<p>Alexandre, those number still reflect a SIGNIFICANT difference. When Michigan is as rich per student as the Ivies and as selective, it belongs in the same league. I think that will never happen, regardless of past gains in these areas.</p>
<p>The state of Michigan pays for most of the buildings and provides financial aid to instate students. That is worth a ton of endowment $$$. Say $150 million a year in funding for those items is equal to $3Billion in endowment.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The state of Michigan pays for most of the buildings and provides financial aid to instate students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Too bad we don't live in the United States of Michigan - all of that state funding comes with a cost - namely, independence and an obligation to accept a significant number of in-state students...</p>
<p>
[quote]
The state of Michigan pays for most of the buildings and provides financial aid to instate students. That is worth a ton of endowment $$$. Say $150 million a year in funding for those items is equal to $3Billion in endowment
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, if you want to go down this road, then you have to agree that the fact that the private schools can and do charge more to their students should also be considered part of an 'endowment'. After all, UM doesn't get money from the state of Michigan just for the heck of it - they get it PRECISELY BECAUSE they charge in-state students less. Let's face it. If in-state students were charged the same price as out-of-state students, the state would cut subsidies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You just cant go wrong attending one of the WCUs. So true for the chem. major in particular. After all, Berkeley is number 1 in the world in Chemistry!!!</p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Trust me, you can go pretty wrong in choosing Berkeley. I have seen it happen. Berkeley just doesn't fit well for certain people. I know people who have went to Berkeley who have called it the worst decision of their life.</p>
<p>Principally, Berkeley is a great place if you have a highly aggressive, almost obnoxiously pushy personality. But not everybody is like that. If you're not like that, you may be better off going to a school that is more nurturing. </p>
<p>I tend to judge an undergrad program by how well are its worst students doing. We all know that the best students at Berkeley and elsewhere are going to do quite well. But how well are the not-so-good students doing? The sad truth is that at Berkeley, the students who are not that good are doing quite badly indeed. Berkeley's attitude seems to be that if you're doing well, great, but if you're not, oh well, that's your problem, as there will be another huge batch of students coming in next year. </p>
<p>Things are different when it comes to graduate school. Here I would agree that Berkeley is a great place to go. But for undergrad, while Berkeley's not bad, I would say that there are probably better, more nurturing places you could go to.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley is a great place if you have a highly aggressive, almost obnoxiously pushy personality.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's a great description of our beloved Cal fanatics.</p>
<p>
[quote]
like i said, the graduate dept. ranking is the best indicator of overall dept strengths/resources.</p>
<p>Last time I checked, the same A&S professors teach both grads and undergrads.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But this is not a particular relevant metric for undergrads, for the simple reason that most people will not end up working in a job that has to do with their undergraduate major. Think about it - how many history students actually go on to become professional historians? How many poli-sci students actually become professional political scientists? How many psych majors actually become professional psychologists? Very few. The truth is, most people end up in jobs that are only tangentially related to what they majored in as undergrads. </p>
<p>Hence, if you're not going to end up working in a job that is tightly related to your job anyway, then honestly, what does it matter how strong the department from which you graduated from is?</p>
<p>EXACTLY!!! I don't think people (particularly from foreign countries) really understand this concept.</p>
<p>The three extremely popular things for students at the very top schools are to become lawyers, doctors, and businessmen - these fields do NOT require a specific undergrad major to enter. I would say MOST CC'ers are interested in being one of the three in some way. Thus, I would argue that feeder rates into top profesional programs and just overall stats are much, much more important when judging an undergrad than major rankings.</p>
<p>Of course, for majors such as nursing and more vocational ones, this isn't the case, but for Biz Law and Med it is</p>
<p>I know of a plenty of engineering majors who become hard-working engineers</p>
<p>Undergrad</p>
