The better Engineering school choice?

<p>I am torn between UC Santa Barbara and CAL Poly Slo.
I know if I want to do graduate work UCSB is the choice.
Rumor has it CAL Poly Slo is the a great Engineering school and better than most UCs.
My question here is...which is the better choice for a better future? For example: If I were to get a job will there be a difference between getting hired or not depending of which University I graduated from? </p>

<p>Is a</p>

<p>Cal Poly SLO has detailed career survey information available:
Graduate</a> Status Report 08-09 - Career Services - Cal Poly</p>

<p>Unfortunately, UCSB, like most schools, has relatively limited information available:
<a href=""&gt;;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>So Cal Poly is the way to go?</p>

<p>ucsb is more known but it's not gonna make much of a difference if your goal is grad school. personally i've never heard of cal poly</p>

<p>Cal Poly is probably a little better if you want a job right after graduating. UCSB is probably a little better if you wanna go to grad school. Both are good and comparable schools though so I wouldn't base your decision on that alone. Visit both if you haven't already and see which you think you'd feel more comfortable at.</p>

<p>I would go to UCSB personally, just because my friends that go to Cal Poly say that their classes are pretty easy conceptually and there isn't that much theory. But if you're really only interested in getting a good job, Cal Poly may be better than UCSB.</p>

<p>Cal Poly and UCSB are probably comparable universities for undergraduate overall. Cal Poly will definitely be more career oriented than UCSB. So if you plan to work after undergraduate, Cal Poly would be an excellent choice.</p>

<p>In terms of going to graduate school, traditionally UC is more geared for that route. However, in the case of Cal Poly, you will be on equal footing with UCSB for graduate school. For instance, Cal Poly has a preferential agreement with USC engineering school for graduate school admission.</p>

<p>USC</a> - Viterbi School of Engineering - Viterbi Integrated Master of Science Program (VIP)</p>

<p>I would not agree to the statement made by Singh that Cal Poly is weak on theory. In fact, my current experience as a sophomore in Cal Poly Engineering has shown me that CP is all about putting theory into action. Hence, almost every engineering class we have is accompanied by a lab class. This explains why it takes so long to graduate from Cal Poly engineering.</p>

<p>Also, Cal Poly and UCSB engineering schools are both ABET accredited. This means they both have to teach the same basic theoretical curriculum in order to be accredited. </p>

<p>As a disclaimer, I chose Cal Poly engineering over UC Davis, and UCSB. So I am definitely biased. </p>


<p>You really have never heard of Cal Poly?? Weird.....I suppose you don't check the USNWR undergraduate engineering ranking. Cal Poly has been ranked in the top 5 for the last million years, year after year.</p>

<p>BeingSLO, just so you know, the top 5 ranking you're talking about only includes schools that offer no higher than a masters degree. So the UC's, and nearly every prestigious engineering school in the country are on a different list.</p>

<p>Norris, I go to CP now. So yes, I am aware of it.</p>

<p>And in case you didn't know who the top 4 are on the list, it's Harvey Mudd, Rose-Hulman, Cooper Union, and West Point. </p>

<p>So I would submit, perhaps with the exception of RHIT being unknown, the rest of the 4 schools are better than all the UCs except for Cal. Harvey Mudd and West Point (and perhaps Cooper Union too) are undoubtedly better than all the UCs including Cal.</p>

<p>I don't actually know much about Cal Poly, I was just restating what my friends have told me. </p>

<p>But I disagree that different schools teach the same theoretical material just because they are both ABET accredited. ABET accreditation is just a minimum requirement.</p>

<p>EDIT: It also amuses me when people say that West Point is undoubtedly better than the UCs. Who decides that? And what are the criteria? Lol.</p>

<p>Simply put when I sent out a hiring calls for engineers, one of the rules of thumb I gave to the recruiters, if they came from SLO they got interviewed, period. I have found no other school that graduates people who love engineering and can touch and feel it better, than those that come from SLO. And in my first position I worked with MIT, Stanford, Berkley, Univ Chicago.... SLO just finds a way to graduate hands on engineers. Come to think of it, I hired every SLO engineer I interviewed.</p>

<p>^ This is probably true. None of my friends at Berkeley engineering are really interested in being engineers. We're all research scientists interested in the extra job security that majoring in engineering offers...I'm sure some Cal people are interested in engineering though.</p>

<p>1 factor/criteria, especially now, that makes or break a university is MONEY.</p>

