Who wants to rank undergraduate engineering schools?

College Majors Engineering Majors
41

<p>

Forgive me if I’m not impressed by this.</p>

<p>Any school of reasonable quality can create the best out of the excellent. This is not very impressive, and I would actually claim that it is a sign of incompetence if a school cannot do this. There are dozens of schools around the world that can do just that - pretty much every #1 school in any first world nation (I know of such schools in Russia, China, and all the major powers of Europe). A good school is one that can make good students out of mediocre ones, a task that Caltech does not even attempt to do. Maybe you could argue that it is because the school is so selective, but from what I’ve seen, schools like MIT and Stanford make just about every student that went there better than they were when they joined. Caltech just throws aside those that don’t keep up.</p>

<p>

I feel that this is very much a disservice to Caltech undergrads. What if they want to do pretty much anything other than obtain a PhD at Caltech? What if they’re just not good enough to make the cut for Caltech grad school, while they would do exceptionally well at a T2 institution that they no longer have a chance at being accepted at? A good 40% of Caltech undergrads end up getting a PhD, a number more than double that of MIT/Stanford - I don’t think it’s unfair to wonder whether or not they were pigeonholed into it.</p>

<p>All that said, from everything I have heard and seen, Caltech is an excellent grad school.</p>

42

<p>NeoDymium, you’ll find in various Caltech threads I have a similar opinion about the school as you. I feel the amount of stuff I learned per time and amount of effort put in for my classes was considerably less than what I had in undergrad. The school isn’t designed to make every student that enters better, it’s designed around grooming the top students in the school to become the next top researchers in the world. They’re fine with the fact they have to break a few eggs in the process. Personally, I don’t feel the same way. </p>

<p>I think you guys are thinking I’m here to talk up Caltech as some sort of Shangri La for academics. I’m a real person that realizes the school has significant shortcomings. I do, however, believe what they offer their top students isn’t what you’ll see at other schools.</p>

<p>fractalmstr, it’s difficult to describe. I don’t know many other schools that require every student to take quantum mechanics, proof based calculus, and has the most popular (not necessarily by choice) class being in complex analysis. Most classes certainly have higher expectations for deep understanding of material than what I was used to in undergrad (and not only me, but basically everyone I met ranging from the University of Texas, El Paso to MIT to Cambridge to the IITs. Grad students feel sorry for undergrads because our first year or two are so horribly miserable with classes we can’t even imagine what it’s like to think that’s normal for an undergrad curriculum. No, I can’t say “They study X topic in their fluid dynamics class while students at Y school don’t.” All I can tell you is every person I knew at Caltech found the first year of classes to be extremely difficult. This is far from what I’ve heard about friends that wound up at Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, and all the other top engineering schools.</p>

43

<p>Even within the top schools, fit is important. It’s great if you have a chance to visit schools. </p>

<p>DS toured Cal Tech and liked it. The next day he toured Pomona and realized he definitely did want an engineering options (not a school that only had just physics/math). Then the next day he toured Harvey Mudd and realized that his ideal was an intense undergrad-only STEM-ish school. (Technically I think Mudd is listed as LAC, but it’s not your typical LAC).</p>

44

<p>

From what I’ve heard, in every American school but Caltech, what usually happens is that the student convinces him/herself that their school turned out to be the best fit and that they are glad they didn’t go somewhere else.</p>

<p>

A variation on the following quote describes Caltech pretty well: “The more you are allowed to use for a test (take-home, open book etc), the more you can be sure that none of it will help you. The worst possible scenario is an infinite time take-home final.”</p>

45

<p>In general (not just at Caltech), take-home or open-book tests are expected to be more difficult.</p>

46

<p>They are quite notoriously difficult at Caltech though. Often you get assigned open research questions with no known solutions.</p>

47

<p>All exams at Caltech are take-home, and since you’re supposed to be “more comfortable” not taking the test in a classroom, they feel they can make exams a little tougher (I felt the opposite way). My hardest exam probably wasn’t my unlimited time, open everything, grad thermo final (managed a 97% after only working on it for 35 hours, lol). </p>

<p>The hardest was probably a final for my solid state physics problem. Anyone who’s taken the class probably had to solve the problem from Kittel or Ashcroft & Mermin where you have a 1D chain of atoms that, generally, either have different springs connecting them (k1 & k2) or two different masses (m1 & m2). One of the six problems on our three hour final (closed note & book) was a 1D chain with different springs, masses, and charges.</p>

