<p>Wow you guys really need to get some perspective on just how little your undergrad school matters. Take a look at the top PhD programs in engineering. Go to the lab website of the more senior professors and look at where their PhD students come from, chances are you’ll find a lot of small/unknown/low-ranked schools represented. Want an example, look at Roger Kamm’s lab (Kamm is one of the most well known professors in bioengineering at arguably the best engineering school in the world, MIT). Do you see anyone from Harvard? Stanford? Yale? Princeton? MIT? Caltech? Berkeley?.. No? Oh but wait, there are graduates from Yonsei University, University of Illinois at Chicago, Cambridge University, Ecole Polytechnique (France), Utah State University, Notre Dame, University of Puerto Rico, Howard Universiy, and last but not least Arizona State University. How many of those are in the top 10? Top 20? Top 30? So what about job placement? Unfortunately companies don’t list their employees and where they went to school, but since someone mentioned GE in this thread lets look at Jack Welch. He got his BS in Chemical engineering from UMass. How many of you would have put that in a top 50? He then got his MS and PhD from UIllinois. The bottom line is just because you get into Harvard, Stanford, MIT, or Yale it doesn’t mean that you’ll get a graduate position or become a CEO over anyone who goes to Arizona State or UMass for their BS.</p>
<p>Now onto why Yale engineering is harder to get into than GT or UIUC engineering. Well, there are fewer spots to start out with and the school’s better known world wide so there’s a larger base of people who want to go. Now subtract the legacy spots (and there are A LOT of legacy students). Now remember that the schools you mentioned (GA Tech, Michigan, UIUC) are all state schools and will take a large percentage of their students from in state even if they can get more qualified students out of state. Starting to get it?</p>
<p>i totally agree…harvard and yale accept people who they believe will be successful in the professional world. that’s why students with a legacy are accepted over outstanding academic credentials. they know that the former will have connections right out of college. the same kid whos is a harvard grad and excels outside of the workplace will be just as successful had he/she went to a state school. its about the individual, not the school.</p>
That’s good you believe that. Whether your thoughts actually represent reality, another question entirely.</p>
<p>
Stick with engineering. For someone who wants to be an engineer GT/UIUC >> Yale.</p>
<p>
I’ve said this many times. Most recently in post #76.</p>
<p>
No argument.</p>
<p>
Agreed.</p>
<p>
Employers would be the tight of people who care.</p>
<p>
A good showing of Yale competence as well?</p>
<p>
I agree. They care about where they’ve gotten previous employees.</p>
<p>
Agreed. </p>
<p>
False. A 3.5 from GT and a 3.5 Yale. I’d think former gets the nod from the resume screening process. But, as Sakky said, GT is a better program than Yale. What about schools in the same league as far as rankings go? Like UVA or Colorado. Well, Yale might fair better bit I doubt it. Yale engineering simply doesn’t have a big name in engineering. Hell, at least UVA/Colorado have name impact from sports teams.</p>
<p>
It matters a whole lot less in engineering than you think it does. A lot less. </p>
<p>
I’ve never said they do that. In fact, I know they don’t. Because Yale Engineering has near zero name recognition I’d think comparably ranked schools that are larger will probably do better.</p>
<p>
I highly doubt it. I doubt the general engineering populace really knows how hard admission to Yale is. I’d doubt they’d think it’s any harder than UMich/Cal/GT. I doubt they even know the difficulty of admission between those 3 schools. They will go with schools that have big name impact. More importantly, they tend to go with schools that they’ve hired from before.</p>
<p>
Absolutely.</p>
<p>
Totally irrelevant.</p>
<p>
Are you kidding me? You’d think you’d get a better engineering education at Yale than a top tier public? Perhaps. I doubt the difference would be anything large. Courses, for the most part, are standardized.</p>
<p>
Personally, I only applied to publics. It’s called money. I don’t have a lot of it.</p>
<p>Regardless, I think Yale is a great school. I think it’s lack of size hurts it’s impact with employers because it doesn’t have great name recognition.</p>
That’s good you believe that. Whether your thoughts actually represent reality, another question entirely.</p>
<p>
Stick with engineering. For someone who wants to be an engineer GT/UIUC >> Yale.</p>
<p>
I’ve said this many times. Most recently in post #76.</p>
<p>
No argument.</p>
<p>
Agreed.</p>
<p>
Employers would be the tight of people who care.</p>
<p>
A good showing of Yale competence as well?</p>
<p>
I agree. They care about where they’ve gotten previous employees.</p>
<p>
Agreed. </p>
<p>
