<p>why are ivies usually not so great at eng?</p>
<p>except maybe cornell and princeton</p>
<p>why doesn't harvard have a chem. eng program?</p>
<p>just curious thanks</p>
<p>First off, I don't think the Ivies are that bad in engineering. Even schools like Brown can pull an engineering ranking somewhere in the 50's or so. That's better than the vast majority of programs out there. Keep in mind that there are literally hundreds of engineering programs out there, most of them being no-name schools. </p>
<p>I think what you are really asking is why are the Ivies not AS good in engineering as they are in other things. To that, I would say that that's a matter of history. Engineering was something that was heaviliy supported by deliberate government subsidies of the public schools, notably the Morrill Land Grant Colleges Act that provided funding to public schools to create engineering programs. These schools got the money, built large engineering programs, got top engineering faculty, that burnished their reputation, which compelled many of the top engineering students to want to go there, which burnished the reputation still more, etc. etc. The Ivies started off relatively late in the game and engineering was never really their focus, whereas many of the public schools were mandated to priotize engineering in order to comply with Morrill. </p>
<p>
[quote]
why doesn't harvard have a chem. eng program?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would turn that question around and ask why do you expect Harvard, or any other school, to have every single program under the sun? You might as well ask why MIT doesn't have a petroleum engineering program when other schools do.</p>
<p>The point is, no school offers every single possible major.</p>
<p>Penn also has excellent engineering programs. Princeton is superb for physics. Columbia has some good engineering programs. Most of the Ivies are not large enough to have full and strong programs in every subject.</p>
<p>Rankings are the stupidest things in the world, dont pay attention to them. THey are weighted percentages for things like % applicants admitted and "how presidents of other institutions would grade them". </p>
<p>An ivy engineering education essentially lacks nothing a non-ivy education does. Any engineering program worth going to is ABET acredited and that's all that really matters. </p>
<p>Yes some universities (large state eng ones especially) have more money to pump into their programs but still. Ivies have a certain reputation and many have plenty of research opportunities going on, especially for undergrads (some places focus solely on their grads)...</p>
<p>Bottom line, dont make a drastic assumption like ivies are bad at engineering just because US News says so.</p>
<p>Well, skraylor, I wouldn't go THAT far. The truth is, some engineering programs are better than others. I think the Ivy engineering programs are pretty good, but that doesn't mean that I think they're as good as the engineering programs at MIT or Stanford. </p>
<p>I think rankings actually give a pretty good indication of what is good and what isn't, and the rankings show that the Ivy engineering programs are actually pretty decent. Even the worst Ivy engineering program is still far above average.</p>
<p>I would have to disagree again then because a large school like MIT or Stanford may have the money and opportunities but they really do lack in the close-knit mentorship kind of thing smaller schools get. Who is to say what is better? One person may THRIVE at a tier2 school and go on to become a nobel prize winner yet that same person be absolutly crushed at someplace like MIT (even tho they may be completely qualified and smart enough).</p>
<p>I'm obviously not saying go to an art academy for engineering...no. What I am saying tho is dont go on what some people consider to be the gospel according to US News or Princeton Review. Reputation,I think, is a much better thing to go on even tho it's circulated by word of mouth and is therefore easily jumbled up (reputation to businesses, grad schools...no one cares about rep to ordinar people, they dont pay you)</p>
<p>MIT has about 4000 undergraduates while Stanford has about 6500, and both have superb student:faculty ratios.</p>
<p>What is your idea of a small school? A little LAC with 300 people per class?</p>
<p>rose-hulman, olin, RPI, WPI, etc.</p>
<p>go and check how many classes each professor teaches at both places tho. it'll be like 1/yr. the rest of the time they are hired by the gov't (at MIT) and do nothing but research</p>
<p>and please tell me that the undergrad population gets precedence over the grads at MIT or stanford...please</p>
<p>Skraylor saaky is an avid supporter of those schools and you have no argument here. For some (like me) bigger is better [think the movie Big Fish, yeah you could always be the Big Fish but why not give yourself some room to grow]. I could never go to a small school and would wilt and probably never make it out but at a large school, it's like my home.</p>
