<p>Anyway, why don’t you prove me wrong? Go to Purdue or wherever, get a bachelor’s in the engineering discipline of your choice, and get your ABET accreditation. Write me back later to tell me how wrong I was. Just make sure to write me from your JPL email account.</p>
<p>Without attending both, how can one really compare the education value at a “presigious” engineering school vs an Ivy? I’ve visited the engineering departments of four Ivies (including Yale) and wasn’t as impressed as I had expected. Also, I have visiited several of the “prestigious” engineering schools and feel they seem to have better programs, course selections, and facilities. But these impressions are based on just one or two day visits. The selectivity matter seems a game: schools hoard wealth instead of expanding enrollment. Selectivity improves because many like to associate with the wealthiest schools. Judging education value by job salary upon graduation may have aproblem because I’d expect that in general Ivy students are from wealthier backgrounds. Familiy ties to executive levels, more so than the quality of education, could be the reason for getting higher paying jobs.</p>
<p>Getting into a relatively easy-to-get-into engineering school is one thing.</p>
<p>Graduating is another.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So true. These “easy to get into” engineering schools are just as difficult to graduate from. They just can’t afford to be as selective as schools like MIT. It’s not uncommon to see 50% of freshman dropping out of some schools.</p>
<p>“ithout attending both, how can one really compare the education value at a “presigious” engineering school vs an Ivy?”</p>
<p>How about this? I have two bachelors degrees, one in engineering from a “prestigious” engineering school (BS in physics and BSE in materials science and engineering, both from the university of michigan). I have a PhD in applied physics and a masters in materials science, both from Cornell University. </p>
<p>Nothing was wrong with my Michigan education. Nothing was wrong with my Cornell education. How many undergrads in my grad program from “prestigious” engineering programs? One –> Me. The others came from crappy ugrad programs at Stanford, Columbia, Brown, MIT, Berkeley and we even had a guy from William and Mary.</p>
<p>“These “easy to get into” engineering schools are just as difficult to graduate from.”</p>
<p>LOL. That’s laughable. I don’t know anybody who failed out of college. I don’t know anybody who switched from engineering to a non-engineering major. I do know people who dropped out of the bachelor’s program in physics for other fields, but they were almost universally engineering because engineering was considered to be “easier.” The physics program had a very high attrition rate. The engineering program I was in had a negligible one.</p>
<p>As an aside: I really don’t get the point of talking out of your ass like this. You’re not going to change the world’s perspective on undergraduate engineering education one chat board at a time. Repeating your opinions doesn’t make them truth. Why don’t you just deal with reality as it is? Isn’t that what good engineers do? </p>
<p>Then again, you might ask me why I would spend my time arguing with people who obviously don’t care to know what they’re talking about.</p>
<p>My only answer would be: good question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Congrats not everyone has the same life experiences as yourself. I know many individuals who switched from engineering to another major (most of which was after freshman year). I’m not sure what physics has to do with my point. My point was that engineering is hard in any school.</p>
<p>Yeah, you’re just confused all around aren’t you? You spelled your point out in big capital letters a few posts ago and now you’re changing it again? I suppose that’s just like how you said “nothing” about undergrads?</p>
<p>This is kind of a tedious conversation. Not only are you talking out of your ass, you don’t even remember what you’ve said from post to post. I’ll just hang back and wait from your email from JPL. </p>
<p>Good luck and don’t be too hard on the ivy grads. Remember how hard it is for them to get where you’re undoubtedly going. The losers.</p>
<p>That wasn’t me using all caps…Go back and read that post.</p>
<p>Naw, just mail me about it in 2 or 3 years when you’re head of NASA. We’ll laugh about it then.</p>
<p>JAOAKL I’m not the one you’ve been arguing with lol I only quoted you once.</p>
<p>Right, you’re the Milwaukee guy… sorry.</p>
<p>This seems more like a problem of people trying to define absolute truth. There is no such thing as absolute truth, and if you truly believe there is one, prove it.</p>
<p>It seems that everyone is “correct” to an extent.</p>
