northeast that have Mech E, can’t be all that expensive to run a minimal program. Union College in NY, Swarthmore, and others. Hopefully they will rebuild eventually.
At this time there are no plans to add those back, while CS was in the plans almost from the start. I think the key phrase is “minimal program”. Tulane is a research university, not an LAC, and therefore all the profs are expected to do exactly that, research. That is where the expense comes in. I read recently that when Duke brought in a hot professor in one of the sciences (I forget which) they had poached from another big name school like UCLA or some such place, they spent a few million just renovating labs to their specifications. Then you add the big salary and other costs on top of that. Tulane has done similar things in some cases, although I think on a smaller scale. I do know that for CS they installed a supercomputer that put them on the map (top 200) for capacity and speed. This helped attract highly qualified new faculty. So a minimal program is not really an option.
Nonetheless, I agree it is a shame in some ways, and understand the sentiment completely. The decision to end those majors certainly cost the school with some people who, like yourself, graduated with one of those degrees. They were plenty mad for a while, and some still are. Of course, that may pale in comparison to the decision to end the existence of Newcomb College as a separate entity. That merited a lawsuit that got to the Louisiana Supreme Court. Tulane won.
I understand what you mean. Choices, choices choices!! Schools like Tulane, Vandy, Duke, Chicago, etc. have them in droves and kids get exposed to information and opportunities they often had no idea even existed when they started. So while I completely agree that a person hopes the school they attend has whatever option their academic path might take them, sometimes it doesn’t and they have to transfer. The research schools like those I listed are more likely to have what the student wants than not. Statistics show that between 50% and 2/3 of students change their major from what they thought it would be when they started. That is nationally at research universities, not just at Tulane. I suspect it is similar at Tulane, although the percentage of double majors there tends to run higher than most schools.
As far as your 3+2 question, there really aren’t that many such programs so it probably isn’t even worth addressing. We have spent a lot of time talking about something that is by far the exception rather than the rule. In fact, much more common is 4+1 where the student stays an extra year and comes out with a masters. This is available in several majors such as Public Health and Accounting, just to give two diverse examples. While merit scholarships don’t carry over to the 5th year, the tuition is usually discounted, sometimes as much as half, so if they wanted a masters anyway it is a less expensive option than going to another school to get it, usually. Of course there are good reasons for attending a different school as well, but that isn’t the point. Most kids, the vast majority in fact, simply get their 4 year degree and move on to the next step, whatever that might be. These other programs only come into play for those that have their sights set on satisfying a goal they have anyway.
No need to apologize for the Liberal Arts turn. You are right in your perceptions, as Tulane is one of the strongest schools in the humanities. While business and STEM are certainly very popular, Tulane tends to attract more humanities majors than most of its peers. So that school at Tulane is quite robust. A lot of people double major at Tulane, and often it is in a humanities field in addition to a science or business.
I think the program is good for those that decide to add engineering while already at Tulane.
I wouldn’t recommend this to prospective students however because of the following reasons:
- You may not actually enjoy majoring in physics
- Your may not meet the GPA requirement.
- Vandy, while a good school, is really not known for engineering. So is it even worth the risk?
- If your GPA is that good, you may as well get a masters degree at places like Berkeley, Stanford, MIT that are much better known in engineering. Some of them may be 1-yr programs.
By the way, the requirement of majoring in physics seems unnecessarily restrictive. Most engineering majors have only 1 year of college physics.
Wouldn’t recommend what??? That makes no sense. They are not “signing up” for anything. Let’s try this again. They come into Tulane majoring in Physics, just like any other student that picks that major. The 3+2 is there as an option for them to go for or not as they please at any time. It isn’t like they come into Tulane committed to it. Shoot, their not even committed to a physics major yet, actually. Now they may very well pick Tulane because they think from the start that they want the option of both majors and like the option of this path to do it. Certainly I agree that it is also extremely valuable to a physics major that gets the engineering bug after starting undergrad, although as you point out they could equally as well do #4 on your list. Isn’t it great to have options?
But if they end up not enjoying physics, that makes them just like half their peers that change majors. So what?? Then the program is moot to them, and your #1 would be the same as if they never had heard of the 3+2 or never had any intention of trying engineering. Remember, they have not signed up for anything in regards to a 3+2 program. I would also point out that it isn’t like it is possible to switch to engineering at most schools these days. So if they end up not liking physics, but think they might want engineering, they are probably looking at a transfer in any case. Although if they don’t like engineering physics, most likely they are dropping the idea of engineering altogether and moving on to something else entirely.
As for #2, that makes no sense either. If that happens, then they don’t do the program and just default to #4 should they choose to stick with a second degree in engineering. Might not be at Stanford or Berkeley, but they can certainly go to some great schools with a 3.4, as an example. The worse their GPA, the fewer options they have. But that has NOTHING to do with the 3+2 program, that would have been true anyway. But not picking Tulane because they are afraid of not making the GPA is a weak excuse. It just means they use a more conventional path.
