<p>I have been to the college chances forum, and UCLA seems to fit for me to get either a degree in comp sci or mechanical engineering. My question is will having a degree from UCLA be able to get me into MIT, Harvard (I know, not an engineering school, but still it is prestigious), Cornell, Caltech, Stanford etc. for comp sci or mechanical engineering? According to this website (Best</a> Computer Science Programs | Top Computer Science Schools | US News Best Graduate Schools), UCLA is #14 in comp sci. And according to this website (Best</a> Mechanical Engineering Programs | Top Engineering Schools | US News Best Graduate Schools), it is also #14 in mech engineering. So will UCLA be able to get me into a top tier grad school?</p>
<p>Going to a good school with a well regarded department is a plus. But to get into a top grad school for those majors, you must be an outstanding student and have interesting projects and researches that you are involved with and fantastic letter of recommendation. </p>
<p>By the way, you don’t pick a grad school based on the reputation or prestige of its undergrad college or its MBA program etc. You pick it based on the strength of its grad department that you will be in and if it is a good match for the area that you are untested in studying.</p>
<p>Really? Harvard? Engineering is one of their weakest departments. If you’re doing comp. sci, stick with a California school and MIT. Silicon Valley hands out 6 figure grad salaries. Berkeley, Stanford, Caltech, UCLA, UCSD, USC are the top dogs. And yes UCLA will get you there if the work experience/internships and grades are excellent.</p>
<p>^I disagree. Since the Harvard Corporation and Overseers voted for the Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences change its name to the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) in 2007, they have been investing so much resources into the SEAS, especially the Electrical Engineering program. Year right, it’s only ranked 22nd in the nation, according to USNews, but we all know that’s not really accurate. It’s very hard to get in Harvard SEAS programs, so much harder than CMU/GaTech/UIUC.</p>
<p>Realistic EE/CS grad school rankings:
- Berkeley/Caltech/MIT/Stanford
- CMU/Cornell/GaTech/Harvard/Penn/Princeton
- Columbia/Michigan/UCLA/UCSB/UCSD/UIUC/UTAustin</p>
<p>Simply going to UCLA will not get you into a top tier program. You have to go, get good grades, get some research experience and foster relationships with professors who can write you recommendation letters.</p>
<p>But yes, if you plan to do those things you can go to graduate school from UCLA. If you did those things, you could go to a good graduate school from virtually any well-regarded accredited school, including a CSU.</p>
<p>UCorBust1: I know that Harvard isn’t a great engineering school. I just put it out there becuase its a good school and on that list I referenced earlier listed Harvard as the 17th best comp sci program and 30th for mechanical engineering. I agree, thats not Harvard’s best spot. But if you hired employees for a top tech company, would you hire somebody from Univ. of Michigan which has the 13th best program, but is rather easy to get into (40% acceptance) or somebody from Harvard which has the 17th best program, but is one of the top three hardest schools to get into? I know that Harvard is most certainly not an engineering school. I see what you mean, but it’s still Harvard.</p>
<p>I don’t understand what rankings have to do with this. Employers don’t care about USNews or any other arbitrary rankings. They are looking for the best CS students. More often than not, the best CS students are at Stanford/Caltech/Berkeley/MIT/CMU. That’s the elite tier of CS schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The one from the better program.</p>
<p>First of all, the idea that 40% means “easy” to get into is absurd. 60% of people don’t get admitted. That’s still selective.</p>
<p>Second, people so often conflate selectivity with quality, but the two don’t mean the same thing just because U.S. News says they do. As a (hypothetical) hiring manager, I don’t really much care how many students a program allows in, because if I’m hiring people I’m not worried about exclusivity. I am more concerned with whether the person I am hiring is going to be a good engineer. Are they well-trained? Do they understand scientific and engineering concepts? Can they build bridges or airplanes or cars that actually work, don’t explode, and won’t lose my company money? Are they innovative? Those are the things I am worried about.</p>
<p>In fact, to my eyes, Michigan is MORE impressive because they have a 40% admission rate and STILL manage to be the 13th best program, while Harvard is culling the cream of the crop and their engineering schools isn’t as well-ranked. That means that something about Michigan’s training is really good, because they are taking ostensibly weaker students and turning them into better engineers (theoretically, anyway). It’s easy to take already outstanding students and make them better; it’s much harder to take above-average, but not spectacular, students and make them on par with the outstanding students.</p>
<p>The argument “It’s still Harvard” is nonsensical. Toyota is a great car company, but if they started making toothpaste, would you buy it just because it’s Toyota? Would you buy a calculator produced by Colgate simply because they make good oral care products? Some organizations are really good at a set of things and not so good at a set of other things. Experienced engineering hiring managers are not likely to be swayed by the Harvard name just because it’s Harvard; they are going to be concerned with the quality of programs they are familiar with. Many of them may take a mechanical engineer from Michigan or Georgia Tech over Harvard because the quality of those other two programs is higher than the quality of Harvard’s program.</p>