Which Ivies have the best engineering schools?

Very superficial “common wisdom” that I suspect doesn’t survive very long once a student has an interest and starts doing research. Sure, a HS F/So and parents may know the Ivy reputations. But after starting some significant research towards Jr. year, reality typically comes out. My D was in the AP/STEM crowd in HS - I don’t know of a single Ivy application in the bunch. They’re all at Purdue, Virginia Tech, MIT, Case, Lehigh (legacy), etc.

To the original question, Cornell certainly has the reputation/ranking as the best Ivy engineering school. But what’s important is finding what’s best for you. Yes, Harvard engineering may be best for some. But don’t be distracted by the overall school’s reputation/ranking. You don’t go to a school for an “overall” education, and employers don’t hire “overall” employees.

At the risk of throwing gas on the fire…

My various friends and colleagues from Caltech have almost universally cautioned against attending as an undergraduate. To be clear, I think the world of their researchers and graduate programs, and respect said individuals referenced above, but even they tend to suggest that it’s undergraduate program is… not for everyone even if they can get admitted and handle the work.

But isn’t that true for many (if not all) colleges/and their potential applicants? I would think HMC/MIT are not suitable for every admitted students and also why no colleges, no matter how successful/selective, don’t have 100% retention rate?

How are “engineering” schools measured? A little broad no? Perhaps better to investigate the specific engineering field you’re interested in?

Ohio State… Ohio State… Ohio State.

I’m just glad that I didn’t have a mouth full of milk when I read that.

True that I’ve heard the same basic statement from a number of folks I know from MIT, though in fairness, it hasn’t been as unanimous, I know fewer people there, and they are honestly not a good school for my field, so I am far less familiar with them. I am even less familiar with HMC.

Regarding universities more generally, I would argue that no, this is not the case. There are many universities with many “flavors” out there, but most of them are far more alike than different, and many of them have legitimate emphasis on undergraduate education, especially those which are public land grants (though how well they achieve this varies, of course). By comparison, Caltech has more graduate students than undergraduate students. That ought to give you an idea of where their priorities lie.

I respect your opinions, but this comment shows some basic ignorance of these schools. Not just Caltech, MIT also has more graduate students than undergrads. In fact, at MIT, the number of graduate students exceeds that of undergrads by 50% (at Caltech, that number is about 30%). HMC is an LAC with no graduate program. However, that doesn’t mean MIT or Caltech ignores their undergraduate programs. As a matter of fact, these schools put more resources and treat their undergrads significantly better than their graduate students, to the point that some graduate students complained about being treated as second class citizens.

I’m not sure what field you’re in. One of the issues with Caltech is the size of the school. It’s both a positive and a negative. It carefully chooses which fields it gets involved in, so as not to spread thin its resources. There’re some areas, especially in engineering, that it chooses not to focus on or even ignore completely. As an example, in CS, it completely ignores HCI and puts very little resource in NLP, but it has an advanced undergraduate quantum computing program, leveraging off its strengths.

BTW, these schools shouldn’t be called “engineering” schools. Engineering is just part of what they do, and is only one of the letters in “STEM”. There’re so many fields in engineering, and sciences, and math, that prospective students need to consider carefully the field (or fields) they’re interested in, not base their choices on someone’s opinions or hearsay.

Back to the OP’s original question about engineering schools at Ivies. I agree Cornell has the best overall program among Ivies, but some other Ivies better Cornell’s program in some specific areas. If, however, by “engineering” schools, one means “STEM” schools in general, then Princeton and Harvard have an equally good, if not better, programs. If OP broadens his/her considerations to include MIT/Caltech, then I’d say, none of these Ivies programs compares favorably with MIT or Caltech’s program on the whole, speaking as someone with direct experiences with the two STEM schools and one of the top Ivies, both in terms of academics and overall experiences.

Now, I feel I should point out that I specifically said in my post that I am not intimately familiar with the MIT program and am even less familiar with HMC. So… thanks for agreeing with me there?

Meanwhile, let me remind everyone that per-student resources spent is not a stand-in for quality or how much a school cares about a specific program. It obviously can’t hurt, but ultimately, all the money in the world is no substitute for a combination of institutional and faculty commitment to undergraduate education (assuming there are enough resources).

None of these schools always has the best lecturers teaching a particular course. But by and large, MIT or Caltech tend to have some of well-taught key courses by some amazing people. These professors tend to provide unique and uncommon insights, even into some common problems. Feynman once taught some cross-disciplinary course (a combined CS/biology/physics course) at Caltech, some of the students in that class were professors themselves. Now, of course, not all students can or would benefit from these lectures. Some of them wouldn’t be happy and would struggle (they would likely be among the top STEM students almost everywhere else) and/or lose their interest, but that’s true at any other school. They were just poor “fit”, unfortunately.

I agree that quality of a program can’t be measured in dollars alone. The colleges have to show commitment and thoughtfulness toward, and care of their undergraduate programs. However, even the best program won’t keep everyone happy.

The poster did not ask about Caltech, MIT, Purdue, Georgia Tech, etc. They specifically are interested in Engineering programs at ivies. They probably have their reasons, whether sound or not. Perhaps they really want their education to have a strong liberal arts component, whatever.

Supposedly Cornell’s is strongest, but I suspect that is rapidly changing. As more and more students have been seeking STEM degrees, the ivies that were not investing as much in engineering are definitely doubling down and catching up and/or surpassing others. I think this is a shifting area. For example, Harvard will be opening next year a new $500 million engineering complex that is likely to be absolutely phenomenal and attractive to students and faculty alike. Just 10 years ago only 6% of their degrees were in engineering, now almost 20%. Reputations and rankings may take a minute to catch up, but I believe many schools are quite different from how they were just a few years ago. Obviously also the “best” may be different for specific sub-specialties. Some of the ivies don’t even have certain specific majors, so depending on what exactly you want to study, the answer varies. A lot depends on the faculty in each area as well.

But there is probably a very qualitatively different student body experience going to a specifically technical school vs an ivy…and now that the ivies are really investing in engineering, you may be able to get the best of both worlds there. Everyone is looking for different things so it’s hard to say what’s “best”. Good luck.

Bonehead, if you know no one who actually went to Caltech or MIT, why bother writing some 3rd person opinion?

This is written from a parent of Caltech and MIT students. I didn’t post about the Ivies, because I only know one Cornell engineer .

@bookworm

At no point did I say I didn’t know anyone, so thanks for putting words in my mouth. I said I knew a lot of Caltech folks and a few MIT folks. I shared their opinions which had been shared with me.

At any rate, one child in a program isn’t exactly a strong statistical trend, either. It’s a one-off anecdote.

This is written as an engineering faculty member who has collaborated with Caltech faculty and students, worked with students from Caltech and MIT, and who respects those schools but feels it’s fair to offer the caveats they’ve offered me.

LMAO I asked this question because some of my cousins (who studied engineering at penn and columbia respectively) were jokingly debating which was better and I was curious as to the general perception of the “prestige” and the actual facilities and education of each program

First the curriculum at Columbia and Penn are different. Columbia’s Core is not similar to One Penn, an interdisciplinary and project based curriculum. Visit both and other engineering schools that have the majors you are exploring. The engineering majors you are interested in should dictate your search list.