yale for engineering

College Majors Engineering Majors
21

<p>Monydad, I think your objections to Yale engineering need to be put in perspective.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You may have lost the opportunity to fully explore the myriad varied sub-areas within the broad field of engineering. </p>

<p>You may have lost exposure to what would have been your true calling.</p>

<p>You may have lost the ability to pursue a particular area that you become passionate about, as your interests develop. because they don't offer it. Or , even if they do, not at an advanced level.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, I think this is no different from going to a LAC like Harvey Mudd or Swarthmore and choosing engineering there. Or going to Berkeley for engineering, where intra-major transfers are highly restricted. Like I said, Berkeley has lots of engineering breadth, but what does that matter if you find you like some other engineering discipline better but aren't allowed to switch over to it? </p>

<p>
[quote]
You may also have lost the opportunity to get early exposure to engineering practice via a coop program.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Maybe, or maybe not. </p>

<p>However, I would say that while I don't know Yale engineering intimately, it seems like they offer unique research opportunities to their undergraduate, including offering dedicated resources to helping students find research projects. I know a lot of Berkeley engineers who wish they could have gotten some help in finding research projects. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.eng.yale.edu/undergraduate/undergrad_research.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.eng.yale.edu/undergraduate/undergrad_research.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
You may have lost the convenience of significant on-campus recruiting for engineering jobs, and the wide exposure to available companies and jobs that are out there that substantial on-campus engineering recruiting programs provide.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>On the other hand, I would venture to say that you have gained exposure to the various high-prestige consulting and banking firms that lots of engineers end up in. Like I said, even the engineers at MIT in many cases don't want to be engineers, and instead take banking/finance jobs. I would assert that it's easier to get into McKinsey from Yale engineering than from Purdue. </p>

<p>Look, nobody is saying that Yale is somehow equivalent to MIT or any of the other top engineering schools. What I am saying is that Yale engineering is really not that bad, and quite frankly, some of the other big-name engineering schools (like Berkeley), honestly, really aren't as good as some people seem to think they are.</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, don't you ever sleep dude?! LOL Anyway, Ford will hire many employees from Michigan, but it does not recruit heavily at most of those universities. Most students at Wayne State and Michigan Tech have Detroit connections. Wayne State is huge, with well over 25,000 students. But if you look closely, you will see that most of those who came in at a high level come from top Engineering programs, like Penn State, Ohio State, MIT, Stanford, Cal, Columbia, CMU, Michigan, UIUC, Purdue, UT-Austin etc... Most of the employees from other universities were brought in at lower levels and rose in the ranks over the years. Look at the sample you have provided us. There are 360 "model" Ford employees. Of those, 103 attended Fiske ***** universities.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But see, I think you've only proven my point, which is that Wayne State and Michigan Tech are not that bad, particularly when it comes to getting people into Ford. In fact, they're pretty decent. So while I am not saying that Yale engineering is going to be as successful in placing engineers as MIT or Stanford will, I can't imagine that it would be that bad. If Wayne State can do fairly decently in placing people, I have to imagine that Yale will do allright for itself.</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
Sakky: Montana Tech, formerly the Montana School of Mines, has been nationally known for decades as a school with top programs in geology, mining engineering and chemical engineering. Now part of the University of Montana it has a broader engineering program. New Mexico Tech, while not known to you, was formerly called the New Mexico School of Mines, and has long had a fine local reputation. The Colorado School of Mines, also with a long-held national reputation, still has that name.</p>

<p>Many large companies recruit or hire locally in large quantities not because they want engineers (and other employees) who will be content to stay in a dull boring job without pushing for advancement but because they are looking for employees who already have ties to, and like, the geographical area and are thus less likley to leave for different parts of the country.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And again, all of this is only further proving my central point, that even the 'no-name' engineering schools still perform fairly respectably within the niche that they serve. </p>

<p>I would venture to say that very few people have heard of New Mexico Tech or Montana Tech, but they are successful in minting engineers that obtain what are apparently quite decent job prospects. So if that's true, again, I have to imagine that Yale engineering couldn't be that bad. Yale engineering is more selective, it has more money per capita, it can leverage the world-famous Yale brand name, it is located near both Greenwich and Manhattan, both of which are filled with lots of rich investors who may be looking to pump money into a new hot tech idea, it has many things going for it. So while I don't think Yale engineering is going to rival MIT engineering anytime soon, it's not that bad. The dropoff between MIT and a place like Yale is not very large. </p>

<p>Like it or not, let's face it, New Mexico Tech is a no-name school. Its ranking is low, few people have heard of it. Maybe that's fair, maybe not. But it's the truth. Yet my point is that if even their engineers can do pretty decently, I would have to imagine that it's not that bad for the Yale engineers.</p>

