How come its so easy to get into some top ranking engg. colleges??

College Majors Engineering Majors
121

<p>

</p>

<p>Racnna, it’s * all relative *. Why do you specifically pick on Yale chemical engineering? </p>

<p>Consider this. Here’s the chemical engineering course catalog at Caltech</p>

<p>ChE 10. Introduction to Chemical Engineering. 3 units (2-0-1);
second term; open to freshmen only. A series of weekly seminars given by
chemical engineering faculty or an outside speaker, on a topic of current
research. Topics will be presented at an informal, introductory
level. Graded pass/fail.
ChE 63 ab. Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics. 9 units
(3-0-6); first, second terms. A comprehensive treatment of classical
thermodynamics with engineering and chemical applications and
an introduction to statistical thermodynamics. First and second laws.
Applications to closed and open systems. Equations of state. Thermochemical
calculations. Properties of real fluids. Power generation and
refrigeration cycles. Multicomponent systems, excess properties, fugacities,
activity coefficients, and models of nonideal solutions. Chemical
potential. Phase and chemical reaction equilibria. Introductory statistical
thermodynamics. Instructors: Flagan, Wang.
ChE 64. Principles of Chemical Engineering. 9 units (3-0-6); third
term. Prerequisite: ChE 63 ab. Systems approach to conservation of mass
and energy. Equilibrium staged separations. Instructor: Seinfeld.
ChE 80. Undergraduate Research. Units by arrangement. Research
in chemical engineering offered as an elective in any term other than
in the senior year. Graded pass/fail.
ChE 90 ab. Senior Thesis. 9 units (0-4-5); first, second, third terms.
A research project carried out under the direction of a chemical engineering
faculty member. A grade will not be assigned to ChE 90 prior
to completion of the thesis, which normally takes two terms. A P grade
will be given for the first term and then changed to the appropriate
letter grade at the end of the course. Instructor: Davis.
Ch/ChE 91. Scientific Writing. 3 units (1-0-2). For course description,
see Chemistry.
ChE 101. Chemical Reaction Engineering. 9 units (3-0-6); second
term. Prerequisites: ChE 63 ab and ChE 64. Elements of chemical kinetics
and chemically reacting systems. Homogeneous and heterogeneous
catalysis. Chemical reactor analysis. Instructor: Arnold.
ChE/Ch 164. Introduction to Statistical Thermodynamics. 9 units
(3-0-6); second term. Prerequisite: Ch 21 abc or equivalent. An introduction
to the fundamentals and simple applications of statistical thermodynamics.
Foundation of statistical mechanics; partition functions for
various ensembles and their connection to thermodynamics; fluctuations;
noninteracting quantum and classical gases; heat capacity of
solids; adsorption; phase transitions and order parameters; linear
response theory; structure of classical fluids; computer simulation
methods. Instructor: Wang.
ChE 165. Chemical Thermodynamics. 9 units (3-0-6); first term.
Prerequisite: ChE 63 ab or equivalent. An advanced course emphasizing
the conceptual structure of modern thermodynamics and its applications.
Review of the laws of thermodynamics; thermodynamic potentials
and Legendre transform; equilibrium and stability conditions;
metastability and phase separation kinetics; thermodynamics of singlecomponent
fluid and binary mixtures; models for solutions; phase and
chemical equilibria; surface and interface thermodynamics; electrolytes
and polymeric liquids. Instructor: Smolke.
ChE 174. Special Topics in Transport Phenomena. 9 units (3-0-6);
third term. Prerequisites: ACM 95/100, ChE 151 ab. May be repeated for
credit. Advanced problems in heat, mass, and momentum transfer.
Introduction to mechanics of complex fluids; physicochemical hydrodynamics;
microstructured fluids; colloidal dispersions; microfluidics;
selected topics in hydrodynamic stability theory; transport phenomena
in materials processing. Other topics may be discussed depending on
class needs and interests. Not offered 2005–06.
ChE 189. Special Topics in Materials Processing. 9 units (3-0-6);
third term. Prerequisites: ChE 63, ChE 103, or equivalent. Fundamental
physics and chemistry of partially ionized, chemically reactive, lowpressure
plasmas and their roles in electronic materials processing.
Basic plasma equations and equilibrium. Plasma and sheath dynamics.
Gas-surface interactions. Plasma diagnostics and monitoring. Plasmaassisted
etching and deposition in integrated circuit fabrication.
Visiting faculty or scientists may present portions of this course.
Instructor: Giapis. Given in alternate years; offered 2005–06.
ChE/BE 210. Biomolecular Cell Engineering. 9 units (3-0-6); first
term. Quantitative analysis of molecular mechanisms governing mammalian
cell behavior. Topics include topology and dynamics of signaling
and genetic regulatory networks, receptor-ligand trafficking, and
biophysical models for cell adhesion and migration. Instructor:
Asthagiri. Given in alternate years; offered 2005–06.
Bi/ChE 228. Electron Microscopy of Soft Materials. 9 units
(1-6-2). For course description, see Biology.
ChE 280. Chemical Engineering Research. Offered to Ph.D. candi -
dates in chemical engineering. Main lines of research now in progress are
covered in detail in section two.</p>

