<p>As others have mentioned, the main issue with 3-2 is attrition due to factors such as lack of advising and reinforcement at the liberal arts college and not wanting to leave after three years, when at that point getting a science BS and then going for a master’s in an engineering discipline may be an alternative.</p>
<p>But even having cleared that hurdle, the engineering part of 3-2 is still not really the same as if one started out in engineering in the first place.</p>
<p>Don’t know about Columbia, but at my engineering school students took an intro exposure to engineering course, plus a group of actual distribution engineering courses in different areas of engineering, during their first two years. In addition to the core math and science courses. This afforded them the opportunity to learn more about what they liked/didn’t like and were good/not good at, within the broad umbrella of “engineering”. These engineering content courses, plus discussion with engineering advisers from day one no doubt influenced many people’s choice of areas and sub-areas to specialize in during the upperclass years and thereafter.</p>
<p>if someone instead has to compress all engineering courses into two years, there is no chance for this type of self-discovery or to change one’s mind , without delaying the graduation date. It would seem to me.
(Plus they’ll die because that is entirely too many hard courses, in too short a time!!)</p>
<p>Additionally, these sophomore level engineering courses were prerequisites for upper level courses. This allowed one to take more advanced courses in the upperclass year than would seemingly be possible if no engineering prerequisite courses are taken during the first two years.</p>
<p>So one can compress all engineering courses in that fashion, and gain much more exposure in the liberal arts. But do not be deluded into thinking that there is no trade-off on the engineering side in doing so. Your engineering training will be less-informed, and less advanced…</p>
<p>I’ve read that a relatively low proportion of Columbia SEAS grads actually become engineers, maybe 1/3?? don’t recall precisely. Perhaps relatively more of them want to be doctors, dentists, podiatrists and, especially, wall street numbers crunchers. After all, the school title includes “And Applied Science”, not just “Engineering”. These are desirable enough future destinations to keep the applicant numbers up, even if the engineering program itself isn’t extraordinarily highly rated. Plus the NYC location and overall prestige of the university also add to the school’s allure.</p>
<p>If one doesn’t actually want to be an engineer, and just wants to graduate with a degree from a school that they could never get admission to as a freshman, and then apply to dental school, then the potential detriments may be of little significance. Ditto if grad school is part of the picture. [Unless it adversely affects admission to grad school].</p>
<p>There are also potential social implications of switching schools, of course.</p>
<p>All engineering programs I’m aware of incorporate some liberal arts electives. But as a matter of general education, nothing prevents engineers from taking additional liberal arts courses at night, just for fun, after they graduate from college. (Other than time, of course,but FWIW I had more regular hours as an engineer than as anything else I’ve done.) .
I’ve taken quite a number of courses at night myself, over the years. One’s general;education does not necessarily have to end with a bachelor’s degree.</p>