Is there less focus on Engineering at VU? What could be the possible reasons? I am afraid with this outcome.
@maiju15 There are too many engineering schools that are excellent in the US and I am sure size plays a role. Other top private schools are not perfect engineering performers (Harvard’s UG engineering vs. its math, natural, and physical sciences for example). In addition, isn’t 36 better than what Vandy used to be in engineering. It honestly isn’t bad at all. Instead of worrying just about the rank of the school (which may be governed by things such as: how many people finish the major, number of faculty, etc. Maybe job placement?), worry about the educational quality. I personally have seen some of Vanderbilt’s engineering course materials and thought it was certainly much stronger (relative to other peer schools) than say…natural or even physical sciences. The content was very rigorous and very geared toward problem based learning and higher level problem solving (you may say…duhhh, it is engineering, but trust me, there are plenty of schools that don’t do it right and mainly emphasize rote math and manipulation of formulas instead of a conceptual understanding of concepts or the math being used. To do the things I saw, you had to really be good at the latter). I think Vandy is doing fine there. I am sure there are many more things it can do to bring the school to prominence in terms of innovating its curriculum or opportunities, but it definitely does what it is supposed to do in the classroom in the most general sense (other science programs need to get with what those are doing!).
Perhaps if there were co-op programs like at Georgia Tech (this makes Tech students much more competitive for prestigious jobs outside of the south) or Northeastern. And also, many schools with top engineering schools have very strong (as in good even relative to other schools in or beyond their league) undergraduate CS and physical sciences curricula. These are after all basically support depts for engineering. Either way, that placement will not really affect you at all…as that is extremely strong. It just may reflect that several other schools have larger engineering programs and maybe better co-curricular or extra curricular options associated with their programs. The same thing goes for highest ranking business schools vs. lower ones, though I’d say that academic differences do play more of a role for b-school rankings (students are surveyed about how much work they claim to do per week).
There are significant resources going into the engineering programs to bring them up to elite status. The new engineering building (230,000 SF) is designed to create state-of-the art teaching and research capabilities needed to recruit the best engineering talent at the faculty, grad., and UG levels. The building will also have an innovation center to help projects get from the lab to the marketplace and a student center space designed for intellectual discussions between engineers and other STEM students. I expect Vandy’s engineering rankings (and research productivity) to jump forward over the next 5 years.
Have you visited Vandy?
A new building isn’t really enough for the undergrad. engineering ranking(s) to improve though (as every top and mediocre engineering school does the same sorts of things). They have to improve the actual academic and non-academic programmatic options geared toward undergraduates that will develop them more and thus even further increase access to elite post-grad. opps. This means that the new facility must have more than “capabilities”, they have to have a plan on how to use it differently than before. Vanderbilt also already gets really strong students score wise, so that isn’t the ticket either. They’ll just have to be creative when the building opens and make sure that the benefits are not only for grad. students, PI’s, and post-docs (then you get “Harvard syndrome” where the UG entity is not really reknowned but yet the school is known for its discoveries and innovations in Technology and engineering because of everyone else). It must be careful to not “leave undergraduates behind” so to speak. With that said, again, I don’t think it is doing bad or even mediocre now academically.
I suppose it could have some of its UG programs follow in the footsteps of the major public and private engineering schools in certain areas (like biomedical or chemical engineering) and that would help. It is all about providing opportunities and really energizing the undergraduate engineering community. There is some evidence that there is effort with that (I looked it up) given that Vandy engineering students compete very well in many neat competitions. In addition, the school just started having hack-a-thons. Building off of stuff like that helps much more. Never be tricked by new building that they say such and such “can” happen in. This is the oldest trick in the book. Undergraduates could end up learning the same exact things, the same exact way, but in a prettier space. It will end up being a nice gimmicky pretty space but that is all. Hopefully better is done.
