<p>San Jose State has a respectful eng program. Its in sil valley and with its location you can access one thing many students from top colleges dont typically get... the chance to intern for some of the top tech companies. I know that intel, ibm, hitachi, and many others offer intern programs... and these interns have good chances of lading jobs with these companies out of college which is difficult to do.</p>
<p>Yes, I think I heard about their Computer degree. Anything more detail on their Undergraduate Aerospace or aeronautical program ? Anyone?</p>
<p>If you have the US News Ranking for Undergraduete Aerospace or Aeronautical ? Please post. </p>
<p>Does San Jose State U, WIchita State U, or Claifornia State U at Long Beach make the US News Ranking list? </p>
<p>I'm debating whether to go out state for a better U i.e. Purdue, EMbry-Riddle or stay close to home and save the room/board. Cost is an issue, but better education is also important.</p>
<p>The US News Rankings are on page 1 of this thread</p>
<p>Lancer78, thanks for pointing out.</p>
<p>Read the ranking on this 1st page. I just thought there are more to the list.</p>
<p>im currently attending a CCC and i wanna transfer to most likely a UC for aeroscape engineering. anyone know of the best areospace schools in califonria and anyone in aerospace engineering who transferred from a CCC or are in the same situation as i am??????</p>
<p>None of the UCs are really good in Aerospace Engineering. Stanford and Caltech are awesome though. Your best bet with the UCs is Cal, eventhough they do not really offer Aerospace Engineering to undergrads. What you can do is major in Mechanical Engineering at Cal and then go for a MS degree in Aeropsace Engineering.</p>
<p>Purdue definitely has one of the best aerospace engineering programs. UMich and GTech score higher than Purdue in aeronautics but in aerospace only MIT is better than Purdue. The faculty members of Purdue's Aeronautical and Aerospace Engr (AAE) program are simply amazing. Hard working, dedicated, intelligent and most importantly.. visionaries.. that's how I describe Purdue's AAE department. In my opinion, the main reason why MIT does better than Purdue in aerospace is because they have better funding. But if you want some really quality education... come to Purdue!!</p>
<p>Why are schools without PhD's "generally worse schools"? I want to go to either Embry-riddle or U of Michigan, but its gonna be a really tough decision. Both of them are ranked really high. Oh, and I also applied to Purdue. So yeah, between those 3 schools, its gonna be a tough decision.</p>
<p>Are ERAU and UM comparable? I like the fact that ER has a small pop'n and is focused on AE quite a lot. But I've heard great things about UM also...Lots of research, and its ranked pretty high, right up there with MIT and caltech.
And Purdue, I heard its AE program was great (including the other Engineering majors) but that the rest of the school was only mediocre. Is that just a rumor or what? thx.</p>
<p>cambridge, mass was supposed to be the headquarters for nasa in the 50's... but instead, they went to texas 8-O</p>
<p>"i am interested in studying aerospace engineering, but i dont which college has good prog.
