jmilton90

Mr. Payne I hope you know my alma mater is UCSB. I think you are also underestimating the impact of the UCs on the west coast. I think California is the 5th in economic impact for a state in the world. If OP wants to have a job in California, the UCs would only help in the matter by providing internships, coops, etc in the area.. And from my professional experience, nobody will think you are "inferior", so to speak, if you graduate from UCD/UCI/UCSB/UCSD. GT will probably provide more opporunities on the east coast, I agree.


About UCSB versus CalPoly SLO, I think you're trying to compare a world reknown research institution to a hands-on technical school. But let's save that discussion for another thread.

Feez

Keep the CalPoly/UCSB discussion elsewhere, please.

Thanks for the response JohnWillkins. I chose GT for two reasons - they have a very strong and upcoming biomedical engineering program and that has really interested me. Also, they are generally good at every engineering field, so in the case that I feel the need to switch majors, I can do so freely without worrying about prestige or whatever. I hope my time at GT is well spent.

Mr Payne

My point on GT being on par with UCD & UCI within CA is something I truly believe. UCI/UCD certainly have superior placement upon college graduation within CA, just because recruitment is primarily CA companies/divisions. However, looking beyond initial placement, I suspect GT is easily the equal of UCI/UCD within California.

ele902

It's easier to get a job, internships, etc. from a well known school then an unknown one.

sakky

First off, I never said anything about joining successful startups, at least not at the first crack. No doubt, most startups are unsuccessful. But so what? Like I've said in other threads, if you join a startup and it fails, then you can just join another one. If that fails too, you just join another one. So eventually you will either find one that is successful, or you will end up working for a big company.

One key advantage of startup firms is that they tend to provide you with very strong opportunities for career development, provided that you are aggressive and ambitious. Startups have few rules and processes, which means that you can quickly rise to a position of great responsibility and you can see how the entire company works. Contrast that with working for a big company that, with the exception of a few, the opportunities for promotion are quite limited and you may easily find yourself spending more time dealing with the process (i.e. in endless meetings) than in actually doing useful work.

Now, of course, I agree that a startup environment requires a certain ambitious personality, and many people just don't have that personality. I agree that if you just want a relatively safe and highly structured work environment, then you probably shouldn't work at a startup. So it all comes down to what you want to do.

Actually, startups aren't generated only from guys who have just graduated. I believe I read somewhere how the average startup founder is in his late 30's. You don't have to necessarily know the founders in order to get your foot in the door. You just have to know somebody in the company who can get you in the door. Certain schools are far better connected into the startup world than are others.

I would argue that startups are quite prolific in most engineering fields.

Besides, the presumption is that you are actually going to be working in a field that is directly related to what it is that you are majoring in, an assumption that I have been combating here on CC. The fact is, plenty of people don't actually end up working in a field that is directly related to their major. For example, I was recently talking to an MIT Mechanical Engineering grad who took a job at a Web 2.0 startup. What does that have to do with mechanical engineering? Probably nothing. He got that opportunity simply because he was at MIT, and hence happened to have the available social connections (I think it was one of his roommates who introduced him to the right people).

Look, I'll reiterate, not everybody enjoys the startup lifestyle, and if you're not one of them, then this discussion clearly does not apply to you. But if you are one of those people, then you should go to where heavy startup activity occurs.

jmilton90

I'm overwhelmed with sakky's words as usual. Forget it that was too long.

pearlygate

to jmilton: easy solution, use ignore list, cuz you know what's sakky's gonna say anyway.

to OP:

the benefit of going to good engineering school are:
-tons of good companies recruits at your school
-sometimes company HR people actually email you asking if you're interested interviewing with them (instead of the other way around)
-when top companies come to your school, they'll attract people with free food, raffles and prizes
-top companies do lots of talk, current technology, research and stuff and sometimes encourage people to work for them
-your faculty advisors most often will have golden Rolodex you are 2 degree separated from some VC or Angel investor (or your own advisor might be a VC or angel)
-chances are you might room/befriend someone who will become a millionaire in the next 4-5 years or/and billionaire in the next 15-20 years
-classes are usually taught at faster pace so you'll learn more for your money
-more variety of courses
-etc,etc

ken285

If you're thinking about this from a pure return on investment point of view, going to a top school is not worth it in terms of work and money spent. Even if you take sakky's example about startups, chances are you won't ever join a successful startup. You're essentially taking a risk (but I'm not saying this risk is bad, only that it exists and it is significant). Some people can afford it, some can't, and some don't want to. Me personally, I'm looking at paying college tuition 4 years from now, not for myself, but for my sister. I have a few friends who got married at 22, and some even have families now. Then again, if you're 22 and are not responsible for anybody other than yourself, it's definitely a risk that you might consider if given the opportunity.

