<p>I would like to add that citations/paper favors schools with projects concentrating on "hot/popular" areas. My guess is these could very well be the smaller schools with limited resource. If a school has diverse range of projects (demonstrated by large number of faculty members in many different subdisciplines), its score is "diluted" by projects on areas that less people care about. Someone at MIT could be publishing the best paper in the world. But if no other people work on related topic because its so advanced or whatever, it's not gonna get many citations. The main point is citations/paper can be skewed depending on research areas.</p>
<p>The score is not "diluted" that much because each university on that list has hundreds of projects going on. To even make the list, you need to publish hundreds of papers. Besides, the Sciencewatch ranking is just one example proving that some of the smaller engineering schools with fewer faculty than a mega-school like Berkeley or Illinois --- schools such as Caltech, Yale, Princeton --- are actually at the very top in terms of quality. There are other statistics that show that the quality can be very high, even when quantity (number of profs) isn't as high as a mega-school like Berkeley. For example, if you looked at the placement of undergraduates into the top graduate schools of engineering, you might be surprised to see that smaller engineering programs like Swarthmore, Princeton, Yale, Caltech and Harvey Mudd are at the very top of the list whereas Berkeley, Illinois etc are very far behind. </p>
<p>Bottom line is, as I said before, don't go by the attitude of the average Joe on the Street who thinks Berkeley, or some large school like it, is the be all end all of engineering schools. Instead, talk to students and professors, and you'll get a better understanding of what makes an undergraduate engineering program like Harvey Mudd, Caltech, Yale or Princeton so great.</p>
<p>Bottom line: if you want to pursue engineering, don't go to Yale. I agree that smaller engineering programs sometimes offer good opportunities, but Yale is not really one of them. Caltech would be a good example of this. The problem with small programs is that many don't offer enough funding, resources, and diversity of research to fully accomodate a wide range of students.</p>
<p>So, do we listen to "ForeverZero", or do we listen to ISI/Sciencewatch (the most respected scientific information organization in the world) and the hundreds of successful alumni from Yale running various engineering companies? </p>
<p>Your choice.</p>
<p>I already told you exactly what was wrong with the rankings. Look at some other research rankings: USNEWS, NRC, Philosophical Gourmet, and TheCenter. They all agree with the common public perception: MIT, Berkeley, and Stanford are THE universities for engineering and scientific research. Period. It's obvious that there's no convincing you cuz you're a Yale troll, but for everyone else who's reading this, I'm right.</p>
<p>You're not right, because the best school is the one that's best for each individual student. Some students like the smaller programs like Harvey Mudd, Swarthmore, Princeton, Yale, Harvard, etc., where you can get a lot more personal attention. And their excellence is proven by the overwhelming success rate at which students from those programs go to the top graduate schools of engineering - rates higher than almost any of the supposedly best (but really just biggest) programs.</p>
<p>Also, this thread has to do with engineering. When you get into just "scientific research," it's a totally different topic of conversation. To show just how misguided you are, Yale received $251 million in federal scientific research funding, whereas all of UC-Berkeley received only $208 million. That means, on a per student basis, Yale has five times more scientific research than UC-Berkeley. On a per student basis, MIT, Caltech and Yale are the top three for scientific research. I would argue that those three plus Princeton have the best undergraduate science programs in the country.</p>
<p>I already posted why smaller schools may not be the best; they do not offer the wide breadth of engineering disciplines and research opportunities that the big research universities offer. And no matter what, Yale is not the best choice for engineering. Caltech and schools like Olin and Harvey Mudd offer great engineering programs that are also small and focused. Among the Ivies, Princeton offers amazing engineering programs while retaining a relatively small and individualized curriculum as well. And if we're comparing undergrad programs, your ranking doesn't matter because it's a graduate ranking. The only undergrad engineering ranking I know of is USNEWS, which I believe ranks MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, and Caltech as the top schools. No matter which way you look at it, Yale is not the best fit for a student who wants to pursue engineering. Period.</p>
<p>The ISI/Sciencewatch ranking I posted is of engineering departments/faculty, not of "graduate" or "undergraduate" programs. For a subspecialized field like engineering, I would take any such rankings as highly suspect, since they are usually biased greatly in favor of institutions with very high enrollments. Also, one institution may be tops for electrical eng, but have weak chemical eng offerings, and vice versa.</p>
<p>ForeverZero, you also seem to forget there are many very serious engineering students who want to double major in music or political science and engineering. Not all successful engineers are parked in front of computer screens their entire life.</p>
