<p>Assuming their engineering programs are accredited, what makes one school better than another? We know MIT is better than, say, RPI or Yale, but why? Can one get as good an engineering education at Alabama as they would at Georgia Tech? Both are accredited, so what makes one better?</p>
<p>Nothing necessarily makes one program better then another. However, some more capable universities might offer courses which are unavailable at other institutions. Perhaps courses in advanced artificial intelligence or lectures in ground breaking technologies. Smaller universities cannot typically offer the plethora you might crave once you reach your senior year or graduate studies. </p>
<p>The first two years are fairly standardized across the universities. The last two years you focus more on your interests.</p>
<p>Accreditation doesn’t mean the schools all offer the same material at the same level of rigor. Accreditation is a minimum standard. </p>
<p>New Mexico and Alabama both meet the minimum requirement to have Division I-FBS football teams. That doesn’t mean that their on-field performance is the same, that their training and practices are the same, and that their players have the prospects in the NFL.</p>
<p>In some cases, the more selective school puts more material into each course (or number of credits of courses), based on the assumed capabilities of the students. For example, a comparison of a state flagship versus a mid-level state university in the same state showed an 3-course, 12-credit introductory CS sequence at the flagship covering approximately the same concepts as a 5-course, 17-credit introductory sequence at the mid-level. In the MIT case, a year of freshman calculus is compressed into a semester. However, such differences would need to be checked individually be inspection of course catalogs and syllabuses, rather than making assumptions based on rankings.</p>
<p>What this means is that students at the more selective school may have more schedule space to take additional courses in or out of their majors. For example, an MIT student gets space for an extra course in his/her eight semesters due to spending only one semester instead of two on freshman calculus.</p>
<p>However, a high ability and motivation student at a less selective school may be able to partially compensate by taking course overloads (e.g. take 18-20 credits instead of 15 per semester, if the less selective school teaches the same amount of material in 18-20 credits that the more selective school teaches in 15). But some courses or topics may just not be available at the less selective school (e.g. an honors course at the more selective school may not be available at the less selective school), and sequenced prerequisites may preclude the course overload strategy in some cases.</p>
<p>Of course, some students may find that the less selective school is a better fit for them. A student who would find MIT’s double pace freshman calculus to be overwhelming might not do too well at MIT, but be able to succeed in engineering taught at the pace in a less selective school.</p>
<p>This does not mean that a less selective ABET-accredited engineering degree program is “bad”. The college students of the least ability and motivation are not likely to be able to successfully complete an ABET-accredited engineering degree program, so the engineering departments do not slow down their courses too much to accommodate them.</p>
<p>^ so a student worthy of (or admitted to) an MIT or Georgia Tech should be able to thrive and, more importantly, succeed (job or grad school placement) at less prestigious school?</p>
<p>S/he should be able to do well at the less selective school, but may be able to do better at MIT, GT, etc. if s/he can handle the likely increased workload and course rigor. (If s/he cannot handle the likely increased course rigor, then going to such a school would be a mistake.)</p>
<p>Companies tend to recruit at local schools, but travel mainly to what they see as “better” schools. So a higher reputation school will attract more out of area companies than a lower reputation school (but large size is also an advantage in attracting companies to recruit). [1]</p>
<p>Graduate departments do tend to favor applicants from undergraduate programs that they see as better in preparing students for graduate level work and research (meaning more rigorous courses available and selected by the student and good undergraduate research opportunities that the applicant made use of).</p>
<p>[1] Yes, someone will probably bring up investment banking and management consulting jobs, which tend to be much more school-prestige-conscious than engineering and CS jobs. For those jobs, yes, the school’s prestige level is a much bigger deal.</p>
<p>I think the biggest factor is who attends the schools. It’s a lot harder to get into MIT than Alabama and the students are going to be harder working and can generally handle a more rigorous workload. In the end, it isn’t that big of a difference for engineering at most schools. With the exception of MIT and Stanford, most good engineering schools aren’t that competitive for admission and the brightest engineering students are more likely than other students to choose a cheaper local school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Kinda, although a student worthy of admission to MIT is probably more competitive than a GT admit because MIT is extremely selective in admissions. GT and MIT have different cultures. MIT likes to weed you out before you get there (by not admitting you), and GT likes to be less selective and weed you out in the first couple of years (although the trend in recent years is toward being more selective and weeding out less). They’re both excellent engineering schools that turn out the highest caliber of engineers, but GT freshmen aren’t necessarily = to MIT freshmen. Please note that I’m comparing GT and MIT freshmen, not GT and MIT graduates, who are much more comparable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Naturally, there are people going to Podunk U who could succeed at MIT, and people going to MIT who wouldn’t be able to pass at Podunk U.</p>
<p>However, I’d tend to agree that if you can pass at MIT, you can probably pass at Podunk U, as well… whereas being able to pass at Podunk U may not mean you can pass at MIT.</p>
<p>^ I’m not talking about passing. I’m talking about getting a great job or admitted to a top grad school. And I’m not talking about Podunk U, I’m talking about other major universities (say, top 75).</p>
<p>Take what I said, replace “Podunk U” with “other major universities”, “succeed” with “excel”, “pass” with “excel”, and you have a statement I believe is equally true and applicable to your question.</p>