False. A 3.5 from GT and a 3.5 Yale. I’d think former gets the nod from the resume screening process. But, as Sakky said, GT is a better program than Yale. What about schools in the same league as far as rankings go? Like UVA or Colorado. Well, Yale might fair better bit I doubt it. Yale engineering simply doesn’t have a big name in engineering. Hell, at least UVA/Colorado have name impact from sports teams.</p>
<p>
It matters a whole lot less in engineering than you think it does. A lot less. </p>
<p>
I’ve never said they do that. In fact, I know they don’t. Because Yale Engineering has near zero name recognition I’d think comparably ranked schools that are larger will probably do better.</p>
<p>
I highly doubt it. I doubt the general engineering populace really knows how hard admission to Yale is. I’d doubt they’d think it’s any harder than UMich/Cal/GT. I doubt they even know the difficulty of admission between those 3 schools. They will go with schools that have big name impact. More importantly, they tend to go with schools that they’ve hired from before.</p>
<p>
Absolutely.</p>
<p>
Totally irrelevant.</p>
<p>
Are you kidding me? You’d think you’d get a better engineering education at Yale than a top tier public? Perhaps. I doubt the difference would be anything large. Courses, for the most part, are standardized.</p>
<p>
Personally, I only applied to publics. It’s called money. I don’t have a lot of it.</p>
<p>Regardless, I think Yale is a great school. I think it’s lack of size hurts it’s impact with employers because it doesn’t have great name recognition.</p>
<p>UVA/Colorado/UMich/whatever have “big name impact” because of sports teams? Here’s a little test for you: walk down a busy city street, and just ask random people (that look educated) what the first thing that comes to mind when you say “Yale” is. Then ask them about Michigan. For Yale, it will probably be something along the lines of “smart”, “successful,” “My high school’s valedictorian went there.” For Michigan, “They’ve got a damn good football team.” Yale has “near-zero” name recognition but those other schools have name recognition due to sports teams? So, just to get this straight, it’s good for Colorado/UVA/Michigan/Cal that they have name recognition due to sports teams (which have so much to do with academics), but Yale, which is known WORLDWIDE for its top-notch academics, doesn’t?</p>
<p>You are acting like these engineering recruiters/HR guys live in some sort of bubble. Like they will get an application from someone from Yale and go “Yale Engineering? What is that? We’ve only hired from [big state school] in the past.” Oh, but they get Sportscenter in this bubble, so that would make Colorado/UVA jump out at them. Right. People making those decisions are just regular, educated people - people that will associate “Yale” with intelligence and success, whether that is fair or not.</p>
<p>And I meant to say “Especially if you did it because you truly believed you’d have better postgraduate opportunities at the state school.” Like you said, what you learn is going to be similar everywhere. Which is why, on average, I’d rather take the kid that got a 1600 on his SATs than the kids from Mich/UIUC/GT (on average - meaning if I was hiring 10 people, and had to blindly choose the school where they’d come from, I’d say Yale 100% of the time). </p>
<p>And to be clear, I don’t believe people that go to Yale or any undergraduate school for that matter have any automatic advantage over people that go to Cal/Mich/UIUC (or big privates like Cornell for that matter) [for engineering jobs - finance jobs seem to clearly be elitist in the sense they wouldn’t even consider applications from the big publics]. Everything is what you make of it. I just clearly don’t believe that a Yale engineer will be at any disadvantage whatsoever for any job vs. any of those schools. Nor do I think lack of “prestige” can hurt anyone. But think about the people you know that went to Yale (from your high school class, say). The only person I know there was our valedictorian who wants to go into physics/math/engineering. The same is going to be true for most people (or at least something similar). Thus, “Yale” is associated with hard work, success, intelligence, etc, in the minds of the average educated American (including engineering recruiters). </p>
<p>To change the subject a bit: with an endowment making it the third-richest (I believe) nonprofit organization in the world (behind the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Harvard) at $20 billion (for perspective, 5x Cornell’s endowment and nearly 10x Cal’s), why wouldn’t Yale put the money into boosting its engineering program? I think I read that Harvard is currently doing just that and it’s been rising in the engineering rankings recently without dropping anywhere else. If Georgia Tech can be considered a top-10 engineering school with only a $1.1 billion endowment, what is holding Yale back? Princeton and Stanford have endowments around $15 billion and MIT is only $8 billion (“only”) and all have bigger engineering programs.</p>
<p>And evoke1080: Just FYI, Cambridge and Ecole Polytechnique (France) are regularly ranked among the top 10 universities in the world by multiple publications, and Ecole Polytechnique is considered by many to be not only the #1 engineering school in France but also in all of Europe. And Yonsei is considered one of the most prestigious schools in South Korea.</p>