my goal is work in NASA, so i am tryin to find a college which has connection with NASA."</p>
<p>Why work with NASA? I mean, do you wish to reform NASA? It's very bureaucratic now-a-days. If you want to work for NASA to make some change, good. It needs it.</p>
<p>Let's see, I've worked for NASA (at JPL, badge#xxx686) on and off since 2003 and now I am a technical consultant for Div 3533 and HVI, under H.L. and M.A., respectively. I may have a bit of experience with what you have spoke about... being in NASA and all.</p>
<p>Go with the "back-door" approach to getting a job. Intern for a year and keep in touch with your boss and such. If technical people request you be hired, the HR people will listen to them.</p>
<p>As for NASA-connected schools, I don't see the point. It would be better to go to a school where you learn a lot and then stun NASA with your brilliance than just try to go the normal recruiting method... I mean, just because there is a link between some schools and NASA does not mean that they are super-exceptional schools. I think part of NASA's demise over the last few decades has been its overzealous recruiting to specific schools (instead of being more broad, allowing for more diverse pools). If you do this, you are just adding to the problem... You'll get in to NASA, but you may not have received the best education.</p>
<p>"Why are schools without PhD's "generally worse schools"? I want to go to either Embry-riddle or U of Michigan, but its gonna be a really tough decision. Both of them are ranked really high. Oh, and I also applied to Purdue. So yeah, between those 3 schools, its gonna be a tough decision."</p>
<p>What about places like Harvey Mudd, Olin, Swarthmore, Reed, Pomona, Amherst, Grinnell? These are some of the top schools in the country and they don't have PhD programs. If you're talking about schools that have their name in technology, that narrows the list to Harvey Mudd and Olin, which are definitely comparable to schools like MIT, Caltech, and Stanford. Just because there are not movies about them doesn't mean that they are second-rate. In fact, the self-selecting applicant pool is very nice in ensuring that only those who are serious about attending will apply.</p>
<p>Let's talk about education. At HMC, for instance, there are no TA's and professors go out of their way to make themselves accessible to students. The technical and academic rigor is ridiculous, and although it has recently been shown that the mean gpa is in the 3.2 range, the gpas don't get boosted to junior/senior year (roughly 2.7 up to that point). Imagine a program where EVERYONE (including biology majors) have to be familiar (as core requirements) with QED, SR, E&M (and lab), Classical Mech (and lab), 2 terms Chem (and lab), Comp Sci, DiffEqs, MultiV, LinAl, ProbStat, Bio, Signals and Systems. (plus 12 hum/ss courses) Add two more terms of Signals and Systems, Exp Eng, Chem Eng, Continuum Mech, Elect Eng, Digital El Eng, 5+ Eng electives, Clinic and Research ontop of that and you have a monster engineering degree (and probably have learned a lot!).
<a href="http://www.eng.hmc.edu/EngWebsite/DeptHbook/05-06AdvisingHandbook.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.eng.hmc.edu/EngWebsite/DeptHbook/05-06AdvisingHandbook.pdf</a></p>
<p>At a school where it is all about the undergrads (all 720 of them), you'll receive much more attention and quite possibly a better education.</p>
<p>Olin may be even better at providing attention to their students. I'm haven't heard very much about how their program is (there are only 60 or so alums?), but I'd imagine that they totally kick butt over there. </p>
<p>I think a lot of people who understand the importance of personal attention and opportunities consciously go to schools where there are no grad students. If there were grad students at my school I definitely would not have the types of opportunites I have (not to mention I wouldn't be there).</p>
<p>And the obligatory HMC exposition has been posted.</p>
<p>"And the obligatory HMC exposition has been posted."
oh _____ you. it was an example. in fact, i gave mad props to olin. at least i only write about stuff i know about. you haven't the faintest clue... you're not even on the west coast so keep your trap shut.</p>
<p>you have no freaking clue who you are dealing with so keep your personal commentary to yourself. </p>
<p>to the OP, it is your decision to read what i write. i am unaware of anyone else (who is frequently) on this forum who actually does work for nasa. i'll stop offering my thoughts though (and my freaking time, mr payne!) because i have better things to do than be ridiculed for using my education as an example to OP inquiries where it is perfectly justified.</p>
<p>good day.</p>
<p>rocketDA, I personally respect HMC a great deal. However, I feel it is unwise to compare LACs to research universities. Some students are better suited for the LAC approach whereas others prefer the flexibility and offerings of a research university. A student at HMC or RHIT will get great individualized instruction and build an amazing foundation in general engineering, but will be limited, for the most part, to those general Engineering classes. Some students may wish to delve deeply into a particular discipline, such as Biomedical or Aerospace Engineering, taking several highly specialized and focused classes in those sub-divisions. Such students will probably be better off at a school like Cornell or Michigan.</p>
<p>In terms of placement, I am not sure how other schools do. I am familiar with Michigan and since Michigan is one of the schools the OP is seriously considering, let me say that year-in, year-out, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, NASA and Northrop Grumman are among the top recruiters at the CoE. Last year, 16 Michigan Engineering students were hired full-time by Lockheed Martin alone. Another 25 or so joined Being, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon. As far as NASA goes, the Glenn, Johnson and Kennedy centers as well as the JPL all recruit students at the CoE too. But one should remember that the competition for those 50 or so positions is stiff. There are literally over a 100 undergraduate and graduate students applying for those jobs so one must be highly driven and qualified. Still, the fact that 50 or so Michigan students get jobs with those highly desirable, cuting edge Aerospace companies means that one's chances are far better than at most other universities. I am sure most top rated Engineering programs have similar success placing their students into top companies. As RocketDA points out, the only way a student is going to improve her/his chances of landing such a covetted job is by rolling up their sleeves and digging in.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"And the obligatory HMC exposition has been posted."
