<p>^I was a chemE and there’s no such thing as “chemcial engineering rules” or “chemical engineering standards” for “chemical engineering industry”. ChemE often go to work for petroleum industry, pharmaceutical companies, or environmental consulting, which are often the same fields chemistry majors go to. Yet, a standard chemE curriculum does not have a single course about drug manufacturing or oil refinery.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those are definitions from reputable dictionaries.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh? Now you really got me. It’s late, but I said that where?</p>
<p>Sam Lee, so it looks like chem is the future… right?</p>
<p>Many top universities offer Business to undergrads. Here are a few:</p>
<p>Boston College
Carnegie Mellon University *
Cornell University *
Emory University
Georgetown University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology *
New York University
University of California-Berkeley *
University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign *
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor *
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
University of Notre Dame
University of Pennsylvania
University of Southern California *
University of Texas-Austin*
University of Virginia
University of Wisconsin-Madison *
Washington University-St Louis</p>
<p>The above schools are all considered top 40 universities in the nation. So it is safe to say that 50% of top universities in fact offer a BBA. Same goes for Engineering programs. The schools below are all among the top 40 universities in the nation and all of them have strong Engineering programs:</p>
<p>California Institute of Technology
Cornell University
Columbia University
Georgia Institute of Technology
Johns Hopkins University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Northwestern University
Princeton University
Rice University
Stanford University
University of California-Berkeley
University of California-Los Angeles
University of California-San Diego
University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of Southern California
University of Texas-Austin
University of Wisconsin-Madison</p>
<p>So once again my question is, “How can the highest elite universities in this land have ANY colleges/schools/programs that are not top notch in the disciplines they offer?” Stanford, Berkeley, and Michigan to name a few, have NO weak departments. Why are some other elites given a pass at USNWR and on CC? If I’m going to Harvard or Yale for engineering, for example, I really am not going to an elite school for my intended area of study.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Rjkofnovi, did you even bother to read any of the arguments presented to you on the other threads?</p>
<p>Yes I do read them, I just never get a satisfactory answer. Face it, some of these so called elites are living off their reputations and rely far too heavily on the quality of their student bodies. They indeed are given a pass by so many here on CC because of their names.</p>
<p>You haven’t responded to any of them to explain why that’s not a good enough explanation, so I’m left wondering if you just have one opinion and don’t give a crap otherwise or if this is just your way of cheerleading your own education.</p>
<p>Ok. So then I guess an elite school is allowed to have weak departments in it. Thank you for finally fessing up. That’s my response.</p>
<p>Re #45: Surely there are some departments at Stanford, Berkeley or Michigan that are relatively small or weak compared to others? According to the NRC-95 rankings, here are some departments that seemed to be a little weaker than the rest:</p>
<p>Michigan
Linguistics - 31
Biochem - 23
Genetics - 21
Astronomy - 25
CompSci - 21</p>
<p>Stanford
Astronomy - 22
Oceanography - 18
Pharmacology - 16
Classics - 16
Religion - 19</p>
<p>These are not terrible rankings, and the point is well taken that these 3 schools (especially Berkeley) do seem to excel in almost every department they offer (at the graduate level anyway and presumably at the college level too). Berkeley got a top-10 ranking in every department in which it was ranked, with the exception of Cellular Bio (#12). Woo hoo, Berkeley!</p>
<p>In contrast, Harvard has no engineering programs that show up at all in the NRC-95 rankings, and Yale has only two :
Chemical Engineering - 32
Electrical Engineering - 30</p>
<p>My interpretation is not that Harvard and Yale are supporting many weak departments and getting a “free pass”, but that they are simply not competing very hard in the Engineering space. It’s not remarkable that the bear dances poorly, it’s remarkable that the bear (in Yale’s case) dances at all. Engineering never has been the forte of most traditional, liberal arts colleges. Princeton, however, did get a top-10 ranking in every Engineering field in which it had an NRC ranking.</p>
<p>If you average ALL the NRC department rankings of these schools (not just Engineering), the results are very close. Berkeley, Harvard, Princeton, Yale all had a rounded harmonic mean NRC-95 ranking of 3 in the departments in which they were ranked. Stanford had a mean of 4, Michigan 7. If you use a rounded arithmetic mean, you get: Berkeley (5), Harvard (6), Princeton (7), Stanford (8), Yale (9), Michigan (15). Pretty close.</p>
<p>These are my own calculations based on NRC-95 peer assessment data. Does anyone have newer, better data to show how Yale, Harvard, or any other elite school is getting a “free pass”?</p>
