<p>
[quote]
mikesown - You do know that computer scientists have the highest starting salary of any of the engineering disciplines, correct? a "code monkey" at google is typically offered a starting salary of 85k annually with great benefits, working for a great company that really looks after their employee's well being and happiness. Microsoft and Apple are similar, very prestigious and offer very good positions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>actually, on a whole, chem.e's are still the highest starting salaries with ee's a little bit behind. working for apple/m$/or google are EXTREMELY competitive processes and once you get down to the last selection pool they compete vigorously over you which includes a high starting salary. for the most part tho, if you're not in the top 1-2% of your graduating class as a comp. sci., you get paid about half what those guys are paid</p>
<p>edit: wsj says aerospace is actually highest....damn nasa an boeing salaries!
edit 2: NACE says chem.e's still highest :) NACEWeb</a> Press Releases</p>
<p>
[quote]
edit: wsj says aerospace is actually highest....damn nasa an boeing salaries!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>NASA is gummint work. Do they really pay high salaries? I don't know one way or another, but I'm guessing the don't. </p>
<p>
[quote]
mikesown - You do know that computer scientists have the highest starting salary of any of the engineering disciplines, correct? a "code monkey" at google is typically offered a starting salary of 85k annually with great benefits, working for a great company that really looks after their employee's well being and happiness. Microsoft and Apple are similar, very prestigious and offer very good positions.
<p>I'm sure Cornell has good resources, but for Civil Engineering, Columbia has the second largest centrifuge in the United States and has a team of incredibly intelligent professors and grad students who know how to use and apply it. (I researched there for a few months and choose Columbia SEAS as my first choice college). Not to mention their entire civ. lab is really impressive.</p>
<p>Um... the centrifuge I’m referring to is not a particle accelerator. I mean one of the ones that is three meters from the axis to the edge of rotation. You can synthesize debris flows on this one or earthquakes in Columbia’s case. The cavity is around six cubic feet- not one where you put test tubes into a small circular machine. I’m aware that Cornell has one of those.</p>
<p>I agree with some that the level of education is nearly the same at the two schools (I don't even see a real difference in the quality of education at the top few engineering schools). but, as someone may have pointed out, just because the level of education may be nearly the same (and though I personally believe that it is, that's arguable in itself), that doesn't mean that both institutions will open the same doors. Its like the analogy between Harvard and Cornell, in general: I don't believe that either institution can realistically suggest that it offers a superior quality of education as opposed to the other. But in this game, perception, while not the only factor, is key...and I think overall Cornell (only referring to engineering here) is more highly regarded than Fu.</p>
<p>"I think overall Cornell (only referring to engineering here) is more highly regarded than Fu."</p>
<p>noone here has disagreed, that for most engineering disciplines, cornell is the better school if you are certain you wish to pursue a career in that discipline. But because fu gets students who are atleast as competent as cornell engineering does, in several other disciplines it has the advantage. the foci of the schools are different.</p>
<p>yeah, pretty much Cornell and Columbia both have such great engineering schools that it is meaningless to compare them - you should focus more on whether you could see yourself studying in Ithaca or NYC. </p>
<p>One thing I found interesting, however, was that before I went up to visit both these schools, I told my physics and my calculus teachers (both retired engineers) that I would be visiting Cornell and Columbia, and both of them acted like they didn't even hear Columbia and immediately started talking about Cornell, how great its engineering program is, etc. So it seems to me that Cornell is more highly regarded as far as engineering goes.</p>
<p>Both Columbia Engineering and Cornell Engineering are excellent academically, and both offer many opportunities, but are focused in on different aspects. Cornell's engineering school is, well, focused on engineering, and most of its students can and do pursue careers in engineering. </p>
<p>By contrast, Columbia's engineering school is more focused on professional development, entrepeneurialship, and finance. I would liken Columbia's Engineering school to MIT in terms of what graduates do. Both schools contain very smart students who enjoy engineering, but are also smart enough to realize that if they become an engineer after graduation, they won't be paid what they're worth. Therefore, students from both schools often pursue careers in finance/math modeling to get paid what they're worth. </p>
<p>If you're "noble," or just know you wouldn't enjoy a non-engineering career in finance or a similar field, then by all means you should go to Cornell. I think most people here recognize that Cornell has a more rigorous program in engineering, and will leave you better prepared for an engineering job.</p>
<p>What it boils down to is this: If you want to be an engineer for life, go to Cornell. If you know that you're interested in engineering, but really are thinking about pursuing another career for people with analytical mindsets, go to Columbia. The non-academic components(location, campus life, etc.) also play a role, in addition to academics, which should be weighted in your decision.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What it boils down to is this: If you want to be an engineer for life, go to Cornell. If you know that you're interested in engineering, but really are thinking about pursuing another career for people with analytical mindsets, go to Columbia. The non-academic components(location, campus life, etc.) also play a role, in addition to academics, which should be weighted in your decision.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think all of you are way too inexperienced to be talking about any of this. You all make it out to be that Cornell grads will somehow magically have more engineering doors opened to them just because they went to Cornell instead of Columbia. </p>
