<p>4years lead to MEng(master of engineering) though.</p>
<p>But isen't that compulsory?</p>
<p>You can choose either 3yr-courses which lead to Bachelor or 4 yr-courses which lead to Master.</p>
<p>A 3 year engineering course leads to a Beng and 4 years for an Meng</p>
<p>I always though you had 2 do a 4 year one. Sorry</p>
<p>Why do people say that Imperial is much better than USC academically? Do engineers trained in Imperial have higher quality and skills than USC trained engineers? Don’t they learn the same stuff to be an engineer, and will there be any difference to study engineering in different universities?</p>
<p>4 years of studying only maths and physics leads to a greater depth of understanding than 4 years of studying maths and physics half the time, and literature/languages g.e. the other half. They do cover the same basic material, but a tech specialist course/uni would be able to go into greater depth etc. Also employers would know that engineering is Imperials greatest strength, and engineering employers would greatly respect Imperial.</p>
<p>^^^ Exactly. Even an engineering program at an average British school would be preferable to the vast majority of American engineering programs, simply because there is sharper focus and more depth. (all else being equal) This is from an academic standpoint. I know there are some who say that taking courses like Intro to Spanish will make you a better engineer, and to that I say I think that's absurd, but everyone's entitled to their own opinion.</p>
<p>HAhahha....lol...then why apply to good schools all together.</p>
<p>I love your argument, but if you ask me, I would say there is a huge difference. For almost every subject or field in the world, the learning process can be summarized as follows:</p>
<p>What is being Taught:
The courses differ in terms of the length, module etc.</p>
<p>Who is teaching:
The quality of professors makes a huge impact.</p>
<p>How is the course being taught:
What methods are being employed by the profs, if profs are teaching at all (which bdw is not a problem at UK)</p>
<p>What community is learning and interacting with you:
No need for explanation</p>
<p>How expensive is it:
Will the benefits outweigh the costs</p>
<p>and finally, although some may discard it;</p>
<p>Where is all this happening:
LONDON, CALIFORNIA????</p>
<p>the former for me obviously (only in this criteria) Who wouldn't wanna be close to laguna beach after wasting their precious time on the oc...</p>
<p>Keeping this criteria in mind, i would go for imperial.</p>
<p>There is a point that is misunderstood. In US 4 years of undergraduate study leads to a bachelor degree; an additional 2 years of graduate school study leads to a master degree. So, it takes 6 years to be a master of engineering. </p>
<p>On the other hand, as UK universities' curriculum is very focused in nature, it only takes 4 years to get a master degree, but can you say the stuff that you learn in US in 6years is any less or less in depth than the stuff you learn in UK in 4 years?... maybe not.. </p>
<p>Certainly, Imperial has lots of GREAT professors, but does it mean they are going to teach YOU?? Not necessarily. Literally there is little chance that you can even meet them!! </p>
<p>"What community is learning and interacting with you:
No need for explanation"</p>
<p>Do you mean the quality of student in imperial is better than the quality of student in USC? </p>
<p>Apart from Oxbridge that is extremely tough to get into, UK universities are quite straight forward in admission: as long as you have good grades, you are in. I’m rejected by MIT and Cornell, but I still got in Imperial, which means Imperial is not so selective at all, so the quality of students in Imperial is not necessarily high.</p>
<p>As I mentioned in the other post, it costs around 60k US dollars to attend Imperial for internationals, whereas it only cost me 30k to attend USC as I’m on some sort of scholarships. Therefore, USC is a lot cheaper.</p>
<p>Location: California has better climate than London.</p>
<p>Maybe, USC is a better choice?</p>
<p>Well you've answered your question your self then...</p>
<p>Your argument is quite baseless. Why would an Imperial Student find it difficult to interact or even meet the proffessors? I know several students at the Uni of London, and no one has ever mentioned such a complaint. In fact they benefit hugely, as the researchers and fellows etc. enjoy teaching the freshman class. This is very popular all over the UK. Take Southampton for example: I'm forgetting his name, but the man responsible for inventing the world wide web is a research fellow at MIT and a professor of computer science at Southampton. He teaches one of my seniors, and is a brilliant lecturer. He even holds seminars etc.</p>
<p>I'm sorry to hear that MIT and Cornell rejected you, but to draw such conclusions will lead us nowhere. One has to evaluate the admissions process in both countries in order to conduct a fair comparison. </p>
<p>At Imperial, through your UCAS form you need to select the exact and specific course in which you are applying. Electronics and Electrical Engineering H600 for example, or Electrical Engineering with Business Management H6N1. Your application is then evaluated by the appropriate admissions tutor in the department that you have applied to. So if you applied for Economics, the department of Economics admissions counselor, tutor will evaluate you. Opinions are gathered from Professors etc. and the final decision is sent back to the admissions office. The central admissions office takes a backseat in the UK and focusses mainly on administrative and communication responsibilities. </p>
<p>In the states, the process is carried out by a central Admissions Office that evaluates candidates into college. Each year they have a criteria and objective for admissions. Their goals include diversity of all kinds etc. etc. High School students apply to the college or university in general and then chose their major in the coming years. The variables include SAT, Grades, Essays and Reccomendations. </p>
<p>The UK is similar minus the SAT and the essay is modified as a focussed personal statement. </p>
<p>MIT may have rejected you for several other reasons that are known to noone but them. You are right when you say that the UK admissions process is straightforward. In addition, it is also very transperent. You are judged on your academic ability and potential within the area that you have applied to. This is also why the UK has smaller class sizes, since each courses hsa a limited number of slots.</p>
<p>Each system has its merits and demerits. However, personally I prefer the UK system. But that is because like high school students in the UK, I have enjoyed a strong curriculum and the standard of education is very high. The UK does not require the SAT for this very reason. In the states, the AP's try to fill the gap, but without them, the high school standard of education is relatively poor. </p>
<p>Lets not look negatively on Imperial just because their admissions process is more focussed and efficient. Unlike colleges in the US, it definately is not a gamble.</p>
<p>21th Engineer, the reject/accept dichotomy really isn't a good way to judge selectivity. Personally, I was rejected by Imperial, accepted by Caltech, and rejected by MIT and Cornell; somehow, I doubt that means that Imperial, MIT, and Cornell are all miles better than Caltech. Whatever your other reasons for turning Imperial down are, its perceived lack of selectivity should really not be one of them.</p>
<p>I don't know about Imperial, but I know Oxbridge has 1 on 1 sessions with Professors, something I don't think any US college those. Most of the unis I visited in the UK also assured me I'd have plenty of seminar/contact time with my Professors, and wouldn't be taught by graduate students at all.
