Caltech vs. Columbia vs. Duke for MechE/Aero

College Majors Engineering Majors
21

<p>Yes. My current plan is to see if Caltech passes two “checks”: 1) affordable 2) I’ll really enjoy it there. If either of those doesn’t work out, I’ll move on to looking at the rest of my schools, all of which will have to pass these same “checks.” Columbia has already passed check 2, because I really enjoyed myself when I visited and stayed overnight, but everyone’s claims about their engineering program’s weaknesses is making me reconsider. Could anyone provide more insight on Duke vs. Columbia? I’ll just say that I like Columbia’s location more, Duke’s weather more, campuses are kind of tied, and probably Columbia’s “student life” a bit more. I have plans to get at least a minor (doubt I can take a second major, but if I can, maybe I will!) in business/economics, as it’d be a good pairing with engineering. Would one of these be better than the other for that? My focus is still engineering, particularly aeronautical.</p>

<p>I’d like to continue thanking everyone for their insight as well; it’s really helping me as I compare schools and look at each one’s pro’s and con’s.</p>

22

<p>My s felt Cal Tech would be too intense an environment for him. He could handle it-- he just wouldnt like it. So thats important to check out.</p>

<p>IIRC the core course requirements are modified for engineering students at Columbia, Tufts, etc. Has that changed?</p>

23

<p>Aside from the obvious academic advantages offered by Caltech compared to your other choices, I would say it’s a FAR better campus in terms of the atmosphere. I mean really, we’re talking about a more laid back west coast campus environment with some of the best weather imaginable, vs some stuffy, east coast campus with building architecture straight out of the “what college campuses are supposed to look like” book. </p>

<p>It’s all a matter of personal preference in the end. As you can tell, I’m biased towards Caltech here as I feel, most importantly, it’s a great choice for engineering, especially Aero. The nice weather, unique architecture, and laid back environment would just be bonuses in my opinion.</p>

24

<p>Cal tech is anything but “laid back”. Really. And “stuffy campus”? Have you seen Duke’s gardens?
[The</a> Sarah P. Duke Gardens](<a href=“http://www.hr.duke.edu/dukegardens/]The”>Duke Gardens | Learning, inspiration and enjoyment)</p>

25

<p>The core curriculum at Columbia is just about halved in its requirements for engineering students if I’m not mistaken, which allows me to take only the more liberal arts classes that I’ll enjoy. Duke’s campus reminds me of Stanford’s in a way; it’s beautiful and very natural, but it’s a lot more rural. I think “stuffy campus” refers more so to the architecture. </p>

<p>Also, laid back might just be referencing the whole Los Angeles/California “soak-up-some-sun-and-relax” vibe, but I think the school’s rigor might keep me inside, haha. Perhaps it’s also a description of the Caltech architecture, which is perhaps less “formal” than Duke’s or Columbia’s due to either being Mission Revival or simply Modern.</p>

26

<p>Understood, but felt they were a poor choice of words. I’ve been on all these campuses. Could easily describe the Cal Tech campus as in a suburban setting and the dorms as tacky, but why do that?? These campuses all have their individual charm and advantages. Columbia’s campus is remarkably spacious for being on Manhattan island.</p>

27

<p>It seems like, you prefer (maybe already decided) on Columbia and you just want people on cc to recommend Columbia over the other two so that you will feel like you made the right decision ? </p>

<p>For engineering, Cal Tech is the place to be(out of those 3) as mentioned by numerous other posters. Like it or not, Cal Tech wins. I would definitely think twice before considering Columbia to study engineering. Duke is fine.</p>

28

<p>I understand the fascination with Columbia. When I visited it seemed like kind of a magical place, and the fact that such a quiet campus was inside a massive city was exciting. Just make sure you not getting drawn in by the Ivy allure too much. If you really think it has the people/atmosphere that’s best for you, I would go. In reality a degree from Columbia won’t really hold you back from anything, and their business school is incredible if that interest develops. Especially if you decide to apply to graduate school, you can go to your Cal Tech/MIT after you’ve had your undergraduate experience.</p>

<p>Just make sure you’re certain that you like the core classes and college life at Columbia. It might seem nice now, but it won’t when your life is being consumed your senior design project and you still have to read half of The Odyssey for your final the next day. You’ve probably heard this already, but it’s important to know that just because you’re at Columbia doesn’t mean you’ll haven’t a significantly less stressful life than at Cal Tech, you’ll just be experiencing it with different people in different situations.</p>

29

<p>You may want to look at GATech a little more closely. I never went there but I gathered the following from my research:

