<p>boston_man: as an ME myself I can tell you that all of the schools on your list are good for ME. Don't know very much about aerospace programs but I would bet that if the major is offered at these schools, the quality is probably very good as well since aerospace has a lot of commonality with ME. As I've said in many posts, COMPLETING the degree program at ANY of these schools is the major consideration. At schools like UMass and UDelaware, particularly if you're in-state, admission will probably be somewhat easier than at BU or Case. But, by the sames token there will probably be many more program droup-outs at the state schools, the difficulty of actually finishing your degree will be similar at all these places.</p>
<p>I'm not so much of a startup person myself (though this is more because relatively few startups seem to do the particular type of work I want to do than anything else), but I have to say I'm surprised at all the anti-startup sentiment here. A lot of people seem to think that unless your startup is wildly successful, you're going to be living on a park bench, and that only rich, privileged kids can afford the risk of startups. </p>
<p>I know an awful lot of people whose work lives have been primarily with startups - I would guess around half of my social group - and a few who are the founders of startups, and nobody's gotten rich (yet, anyway...most of these people are still pretty young), but nobody's ended up on a park bench or otherwise unable to support themselves either. They live the same middle-class existence as the people I know who aren't in startups. Most of them were not rich kids by any means (and the ones who were, were financially independent from their parents post-college), and a lot of them are paying off significant student loans.</p>
<p>Some of their startups went bust, yes. They got jobs at other startups (or sometimes at non-startups). Lots of those around here.</p>
<p>One benefit of top schools that surprisingly few people are bringing up, is that sometimes you in fact get a better education at top schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One benefit of top schools that surprisingly few people are bringing up, is that sometimes you in fact get a better education at top schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's what we want you to think....</p>
<p>"One benefit of top schools that surprisingly few people are bringing up, is that sometimes you in fact get a better education at top schools. "</p>
<p>In many cases that might be true but engineering as a whole is pretty standardized. It isn't like MIT is going to magically say "hey guys, the real equation is F = M/A, but don't tell the others."</p>
<p>comparing my experience with someone who transferred in from a less well known school, the transfer student told me that the teaching is similar, only that at the less well known school, the prof will explain everything in detail, the problem sets are easier, and the exams are more straight forward. I think good engineering schools challenge you more.</p>
<p>f=ma (not sure if it was a joke?)</p>
<p>
[quote]
It isn't like MIT is going to magically say "hey guys, the real equation is F = M/A, but don't tell the others."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The way I've always had the breadth of many engineering programs rationalized to me is that they're trying to teach you a way to think, not just specific formulas. At the more well reknown schools, you might get a more rigorous program, or be more stimulated by your fellow students.</p>
<p>never mind, got it, lol.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's what we want you to think....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not some brainwashed twit high schooler. I'm a college grad and I work as an engineer. And at this point, I've taken engineering classes at three different schools - one at the very top of the engineering ranks, one that's considered a top school with a strong but not phenomenal engineering program, and one fairly strong school with a mid-level engineering program. When I make statements about the relative merits of different tiers of engineering schools, I'm going off my own experience.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In many cases that might be true but engineering as a whole is pretty standardized. It isn't like MIT is going to magically say "hey guys, the real equation is F = M/A, but don't tell the others."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, but you learn the subjects in a different level of depth, you're expected to be able to perform to a different depth on exams and problem sets, you move quicker (which allows you to cover more material and/or take more classes), you frequently have an easier time getting good internships, you have more opportunities to do research as an undergrad, and you have more options for your electives. The obvious downside is that the profs expect you to be able to fill in more blanks yourself, so they don't do it for you as much, and if it's a subject that is not particularly a strength of yours, it can be a struggle to keep up.</p>
<p>Hey jessiehl,</p>
<p>when you say you went to 3 engineering schools is that cause you transferred or did undergrad, masters and phD? </p>
<p>If its the latter, would that explain the different levels of difficultly?</p>
<p>Not necessarily, as I've found the classes here at Caltech tend to be harder with the more undergrads that are enrolled in it. I also found the grad-level courses I took back at CMU to be easier than my undergrad ones.</p>
<p>Of course, this might also because the grad ones are more of what I'm actually interested in, so I might be more motivated and have an easier time paying attention/learning.</p>
<p>i took graduate classes too at Michigan, and found the graduate classes easier, i don't think it has to do with being more motivated. I think by graduate school, people are more laid back and relaxed, the most motivated/competitive students in the graduate classes are mostly undergrads. And I found that graduate classes are graded easier. Most of them were curved to a A- or B+ instead of the undergrads' B-. And unless you don't give any effort, you won't fail. The worst thing is getting a B-.</p>
<p>I agree with keefer. Grad students tend not to focus on grades as much.</p>
<p>
[quote]
when you say you went to 3 engineering schools is that cause you transferred or did undergrad, masters and phD?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Undergrad, special student, and certificate student. The certificate program is a mix of grad and undergrad-level classes (I switched fields, which is why I'm in it). I don't think the level of classes has much to do with it - if I want to compare difficulty, I can just go to the websites for the class with the same name at different schools and look at the problem sets and exams, to see how they compare.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not necessarily, as I've found the classes here at Caltech tend to be harder with the more undergrads that are enrolled in it. I also found the grad-level courses I took back at CMU to be easier than my undergrad ones.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That was the common perception at MIT too. The grad classes tended to have easier grading, and had to accommodate students who did their undergrad at easier schools and had less background.</p>
<p>I had one friend who went her entire undergrad career at MIT (in EE) without failing a single test, until the second term of her senior year. When she did fail a test, it was in a grad class. She was really happy that if she had to fail a test, it was in a grad class, because "if I've done the work and learned anything at all, they won't give me less than a B".</p>
<p>How's uic,northern illinois, southern illinois carbondale engineering reputations?</p>
<p>Bumpity bump</p>