<p>live, I think employers would favor Colorado over Yale not because it’s ranked higher, but because it’s better. My point was to offer a litmus test for Yale’s engineering strength, by comparing them to similar schools. I, by no means, say that Yale is bad. I’ve worked with a few Yale students in one of the labs here (for an REU) and they were great students. </p>
<p>And you’re pretty crazy to think that Yale > GT/UIUC. Not even close.</p>
<p>I’m aware of the schools’ general reputations, I know a few people from them, but how many people on this board have heard of them (with the exception of Cambridge). As for your “I’d take the Yale Graduate 100% of the time” you must be sad to see that real HR people don’t feel the same way. If you look at the graduate rankings of USNWR they have a “recruiter” score for which they asked professional recruiters to rank their top schools, guess what Georgia Tech gets 4.3/5.0, UIUC get the same, Michigan gets 4.1/5.0 and Yale gets a 3.8/5.0. “Peer Assessment” is even worse for Yale. I don’t have access to the USNWR data for undergrad but they’re usually pretty similar in terms of rankings. You are correct, however, about HR people not being in a complete bubble. Yale is ranked higher than most of the schools around it (±10 places) in the rankings in the recruiter score while it is the same in terms of peer assessment indicating that HR people do get a little excited over the name Yale when compared to Colorado or UVA.</p>
<p>As for what’s holding Yale back in the rankings, I think they simply don’t care as much as people on these boards do about being #1. As you said they have a huge endowment and no shortage of donors, will being #20 instead of # 40 get them any more money? Yale is a business, plain and simple. They do what makes them the most money. That’s why they court loyal legacies whose families have a track record of giving back to the school.</p>
<p>Well, I’m afraid to burst your bubble, but frankly, it kind of is. I know quite a few people who worked at the Lynn site (where GE Aviation was located) who got out of there as quickly as possible because they were not put on the fast track of career development. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, I don’t know about that at all. Like I said, that seems to be true only if you’re one of the minority of employees who is put on the leadership development track. Otherwise, GE is infamous for not paying relatively well, and working employees very hard. Why put up with that, unless you happen to be one of the stars that is tagged with leadership development (which most are not)? </p>
<p>Again, the biggest complaint I heard from the former Lynn people as to why they quit GE was simple - it doesn’t pay well, relative to how hard they have to work, and that they could make far more money for less work if they were to go to somewhere else. </p>
<p>But it’s not just me saying it. Ask around - you will see that GE doesn’t pay its engineers very well, and that’s always been one of the top complaints of the company. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So that begs the question - what if you don’t get it? Then why stick around at GE, where the pay is not that good? At least at Goldman, you’re going to be paid well. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What’s the problem, Payne? Do I really have to do all the work for you? Is it really so hard to go back to one of my old posts? Or search for the information yourself? </p>
<p>Here it is again (scroll down to post #13).</p>
<p>But even if it is ‘underperformance’, so what? What does it matter? We are simply talking about ABSOLUTE undergraduate engineering assessment. It doesn’t matter how good the OTHER Yale programs happens to be. It only matters how Yale engineering happens to be relative to other engineering programs. </p>
<p>For example, one could argue that MIT political science exhibits ‘severe underperformance’ relative to MIT engineering, because MIT poli-sci is ranked #10-12 (depending on which ranking you use). But so what? Ok, so MIT poli-sci is not as good as MIT engineering. Who cares? At the end of the day, MIT poli-sci is still better than the vast majority of the other poli-sci programs out there. Similarly, Yale engineering is still better than the vast majority of hundreds of other engineering programs out there. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why do you want to compare things that way? I thought we were simply talking about assessments from outside parties, and they have spoken loud and clear - that a #43 ranking is still better than the vast majority of other programs out there. Sure, maybe the Yale guy could have gone to MIT and gotten a much better engineering education. But so what? That’s not relevant. What matters is the fact that the guy has a Yale engineering degree, and how well does that stack up to, say, a guy with a WPI engineering degree. Or a Texas Tech engineering degree. The rankings are quite clear - Yale is better.</p>
