Avoid elite Chemical Engineering programs - advice from a grad student

College Search & Lists
1

<p>I am currently a PhD student in the chemical engineering department at UC Berkeley. Based on what I and other grad students have observed about the quality of the undergraduate program, I decided to start taking action to warn prospective undergraduate students not to heed the so-called US News “rankings” of undergraduate chemical engineering programs at elite schools. I also attended a “top ten” undergraduate program, but a slot or two lower than Berkeley according to US News. I can’t remember what the order was when I started my PhD (it shuffles around). </p>

<p>I also attended a large public research institution as an undergraduate, but based on the US News ranking I automatically assumed that the UCB undergrad program would be more difficult when it came time to be a GSI. I assumed more math and computer knowledge would be required and applied in the courses. I assumed the workload would be invariably higher, the classes would be smaller, and the students would demonstrate a better understanding of the material on exams. In all, I was expecting to be wowed and feared I would feel inadequate as a GSI, because I had always taken US News rankings seriously. What I found was stunningly the opposite. In chemical engineering major courses, there were up to 100 students in a class. My major courses never exceeded 50, and were almost always around 30 or less. The classes of 100 also only get 2 GSI’s at Berkeley. Since there isn’t enough man power to assign and correct an adequate load of homework and a reasonable frequency of midterms (which I consider three per semester) with only 2 GSI’s, the homework and exam loads were drastically reduced compared to my own program- both in difficulty and quantity. There was only one midterm exam in the class I taught, and only 2 homework problems were assigned per week. There was also a lab component to the class, which met for only 1.5 hours a week and no formal reports were required. </p>

<p>For purposes of comparison, the equivalent course at my undergraduate institution involved an average of 6-8 problems a week (each of which was longer and more difficult than the 2 problems a week the Berkeley students were assigned - I still have all my homeworks), three midterm exams, 6-8 hours of lab per week, formal reports on those labs (which average 10-15 pages each double spaced - I still have those too), and an end-of-semester project (which was 30 pages long in my case), in addition to the final exam. I felt bad for the UCB students, so I would give them practice problems from my undergrad archives. But sadly, most of the problems would have been way too hard, because they were not taught or expected to know what it took to solve them. So I had to modify them and water them down a bit to make them tractable for the majority of students.</p>

<p>In summary, the difficulty and quantity of the work assigned to the UCB chemE undergrads doesn’t even hold a candle to what I had and another large public university. Thankfully though, I learned a great deal from the class, and since my tuition was a lot cheaper, I also got a lot more bang for my buck. I am finally beginning to see why the grad programs at places like MIT, Berkeley, and so-on, are dominated by graduates of Big-Ten schools, GA Tech, UT Austin, etc. The programs are tough, but you’ll learn a lot more, you’ll have a higher chance of getting into a top graduate program, and may get more job offers too (I had offers from Shell, Dow, Exxon, United Technologies, and Merck. Some of those places don’t even recruit undergrads from elite schools).</p>

<p>If you are looking for a solid program from which you will learn a lot and land plenty of job offers and graduate school acceptance letters, AVOID chemical engineering programs at UCB, and elite schools in general. Even at private elite schools with small classes, there is a lot of grade inflation (more A’s given out for a given caliber of student), hand-holding and spoon-feeding. You will have an easy ride because you won’t be expected to do much independent thinking (from what I have heard from the grad students in my department who attended places like Princeton and Stanford anyway).</p>

<p>Don’t get cheated out of what the hard work you are capable of (and the money you are paying) should be earning for you. Pick your undergraduate chemical engineering program wisely, not based on US News rankings.</p>

2

<p>

</p>

<p>MIT’s grad program is not “dominated” by big 10 graduates, although I expect it would be well-represented. And certainly you don’t learn more elsewhere.</p>

<p>Berkeley is notorious for having very large classes and for not having undergraduate teaching as a big priority. </p>