<p>JAOAKL, you received degrees in areas where research is pivotal. Therefore, your experience will be more focused on the research types. Research is for a different breed of people. Just like not everyone has the capacity to become a surgeon, not everyone has the capacity to become a researcher. I’m sure that the Ivy League, along with MIT, CalTech, etc., produce a larger number of researchers than those ready for industry.Although I have no solid basis for my argument, I would believe that Ivy League undergrad engineering programs would place more of a priority into developing students that are more adept at research, rather than teaching practical applications. The basis of my belief is the higher capacity that the students have displayed in high school to handle difficult subjects, which is based on the selectivity of the Ivy Leagues.</p>
<p>And although research is a huge part of engineering and science, a majority of engineering industry jobs are not research-oriented. Like aibarr mentioned, her civil engineering firm balks at Ivy League engineering grad student prospects. The firm probably wants engineering grad students that can better apply the practical engineering knowledge and experience gained from ugrad, grad, and/or job experience to produce practical solutions for their clientele. This is when engineering programs that tend to train students for industry experience become more suitable for these employers, rather than schools known for producing great researchers.</p>
<p>Yes, there are plenty of civil engineering firms that try to implement new techniques into building structures, which would probably require a team of engineers from graduate schools such as MIT, UIUC, UCB, Cornell, etc. to be assembled; each engineer bringing an area of expertise gained from each school and personal experience. The MIT grad might bring his research in advanced soil and rock analysis experience into play. The UIUC grad might bring in experience in the area of advanced structural analysis and design. The UCB grad might bring in research in steel analysis. The Cornell grad might bring in the expertise in the research of advanced structural concretes. But a majority of civil engineering firms on the other hand do not require the MIT grad with research experience in advanced soil and rock analysis because their clientele do not require them to build structures that require such advanced research. Also, most structural work is located where adequate research from local universities is sufficient. The UIUC grad might have a better time finding work because structural analysis is naturally becoming more complex as buildings are trying to accomodate a growing population in a fixed amount of area, as well as an increased sophistication of archictectural design. Same for the UCB and Cornell grads, who have experience that is needed in industry now, although they may be “over qualified”.</p>
<p>I’m not trying to single out MIT, but if anybody is going to do research on advanced soil and rock analysis, I would think that they would goto either a small school that is dedicated solely to that research, just like the example of that small school that deals with ceramics engineering, or MIT or a similar university that is known for its research in advanced theories (possibly Ivy Leagues?).</p>
<p>Therefore, a graduate student who goes to a school that tends to focus their energy on practical industry solutions, rather than advanced theory and applications, should have a better time finding work in a majority of firms that deal with practical solutions, such as building a hospital, condominium, hotel, etc. The firms that build off shore rigs, dams, long spanning bridges, etc. might hire more research oriented school graduates.</p>
<p>In the end, it depends whether undergrad prestige matters in engineering. If you want to focus on research, going to an undergrad that can gear you for research might be best, like MIT, CalTech, etc., or possibly the Ivy Leagues. If you want to gear your education towards industry, a less research oriented school might be more logical. I think the difference between what some have considered “prestigious” engineering schools in this thread is the fact that these “prestigious” engineering programs like UMich, IUIC, Rice, UCB, etc. give students a combination of gaining research experience and industry experience at the same time. A student can easily go the route of research if they so choose to, or purely go into industry, with the increased opportunity to get accepted to a top engineering grad school. Ivy League ugrad engineering students probably have a higher percentage that choose grad school/research rather than going straight into the engineering industry (I’m not including ugrad engineering grads that choose to go into a non-engineering field for industry, including going to a med school program, etc.). This does not mean that the students at Ivy Leagues that want to go into industry will be at a disadvantage; they are probably intelligent enough to quickly learn the skills necessary during job training that they will be at the same playing field as a grad that went to a school where industry training was integrated into the curriculum. But let’s be real for a second, the ungder grad graduates from the less selective schools dominate the industry engineering work force. The prospective employers will look at their needs when they hire, and most firms do not look at how selective a school was in selecting high school graduates, but instead on the track record of the previous hires of the undergrad graduates from specific schools.</p>
