Unsure Engineering Student, Princeton, Harvard & Cal

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
1

<p>From San Jose area within California
Got into Cal EECS (electrical engineering & computer science), Princeton & Harvard</p>

<p>Not sure if I want to pursue Engineering--may switch to Applied Math, Economics, or even IR...</p>

<p>No financial aid, so cost is going to be a factor...as is distance</p>

<p>I visited all the schools and found Princeton a little quiet (maybe I visited on a bad day)--and I am strongly considering general social scence and how lively a school is, in my decision</p>

<p>Any tips or advice? Much appreciated--thanks.</p>

2

<p>Any social science in particular?</p>

3

<p>Science or sense? I think he may have meant sense of social life.</p>

4

<p>no i meant social scene / social sense. nothing to do with social sciences</p>

5

<p>engineering at Cal is pretty much one of the best as well as economics and math...we have a great deal of nobel laureates as professors and alumni</p>

<p>social scene is pretty legit...i mean its the bay area, i'm sure you've been here before...you can't really beat the berkeley environment</p>

6

<p>I assume you don't fall into the financial group that gets free tuition at Harvard or else you would have mentioned that. If money is a serious issue then you should go to Berkeley because you'll get a great education. Then again, your prospects really open up world wide if you have a degree from Harvard or Princeton in a way that you can't get from Cal. Go with your gut feeling (whatever that is) because you don't want to spend 4 years of your life being bitter about picking the wrong school. No pressure:)</p>

7

<p>Pick Harvard.</p>

8

<p>any spec reason?
btw thanks for all the tips, everyone</p>

9

<p>According to a Princeton study, those who went to Harvard and those who got in but didn't go both did equally well in life. Just keep that in mind.</p>

<p>For any other major, I'd say Harvard, but Berkeley is highly respected when it comes to engineering. It's a very tough decision, but I think that I'm going to say Harvard if you are only planning on undergrad - saying "I went to Harvard" is pretty powerful, and you can't exactly go around saying, "I went to Berkeley, but I did get into Harvard," but Berkeley is one of the most respected universities as well, so it might not matter. </p>

<p>Make a list of pros and cons, and if Harvard has more pros, then weight the benefits against the extra cost, and see if it's worth it.</p>

10

<p>I would say if you're sure about doing engineering then go to Berkeley.</p>

<p>Otherwise applied math, economics, and international relations are all better at Harvard. But then Harvard doesn't really have much engineering at all.</p>

<p>And although Berkeley has a great reputation, it doesn't quite match the impression that Harvard gives off.</p>

11

<p>I say Harvard if not engineering. The name will open more many many opportunities for you.</p>

12

<p>I agree with others that unless you're really set on engineering, go with Harvard. It'll make your life easier. It's hard to beat the resources/brand name Harvard provides. Princeton is okay too, but like you said, it's pretty quiet and pretty rural.</p>

13

<p>IMO, EECS is the HARDEST major, in the most competitive department at the most competitive public school in the country. OTOH, nearly everyone at H graduates with honors; you can also cross register with MIT to get your hard science fix. Even so, I'd pick P'ton for it more undergrad focus.</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
According to a Princeton study, those who went to Harvard and those who got in but didn't go both did equally well in life. Just keep that in mind.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, but the problem with that study is that people obviously didn't randomly select to go or not go to Harvard. Anybody who got into Harvard and chose not to go obviously had a reason not to go. It's like asserting that those who drop out of Harvard do better than those who actually graduate from Harvard, a notion that might actually be true, when you consider famous dropouts like Bill Gates, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, tennis star James Blake, Matt Damon, F. Lee Bailey, etc. But that's only because nobody randomly decides to drop out of Harvard - you drop out because you have a * reason * to drop out. In other words, just because Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard and became successful obviously doesn't mean that everybody should drop out of Harvard to become successful. </p>

<p>
[quote]
nearly everyone at H graduates with honors

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That was true in the old days, but it isn't true anymore. Now, about 60% of undergrads at Harvard will graduate with some form of honors. That may seem like a lot, but bear in mind that about 50% of Caltech undergrads graduate with honors. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.bus.lsu.edu/accounting/faculty/lcrumbley/HonorsAwards.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.bus.lsu.edu/accounting/faculty/lcrumbley/HonorsAwards.htm&lt;/a> </p>

