<p>Northwestern is a bigger engineering school than Berkeley….. </p>
<p>Adding engineering graduate programs would pretty much help all top schools that have 10% or more of their graduating classes devoted to engineering.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Northwestern is a bigger engineering school than Berkeley…..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In what sense?</p>
<p>-Percent of undergraduates in the engineering school.</p>
<p>Yeah, I think the percentages of students at Cal and Mich are around the same as many other schools in terms of how many students pursue engineering ... let me dig around a little</p>
<p>At Caltech and MIT, roughly 50% are Engineering majors. At CMU, it's more like 35%. At Michigan and Cornell, it is roughlh about 20%. At schools like Harvard, Yale, Duke, Brown etc..., it's more like 10%.</p>
<p>Cornell - 18%
Michigan - 17%
Duke - 15%
Harvard, Yale, Brown - 8-10%</p>
<p>Yeah, you are right Alex for more LACy undergrads like Harvard, Yale, and Brown, but Duke has a high proportion of engineers as well. Because it still ranks at the top on WSJ, and also has no professional schools on the survey and isn't in the Northeast, I think that proportion of engineers isn't that important since lots of engineers pursue business or law. I didn't check MIT, but 50% sounds about right and it still ranks in the top 10 on WSJ as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the survey should include graduate Engineering programs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why the preferential treatment for engineers --> engineering grad programs? What makes them so special vs., say, political science majors --> MPA MPP public policy programs (e.g. Kennedy School, Fletcher School)?</p>
<p>As far as I can see, these are both very specialized degrees / programs, neither are considered "professional" grad schools on par with Law, Business, Med.</p>
<p>Just seems like another variable that would unfairly favor the large research U's - in other words, if you are going to include engineers and rank schools that feed them into engineering programs (which favors large research U's), might as well incorporate schools that feed into public policy programs (which would favor the smaller LAC like schools)... but then it would start getting messy.</p>
<p>IMO just easier to stick to the established BIG THREE - Law, Bus, Med - it's unambiguous and it's clear cut.</p>
<p>The_Prestige, Political Science is a traditional Social Science. Engineering is a professional field. Students with a Masters in Political Science either become street performers or earn $30,000-$50,000 as assistant-something somewhere! Students with MS in Engineering usually get jobs that pay anywhere between $60,000 and $80,000 fresh out of their program. Many highly gifted students at major universities like Cal, CMU, Cornell, Michigan, MIT and Stanford opt for a MS in Engineering because they really only want a career in Engineering.</p>
<p>Thetoughtprocess, I think you got the Michigan and Cornell numbers from the USNWR. However, according to their official websites, slightly over 20% of the respective undergraduate student bodies are enrolled in the college of Engineering. At any rate, whether it is 17% or 20% doesn't matter. The point is, it is significantly higher than schools like Brown and Harvard, where fewer than 10% of the students major in Engineering.</p>
<p>Another surprise is Dartmouth, where 600 (15%) of their undergraduate students are enrolled in the college of Enigneering.</p>
<p>Alexandre, that is a pretty biased view.</p>
<p>Of the three people I know who have degrees from either Kennedy School of Government or Fletcher School - they are all earning well above $200,000.</p>
<p>Again, I don't want to get into a side debate - just that when ranking undergrads as feeders - its just best to stick with the established BIG THREE - law, med, bus.</p>
<p>Not really the prestige, because Public Affairs and Policy is a much smaller field. Engineering is huge. But it doesn't matter, even if the WSJ sticks to the three of the four major professional programs, there is still a need to diversify in terms of geographic distribution.</p>
<p>Well, the best schools still are in the Northeast, I think only Stanford has a case for being screwed over (but they are in the top 4 anyways)</p>
<p>I mean, it just so happens the top schools are in the Northeast, but top students will apply to top grad schools even if they aren't in the same geographic area</p>
<p>“but top students will apply to top grad schools even if they aren't in the same geographic area”</p>
<p>-Don’t underestimate the power of regional bias….</p>
<p>Harvard is actually only 1% engineering. Yale, Brown, and Dartmouth are 5% or less engineering.</p>
<p>enrollments below are full-time undergraduates
sorted by proportion of bachelors degrees in engineering</p>
<p>university, engineering enrollment, total enrollment, total bachelors, engineering bachelors, proportion of engineering enrollment, proportion of engineering bachelors </p>
<p>Georgia Institute of Technology-Main Campus 6052 10725 2512 1368 0.56 0.54
California Institute of Technology 250 896 217 76 0.28 0.35
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1436 4078 1220 385 0.35 0.32
