Caltech vs. Stanford for engineering

[sakky]

<p>

Caltech will be harder, but it wont be so hard that I wont get a degree, Sakky. If its that hard, I will transfer. Yes, I may fail a class once or twice but that wont keep me from getting my degree.

</p>

<p>The issue is that if you fail enough classes, not only might you find it difficult to graduate from Caltech, you may also find it difficult to transfer to any other reputable school, as no reputable school wants to admit a transfer student who is in poor academic standing at his previous school. </p>

<p>

Honestly, have you ever heard of a Caltech engineering grad that tried reasonably hard there and ended up unemployed?

</p>

<p>That’s not the question that interests me. What interests me is, again, what if you flunk out of Caltech? Not everybody who goes to Caltech will graduate. It’s a very difficult school, and some people flunk out.</p>

[proton]

<p>

says sakky: You seem to be talking as if Stanford is somehow less prestigious than Caltech. If anything, the reverse is true.

</p>

<p>no. caltech is better than stanford in engineering. period.</p>

<p>im just saying that in stanford one will get more of the “college experience.” thats all. male-female ratio, football games, basketball games, frats, sororities, fun etc.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

no. caltech is better than stanford in engineering. period.

</p>

<p>Oh really? Is that right? Isn’t it interesting that none of the rankings seem to agree with you?</p>

<p>USNews Graduate Edition, overall engineering:

1. MIT
2. Stanford
3. Berkeley
4. Georgia Tech
5. Illinois
6. Caltech</p>

<p>USNews Graduate Engineering, individual disciplines:</p>

<p>Aero/Astro
1)Caltech
1)Stanford</p>

<p>Biomedical/BioE
12)Stanford
22)Caltech</p>

<p>ChemE</p>

<p>2)Caltech
6)Stanford</p>

<p>CivilE
3)Stanford
9)Caltech</p>

<p>ComputerE
2)Stanford
6)Caltech</p>

<p>ElectricalE
2)Stanford
5)Caltech</p>

<p>EnvironmentalE
1)Stanford
8)Caltech</p>

<p>IndustrialE
5)Stanford
unranked-Caltech</p>

<p>Materials Science
6)Stanford
12)Caltech</p>

<p>MechanicalE
1)Stanford
3)Caltech</p>

<p>NuclearE
both schools unranked</p>

<p>PetroleumE
1)Stanford
Caltech unranked</p>

<p>USNews undergraduate engineering (for those programs that offer doctorates).</p>

<ol>
<li>Massachusetts Inst. of Technology </li>
<li>Stanford University (CA) </li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon University ¶ </li>
<li>University of California–Berkeley * </li>
<li>U. of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign * </li>
<li>University of Michigan–Ann Arbor * </li>
<li>Georgia Institute of Technology * </li>
<li>University of Texas–Austin * </li>
<li>Cornell University (NY) </li>
<li>California Institute of Technology </li>
</ol>

<p>NRC rankings:</p>

<p>Aero/Astro
1)Caltech
3)Stanford</p>

<p>BiomedE
12)Stanford
unranked-Caltech</p>

<p>ChemEng
6)Caltech
7)Stanford</p>

<p>CivE
3)Stanford
6)Caltech</p>

<p>Electrical Eng
1)Stanford
5)Caltech</p>

<p>Industrial Eng
7) Stanford
Caltech unranked</p>

<p>Materials Science
6) Stanford
12)Caltech</p>

<p>Mechanical Eng
1)Stanford
4)Caltech</p>

<p>So I see that Stanford beats Caltech in both the undergraduate and graduate USNews engineering rankings. Caltech beats Stanford in one of the USNews graduate engineering individual disciplines (chemE), Caltech ties Stanford in another (Aero), and Stanford beats Caltech in 8 individual disciplines. Hence, the record would be 8-1-1 in favor of Stanford. {And that doesn’t even count the 2 individual engineering disciplines for which Stanford is ranked and Caltech isn’t ranked}. Stanford beats Caltech in 4 of the 6 NRC engineering rankings in which both schools are ranked, and that doesnt’ even count the 2 disciplines that Stanford is also ranked but that Caltech is unranked in. </p>

