<<<
IDK about CS majors, but engineering majors would be better off if they went to a school with an elite engineering program.
<<<
@IsaacTheFuture No, that’s not true for eng’g majors…at all.
UIUC and Texas are not “so-so schools”, particularly in Computer Science, Engineering and in the case of Texas, Business, all of which are considered elite programs at elite universities.
@Alexandre You didnt understand my question. The specific programs are great, but the OVERALL school is so-so, as compared to an Ivy league.
I think @Alexandre has defined those schools (#21) as elite compared to all colleges and universities.
ANormalSeniorGuy, I understood your question. Texas and UIUC are elite. Academia rates UIUC and Texas on par with the likes of Emory, Georgetown and WUSTL, but just because they are public, the highly opinionated, yet ill-informed masses do not appreciate them. Fortunately, their opinions are irrelevant. They have no real say in the future of university graduates. Employers and graduate school admissions officers are the only ones you should concern yourself with, and to them, Texas and UIUC are elite.
@Alexandre Please cite this list and Ill check it out because it seems flawed. Georgetown, Emory, and WUSTL are far better schools that UIUC and Texas. And as I wish to go into investment banking, I wont be able to enter the field from those schools as high levels of prestige are required.
@PurpleTitan - Engineering is one of the few majors that I would say to lean a little more heavily on the program strength. It’s hard to tell from university curriculum pages, but it appears at most universities engineering coursework and prerequisites is about 50-70% of the curriculum at those places, depending on how many total electives they require.
@ANormalSeniorGuy - It seems flawed because you have assumptions about private vs. public universities that aren’t necessarily true. UIUC and Texas are excellent universities all-around, not just for engineering.
I tend to think of rankings in terms of relative groupings of universities, not absolute numbers. Nonetheless, Times Higher Education ranks UIUC at #36 among world universities, above University of Tokyo, UCSD and McGill. UT-Austin is ranked at #50, above Brown. Both are above Wash U, which is ranked at #57; Emory, which is ranked at #82 (tied with Dartmouth); and Georgetown, ranked #104. However, we’re talking the top 100ish universities in the entire world, which has an estimated 25,000 universities. Functionally, there’s little difference in prestige and rankings between that group - they’re an elite group all up.
In the QS World University rankings, UIUC ranks #66 and UT-Austin ranks #67. Georgetown ranks #214; Emory ranks #149; and Wash U ranks #106.
If we’re talking about research output and notoriety for new discoveries and pushing forward science, broadly defined - UT and UIUC are ahead of those private universities by a lot. The world university rankings tend to lean heavily on that. They’ve generated some national prestige for other reasons.
You could go into investment banking from UT-Austin - they have an excellent business school. I’m not as sure about UIUC. Nonetheless, the claim that UT and UIUC are “so-so” schools either in absolute terms or compared to Wash U, Emory, and Georgetown isn’t true. They are excellent universities, literally world-class.
“@citymama9: That depends on the major. Yes, liberal arts & science majors typically take roughly a third of their classes in their major, but for engineering majors, the vast majority of their classes will be in engineering or engineering prereqs. That’s true for some other preprofessional majors as well.”
and that, to me, is the short-coming of the pre-professional major. as one article on the MacArthur grant topic mentioned, the LAC kid majoring in physics takes his or her writing classes in the English department with the English kids. The English kids take their science classes with the science kids. No “writing for [fill in the blank] majors”.
I think this has gotten better over the years. My college roommate was an engineer and the guy could not write. It was embarrassing by any measure, much less what you’d expect of a Stanford guy. He just never did it.
In any event, I think it means missing out on a whole bunch of learning, for learning’s sake, to spend most of 4 years in major. I think that’s a real drawback.
Sure, it’s more expedient to the profession, and sure engineering isn’t the best example because it’s so rigorous that people look at you funny for evening thinking about criticizing it on any grounds.
But, it’s what a lot of people want. College has become for so many a check-list item, rather than a life experience item.
I would add to @mom2collegekids 's post that accounting is another area where the prestige of the undergraduate school is largely irrelevant.
you can break in to Deloitte, KPMG, EY and PWC from anywhere on the accounting. if you want to be in consulting right away, prestige helps.
but the vast majority of accountants with whom I’ve worked over the years, which is a big number btw, came from schools that are not associated with a lot of academic prestige.
I think engineering is similar.
You and I could devise our own ranking system and judge schools based on our criteria, and our ranking would be just as valid as the USNews, Times, Forbes, ARWU (etc.) rankings.
What’s important, and what I think so many people miss, are:
- What the rankings are based on and what they attempt to portray, and
- Whether the criteria lead to accurate judgments.
Broadly I think ranking services like USNews and Forbes attempt to judge the undergraduate programs/level (their most famous rankings do, at least), while Times and ARWU are about the total university and, thus, tend to favor schools with great grad and PhD programs.
