<p>^^Agreed. Never too late. Change is good. Chicago should never fear change for the “better.”</p>
<p>^I agree. I’m currently looking at schools to apply to next year, and UChicago is one of my top choices. I love its Core, the dedication of its students towards academics, the quirky traditions. The only thing holding me back is the lack of engineering courses. I don’t want to major in it, but I do want to take some engineering electives. </p>
<p>Perhaps UChicago could at least partner with some other schools in Chicago that do have engineering courses so interested students could crossregister? Such as Northwestern? Or is even that too much to hope for?</p>
<p>UChicago knows what they are doing. They have chosen to offer molecular engineering for a reason. They are building an impressive department and the future looks exciting!</p>
<p>^^Molecular engineering is too narrow of a focus…and it may interest some premeds who are wavering…but, it still won’t garner the serious interest of those “engineer” types and you know what I mean…</p>
<p>UChicago needs to find a big-time donor and use the money to poach other universities’ engineering faculty. That is by far the quickest way to build up a real engineering program. Lure them in with great pay, great hours, great benefits – UoC professors are some of the highest paid. Molecular engineering is great and plays well on UoC’s strength in biochem but it is not enough, unfortunately.</p>
<p>@TheBanker. I believe you have come to the same conclusions as I have…as discussed in this thread. In order to stay a “great” university you must attract the “best” and the “brightest” and at the present time Chicago can not attract those students who are “leaning” toward the field of engineering…</p>
<p>…and as many astute professionals and employers know some of the best minds of today in many of the dominant companies and institutions are run by or founded by these so called people with “engineering” backgrounds…</p>
<p>…having an interest in engineering today opens up doors to many other fields in medicine, Wall Street, business, law, government, politics, academia, name it…</p>
<p>Oops, sorry, just realized you already posted the same thing on page 1. #redundant</p>
<p>Although I don’t underestimate the amount of money needed to create a successful engineering program, I believe that creating an applied science department could be quite doable, and attract many of the students applying to engineering schools. Chicago already has relatively strong applied math and physics (although obviously not compared to their theoretical) - if the school crafted applied math/physics undergraduate majors and beefed up their computer science offerings a bit (their statistics major is already very legit), they could reasonably package a “division of applied science” and market it as such without looking like they were trying to get into fields that Chicago has no experience it. Add in the molecular engineering major in a few years, and they would have enough SEAS-like majors to attract many applicants who were applying to engineering school en-route to careers in business, politics, etc., like previous posters described - applicants who like the idea of marketable, math-intensive majors but aren’t worried about getting that ABET accreditation.</p>
<p>I think creating an engineering school would be a stupid waste of money, for the simple reason that it’s a colossal investment when UChicago already does so many other things well. </p>
<p>It’s no offense to people who have their hearts set on being engineers: just go to another school. There are some fantastic universities for engineering out there, and schools like MIT have had over 150 years to establish and hone their engineering programs. Playing catchup baseball with them and other top-tier engineering schools would take decades and hundreds of millions of dollars. </p>
<p>UChicago knows what it does well, and knows what it doesn’t. I’d rather they have no engineering program at all than direct a ton of resources toward establishing a mediocre one. I’m guessing that they feel the same way.</p>
<p>^^I believe you are being very shortsighted…most young high school teenagers (including the very smart top notch students) are not “definite” as to whether they really want to become engineers, scientists, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, hedge-fund managers, academics…they have an “idea” that was probably “brainwashed” into them by their “parents”…as the “SAFE” profession…but college is time to truly explore…that is why we have a liberal education…</p>
<p>…and this liberal education should include SEAS/engineering as an option…</p>
<p>…every other peer school has an engineering program and it does Chicago little justice to remain in the “dark” about the tremendous strides science and technology will make in the immediate and future years leaving Chicago “behind.” Chicago can not sit on its hands and do nothing…</p>
<p>…and I don’t believe Princeton, Harvard, Yale, or any of the ivys believe they are as good as MIT or Caltech in engineering…they don’t have to be…they just provide an option…</p>