But how are they worse off than if they picked another school going in as a physics major and the school did not have the option? None, nada, not at all. And if they knew from the start that being an engineering major in CE, ME, or EE was their primary goal and physics was secondary, then none of this discussion ever takes place because Tulane is the wrong school for them. That has been pointed out several times.
And while Vandy has been used as the example almost every time because of the cute nickname, I guess, there is also JHU and they are EXTREMELY well known for engineering. But Vandy is plenty good as an undergraduate option. Remember, they are getting a BS, not a graduate degree.
Again, people are acting like this is a program that you have to sign up for from the start and that if you don’t meet the criteria you are at a dead end. Not remotely true on either point. If you are planning on being a physics major anyway, then this program is simply a bonus option that most other schools don’t have. Maybe none, I have never checked, so I don’t want to make a categorical statement that no other school has something similar. I suspect, in fact, there probably is.
The truly motivated can make this type of program work, but as the administrator of the Holy Cross / Columbia program told me typically 25 to 30 express interest as freshman and typically 3-4 see it through to completion. He did mention that the Holy Cross students usually do very well at Columbia.
That’s certainly true, I am sure. But then, of those 30, 15-20 were going to change their major anyway, if averages hold. So it is hardly a shock that a few more decide that it is just as palatable for them to get the one 4 year degree and stop, or to get that and then go on to grad school for the other. As I said, it is simply an option that is there to be used or not, depending on how well it fits the student. Given its relative rarity of usage, we have certainly spent more time on it than it deserves.
But I do appreciate learning about the Holy Cross/Columbia connection. I am sure there are others. I am not at all surprised the HC students do well. People overestimate the difference in the classroom content of these schools all the time. That would be especially true among the highest achievers who can get a 3.5+ in a major such as physics, or whatever HC’s no doubt similar criteria must be.
Free options are always a great thing, agreed.
I just feel like schools are being disingenuous when they try to recruit students who have an interest in engineering by claiming they have engineering…through a 3+2 program. But then again, if a student isn’t wise enough to take a very close look at the program and what it entails, they probably aren’t meant to be an engineer anyway.
EDIT: To add that if you are a full pay family you are turning a $240,000 BS into a $300,000 BS.
Yeah, at least in Tulane’s case I cannot at all agree about them being disingenuous. They do have engineering: Chem E and Biomedical. It isn’t like they are trumpeting the 3+2 by any stretch of the imagination, they simply list it down on the list of their options. And I don’t know how they could be any clearer from the very first page of the information page that it involves getting the engineering part of the degree from Vandy or JHU. It’s in the freakin’ subtitle on the page about Dual Degrees:
http://www2.tulane.edu/sse/academics/undergrad/dual-degrees.cfm
Or on the page within the Physics department section of the web site:
http://www2.tulane.edu/sse/pep/academics/undergraduate/physics-dual-degree-engineering-program/
I don’t know about you, but to me that is the opposite of deceptive and/or disingenuous.
As far as the cost, naturally that is a factor, just like what school to attend in the first place, whether to attend grad school, law school or med school, etc. That is hardly a factor that is unique to these kinds of programs. I honestly don’t get the seeming disposition by several people to act like these programs anything other than what they are, a means to a very specific end that probably suits, even potentially, something like 0.05% of students out there. And btw, for those trying to portray it in some negative light, I would also point out that Tulane is losing a year of tuition from these students compared to simply not offering it and thus leaving them to finish the 4 year physics degree and then move on. So I would have to say the motivation is the opposite of selfishness and self-interest.
Tulane is certainly an exception. Tulane has an ABET accredited engineering program. Therefore, their engineering claim is completely genuine. Tulane is an amazing and very generous college. My son would definitely be applying if they had mechanical, industrial, or civil. My opinion of 3+2 does not relate to Tulane.
However, my son received a marketing call from Dickinson college several weeks ago. They asked him if he was interested. He asked if Dickinson had engineering. The marketer (a student) replied “yes.” My son agreed to receive an info packet. It’s a 3+2 program. Disingenuous.
To your point about losing a year of tuition when the student transitions. This is true 10% (in the case of Holy Cross and others I’m sure) of the time. The other 90% of the time they enroll a student, who otherwise would NOT have enrolled, who has his/her eye on engineering, attends a school with 3+2, then gives up the thought after the true “cost” sets in.
Cost = all of the aforementioned reasons to avoid such programs.
I stand by my opinion. If you sincerely want to study engineering, attend a school with an ABET accredited program and avoid the “hope” that the 3+2 programs so fully rely upon.
I stand by that opinion as well, when studying engineering is your main goal from the start.
@STEM2017 I agree almost all of the 3+2 engineering programs couple a LAC with an engineering school. That is what many employers desire and consider the best of both worlds. The student earns with a BA in a liberal arts field and then receives a BS in Engineering. That is a very intriguing option for many students.