oh _____ you. it was an example. in fact, i gave mad props to olin. at least i only write about stuff i know about. you haven't the faintest clue... you're not even on the west coast so keep your trap shut.</p>
<p>you have no freaking clue who you are dealing with so keep your personal commentary to yourself.</p>
<p>to the OP, it is your decision to read what i write. i am unaware of anyone else (who is frequently) on this forum who actually does work for nasa. i'll stop offering my thoughts though (and my freaking time, mr payne!) because i have better things to do than be ridiculed for using my education as an example to OP inquiries where it is perfectly justified.</p>
<p>good day.
[/quote]
I'm on the West Coast, actually.</p>
<p>Also, it seems as if every post you are talking about how much HMC rocks. That's fine. Just don't expect people not to comment on it. If you can't handle free speech, well, tough.</p>
<p>I truly feel GT has one of the best AE programs. I'll quote myself from another thread (which was a quote itself):</p>
<p>
[quote]
Guggenheim's strong interest in aviation was responsible for persuading his father to provide funds for the establishment of the first Guggenheim School of Aeronautics at New York University in 1925. He became president of the Daniel Guggenheim Fund for the Promotion of Aeronautics a year later. This fund, totaling $3 million, included an equipment loan for operating the first regularly scheduled commercial airline in the United States. It also provided for the establishment of the first weather reporting exclusively for passenger airplanes.</p>
<p>Before the fund terminated in January 1930, it had helped to establish schools of aeronautical engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Georgia School [now Institute] of Technology, California Institute of Technology, University of Washington, Stanford University and University of Michigan. From these schools came many of the aeronautical engineers who built today's airplane industry.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Also, some prominent AE graduates of the GT include:</p>
<pre><code>* Robert Ormsby - President, Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co., 1984-86.
* David Lewis - CEO, General Dynamics Corp., 1970-85.
* David Garrett - President, Delta Airlines
* Hollis Harris - Delta
* John Young - Commander, 1st Space Shuttle flight, Director Astronaut Corps, 1974-87.
</code></pre>
<p>** * Richard Truly - NASA Administrator, GTRI Director**
*** James Thompson - Deputy Administrator/NASA**
* Maj.General Carl McNair, Jr.- Chief of U.S. Army Aviation
* Don P. Giddens - Dean of Engineering, Johns Hopkins</p>
<p>I am majoring in aerospace engineering and would love to work at Lockheed Martin. But I picked PSU over Purdue for undergrad. Was that a bad choice? Is PSU's AERSPeng still respectable at companies as prestigous as Lockheed? Does PSU have good connections with companies like Lockheed?</p>
<p>Georgia Institute of Technology</p>
<p>"Georgia Institute of Technology"
I second that. Along with Texas A&M</p>
<p>Where does Georgia Tech rank for grad in aerospace eng?</p>
<p>It is tied with Michigan-Ann Arbor at #4.</p>
<p>If you want to work on real Aerospace projects, you can't do much better than University of Colorado - Boulder. They do a lot of joint work with Ball Aeropsace (the people who built the corrective lenses for Hubble), which is also located in Boulder. If the Hubble servicing mission ever flies, they will be installing two new instruments built at Ball Aerospace, one of which was designed at CU. CU will also be doing the data analysis for NASA for that instrument.</p>
<p>In addition to Hubble, there is a long list of instruments on planetary probes, that were built at BallAerospace in Boulder, many of which had CU involvement.</p>
<p>And if your idea of Aerospace involves actually getting into Space, there are few colleges that have had as many astronauts as CU.</p>