When building a city, a hospital, a college football program, or an elite engineering program you must have the infrastructure in place that will allow you to recruit talent and provide them with the resources that will enable them to reach their potential. You can’t have out of date equipment or an out of date facility. You need the capabilities to do this state-of-the art research and academic teaching. This building will help with the above. Yes, they must utilize this new resource to continue to grow and not just fight over who gets the corner office. New equipment, labs, and buildings tends to energize people too. I have faith that Vandy would not spend this kind of money on a gimmicky pretty space.
When it comes to UG teaching and education Vanderbilt excels and I don’t think they will change this commitment (unlike some other top 20 U’s). The USNWR ranks Vanderbilt # 8 for undergraduate teaching, tied with Stanford, so I don’t think leaving UG’s behind is a concern.
I do believe they want more research productivity. Engineering and medicine are the low hanging fruit to improve global rankings as they are more dependent on graduate programs and faculty research.
USNWR isn’t the only one to rank that, and in some other rankings for that, neither Vandy, Stanford, and many other top 20’s rank but so well…I go by what I see in terms of course materials vs. RMP ratings to judge the “teaching” and “academic climate”…I think Stanford and Vandy are solid, but definitely not 8. I would argue that some places that actually get a bad rep. for teaching (Harvard for example) should definitely be higher. For example, Georgia State ranks 14…in my opinion, as a person, who currently teaches/TA’s there in the sciences there for example, it needs much more rigor (but it is obviously a rather new school without a super strong student body, so I can see where many professors are coming from, though I am impressed from what I’ve seen from students taking some of the biology and neuroscience classes there). Vandy also needs more rigor in some areas (as do many elites- usually students at all of these places “feel” like they are being challenged enough or “the most” but seeing materials from other institutions can be eye-opening and allow one to figure out the strengths of your school in some areas vs. those of another…Like when I learned Emory was abnormally/unexpectedly strong in certain areas, but then much weaker than it could be in others…but it is okay…I guess as many other schools have the same issues. Only a few are very consistently strong and intense across tons of departments) and needs to work on science teaching outside of engineering (again, I think engineering is excellent).
Unlike Stanford and some of the other places on the list, from what I’ve seen, the intensity of the academics in many departments does not match the caliber of the students yet. In terms of STEM, I think WashU is much better though apparently it has its issues (there is a professor who charts his experience attempting to teach an intermediate math class differently than other instructors did in past years…let us say…it didn’t go well).
This methodology doesn’t cut it: “College presidents, provosts and admissions deans who participated in the annual U.S. News peer assessment survey were asked to nominate up to 10 schools in their Best Colleges ranking category with a strength in undergraduate teaching.”
RMP ratings are apparently even more accurate (as they often reflect actual teaching evaluations, including when a written portion is offered to students) according to many studies.
College administrators, and faculty, when it comes to teaching, can have a bias against their own school. At Harvard, for example, administrators and faculty constantly crap on undergraduate teaching there…it is a tradition since forever (however, apparently RMP ratings are actually solid, on the list I allude to, Harvard was doing quite well, much better than the rumors would suggest). And it makes sense because the expectations are so high among students and administrators. There could be a tendency for them to look on with rose colored glasses at other places. The reality is, places like Princeton, Harvard, and Yale are actually much more innovative in undergraduate education (especially STEM) and certainly more intense than most/many other elites. However, if you are an older administrator who is kind of jaded, you probably cannot imagine that to be true (many of them tend to buy into the idea that there was some “golden age” of higher education when their institutions were once upon a time much more serious, good, or intense). However, if one were to actually look at the content of many of their courses especially in areas known to be challenging, one would be quite impressed, especially when compared to other schools. Those 3, for example, have some of the most “interesting” life science courses (especially at the introductory level). Chicago’s, WashU’s, and MIT’s were very solid as well, though more traditional I guess. And I can name many more courses in STEM (and non) where the same can be said for schools in those tiers.
