<p>^^Thanks. No I'm not someone who would exclude Stanford degrees but I was worried that some people might say that because its easier to graduate at Stanford (still amazingly tough btw) that at from say Caltech (notorious for being almost impossible difficult) then that a graduate from Caltech is then 'better' than one from Stanford.</p>
<p>
[quote]
^^Thanks. No I'm not someone who would exclude Stanford degrees but I was worried that some people might say that because its easier to graduate at Stanford (still amazingly tough btw) that at from say Caltech (notorious for being almost impossible difficult) then that a graduate from Caltech is then 'better' than one from Stanford.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, some people probably would say that.</p>
<p>But I would say that it hardly matters. The fact is, after a couple of years of working, nobody really cares about where you graduated from. All they will care about at that point is how well you've done on the job. So the only time that your school reputation really matters is in getting your first, and maybe your second job. </p>
<p>Secondly, about getting that first or second job, whatever Stanford might 'lose' to Caltech in rigor is almost certainly made up for by its strong brand name and networking. Business is often times less about what you know than about WHO you know, and the fact is, Stanford is plugged into Silicon Valley the way that no other school is. Stanford gives you access to a wide and highly successful alumni network. Furthermore, the Stanford pop-culture brand name is better than Caltech's, and the truth is, there really are a lot of employers out there who don't know much more than just brand names. </p>
<p>This is incidentally why Harvard is such a desirable place to study. Harvard is not particularly difficult either, compared to places like MIT. But the truth is, Harvard's alumni network and brand name are unbeatable, hands down.</p>
<p>Thanks for answering sakky. Yeah Stanford is pretty well connected especially in the Silicon Valley but I have to ask does that mean much for a ChemE? I was pretty angry after reading a thread in the Caltech forum which was pretty much making light of a Stanford degree in engineering, I don't want to work my ass off at Stanford and not get recognised for it if you know what I mean.</p>
<p>I agree it means less for ChemE than it would for CS or EE. But it still matters. Keep in mind that you don't actually have to work as a ChemE if you get a ChemE degree. Truth be told, a great many Stanford engineering students will never work a day in their lives as engineers. Instead they become management consultants or bankers, and the Stanford connections will greatly help you to do that. Even if you do want to work as a ChemE, your Stanford connections and brand name will still take you far. ChemE is not as 'high-tech' as EE or CS, but it is still quite high tech. Andy Grove, the legendary former CEO of Intel (and Time Man of the Year), was a chemical engineer. A lot of the semiconductor industry has to do with ChemE, and it is the semiconductor industry that gave Silicon Valley its moniker. It's not "Software Valley" or "PC Valley" or "Internet Valley', it's "SILICON Valley". ChemE also has strong ties to materials science, nanotechnology, and biotech, of which Silicon Valley has plenty. </p>
<p>Look, the truth is, Stanford probably IS easier than Caltech. But the fact is, from what I can tell, rigor does not actually matter that much in the real world. If it did, then MIT and Caltech graduates would be ruling the world. But they aren't. I personally suspect that a lot of Caltech grads brag about their rigor because they are actually scared that they are doing all that hard work for nothing, and they are trying to convince themselves that that's not the case. </p>
<p>Yet the fact is, the world really is ruled not by the guys who work the hardest, but by the guys who are shmoozy and have lots of contacts and who are 'cool' and know how to market themselves. The Caltech grads may wish that the world were not so, but it is so. In this world, it's not enough to know what the right answer is. You also have to know how to convince others that you know what the right answer is, and that's where schmooziness and contacts come into play.</p>
<p>"schmooziness"...I love that! :D And it is true.</p>
<p>yup, all engineering people should be required to take some humanities courses, that's why I tend to disagree with Caltech's approach. Sure they produce good engineers, but DuPont wants an engineer who can sell his/her product. By the way I was wondering about your impressions of Cornell Engineering.</p>
<p>Can you really learn schmoooziness from a humanities course? I don't really see how taking a course in 17th century French literature is going to foster the production of scmooziness. </p>
<p>Its certainly valuable to take humanities courses to improve speaking ability, etc, and I think it is important that engineers be forced to take classes outside of the typical engineering curriculum. But I don't know if "schmooziness" will be improved by taking some random humanities course. That is the type of skill which can only be improved by real life experience.</p>
<p>Thanks sakky. Oh btw people Stanford pretty much makes you take humanities from the very first year. I don't really like that, I wish I could trade it in with something that interests me more like some math or science but unfortunately I can't. Yeah Caltach probably is harder to graduate from. I know a girl who got into Caltech but then turned it down for Cornell, I think it was a smart move. She's bright but I doubt she could survive at Caltech, her worst subjects are Physics and Chemistry. Now she's going to do architecture.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Can you really learn schmoooziness from a humanities course? I don't really see how taking a course in 17th century French literature is going to foster the production of scmooziness. </p>