<p>Also they are at the top of their own respective rankings if you ever checked it out. But they can't be included on the US news because they don't have a graduate PhD program. Plain and simple.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would have to disagree again then because a large school like MIT or Stanford may have the money and opportunities but they really do lack in the close-knit mentorship kind of thing smaller schools get. Who is to say what is better? One person may THRIVE at a tier2 school and go on to become a nobel prize winner yet that same person be absolutly crushed at someplace like MIT (even tho they may be completely qualified and smart enough).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am strictly talking about the regard and quality of the education there. It has nothing to do with personal fit. After all, personal fit cuts both ways. It is true that somebody may get crushed at MIT who would have thrived at a tier 2. On the other hand, I could say that somebody who would not be inspired and become quite lazy at a tier 2 might be inspired to achieve great things at MIT, for simple sociological reasons - when other people around you are working hard, then you tend to want to work hard, but when other people around you are lazy, then you tend to become lazy. In fact, a strong case could be made that a person could actually end up with WORSE grades by going to a less rigorous school, precisely because of the sociological factors. It is very hard to make the decision to study hard when you see other people around you lounging around and partying all the time. </p>
<p>
[quote]
rose-hulman, olin, RPI, WPI, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As IlliniJBravoEcho ha ssaid, I have always been a strong proponent of schools like Rose-Hulman, Olin, Harvey-Mudd, and these small LAC-like schools.</p>
<p>But when you start talking about schools like RPI and WPI, this is where your argument goes off the rails. RPI/WPI are not like Rose-Hulman or Olin or Harvey-Mudd. RPI and WPI are research universities, just like MIT and Stanford. </p>
<p>
[quote]
go and check how many classes each professor teaches at both places tho. it'll be like 1/yr. the rest of the time they are hired by the gov't (at MIT) and do nothing but research
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But the same thing happens at RPI and WPI. Let's face it. They both have plenty of profs who just want to do research and consequently never teach undergrads. There are a lot of profs there who would rather deal with only graduate students and not undergrads. </p>
<p>It's one thing to say that somebody might choose to turn down MIT or Stanford for, say, Harvey-Mudd. That is actually reasonable because Harvey-Mudd really is a highly undergraduate-oriented engineering school. It is also extremely highly ranked. But turning down MIT or Stanford for someplace like RPI or WPI because you really think you will get better undergraduate focus is highly dubious to me. Let's face it. ALL of those schools are research and graduate focused.</p>
<p>But anyway, all of that is neither here nor there. My point is, you simply can't just dismiss rankings. The truth is, the #1 ranked school probably is better than the #500 school. And the rankings state that the Ivies are actually quite decent when it comes to engineering.</p>
<p>I always find it interesting when people talk about graduate students getting "all the attention" at top science and engineering schools.</p>
<p>When I visited UCSF (a top biology school with only graduate and professional divisions), one of the major selling points they used was that there were no undergrads to get "all the attention" from faculty.</p>
<p>The grass is always greener on the other side, I guess...</p>
<p>Personally speaking, I've never noticed anyone paying more attention to grad students than to me. When I need to talk to my research supervisor, I go drop in his office, just like the graduate students. I guess maybe we don't get treated any worse than graduate students because many faculty members just treat us like graduate students in the first place.</p>
<p>edit: Ok let me first state that yes, I realize I backed myself into a corner with above post or 2 and I was just caught in the heat of the argument (argument is good tho, helps us learn :) ) my point, as originally stated in the first post, is that rankings are dumb and useless. This is my reasoning as to why. I pull in elements of my other posts partly to clarify and partly because they help my argument, I just didnt tie it together on here (had it in my head, just couldnt get it out right)</p>
<p>Peer assessment: 25% of a grade<br>
please....this is going out and asking deans what they think about certain schools. give me a break.
SAT/ACT: 7.5%
SAT's have been proven to be a worthless indicator of how one does in college
Class standings: 7%
considering many high schools have done away with ranking, why would this be a valid part of any grading system? better yet, what about the extremes for rankings? ie ultra hard schools where people with 3.95uw's are #30/100? or backwater country schools where valeditorian is out of 10 and has a 3.5uw?