24

<p>I think we might be getting a little sidetracked here. Anyways, to sum up my final thoughts...</p>

<p>The only bad thing about Yale Engineering is that you might have trouble finding on-campus recruiters for engineering firms - the reason being that Yale graduates very few engineers and the firms don't want to compete against Ibanks in the recruiting. </p>

<p>But then again, so what. There are many careers besides being an engineer, and even if you do want to be an engineer, you'll probably eventually find a job. There are many engineering majors, many of whom are the best in their class, who believe in an engineering education but would rather go into finance or business. This is something in which Yale shines in getting its students in. With that said, here are some strengths of Yale Engineering:</p>

<ol>
<li>Very small classes and very good faculty-student ratio</li>
<li>Probably very good research funding per student</li>
<li>Yale is a great school.</li>
<li>Yale has a strong network for job search.</li>
<li>Good placement into graduate and professional schools</li>
<li>Yale Engineering, like the other Ivies', will become more renown over time.</li>
</ol>

25

<p>"I think this is no different from going to a LAC like Harvey Mudd or Swarthmore.."</p>

<p>I'm not familiar with the offerings at these various schools, but I do believe interested applicants should check each such program carefully to ensure adequacy.</p>

<p>I think of Harvey Mudd more like Cooper Union. In both cases I would imagine they have sufficient offerings in engineering, a well-established track record with enginering employers, and a good number of engineering recruiters coming to their campus. I don't really know, but this is my image of them.</p>

<p>I don't know if this is true at Yale, or at Swarthmore. </p>

<p>"research opportunities..(etc)"
not sought by many engineering students, who prefer design project opportunites towards a practice career in the profession. If this is your interest though, go for it. However, I'd imagine you'd have to limit your research to an area where the few faculty there know something. If that's the situation. So hope you're interested in one of those particular areas.</p>

26

<p>"The only bad thing about Yale Engineering is that you might have trouble finding on-campus recruiters for engineering firms - "</p>

<p>So you're saying that Yale actually has adequate depth and breadth of engineering course offerings, and comparable number of engineering specialties available, compared to say, Cornell? And a coop program? So with these potential relative deficiencies off the table we're left with just the recruiting issue?</p>

<p>Good to know, for those interested in Yale.</p>

27

<p>Mudd has <em>tons</em> of recruiters on campus. That's never an issue, and everyone gets amply employed by graduation. The program's actually so in-depth on the basics and flexible in design that you can study whatever you want. My brother, for example, is researching intelligently iterative design of aerodynamic critical pieces. Where else could you research genetic algorithms with full faculty support and encouragement as a sophomore? I contend that Mudd's a different breed of cat. It's really a curriculum that's winning me over, I've gotta say...</p>

<p>And augh! Don't just lump it in with Swarthmore! Nothing against Swarthmore, but it just ain't Mudd, by any stretch.</p>

28

<p>Monydad, I think you're still missing the point. Nobody is saying that Yale is the greatest engineering school. My key point is that it's really not that bad, particularly when you keep in mind that plenty of people switch out of engineering, and even of those who complete enigneering degrees, many will not take engineering jobs. Again, 1/4 of all MIT EECS students take jobs in consulting and banking, and that's just talking about those who got offers.</p>

<p>Look, I agree that Cornell, from an engineering standpoint, is more broad than Yale. However, I would also assert that MIT is more broad and more ensconced with engineering recruiters than is Cornell. So just like you could say that it makes no sense to choose Yale engineering over Cornell engineering, I could just as easily say that it makes no sense to choose Cornell engineering over MIT engineering for the exact same reasons. However, my actual position is far less strict. Just like I don't think it's that bad to choose Cornell over MIT for engineering , I am also saying that it is not that bad to choose Yale over Cornell for engineering. </p>

<p>In particular, I don't believe the differences between the various engineering programs are really that large, at the undergraduate level. MIT is better than New Mexico Tech, but not hugely so. And certainly not for the purposes of employment, as MIT engineers don't make significantly higher starting salaries than do New Mexico Tech engineers. By the same reasoning, there really isn't a huge difference between Cornell engineers and Yale engineers.</p>

<p>Bottom line. Cornell has some advantages over Yale engineering. However, Yale engineering has some advantages over Cornell engineering, particularly with the connections to consulting and banking that lots of engineers end up going into. Yes, Cornell has consulting/banking ties too, but I would strongly suspect that Yale's ties are stronger. Furthermore, Yale basically brings the small-college LAC-style education to engineering. Just like nobody goes around casting aspersions at Harvey Mudd just because they're small and LAC-like, we shouldn't cast aspersions at Yale engineering just because it's small and LAC-like. Harvey Mudd proves that you can run a highly successful engineering program within a small, cloistered environment. The point is, just because an engineering program is small does not by itself prove that it is deficient.</p>