<p>Why West Point is better than Cal? West Point is funded by the Federal Government. The Feds didn't cut West Point's budget to the bone, even with the current debt crisis. </p>

<p>Cal is funded by State of CA, and the state government just slashed Cal's budget like a serial killer. Cal used to be a top 10 university (public + private) and a top 5 research institution, but over the course of last 10 years of budget cuts, it fell out of top 20. Case in point, the golden rule in education as in life is the same, whoever has the gold rules. </p>

<p>Also, it is a lot tougher to get into West Point than Cal. So if West Point is better than Cal, then how can the other UCs compare?</p>

<p>Undergraduate engineering education is not rocket science. The same basic physics, math, engineering theories are required to be covered in order to be an ABET engineering school. The primary differences between universities come into play through elective engineering classes. So if you argue that UCSB has more engineering electives that emphasize theories, entirely possible. Just like Cal Poly would have numerous more engineering lab classes than UCSB. To me, since engineering is NOT pure research, I think labs that allow students to put theories into action are a lot more essential to a good engineering education.</p>

<p>Budget cuts don't really affect research that much (if at all)...I don't know any undergraduate at Cal that wants to do research that is unable to do it, and I know at least for my lab we're not struggling for cash at all... In fact, my professor has so much money he has to spend money on things he doesn't need just to prevent the waste of grant money. </p>

<p>If research opportunities are better at West Point than they are at Cal then the research opportunities there must be absolutely incredible, because the opportunities at Cal are already endless. I mean, I work 25 hours a week in the lab during the school year and should get my name on a published paper in the coming months. What more could an incoming sophomore ask for?</p>

<p>Your statement about research simply accentuate my point. Engineering education is NOT about pure research. In fact, quality of an engineering education is primarily based on the quality of the teaching, content, and the teaching ability and outside of classroom availability of the professors. </p>

<p>It does not matter how much $$ your lab has, because it doesn't prevent the cutting of all the classes that would otherwise be available if the budget were there. Also, your lab's budget won't prevent the degradation of the overall campus and facilities maintenance. </p>

<p>Case in point, this is the reason why a school like Harvey Mudd towers over most of the UCs even though Mudd has no "research" budget. Amherst, Little Ivies, Claremont colleges, all of which only has undergraduate, but they have the mountain of CASH, UCs don't. And you can see all the difference in the world between these universities.</p>

<p>Also, if you think budget cuts don't affect research, you are wrong. Federal government is a major provider of research funds to public universities. Under the Bush administration, they cut federal basic research funding every year for 8 years. </p>

<p>The schools that bear these cuts are precisely the likes of Cal. Cal used to be on par with Princeton, Harvard, and MIT during WWII and even in the 50s and 60s. But since the Federal govt. decided to slice the research funding, Cal's ranking has been eroded steadily, and today, Cal are no longer the direct peers of MIT/Princeton/Stanford.</p>

<p>So a Master's in Engineering would not make much difference from a Bachelor's?
I'm leaning towards Cal Poly more because of the job opportunities. That is my main goal.</p>

<p>So if I do my Undergraduate at Cal Poly I can do my Graduate at USC?</p>

<p>Is it possible to work for a while and then go for a Master's?</p>

<p>Yes you can but you have to meet certain requirements. And it's pretty common to work and go back to get your masters.</p>

<p>I'm not sure why a sophomore at a regional school fancies himself to be an expert on where Berkeley stands. Don't hide behind the prestige of HMC. The masters-only engineering list shouldn't be compared with research universities and having a high spot on it isn't particularly notable given the competition.</p>

<p>The reason is because this sophomore's mother is a law professor at Cal's Bolt Hall, and a brother at Harvard Business school right now. </p>

<p>So unless you grew up with a professor from Cal, I think I do have some good insights into the school. Not an expert, but definitely well informed.</p>

<p>And you can debate where HMC stands in terms of prestige. Academia and admission standards obviously have came to a firm consensus on HMC's standing. And I am not sure what you mean by "competition" on the master's only list. I didn't know students and the respective institutions of HMC, Cooper Union, West Point, Naval Academy, Swarthmore, Bucknell are somehow academic laggards in your eyes. Given what you said, you probably don't hold the little Ivies, or the Claremont colleges in high regard either? They are all undergrad only schools. </p>

<p>Finally, Federal research funding cuts are not a debate. Neither are the victims and the negative repercussion of these cuts, i.e. the prime victims being public research universities.</p>