Thats almost 40% of the whole ranking system for USNWR that I personally find to be bull</p>
<p>How is my argument lacking? You say that personal fit has nothing to do with rankings yet graduation rate, retention, and alumni giving are 30-35% of the USNWR rankings. How can you justify that these things have nothing to do with personal fit? My argument is saying that MIT and Stanford are not the necessarily the top of the engineering education world (note the word education...being at the top of the engineering world is a completely different thing that i will never argue with) while the ivies are closer to 10-50 range (edit: keep reading to see how this may be). I merely mention the other schools because he asked what my idea of a small school was and I only mentioned small schools because for some, personal fit (see above) is better at those than at higher schools. My argument basically boils down to the fact that lots of people make their choices based on rankings. So here's how we draw all this together: if someone is better suited towards a smaller school yet is drawn to a bigger school because of god-awful rankings, how does this benefit anyone? </p>
<p>I admit I got off on a little tangent in my above post but my argument from the start has been that rankings are dumb.</p>
<p>You are very correct lots of people probably make their choice based on rankings...meaning someone may choose Harvey Mudd or Rose-Hulman when they'd really be happier at their 50th-ranked state school. It works both ways...</p>
<p>
[quote]
I admit I got off on a little tangent in my above post but my argument from the start has been that rankings are dumb.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm sorry, I still don't buy it. I can agree with you that rankings are FLAWED, but that's a far cry from saying that they are dumb. They do give you some indication of what is going on. A perfect indication? Of course not. But it's far better than nothing at all.</p>
<p>If the rankings stated that MIT was somehow ranked last in engineering, then I would agree with you that that ranking is probably dumb. But it doesn't. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Peer assessment: 25% of a grade
please....this is going out and asking deans what they think about certain schools. give me a break.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As opposed to what? Who else is better to ask? </p>
<p>
[quote]
SAT/ACT: 7.5%
SAT's have been proven to be a worthless indicator of how one does in college
[/quote]
</p>
<p>False. You can say that SAT's have proven to not be as strong an indicator as it ought to be, but to say that they are "worthless" is going too far. Let's face it. A guy with an extremely low SAT score is more likely to do poorly in college than a guy with a perfect SAT score. Guaranteed? Of course not. But if you had to bet on which one would do poorly, you are better off betting on the low-scoring one, because the majority of the time, you will win the bet. Not all the time, but the majority of the time. </p>
<p>
[quote]
considering many high schools have done away with ranking, why would this be a valid part of any grading system? better yet, what about the extremes for rankings? ie ultra hard schools where people with 3.95uw's are #30/100? or backwater country schools where valeditorian is out of 10 and has a 3.5uw?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is this flawed? Yes. But it's still better than not including class ranking at all. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Thats almost 40% of the whole ranking system for USNWR that I personally find to be bull
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not bull. It might not be perfect, but it's far from being 'bull'. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I merely mention the other schools because he asked what my idea of a small school was and I only mentioned small schools because for some, personal fit (see above) is better at those than at higher schools. My argument basically boils down to the fact that lots of people make their choices based on rankings. So here's how we draw all this together: if someone is better suited towards a smaller school yet is drawn to a bigger school because of god-awful rankings, how does this benefit anyone?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody is saying that people should robotically follow rankings. But when you say that rankings are 'dumb' and have no value at all, you go too far. Rankings have value. That doesn't mean that you should always choose the higher ranked program. But it also means that you should not dismiss them all as being 'dumb'. They are another piece of information that you should consider. For example, if you find 2 programs that fit you equally well, then you may be well served by choosing the higher ranked of those 2 programs.</p>
<p>I get the impression that the Ivies, which are more upper class, are generally less active in majors that don't lead to white-collar (in the old sense) jobs. I feel that they would focus on medicine, law, and business.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For example, if you find 2 programs that fit you equally well, then you may be well served by choosing the higher ranked of those 2 programs.
[/quote]
Why? If the rankings are flawed, as you admitted, then how can you reasonably say that one is better than the other?
You've still admitted that it's a flawed system, so my question still stands, why bother with them? If you were selling oranges to people, would you still sell rotten or bad oranges? By you're reasoning, its ok since they are just a little flawed.</p>
<p>I really wouldnt have such a problem with them if there was perhaps another group that could circulate itself as well as USNWR has, but right now it has a monopoly on the system. You may think it sounds dumb but this is as much a business as anything else and without competition, USNWR has no ryhme or reason to improve itself. Sure Princeton Review is out there but they dont try for the comprehensive rankings USNWR does that I so sorely think are more than misguided.</p>
<p>EDITED.............................</p>
<p>I think the point is that MIT is not going to be better than, University of Pennsylvania or Cornell. The rankings set out their criteria and it is pretty much what I would use to judge colleges too. I mean a college that has a higher SAT average is almost always more selective (which means that there is more demand for that college which in turn means that they have seen good results from the university). I am not saying that an SAT score is a good measure of how well you will do in college, but if a university like WPI starts admitting people only with an SAT score of 1450+, there will be almost no one attending it ..while almost everyone who applies to MIT has that kind of a score.</p>
<p>The Fact is that an engineering program cannot be better in reality if it is 10 places down the ranking than another. I was thinking of applying to tufts, but because theyre engineering program in 97 or something. And i later found through some students that thet didnt find it "challanging" enough. I was thankful to US News for making me decide.</p>
<p>I'll admit my argument loses validity when comparing #97 to #50 to #2 but anything within the top 20, the differences are so minute that the rankings are worthless (IMO)</p>
<p>edit: anything within 20 places even (i.e. 1-20, 20-40, 40-60, etc)</p>