<p><a href=“http://pr.caltech.edu/catalog/05_06/pdf/catalog_05_06.pdf[/url]”>http://pr.caltech.edu/catalog/05_06/pdf/catalog_05_06.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>So, racnna, I see that Caltech actually offers * even fewer * chemical (14) engineering courses than Yale does (15). That’s right - * even fewer *. And heck, some of those Caltech courses are really graduate level courses (i.e. the 2xx courses). Yet even if you include them, Caltech STILL offers fewer chemical engineering courses than even the Yale undergrad program does. Furthermore, if you want to complain about the inclusion of Yale’s air and water pollution courses, I could just as easily complain about Caltech’s inclusiong of the “electron microscopy of soft materials” course (whatever that is). </p>

<p>Yet, last time I checked, Caltech was ranked the * #2 * chemical engineering program in the country. But I don’t see you asking W*F is up with that? Why not? I guess that means that all the chemical engineers at Caltech are, in reality, getting an education that REALLY sucks horribly, right? </p>

<p>Isn’t it interesting that certain people would complain so much about Yale engineering for supposedly being deficient with respect to certain characteristics, but when other programs exhibit the same characteristics, nobody says anything? To that I would say that’s evidence of * clear * anti-Yale bias.</p>

122

<p>

</p>

<p>I would have to say that it is arguing for the sake of arguing. And, IMO, on top of being wrong, they picked the wrong person to do it with.</p>

123

<p>

</p>

<p>Caltech has more. But regardless, look at their program: <a href=“http://www.che.caltech.edu/undergrad_prog/TypicalSched.pdf[/url]”>http://www.che.caltech.edu/undergrad_prog/TypicalSched.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
It’s a lot more rigorous. Plus, the department has its own undergraduate laboratory for students to do research: <a href=“http://www.che.caltech.edu/undergrad_prog/ug_lab/index.html[/url]”>http://www.che.caltech.edu/undergrad_prog/ug_lab/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Comparing Yale to Caltech? Apples and oranges.</p>

124

<p>anuk, for heaven’s sake, stop using abbreviations and write in complete sentences, please, I so detest the Indian habit of text messages everything, it is “you” not u. etc Sorry for the rant.</p>

125

<p>Gator, I don’t think he is comparing Yale engineering to Caltech engineering. He is using Caltech to show that the amount of classes available is not necessarily what makes or breaks a program. If you believe it is, then you should be an equal opportunity criticizer/hater.</p>

126

<p>I understand his point, but look at their schedule compared to Yale. They may offer a similar number of courses, but Caltech’s extra requirements put it above any school in the nation. Look at how involved Caltech’s students are in research, it puts most schools to shame. That’s why it is ranked so highly. </p>

<p>Now, I don’t think Yale is bad at all. It’s a good engineering school, but compared to schools ranked above it, I don’t think it compares. But I do agree, arguing strength based on the number of courses offered is silly.</p>

127

<p>

</p>

<p>Ha! Nice try. I thought somebody might play that card. But the Caltech courses are not offered every year (i.e. only offered in certain years). In contrast, it seems that the Yale courses are. So when you really want to talk about availability, it’s actually quite difficult to say which school “really” has better availability. You might go to Caltech and not get the chemical engineering courses you want when you want them. In contrast, the listings of Yale courses seem to be offered every year. </p>

<p>It all depends on what you mean by “breadth”. It is my personal feeling that if a course is only offered in certain years, then it should only be fractionally counted for the purposes of “breadth”. What is undeniable is that Yale seems to offer a similar number of chemical engineering courses in a particular year than Caltech seems to.</p>