<p>I have the feeling that a lot of you think that if 2 people (1 from Cornell, 1 from Columbia) were applying for the same job, say, at Bechtel or IBM or Chevron then the Cornell grad would be chosen the majority of the time. In reality, as long as their GPA and EC's were the same, it would all boil down to the interview. Talk to anyone in HR and they will all tell you that the interview is the most important part of getting a job (getting your foot in the door is different but a Cornell grad and a Columbia grad have about the same foot-door power). And, honestly, I believe the Columbia grad in the majority of cases will be the better interviewer (tho I admit bias may come into this point, but only this point).</p>
<p>Perhaps there is a difference for the 2 schools as far as grad schools go but I doubt it.</p>
<p>The fact that only 1/3 of Columbia engineering grads go on to an engineering job is only by choice, not by necessity.</p>
<p>I did not mean to insinuate that a "magical door" would be opened by going to one school over another - I'm merely attempting to explain the general attitudes possessed by students at each school(which I believe, in turn, is affected by the teaching style/classes). Perhaps I was too forceful in my statement. Maybe a better worded opinion would be "If you want to be an engineer for life, Cornell is advantageous. If you know that you're interested in engineering, but really are thinking about pursuing another career for people with analytical mindsets, Columbia is advantageous."</p>
<p>
[quote=Skraylor]
The fact that only 1/3 of Columbia engineering grads go on to an engineering job is only by choice, not by necessity.
This is reflective of the environment of Columbia and the teaching style. Of course, if you're an SEAS graduate you can go onto an engineering job, and probably get some damn good offers. It's the style of education SEAS provides that, combined with the environment of NYC, in my opinion, encourages students to pursue carrers outside of engineering. </p>
<p>I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. My father is a professor of Electrical Engineering at Columbia SEAS. I talked to him specifically about this thread. He said that there was a pull for students to go to wall street because there is a strong demand for engineering students to work in finances. This is why Columbia has such a strong financial engineering department and why it sends so many students to those types of jobs. The other departments, however, do not train their students to work better with finances. On the track I plan on taking, I only saw one required course that involved the entrepreneurship of my field.</p>
<p>I don't mean to accuse, but for the people saying that Columbia SEAS students are less likely to have actual engineering jobs, have you taken classes at both schools to compare and spoken personally with the chairmen of the departments and professors to really see whether or not they teach for engineering or finances?</p>
<p>Actually, please just disregard my last comments, obviously i have a bias and am not personally sure whether i'm going to be an engineer or architect out of Columbia SEAS</p>
<p>
[quote]
He said that there was a pull for students to go to wall street because there is a strong demand for engineering students to work in finances. This is why Columbia has such a strong financial engineering department and why it sends so many students to those types of jobs. The other departments, however, do not train their students to work better with finances.
[/quote]
[quote]
I don't mean to accuse, but for the people saying that Columbia SEAS students are less likely to have actual engineering jobs, have you taken classes at both schools to compare and spoken personally with the chairmen of the departments and professors to really see whether or not they teach for engineering or finances?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. Really the only dept that actually trains one for finance is financial engineering but even that doesn't train one to be a junior analyst on wall st. ABET exists so that all engineers have the same skills (proficiency in those skills is a person by person basis of course tho) so saying that a department trains one for financing over engineering is ridiculous. </p>
<p>Someone posted, either in this thread or in a different one, about how SEAS kids go to where they think they will be paid for their time the best and i'd say that's a fair assumption.</p>
<p>john5170: Out of SEAS, you'd most likely be a quant, doing things like implementing machine learning algorithms, doing number crunching, etc. Investment Banking is more the style of job where you make presentations and do some numerical analysis, but most of your time/effort is spent dealing with clients directly. Both are incredibly hard jobs in terms of hours, and on a per-hour rate you get screwed the first few years($100k may sound great directly out of school, but not if you're working 100 hour weeks), but if you work your way up, you can earn millions a year.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Out of SEAS, you'd most likely be a quant, doing things like implementing machine learning algorithms, doing number crunching, etc. Investment Banking is more the style of job where you make presentations and do some numerical analysis, but most of your time/effort is spent dealing with clients directly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No. In my experience with friends who went into this field most are jr analysts, i.e. ibankers who make presentations. There are, of course, a few exceptions I know, such as my friend who may be working with JPM in a programming aspect...but he is graduating top of his class in Comp.sci. Most of the really quantitative jobs you either need a masters/phd or need to be INCREDIBLY smart and have an excellent resume to back it up if you only have a BS.</p>