<p>Well, actually, basically, yes. Whatever else you might say about Bush, at least he got elected President. Twice. The vast vast majority of aspiring politicians will never get elected President, or to any other powerful office. Heck, plenty of people can’t even get elected to become town dogcatcher. So the very least you can say is that Bush was obviously a highly successful politician. Anybody who can get elected President is, by definition, a highly successful politician. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>According to who? To the rankings, right? Well, the same rankings say that Yale >>WPI or Oklahoma State. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, you keep missing the key contingency. It’s not just about where they’ve gotten previous employees. It’s where they’re gotten previous * good * employees. A school from which an employer has garnered lots of mediocre employees is not going to be a particularly desirable school for that employer. In other words, if an employer has recruited lots of Texas Tech engineers in the past and found out that they were bad, that’s going to be a strike * against * any future Texas Tech candidate. </p>
<p>The point is, just because an employer has recruited lots of people from a particular school in the past doesn’t necessarily mean that that school is going to have an advantage in terms of hiring at that employer. That school might actually have a * disadvantage *. It depends on the track record of the alumni. Having a bad track record is actually WORSE than no track record at all. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So now here, I see that you are invoking the rankings. So does that mean that you are conceding the point that Yale engineering is better than those schools that are not comparably ranked (i.e. that are ranked significantly lower than Yale)? In other words, Yale >> WPI? That’s what the rankings say. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But there it is again - you’re changing the goalposts. You’re talking about TOP-TIER publics. Again, nobody disputes that places like Berkeley are better than Yale for engineering. </p>
<p>The question is, what about publics that are NOT top-tier? Like Oklahoma State? Like Texas Tech? Like New Mexico? The evidence strongly indicates that Yale engineering is significantly better than those publics. Heck, the evidence strongly indicates that Yale engineering is significatly better than MOST public schools, simply because most public schools are not top-tier schools. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m with live on this one - the presence of sports teams usually tends to DETRACT from the reputation of schools, because a lot of sports fans know full well about all of the scandals and compromises that schools make to put together a good sports program (I.e. Dexter Manley plays football for 4 years at Oklahoma State before having a Pro-Bowl career in the NFL, and only later revealing in his retirement that he didn’t even know how to read). There was a scandal a few years ago involving the Berkeley (the Cal) football team where some players were found to be getting academic credits for courses they didn’t actually take. Plenty of other highly regarded schools nonetheless have admitted plenty of athletes who weren’t exactly known for their academic acumen. Let’s face it. Chris Bosh and Stephon Marbury aren’t exactly the most academically serious people in the world, but Georgia Tech admitted them anyway. </p>
<p>The point is, a sports reputation builds just a sports reputation. An academic reputation, on the other hand, is, at best, orthogonal to a sports reputation, and is some ways, actually detracts from the academic reputation. I know plenty of people who think Stanford is just a sports school, and have no idea how good Stanford is academically. Again, the reason for that is that they are well aware of the many other “students” who are rather mediocre academically, but who got into college anyway just because of their sports prowess, and are not serious about academics once they’re there, but are just using the school as a springboard to the pros (i.e. Kevin Durant & Greg Oden were clearly just one-year mercenaries and everybody knew it). </p>
<p>Being from a school that has a top sports program may give you cool bar conversation fodder, but, frankly, probably doesn’t help you that much from a recruiting standpoint. Having a strong sports reputation doesn’t really help your school’s academic reputation much, and, if anything, arguably hurts it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, let me ask you this. The example of WPI was put forth before. Honestly, who’s ever heard of WPI? I have, but only because I’m from the region. </p>
<p>Or take schools like Oklahoma State or Texas Tech. Now I agree that many people HAVE heard of these schools, probably because of the sports programs. But having heard of them, do you really think they are good schools? The rankings certainly don’t seem to think so. I don’t mean to single out any school, but I don’t exactly equate Oklahoma State with strong engineering.</p>