<p>Again, I’m not trying to establish absolute truth in this matter because it really depends on the situation. But just because there is no absolute truth, that does not mean little truths do not exist.</p>
<p>P.S. I’m assuming you were being sarcastic JAOAKL, but Stanford, MIT, Berkeley, etc. do not have “crappy ugrad programs.” On the contrary, these are relatively known as some of the top undergrad engineering programs the U.S. has to offer. BTW, I noticed that you did not mention Harvard or Yale from your personal experience; just a side note because those two schools were mentioned numerous times in the previous posts by others.</p>
<p>P.P.S. The Ivy grads that do want to go into industry straight out of undergrad truly are taking the harder road to get to the same place as students that got into a non-Ivy League engineering undergrad. I’m not saying the non-Ivy undergrad engineering is worse than Ivy’s, but we have to acknowledge all the years of preparation those students put in during high school in order to get accepted into an Ivy. The problem I think of going to undergrad Ivy engineering would be the perception that somehow you are more geared towards either research or the management path, which I would bet is generally true. And most engineering firms do not hire researchers out of undergrad and do not hire management out of undergrad. Other than that, I’m sure that an Ivy engineering employee will be just as good at completing job assignments as a UMich grad. Besides, other than teaching practical applications, all undergrad engineering degrees teach very similar courses.</p>
<p>P.P.P.S. Michael Griffin, NASA Chief, got degrees from John Hopkins, Catholic University of America, University of Maryland, University of Southern California, Loyola College-Maryland, and George Washington University. Hmm, other than JHU, not a top university in site in terms of your standards JAOAKL. Oh also, he went into both the research route and the business/management route. He started undergrad at JHU, a top university in most anyone’s standard. Also, most engineers from MIT and CalTech that work at JPL are in heavy theoretical divisions. There are a lot of engineers at JPL that work in less theoretical divisions that did not goto a top 20 overall university. Also, most engineers and scientists at JPL hold at least a M.S. Just a side note.</p>
<p>First, the light profanity and taunting is ridiculous, and should probably stop… I figured I’d bring it up because I’m supposed to be the civil engineer.</p>
<p>Secondly, I think we’re talking about two entirely different realms of practice. The world your educational background is in is applied science. The world the rest of us are talking about is the engineering world… one involving the design of machines and nuts and bolts.</p>
<p>We’re just saying that the subset of “prestigious” engineering schools is not necessarily the same as the subset of “prestigious” schools in general. Harvard and Yale do indeed have very good “engineering” programs… but if you look at them, they fall squarely in the realm of applied sciences. Most of them are applied offshoots of natural sciences.</p>
<p>How is that different than engineering? Gee, glad you asked.</p>
<p>Engineering involves a strong grasp on the natural sciences and an understanding of how to apply them to the world around us… That much is the same. Engineering, though, in the sense that we’re using the word here, involves machinery. It involves nuts and bolts, and wrenches. It involves welding. It involves steel, concrete, composite materials, the design of things to put into production and create for the use of other people. This is not what Harvard or Yale engineering does. Cornell’s even moving away from it… They just did away with their experimental structural engineering laboratories, I’m told. No more breaking concrete beams! I think it’s a little sad.</p>
<p>People in that engineering world, the one I just described, are from Illinois and Berkeley and Georgia Tech and MIT and Stanford and University of Texas and Texas A&M and Michigan and Purdue and Cornell and whatnot. Employers in the engineering world, unless you’ve got a specific applied physics or nanotech or chemistry skill that they’re looking for, will likely not actively recruit at any of the non-“prestigious” engineering schools. The right tool for the right job, right? If they find someone from another school who is qualified, they’ll hire them, but I can’t deny that there wasn’t a certain amount of clamor and excitement stirred up by several firms at the prospect of hiring me, an Illinois grad. I still find this odd. Nobody outside of engineering thinks it’s prestigious.</p>