<p>I don’t think you can generalize on the undergrad education of "elite schools)_ based on the couple of schools you have attended. Besides, several Big 10 schools are in the top 10 of US News (even top 5), so I’m not sure what you are even trying to say. Minnesota, Wisconsin, and UIUC are top 5 in chem E, aren’t they?</p>

<p>I agree that you shouldn’t base it on the US News ranking.</p>

3

<p>I should add that there are also a lot of Caltech and MIT grads at top graduate programs that I have personally toured and been accepted to. The institutions of greatest representation in the grad program at Berkeley are: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Penn State, Purdue, Michigan, Georgia Tech, UT-Austin, MIT, and Caltech. Of course, there are plenty of other schools represented here and elsewhere. These are just the biggest contributers in sheer numbers. The schools from which I don’t see many graduates are Ivy League schools (at least based on all of my visits to the grad schools that accepted me, and the grad student population in the department here at UC).</p>

<p>Also, I am basing the post on my own experience as well as that from what graduates of Princeton and Stanford have told me personally about their own programs. I can’t verify personally what those undergraduate programs are like, so I am left to assume that they speak truthfully. I acknowledge that I cannot say anything specifically about the elite institutions other than Princeton and Stanford, and even in these cases, the opinion is based on what I have heard from others who went there.</p>

4

<p>There’s a lot of variation in difficulty - My Directional State U BSCS and MSCS degrees involved some very heavy duty programming assignments but little in term papers and the like - We compared notes with friends at places like Case Western, UT-Austin, Waterloo, and the like, and it was no contest, our assignments were much harder. It didn’t make the school or program better, obviously, but whoever got out from DSU back then was about as good a coder as one could get…</p>

5

<p>

</p>

<p>Me too. (With the exception of the last – excellent – sentence in the OP.) But then, i.m.o. that sentence applies to all programs as well.</p>

6

<p>Who are you quoting? I can’t find a post that says “I’m not sure what you are even trying to say”</p>

7

<p>Whoops, found the quote. Yes, as I stated in my original post, my school was ranked lower than Berkeley, so I was expecting the Berkeley program to be a lot more thorough, as I explained. I was surprised not to find this to be true, so I take the rankings with caution.</p>

8

<p>Here are the latest rankings I could find-
1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA
2 University of California–Berkeley
3 University of Wisconsin–Madison
4 University of Minnesota–Twin Cities
5 Stanford University
6 California Institute of Technology
7 University of Texas–Austin
8 University of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign
9 University of Delaware
10 University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
11 Princeton University
12 Georgia Institute of Technology
13 Purdue University–West Lafayette
14 Carnegie Mellon University
15 Cornell University
16 Pennsylvania State University–University Park
17 University of California–Santa Barbara
18 Northwestern University
19 University of Virginia
20 Johns Hopkins University
North Carolina State University–Raleigh
University of Florida
University of Pennsylvania</p>

<p>What I was getting at by saying not to trust the rankings is that even though all the schools listed here may have good programs, the ordering is way off. For example, Purdue, Georgia Tech, UCSB, Penn State, and Michigan should all be ranked way higher than they are (and specifically, higher than UCB). I would leave MIT at No. 1. Also, the top 10 have changed since I last looked at these. Princeton was higher, and there were fewer Big Ten schools in the top 10. Still, I find these rankings to be highly flawed in terms of relative ordering. All fine programs- just ordered wrong.</p>

9

<p>… and in particular, the ONES that are ordered too high are the so-called big name elite schools like Berkeley and Stanford.</p>

10

<p>Typically, these rankings of specific programs deal with their graduate programs, not undergraduate programs. Are the rankings you found for their graduate programs?</p>

<p>And really, as you put it, they are all fine programs. If you compare your list of the people you say are at your #2 ranked program and the schools they have graduated from, it comes as no surprise that the majority of students at your highly ranked graduate program comes from the top 15, so I would suspect that the list is close to accurate based on the classmates you found at your program. And if you notice, not many Ivy League schools on that list, and lo and behold, not many Ivy League kids in your program. I guess your quibbling about certain schools that are/are not in the top 10, but it’s hard to see how this is ‘way off’. I’d be more suprised if the students you said who are at your program come from schools that are ranked much lower than the top 15.</p>

