What do the engineering rankings actually measure?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one uses US News for engineering rankings.

The only people who say this are those whose favored school is low-ranked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am trying to guess at a good school for a future engineer (if it matters, soph with great grades and good test taking ability but not specific engineering interest beyond in the topic) and look at the rankings from USNWR, then the claims from the universities themselves...and it seems like there are things in tension.
There are juggernaut schools that have lots of graduates and serious research ....but then also big weedout classes.
There are high-SAT small cohort schools that seem to teach and care for the student . . . but might be kind of bare bones/generalist.
And there are more things in tension like this.

What about the rankings makes sense? Is it professors' views of the productivity of the institutions? The engineers that came from given schools? The specific teaching quality in the disciplines? How "hard" the professors make it or "how well" they teach or whether you have every new toy to try out?

Appreciate any thoughts or corrections to my confused ranting here....

The rankings themselves tell you what they measure. USNWR: "The undergraduate engineering program rankings were based solely on peer assessment surveys. To appear on an undergraduate engineering survey, a school must have an undergraduate engineering program accredited by ABET. These programs are split into two groups: schools whose highest engineering degree offered is a doctorate and schools whose highest engineering degree offered is a bachelor's or master's." And methodology: https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/undergraduate-ranking-methodologies

[Anonymous]

NP. what's challenging is that schools seem to have super different ap[proaches and it's hard to find that info easily (i'm sure ChatGPT could put together a more useful set of info if you can query it usefully). things like rigidity of course selection, whether you have to choose the specific type of engineering at application or can do it freshman year, level/opportunities for hands-on experience. I know people say "people who go to Georgia Tech are amazing engineers" but I don't really know why that is--what are the program traits we should be looking for, esp. since as an out of state kid DC is not likely to get into Georgia state?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one uses US News for engineering rankings.

The only people who say this are those whose favored school is low-ranked.

Hiring managers say it all the time.

There are a handful of colleges truly at the bottom. There are a handful at the very top. There is not a lot of difference in the many many programs in the middle.

As several others already have said, what really matters to many hiring managers are the academic choices/course selections made by the student in whichever engineering program they are in.

[Anonymous]

For engineering, the programs with doctoral offerings had a response rate of just under 50%. The programs without doctoral offerings had a response rate of about 1/3.

Me thinks the low response rates say more about what engineering faculty think about USNWR engineering rankings than about anything else.

[Anonymous]

Names would be nice, ones that aren't MIT and Caltech

[Anonymous]

The rankings made this process very stressful for my very high stat DD. She got into top engineering schools, visited and really didn't see herself happy there although definitely impressed with the academics. Ended up choosing UVA, which is not as highly ranked but after visiting, she couldn't imagine going anywhere else. I stayed in the background and let her choose. We'll see how it goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a hiring manager, I do not care much about rankings. Top few might be better, but my experience is that what really matters for on the job performance -- so what I mostly care about when hiring -- are:

Which specific degree?
Which specialty within that degree?
Did the student take the rigorous upper-level in-major courses?
What concrete skills do they bring?
If they did a senior project, what was it?

ABET sets a high floor. In my experience, almost all engineering programs are rigorous. No one accidentally gets an engineering degree. It takes a lot of hard work, even for the bright capable students.

C'mon now. If you work for a major engineering recruiter and I mean a real player, you know darn well there are certain schools that are targeted for recruiting because they produce the best. If you work in the field, you already know this and the schools that are targeted. If you work for just a company that hires engineers and not a real player, then this might not make sense to you. I get that.

Not our experience in the tech industry, partly because the USNWR engineering rankings prioritize several inputs that just do not correlate closely with quality.

MIT or Caltech better sure, but after the first few, the rankings do not correlate as well as degree, specialty, and taking the rigorous electives. E&M fields will be hard everywhere. Compilers will be hard everywhere. Those rigorous courses correlate much more strongly.

Concur. MIT/Caltech are tops but there are many others that stand out and the rigor is not the USNEws order. Rigorous programs have challenging coursework including grad level and electives as well as top-notch faculty and top notch peers. Top tech firms target certain schools and yes they do favor ivy/T20 for engineering in addition to of course the Top public E schools: UCB, GT, Michigan, UIUC.
The ivy/top private has a real engineering school(ie they have grad students as well and they have research as well as industry involvement) with real degrees(not general engineering). Someone who has made it through Princeton, Cornell, Penn, CMU, Hopkins, Northwestern, and yes Harvard engineering with a 3.5+ is going to have had classes with more depth and faster pace than say someone who went to VCU or VT engineering. The students themselves are very different: ask any professor who has taught at different schools. When the AVERAGE engineering student has a 700 on math that is significantly different than the average student having a 780. The 25th%ile at ivy/stanford/Duke etc is 750 and the 75th is 800, of the whole school, not separating out the engineering students, and that was when tests were required.
The quality of coursework matters and ABET is a minimum it does not require a level or depth of courses.
The students at these schools often do real research early on and have collaboration with industry through faculty. They often take courses in sophomore or occasionally freshman year that the average E school does not take until junior year.
This is how the students at these schools often get competitive paid summer jobs in engineering after sophomore year.
By the first semeseter junior year when they apply for the big industry internships for the next summer, or the elite fellowhip positions, they have resumes that are just better than the average public E school.
You can pull the lists of attendees of some of the competitive summer engineering positions, The schools above plus a couple more account for half of the attendees. The same is true for top tech jobs and top engineering phD programs: top schools are overrepresented.