`
As for infrastructure: Yes, you need it…but I’m saying that you and many other places will have it…but it is more important how you actually end up using it and whether or not it truly helps undergraduates. The research doesn’t count as much for UG engineering program rankings. Again, it is the formal and informal opps and just…pure numbers, that will help that the most. You have to be pretty aggressive to turn into a big name on the engineering school scene. But I will reiterate, for undergraduates, I believe, like many programs associated with Peabody, Blaire the creative writing program there, and some others, that engineering is one of the best I’ve seen. You are right in suggesting that it can perhaps only get better, but I am willing to bet that that the building won’t have much of a role to play in the end. Simply growing the things that I mentioned will set things off for undergrads into engineering. Like if you’ve ever been to places like Georgia Tech, it is those things (HUGE events and other opps that are integrated into the curriculum and schools associated with the engineering school) that sets them apart and energizes that unit. They’ve always had quite nice buildings that could support their needs (research and faculty/student recruiting). Activating undergrads is a more difficult task. Vandy needs to keep doing that if it wants UG programs to rise…I think aerospace has tons of potential for example due to the success in certain competitions.
Correction: Stanford is consistently ranked very well in those sorts of rankings (undergraduate teaching)…including ones that use student opinion/surveys and RMP. And Harvard did indeed perform very well in at least one such ranking…depends on how you do it I guess. Princeton and Yale seem uniformly appreciated as well…(by students and administrator oriented rankings). In STEM outside of the T and E, I like what I see at HYP and maybe MIT and Chicago more than Stanford though especially when it comes to life sciences.
Also, I am referring to the successes of Vandy’s aerospace club which appears to have many mechanical engineering majors (don’t know if y’all have AE), so maybe that’s the really strong program.
This ranking is for the graduate school. If you are looking at Vandy for graduate school, yes, there are better programs out there, and it isn’t really useful for you to be considering the school’s undergraduate ranking of #15.
If you’re looking at Vandy for undergrad, this is just a silly statistic to consider or worry about. The quality of the undergraduate engineering program at Vanderbilt is going to be essentially the same as every other top university.
Yeah, I am not convinced anyone attending Vandy for engineering is really being “cheated” unless you compare it to the titans like MIT, Caltech, Stanford, and maybe like Harvey Mudd. In that case, most students at other schools are getting screwed. The main differences are the big “support depts” (math, physics, and CS) which tend to be stronger at more Techie schools that even go beyond those, but in said case, those become less important for engineering majors as they progress.
Vanderbilt is strong in many things, but to be honest, I would choose a solid engineering school like Tennessee Tech in Cookeville over Vanderbilt for engineering - it is also much cheaper.
The median starting engineering salary is $10,000+ higher at Vandy. I would imagine that gap grows by mid-year. Not sure how the employment rates differ but I’m inclined to guess Vandy has a higher rate of job offers. It appears that Tennessee Tech collects this data and chooses not to publish it. This of course assumes you graduate – Vandy has a much higher retention rate (though many factors play into this).
Still, if you’re going to get zero financial aid, it’s hard to financially justify going to pretty much any private school. The engineering curriculum is just going to be very similar at every accredited school.
“The engineering curriculum is just going to be very similar at every accredited school.”
That’s the crux of this. My brother goes to my state school (which is not even ranked for engineering), and the content that he goes through is very similar to the engineering content that I’ve seen at Vandy. I also have friends who went to top 20 schools for engineering, and the differences in curriculum are almost non-existent.
Personally, I don’t think you go to top schools to necessarily get a “better” education. The name of the school carries far more weight, especially for a field like engineering.
Well, I guess…but those places got those names because of them being the first to do something a particular way. Like Georgia Tech (which doesn’t have the highest US Newsweek ranking overall but is definitely recognized as one of the HUGE names in STEM, especially engineering. And from what I have seen, Georgia Tech honestly isn’t too much different from Vandy in any STEM subject except math, physics, CS, and CE, and maybe BE/BME. The level of courses seems very similar to me. Georgia Tech’s fame comes from not only the intensity, but the overall environment. Many leading public and private universities probably have similar or better levels of rigor, but them and the big STEM schools have much more than that within the STEM community) infusing problem based learning throughout the whole BME curriculum. It’s a matter of the way they deliver the curriculum that often makes the differences. And again, the other opportunities and environment associated with the engineering entity at each school matter a lot in terms of how they are perceived and received by employers (naturally a school with a near mandatory co-op program will have an advantage with job placement for example as it gives students actual work experience before applying and makes them automatic industry connections). I suppose name recognition wears off once you are comparing schools that have strong ranks in USNews overall (say 50 or higher) and engineering units. They are recognized more for what makes the school different than similar. Admittedly the curriculum will be similar because the ABET accreditation is actually kind of serious…to the point that you’ll see less differences across schools with that accreditation than you will when say, comparing top 50 school undergraduate content and curriculum in other departments. It is kind of like how there is a large degree of standardization in medical school training but not in STEM graduate school training.