<p>I think you’re missing the point of this thread. The original post was about how in the top ten USNWR rankings for engineering (here they are for reference);</p>
<p>1.Massachusetts Inst. of Technology 4.8
2. Stanford University (CA) 4.7
University of California–Berkeley * 4.7
4. California Institute of Technology 4.5
U. of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign * 4.5
6. Georgia Institute of Technology * 4.4
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor * 4.4
8. Carnegie Mellon University ¶ 4.3
Purdue Univ.–West Lafayette (IN)* 4.3
10. Cornell University (NY) 4.2</p>
<p>You have “easier” schools like UIUC, Georgia Tech, Michigan, and Perdue while schools that are more selective (like Yale) are ranked #43. No one would dispute that schools like WPI (#60) and Oklahoma State (#86) are and should be easier to get into than Yale.</p>
Ok. Just give me some examples that ME/Aero guys go to for the top jobs.</p>
<p>
Agreed.</p>
<p>
Why does the underperformance occur would be the question you should be asking. If this underperformance occurs because Yale is a small school, this conversation would be over. I would posit that much of the underperformance of their college of engineering correlates well with small size.</p>
<p>
Ok.</p>
<p>
I agree. I think the program should be a function of the students almost entirely, if they fail to do that then it’s actually quite a poor program. If you have 99th percentile students - having an 85th percentile program is pretty poor.</p>
<p>
Exactly. Yale having an 85th percentile engineering program is an embarrassment with the students they have.</p>
According to my knowledge of how employers value schools.</p>
<p>
Schools that they’ve gotten many previous employees from are the schools that give them the best employees, by your logic.</p>
<p>
In the short term, absolutely they will have an advantage. I doubt companies would ever get to the “hire many employees from an individual school” stage in their recruiting progress without having substantial success with that school. </p>
<p>
You are also assuming that companies act completely rationally. Old boys networks of alumni can be quite self sustaining…</p>
<p>
Only because you’ve used them.</p>
<p>
I never made that point. </p>
<p>
Factoring in student quality, absolutely. Still doesn’t say anything about reputation.</p>
<p>
Yep.</p>
<p>
I’m not changing goal posts. I’m responding to his post directly.</p>
<p>
That wasn’t his question, that was yours. And I’ve addressed it.</p>
<p>
Sure. Where have I said it’s not. In fact, I would think the engineers that come out of Yale are very good, simply by considering the average person in Yale engineering. Still doesn’t say anything about reputation.</p>
I fail to see how sports teams hurt the reputation of schools. Most of the big research schools have great sports teams. Cal/Stanford/Michigan/GT/Purdue…I could go on.</p>
<p>
I see that the recruiters have kept away from GT like it’s a leper colony.</p>
<p>
It builds name recognition. </p>
<p>
I doubt it.</p>
<p>
I’m not sure how this could possibly hurt in the interview process.</p>
<p>
Totally irrelevant and doesn’t apply to engineering.</p>
<p>
Coming from an well known school gives you a decent edge. Just like coming from Yale (a well known school) gives Yale engineering a decent edge. Even with the boost, Yale engineering is still relatively unknown!</p>
<p>
Disagree.</p>
<p>
Probably not that many.</p>
<p>
Yep.</p>
<p>
Have I argued they are good schools? That seems tangential to the argument at hand.</p>
<p>
I’m not arguing about rankings or strength. Reputations.</p>
<p>No, I understand that point of the thread just fine. </p>
<p>However, somewhere along the line, the thread changed to 2 different subjects. #1 - that Yale is somehow a ‘bad’ engineering school (when in fact, it is ranked higher than the vast majority of other engineering progrmas out there), and #2 - the importance of size in determining the strength of an engineering program. I think I have shown that there are plenty of large, yet relatively low-ranked engineering programs out there, and hence, size, by itself, is a weak indicator.</p>
<p>Boeing seems to be quite popular. NASA for the hard-core astro guys. </p>
<p>But of course, the biggest catches are obviously consulting and banking. Like I said, plenty of MIT engineers, including ME and Aero’s, will head off to consulting and banking. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that’s precisely what I disagree with. Again, I have shown how there are quite a few large engineering schools that are nonetheless relatively low ranked, and in particular, are ranked lower than Yale. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, I don’t think so. After all, why would the employers care? All they care about is that they are getting an 85th percentile employee, which is still far better than the average.</p>
<p>Besides, what do you expect to happen anyway? There are very few schools that have consistent quality in every field that they teach. MIT, Caltech’s, Georgia Tech’s and Purdue’s humanities programs are not as good as their engineering programs. The vast vast majority of schools are going to have some programs that are better than others. That’s how it is. </p>