<p>
[quote]
engineering at Cal is pretty much one of the best

[/quote]

[quote]
For any other major, I'd say Harvard, but Berkeley is highly respected when it comes to engineering

[/quote]

[quote[I agree with others that unless you're really set on engineering, go with Harvard
[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would say that even with engineering notwithstanding, I would still pick Harvard. Keep in mind that there's a big difference between getting an engineering degree and actually working as an engineer. Plenty of people at the top schools who get engineering degrees will never work a day in their lives as engineers, instead opting for jobs in things like management consulting, investment banking, etc. Even at MIT, it has become a running joke that many of the best engineering students will never work as engineers, but will instead run off to consulting and banking. I believe the same is true of the engineering students at Stanford. For example, you can see on p.9 of the following pdf that over 40% of the undergrads at MIT who went to the workforce went to finance or consulting. Even if you subtract out the Sloanies and the Econ majors who unsurprisingly almost all go to finance/consulting, that still means that a significant chunk of engineering students (who represent the majority at MIT) went to finance/consulting.</p>

<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/graduation06.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/graduation06.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>And even if you do go on to work as an engineer, it may not be for long. For example, it is quite common to engineers to only work for a few years and then get their MBA's, wherafter they will end up in careers in (again) finance or consulting. </p>

<p>Hence, the point is, while Berkeley is clearly the best EECS school of the 3 mentioned, the truth is, there is a significant chance that you won't work as an engineer for very long, if at all.</p>

15

<p>That's an interesting argument, sakky. So people shouldn't go get a EECS degree from Cal because maybe they won't want to use it? And your first point about people not going to Harvard for a reason, well, it seems that wanting to be an engineer would be a reason, would it not? I would still say you should measure out the pros and cons about all three schools and decide if paying the extra money is going to be worth it to you. Maybe it would be, and I don't think anyone would fault you for going to Harvard or Princeton, but I wouldn't put too much stock into the idea that you should go to Harvard for engineering just because maybe some day down the road you'll decide you don't want to be an engineer.</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
That's an interesting argument, sakky. So people shouldn't go get a EECS degree from Cal because maybe they won't want to use it? And your first point about people not going to Harvard for a reason, well, it seems that wanting to be an engineer would be a reason, would it not?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What I am saying is this. What if you chose Berkeley for engineering, only to find out later that you don't want to be an engineer anymore... i.e. that you'd rather be a consultant or banker? I would think that you might like to go back in time and perhaps rethink your decision to choose Berkeley. But of course you can't go back in time. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Maybe it would be, and I don't think anyone would fault you for going to Harvard or Princeton, but I wouldn't put too much stock into the idea that you should go to Harvard for engineering just because maybe some day down the road you'll decide you don't want to be an engineer.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, who not? In fact, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. And not just about engineering. The truth of the matter is, most people do not end taking jobs that are highly related to their undergraduate majors. For example, most history majors do not become historians. Most sociology majors do not become sociologists. Most math majors do not become mathematicians. Hence, what is more important is that you get an education that gives you a broad range of career flexibility, and not just immediately after you graduate, but throughout your whole life, specifically with alumni networking. THAT is where the real value is. I would argue that it is actually quite shortsighted to only care about the specific subject you are majoring in. You also need to think about where you want to be 10, 20, and 30 years later. Your career is not a sprint, it's a marathon.</p>

<p>The truth of the matter is, people change majors all the time. I believe CNN once estimated that the average college student tries out about 4 majors before finally deciding on one. I know PLENTY of former Berkeley EECS students who never graduated with an EECS degree. Some switched to another engineering discipline, some switched to a liberal arts degree, and some sadly actually flunked out. And even of those that did end up with EECS degrees, only a handful are still working in EECS. One guy I know switched careers to become a real estate agent, and was making far more money doing that than he did as an engineer (although that may not be true currently with the housing bust). Some other guys eventually went to law school and became patent attorneys, and many others got their MBA's and became consultants/bankers. Heck, a good number of them NEVER worked as engineers, and did what I stated above - just went into consulting/banking right out of undergrad. </p>

<p>Note, I didn't say to "go to Harvard for engineering". Most likely, if the OP went to Harvard, he would end up majoring in something else. Again, that's because in the long run, over your entire career, your undergraduate major, frankly, doesn't matter very much. Think about it. 10 years after you graduate, nobody is going to care what you majored in.</p>