<p>Its certainly valuable to take humanities courses to improve speaking ability, etc, and I think it is important that engineers be forced to take classes outside of the typical engineering curriculum. But I don't know if "schmooziness" will be improved by taking some random humanities course. That is the type of skill which can only be improved by real life experience.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it's not really that the humanities class will itself teach you 'schmooziness'. Rather, it's that that class probably already has lots of people who are 'schmoozy', and by taking a class with them, you are forced to interact with them and hence their attitude will rub off on you. When you interact with people who are social and outgoing, you will tend to want to be social and outgoing yourself. As opposed to if you only interact with people who are introverted and nerdy, then you will tend to also be introverted and nerdy. </p>
<p>The fact of the matter is that there is a strong prevailing culture at Caltech, MIT, and schools like that that tends to discourage normal social skills, and almost tends to encourage a sense of quirky geekiness. I believe that's a problem because the fact is, in the world we live in, quirky geeks are controlled and manipulated by blow-dried pretty boy smooth operators. In a perfect world, the quality of your ideas would always prevail, regardless of how those ideas are packaged. We don't live in a perfect world. Self-marketing, self-promotion, and social smoothness matter.</p>
<p>Valid point but I think it would be even better if those skills could lbe incorporated into engineering courses.</p>
<p>That would be nice too. But except for perhaps such interdisciplinary ventures as 'engineering management', I wouldn't hold my breath. The engineering culture seems pretty entrenched.</p>
<p>I don't find My Engineering COllege (Cornells), to be way too hard in terms of work given... but the exams and finals can get ridiculous, and the grading always works to your disadvantage. I think its more frustrating that it is hard... Nothing that you learn at least your first or second year.. taking intros and cores... is beyond anyone. DUring this second and espeically first years is when most people drop the major.<br>
My only criticism is an Engineering Curriculum while thorough and very prepatory... ignores the many softer skills one needs to apply to the real world, not to mention the many instances outside of work where one would need to be social.</p>
<p>Sakky Wrote:
[quote]
I believe that's a problem because the fact is, in the world we live in, quirky geeks are controlled and manipulated by blow-dried pretty boy smooth operators.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>LOL. But that's so true. It’s not unusual to see nerdy-type Phd engineers being managed by a supervisor who has a BA degree in liberal arts. :p In real world, politics and social skills (glib tongues and pretensions) are more important than your technical competence. :p</p>
<p>Nature ain't so easy to explain...</p>
<p>Ah, but once we geeks have figured out the secret formula to being well-spoken and glib...</p>
<p>whppp-PSSH!!!</p>
<p>Join Toastmasters. Smile more. Make eye contact. Take acting classes. (Seriously!!) Study people... If you want to make a science of it, check out Laban Movement Analysis. (Wiki it.) Read hard-core acting books... I'm talking "Inside the Actor's Workshop" sorts of things, where the exercises are ridiculous things like, "Discover your partner's nose. When you discover it, name it. Say 'nose'." Learn to do these things without laughing. If the lib arts kids are willing to slick their ways up the ranks ahead of us, then put in the work to figure out how to beat them at their own game. Glibness is all about presenting a front of confidence and soothing positivity.</p>
<p>Disarm them! Social skills are easier to fake than your dissertation in quantum physics ever was. Go get 'em.</p>
<p>If nothing else, you'll develop a rock-solid poker strategy and be able to con those fry-shovelers outta their glibly-earned coin that way. ;)</p>
<p>At the graduate level engineering isn't very hard at all compared to other degrees.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At the graduate level engineering isn't very hard at all compared to other degrees.
[/quote]
It's not very hard relative to the students admitted.</p>
<p>"It's not very hard relative to the students admitted."</p>
<p>At the graduate level, engineers tend to take fewer classes than other majors, and they don't tend to be as math or science intensive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe that's a problem because the fact is, in the world we live in, quirky geeks are controlled and manipulated by blow-dried pretty boy smooth operators.</p>
<p>LOL. But that's so true. Its not unusual to see nerdy-type Phd engineers being managed by a supervisor who has a BA degree in liberal arts. In real world, politics and social skills (glib tongues and pretensions) are more important than your technical competence.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i sense a tiny bit of jelously here. i believe that's absolutely the way it should be. communication skills are crucial in this society. and nerds often dont have them, so that's why they are being managed by people who actually do and can communicate efficiently with the outside world. why do u have to call them "blow-dried pretty boy smooth operators",why are you trying to put them down?</p>
<p>uhhh... what grad school did <em>you</em> go to, VTBoy?</p>