@prezbucky I think you are correct. My problem with @juillet 's post is that it includes graduate programs, as well as things that I personally believe should not be considered in the ranking: Sports, location, and other intangibles. That is why I UT Austin and UIUC are so-so, because they get massive boosts off of those factors, and if we looked at undergraduate academics only then ivys are the best.
"In the QS World University rankings, UIUC ranks #66 and UT-Austin ranks #67. Georgetown ranks #214; Emory ranks #149; and Wash U ranks #106.
If we’re talking about research output and notoriety for new discoveries and pushing forward science, broadly defined - UT and UIUC are ahead of those private universities by a lot. The world university rankings tend to lean heavily on that. They’ve generated some national prestige for other reasons."
Which is why that ranking has utterly no meaning for a kid looking to where he/she will go to college. Any ranking which has University of Arizona ranked ahead of Georgetown is meaningless and arguably misleading.
See my anecdote about UofA’s telescopes.
Based on the logic of the QS rankings, I would attend Arizona in favor of Dartmouth if I had my choice.
You want to make that choice? Go right ahead. I’ll take your spot at Dartmouth.
@ANormalSeniorGuy , I’m assuming when you made this statement,
“and if we looked at undergraduate academics only then ivys are the best”
that the usual qualifier, “and Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT” were implied. if not, you should look into it. those are pretty good schools for an undergraduate.
in addition, I’d add a variety of other schools as legitimate choices vs. some or all Ivy League schools. leaving out the usual “what’s best is what’s best for a particular kid” banter, which adds nothing to the conversation, I’d say there are other schools that are just as good as any Ivy, and a much longer list that are as good/better choices than some of the middling Ivies.
for undergrad, is Cornell better than Duke or Northwestern? Is Brown better than Rice? is Dartmouth better than Amherst? is Penn better than Williams? I’m as big a fan of the Ivy League as the next guy, but I’d never say what you said.
@MiddleburyDad2 You are correct I also meant those as well. Luckily I am accepted to UC Berkeley early with Regents interview (which my interviewer said he wanted to be my advisor, so its safe to say that I am likely to get the scholarship), so I do have a good option. I am just assessing all my options as it could be better to go to UT Austin rather than Dartmouth because UT Austin is more known in business.
What kind of business are you interested in?
If consulting/banking, I would definitely choose Dartmouth over UT Austin unless there is a fit or cost issue. Dartmouth’s alumni are SUPER great at getting Dartmouth students placed in top banking/consulting gigs. This is even more so true because of the Greek Life domination at Dartmouth.
@ANormalSeniorGuy: I don’t think you can generalize.
For CS, for instance, UIUC and UT-Austin would open as many doors as any other top school in the field or elite. Same for accounting. And for general business in Texas if you go to McComb
For IB, you’d probably have to get selected for UIUC’s finance academy (or whatever they call it) to have a shot. And McComb would give you opportunities in the energy space. Ivies/equivalents (and the UMich/UVa/Cal b-school; and the IU Kelley IB Academy) would give you more.
Of the schools that were compared, though, only Georgetown is a traditional IB feeder. Emory probably sends as many or fewer kids in to IB than either the UIUC or UT-Austin b-schools. WashU would send more than Emory but may not send more than UIUC/UT-Austin.
In any case, if you are a kid in HS, why the heck would you want to enter IB?
OK, I read to the end.
McComb would give you a strong network in the business world in TX.
Dartmouth would give you a very strong alumni network (mostly on the coasts and in the elite industries).
Haas is well-respected (especially on the West Coast) but entry is competitive and not assured.
For the Street, Dartmouth would be best of those 3.
@yikesyikesyikes Investment banking
ANormalSeniorGuy, to add to juillet’s post above, there are multiple sources from academia that clearly demonstrate that Texas and UIUC are elite:
- Fiske. His Guide is considered to be the gold standard in the college books industry. He assigns UIUC a 5 star academics rating (the highest possible rating), and Texas a 4.5 star academics rating. Emory, Georgetown, Vanderbilt and WUSTL all receive ratings of 4.5 academics rating.
- The Peer Assessment Rating (the average rating of undergraduate institutions by presidents of peer institutions) is another such rating. It assigns Texas a 4.0/5.0 rating and UIUC a 3.9/4.0 rating. Emory, Georgetown and WUSTL all have 4.0/5.0 ratings.
There is no doubt that as far as academia is concerned, Texas and UIUC are elite.
<<<
the OVERALL school is so-so, as compared to an Ivy league.
<<<
Oh my! The OVERALL school is NOT so-so. Please stop saything that. It’s insulting. You’re talking about schools that are EXCELLENT overall.
You seem to think that Ivys are the end-all be-all and everything else is sucking hind tit.