17

<p>interesting points</p>

18

<p>sakky, if 10 years after you graduate nobody is going to care, would that mean that 10 years down the line someone with a liberal arts background could begin work as an engineer? With no previous experience?</p>

19

<p>You completely missed the point. The point is that no one will really care what you majored in 10 years ago, but they will care about the experiences you have had. So people may go into different industries that are irrelevant to their majors and if they have enough experience and credentials than 10 years later, no one is going to care what they majored in. If you have enough experience as an engineer even though you were an Art major, then no one is going to care. Notice this is contingent on you having the right qualifications, not on what kind of undergraduate degree you got 10 years ago.</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
sakky, if 10 years after you graduate nobody is going to care, would that mean that 10 years down the line someone with a liberal arts background could begin work as an engineer? With no previous experience

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, first off, I can think of a person who fits that description. She graduated from an Ivy with an English degree. After working for a few years, she decided to learn computer programming on the side through consuming a bunch of books and self-practice for awhile, got a job as a low-end programmer, then rose through the ranks to becoming lead engineer. Then she ended up getting a master's degree at MIT. Nobody seemed to care that she didn't actually have an actual undergraduate degree in computer science. What matters is what she knows when she comes up for a job. </p>

<p>But anyway, speaking to your point, when you're well into your career, you're going to be judged on your current skillset and work record as opposed to what specific degree you got in years past. For example, I know a LOT of people with engineering degrees who went to other careers (i.e. banking, consulting, law, medicine, etc.). None of them are credible as engineers anymore, hence none of them could easily decide to take an engineering job, unless they were prepared to spend substantial time in retooling (like that girl did). In fact, those guys who got undergrad degrees in computer science but then ran off to pther careers like investment banking, at this moment in time, almost certainly not as qualified to take a software engineering job as that girl who doesn't even have a technical undergrad degree, simply because she's actually been doing that job recently and they haven't. On the other hand, those guys (with CS degrees but then became investment bankers) are clearly clearly far more qualified to take jobs in finance than people who got actual undergrad finance or bus-ad degrees, but didn't actually get jobs in the finance industry. Again, it's because those former guys (with the "wrong" degree) had actually been * doing * finance jobs, whereas those latter guys, despite having the "right" degree, hadn't actually been developing relevant experience. </p>

<p>The key is whether you can get a job that gives you the relevant experience. Many times, you don't actually * need * an undergraduate degree in a particular field to actually get a job in that field. This is true even in engineering. Again, the most prevalent example is software engineering. There are a LOT of very competent software guys in the industry who didn't actually major in computer science. Richard Stallman, for example, majored in physics, not CS. Heck, quite a few of the best hackers in the world didn't even graduate from college at all. Bill Gates and Larry Ellison are probably the most famous examples. Also Wayne Rosing, former VP of Engineering at Google. Justin Frenkel (inventor of Gnutella and Winamp). Shawn Fanning (Napster). Blake Ross (Firefox). Janus Friis (Skype and Kazaa) - heck, Friis didn't even graduate from * high school *. Yet all of these guys have built world-class software engineering projects. I think there would be very very few software companies in the world that would hesitate to hire these guys, despite the fact that they don't actually have CS degrees. Heck, any of these guys (with the exception of Gates and Ellison, who have been strictly businessmen for decades) are almost certainly better software engineers than most people out there who have actual CS degrees. </p>

<p>But the same thing happens in other fields too. I know a girl who worked at Intel as a process engineer (a wafer fab engineer) for years despite not having an actual engineering degree (she holds BS and MS degrees in chemistry). She recently left Intel to join an engineering consulting firm. Nobody gives her any flak that she doesn't have a formal engineering degree. Her work record speaks for itself. Maybe she had some difficulty getting into Intel in the first place because she lacked an engineering degree, but she evidently found a way to get in, and once she got in, people stopped caring about her major. They only cared about how well she did her job. Similarly, I know other 'engineers' at Intel who don't have engineering degrees, but rather, hold degrees in applied math, physics, and subjects like that. {Heck, the 2 co-founders, who were also the first 2 CEO's, of Intel, were not engineers. Robert Noyce's degrees were in physics. Gordon Moore's degrees are in chemistry and physics. }</p>