Kid applied to several universities (listed below) for engineering (materials). How would you rank them in terms of the overall undergraduate experience/opportunities, particularly for science/engineering students? Most of these are research universities. Is undergraduate education (both classroom and extra-curricular) prioritized at some of these over others. Either rumors or direct observation are ok just let me know which characterizes your response. What I am not looking for are assessments of relative āprestigeā. Cal Poly is an outlier in this list because it is the only institution without doctoral students, so by default it will be the most undergrad oriented. Are the rest from this perspective all basically the same or are there differences that are not apparent from looking at websites. Insights into even just one or two of these universities are welcome.
UC Berkeley, Davis, Cal Poly, UCLA, Irvine, Riverside, Arizona, Utah, Washington St., Minnesota, Iowa St., Case Western, Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon, RPI
These are all fine colleges for undergradsā¦and grads. I think you should wait until the acceptances come in, and then let your kid choose where he thinks he would like to spend the next four years. I think having your student have a list of their priorities for college is importantā¦then look at the acceptances and go from there.
The ārankā would be different for each student based on their individual set of priorities. I agree with Thumper, all of these schools will allow your student to achieve all of their goals. Classes will be relatively large at the UCs, at least in the early years. Classroom experience would be better IMO at Cal Poly, Iowa St, CWRU, Pitt, CMU and RPI. But thatās me. Some posters here will not agree because they value a different experience. I think all of these schools will have plenty of EC opportunities. Some have some proportion of highly competitive clubs while others donāt.
Minnesota is a big urban campus in a cold climate. Personally, I love the campus and the weather, but not everybody does. The school is big, but living in the honors dorm or the engineering LLC dorm will make the school feel much smaller. Lots of nearby internship opportunities. Easy flights because MSP airport is a hub.
I am generally not a fan of the UCs for many reasons, including direct experience of some of my students (donāt @ me people , I know lots of students love their time at the UCs and the value for in-state can be good).
Although some of the other schools on this list will have some larger courses, they all have strong focus on undergrads, again IMO. But, OPās kid isnāt likely to have the choice to attend all of these schools, nor do we know what the kid is looking for, so this is all kind of moot.
Hopefully they have visited some of these schools and the kid knows what type of college experience and environment they would prefer.
I agree and the rigor in engineering is no joke. Iowa State is similar in a few ways (LLCs/honors make it seem smaller). And clubs generally arenāt all that competitive like at some other schools.
I agree with this statement as well; lots of reasons for my opinion. One of them is based on husbandās experience in hiring from UC candidates for his engineering firm. (He was a UC and Stanford grad). He prefers hiring from CSU applicants (Cal Polys, SDSU, Long Beach, San Jose State, and, just recently-SUNY students) because they seem to have more focus on practical experiences. He spends more time with the UC grads on practical training.
I also agree with this perspective, maybe with one exception. CMU is very much a fit school based on how much of a grind it is reputed to be. Some, but not all will thrive there, similar to MIT and Caltech.
I like the rest, and am particularly fond of Cal Poly because my son is an alum. They have smaller classes and focus on applied learning in addition to theory, through labs, clubs or both.
At the end of the day, engineers can be and have been very well educated at all of those schools. Itās really a matter of what the experience will be like.
Yes, accessibility, location and the solid reputation are the big reasons for the application to Minnesota. What I am curious about are for example the competitive atmosphere in the college of science and engineering? I think you can get a better/rigorous education in engineering without a hyper-competitive atmosphere, requiring lengthy resumes to join clubs and having to wait until your third year or later, fighting off competition to engage in undergraduate research. I am also curious as to whether the institution professionally incentivizes faculty for teaching undergrads, or is it more or less universally treated at the institution as a chore to be minimized so that the faculty can do more important things.
Yeah, I would say things like competitive clubs just arenāt part of typical upper midwest culture. Things are pretty collaborative around here. This goes for the faculty, too.
It certainly seems to have improved by the time our son applied in 2014. He was the Rensselaer Medalist at his school, so a visit and application were baked in based on the financial award. That said, it didnāt make his top 3. A school not on your studentās list, but often talked about in the same circles, WPI, did.
As for clubs, no matter the school, no matter how open, first years simply have far less to offer than upperclassmen. Hence, they donāt typically get the prime assignments.
A more competitive atmosphere is likely to exist where there is more competitive secondary admission to major, like at Texas A&M or NCSU.
On your list, Minnesota has secondary admission, but 3.2 college GPA automatically admits. UCs and CSUs tend to admit directly to engineering majors, but changing to a different one may require a high GPA or be competitive (same if you are admitted to the school but not the major).
Competitive clubs are probably more likely when a club at a large school is size limited where the size does not scale with the school population. An example would be The Daily Bruin at UCLA ā the newspaper needs only so many reporters and editors.
Yes, also materials engineering doesnāt have a history of being that competitive even if you donāt get the 3.2 at the secondary admissions step at Minnesota. The thing I observed at Cal many, many years ago is that the hard rank based grading led to a somewhat unpleasant atmosphere among the undergrads to put it mildly. That may very well be a fact of life at all the places I have listed, but if it isnāt I would be happy to hear about the exceptions.
Difficult grading and curves are very common in engineering across the board. Yet, in some schools students are competitive, and in others they are collaborative. Itās all about the culture of the school. I donāt know that any on your list are notorious for their cut throat atmosphere.
, I know lots of students love their time at the UCs and the value for in-state can be good).