<p>I was wondering how important going to a "good" undergrad engieering school is for becoming a better engineer (possible after grad)?</p>
<p>My plan was to go to an in-state school like Virginia Tech since the tuition will be cheap for me... and then go somewhere else like MIT or Stanford for Grad. Is this is a good idea if I can get into other schools like Cornell/UPENN?</p>
<p>It's an excellent idea. The big name places tend to be big named because of their research, not their undergraduate education. I always recommend students consider smaller schools (or even cheaper in state schools) for their undergrad and then go to the "highest ranked" graduate school afterwards. You would still have a top school on your resume but with a lot less debt.</p>
<p>Yea it's a great idea. For example, I'm applying to UPenn early, cause i really wanna go there, but of course I have to worry about what I'm gonna do if I don't get in. I'm looking at schools like Cornell and and Duke, but there is an ectremely good chance I'll end up at Rutgers (I live in Jersey). It's a full ride and its a good education, and as long as I get good grades, I can go to a good grad school. Besides, your grad school education is the important one, so if you have to, save your cash for that.</p>
<p>Sigh.</p>
<p>A few things here:
1. Graduate school in science and engineering is frequently free -- actually, you often get paid a stipend. So if you want to save your money, fine, save your money, but don't save it "for" grad school.
2. Admissions to top graduate programs are extremely competitive, and a good GPA isn't enough to get you in. This</a> file, a transcript of a talk given by a CMU prof, discusses what's needed to get into a top technical graduate program. GPA <<<< research experience.
3. You are not entitled to admission to a top graduate program, no matter who you are. I really dislike the idea of going into your undergrad years assuming you can just waltz into a top-ranked graduate program. The vast majority of people can't. People who go to highly-ranked programs for undergrad find themselves in a waltzing situation more often than people who don't.</p>
<p>Molliebatmit,</p>
<pre><code> I totally agree with you on point #1. On #2, I would say that GPA is probably the most important factor in getting in graduate school. Why? Because you will need a certain GPA no matter what. Research experience is important, but it alone will not get you in without a good GPA.
Often times it is better to stand out in a smaller school than to go a better school and be middle of the pack. Our top student last year got into every graduate school he applied to (all in top 20) and he did that by being at the top of his class. And he didn't have any research experience.
If someone is applying for a direct PhD program or is applying for a PhD program after a Master's, than undergraduate/graduate research is very important.
</code></pre>
<p>I guess I am thinking more of PhD programs than masters programs, which would probably focus more on undergraduate GPA.</p>
<p>I'm in a similar situation. I am currently a sophmore attending the University of Michigan-Dearborn on a full ride studying electrical and computer engineering. I have the opportunity to transfer to Michigan's Ann Arbor campus in the winter. The education may be better, but it's a jump from paying nothing to around 20k a year. </p>
<p>I plan on going for my master's degree (most likely at Ann Arbor) right after I finish up undergrad school either way. So I figure it might make more sense to stay at Dearborn to save some money. Plus as a top student at a less-renown school I imagine one would get more attention from professors, thus possibly opening up more research opportunities than would have been available at a top-ranked school where such a student would be middle of the pack.</p>
<p>Yes, I think it would be crazy to transfer to AA. I bet most faculty there would say the same thing.</p>
<p>Virginia Tech is a very good school. It's certainly one of the top 10 engineering schools in the US. In some parts of the country (namely, the South), it's seen as right up there with Georgia Tech and MIT. </p>
<p>Blacksburg can be boring, but the weather there is pretty good. Beautiful, too.</p>
<p>virginia tech sucks, dont lie to yourself</p>
<p>listen to the guy who's from virginia.</p>
<p>Nothing wrong with Va Tech. Good engineering school in a nice area.</p>
<p>My son-in-law is a graduate student at VA Tech. He did undergrad engineering at tech in seven semesters, and is now getting paid to get his PhD and his MBA. He's in his early 20s, and the world is his oyster.</p>
<p>I guess VT is not really in the top ten, but I think these rankings are for the birds. MBAs are a bit more differentiated, but a PhD is a PhD. </p>
<p>As for Blacksburg, it's not actually a tourist mecca. But, they have some pretty exciting Saturdays in the fall (we're talking football, of course). In general, it's rural Virginia--four hours from the big cities. You won't be attending the opera, but there are cultural events. And, of course, there's always NASCAR!</p>
<p>
[quote]
