<p>Yeah racnna, all those Yale engineering grads that end up without jobs. What a ****ty school.</p>
<p>I’d like to change auscguy’s statement alittle:</p>
<p>Engineering = easy to get in, hard to get out.</p>
<p>acceptence rates are NOT so high for those schools. i applied to UIUC, not even for engineering,just for liberal arts. i had a 5.6 and a 32 on the ACT, involved in almost everything, and got rejected.its very hard to get into those schools.</p>
<p>I’ll have to say… almost all of the members of collegeconfidential have VERY impressive records compared to “average”</p>
<p>You guys argue over irrelevant stuff. Who would care what program is “better” and have “more qualified”*still to this day trying to figure out what that mean). Yale have more name recognition. End of story. From what I understand is that engineering is standard for the most part. What is so important about it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, how many people want to learn about the Electron Microscopy of Soft Materials that that Caltech engineering class is apparently all about? I know that I don’t particularly care about that subject. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, and nobody disputes that Berkeley is a better chemical engineering school than Yale. In fact, Berkeley is one of the best chemical engineering schools in the world. But even so, Berkeley doesn’t really offer THAT many “real” ChemE classes. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So prove it. Have you looked at the curricula of all 80 of these schools? After all, you’re the one who made the statement. So prove to me that all 80 of these schools are better than Yale. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>After that statement, I’m quite sure I won’t be seeing much more of you here. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>U Michigan offers 18 courses and is a top program. Therefore, that must mean that course listings is a significant factor, by that same logic. However, I noticed that there really isn’t as much elective choice in chemE versus EE or mechE. So for chemE specifically, I agree the number of courses is inconclusive. In general, though, I think it’s nice having large course listings. You have the flexibility to choose from many different areas in the subject, especially in engineering disciplines as broad as EE and mechE. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s all about getting experience, any experience. I’m not really that sure I want to go to graduate school, but I am still involved in a few research projects. Companies, as you described, are disappointed that their newly hired employers are simply book trained. Having research experience maximizes your chances on getting a job. You can find truck loads of students with high gpa’s competing for the same job, what will set you apart? Also, there are some projects which are industrially focused and not as traditional as in physics or chemistry. I work with the lab that competes in the DARPA challenge, although theoretical, that’s something I think companies will like, correct me if I’m wrong. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, agreed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think what it comes down to is the type of professor you have. I have had a few professors who worked in industry before becoming professors. For example, one of my professors, after getting his PHd from Stanford, worked as a software developer for a few years before becoming a professor. He always mentioned cases he had to deal with when he was a practicing engineer and gave the class a lot of practical homework sets. Drastically changing the curriculum would do more harm than good because you can’t change a professor’s mentality and approach to the subject. If you change the syllabus of a course so that it is more applicable to industry type work, professors will find a way to make the content more theoretical. Either hire professors with real industry experience or just let the system be. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It doesn’t equate to ‘greatness’, but if your university resources are weak, then increasing size is a technique to build up your reputation. You’re bound to have stellar engineers, in a weak program, that will shine and move up in company positions. You’ll have a wider engineering alumni network, which you can’t deny, is great for getting jobs. I mean, isn’t that basically the point of a college degree? To get a nice job? If a school ranked > 50 does well with job placement, that seems good to me, no matter how ‘mediocre’ the program may be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL.suck it up dude- you’re grown. If it affected you that much then you know it’s true. I have looked at the curricula for a couple of the schools below yale and they are indubitably stronger…by far. I don’t know why you would rely on rankings so much when you and i know that they say nothing about the rigor or strength of yales curriculum compared to the schools ranked below yale- go look at the stuff US new uses to do rankings and you’ll know what i’m talking about.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh? How’s that? I was specifically talking about *no-name * programs. Nobody here has ever stated that Michigan is a no-name program. Far from it, in fact. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Research experience helps you mostly to get * research jobs *, and can somewhat help you to get other jobs (after all, some experience, even if unrelated, is better than none at all). But the point is, research experience does not really maximize your chances to get most jobs, as most engineering jobs are not research jobs. </p>
<p>The way to truly maximize your chances of getting a job is, frankly, to get a production-level engineering experience. After all, that is what most engineering jobs are about. The vast majority of practicing engineers are not researchers. </p>