<p><a href=“Yale Course Search | University Registrar's Office”>Yale Course Search | University Registrar's Office;
<a href=“http://pr.caltech.edu/catalog/05_06/...alog_05_06.pdf[/url]”>http://pr.caltech.edu/catalog/05_06/...alog_05_06.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

<p>Look, nobody is denying that Caltech is a better engineering school than Yale is. Of course it is! That’s not the point. </p>

<p>The point is, you cannot conclude from just a simple course list alone that one school ‘sucks horribly’. This is actually quite similar to the old notion that size is only a weak indicator of program quality. Caltech has a * very small * engineering program - far smaller than many of the behemoth schools out there. I am quite sure that if I poked around, I would find quite a few no-name engineering schools that offer more engineering courses than Caltech does. Just because you’re small doesn’t mean that you’re bad.</p>

128

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, I don’t know about ‘any school in the nation’, particularly when you’re talking about engineering. For example, I would surmise that MIT might have something to say about that.</p>

129

<p>Sakky, </p>

<p>Caltech’s chemistry and chemical engineering programs are within the same department (chemistry and chemical engineering). So I think it’s pretty fair to cross-list courses because they obviously have an interdisciplinary approach to chemE. And with respect to their course schedule, I think it’s completely fair. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Caltech’s extra requirements (i.e having to take quantum mechanics to graduate) put it above any school of the nation. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, but Caltech has insane research opportunities for their undergraduates that make them one of the best tech schools in the nation. Can you say the same about Yale? This is not a comparison question, I am asking, what opportunities does Yale have for their students in order to make up for their lack of courses?</p>

<p>For example, I worked with a Yale engineering student for an REU last summer and she said she was pretty disappointed with the lack of research available at Yale. She had to come to lowly Florida to get some real experience.</p>

130

<p>Basically, I wrote a big response and accidentally deleted it.</p>

131

<p>Write it again!</p>

132

<p>Yeah, it was pretty good.</p>

133

<p>I’ll take your word.</p>

134

<p>

</p>

<p>Uh, GatorEng23, I don’t understand what you’re complaining about. When have I ever said that Caltech was a bad engineering school, or that Yale was better? I think we ALL agree that Caltech is a better engineering school than Yale is.</p>

<p>The question on the table is whether you can judge an engineering school purely by the number of courses it offers. I think we have agreed that you cannot. Hence, case closed. So what are you arguing over?</p>

<p>But if you continue this line of discusison, I would ask who offers more engineering research opportunities -Yale, or, say, WPI? Or Oklahoma State?<br>
I think that speaks to the point that you agreed to before - that Yale is better than the vast majority of other engineering programs out there, if, for no other reason, the vast majority of them are no-name, lower-tier programs. Hence, if one wants to say that Yale is ‘horrible’ at engineering, what does that say about the vast majority of other programs that are even worse than Yale? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>First off, I don’t see how that actually helps Caltech. The truth of the matter is, chemical engineers don’t really need to know quantum mechanics. Frankly, it’s a time-wasting activities for chemical engineers to learn that stuff. </p>

<p>But secondly, I am talking about the * total body * of MIT engineering requirements vs. Caltech’s engineering requirements. You place the entire set of requirements to get engineering degrees from each school, side by side, and I doubt that you would find any serious difference in rigor. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>First off, I think you misspoke. What you meant to say is that Caltech chem and ChemE are within the same * division *, not within the same department. Each department is still separate from the other, but just within the same * division *.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.cce.caltech.edu/index.html[/url]”>http://www.cce.caltech.edu/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>In particular, if you look at the header (at the top of your browser) of the following links, you will see that the 2 departments are actually distinct from one another.</p>

<p><a href=“http://chemistry.caltech.edu/[/url]”>http://chemistry.caltech.edu/&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://www.che.caltech.edu/[/url]”>http://www.che.caltech.edu/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>But anyway, putting semantics aside, I still beg to differ regarding your analysis. Caltech places chemistry and chemical engineering in the same division purely as a matter of * administrative convenience *. After all, think of it this way. Caltech places all of the (non-chemical) engineering and applied science departments within the same division, the EAS division. Yet you’d be hard-pressed to convince me that, say, Aeronautics really has anything to do with, say, BioEngineering, and in particular, that Aeronautics courses should be “counted” among the BioEngineering courses. If you’d like to make that case, feel free to try, but I think it would be very hard sledding. Similarly, the Caltech majors of English and business economics are also within the same division, but I can hardly see how English classes ought to be ‘counted’ as part of the bus-ec courses, or vice versa. </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.eas.caltech.edu/[/url]”>http://www.eas.caltech.edu/&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://www.hss.caltech.edu/humanities[/url]”>http://www.hss.caltech.edu/humanities&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

