<p>GA tech is ranked top 4 for best grad schools in usnews. Surely it's as good as UMAA and or UIUC?</p>
<p>
[quote]
i just heard analysts get treated like trash and have a miserable workload...that's all. I also heard it's hard to get promoted to any associate and that not that many make it to that level.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>True, and I never said that being an analyst was for everyone. </p>
<p>However, the truth is, all of these 'prestige' career paths involve miserable workloads and are probably going to treat you like garbage. For example, Silicon Valley startup tech companies are infamous for their workloads to the point that engineers sometimes sleep in their office and literally won't leave the office for many days. Microsoft engineers work like dogs too. Consider this quote from Vault.</p>
<p>"Microsoft employees had better appreciate their lovely Redmond campus; they certainly spend enough time there. "Programmers work about 80 hours a week," we hear. But this doesn't mean that there is a consistent grind, week in, week out - like in so many other ways, schedules at Microsoft often resemble college. "Work hours vary based on where we are in a project cycle - it is a lot like being in school - you slack off after finals and at the beginning of the semester and work extra hard right before finals." Insiders cite the flexible hours as a plus, but with a wink and a laugh: "There's a joke around here that goes, 'There are no set hours at Microsoft, you can work any 12 hours of the day you want,'" one insider tells us. Such long hours are "not mandatory," we hear, "but generally this is what you'll have to do, not only to get your job done but also time you'll need to obtain additional skills to advance your career." While most employees work at Microsoft because they genuinely enjoy doing their jobs, the long hours can affect them. "You have to actively manage your time to make sure you keep a good balance in your life," remarks one employee. Another says, "Make sure you get your downtime." "</p>
<p>Or consider this article about the lack of sleep often suffered by startup tech workers.</p>
<p>The same thing is true at other engineering companies. For example, I know that engineers at General Electric who are put on the fast track to management are often times expected to work 60-80 hour weeks. </p>
<p>The point is, working hard and not being treated well are all par for the course when you're talking about jobs like this. Sure, you can get a much easier engineering job that involves light hours and a high quality of life, i.e. working for the government or for a slow-moving company. But the truth is, if you do that, you probably won't advance as quickly, as these companies tend to promote more on seniority rather than merit, there aren't that many promotion opportunities anyway, and the prestige of the company will not be as strong. Let's face it. It's prestigious to have Google or Yahoo or Microsoft on your resume. But you don't get anything for free - you have to pay for it through your sweat and blood.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Stanford and Harvard both have hugh grade inflation!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You say that like that's a bad thing. I would argue that , grade inflation, coupled with high admissions standards, is actually a good thing. Grade inflation makes the graduatees of the school more competitive in getting into professional school (especially law and med school) as well as in getting jobs and scholarships. Let's face it. It's easier to get a Rhodes Scholarship coming out Harvard than it is coming out of MIT, because the easier Harvard grading makes you look better. Yes, some MIT people have won the Rhodes, but it's easier to win it at Harvard. Fair or not fair, that's the reality of the situation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
GA tech is ranked top 4 for best grad schools in usnews. Surely it's as good as UMAA and or UIUC
[quote]
</p>
<p>Depends on which engineering field. In a field like industrial engineering, they are darn good. Of course it helps immensely that Georgia Tech is near the largest shipping company in the world (UPS) and industrial engineering is basically optimizations of operations and supply-chains, which is a core competency of UPS, so lots of Georgia Tech industrial engineers come from and go back to working at UPS. It also helps immensely that several high-profile engineering schools, most notably MIT and Caltech, don't have industrial engineering as a separate discipline (MIT subsumes it into its Civil Engineering department and I don't think Caltech has it at all).</p>
<p>I heard GA Tech has terrible teaching methods, i have 3 friends that go there. </p>
<p>And yes, hugh grade inflation is good for the students that go to the schools that inflate. Northwestern and MIT curve down....so people take summer classes at Harvard and such to get better grades. "Its really kinda sad.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Northwestern... curve down
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know about that.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/northwestern.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gradeinflation.com/northwestern.html</a>
<a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/harvard.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gradeinflation.com/harvard.html</a></p>
<p>Seems pretty similar to me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Northwestern and MIT curve down
[/quote]
You're kidding right? They give 46% A's and have an average GPA of 3.4. The College of Arts & Sciences gives out 5/6 A's and B's.</p>
<p>To me, the more interesting question is not why there is grade inflation from school to school (although that IS a very interesting question), but rather, even more interestingly, why is it that there is grade inflation WITHIN schools, and in particular, why is it that engineering courses invariably seem to have lower grades than other courses. Of all the schools that comprise the Northwestern data indicates that the school with the lowest average grades is, to no surprise, the McCormick engineering school. Why is that?</p>
<p>Sorry, I should've specified the college of enginerring at NU curves down, my sister got screwed multiple times becasue of it.</p>
<p>Even the NU college of engineering has an average GPA of 3.2. I still think that's pretty good. I'm fairly certain that the engineers at MIT and Caltech wouldn't mind having their grades curved to a 3.2.</p>
<p>An average Engineering GPA of 3.2 may be lower than the other Schools at Northwestern, but it's still curved up relative to other universities where the typical average is 2.8 to 3.0.</p>