<p>This is at the bachelors/masters level, too, I should add. Once you get into the PhD level, you’re studying something specific and you’ve got a research goal in mind and then none of the “prestige” or ranking order matters anyhow. You’re just looking for the best research group (or research professor) in whatever field you’re looking for, and that could be anywhere.</p>
<p>But I still stand by my observation that in my world, and in worlds like mine, prestige matters to a certain small extent, and when you look at the Venn diagrams of “Prestigious Engineering College” (in my aforementioned sense of the word engineering) and “Prestigious College”, there’s some overlap in the middle but you’re seeing two distinct circles there.</p>
<p>Aight, this thread’s taken up too much of my energy, and I’ve said my bit. If you disagree, let ‘er rip, but I’m not going to be back to refute you because I’m on deadline.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh. Thanks… but Rice isn’t up in the “prestigious” engineering program category. Not the generally accepted one. I think it’s really good, but it’s too small to make a real dent. But it is in more of the engineering (my definition) world than the applied science world, when it comes to what they call engineering.</p>
<p>“I’m assuming you were being sarcastic JAOAKL, but Stanford, MIT, Berkeley, etc. do not have “crappy ugrad programs.” On the contrary, these are relatively known as some of the top undergrad engineering programs the U.S. has to offer. BTW, I noticed that you did not mention Harvard or Yale from your personal experience; just a side note because those two schools were mentioned numerous times in the previous posts by others.”</p>
<p>Yep, I was being sarcastic. and yep, my experience is mostly with high-end engineering and research. Fair point.</p>
<p>Actually, JHU is a fine school and is EXACTLY the kind of school I’m talking about. it’s a very selective school that does not rank highly in engineering, with the exception of bioengineering. Nevertheless, people at JHU are very high quality and a JHU degree is very well respected among researchers. Johns Hopkins applied physics lab is one the best labs on the east coast.</p>
<p>“There are a lot of engineers at JPL that work in less theoretical divisions that did not goto a top 20 overall university. Also, most engineers and scientists at JPL hold at least a M.S. Just a side note.”</p>
<p>Most of the lower ranking people at JPL are local. I have never worked there, but I know from experience that an institution like that does not recruit techs and bench engineers nationally… unless we’re talking about people with lots and lots of specialized experience. If we’re talking about that, then the undergraduate degree doesn’t matter all… but we’re talking about people who’ve been practicing engineers for decades.</p>
<p>supposed to be the “civil” engineer…good one aibarr</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We aim to entertain.</p>
<p>“Nobody outside of engineering thinks its prestigious.”</p>
<p>This isn’t true if we’re still distinguishing applied science from engineering. In physics, a UIUC PhD is as good as one from anywhere.</p>
<ol>
<li>physics =/= engineering.</li>
<li>
you seem to not understand that Berkeley, MIT and Stanford are all amazing engineering schools.</li>
<li>Cornell is the best engineering ivy, so you can’t use that to compare cumulative ivy engineering.</li>
<li>you are very mistaken if you think that people do not change majors. i have heard from many admissions people and students that change majors out of engineering is not a rare occurrence. no, people do not generally flunk out; they change majors.</li>
<li>what basis do you have to say that engineering is easier than physics across the board?</li>
<li>JPL was arbitrary. i do not ever plan to work for NASA… private defense industry has much more money in it.</li>
<li>i disagree w/ joewhiz premise that ivies are research oriented. if you look at the curricula for Ivy-type schools, you will see more APPLIED SCIENCE in their engineering departments. also, they tend to have a focus on “balanced” engineerings, giving them a liberal arts foundation as well.</li>
<li>airbarr pretty much summed up my thoughts.</li>
<li>i find it interesting that JAOAKL is getting this worked up over the ideas of a hs senior. i have read your posts and considered your ideas. i don’t even think that you are reading mine. if you are, you are reading for completion instead of understanding. my initial goal (as i have stated many times) was to inform people that you dont have to go to top 20 overall school to get a top notch engineering education.</li>
<li>a lot of the engineering majors who go to those “ivy-esque” schools do not take jobs in the industry. they go to consulting, business, med school or law school. (not sure how this is relevant, but just thought i would point that out)</li>
</ol>
<p>What are you guys even arguing about anymore? lol</p>