135

<p>uh…i wasn’t solely arguing strength based on the number of chem E courses offered. It was more about the ‘relevance’ of the courses they offer. water pollution control and air pollution control are just stupid. they don’t offer a lot of courses that chem E’s at other schools are required to take. ‘intro to environmental engineering’ is not the same as ‘intro to chem E’. W T F?not everyone majoring in chem E want’s to be an environmental engineer. And the ‘chem e’ course list is B.S because they’ve added a bunch of non-chem E courses on there. You subtract all that s**t from the list and they have like 7relevant chem E courses. You can’t tell me the number of courses offered doesn’t matter. It’s a crappy engineering school which shouldn’t be in the top 80.</p>

136

<p>

I’m curious, just for the sake of disclosure, do you know quantum mechanics sakky?</p>

137

<p>

</p>

<p>I specifically said “this is not a comparison question” so that you don’t come back with "we all agree Caltech is a better engineering school than Yale is. Yes, we agreed that you can’t judge an engineering school purely on the number of courses it offers, but I think you’d agree that it is a significant factor. My argument is that although Caltech offers a “limited” number of courses, its research opportunities for its undergraduates more than make up for it. This is not to mention that the chemE courses they do offer are probably the most rigorous in the nation, along with MIT and similar schools. So that more than makes it up for it. With Yale, it offers a limited number of courses AND its opportunities are under par (see my example). In general, if you are a weak in one area, then you better be strong in another. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Sakky, you’d have to admit that you don’t know much about those schools, as do I. I really don’t know, you can’t say Yale is significantly better than WPI or Oklahoma purely on the USNWR ranking. That’s as much as a fallacy as the number of courses argument. There’s more to an engineering school than just its rank. Yale is probably better, but I doubt by a significant margin. A better question – how does Yale compare to schools ranked within +/- 5 of its rank? How about within +/- 10? Or +/- 15 ? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t buy this argument. There are plenty of courses engineers have to take that won’t ever be used. I had to take general chemistry, yet as an EE, never used the material. Physics-mechanics, I never used either. I also had to take thermodynamics, but again, never had to use it in any of my EE courses. I could go on. So do you suggest engineering departments throughout the nation just drop all these ‘useless’ courses and shorten the degree to about 100 credits? I’d be happy (as most students would), but is that doing the school and its students any good in terms of their growth as young engineers and scientists? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Can Caltech chemical engineering majors use advanced chemistry courses related to chemE as technical courses in chemE towards their degree? If the answer is yes, then it is perfectly justifiable to include the sum of chemE and chemistry courses in one set. Maybe I’m pushing it a bit, but I think it’s okay. After all, mechanical engineering majors can use aerospace engineering courses as their technical electives (at most schools), so their course space would include all mechE/aeroE courses. Seems logical to me.</p>

138

<p>

</p>

<p>Frankly, yes I do. But that’s precisely the point. I have * never * needed to use it. And frankly, it was a waste of time for almost all of the other students as well. I can think of maybe * one * guy who actually ended up using it (because he eventually got his PhD, specializing in boundary phase reactions), and even with that guy, it’s questionable as to how much of it he really used. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Nope, that’s where we disagree. You’re starting to sound like Payne. Like I said, I am fairly confident I can dig up a bunch of no-name schools that have large course listings. Hence, that must mean that course listings is not a significant factor. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>See, there you go again. Under par * compared to who? *. Nobody disputes that Yale is not as good as places like MIT or Caltech for engineering. But Yale is still better than the vast majority of other engineering programs out there (for the simple reason that the vast majority of programs are no-name programs). </p>

<p>Speaking specifically to your point about ‘research’ - what does that have to do with anything? Many (probably most) engineering undergrads don’t engage in research, and don’t want to. That’s because most engineering jobs out there are not research jobs. Availability of research opportunities appeals to that specific subset of engineering students who are actually seriously considering becoming a future academic/prof. Most engineering students don’t care about that and just want to get a decent-paying job.</p>