<p>and graduate</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know of a plenty of engineering majors who become hard-working engineers</p>
<p>Undergrad</p>
<p>and graduate</p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So this gets back to something I said before, Rabban, which is why is it that graduates from a school like Harvey Mudd, which you refused to include in your list of major universities, are able to make such high starting salaries?</p>
<p>The average starting salary of Mudd grads in 2003 was nearly 54k. Note, that's not just engineers (although clearly many Mudd grads are engineers). That's ALL Mudd grads.</p>
<p>"Average salary upon graduation in 2003 was $53,900. "</p>
<p><a href="http://www.hmc.edu/highlights/%5B/url%5D">http://www.hmc.edu/highlights/</a></p>
<p>Compare that with the average starting salaries from Berkeley grads in 2003. The Mudd grads were actually making MORE money than most engineers from Berkeley in 2003. For example, the Berkeley EECS and CS grads made more than 53.9k on average, but the Berkeley ChemE, Civil E, ME, IEOR, MatSci, BioE made less, so overall, they made less. </p>
<p>Keep in mind, again, that is a comparison of ALL of Mudd's grads in 2003 (including the natural science and math graduates) vs. JUST the Berkeley engineers. And Mudd wins. Why, if Mudd is not that good? Why are these employers throwing away money by overpaying these Mudd grads? Are these employers being stupid? </p>
<p>{And like I said, even if they are being stupid, so what? If an employer wants to stupidly pay you more money than you deserve, then you can laugh all the way to the bank.}</p>
<p>Don't try to blame it on cost-of-living. If anything the SF Bay Area is actually MORE expensive than SoCal is. So if anything, Berkeley grads should be getting paid MORE. Yet they are actually getting paid LESS. Why?</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's a great description of our beloved Cal fanatics.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Could I see a list of "Cal fanatics?" Who makes the cut? Who doesn't?</p>
<p>Hey sakky, maybe the empolyers feel bad for the mudders. Highest debt per captia of any American school, you know.</p>
<p>:rolleyes:</p>
<p>(For those who can't tell, I'm kidding).</p>
<p>Sakky, Math and Physics majors who find jobs usually make as much money as Engineers. Most undergraduate Mathematicians I know who did not pursue furth studfies and hit the work force straight after graduation went into either IBanking or Management Consulting. Physicists and Chemists generally earn as much as Engineers too. If HMC had a bunch of Humanities concentrators who were earning as much as Cal Engineers, THAT would be impressive. But it isn't the case. 60% of HMC students major in Engineering and CS and another 25% major in Math, Chamistry and Physics. All of those majors tend to lead to lucrative straight-out-of-college jobs.</p>
<p>It would be more useful to see how many grads from Mudd even took jobs and reported salaries. Some of these surveys are very simplistic and self-reported.</p>
<p>Still, even if Mudd engineers aren't making a significant amount more than those from Cal, wouldn't the fact that their salaries are so close refute Rabban's logic in and of itself?</p>
<p>Slipper, you say that "those number still reflect a SIGNIFICANT difference". We are talking about Michigan having an endowment of $130,000 per student compared to $200,000-$250,000 at Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Duke and Penn. So you say that such a difference, without taking into consideration economies of scale and annual state and federal funding accounts for the difference between Michigan and those 5 universities which you wholeheartedly acknowledge to be among the top 10. By that reckoning, you would have no compunction in acknowledging that Berea, Grinnell, Rice and Wabash are better than Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Duke and Penn because their endowment per student is over $500,000 right?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, Math and Physics majors who find jobs usually make as much money as Engineers. Most undergraduate Mathematicians I know who did not pursue furth studfies and hit the work force straight after graduation went into either IBanking or Management Consulting. Physicists and Chemists generally earn as much as Engineers too. If HMC had a bunch of Humanities concentrators who were earning as much as Cal Engineers, THAT would be impressive. But it isn't the case. 60% of HMC students major in Engineering and CS and another 25% major in Math, Chamistry and Physics. All of those majors tend to lead to lucrative straight-out-of-college jobs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But not AS lucrative. Consider the salaries of Berkeley's math, chemistry, and physics majors.</p>
<p>In 2003, Berkeley grads in the following majors earned the following starting average salaries:</p>
<p>Chemistry - 35.9k
Physics - unknown, but probably around 44 k (as the salary for 2002 is 43.8k, for 2004 is 44.9k)
Mathematics - 39.4k</p>