<p>I’m with UChicagoGrad on this one. Then again, I have no interest in engineering and will most likely to go UofC for social science or humanities. I would like it if they could put more money there, but hey, I’m biased.</p>
<p>And as for Chicago not attracting the future engineers of America, they have MIT for that. Give me a future Nobel Laureate in literature or Pulitzer Prize winning historian any day. Then again, I’m terribly biased.</p>
<p>Sorry for the errors in the previous message. I hate typing on my phone.</p>
<p>@hevydevy. I understand where you are coming from. As a young teenager many years ago I was equally passionate about the humanities and social sciences as I was about science and engineering. I could have easily pursued a career in philosophy/poetry or one of the STEM professions but I chose medicine. As in “real” life, we can not and should not separate humanities vs social sciences vs math vs sciences vs technology/engineering…this causes unnecessary divisions and self-selecting “isolation”…after all, Chicago preaches the “interdisciplinary” concept of advancing knowledge…</p>
<p>…applied science and engineering is becoming more and more pervasive and important to society and to the well-being of the “life” and “survival” of the University…</p>
<p>…as other schools have and are trying to advance their engineering and STEM programs (like Yale and Harvard) I am concerned Chicago will once again feel it is not “cerebral” enough to add what other similar schools believe is a “MUST.” Other top private schools are trying to follow Stanford’s model…even Harvard is playing catch up.</p>
<p>Even the “old revered” schools like University of Cambridge and University of Oxford have engineering schools…</p>
<p>Just returned from a college hunting trip to the midwest with my S. He is a junior who is very undecided about what he wants to major in, though he has broad interests STEM subjects such as math, physics, CS, and engineering. At other schools, he was able to talk with professors and students about the merits of studying theoretical science or math vs. applied science or math vs. engineering. Gave him some good insights and he left feeling like those schools would offer him many options as an undergrad to explore his various interests - maybe even through a double major in related fields. </p>
<p>U Chicago was the last school we visited and he fell in love with it - the quirkiness and individuality of students while still having a sense of community , the fostering of intellectual curiosity, etc. It’s interesting, though, that upon reflection he felt that these positive feelings would make it harder to decide whether to apply. His biggest concern is that the school doesn’t have an engineering program and although he is by no means sure that he wants to study engineering, he wants to leave his options open.</p>
<p>In the long run, I guess it’s not a huge deal for U Chicago to lose 1 or 10 or a couple hundred applicants because of this. After all, they have plenty of other applicants! And it also isn’t really a huge deal for my S - there are plenty of other schools for him to apply to. From a selfish perspective, however, I agree with the OP that when peer schools are offering engineering along with other wonderful programs in STEM areas, Chicago will lose many of these bright, motivated, potential future leaders in STEM. The big question, which has everything to do with the mission of the College, is whether or not losing these applicants matters.</p>
<p>How about somebody name a university that has added an engineering school in the last 50 years?</p>
<p>Seriously, UChicago is doing just fine without an engineering program, and my guess is that their well-established programs are what they want to continue directing their resources toward. It’s a very straightforward reason, and their application rate certainly isn’t suffering from a lack of an engineering program. </p>
<p>UChicago’s always prided itself on being “uncommon.” Maybe it’s uncommon for it to not have an engineering program despite being a top-tier university, but after 120 years, I’m going to trust their judgment on this one.</p>
<p>Would an engineering school attract different applicants to UChicago? I feel like it would add a bit of a different…flavor.</p>
<p>Every school should have an engineering major, sheesh. No question it adds to the school</p>
<p>Having perused this thread thoroughly I strongly agree with gravitas2. UChicago needs an engineering school. My son who was accepted to Harvard in the early round could have easily applied to UChicago had they had an engineering school. Even though my son is strongly lopsided toward the humanities, he has not ruled out pursuing a STEM major. When we went on college visits he fell in love with Harvard, UChicago, and Stanford. All three seem to possess an unusual “uniqueness and character” and “pride” in what each school stands for.</p>
<p>There are many multidimensional students like my son for whom UChicago would have been a great “fit” had it also had engineering as a choice.</p>