<p>You can see this at even an elite research university like MIT - 25% of all MIT EECS grads immediately take jobs in banking and consulting, and I’m quite sure that plenty of others wanted to get jobs like that but didn’t get an offer. Hence, you can see that even at MIT, plenty of engineering students are not only not that interested in research, * they aren’t even really that interested in engineering *. They just want to get a job. Nor is MIT the only school like this. You can see the same phenomenom happening at Stanford, Berkeley, and other schools with elite engineering programs. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It is * precisely * because we don’t know much about those schools is why rankings are important. The rankings are based largely on recruiter and peer assessment, and surely recruiters and peers know more than we do about those particular schools. Again, Yale earned a 3.3 and a 3.7 in peer and recruiter assessment respectively according to USNews. That’s a lot better than most schools out there, unless you want to say that these peers and recruiters are lying.</p>

<p>Now, of course it is true that there may be better metrics than even the peer and recruiter assessments. Nobody is saying that they are perfect metrics. But what exactly would those better metrics be? If you would like to name a particular ranking/assessment system that you know about that is even better, I’d like to hear it. Otherwise, we have to go with the best available option. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, frankly, yes. They should drop those useless courses, and replace them with more useful and practical fare. For example, one of the biggest complaints that I hear employers regarding new grads is that they don’t know how to apply their knowledge. They know plenty of theory, but they don’t know how to apply it. That’s why many newly graduated engineers have to go through a training period that at some companies that stretches for weeks, sometimes months. Hence, many new engineering grads are, frankly, a net loss for the company in the beginning, as their work productivity is less than what they are getting paid (as certainly you are being completely unproductive while you’re being trained). </p>

<p>But that just begs the question of why exactly can’t new grads be highly productive from the very beginning? Why don’t they have more practical knowledge? </p>

<p>This is a digression, but this actually gets to a far larger point, and something that extends far beyond engineering. The truth of the matter is, colleges force you to learn plenty of things that you will never need to know, and at the same time, don’t teach you things that you do need to know. It’s a highly inefficient system. Frankly, one could say that university education, especially at the research universities, is designed to teach students how to be future professors, yet the fact is, most students will never become future professors. I strongly suspect that much of the problem is that most university profs (including eng profs) have never worked in industry full-time. Hence, they don’t know what industry really wants students to know. </p>

<p>I’ll give you a personal example. I know a guy who graduated with a degree in English. But while in college, he also learned software programming on the side, first as a hobby, then as a way to make some extra money doing part-time jobs. He never took a single formal university class on CS, he just learned by reading a bunch of those tutorial books that you see in the bookstores (i.e. ‘Teach Yourself Java in 21 days’), and then of course learned much more through self-study and part-time work experience. When he graduated, despite graduating with an English degree, he got software job offers that were, frankly, a lot better than what most of the CS graduates were getting. In fact, the company that he had been coding for part-time offered him a position that would have paid him significantly higher than what the average CS grad from my school was being offered that year. He turned that offer down for another job that paid him * even more *. While at that job, he did so well that he won company awards and was quickly promoted to senior level and then to project manager. </p>

<p>The fact is, the guy is living proof that a lot of engineering courses (and yes, I include CS in engineering) teach you things that you just don’t need to know. Furthermore, they don’t teach you things that you do need to know. If that wasn’t true, then how was this guy able to get better computer job offers than the guys who graduated with actual CS degrees? </p>

<p>The kicker is that that guy has often times said that he is actually glad that he didn’t major in CS, but instead chose the route he did. That’s because he feels that he couldn’t have handled all the theory that the CS major would have forced him to learn. He once tried to read some of the theoretical textbooks that the CS grads use in their required theory courses, and he had great difficulty getting past even the first few chapters. Hence, he suspects that if he actually had tried to major in CS, he might have flunked out and hence ended up with no degree at all. But look at him now. He’s living proof that you don’t really need to know most of the stuff that is being taught in engineering courses to have an excellent career. He doesn’t know any CS theory, he doesn’t want to know any CS theory, yet he’s had a better career than many CS people have had. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And at the same time, Yale engineers can * also * use upper division technical courses to fulfill their technical electives. Hence, it’s a wash.</p>

<p>What is NOT a wash is what I said before - that there are large engineering schools out there that are mediocre. Again, you seem to be arguing Payne’s point - that size automatically equates to greatness. Not so. You may want to read all of my other posts here on this thread.</p>

139

<p>

</p>

<p>Maybe “stupid” according to you. But it seems to me that they are quite good for the people who actually want to learn those topics. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Even if that was true, so what? As I explained in my previous post, the truth of the matter is, many things that you learn in any engineering curriculum, you will never use anyway. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Uh, it seems to me that Yale does have the equivalent to ‘intro to cheme’. It’s called 'CENG 210a Principles of Chemical Engineering and Process Modeling '. That looks like the gateway course into the major. </p>

