@Mamapa2
" as its engineering programs are quickly rising in name because administration is spending huge budgets on engineering facilities (take a walk around campus and you’ll see)."
Oh dear…this same old trickery (most schools with an engineering program are adding or renovating facilities assuming they are relatively rich). Usually facilities has NOTHING to do with undergraduate education in engineering. That is all about research. Students “may” experience more research opportunities assuming that current labs aren’t merely moving to the new building and assuming that many more faculty are being recruited. Unless the facility is attached to curriculum changes or changes in pedagogy/new courses, they will just be nice new shiny places for undergraduates to hang out in and may give students a boost in spirit (and yes I recognize that some spaces may be for undergraduates to hang out or receive advising, but these could theoretically be hosted well…anywhere), but usually they do not lead to new courses or key courses being taught differently.
*The OP should go to Tufts simply because it HAS an engineering program, not because a new building (or several) was added. I hate when undergrads buy into or try to sell such kool-aid. Unless it is like Georgia Tech’s Klough Undergraduate Learning Commons, it is not truly designed with undergrads in mind. It may have a few new classrooms/lecture halls, but at the end of the day, the same thing will be taught in the same way. Even when Emory would try to show off new STEM buildings, I don’t buy into the marketing. The only exception was chemistry which was FORCED to implement a new curriculum structure if they were to have the new building funded. I am just tired of the marketing of undergraduate irrelevant construction to undergraduates. Maybe dorms, gyms, and student centers as petty as they are, but let us not with science facilities. The only exception is if equipment in old facilities was not working properly or if there was straight up no room for stuff, if the curriculum was shoddy/not as developed as today…those things in which case the bar for improvement is low.
For engineering, QUALITY and rigor really matters. That is how reputations of undergraduate programs are made. Unlike other areas, often quality of graduate programs or professional schools are not used as a proxy for the quality of the undergraduate program. This can be said for most STEM programs hosted by undergraduate institutions. The employer will not go: “You know, your school has great facilities, beautiful facilities” (Does Georgia Tech undergraduate BME ranking near MIT, JHU, and Duke have to do with the facilities? Georgia Tech is nice, but there are plenty of places with very nice facilities) as a highlight of an application. That is essentially taken for granted if the school is known for even moderate levels of wealth or prestige.