<p>So I was wondering, what makes up these rankings that US world and etc do? I know it has to do with quality of education and research opportunities, but does that mean that UIUC has less of a quality of learning than MIT? Or is it more based on research opportunities when it comes down to this point? Is it course depth? I'm not positive as to what truly seperates a school like U of Wisconsin and MIT in say... chemical engineering.</p>
<p>the US News engineering rankings are done by peer assessment surveys, that’s the only criteria in the rankings</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? So are they really all that accurate then? I imagine there’s an extent of accuracy, but they can’t be fully accurate.</p>
<p>They are about as accurate as the BCS rankings are in college football. They generally get the right idea, but there are plenty of biases, overrated schools, and underrated schools. Still, it is a good rough guide to the pecking order amongst engineering schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I definitely agree! I just hate it how some people base there whole decision off of the rankings.</p>
<p>I agree with what you just said Salve, people shouldn’t be picking schools by US News ranking orders but the list can give an idea of what general schools are well respected compared to other schools</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I agree with this. It does give a general idea of well-respected schools. I just don’t like it when I mention a school that is not top on the list and people say that it’s not a good school and is much worse than the top ones.</p>
<p>I agree with too, just because the University of Oklahoma isn’t in the top 70 or so for engineering doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t go there for engineering. You go where you think you can succeed and make the best out of opportunities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yes!!! Exactly!!! Thank you!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Great analogy, couldn’t have said it better myself.</p>
<p>gstein, based on the threads you generally respond to and the fact that you are from Texas according to your profile thing next to your posts, I am guessing you are an Aggie… that true?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Top schools are in this regard more marketable than lesser ranked schools, as prestige definitely has merit among employers and academia. Does this not equate top schools providing more opportunities, if all else is equal?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well to be entirely correct PA is the sole criterion for the specific disciplines within engineering but the graduate overall engineering ranking use other factors such as employer surveys and student body. The undergraduate overall ranking isn’t much different.</p>
<p>My thoughts:
(1) Ranking and the choice of school have only a secondary influence on how much you learn. I hate to pull numbers out of the air, but let’s say, the average “hard-working and gifted student” might be able to get 10-15% more “academic knowledge” at a top-ranked school compared to a bottom-ranked school. I doubt it’s much more than this.</p>
<p>(2) Ranking and choice of school have a reduced input as far as networking and opportunities go, but here it is more pronounced. For the same kind of student, I’m guessing 20-30% better offers/acceptances/pay/etc.</p>
<p>Of course, this doesn’t take into account the following things:
- at a less well-ranked school, better students will have more opportunities than they would at a top school because, well, here they’re among the best and at top schools they’re just another student.
- less well-ranked schools often provide more financial assistance for the same record, or at least such is my understanding. Money talks, and there’s a point where you have to take $50,000 into consideration.</p>
<p>@AuburnMathTutor - I disagree with you because we can take a hypothetical student who is average at MIT and above average at UT Austin. He will have more opportunities at MIT just because MIT faculty have far more opportunities and resources than just to cater to the top students there (even average students there are probably intelligent).</p>
<p>I agree that the average student at MIT is intelligent, probably as intelligent as one of the top students at, say, UT Austin (although their program is also very good, so this may not be a valid comparison, but you can substitute any other school of your choice).</p>
<p>However, I disagree that the average student at MIT will receive as much attention/funds/equipment/etc. as the top student at UT Austin. While MIT may have more of these things to give, I still feel like the top ~10% of the students will be getting ~90% of the benefits.</p>
<p>If anything, I would imagine that your intelligent-but-not-over-the-top student would be better off not being at the top-ranked places, just for this reason. There are clear benefits to being a “big fish in a little pond”. Whether these benefits carry over into the world of work/higher education or not is up for debate.</p>
<p>For instance (warning: anecdote coming), I have done approximately 4 semesters of undergraduate research, have tutored for the university for as many semesters, and have held an undergraduate teaching assistantship. I have been awarded several scholarships based on academic merit, and received several other distinctions. I was also awarded an undergraduate research fellowship, and through my mentor have access to one of the most powerful supercomputers in the world to do the research on. I can’t help but feel like, had I gone to MIT, I would have (1) not been able to get all these things because I wouldn’t have stood out as much and (2) would have had to let research and work experience suffer to keep up the academics.</p>
<p>I don’t think there’s anything wrong with going to a well-ranked school, particularly if finances are in order or not an issue. It’s just not for everybody. And that doesn’t mean that the people who go to other places are failures, or that they receive a significantly “worse” education.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A lot of these things don’t matter as much in grad school. All facilities that are open to people are open to all students as long as you can get permission of the operator. </p>
<p>Personally, I’ve found the biggest impact of being at a “big name” school to be the wow factor it gets. I was at a recent meeting of one of my professional societies, and after mentioning where I’m a grad student to this dude that works at the equivalent of a national lab in Switzerland, he told me I’d be welcome to come work there any time I wanted. I know I definitely wouldn’t have gotten that treatment had I been at Whatsamatta U.</p>
<p>Anyway, I’d say one of the most important things outside of your own advisor when looking at schools is what facilities are available outside of your group. I’ve spent a lot of time on equipment that’s not owned by my own lab, and without it, I’d be greatly limited in the types of experiments and tests I could perform.</p>
<p>In general, I believe prestige is more important when it comes to graduate school. For undergraduate, I believe its importance is often overemphasized.</p>
<p>I one asked my schools provost this and the simple answer is,</p>
<p>Usenews sends surveys out to the top administration of all the schools, and then those people rate all other schools but themselves, or in there region. They dont rate there own school.</p>
<p>so does that mean that the engineering rankings are a sign of regional prestige not necessarily national prestige?</p>