<p>Sure, one could say that perhaps ‘intro to environmental engineering’ doesn’t sound like a traditional ChemE course. But neither does Caltech’s ChemE course of ‘Electron microscopy of soft materials’ really sound like much of a ChemE course.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>W*T? If you don’t want to be an environmental engineer, then the answer is simple. Don’t take that env eng course. It’s not required. Nobody has a gun to your head. Why are you complaining about a course that you’re not required to take? </p>

<p><a href=“Yale College”>Yale College;

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, let me put it to you this way. Let’s take Berkeley chemical engineering. How many “real” undergraduate courses does Berkeley chemical engineering truly offer? Frankly, not that many, after you subtract all the s**t (as you say). The “real” undergraduate chemical engineering courses that are actually being taught (that is, they are not just listed in the General Catalog, but are * actually being taught *) are 140,141,142, 150A,150B,154,157,160,162, 170, 171, 178, and 179. And the last 2 in particular I find to be highly dubious as to whether they really should be included as ChemE courses (I think they belong more to Materials Science). </p>

<p>So, when you get down to it, Berkeley offers 11-13 “real” undergrad chemE courses. </p>

<p><a href=“http://sis.berkeley.edu/OSOC/osoc?p_term=FL&p_classif=--+Choose+a+Course+Classification+--&p_deptname=Chemical+Engineering&p_presuf=--+Choose+a+Course+Prefix%2FSuffix+--&p_dept=&p_course=&p_title=&p_instr=&p_exam=&p_ccn=&p_day=&p_hour=&p_bldg=&p_units=&p_restr=&p_info=&p_updt=&x=48&y=3[/url]”>http://sis.berkeley.edu/OSOC/osoc?p_term=FL&p_classif=--+Choose+a+Course+Classification+--&p_deptname=Chemical+Engineering&p_presuf=--+Choose+a+Course+Prefix%2FSuffix+--&p_dept=&p_course=&p_title=&p_instr=&p_exam=&p_ccn=&p_day=&p_hour=&p_bldg=&p_units=&p_restr=&p_info=&p_updt=&x=48&y=3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://sis.berkeley.edu/OSOC/osoc?p_term=SP&p_classif=--+Choose+a+Course+Classification+--&p_deptname=Chemical+Engineering&p_presuf=--+Choose+a+Course+Prefix%2FSuffix+--&p_dept=&p_course=&p_title=&p_instr=&p_exam=&p_ccn=&p_day=&p_hour=&p_bldg=&p_units=&p_restr=&p_info=&p_updt=&x=55&y=6[/url]”>http://sis.berkeley.edu/OSOC/osoc?p_term=SP&p_classif=--+Choose+a+Course+Classification+--&p_deptname=Chemical+Engineering&p_presuf=--+Choose+a+Course+Prefix%2FSuffix+--&p_dept=&p_course=&p_title=&p_instr=&p_exam=&p_ccn=&p_day=&p_hour=&p_bldg=&p_units=&p_restr=&p_info=&p_updt=&x=55&y=6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>{For those who want to check my analysis, here is what I excluded. ChemE185 is clearly excluded because that’s the Technical Communications course, which basically teaches you how to give presentations and write reports. I don’t include 170L as that’s basically the lab part of 170, hence it isn’t really a standalone course. I don’t include 9X or 19X courses as these are basically just credits that you obtain for doing research or projects for profs, or other such ‘filler’ and thus not real courses).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think the burden of proof is on YOU to show this. The question is not whether Yale is as good as the best engineering schools out there. Of course it is not. The question is, are there really that many other schools out there that are better? In your case, if you say it’s not even in the top 80, then the burden of proof is on you to name at least 80 other schools that you think are better.</p>

<p>Let’s be perfectly honest. There are a LOT of mediocre schools out there. That’s something that most people just don’t realize. Yale isn’t the greatest engineering school in the world, but it’s still better than most other schools out there.</p>

140

<p>

</p>

<p>what…2% of engineering students?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>and yale has half that amount</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The thirty nine schools above yale in the engineering rankings and the 41 below. </p>

<p>Their engineering school is horrible- you and i know this. It’s so obvious that there’s nothing to ‘prove.’ But of course you like to defend the ivies no matter what. Like i said earlier- in all your posts, you literally shove your tongue right into the ass*s of the ivies and go to town…</p>