<p>I don’t know about you, but that seems pretty overwhelming to me. So perhaps you’d like to explain to explain how “caltech is better than stanford in engineering period”? If anything, the data indicates that Stanford is better than Caltech in engineering, period.</p>

<p>But hey, don’t take my word for it. See the data for yourself. Get yourself a copy of USNews, grad + undergrad. If you want to see the NRC rankings, here they are. Then perhaps you can come back and explain how Caltech is supposed to be better in engineering. </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nrc_rankings/nrc41.html[/url]”>http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nrc_rankings/nrc41.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[Alexandre]

<p>Proton, I am not an Engineer, so I really don’t have much to go on other than the rankings. I have yet to see a ranking that places Caltech over Stanford in Engineering.</p>

[o0CrazyGlue0o]

<p>caltech has had much more patents than stanford in the last few years…despite being less than 1/7th its size…</p>

[oldolddad]

<p>Choose the one you like better. Who cares whether it is 1, 4, or 10 for undergrad? Where will you feel the most comfortable adnd inspired to work? Small or mid size? If you can’t separate them then flip a coin</p>

<p>My kid turned down both plus MIT because he liked U Michigan better for a place to live the next four yearsand becuase profs and professionals he trusted gave it high marks. The opportunities to learn for any person who is smart enough to get into both Caltech and Stanford are great. It is up to you and your attitude, how you feel about the social life , the culture, etc. If all those are equal and you cannot find any other way to choose then go with some rank. However ,if you are smart enough to get in you also are smart enough to know that the differences regarding what it means to you personally are meaningless. People who buy into thinking that 1 versus 10 means any thing for a particular person are both naive and have much to learn about the world–let alone statistics. Good luck, you if you really cannot find anything to make you unhappy about either then you will have a great undergrad experience, no matter what. It really is about you anyway more than the school. Oh, and whatever you do , don’t second guess or look back. Look forward and get ready for college.</p>

[Alexandre]

<p>Oldolddad, your son chose…wisely! hehe!!!</p>

[sakky]

<p>

caltech has had much more patents than stanford in the last few years…despite being less than 1/7th its size…

</p>

<p>I agree that Caltech is a patent machine and Stanford never has been. However, I doubt that that hurts Stanford much. I doubt that many people would disagree that Stanford has been an extraordinarily successful university in terms of commercializing technology in the least few decades. Let’s face it. Stanford basically ‘made’ Silicon Valley, which is the most dynamic technology hub in the world, and which other nations in the world have repeatedly attempted to copy without success. Granted, Stanford didn’t do so with patents, but, frankly, Stanford didn’t * need * to do so with patents.</p>

[proton]

<p>

says sakky: Oh really? Is that right? Isn’t it interesting that none of the rankings seem to agree with you?

</p>

<p>ok. i was wrong. </p>

<p>but the point i was trying to get across is that theres more to college than just going to a good program. both of the engineering programs are good.</p>

<p>but one school is a “real” college the other one is not. of course the “real” college is stanford.</p>

[inkbottle]

<p>

id rather keep my decision based purely on the engineering programs of the two if possible.

Keeping it simple, go with Caltech. Caltech has a more difficult admissions selection process (may be the most difficult in the world) than Stanford and that reputation carries over. Even from Sakky’s comments about it being easier to get a degree from Stanford, looking at it from a different angle, it just means a caltech degree is more solid. Again, splitting hairs here.</p>

<p>Stanford would be good if you were interested in taking intro classes in a variety of subjects that aren’t offered at Caltech, like business, law, or liberal arts.</p>

<p>Of course, you can’t go wrong with either as differentiating among the engineering is splitting hairs.</p>

<p>

I think I would rather work on high-level engineering projects than on simple stuff like youtube.