The presumption that you are making is that people would be interested in working on something other than what their major was. Of course, there's a significant percentage of people that this is true for, but there are also many who would much rather work on what they like, which I assume would be their major.

The good thing about good engineering schools is they do tend to attract better professors. This past semester, I took 4 courses, and 3 of them were taught by high-ranking people in top companies in my industry. These people have a wealth of information to share, and you might not have access to them at a third-tier school.

sakky

Like I've always said, if you don't like what I write, fine, don't read it. Nobody has a gun to your head.

I can think of only one possible career that is truly risk-free, and that is to become a tenured professor (but then the process of getting tenure is highly risky). Let's face it. Working for a large, established, successful firm is risky too. For example, Intel laid off over 10k people in 2007.

Now, certainly, I can agree that working in a startup environment is more risky than working for a large company. But it is precisely when you're young and have no attachments is when you should be taking on risk, because later on in life you probably won't be able to. Let's say you join a startup at age 22 and it goes bankrupt. So now you're 23 and broke. Honestly, so what? Most 23-year-olds are broke. At least you took the chance.

Risk and reward are highly correlated. Startups are risky, no doubt. But the rewards are so astronomical as to make them easily worth the rewards, if you can assume the risks and you have an entrepreneurial personality.

But like I always said, I never said that everybody should work for startups. In fact, I would surmise that perhaps most should not. They just don't have the right personality. What I am saying is that if you do have the right personality, then you should seriously consider a school that is strongly tied to the entrepreneurial community. Of course, if you don't, and you're just looking for a regular engineering job, then this whole discussion doesn't apply to you anyway.

ken285

Yes, working for a well-established company is less risky. It seems as if we're arguing over semantics. Life itself is risky. As you're reading this right now, a meteor could hit your house, but I wouldn't consider sitting in front of a computer risky.

Yes, joining a startup at age 22 is probably the best time to do so, *if* you only have to look after yourself. Regardless of personality, I only know a handful of people who can afford the risk to join a startup. Maybe all my friends grew up too fast...

aibarr

You're not the only one.

Yeah, a start-up would be nice 1) if I got the opportunity and 2) if the risk were warranted. It's not my *personality* that can't handle the risk, it's my husband's student loans that can't handle the risk, and our car payments, and our insurance payments, and our rent payments, and health coverage, and the payments from when the cat fell off the counter and broke his hock joint and ran up 1500 in vet bills, and that pesky need to eat two to three meals a day...

So sure, if you have no health problems to attend to and are single and have no pets or children and no student loans being called in and no car to drive, and you're equally at home eating lobster tail or ramen, or living in an upper east side condo on the park or in the Greyhound Station next to the vending machines, then a startup is a good thing to consider.

brad97z

The reason for going to a top college is advanced job opprutunities with major companies. When people say that it doesn't matter once you get a few years of experience they are fooling themselves. The chances are that you will not have been in the position or have the type of experience a major company is looking for. Additionally employers want to hire people that they know will stay with their company for numerous reasons; working for a smaller company for a few years and then bailing out looks doesn't look good. If you have the opportunity to go to a top school and can take advantage of that opportunity, then do it.

jmilton90

^ Just wait till you get into industry bro. Your alma mater matters little.

I agree that large universities are more heavily recruited though. But I think to imply that the college you went to "defines" you for the rest of your career might be a little exagerrating... I understand you want to feel proud to get into a good school. I'm at a top school for grad right now. But there is literally no advantage once you hit the workplace other than the occasional wow if you goto like a top 5 school (HYSPM). But outside of those schools, it's pretty much even playing field in terms of the "prestige" factor. And even if you did get into HYSPM, people don't really care that much ..literally. Most level-headed managers and professionals hire based on what you accomplished during your career.

brad97z

I never suggested that what school you get into defines the rest of your career; only that the conception that it doesn't matter once you get a few years work experience is a fallacy. I guess i was unclear when i said a top college; i was referring to top engineering colleges and not necessarily prestigious ones. I still disagree that it does matter what college you go to when you're starting off in your career. I would also argue that you could show a strong correlation between the college attended and the type of job placement based on that college.

jmilton90

I'm interested in how a rank 15 school in say chemical engineering compares to a rank 25-30 school in job placement or even rank 40.