  1. it has an excellent reputation within the engineering circle
  2. it has a structured co-op program
  3. it’s huge in the sense that the engineering school alone is the size of Columbia or Duke. So classes may be big.
  4. graduation rate is low in comparison to others top-50 schools. I suspect it’s due to the rigor while at the same time, many of those that get accepted there aren’t good enough to handle the curriculum/workload. In a way, that’s a good thing because it means the education you’d receive is not watered down even though your peers aren’t of the same caliber as CalTech/Columbia on average.</p>
30

<p>GaTech is a different kind of environment than Cal Tech. And specifically for engineering internship/employment opportunities I agree its better than Columbia and Duke.</p>

31

<p>To an engineering manager who works on cutting edge technology, receiving a resume with Caltech on it will make them drool. Columbia and Duke aren’t really known for engineering, although any aerospace company would be happy hiring people with degrees from those two universities.</p>

<p>I have a CS degree and worked on radar-related projects at Boeing and Textron/ Bell Aerospace. Any kind of rigorous STEM degree would interest Boeing. The guy who led my group had a PhD in Fisheries from the U of Washington, and he was hired at Boeing because he was great at statistics.</p>

32

<p>Sorry to bump my slightly old thread but I had another question. Does Caltech’s extremely rigorous curriculum which tends to drive down grades perhaps hurt it in the field of grad school admissions/employment in industry, or is it that very same rigorous education that really makes degrees from the school attractive, pending at least a decent GPA? </p>

<p>Another person has told me that grad school (Master’s or PhD) is completely necessary to become a professional aeronautical engineer. Is this the true general consensus? With this in mind, should I perhaps go to Columbia/Duke and then somewhere on that “stratospheric” level of engineering such as Caltech/MIT/Stanford, etc.? I suppose this really only matters if attending grad school results in a large enough salary difference to justify spending more time in school. </p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

33

<p>Caltech has the highest percentage of students going on to get science and engineering PhDs of any college or university in the country (according to the NSF web site page: “Baccalaureate Origins of S&E Doctorate Recipients”). So, no, it’s not going to hurt you.</p>

34

<p>

</p>

<p>That statement comes up a lot, and is absolutely not true. An advanced degree (MS, lets say) can help boost your competitiveness when it comes time to move in to management positions (team lead, SME, project lead, etc), or secure a slightly larger salary bump upon hiring, but by-and-large you do not need a graduate degree for engineering. And actually, in some ways, an MS can actually limit the number of opportunities available to you as employers may think you’ll end up bolting the moment another position comes up relevant to your MS focus area. An MS can have a pigeonholing effect. Regardless, you should get one if you feel very passionate about your field, and wish to further your education for personal reasons (which is the reason I did it).</p>

<p>A PhD is a different animal altogether. The type of work PhD’ed engineers get involved with is almost entirely different than the type of work a BS/MS will work on. Therefore, the majority of research positions, or top-level design positions, generally REQUIRE a PhD, whereas most normal engineering positions require a BS, and in some cases BS, MS preferred. You don’t usually see too many positions which state a requirement for an MS degree.</p>

35

<p>Does Columbia’s lack of really just about anything aeronautical/aerospace at the undergraduate level, even really in terms of classes, mean I should rule it out?</p>

36

<p>Yes, I think you should rule Columbia out at this point though it seems like its your favorite school. How committed are you to Aerospace Engineering?</p>

37

<p>Your gut is telling you something that’s important. I’d be wary of going against it.</p>

<p>Are you certain that you want want aerospace per se or do you just want to be in the industry? There are many other disciplines involved with building things that fly, ME and EE the most obvious.</p>

<p>M</p>

38

<p>I do feel like within the aerospace industry, the aerospace engineering/design aspect is what I like most (like I’d rather work to see what’s most aerodynamic than design a moving part like a landing gear/flaps. I’ll admit, I have NO experience in really any part of this field. I just visited Boeing in Everett about 4-5 years ago and over time realized, “Omg, this is what I want to do. I want to be ‘that guy’ behind the next 787 or whatever.” I guess my attraction to the field is more of an overall ‘I find planes and designing them really awesome’ more so than it is an ‘I’ll create a moving gear, flap, engine, fly-by-wire system, radar, satellite.’ None of that sounds overly attractive to me. I’m not currently interested in EE. I’d rather do civil, I find infrastructure on like a big scale (airports, transit systems, etc.) pretty cool. In summary, I can spend a lot of time on the Internet reading about the 7-7 series of planes and all about airports across the US, less so about how the GEnX engines work and the new innovations in fly-by-wire and autopilot. I could read those, like I’d rather read them than read up on philosophy or art history, but I’d rather read them a bit less than what I mentioned.)</p>