^^ regarding starting salary for Vanderbilt vs. Tennessee Tech, looks pretty close for mechanical engineering :
Both around $65,000…
See vanderbilt graph here:
http://engineering.vanderbilt.edu/docs/VUSE-Class-of-2014-Placement-Summary.pdf
See Tennessee Tech ME starting salary here at the last part of the page:
In a Tech school like GTECH, the variety and the breadth of course offerings in most Applied STEM topics cannot be compared to what schools like Vanderbilt can offer. Take for example, in CS, GTECH offers the following paths even for a BS degree:
a) Devices
b) Info Internetworks
c) Intelligence
d) Media
e) Modeling and Simulation
f) People
g) Systems and Architecture
h) Theory
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/threads-better-way-learn-cs
This is a list of the cos attending the CS Career Fair this week at GTECH.
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/student-life/career-development/career-fair-attendees
But then you have the location advantaged like Stanford, Berkeley, and Austin. In addition, places like Michigan, Cornell, and Rice are also pretty great in applied science despite not all of them having that type of breadth. Some places have exceptional engineering and applied science units and some don’t (some just have solid training in the classroom, while again, several others are much better at co at extracurricular offerings), complete Tech school or not. As for CS, that is just CS for which GT is known to be exceptional. I count it as a “support department”. There are schools without that sort of CS curriculum structure that are known for similar if not slightly better levels of excellence academically such as Stanford for example. Their location and prestige definitely stimulates recruiting success but no one can deny that the program is also just extremely strong. One could also argue that Harvard’s is also really strong. There are ways of getting around the breadth issue. It is called depth and great delivery of content. CS50 at Harvard is an interesting example of how a very large lecture class turns into essentially an “academic party” with the class essentially hosting its own design fairs and hack-a-thons. Mind you, that is technically an introductory course. That course alone will likely have lots of influence upon those who take it seriously. Likewise, Stanford is known for lots of tiering of their intro. CS classes so as to more or less “isolate programming geniuses”.
@Nerdyparent , the link you provided shows a salary survey from the National Association of Colleges and Employers. It is not the salaries of Tennessee Tech graduates. I imagine the post that hoping to mislead people. The figure I saw for Tennessee Tech graduates was from Payscale and was $52,000. I would imagine this website suffers from response bias and the actual number is lower.
@pancaked I certainly did not intend to mislead people.
Differences in starting salary likely vary based on the region where a graduate takes a job.
Just for fun - using this calculator https://www.jobsearchintelligence.com/salary-calculator-intro-etc - Plugging in the same GPA range for either Vanderbilt or Tennessee Tech grads with less than 1 year experience for mechanical engineering seem to reveal the same $51,000ish starting salary for the Nashville area for Mech E.
Not bashing Vanderbilt engineering - my freshman roommate was a mech E who later got a graduate degree Materials Science - just saying that Tennessee Tech is solid too and a lot cheaper.
@Nerdyparent Think you misunderstood me – I meant Tennessee Tech likely posts that table to mislead people into thinking that is the salary of their graduates (as you thought). Why else would they post a survey with national data on the exact same page as their alumni survey link?
By the way, I tried that calculator using a ton of TN colleges and they all gave the exact same results down to the dollar. Even Belmont, which of course is a music school and does not even offer an engineering degree. Next, I picked a community college in Wyoming. Got the exact same results. This calculator does not appear to take your school into account at all. I certainly do agree that the region matters though, it that makes salary data from a private university more difficult to interpret, as graduates go all over the place.