<p>Another exam in my class on materials bonding involved solving a 3d harmonic oscillator in an infinite potential all the way through. Not a horribly difficult problem to get through all the PDE stuff, but when it’s one of seven problems on a one hour test, there’s no a whole lot of time for the rest of the test.</p>

<p>I remember taking the first test for my complex analysis class. It was the first math class I had taken in four years, and I hadn’t ever done any proof-based stuff in the past. I was able to get my way through all the homeworks pretty alright, but I felt like three hours for the test was about a quarter of what I needed, lol. </p>

<p>What makes so many of these classes so difficult isn’t the fact the exams are crazy hard (I had plenty of them in undergrad). It’s that there are enough students who score well enough that there’ll be hardly any curve.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Also, I disagree with this. I know a lot of people that weren’t happy with their undergrad experience. The difference is it usually seems to be traced more to how their personality fit into the school versus being unable to handle the workload, despite being a phenomenal student. I think it’s just generally uncommon for alumni to complain about their school, since if they didn’t like it, they’ll just stay quiet about it. Part of the process of being at Caltech is talking about how miserable you are and how awful it is, so it’s more natural people will be willing to continue that after finishing (or not finishing).</p>

48

<p>Great info, Racin. If you don’t mind me asking, what was your undergrad degree? Did you minor in anything?</p>

<p>What you’re describing so far seems to align more with an engineering physics degree than a typical engineering degree.</p>

49

<p>Regarding timed, take home exams, some takers have marked a line when time is up, and then continued to finish the problem. Then it is up to the grader to decide how tightly to enforce the time limit. Generally, if you are struggling to finish the exam, you aren’t at the high end of the curve so taking a little extra time won’t affect the curve much.</p>

<p>Students in a program like caltech are thrilled because they are being maximally challenged, or have a feeling of accomplishment at just surviving (like boot camp). They will certainly complain about the hard work and lack of sleep. I don’t believe that there are significantly more people who regret attending caltech than any other school.</p>

50

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s about the opposite approach that I take when I make up exams for a class. I always figured (based on my own learning experience) that students got more out of it when you give them grueling homework assignments that really force them to stretch their minds and think critically about the material. On exams, I always subscribed to the idea that they should be tested on their grasp of the basic principles and their applications - the sorts of things that if they go off into industry, they might realistically be expected to know off the top of their head when asked for an opinion on a design or idea over coffee in a board room somewhere.</p>

<p>As the one teaching the class and making the exams, that isn’t always easy to achieve. It is far easier to make a beast of and exam and watch kids struggle than it is to make something they can actually learn from. After doing that myself, I harbor much less ill will toward some of my old professors.</p>

<p>That’s my theory and course assessment, anyway.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I am going to have to side with RacinReaver here. I know many people who were unhappy with their undergraduate experience at their various schools. Some schools seem to produce more unhappy undergrads than others, but every school has them. The real underlying problem, in my opinion, is the ranking systems and how eager many high school students and their parents are to shoot for “prestige” (according to US News) rather than searching for the right fit. You end up with people who are simply mismatched to their school and don’t do as well as they may otherwise be capable. The school rankings should definitely be a subjective part of the equation, but among a host of others.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It sounds like engineering to me. First, he is talking about primarily graduate classes, so of course they are going to be a lot more physics- and math-heavy than their undergraduate counterparts. I’ve seen plenty of similarly in-depth material in my own graduate work, though in a different subject. At the graduate level, the line between physics and engineering is often non-existent.</p>

<p>For two, engineering is physics, even at the undergraduate level. It is simply applied physics. As such, you would expect the coursework at a school filled with top-flight researchers concerned with extreme rigor to have a more physics- and math-centered curriculum than average even for undergraduates.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Based on my interactions with former Caltech undergraduates, I would have to disagree with this. Perhaps regret is a strong word, but there definitely seem to be a lot that I have heard say they wished they had gone somewhere else for their undergraduate work and then gone to Caltech for graduate school.</p>