Carnegie Mellon University 1480 5258 1278 331 0.28 0.26
Purdue University-Main Campus 6079 29500 6270 1253 0.21 0.2
Johns Hopkins University 1043 4946 1412 269 0.21 0.19
Cornell University 2693 13597 3474 614 0.2 0.18
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 2946 20739 4835 894 0.14 0.18
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 4407 23773 5880 1013 0.19 0.17
Duke University 950 6252 1448 243 0.15 0.17
Princeton University 537 4678 1145 190 0.11 0.17
Rice University 287 2905 748 125 0.1 0.17
Columbia University in the City of New York 1407 6275 1705 276 0.22 0.16
University of California-San Diego 3425 19384 5042 765 0.18 0.15
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 4558 28686 6752 1009 0.16 0.15
Northwestern University 1233 7909 2083 286 0.16 0.14
Washington University in St Louis 950 6029 1529 217 0.16 0.14
Pennsylvania State University-Main Campus 5451 33376 9840 1282 0.16 0.13
Texas A & M University 5157 32377 7711 957 0.16 0.12
Stanford University 490 6506 1790 206 0.08 0.12
University of California-Berkeley 2805 21771 6767 776 0.13 0.11
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities 3510 26479 6088 670 0.13 0.11
The University of Texas at Austin 4844 33888 8836 860 0.14 0.1
University of Wisconsin-Madison 2853 26619 6316 605 0.11 0.1
University of Maryland-College Park 2598 22933 6263 605 0.11 0.1
University of Pennsylvania 1033 10047 2854 267 0.1 0.09
University of Washington-Seattle Campus 2843 23521 7287 611 0.12 0.08
University of California-Los Angeles 2089 24005 7336 550 0.09 0.07
University of Southern California 1481 15776 4139 308 0.09 0.07
Brown University 144 5708 1499 73 0.03 0.05
Dartmouth College 104 4027 1109 56 0.03 0.05
Yale University 108 5243 1291 54 0.02 0.04
Harvard University 100 6954 1807 25 0.01 0.01</p>
<p>Rank Name USNWR ('07-'91) Avg (USNWR Wgt.) WSJ Feeder (WSJ Wgt.) Rev. Pref. (RP Wgt.) NMSC (NMS Wgt.) Total Weighted Average
1 Harvard University 1.41 0.49 1 0.30 1 0.30 3.00 0.15 1.24
2 Yale University 2.53 0.89 2 0.60 2 0.60 2.00 0.10 2.19
3 Princeton University 1.82 0.64 3 0.90 6 1.80 4.00 0.20 3.54
4 Stanford University 4.65 1.63 4 1.20 3 0.90 6.00 0.30 4.03
5 Massachusetts Inst. of Technology 4.82 1.69 8 2.40 5 1.50 5.00 0.25 5.84
6 Dartmouth College 8.47 2.96 7 2.10 10 3.00 11.00 0.55 8.61
7 Columbia University 10.06 3.52 11 3.30 8 2.40 15.00 0.75 9.97
8 Duke University 6.06 2.12 6 1.80 19 5.70 10.00 0.50 10.12
9 Brown University 13.41 4.69 12 3.60 7 2.10 13.00 0.65 11.04
10 California Inst. of Technology 5.71 2.00 28 8.40 4 1.20 1.00 0.05 11.65
11 University of Pennsylvania 8.65 3.03 16 4.80 12 3.60 17.00 0.85 12.28
12 Rice University 15.12 5.29 20 6.00 17 5.10 8.00 0.40 16.79
13 University of Chicago 11.47 4.01 14 4.20 27 8.10 16.00 0.80 17.11
14 Cornell University 12.12 4.24 25 7.50 15 4.50 42.00 2.10 18.34
15 Northwestern University 12.65 4.43 21 6.30 21 6.30 27.00 1.35 18.38
16 Georgetown University 21.71 7.60 17 5.10 16 4.80 23.00 1.15 18.65
17 Johns Hopkins University 14.18 4.96 24 7.20 28 8.40 28.00 1.40 21.96
18 University of Notre Dame 19.00 6.65 35 10.50 13 3.90 25.00 1.25 22.30
19 University of Virginia 21.06 7.37 33 9.90 20 6.00 40.00 2.00 25.27
20 University of California-Berkeley 20.47 7.16 41 12.30 23 6.90 37.00 1.85 28.21
21 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 23.71 8.30 30 9.00 42 12.60 46.00 2.30 32.20
22 Emory University 17.86 6.25 36 10.80 61 18.30 39.00 1.95 37.30
23 Tufts University 26.50 9.28 45 13.50 40 12.00 75.00 3.75 38.53
24 Carnegie Mellon University 22.94 8.03 51 15.30 46 13.80 29.00 1.45 38.58
25 Washington University 15.94 5.58 47 14.10 62 18.60 19.00 0.95 39.23
26 University of California-Los Angeles 25.38 8.88 61 18.30 36 10.80 63.00 3.15 41.13
27 U. of North Carolina-Chapel Hill 26.29 9.20 90 27.00 31 9.30 50.00 2.50 48.00</p>
<hr>
<p>Notes:</p>
<p>1) Freshman class no. error updated for Grinnell College
2) Weightings re-weighted to reflect USNWR as the most widely used ranking. The adjusted weightings:
**35.0% - USNWR ('91-'07) Avg Ranking
30.0% - WSJ Feeder Ranking
30.0% - Revealed Preferences Ranking
05.0% - NMS Per Capita Ranking*
3) Note the "Tiering" (as denoted by font color) - determined by relative larger "drops" in the total weighted average:
- The average total weighted rank "difference" from School A to School B (e.g. Harvard vs. Yale, Yale vs. Princeton, etc.) between successive Tier I schools averaged = 1.15
- The Tier II average "difference" (from School A to School B) = 0.73
- The Tier III average = 0.92
- In other words, all of the respective Tier average "differences" (I, II, II) hovered near (or below) 1.00
- The first "step down" difference between the last Tier I school (MIT) and the first Tier II school (Dartmouth) = 2.78 (i.e. significantly higher than the average Tier I difference of ~1)
- The next "step down" from the last Tier II school (UPenn) to first Tier III school (Rice) = 4.51 (i.e. significantly higher than the average Tier II difference of 0.73)
- The last "step down" from Tier III (Notre Dame) to Tier IV (Virginia) = 2.97*</p>
<p>Ohhh, Pretty. :) Also, I like these rankings, although they don’t seem much different. </p>
