Re #8, IIRC those rankings are highly influenced by quality of faculty research. If the coverage of engineering is not comprehensive, either as a whole of even not comprehensive within the sub-discipline, they are not given a “zero” for the areas they don’t cover. So if a school only covers a few sub-areas of the field, but in those areas they do cover their research is strong, the school can get a relatively high ranking even though there are large holes in their training; breadth and depth. In other words, I suspect that #32 is inflated, as far as reputation in the (non-PhD) field and for actually producing real working engineers.
Re#7, I don’t agree if the goal is to become a working engineer. For example, maybe CMU does not have the strongest brand as an overall university, but its brand in engineering is high and engineering employers know it.
However if OP actually wants to do other things, that’s where the overall “branding” is most relevant, and shortcomings in engineering breadth and depth (and on-campus engineering recruiting, probably) are least relevant… I suspect their engineering students often gravitate to those other directions. Consulting, I-banking, some particular sub-fields where their department is relatively strong. Which may be hot sub-fields. Which is not a bad thing, if that is what one winds up wanting to do.
Most engineering employers want smart engineers who are well trained. Some employers, mostly not engineering but some CS companies too, and others, want brilliant individuals who they will train. I suspect the latter group recruits there but the former less so.