Engineering rankings seem weird

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure. Most are at schools already highly ranked but I’m thinking of schools where the engineering specific ranking is much higher.
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Perdue, UW, VT, Texas A&M, Ohio State, UMCP, Penn State, UCSD.

Are you asking why land grant universities that were founded 150+ years ago to teach engineering by charter have well regarded engineering programs? Cause there seems to be an obvious answer to that.

+1

Who cares why they were founded but why not have a discussion on whether one or more has become simply a well endowed engineering factory with large classes taught by graduate TAs with inconsistent quality from year to year, possibility limited individualized attention from tenured faculty until junior/year year all while dealing with
hunger games type scheduling for access to superior labs…or perhaps the employment outcomes and quality of the students who graduate from these “non-elite” but well regarded land grant schools truly are a cut above…having two lists makes it difficult to know.
Weird

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like people are being a bit obtuse. Op is asking why having a graduate program in engineering matters. I’d say the easy answer is you can start in a research lab to attain skills for an internship, and if you end up interested in graduate research, you have access to the best labs. It also can be helpful in terms of the range of courses offered!

Thank you. Finally a helpful response. We get into the weeds for other schools but just haven’t seen a discussion on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like people are being a bit obtuse. Op is asking why having a graduate program in engineering matters. I’d say the easy answer is you can start in a research lab to attain skills for an internship, and if you end up interested in graduate research, you have access to the best labs. It also can be helpful in terms of the range of courses offered!

The OP could have asked such a question without conflating the question with assumptions about the intent of rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would it matter when deciding where to apply for engineering whether the program offers a doctorate degree?

U.S. News doesn't use such a distinction as an indicator of the quality of undergraduate engineering programs. I believe you somehow have misunderstood their rankings.

Misunderstood? Maybe you should sit this one out if you haven’t looked at the rankings recently? There are two non-overlapping “best undergraduate engineering program” lists…one “where doctorate is not offered” and one “where doctorate is highest degree” with no clear way to see how they would be ranked under one list.

The PA scores use the same scale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like people are being a bit obtuse. Op is asking why having a graduate program in engineering matters. I’d say the easy answer is you can start in a research lab to attain skills for an internship, and if you end up interested in graduate research, you have access to the best labs. It also can be helpful in terms of the range of courses offered!

The OP could have asked such a question without conflating the question with assumptions about the intent of rankings.

The lists purport to rank best undergraduate engineering program for clicks and engagement but divides them into two lists …one with phd candidates walking around campus and the other a hodgepodge of military academies, tiny women’s liberal arts college, public schools with masters but no doctorate programs which seems weird. Why not develop and rank school based on criteria that reasonable people would think…yeah that would actually help make an undergraduate engineering program the best

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like people are being a bit obtuse. Op is asking why having a graduate program in engineering matters. I’d say the easy answer is you can start in a research lab to attain skills for an internship, and if you end up interested in graduate research, you have access to the best labs. It also can be helpful in terms of the range of courses offered!

The OP could have asked such a question without conflating the question with assumptions about the intent of rankings.

The lists purport to rank best undergraduate engineering program for clicks and engagement but divides them into two lists …one with phd candidates walking around campus and the other a hodgepodge of military academies, tiny women’s liberal arts college, public schools with masters but no doctorate programs which seems weird. Why not develop and rank school based on criteria that reasonable people would think…yeah that would actually help make an undergraduate engineering program the best

The reasonable people in this case are those who responded to peer assessment surveys. If you would like to make the case that such responses are insufficiently authoritative, that's fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would it matter when deciding where to apply for engineering whether the program offers a doctorate degree?

U.S. News doesn't use such a distinction as an indicator of the quality of undergraduate engineering programs. I believe you somehow have misunderstood their rankings.

Misunderstood? Maybe you should sit this one out if you haven’t looked at the rankings recently? There are two non-overlapping “best undergraduate engineering program” lists…one “where doctorate is not offered” and one “where doctorate is highest degree” with no clear way to see how they would be ranked under one list.

The PA scores use the same scale.

USC may be reputationally similar to Lafayette, for example.

[Anonymous]

In engineering, size and scale help as does research that goes with a PhD program. Programs that are small can’t offer the same range of majors and courses. Most of the better engineering programs are relatively large, often at state universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In engineering, size and scale help as does research that goes with a PhD program. Programs that are small can’t offer the same range of majors and courses. Most of the better engineering programs are relatively large, often at state universities.

+1
This is so obvious, I can't believe the question was even asked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure. Most are at schools already highly ranked but I’m thinking of schools where the engineering specific ranking is much higher.
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Perdue, UW, VT, Texas A&M, Ohio State, UMCP, Penn State, UCSD.

Are you asking why land grant universities that were founded 150+ years ago to teach engineering by charter have well regarded engineering programs? Cause there seems to be an obvious answer to that.