29

<p>Right. To prove actual deficiency one would have to examine : relative dearth of engineering courses/ majors offered, relative dearth of engineering faculty, dearth of engineering recruiters.</p>

<p>Only then one can prove deficiency. Right you are.</p>

30

<p>The point is, "Relative dearth" doesn't mean the school is deficient. To be deficient you you would need something like "very dearth," which clearly is not the case for Yale or any top 100 engineering school.</p>

31

<p>
[quote]
Right. To prove actual deficiency one would have to examine : relative dearth of engineering courses/ majors offered, relative dearth of engineering faculty, dearth of engineering recruiters.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In addition, you have to prove dearth of ability to accomodate those engineering students who want to switch out of engineering, dearth of ability to accomdoate those people who do get engineering degrees and then would rather go to law, medicine, banking, consulting, or other non-engineering fields, death of ability close intimate contact with engineering faculty or otherwise callousness to students (a definite problem with many high-prestige engineering programs, especially at the public schools).</p>

<p>You add up all of these factors, and then you can prove deficiency. Right you are. So compare the Purdue engineer who ends up at Ford vs. the Yale engineer who ends up at McKinsey. Can you really say that that Yale engineer is really in bad shape?</p>

32

<p>Sakky, although not many Purdue engineering students end up with jobs at McKinsey, many Cal, Cornell, CMU, Michigan, MIT, Northwestern, Princeton and Stanford (to name a few) alums do. That's my point. If you wish to major in Engineering, go to an elite university with a strong Engineering program. That way, if you really only want to be an Engineer, you are set, and if you should want to become an Investment Banker, Consultant or whatever, you are set too.</p>

33

<p>"..you have to prove dearth of ability to accomodate those engineering students who want to switch out of engineering, "</p>

<p>Not to prove whether the engineering program is deficient or not I don't. I just have to prove whether it's good at training engineers. In engineering.</p>

<p>"dearth of ability to accomdate those people who do get engineering degrees and then would rather go to law, medicine, banking, consulting, or other non-engineering fields, "</p>

<p>Ditto. The worth of an engineering program is measured by its training of engineers. Not how well it trains investment bankers, lawyers, etc. to do something completely different than engineering. </p>

<p>IMO.</p>

34

<p>Then I guess by that same logic, Yale's history program isn't worth much because it fails to train very many historians since it seems to "train" more lawyers and doctors than historians. Same goes with Princeton's philosophy department in "training" philosophers.</p>

<p>...and also, how do you that Yale engineers aren't good at engineering. Just because they might not want to do it doesn't meant they're not good at it.</p>

35

<p>Monydad, aurelius took the words right out of my mouth. I couldn't have said it any better than he did.</p>

<p>The truth is, very few people will actually pursue the specific career that their undergraduate major points them to. Very few poli-sci students will actually become political scientists, very few art history majors will actually become art historians, very few sociology majors will actually become sociologists, very few physics majors will actually become physicists. </p>

<p>I believe the quality of an undergrauate education is determined by how well it prepares you for a broad range of possibilities and career paths. College is not supposed to be a vocational school, but rather is supposed to be about developing your ability to think and learn so that you can develop a flexible mind that can quickly pick up whatever skills prove to be useful later on in life as well as how to function in life.</p>

<p>I'll put it to you this way. MIT is the best engineering school in the country. Yet MIT has revamped (and continues to revamp) its curriculum to force even the engineering students to take a wide range of coursework in the humanities and social sciences (HASS), Students actually have to declare a concentration in HASS, which can be thought of as a minor. Hence, all engineering students have to 'minor' in a humanities or social science. Why? Why is MIT doing this? That stuff doesn't train its engineers any better at engineering tasks, and according to you, the goal of an engineering program is simply and strictly to train engineers. So does that mean that MIT is being dumb? Why force engineering students to learn things that have nothing to do with engineering? </p>

<p>I think it's that MIT is not being dumb, MIT is actually being smart. MIT wants to mold its graduates into well-rounded and multiskilled individuals. This is why MIT has invested a lot of money into building up its HASS departments, this is why MIT has enacted such far-reaching cross-reg agreements to let MIT students take liberal arts courses at Harvard and Wellesley, this is why MIT is pushing to broaden its portfolio of offerings. Basically, MIT believes that the measure of an engineering school is not just in producing grads who are good at engineering, but producing grads who are able to succeed in all walks in life. </p>