[Anonymous]

finally an actionable post

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Names would be nice, ones that aren't MIT and Caltech

Best privates known for rigorous engineering coursework (and not much weedout because getting in is the weedout):
Stanford, CMU, ivies with real engineering(Princeton, Cornell, Penn, Columbia, Harvard, and yes even Yale is now on that list),
Northwestern, JHU, Rice, Duke, WashU, Vanderbilt.

Top publics: UCB, GT, Michigan, UIUC, UWash, Purdue

Some of these are absolute tops for BME others are tops for mechanical or nano, others are strong in every E discipline. You have to look through each department in the Eschool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For engineering, the programs with doctoral offerings had a response rate of just under 50%. The programs without doctoral offerings had a response rate of about 1/3.

Me thinks the low response rates say more about what engineering faculty think about USNWR engineering rankings than about anything else.

good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Names would be nice, ones that aren't MIT and Caltech

Best privates known for rigorous engineering coursework (and not much weedout because getting in is the weedout):
Stanford, CMU, ivies with real engineering(Princeton, Cornell, Penn, Columbia, Harvard, and yes even Yale is now on that list),
Northwestern, JHU, Rice, Duke, WashU, Vanderbilt.

Top publics: UCB, GT, Michigan, UIUC, UWash, Purdue

Some of these are absolute tops for BME others are tops for mechanical or nano, others are strong in every E discipline. You have to look through each department in the Eschool.

I do wonder whether Harvard and Yale are riding the name brand coattails for their engineering program. When one thinks "top Eng school", Harvard and Yale don't really come to mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Names would be nice, ones that aren't MIT and Caltech

Best privates known for rigorous engineering coursework (and not much weedout because getting in is the weedout):
Stanford, CMU, ivies with real engineering(Princeton, Cornell, Penn, Columbia, Harvard, and yes even Yale is now on that list),
Northwestern, JHU, Rice, Duke, WashU, Vanderbilt.

Top publics: UCB, GT, Michigan, UIUC, UWash, Purdue

Some of these are absolute tops for BME others are tops for mechanical or nano, others are strong in every E discipline. You have to look through each department in the Eschool.

I do wonder whether Harvard and Yale are riding the name brand coattails for their engineering program. When one thinks "top Eng school", Harvard and Yale don't really come to mind.

They do not have the “big” engineering such as aero, but Harvard at least is top5 in smaller scale engineering such as BioE, molecular/materials(division of mechanical) and others. Yale is up and coming fast too.

We have two wider-circle not immediate family relatives in Engineering and a 3rd immediate family member.
We asked them what schools they would send theirs to if like ours, a top-stats top of class intellectual kid who at the time was debating applied physics versus engineering which are more closely related than we knew.

First one, tenured at Yale because yale bought and moved the entire lab team from what is generally accepted to be a top -10 flagship . That person has taught at lesser public as well as a different top private in their career since getting phd. They said the top privates are where the intellectual top kids thrive because of peer match, plus more resources such as ease getting into a lab and getting paid as an undergraduate. They recd only privates: MIT Rice CMU JHU as well as Cornell if it ddint feel too big, Princeton Penn Harvard Columbia Yale though they admitted Y newer to the particular area.

Other relative graduated from a known techy flagship and phD CMU then started a company. They recommended almost the same privates but also pushed hard for 5-6 top flagships known for E, explaining that it is like a smaller community within a community to be in Engineering at these big schools.

The third is in the R&D industry, did a top SLAC then phD at HPSM and said the peer network is everything, if they want to be a leader in research whether private or with a university, go to the school with the highest concentration of super smart kids as well as one that has a lot of startup culture. They gave a longer list and included 5 SLACs strong in applied physics plus 5 ivies plus stanford mit northwestern. That was it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a hiring manager, I do not care much about rankings. Top few might be better, but my experience is that what really matters for on the job performance -- so what I mostly care about when hiring -- are:

Which specific degree?
Which specialty within that degree?
Did the student take the rigorous upper-level in-major courses?
What concrete skills do they bring?
If they did a senior project, what was it?

ABET sets a high floor. In my experience, almost all engineering programs are rigorous. No one accidentally gets an engineering degree. It takes a lot of hard work, even for the bright capable students.

C'mon now. If you work for a major engineering recruiter and I mean a real player, you know darn well there are certain schools that are targeted for recruiting because they produce the best. If you work in the field, you already know this and the schools that are targeted. If you work for just a company that hires engineers and not a real player, then this might not make sense to you. I get that.

Not that PP. But I work for a major aero firm. We hire from schools near our major facilities. Lots of regional schools. Not necessarily targeting “top” schools as such. And after a year or two of work, nobody cares about your Alma Mater.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a hiring manager, I do not care much about rankings. Top few might be better, but my experience is that what really matters for on the job performance -- so what I mostly care about when hiring -- are:

Which specific degree?
Which specialty within that degree?
Did the student take the rigorous upper-level in-major courses?
What concrete skills do they bring?
If they did a senior project, what was it?

ABET sets a high floor. In my experience, almost all engineering programs are rigorous. No one accidentally gets an engineering degree. It takes a lot of hard work, even for the bright capable students.

C'mon now. If you work for a major engineering recruiter and I mean a real player, you know darn well there are certain schools that are targeted for recruiting because they produce the best. If you work in the field, you already know this and the schools that are targeted. If you work for just a company that hires engineers and not a real player, then this might not make sense to you. I get that.

Hee hee. Is this a company/firm that hires engineers and pays them? As opposed to...umm...what exactly? Im curious as to an example of a "real player" vs a 'fake player', i guess.