<p>yup my question exactly, as the title would suggest...i graduated in 2008...when i was a freshman, RPI engineering was ranked either 14 or 15...</p>
<p>while i was there they turned into a "new ivy" (as well it should)...average SAT scores increased a little...but engineering rankings for undergrad is at about 23 now...i think that's a pretty big drop...what's up with that??</p>
<p>just a theory: redistribution of emphasis within the college?</p>
<p>It could be that they are trying to be more like CMU and become more than just a vocational school for engineers. Not sure how well that’s working for them…</p>
<p>Wearymachine, actually in the 2011 US news rank we dropped again to #26. I don’t put much stock in that ranking as it only a peer review by people who have likely never stepped foot on RPI’s campus. In terms of student quality, instructional/research facility quality and faculty quality, RPI is a direct competitor to the likes of Gatech, UIUC, CMU etc. as you already know. </p>
<p>I can see why these rankings are a problem though as a lot a high schoolers look at them without knowing any better. </p>
<p>There’s no way VaTech, Purdue, Texas AM, etc are better. They are great schools but not better than RPI. </p>
<p>If I were you I would just keep spreading the real truth about RPI.</p>
<p>i mean i somewhat agree with what they’re trying to do…but i think they should maybe concentrate on the sciences a little more…i think they’re doing decent with having a few more liberal arts programs around campus…but it IS a tech school…and unlike MIT and Caltech, RPI doesn’t have too many kids in the sciences (most just go for engineering…and a decent amount of IT majors)…maybe they should focus a little more on that…</p>
<p>rankings dropped to 26???..okay yeah this just does not make any sense whatsoever…our student quality has gone up…i mean its one thing if CMU or Cornell beat us out by a little…but like when random, easy-to-get-into schools like Purdue, VA Tech, Penn State, and Texas A&M beat us out in the rankings …that’s just not fair…RPI students are quasi MIT-caliber and i feel like we deserve to be much higher up in the rankings (like within top 10)…</p>
<p>anybody else have any inputs??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s patently false. If the dean’s list is at all representative of class sizes (I couldn’t find a comprehensive comparison of the enrollment all majors), ITWS (with 54 students on the list) has 25% as many students as CSCI (228 students), about 56% as many students as physics (97), 65% as many students as math (83), etc.</p>
<p>I’m not saying that’s a lot of students in the sciences, but ITWS is no where near the size of the science department as a whole.</p>
<p>As for being within the top 10, I have no idea (not having been at the other schools), but the interesting amount of elementary questions I’ve heard from students at supposedly better schools than here makes me wonder…</p>
<p>I would be the first agree that excessive fixation on ratings is immature, nevertheless the trend is troubling. It’s not just US News, but check out Barrons and in particular QSTop Universities from #50 worldwide in tech in 2007, to #66 in 2008, to #77 in 2009, to off the bottom of the top 100 tech in 2010 (209th overall). </p>
<p>I still believe that RPI truly provides a first-tier academic experience, but what if others don’t recognize it especially grad schools and employers who may be influenced by all this rating stuff. This goes directly to the question raised earlier about whether RPI is worth the debt why pay the (huge) bucks if the degree confers no more recognition than a good state school? What is more, why put top-notch students into a tough academic environment where they may pull, say, a 2.9 or 3.1, where they might get a 3.5 or 3.7 in a state school that the rankings say is “just as good.”</p>
<p>In truth, I see this as a possible failure in leadership if paying Dr. Jackson more than any other university president in the country is warranted based on the credibility she ostensibly brings to RPI, then this ought to be reflected in the ratings RPI receives in print.</p>
<p>Correction, it’s a little worse than I said - for QS Top Universities make that from #77 in 2009 down to #125 in 2010 for engineering, and 223rd overall. </p>
<p>[Rensselaer</a> polytechnic institute | Top Universities](<a href=“http://www.topuniversities.com/university/523/rensselaer-polytechnic-institute]Rensselaer”>http://www.topuniversities.com/university/523/rensselaer-polytechnic-institute)</p>
<p>well i mean…if you look at “most popular majors” at RPI…i think management is second after the engineering…and IT is third i think…i mean usually around campus, if you ask what someone’s major is, you usually hear something in engineering or comp sci…but i think they should try to get more people to be physics, math, and chemistry majors…</p>
<p>what really bothers me (esp here on collegeconfidential) is whenever we get referred to as a second tier school…ESP after they list out some engineering schools they consider first tier and include places like Purdue on that list…but the rankings are pretty outrageous for engineering…this year, Purdue is like 9th or something ridiculous like that…RPI is now 26th…i’m pretty sure for most people who consider RPI as a match…Purdue would be a safety…i mean hell when i looked into colleges i never even considered Purdue or any of those other easier state schools with high ranked engineering programs…my top choice was MIT (didn’t get in)…my match was RPI…my safety was WPI…and i even consider WPI engineering students to be stronger than Purdue engineering students…</p>