<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Chem.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Chem.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Physics.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Physics.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Math.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Math.stm</a></p>
<p>Furthermore, while I can't speak for Michigan math majors, the jobs that Berkeley math grads reported taking during the last few years is published. While yes, a few took jobs as consultants, no investment banking jobs were reported. Instead, what you have reported are a bunch of software jobs (as lots of math grads know how to program), jobs like commercial bank credit analysts, loan coordinators, textbook coordinator (whatever that is), assistant producer for Time Warner. Interestingly, you even have a guy who ended up waiting tables. No joke - he ended up as a waiter at Kells Irish Pub (which is a local bar around town). That's what was reported. Similarly, you have the physics guy who ended up as a house painter (the guy who ended up at B&B Painting). Now, don't get me wrong. I am not trying to insult anybody's job. But I think we can all agree that these jobs aren't exactly what people tend to have in mind when they're thinking about graduating from a school like Berkeley. </p>
<p>Anybody not believe me? Fine. See for yourself. </p>
<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Math.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Math.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Physics.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/Physics.stm</a></p>
<p>Now of course one might say that this is only reported data, and maybe the unreported data might be better. But that simply begs the question of why that woul be the case? For example, why exactly would all of these math grads who get great banking/consulting jobs simply not be reporting their jobs, but the guy who ended up as a water or a housepainter would report his job? If anything, it would seem to me that the opposite would happen - that the guys who get the top jobs would be the most likely to report in, and the guys who don't get top jobs might feel ashamed, and so won't report in. </p>
<p>It also, by virtue of logic, calls into question whether Michigan math/physics/chemistry students really are getting good jobs, as an aggregate. I'm sure that some of them are. But if Berkeley math/physics/chemistry students are reporting jobs that clearly don't pay as well as the average engineering job does, it's hard for me to imagine that things would be different at Michigan. </p>
<p>
[quote]
It would be more useful to see how many grads from Mudd even took jobs and reported salaries. Some of these surveys are very simplistic and self-reported.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And by the same token, it would be interesting to see how many grads from Berkeley took jobs and reported/not-reported salaries. </p>
<p>The point is, ALL college data is afflicted with reporting bias. But I don't see any reason why the Mudd data would be MORE afflicted than the Berkeley data. </p>
<p>But the point is clear. According to the reported data, Mudd grads make more money than even Berkeley engineering grads do, and if you throw in Berkeley's chem/math/physics grads, then the Mudd grads DEFINITELY make more. But why is that, if Rabban's WCU's are so good and a school like Mudd is no good? Why are employers overpaying their Mudd grads, or underpaying their Berkeley grads? Are those employers being stupid? Conversely, if Berkeley grads are being underpaid, then why are they being so stupid in taking less money than they deserve?</p>
<p>But Sakky, the fact remains that at HMC, 80% of the undergrads who hit the workforce are Engineers and the bulk of the remaining 20% are hard core science majors. So basically, you are comparing the averages of Engineering students at HMC to the averages of Engineering students at Cal. I see very little difference between $55,000 and $52,000.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But Sakky, the fact remains that at HMC, 80% of the undergrads who hit the workforce are Engineers and the bulk of the remaining 20% are hard core science majors. So basically, you are comparing the averages of Engineering students at HMC to the averages of Engineering students at Cal. I see very little difference between $55,000 and $52,000
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly - and THAT's the whole point. Specifically, I see no reason for Rabban to distinguish between Berkeley from Mudd. The free market apparently doesn't. Seriously, what's so good about choosing to go to (what Rabban called) a world-class university as opposed to a LAC if you end up making about the same money anyway, or in this case, slightly less money?</p>