<p>Thanks for the acknowledgement tk. Yours was the answer I was looking for. Still to compare a school like Michigan with one dept. ranked (OMG) at 31 in this country out of it’s dozens of disciplines, to engineering at Harvard not really even ranked, says something IMO. Princeton is an fine example of a traditional liberal arts school, so you can’t use it as an excuse why Harvard is so weak in engineering. One final thing, Michigan is not considered a top elite in this country. That it should have one department ranked at 31 by the NRC is to be expected and I would hardly even call that one “weak.”</p>
<p>Well I’m not sure my post fully supports your argument, rjkofnovi. It may support the view that Stanford, Berkeley and Michigan have well-deserved reputations, and that the top Ivies are not necessarily top in every department they support. It does not seem to support the view that these schools are getting a “free pass”, because when you look broadly across all their departments, they still come out near the top. According to the peer-assessment data I used, anyway.</p>
<p>And in fact, there is more recent, more objective data (the FSP Index of Top Performing Individual Programs) that even shows Yale in the Top 10 in Biomedical Engineering, Computer Engineering, General Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering. Harvard is ranked #1 in General Engineering/Applied Math and #3 in General Engineering/Electrical. Princeton gets the #1 spot in Civil/Environmental Engineering, Computer Engineering, and Environmental Engineering, as well as #2 in Aerospace Engineering. More broadly speaking, the FSP Index does show areas of excellence distributed among a wide variety of schools (not just the most famous brands) but the Ivies including Yale and Harvard certainly have a strong showing, too.</p>
<p>I see your points and they are well taken. I guess my use of the term “free pass” was a bit ill advised. Still in IMO, a truly great university really shouldn’t have any weak departments.</p>
<p>What is the point here? Michigan is an outstanding school that is respected everywhere for its academics. So why the need to trash other schools? It makes you look weak and insecure and does nothing to improve the quality or reputation of Michigan.</p>
<p>There is no school anywhere that that is elite in every discipline. There are majors at Harvard or Yale that are so weak at Michigan that they don’t even exist there, and vice versa. There is no school anywhere that even offers every major or discipline, much less that is top notch in every discipline. Does that mean that no school an be considered “elite?” Hardly. At least the top 50 universities in the US are all elite, and maybe more. It’s all good.</p>
<p>Coureur. I’m not intending to trash Harvard or any school for that matter, it was just a point of discussion. One that tk21769 answered thoroughly.</p>
<p>“There are majors at Harvard or Yale that are so weak at Michigan that they don’t even exist there, and vice versa.”</p>
<p>Perhaps that’s why Michigan wouldn’t even consider having those majors? I’m not sure what that’s supposed to mean. My point is/was for the 50th time, that a top elite school should not have ANY departments in it’s offerings that are NOT top notch. If they do have them, then they deserve to be scrutinized. By top notch I mean at least as good, in a general sense, as most other elite schools.</p>
<p>hmom5,</p>
<p>What I meant is what engineer learn doesn’t actually fit the definition of google. None of my classes where about “how to operate” or some narrow vocational skill only applicable to a particular machine, process, or field.</p>
<p>Sam Lee, no offense, but you’re not going to change hmom5’s biased New England views.</p>
<p>Engineering is much more respected outside the Northeast (where legal, i-banking, and other financial services are considered more prestigious fields.) </p>
<p>An engineer is no different than becoming a lawyer or doctor. All are professions.</p>
<p>I know what you mean rjk by shouldn’t be offered at all if they are going to be that bad. Some of these “top colleges” offer A.B.'s in engineering. Like, ***? Does that really exist?</p>
<p>Now to get to the real meat of my post:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s really good and all, but are we pretending that Harvard and Yale don’t have lower ranked programs outside of engineering, as well as Stanford and Michigan? Also, not to gainsay the intellectual worth of the fields that Stanford is ranked less than stellar in, but these aren’t exactly fields that are nearly as popular as engineering is as a field of study. To be quite honest, I really didn’t know that Stanford offered oceanography and pharmacology at least at the undergraduate level. And finally, it’s not as if Stanford and Michigan have a theme of having traditionally weak programs in one area like some schools, ahem, have in engineering. So while your point is noted, I don’t think it counters the argument that either some of these top colleges should boost their engineering program to still be considered elite.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think though they are sort of getting a free pass if they are only ranked in the programs they offer. Especially when they neglect one of the most popular fields of study in the nation. And for that reason, I am sort of confused as to why certain schools (you know which ones I’m talking about) are considered the best in the nation.</p>
<p>^^^^It’s nice to see someone who agrees with me. Like I said the free pass remark was probably a bit harsh, but the inference in IMO is correct.</p>
<p>Wait a minute, Morsmordre. In your first paragraph you are saying that top schools shouldn’t even offer a program if they are not going to be great at it. And in your last paragraph you are complaining that they get away with being ranked only in the programs they offer. So which is it? Is it good that they don’t offer some programs or not?</p>