<p>Let me put it to you this way. Would anybody be better off if Yale just didn’t teach engineering at all? After all, plenty of schools don’t offer engineering. So what if Yale’s engineering is not as good as some of Yale’s other programs? At least Yale has an engineering program (and a relatively good one, compared to most other programs). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And what about Yalie “competence”? Again, at least he was competent enough to get elected President twice. Most other people can’t even do that. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your knowledge is contradicted by the rankings. Seems to me you just have anti-Yale fever. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope. For many employers, the employees they got are the best they could get. Let’s be honest - there are a lot of mediocre employers out there that can’t attract a lot of good workers and therefore have to resort to hiring whoever they can find. That doesn’t mean that they’re particularly impressed with the quality of the workers they get, or that they would want to continue recruiting those same kinds of workers if they had another choice.</p>
<p>Really? So then wouldn’t that actually be a factor in favor of Yale? After all, what school REALLY has a strong old boys network? Maybe you shouldn’t have brought up this point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And plenty of other mediocre research schools ALSO have great sports teams. Again, Texas Tech, LSU, Oregon State, Boise State, etc.</p>
<p>Again, take Stanford as an example. I know PLENTY of people who just think of Stanford as just a sports school and nothing else. It’s hard to convince them that it’s actually a very good research school - on par with the Ivies and MIT, because the first thing they think of is sports whenever they hear Stanford. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m simply saying that the GT athletes aren’t exactly known for their academics. When people hear that Stephon Marbury went to GT, that tends to give them a lower opinion of the academic strength of GT. That’s an undeniable fact. Just like Oklahoma State will always be infamously known for being the school that an illiterate Dexter Manley played at. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It builds the * wrong * name recognition. Specifically, it builds the name recognition for something that has nothing to do with academics. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t doubt it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you got that far. The trick is, you have to first get the interview. </p>
<p>Let’s be honest. There are a LOT of employers out there who just don’t know the rankings. Many of them are relatively small companies. Many of the people in these companies are themselves not highly educated. They don’t really “know” who the best schools are. </p>
<p>Case in point - I have met MANY people who have never heard of Stanford or Cal. Or if they have, it’s only because of the sports teams. These aren’t powerless people here - they are managers with hiring power. But they just don’t spend their time thinking about colleges. But they HAVE heard of Harvard and Yale (who hasn’t?). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure it does - because the presence of those athletes detracts from the academic reputation of your school. People see Greg Oden and Kevin Durant and conclude that you don’t have to be that smart to get into Ohio State or Texas, all you have to do is play ball well. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Frankly, MOST engineering schools are fairly unknown. Be honest - how many people have actually heard of Purdue (other than the sports teams)? How many have ever really heard of Carnegie-Mellon? </p>
<p>And, getting to something you said before, how many people have heard of WPI? Pop quiz for everybody out there other than Payne - how many of you out there even know what the abbreviation WPI stands for? I’m fairly certain that quite a few of you out there wouldn’t know without looking it up. Heck, I will admit that the only reason I know what WPI stands for is because I actually grew up fairly close to WPI. So think about that what that means. We are on the * engineering * section of CC, which is obviously a very select group of people who are incentivized to know a lot about engineering. And even so, a lot of you don’t know what WPI stands for. So what do you think happens with regards to the rest of the population?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’ve argued that size matters quite a bit. I am simply pointing out some large schools that aren’t that good. Hence, size doesn’t seem to matter very much. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And what about the reputations? What exactly is the reputation of Oklahoma State? Or WPI? Or Texas Tech? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Completely 100% relevant, because you’re the one who keeps bringing up the issue of size. So if you want to keep doing that, then I am perfectly free to keep bringing up certain big schools. Like Oklahoma State.</p>