<p>In fact, this actually gets down to something that I have been saying for awhile, which is that there seems not to be much of an advantage in going to a top-ranked engineering school as opposed to a no-name engineering school, because, sadly, all engineers get paid about the same. For example, the Michigan BSME grads in 2005 made 52.2k, the Wayne State BSME 2005 grads made 50.6k. The Michigan BSEE grads made 54.9k, the Wayne State BSEE grads made 52.9k. The Michigan BSChemE grads actually made LESS than the Wayne State BSChemE grads (52k vs. 55.9k). </p>
<p><a href="http://www.eng.wayne.edu/news.php?id=410%5B/url%5D">http://www.eng.wayne.edu/news.php?id=410</a>
<a href="http://career.engin.umich.edu/Annual_Report04-05.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://career.engin.umich.edu/Annual_Report04-05.pdf</a> </p>
<p>Similarly, the graduates of the Applied Engineering Sciences at Michigan State made 53.9k to start in 2006. And that's not even a real engineering degree (because it's not ABET accredited)! Granted, that figure is from 2006, so the 2005 figure would probably be lower. Still, the fact remains that there seems to be little difference between what Michigan and Michigan State engineering students get. </p>
<p>Don't feel bad, Alexandre. I admit that I was shocked when I was first confronted with the engineering numbers regarding Berkeley, and when I started comparing the figures of Berkeley vs. San Jose State and realized that they were basically the same. The fact is, sadly, it doesn't really seem to matter whether you graduated from a top engineering school or a no-name engineering school, as all engineers are basically going to all get paid roughly the same. I wish it wasn't true, as I wish that engineering pay was more meritocratic. But that doesn't seem to be the case.</p>
<p>One might argue that perhaps the difference lies in the percentage of students who actually get jobs. For example, maybe all engineers get paid roughly the same, but perhaps the students from the top schools are able to get jobs at a higher rate than the students from the no-name schools. This is plausible, but the data seems to belie this notion. For example, a rather shocking 24% of all graduating Berkeley ChemE's don't have jobs upon graduation. Nor does it seem that they don't have jobs because they are just biding their time waiting for the killer job to come along. The average starting salaries for Berkeley ChemE's is not significantly higher than the national average for ChemE's. Similarly 18% of Berkeley EECS grads don't have jobs, and 17% of ME grads don't have jobs. Granted, this is still better than say, majoring in the humanities - as 25% of all Berkeley English majors don't have jobs upon graduation, and a whopping 35% of Berkeley Film Studies majors don't have jobs. </p>
<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/ChemEngr.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/ChemEngr.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/EECS.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/EECS.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/MechEngr.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/MechEngr.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/FilmStud.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/FilmStud.stm</a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/English.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/English.stm</a></p>
<p>Nevertheless, the point is, while there is little dispute that Berkeley has a top-ranked engineering program, something that has been confirmed by ranking after ranking, that doesn't really seem to help the students out very much. They don't make much more than the national average.</p>
<p>Here are a few other interesting salary figures:</p>
<p>Median starting salary for Electrical and Computer Engineers at Colorado State University: 55k</p>
<p>Average salary at Iowa State University, Spring 2005 - $50.6k</p>
<p>Salaries at Montana Tech for 2003 (yep, 2003) - 46k for ME's, 47k for General Engineers. </p>
<p>Salaries at Michigan Tech for 2005:
ChemE - 54.6k (with 90% placement)
EE - 51.7k (with 96% placement)
ME - 50k (with 100% placement)</p>
<p>I had never even heard of Michigan Tech before until last year. Yet the salaries and placement figures are quite impressive and stack up highly favorably with both UM and with Cal.</p>
<p>I hear you bro. I agree that starting salaries in Engineering aren't very telling. Even MIT's starting salaries aren't much higher than $58,000. Cornell, Cal, Michigan all have starting salaries in the $53,000-$56,000 range. At many second rate Engineering programs, starting salaries will hover in the $50,000-$55,000 range, so clearly, there isn't that much of an advantage if one were to compare starting salaries. However, I think that at the top Engineering programs, like Cal, Caltech, CMU, Cornell, GT, HMC, MIT, Michigan, Northwestern, Princeton, Stanford and UIUCetc..., Engineers have more options open to them, from having the cutting edge tech companies (like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, NASA, GE, Cisco, Google, AMGEN, Medtronic etc...) as well as top shelf IBs and MCs recruit them by the dozens , to having greater access to top 10 graduate programs of Engineering.</p>