<p>and i’m pretty sure RPI’s workload is much worse than that of a lot of those random undeservedly high ranked engineering programs…and also when i say “easier state schools”, i don’t mean U Mich, UC Berkeley, or UIUC…i think they are pretty selective and intense as well…</p>
<p>one more thing…i came across this list of the top 50 schools to produce science and engineering PhDs…MIT, Caltech, and Harvey Mudd are up on the top of the list (which only makes sense)…we also made that list…now, there’s no Purdue, no Texas A&M, no V-Tech…hell even Georgia Tech didn’t even make that list (but i won’t down play G Tech…i think they’re amazing too lol)…CMU and Cornell are on there as well…and that totally makes sense…here’s the list…</p>
<p>[Top</a> 50 Schools That Produce Science PhDs - CBS MoneyWatch.com](<a href=“MoneyWatch: Financial news, world finance and market news, your money, product recalls updated daily - CBS News”>MoneyWatch: Financial news, world finance and market news, your money, product recalls updated daily - CBS News)</p>
<p>i think aside from being very selective to get in, and the intense workload…the fact that we put out a lot of PhDs should be given some consideration when doing up these rankings…</p>
<p>Here is a pie chart that shows the number and percentage of RPI students enrolled in each school for Fall 2009:</p>
<p>[Undergraduate</a> Enrollment by School | Office of the Provost](<a href=“http://provost.rpi.edu/node/57]Undergraduate”>http://provost.rpi.edu/node/57)</p>
<p>Engineering 59%
Science 21%
Humanities Arts & Soc Sciences 6%
Management 6%
Architecture 6%
Information Technology 2%</p>
<p>Don’t care much for rankings.</p>
<p>I appreciate all of the discussion regarding ranking. While important, the focus should also be on the overall experience. I want my D to be happy, well-rounded, supported, and enjoy her college experience. She was accepted at many prestigious schools and, frankly, awarded greater scholarships at others. However, College is not just about ratings. The total environment at RPI is well worth every penny. Could she have graduated from a higher ranked college? Yes. Would she have been as happy? Not likely. RPI embraces her as a total person - not just a tech student. Also, ratings are based on many different factors and I am not certain all employers and grad schools care about that. The RPI reputation is strong. The focus should be on the total picture. I still consider my money very well spent.</p>
<p>i totally agree that the RPI reputation being strong…my whole point is that i think we’re SEVERELY underranked…we should be on par with places like Georgia Tech, Cornell, and CMU…we attract essentially the same level of students…and have the same intense workload…we should be viewed as in that level of schools that are JUST below MIT and Caltech but not too far…</p>
<p>Many rankings (esp the USNWR) are driven by academics rating other academics, primarily published research. Quality of teaching, learning environment and career prospects are less of a factor. We found the following ranking of RPI </p>
<p>informative.[Best</a> Engineering Colleges By Salary Potential](<a href=“http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/best-engineering-colleges.asp]Best”>Best Engineering Schools | Payscale)</p>
<p>i think being up on the salary potential, as well as putting out a lot of PhDs makes RPI a top notch tech school…</p>
<p>the only schools that make both lists are MIT, Caltech, Harvey Mudd, CMU, RPI, and New Mexico Institute of Mining and Tech…</p>
<p>I think size confers an advantage in the rankings, if nothing else because it leads to more funded research. If you followed the Big-10 football expansion drama recently, they made a big deal out of academic quality and AAU membership. Well, the AAU has two kinds of members, big state schools and truly elite private institutions.</p>
<p>Public schools also have a bang-for-the-buck advantage.</p>
<p>RPI should be focused on competing with elite private schools like CMU and MIT. RPI cannot compete with big public schools on their terms.</p>
<p>what i don’t understand is what all that funding stuff has to do with teaching undergrads…i’d imagine that has an impact on a school’s graduate programs, where most students do research…i’d think a majority of undergrads don’t usually do research…</p>
<p>i agree that RPI should compete with schools like CMU and MIT…i think RPI and CMU are sort of on the same level (CMU might be MILDLY better due to slightly higher, but not too much, quality of students that go there…just going by avg SAT scores for incoming freshman class)…MIT is better than both CMU and RPI…and then Caltech is a bit higher than MIT IMO (i feel like you have to be a genius to get into Caltech)…</p>
<p>and also…is size the only reason Georgia Tech is ranked at the same level as Caltech for engineering rankings??..i just don’t agree with that one either…one of my close friends, his top choice was either Cornell or RPI…he got rejected at Cornell…waitlisted at RPI, and then accepted at Georgia Tech…he ended up going to GA Tech…and i’ve heard quite a few cases where someone gets into Georgia Tech and waitlisted at RPI…yet GA Tech is like number 3 in the engineering rankings…RPI is 26…both are primarily engineering schools…just makes no sense…i’m not saying GA Tech is bad…i personally think that GA Tech and RPI are on par with each other and the engineering rankings SHOULD reflect that…</p>
<p>I am very confused … why are we mixing things up ?? i mean … why are you mixing the quality of incoming freshmen with the quality of education??</p>