51

<p>

</p>

<p>I gathered that he was referring to undergraduate, not graduate studies. At the graduate level, those classes make much more sense, depending on the focus area. I would be surprised to see any school that requires undergrad SSP for a normal engineering degree (excluding engineering physics).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You are correct, except that there is an actual engineering physics degree offered by some schools, which is somewhat of a hybrid between an engineering degree and a physics degree. The only classes I see in Caltechs required undergrad engineering curriculum that perhaps exceed other schools is quantum mechanics and biology. The math looks to be on par with other schools. </p>

<p>[Core</a> Curriculum - Caltech Caltech Undergraduate Admissions](<a href=“http://admissions.caltech.edu/learning/2013Core]Core”>http://admissions.caltech.edu/learning/2013Core)</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.mce.caltech.edu/documents/typical_course_schedule_11_12.pdf[/url]”>http://www.mce.caltech.edu/documents/typical_course_schedule_11_12.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

<p>Caltech is certainly an exception, especially at the graduate level. However, not all top research-oriented engineering schools provide heavy math and science requirements like you might imagine. I was surprised to see that Georgia Tech, for example, has relatively weak math and science requirements. </p>

<p><a href=“https://files.t-square.gatech.edu/access/content/group/f04300e3-9de1-4f7b-80dc-adf125480171/Registration%20Forms/Program%20Flowchart%202011_June%202011.pdf[/url]”>https://files.t-square.gatech.edu/access/content/group/f04300e3-9de1-4f7b-80dc-adf125480171/Registration%20Forms/Program%20Flowchart%202011_June%202011.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

52

<p>fractalmstr, my undergraduate degree was in Materials Science & Engineering with a minor in physics at Carnegie Mellon University. My PhD will be in Materials Science.</p>

<p>Personally, I believe one of the fundamental differences between Caltech and MIT is that Caltech is a science school and MIT is an engineering school. I’m part of a group that does some heavy duty engineering plus science, and one of the biggest complaints PhDs from my group get from their committee is there’s a lack of science in their work. If you do a degree on processing or alloy development, there really isn’t heavy duty science Caltech likes. They want you to develop equations, use models, etc.</p>

<p>Part of my group has been working on getting a multi-million dollar facility created as a joint venture between JPL and Caltech. It’s going to be on a new processing method and would be fully funded by the government. JPL is completely on board, all the facilities will be hosted there, and Caltech told us, “We’re not interested in industrial technologies, so we’ll pass.” Contrast that to MIT and its rampant spinoffs/commercial ventures, and you can see how the two places view their roles.</p>

<p>boneh3ad, the homeworks on their own are excruciatingly difficult in the first place. It’s when the test rolls around that you realize you were solving far from the hardest problems. :slight_smile: They test your ability to learn new concepts on the fly. Many of my undergrad tests had a similar component. One question would be of the new territory variety, while the rest would be taking what you’ve learned and applying it on a new set of problems. At Caltech it’s usually the opposite.</p>

<p>Also, keep in mind Caltech doesn’t plan for its students to go off into industry. They’re supposed to be the next set of academics. ;)</p>

53

<p>

</p>

<p>I am fully aware of the concept of engineering physics. My point in that portion of my response is that in a school where the professors tend to be all about rigor, the pure engineering fields are going to skew more towards applied mathematics and physics than they will at a less rigorous school. This is not likely to show up in the published core curriculum put out by a school. At Caltech, where the subjects under the core curriculum doesn’t look much different or much more rigorous than at other engineering programs it is still likely the case that the actual course content as determined by the professors is likely going to be more rigorous than elsewhere (and by anecdotal evidence, it is).</p>

<p>The same is likely true at Georgia Tech, which may not seem to have as rigorous math requirements as you expect on their published core curriculum, but that says nothing about how the professors teach the actual courses. It very well may be every bit as math- and physics-heavy as you thought it would be.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh, I am sure the homeworks are still crazy. I never minded that as an undergraduate though (well, I probably did at the time but looking back I am grateful). I had a few professors at UIUC who had a similar philosophy to the one you describe where they are perfectly fine skewering you on both the homework and the exams, and I can’t say I appreciated it. Most of them, however, did what you described where you have that one problem at the end that tries to stretch you and would generally separate the A’s from the rest of the class. I am absolutely fine with that approach. I just can’t say I agree with the Caltech approach you describe. Oh well.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yeah that much has been fairly obvious to me in my interactions with the GALCIT students and faculty. I’ll keep that in mind should I ever somehow luck into a faculty position there (there is a perfect position open right now but I am nowhere near qualified… yet). A guy can dream, though…</p>