<p>Again... it's your choice. "ForeverZero", or go look at the programs and decide for yourself which has the best, highest quality undergraduate program for you.</p>
<p>Exactly, let people decide for themselves what's best for them. I guarantee you that practically no one will choose Yale for engineering. If they want a small focused program, they can get it at Caltech or one of the small engineering-focused colleges. If they want plenty of research opportunities and a plethora of resources, MIT, Berkeley, and Stanford are the way to go. And if, like you said, they want a great liberal arts education in addition to strong engineering programs, Princeton is awesome at that. No matter which way you look at it, Yale loses out. Sorry.</p>
<p>Glad we agree on that point. And maybe if they want a plethora of resources, research opportunities, very low student to faculty ratios (like 1:1), and rich offerings in other fields, then Swarthmore, Princeton, Yale, or Harvard are the way to go.</p>
<p>dude, quit lumping HYP engineering together. they have very different reps. princeton is #12, harvard #31, and yale #44 (up three spots) in the latest u.s. news rankings.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The score is not "diluted" that much because each university on that list has hundreds of projects going on. To even make the list, you need to publish hundreds of papers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am sorry but I failed to see that's an adequte explanation. You said to make the list, you need to pubish hundreds of papers. Looking at those tables, it appear to me 300 is the cutoff. I see a wide range of number once you make the cutoff. Yale has 300+ engineering paper whereas CalTech has 1300+ paper. MIT is not on the list but I am sure it has more than CalTech. The method tries to be "fair" by normalizing it by citation. However, do you agree that citation/paper depends largely on how many related projects are done after one's paper is published? I'd say it depends more on that than the quality of the paper. Well, your paper does need to be good enough to get published but that's about it. When you do your research at the libraries, you are looking for papers that are relevant to your topic. When you see the match, all you care is if it's relevant and support whatever you are trying to say. You don't really care if the work was done at Harvard or Arizona State. You also don't care about the quality of the work because once it's published, it's considered "legit" to be used. I am not saying the number is completely useless, I just see how it has its flaws. This ranking is essentially trying to rate the strength of faculty. An alternative way to find that out go to the departments' website and look at their CVs (what major awards he/she receive? any/how many papers did he/she publish recently..etc) and compare them among different schools.</p>
<p>That's a good way to do it. And better yet, talk to the faculty. The citation ranking is very useful but obviously has it's limitations. However I would hold that it is more valuable than "US News" rankings, which are severely biased in favor of schools with large faculties due to the methodology. The US News rankings are essentially worthless in this case, f.scottie.</p>
<p>Faculty members selected into the national academy of engineering (NAE)</p>
<p>MIT (108 members)
Stanford (85 members)
Berkeley (70)</p>
<p>Caltech (30)
Princeton (20)
Harvard (15)</p>
<p>Yale (5)</p>
<p>Yale is best in engineering? It makes me laugh. HAHAHAHAHA.</p>
<p>The ISI ranking has Yale at #1 (just above Caltech and Stanford), so feel free to laugh all you want, meanwhile Yale continues to be the most selective undergraduate program in the country. If you look at NAE members per engineering major, Yale actually blows away most of the schools you've listed.</p>
<p>MIT is obviously the biggest, most visible school for engineering and I'm all for that. It's a great school. But a lot of students have serious interests in more than just engineering, and prefer a program with much more personal attention. If you look at which students go on to MIT for grad school (and grad school is much more important for finding a job than undergrad in this field), you'll see that the schools with the highest success rates are not the ones you might think.</p>
<p>Instead of listening to random people on this chat board who don't know what they're talking about, how about reading about some real people:</p>
<p>Yale, the most selective undergrad college? That's odd, considering Harvard had a lower acceptance rate this year, as well as the number 1 selectivity rank on USNEWS. As for personal attention and a broad education, like you say, why not Princeton? I think Princeton offers the perfect balance of a small engineering curriculum (but strong enough to offer enough research opportunities and facilities) and an amazing liberal arts curriculum. Sorry, but you're fighting a losing battle. Although you may believe Yale to be the best school for everything, you'll be hard pressed to convince people that it's the strongest in engineering, which is by far one of Yale's weakest (if not its weakest) disciplines.</p>
<p>And btw, I'd avoid the personal attacks if I were you, unless you're just itching to get banned.</p>
<p>Yale is not the best for everything - no school is. The best is what's best for each individual student. Some students might thrive at a large school while others want more personal attention. Some people are ready to focus on one area whereas others might decide to study two or three different fields. That's why I said it's important to talk to real people (like the ones on the site I posted), not people on a chat board. It wasn't an attack on anyone, it is a statement about message boards in general.</p>