+1

Who cares why they were founded but why not have a discussion on whether one or more has become simply a well endowed engineering factory with large classes taught by graduate TAs with inconsistent quality from year to year, possibility limited individualized attention from tenured faculty until junior/year year all while dealing with
hunger games type scheduling for access to superior labs…or perhaps the employment outcomes and quality of the students who graduate from these “non-elite” but well regarded land grant schools truly are a cut above…having two lists makes it difficult to know.
Weird

There you are! The bizarre poster with an axe to grind against large state schools. You repeat the same song and dance on many threads, expecting people to believe that TAs actually teach the classes and that the classes are enormous and difficult to register for. The gross generalizations are actually amusing at this point, because it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

My kids have attended several state universities between them and none of what you constantly bray about has been the case at ALL at any of these schools. They've had no issues registering for classes, their advisors have been helpful and consistent, none have ever had a TA teach any class, and professors are accessible and responsive.

But do go back to boosting your favored tiny, limited schools and insisting that they're somehow offering a better education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure. Most are at schools already highly ranked but I’m thinking of schools where the engineering specific ranking is much higher.
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Perdue, UW, VT, Texas A&M, Ohio State, UMCP, Penn State, UCSD.

Are you asking why land grant universities that were founded 150+ years ago to teach engineering by charter have well regarded engineering programs? Cause there seems to be an obvious answer to that.

+1

Who cares why they were founded but why not have a discussion on whether one or more has become simply a well endowed engineering factory with large classes taught by graduate TAs with inconsistent quality from year to year, possibility limited individualized attention from tenured faculty until junior/year year all while dealing with
hunger games type scheduling for access to superior labs…or perhaps the employment outcomes and quality of the students who graduate from these “non-elite” but well regarded land grant schools truly are a cut above…having two lists makes it difficult to know.
Weird

But do go back to boosting your favored tiny, limited schools and insisting that they're somehow offering a better education.

Based on survey responses, a college like Harvey Mudd may offer such an advantageous environment:

Best Colleges for Classroom Experience | The Princeton Review https://share.google/JyWnBPoxl4SKUrtMP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In engineering, size and scale help as does research that goes with a PhD program. Programs that are small can’t offer the same range of majors and courses. Most of the better engineering programs are relatively large, often at state universities.

Bingo we have a winner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure. Most are at schools already highly ranked but I’m thinking of schools where the engineering specific ranking is much higher.
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Perdue, UW, VT, Texas A&M, Ohio State, UMCP, Penn State, UCSD.

Are you asking why land grant universities that were founded 150+ years ago to teach engineering by charter have well regarded engineering programs? Cause there seems to be an obvious answer to that.

+1

Who cares why they were founded but why not have a discussion on whether one or more has become simply a well endowed engineering factory with large classes taught by graduate TAs with inconsistent quality from year to year, possibility limited individualized attention from tenured faculty until junior/year year all while dealing with
hunger games type scheduling for access to superior labs…or perhaps the employment outcomes and quality of the students who graduate from these “non-elite” but well regarded land grant schools truly are a cut above…having two lists makes it difficult to know.
Weird

But do go back to boosting your favored tiny, limited schools and insisting that they're somehow offering a better education.

Based on survey responses, a college like Harvey Mudd may offer such an advantageous environment:

Best Colleges for Classroom Experience | The Princeton Review https://share.google/JyWnBPoxl4SKUrtMP

lol. Go hang your hat on that.

[Anonymous]

research universities do actual cutting edge research so you have more distinguished professors who often have partnerships with industry compared to LACs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure. Most are at schools already highly ranked but I’m thinking of schools where the engineering specific ranking is much higher.
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Perdue, UW, VT, Texas A&M, Ohio State, UMCP, Penn State, UCSD.

Are you asking why land grant universities that were founded 150+ years ago to teach engineering by charter have well regarded engineering programs? Cause there seems to be an obvious answer to that.

+1

Who cares why they were founded but why not have a discussion on whether one or more has become simply a well endowed engineering factory with large classes taught by graduate TAs with inconsistent quality from year to year, possibility limited individualized attention from tenured faculty until junior/year year all while dealing with
hunger games type scheduling for access to superior labs…or perhaps the employment outcomes and quality of the students who graduate from these “non-elite” but well regarded land grant schools truly are a cut above…having two lists makes it difficult to know.
Weird

But do go back to boosting your favored tiny, limited schools and insisting that they're somehow offering a better education.

Based on survey responses, a college like Harvey Mudd may offer such an advantageous environment:

Best Colleges for Classroom Experience | The Princeton Review https://share.google/JyWnBPoxl4SKUrtMP

Based on the same source, undergraduate-focused colleges with strong engineering programs, such as Harvey Mudd, Rose-Hulman and Lafayette, also may offer sophisticated lab facilities:

Best Colleges for Science Lab Facilities | The Princeton Review https://share.google/8KC9oodjgXSFlmVqB