but a PhD is a PhD.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It would be nice if that were true, but even if we want to believe it, a lot of third parties won't. In particular, the world of academia doesn't believe that all Phd's are created equal. It's hard to land a tenure-track assistant prof position, especially at a top university, if you don't have a top-ranked PhD. What percentage of profs at Harvard got their doctorates from no-name schools? I don't know either, but I'm going to go with "0%" and I'm fairly sure I'm going to be pretty close to the mark. Many employers prefer to recruit PhD's from the higher ranked schools. On the Apprentice 4, Donald Trump constantly emphasized winner Randal Pinkett's academic credentials, especially his connection to MIT (where he got his SM, MBA and PhD). If Pinkett had gotten his PhD from a no-name school, I have a feeling that the Donald would have chosen not to mention it. </p>
<p>The point is, whether we like it or not, school brand names matter. Brand names don't lose their power just because we're talking about the PhD. If anything, it enhances it. Let's face it. The guy with an engineering PhD from MIT is going to be more marketable than a guy with an engineering PhD from a no-name school. </p>
<p>That doesn't mean that I think that Virginia Tech is a no-name school. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that all PhD's are not created equal.</p>
<p>Trump as an example of anything?? That's not good. There is plenty of demand for the few engineering PhD's that graduate each year-eapecially if they are native English speakers. One could get a very decent job out of Va Tech.</p>
<p>Hey, like it or not, Trump has a TV show, so whether you think he's right or wrong, what he says influences people's perceptions. His constant touting of Randal Pinkett's MIT background only served to enhance the mystique of MIT. </p>
<p>If Virginia Tech doesn't like it, then Virginia Tech ought to get a celebrity to constantly tout the virtues of Virginia Tech. And no, I don't mean Michael Vick. You have to be touting Virginia Tech's academics, not its football team.</p>
<p>Nobody's saying that you can't get a very decent job out of Virginia Tech. The question is, could you get an even better one coming out of MIT. Or Stanford. Or put another way, how many MIT/Stanford students would rather be at Virginia Tech but didn't get in, as opposed to Virginia Tech students who would rather be at MIT/Stanford? I think it's fairly safe to say that there are more people in the former category than in the latter. </p>
<p>Look, that's not to say that Virginia Tech is a bad school. However, the truth is, MIT and Stanford are better. They're more selective and they have more resources. Employers know that. That's why MIT and Stanford have such strong brand names. If Virginia Tech doesn't like that, then it needs to develop a strong brand name too, which means that it needs to be just as selective as MIT/Stanford, it needs to improve its academic programs, and it needs to market itself. Then it will get the #1 engineering ranking, and people will be happily turning down MIT/Stanford to go to VaTech.</p>
<p>So if research experience is more important than your GPA for grad school, how would you go about getting good research experience if your college isn't known for research? My school goes by the saying "learn by doing"...so I'm pretty sure there aren't many research opportunities.</p>
<p>Sakky is right about the PhDs. If you choose any top department and look at where their faculty got their PhDs, the majority of them (and sometimes vast majority) will have gotten their PhDs from the top 3-5 programs. For example, the majority of EE faculty at the top 15 departments got their PhDs from 4 places: MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, and Caltech.</p>
<p>Likewise, the top departments draw their grad students primarily from top undergraduate programs. For example, out of the 100 or so American Stanford EE students in my class, the majority of them came from well-known programs, including 10 from UIUC alone. You might have a couple of guys from a UC Davis or a Cal State, but those are the rare exceptions and those people were the #1 student in their programs. Don't assume that undergrad institution counts for nothing, and that everyone who wants to can just waltz into a top graduate program. It just doesn't work that way. I would argue that if you're planning to go to grad school instead of work in industry, your undergrad institution matters more. After all, sakky has posted stats before that even Montana Tech grads start out making $50k. Secondly, not all undergrad programs are created equal. I see the MIT, Berkeley, Caltech, and UIUC grads doing quite well in their graduate classes, while the people from programs like UCLA and UVa are struggling to keep up because they're not used to the workload and competition, and these are certainly not no-name programs, either!</p>
<p>I would say a good GPA is more important than research for getting into graduate school, at least on the Master's level. This is because you will likely need to get a 3.5 or better to get into good graduate school whereas the research experience is not as much of a requirement. We had a student get accepted to UIUC, Purdue and Stanford for graduate school but he did not have any undergraduate research experience. He did have an excellent GPA though.</p>
<p>Alexk330, ask your professors if there are any research opportunities. I teach at a school that is focused on teaching students but we still do undergraduate research projects with students who are interested.</p>
<p>the joke is....the girl in the final...Rebecca sat their all quiet during the finals when she had a degee (even if its undergrad) from the University of Chicago. Randal went to Rutgers for his undergrad, and that obviously didn't stop him from getting 3 degrees from MIT.</p>