<p>I also still think WashU gets the bum end of the deal.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The_Prestige, Political Science is a traditional Social Science. Engineering is a professional field. Students with a Masters in Political Science either become street performers or earn $30,000-$50,000 as assistant-something somewhere! Students with MS in Engineering usually get jobs that pay anywhere between $60,000 and $80,000 fresh out of their program. Many highly gifted students at major universities like Cal, CMU, Cornell, Michigan, MIT and Stanford opt for a MS in Engineering because they really only want a career in Engineering.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think the ranking is THAT badly warped. After all, we both know that plenty of engineers go to business school. Something like 25-40% of the classes at all top B-schools are former engineers. I would venture to say that the percentage of poli-sci grads who go to B-school is pretty small. Hence, just like poli-sci grads tend to go to law school, engineers tend to go to business school. </p>
<p>
[quote]
“but top students will apply to top grad schools even if they aren't in the same geographic area”</p>
<p>-Don’t underestimate the power of regional bias….
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree. There's a big difference between where you choose to apply and where you ultimately choose to go. An East Coast person who wants an MBA may apply to Stanford, but may prefer to go to Harvard (if he can get in) to stay closer to home. I believe the WSJ looked only at where people chose to go, not where they got into. And the fact is, the bulk of the US population is still on the East Coast, hence the population at large will have a general preference for the East Coast. </p>
<p>That's not to say that the WSJ is not geographically biased, because I think it is too. But I don't think it's AS biased as is being implied here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The_Prestige, Political Science is a traditional Social Science. Engineering is a professional field.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but this is a pretty arbitrary dichotomy. I can agree, maybe, that the engineering BS is a professional degree mostly because most engineering BS programs are accredited by ABET, whereas no such accrediting body exists for the liberal arts. But few engineering graduate programs are accredited. I know a person who got her Master's and PhD in Chemical Engineering from MIT, but she is still not an 'accredited' engineer (because her BS was in Biology - her MIT PhD thesis was on biotechnology processes). Engineering grad programs are basically run however way the program wants to run them, with no standards body existing to certify their curricula. There's often times little difference between a graduate program in engineering and a graduate program in science (or math). </p>
<p>I know some physics PhD students who are basically doing EE work, and vice versa. My example, my former roommate was a MIT PhD EE student who was studying electromagnetic waves. That's basically physics. In fact, many of the EECS profs he was working with had joint appointments with the physics department. I know a number of EECS PhD students who were studying algorithm theory, and that's little different from just studying for a PhD in math. In fact, the wiz-kid, Erik Demaine, who became an assistant prof in EECS at MIT at the age of 20 (the youngest professor in the history of MIT), is really a mathematician. His PhD thesis was on computational origami (which is basically a math topic), and you look at his papers, and they are basically math papers (but obviously with many applications to CS).</p>
<p><a href="http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/%7Eedemaine/%5B/url%5D">http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~edemaine/</a></p>
<p>But the point is, if you're going to look at grad eng programs, you might as well also look at grad science/math programs as in many cases, they're practically the same thing.</p>
<p>Furthermore, I would say that if you want to consider engineering because it is 'professional', I would say that certain other fields are more worthy of consideration. Like nursing. Like education (teaching). After all, the truth is, ABET certification is just not very important for most engineering jobs. MIT Bioengineering is not (yet) ABET certified, yet the grads seem to do just fine. In contrast, to work as a nurse or a teacher, you actually have to graduate from a certified program (or other certified alternative tracks).</p>
<p>Sakky, the point I made is simple. 90% of people with a MS in Engineering from a top 10 program find jobs and the average pay is roughly $70,000. Can you say the same thin of people who earn BAs in Political Science or History?</p>
<p>But even that is not a particularly meaningful distinction. You're using money as the defining factor? Then why not talk about Pharmacy Schools? I seem to recall somewhere that the average PharmD starting salary is over 80k, and I strongly suspect that 90% of all new PharmD grads from any pharmacy school (not just the top 10, but ANY pharmacy school) get jobs. So why not include pharmacy schools? Nursing, I understand, is a fairly lucrative profession too these days. So why not including graduate nursing schools? Why not dental schools? Why not optometry schools?</p>