<p>Finally, recognize that many of the schools that your fellow students have graduated from are significantly larger than most Ivy League schools, so overall they will have more students in their respective programs and thus more students who will likely go to graduate schools. And smaller school like MIT and CalTech, well, they basically specialize in STEM majors.</p>

<p>Realize, also, that many times rankings have to do with research productivity as well, especially if you are looking at graduate school rankings.</p>

<p>Your conclusion about ‘avoiding’ these elite programs as an undergraduate comes across as too strong.</p>

11

<p>Where is that CC guy who defends the honor of Berkeley against any and all attackers? (Some 3-letter initial user name, can’t remember exactly, DMF or something??).</p>

<p>How can these charges be allowed to stand? The silence is deafening!</p>

<p>I would leave MIT at No. 1. What about Berkeley???</p>

12

<p>^^ RML is the poster.</p>

13

<p>There is another screenname UCBChemEGrad, he has not posted since Apr 2011.</p>

14

<p>Cal’s strength is not its undergrad education. But you shouldn’t disregard all top programs only because Cal’s isn’t great. Schools like MIT and Caltech have top programs and top undergrad educations, as far as I know.</p>

<p>Also, you don’t see a lot of ChemE students from Ivy Leagues because they don’t graduate many to begin with. For instance, in the past Yale has had less than 10 ChemE grads a year (though the number will rise). Also, many engineers at Yale don’t even go to grad school for engineering, choosing instead to go to med school or work in an unrelated field like finance.</p>

15

<p>*^^ RML is the poster. *</p>

<p>Yes! That’s the guy I was thinking about. He probably doesn’t know about this thread.</p>

16

<p>These are undergraduate program rankings, not graduate program rankings. I wouldn’t post graduate rankings and try to relate them to undergrad ones (although the lists aren’t all that different anyway).</p>

<p>I think I tried to include too many ideas in the original email. The one very specific complaint that I wanted to get across was that based on my observations and the observations of students from all of the schools I listed off (big ten, UT, etc), the Berkeley and Stanford undergraduate programs in particular do not belong in the top 10, probably not even the top 15. The program is just too watered down and easy compared to the lower-ranked ones (No’s 10-20). But if I were a high school student looking for a college, and I knew that the US News rankings were at least somewhat accurate (as some of you have pointed out above), I would look at the fact that Berkeley is No 2 and it wouldn’t even cross my mind that a place like Penn State would offer me a more rigorous education in chemical engineering. It’s not fair to UCB students to be paying so much money for what they are getting in this department. The Chemistry students have it much better in terms of teaching quality.</p>

17

<p>“Your conclusion about ‘avoiding’ these elite programs as an undergraduate comes across as too strong.”</p>

<p>Ok, I can revise it to include only what I have heard from people that actually went to the elite programs, aside from Berkeley which I’ve witnessed for myself:</p>

<p>Stanford, Princeton, and Berkeley, although ‘elite’, are probably ranked higher by US News than more rigorous programs at not-so-name brand schools.</p>

18

<p>“Schools like MIT and Caltech have top programs and top undergrad educations, as far as I know.”</p>

<p>Right, you must have overlooked my acknowledgement of this in one of my other replies.</p>

19

<p>And lest I appear to be “anti-Berkeley undergrad”, I would like to point out that the only other undergrad program I’ve had a chance to observe, Chemistry, does not raise any red flags with me. In fact, I’m impressed. There should be undergrad Chemistry rankings, because I would definitely include UCB’s high on that list.</p>

20

<p>"Also, many engineers at Yale don’t even go to grad school for engineering, choosing instead to go to med school or work in an unrelated field like finance. "</p>

<p>It’s like that all over, not just the Ivy League.</p>