<p>As a case in point, I will bring up the guy I know who become a software developer despite not even getting a CS degree. How did he get the job? He clearly didn’t have any research experience, or even any academic research knowledge. Rather, he had “production” knowledge. He had part-time gigs doing practical coding. That is what put him over the top. </p>
<p>For example, it’s nice to say that you worked on a research project to create the world’s fastest computer algorithm. But most companies don’t need those kinds of skills. Most companies just want a guy who can create, say, an easy-to-use GUI front-end for their application. Or a guy who can code up a reliable connector between one database to another. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, so you agree that the academic emphasis on pure research, as opposed to real-world industrial knowledge, is harmful, right? </p>
<p>The emphasis on academic research is particularly pronounced at the very top ranked schools (i.e. MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, etc.). You get tenure and respect at these schools for your academic publications. Not for any industrial knowledge you may have. </p>
<p>Not to be harsh, but I think you would agree that at your school (Florida), a lot of your profs are there simply because they weren’t good enough to get placed at one of the superelite engineering programs, or if they did, they didn’t get tenure. But that only goes to show you that the superelite schools are emphasizing the wrong things, at least when it comes to providing an education that is relevant to most undergrads. Most undergrads will never become researchers. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, this is * exactly * the same point that Payne argued. Exactly. And I’ll give you the same response. The key is not to have a wide alumni network. The key is to have a wide * and successful * alumni network. A wide alumni network that comprises a lot of mediocre people doesn’t help you. In fact, it actually HURTS you. Why? Because when employers hire people from your school who turn out to be mediocre, they are then less willing to hire you, because they will think you will ALSO turn out to be mediocre. The reputation of your school precedes you. </p>
<p>In other words, a wide network of mediocre alumni will actually give you a bad reputation on the market. It’s better to have no reputation at all than to have a bad reputation. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, just a “couple”? You said that ALL 80 were better. Have you looked at all 80? I think not. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First off, what does “rigor” have to do with anything? Stanford’s engineering program is noticeably unrigorous, compared to places like Caltech. But so what? They’re still considered to be an elite program that lands excellent jobs for its graduates - in fact, frankly, better than what Caltech’s engineers get. </p>
<p>Secondly, I don’t claim that the rankings are perfect. But what else is better? To simply rely on your opinion? That’s not a viable alternative.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yea, but if you can design a fast computer algorithm, wouldn’t creating a GUI interface be pretty much of a joke? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To an extent. I believe having both aspects are important to a strong program. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You do, but I think there are plenty of MIT professors who care about the education they give to their students. I have a friend from hs who is at MIT and he feels the professors put a lot of effort in course materials and the way they present the material to the class. It all comes down to the professor’s willingness to teach, regardless of the attitudes of the larger university. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, there are some, however, who are well known, but for the most part I would say you are correct. But regardless, most of the professors I’ve had have degrees from the superelites. Now of course that automatically doesn’t make them great research professors, but I know I am getting a great education. Florida does very well with recruiting and that’s all that really matters, to me at least. </p>
<p>But anyways, what do you suggest universities do for students who are very interested in becoming researchers? How do you structure the program so that all parties are reasonably satisfied? I’m not sure that you can, so what’s the alternative?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But sakky, didn’t you say that engineering jobs are mostly just production-level? Engineers from a no-name university (I don’t like that terminology, but w/e), although are not as great as well-known engineering schools, should be able to handle such a job. Or are you saying that they are so bad that they can’t even do this regular, common engineering work? I think you may be pushing it a bit there.</p>
<p>are you surprised? sakky is an elitist MIT/stanford/berkeley graduate(don’t know or care where he graduated from) who is relentless in his pursuit to convince the world that ONLY students from the aforementioned schools(the ‘smartest’,‘most brilliant’ kids in the country) can rule the world, the rest of us are mere mortals…</p>
<p>undergrad doesn’t matter</p>
<p>i wouldnt really consider someone an engineer unless they graduate from stanford/mit/berkeley in electrical or chemical with >3.9</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Up yours, sunshine. <em>|</em> :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I don’t agree with that. If you don’t like sakky’s posts, there’s a nice block tool on CC that you can use. There’s no need to attack him just because you don’t agree with him.</p>
<p>oh be quiet…never said i didn’t like his posts…</p>
<p>Just wondering, what did you edit?</p>
<p>You’re a pretty funny guy man, I’ll admit, but you do need to tone it down a bit. Sakky is a pretty serious dude.</p>
<p>
i said i wasn’t attacking him…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>W T F?</p>
<p>A statement like “in all your posts, you literally shove your tongue right into the ass*s of the ivies and go to town…” is too much. That’s what I mean.</p>
<p>lol.you’re acting like i posted a picture of him acting that out…</p>