<p>But what you are effectively saying is that MIT is wrong, and that MIT should concern itself with only producing top engineers. Are you really prepared to say that MIT is wrong? </p>

<p>Heck, wasn't it you that wrote in a previous post about the value of broad-based liberal arts educations? Or was that somebody else? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, although not many Purdue engineering students end up with jobs at McKinsey, many Cal, Cornell, CMU, Michigan, MIT, Northwestern, Princeton and Stanford (to name a few) alums do. That's my point. If you wish to major in Engineering, go to an elite university with a strong Engineering program. That way, if you really only want to be an Engineer, you are set, and if you should want to become an Investment Banker, Consultant or whatever, you are set too.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would say, and I think you would agree, that it's significantly more likely for you to land in consulting/banking if you go to Yale than if you go to Berkeley, Cornell, Michigan, Northwestern, or CMU. </p>

<p>Hence, it comes down to how dedicated you really are to engineering. From my experience, most people aren't very dedicated at all. Like I said, even many of the MIT engineers end up in consulting/banking. If that's true, I can't even imagine how undedicated the engineers at, say, Northwestern are to engineering. Again, if about half of the MIT EECS students want to go to consulting/banking (as 25% of them go there after graduation, and I estimate another 25% wanted to go, but didn't get an offer), then just imagine what the numbers would be at a lesser engineering school. The point is, most people's dedication to engineering seems to be tenuous at best.</p>

<p>But heck, if the guy is really 100% dedicated to engineering, then why are we even debating all these other schools? Why even talk about Berkeley or Cornell or CMU or Michigan? Tell the guy to go to MIT, end of story. The fact that he is even considering Yale tells me that he has other things on his mind. </p>

<p>Again, I would say that the dropoff in engineering is not large. The worst case scenario is that the guy really does end up majoring in engineering at Yale and then emerges and really does want to work as an engineer. I wouldn't pity him. He's got an engineering degree from the 45th highest ranked undergrad engineering program in the country. There are a LOT of working engineers out there who can only dream of having graduated from a program that is ranked that high. Again, keep in mind that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of programs out there, that have produced many thousands of graduates. Yet they seem to find jobs. If those guys can find engineering jobs, I am fairly certain the Yale engineer is going to do OK.</p>

36

<p>Sakky, I agree that that the average Yalie has a better shot at landing a job with McKinsey than the average Wolvie or Cornellie. But then again, the average Yalie is a little more accomplished and capable than the average Wolvie or Cornellie. However, if you want to compare apples to apples, if you stick student X at Yale, she/he will not receive a better education or have better opportunities upon graduation than if you stick her/him at Michigan or Cornell. In short, those three universities open the same doors and provide similar quality educations. But to Engineers, Cornell and Michigan provide superior educations and greater opportunites.</p>

37

<p>"To be deficient you you would need something like "very dearth," which clearly is not the case for Yale or any top 100 engineering school."</p>

<p>This may be clear to you; it is not clear to me.</p>

<p>Some time ago, I looked at the offerings at a particular LAC program and found that it didn't even offer upper level courses in civil or structural engineering. I don't know what that program is ranked. For all I know some ranking person put that school in the top 100, because the college has a big endowment or whatever.</p>

<p>So I suggest interested parties do their own analysis. Don't rely solely on these rankings. Or internet postings. Look for "the beef", not the words.</p>

38

<p>I want to know if Cornell's College of Architecture is good. To do that I think I should look at how many of is graduates become investment bankers.</p>

<p>I want to know if Penn's School of Nursing is good. To do that I will look at how many of its graduates become Finance PhDs.</p>

<p>Liberal arts- known as nonvocational training. I didn''t make this up. Expected next steps vary widely. Law, etc. They are there to produce generalists</p>

<p>Engineering, architecture, nursing, hotel administration- vocational training. They are there to produce specialists. Whether or not that always happens, that's the mission.</p>

<p>Yes you can study architecture and then decide to be an investment banker.Waste of an undergrad education, if you ask me, but you can make that choice. But I'm not evaluating its architecture program on that basis. I'm evaluating it by it's production of architects.</p>

<p>Vocational training.</p>

39

<p>But otherwise, yes to me a good history program would have to have a certain depth and breadth of courses available in history. Even if every one of its graduates becomes a consultant at some big firm, or an investment banker, if it only offers one history course it is not a good history program. IMO.</p>

40

<p>Middlebury College must be great in engineering. I've known lots of investment bankers who went to Middlebury College.</p>

<p>Oh wait, they don't offer any engineering courses? Well that doesn't change my opinion at all. Middlebury- engineering. We're there.</p>