Youtube, Myspace, and Facebook may have gotten the owners richer than “high-level” engineers but it’s mostly luck. The creators, just did something for fun that turned out to be great for advertising revenue. They won the lottery beyond their wildest imaginations, let alone any type of business “planning”.</p>

[iloveagoodbrew]

<p>Go with Cal. Pasadena is a nice place.</p>

[brassmonkey]

<p>Do really think that when he’s applying to grad school, people are going to split hairs between an accomplished Caltech engineer and an accomplished stanford engineer?</p>

[sakky]

<p>

Keeping it simple, go with Caltech. Caltech has a more difficult admissions selection process (may be the most difficult in the world) than Stanford and that reputation carries over. Even from Sakky’s comments about it being easier to get a degree from Stanford, looking at it from a different angle, it just means a caltech degree is more solid. Again, splitting hairs here.

</p>

<p>Oh, I don’t know about that. There’s a big difference between a school being difficult and a school being valued by the market.</p>

<p>Look, the truth is, plenty (probably most) hiring decisions are not based on your ability to survive a difficult program. They’re based on networking. I have seen plenty of people work very hard and do exceedingly well in extremely rigorous engineering programs …and still not get the job offer that they wanted, only to watch other students who didn’t work as hard and get worse grades nonetheless get that offer. Usually, it’s because the latter people chose to spend less time studying and more time networking and schmoozing to leverage their way in. Stanford, because of its deep ties to the high-tech industry, especially (naturally) in Silicon Valley, is probably a better networking opportunity. </p>

<p>This is particularly true when you’re talking about entrepreneurial activities. Startup companies don’t have the resources to engage in a formal hiring process. When you’re just 2 guys in a garage, you don’t have the ability to cast a nationwide net to look for the best possible talent. Almost all startup companies at first, basically hire all the friends of the founders, because that’s the best they can do, as at least the founders know who they are. For example, if you look at the history of any of the famous Stanford startups - Sun Microsystems, Cisco, Yahoo, Google, etc. - you will notice that most of the early employees were old Stanford school buddies of the founders. Sure, maybe there were some Caltech engineering students who would have been made for better hires, but like I said, when you’re just starting off as 2 guys in a garage, how would you know who they are? At least if you hire your friends, you know who they are and you have a sense of what skills they have, so the “search costs” have already been amortized. Furthermore, at least you know you can get along with your friends. If you bring in a total stranger, even if he’s brilliant, you run the risk that you just won’t get along. Team chemistry is absolutely vital to the success of any startup. </p>

<p>

Youtube, Myspace, and Facebook may have gotten the owners richer than “high-level” engineers but it’s mostly luck. The creators, just did something for fun that turned out to be great for advertising revenue. They won the lottery beyond their wildest imaginations, let alone any type of business “planning”.

</p>

<p>Yeah, but that’s true of any new technology or any new business. There have been plenty of highly intricate technologies that failed in the market.</p>

[sakky]

<p>

Do really think that when he’s applying to grad school, people are going to split hairs between an accomplished Caltech engineer and an accomplished stanford engineer?

</p>

<p>The question is, whether he’s going to be ‘accomplished’, or whether he’s even going to graduate at all. My brother (who went to Caltech) knows a number of people who flunked out. </p>

<p>Like it or not, we live in a world where having a degree is extremely important, even if the degree comes from an ‘easier’ school in an ‘easier’ major. A lot of employers won’t even bother to interview you if you don’t have a degree. Most grad schools won’t look at you if you don’t have a degree. If you go to Caltech and flunk out, they aren’t going to care why you don’t have a degree. All they’re going to see if that you don’t have a degree. Like it or not, that’s the reality of the situation.</p>

<p>Look, not everybody at Caltech does well. Plenty of students do poorly. Some of those students will do so poorly that they will flunk out. Those students would have been better off going someplace else like Stanford, where at least they would have gotten a degree. Sure, they might have ended up majoring in a creampuff subject and gotten mediocre grades, but hey, at least they would have graduated. </p>

<p>In a perfect world, employers would understand that some schools are more difficult than others and hence somebody who attends a difficult school and doesn’t graduate is still just as qualified (perhaps more so) than somebody who went to an easier school and did graduate. We don’t live in a perfect world. Instead, we live in a world where having a degree matters a lot.</p>

[Zorz]

<p>easily stanford.</p>