US News Undergrad Engineering Rankings 2011

<p>We’re not sure how much you trust them either. Thanks for the informative post.</p>

<p>well…just sayin’…isn’t it based on what other deans think of different engineering programs??..just seems sorta arbitrary to me…</p>

<p>and besides…Georgia Tech ranked as high as Caltech???..Georgia Tech is a GREAT school…but i mean…Caltech is Caltech…</p>

<p>CalTech is mire known for graduate programs.</p>

<p>Still, any ranking system is subjective and should he taken with a grain of salt.</p>

<p>yeah but Caltech undergrad is like WAYY harder to get into than Georgia Tech…</p>

<p>take two top of the class high school seniors in math and science…one of them got around 1400 on the SAT (out of 1600)…top 10% of HS class overall in ranking…that person is more Georgia Tech material…</p>

<p>the other person got a 1580…possibly valedictorian…and made USAMO…that person is more Caltech material…</p>

<p>just my two cents…</p>

<p>It shouldn’t be about the quality of students going in. Any college ranking should be about be about the output quality.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>right…one is public and one is private.</p>

<p>i’d think there would be some correlation between quality of students going in and engineers coming out…only makes sense right??</p>

<p>and right…Georgia Tech is public…but i dont think that has anything to do with it being easier to get into…it’s still very selective i think…not like Penn State or Purdue or Virginia Tech…</p>

<p>“i’d think there would be some correlation between quality of students going in and engineers coming out…only makes sense right??”</p>

<p>In some cases maybe not as much as you might expect. Because many less qualified or less interested students may get weeeded out in the first few years, leaving a cohort that is materially stronger than the one that started.</p>

<p>^ Correct. Especially for large state publics. The class-average freshman SAT score doesn’t have much to do with, say, the senior electrical engineering class.</p>

<p>Quality in is not a good indicator of quality out. If the school is good, any student who sticks with the program is going to be good when they graduate.</p>

<p>alright this is all well and good but Caltech’s workload is the most intense anywhere…they’re more hardcore than MIT…</p>

<p>^Ok, fanboy. Care to back that up with facts? I have nothing but respect for CalTech, but I don’t honestly think you can say that the workload at CalTech is any more or less “hardcore” than somewhere like MIT.</p>

<p>well i just looked it up…looks like Caltech’s average GPA is 3.2…MIT’s average GPA is 4.2 / 5.0…now this might be a bit simple of a method…but i just multiplied 4.2 by 0.8 to get 3.36 on a 4.0 scale…also SAT math ranges…</p>

<p>Caltech: 770 - 800 with avg undergrad GPA of 3.2
MIT: 720 - 800 with avg undergrad GPA of 3.36</p>

<p>please note i got average GPAs from other CC posts…but what i did there def makes Caltech look more hardcore…</p>

<p>Incoming SAT scores have absolutely NOTHING to do with the difficulty of a school. NOTHING. There is likely a crude, irregular correlation, but that does not imply causation. A few extra SAT points (something no one will care about starting the moment you sign your acceptance letter) doesn’t make a school more hardcore.</p>

<p>GPA is another terrible argument. First of all, a 4.20 on a 5.0 scale is identical to a 3.2 on a 4.0 scale. The only difference is an A is worth 5.0 instead of 4.0 and so on all the way down to F. The way to compare the two is either just add 1.0 to the 4.0 scale or subtract 1.0 from the 5.0 scale. For example, if you got all B’s on a 5.0 scale, your GPA would be 4.0 as compared to a 3.0 on a 4.0 scale.</p>

<p>Second, GPA only really tells you how someone did compared to everyone else at their institution. You can’t really compare GPA’s from two different schools and be certain it is an accurate comparison. That is one of the reasons for standardized testing.</p>

<p>The only real way to compare is to look at the list of classes people need to take and compare syllabi. Honestly, the two schools are essentially equivalent.</p>

<p>It doesn’t matter…when you graduate, your BOSS will be someone with experience who got their degree from Montana State.</p>

<p>haha totally agreed with Global Traveler</p>

<p>now i have another point…this is a list of the top 50 schools that produce science and engineering PhDs…</p>

<p>[Top</a> 50 Schools That Produce Science PhDs - CBS MoneyWatch.com](<a href=“MoneyWatch: Financial news, world finance and market news, your money, product recalls updated daily - CBS News”>MoneyWatch: Financial news, world finance and market news, your money, product recalls updated daily - CBS News)</p>

<p>sure enough, Caltech, MIT, and Harvey Mudd are on the top of that list…Georgia Tech is not on that list…also, my alma matter, RPI, which is ranked 26th this year (down from about 14 when i started there as a freshman) is on that list for PhDs…to add to that, we’re much more selective and competitive to get into than some of the top 10 or 15 schools like Purdue or V-Tech…and yet a lot of those top 10 or 15 engineering programs do not make the PhD list…what’s up with that??</p>

<p>shouldn’t the number of PhDs that the school puts out, combined with selectivity, have something to do with how well regarded the school’s engineering program is???</p>

<p>It probably does have something to do with it, but it’s not the only factor. Quality of education is probably the most important thing.</p>

<p>Not all the best and brightest go into PhD programs. A number of my classmates were just tired of the drudgery of school and decided instead to go into industry.</p>

<p>engineering is not one of those fields where you need a graduate degree to be successful</p>

<p>Selectivity is only important to those people who feel they need to know they got into somewhere selective. For the rest of us, what is important is what you learn, how you learn it, and how well it prepares you to succeed in the future. That doesn’t really have much to do with the number of PhD’s produced.</p>

<p>Having a high number of eventual PhD’s produced really just means that the school did a good job of inspiring the undergrads to continue learning. That certainly is one part of having a good program, but it isn’t the only part, and it isn’t necessarily related to how “hardcore” the program is. Actually, you might expect a more “hardcore” program would tend to turn people off more than another program if all other factors remain constant. Places that are renowned for being difficult like MIT or CalTech likely make up for the added difficulty by having much smaller classes and more inspiring faculty.</p>

<p>Honestly though, when you get your degree in hand, no one is going to question you based on how selective your school was or how many PhD’s your school educated at the undergraduate level. Instead, all they are going to care about is whether or not you learned enough to be competent and whether or not you can get along with your coworkers.</p>