<p>If I could have my dream job like absolutely just a dream it’d be along the lines of CTO at Boeing. It seems like a combination of a technical position with lots of information regarding the planes being needed while also being a business/management role. I know, totally crazy and insane and cloud-nine, but it’s my “dream” or “motivation,” per se. It’s the type of career I’d like to have…</p>

<p>I’ll just be frank, I keep on seeing myself being happy at Columbia. Plain and simple; I’ve got friends there and love the environment and student life and the campus and the city and the diversified nature of the education with about half the Core. The major issue is that I feel like the engineering education is simply sub-par for what I’m looking to do and that it could really hurt me later in life. Sure, you could say I should go where I’ll be happiest but what if that limits my happiness afterwards? Could I get into an MIT/Stanford/Caltech for grad school with a MechE degree from Columbia if I’m looking to study aerospace? I wouldn’t be surprised if later I’d also return somewhere for an MBA. There’s also the slim chance of a PhD in aerospace engineering but I’m not sure. Depends on what the employers are looking for in 5-6 years. Definitely don’t want academia. No. No. No. </p>

<p>I keep hearing all this noise about the weirdness of Caltech. Caltech is currently on a balance of sorts, with on one side being the pro’s like the strength of a degree from there, the weather, the size of the school, the cooperative nature of the community, the resources in all fields of engineering, and on the other side being the con’s like the highly concentrated nature (I enjoy exposure to other fields, including business and a little dabbing in the arts, perhaps even languages), the difficulty of the workload, “awkward” student life with a bad M:F gender imbalance (I will DEFINITELY reevaluate this point after PFW this week, but that’s not to say it will change), and the distance from my home (Southern East Coast.)</p>

<p>Duke I think lies as in-between Columbia and Caltech, as does Washington University in St. Louis. They’re both well-rounded schools and have some sort of undergraduate program in aerospace (certificate or minor). Both of their locations are sort of sub-par for me in terms of entertainment, but St. Louis has Boeing connections. Durham is pretty rural. I liked both of their campuses. WashU seemed really new and had nice dorms and great food. It seemed like a fun campus coupled with a good education. Duke was very gothic-esque combined with modern STEM facilities and a real natural beauty. I find my considerations of them generally similar with some very particular differences, like school spirit (Duke has tons!), closeness to a city, and name-recognition/presitge (Duke having more I think). They’re both relatively accessible from home and distance isn’t overly problematic. Both of their financial aid packages are currently WAY too light. Without them changing that, they’re completely out of consideration, but I still need to continue including them when weighing options (we’re in the appeals process, and this does kind of apply to all of the schools.)</p>

<p>Unfortunately, I’d say GeorgiaTech is removed from the consideration. Time restrictions have prevented me from being able to visit, and I simply can’t commit blindly. This is truly a loss considering they awarded me a very nice merit scholarship. Atlanta is incredibly accessible of course, but I’m not sure of it in terms of entertainment and resources. Still though, I can’t commit somewhere without having visited, and my remaining school days won’t let me have a chance. I won’t waste time thinking about the pro’s and con’s of going there.</p>

<p>Wow, this was a very long post. To those who’ve made it here, THANK YOU. To those who just jumped to the bottom, get reading! Now, please, thoughts? The clock is ticking and I’m stressed!</p>

39

<p>Visiting Caltech this Thursday-Saturday for PFW and then going to make my decision! Really, if all goes well and the experience is positive and I see myself happy there (not overwhelmed/crazy/stressed/insane) and enjoy the student life (a least kind of fun and not super weird) and the financial aid pulls through like I hope it will, I’ll go there. I’ve recently recognized that I have a rather strong ability to deal with tremendous stress and still perform well academically (basically to compartmentalize my thoughts) which could help but HOPEFULLY won’t be necessary. I REALLY hope the visit doesn’t go poorly or that I get turned off, because then I’d really be splitting hairs when it comes to making a decision after that…</p>

40

<p>So…PFW turned out to be incredible. While it being clear that Caltech would be very tough and difficult to succeed at, the people there really drew me in. There was much more diversity in terms of personality than I had suspected there to be. The community was incredibly tight-knit. I could see how connected people were and how much they cared for each other. I’m still concerned about it maybe being way too hard there and I not being happy because of it, but I welcome challenge in exchange for success I think. Caltech seemed to still be a…fun…place. I’d say I’m leaning towards Caltech now, and a bit more assistance from the financial aid office (special circumstances) would probably push me in.</p>