I think what you learn in the US in 6 years will be more or less the same as what you learn in the UK in 4 =P Like I said it's 4 years of focused engineering study in the UK, versus 6 years of Engineering and liberal arts. The liberal art segments would probably account for the other two years. But, if you go to USC it's 6 years of study, with no particular guarantee you'll get into a top masters program, and at a lower prestige university for your degree. The quality of the engineering students at Imperial would mostly likely be higher than the one's at USC. Just like the engineering students at MIT would likely be better than even the one's at Harvard just because MIT attracts the cream of the crop of the science students. Imperial likewise attracts the best science students throughout the UK because they have no competition in that field. Yes they look at grades far more than personal statements and EC's but they still look at them to ensure passion for subject. I think this actually leads to far stronger academic rigour in the students. There isn't any legacy admits, AA admits, atheletic admits, grade 8 pianist admits etc. who aren't the best at sciences. Imperial admits are people with demonstrated flair for engineering, never because their parents went to usc, or they happen to be a urm, or can run 10m/s.</p>
<p>As for selectivity, Chicago has a 50% admit rate? Is that because they're a crap uni? It's actually because their admission pool is so self-selective. Same goes for Imperial, people who don't want to do sciences, are already out of the picture, and of those only the best will apply to Imperial. There is another thing which raises admission percent in the UK. The UK limits the maximum no. of schools an applicant can apply to to six, and only one out of oxford and cambridge. People choose their schools much more carefully, and this stops things like in the US with people simply applying to 20 schools, and so you'd have unqualified applicants applying to harvard just to try, lowering admit rates. </p>
<p>And the people who accept you are your future professors. You are accepted by your department, with greatest understanding of whether a student would be suited for engineering, without any outside agendas. They are focused solely on creating the best academic class with potential to be great engineers.</p>
<p>Money wise, you should add 2 years of grad school to USC's price which would likely not be subsidised by scholarships.</p>
<p>Haha ok, no argument Cali has a better climate than England.</p>
<p>All my classes were always taught by professors. A few of my seminars were taught by PhD students (only in my first year).</p>
<p>Well, actually, my arguments are based on a lager sample, that is my class. Out of 45 students who applied to both top UK and US universities, 21 got into Imperial, whereas no one could get into any Imperial equivalent US universities like Caltech or cornell. This gives me an impression that UK universities are less competitive. </p>
<p>I think most of people on this thread is British educated, and is somehow biased towards UK education. I dont think there is anything wrong with libral arts education in US, as it will make a person more well rounded and balanced. In this comtemporary world, you might be disadvantaged if you only study one area of knowledge. </p>
<p>For 6years vs 4years thing, it is really a concern. I will have to spend 6 years in US to study stuff that can be covered in 4 years in UK, and I will have to pay two more years of tuition fees where I will have had 2 years of work experience in UK (there may be gram. mistakes). Considering this, Imperial might be a better choice.</p>
<p>USC vertbi school of engineering is ranked 7th (same as Caltech) in graduate school ranking, but for undergraduate, it only ranks somewhere around 20th.
What I mean is, for graduate school, USC is not that bad at all.</p>
<p>The adimission pool of most top US universities are self-selective as well. As US universities is more generous with financial aid to international students than any other countries, extremely qulified applicants around the world will apply to US instead of UK (for money). Poor students (even if they are qualified) just dont apply to UK universities which gives no aids at all to internationals</p>
<p>There is an impression that UK universities admit Internationals for money. The tuition fee is only 3000+ for domestic but 18500 for international (for imperial). However, in US, tution fee is same for both domestic and internationals, which is quite ethical.</p>
<p>I'm not comparing Imperial to MIT and Caltech as I recognise that those are really top-notch institutions, but you're comparing Imperial to USC which is quite different. Everyone at my school who applied to USC got in, most of them with out any competitive chance at Imperial. There's nothing wrong with a Liberal Arts Education, as long as you realise that the trade off with non specialisation is that you need to study longer. What you can achieve in 4 years through specialisation in the UK you'll need 6 in broader US education. There still isn't much international aid to go around except at a few select need-blind universities.. Also all universities in the UK are Government owned, thus they should be compared with State university tuitions in the US. Those are indeed the same, costing 6000 instate, but 25000 out of state, which is the same system in the UK.</p>
<p>Imperial is not MIT or Caltech, but for Sciences it's up there. USC is great in the films they specialise in, like Film, communications, but sciences just aren't one of their main focuses.</p>
<p>unless weather and the looks of the female population is that important, i would choose imperial no question...
and while you are in London can you throw a heavy object at that homeless guy standing outside the US embassy with his stupid tent... he's getting on my nerves.
thanks</p>
<p>How much per hour can you earn if you get a part-time job in london?</p>
<p>I believe the minimum is around ?5 an hour!!</p>