Seeking clarification of academic rigor at engineering colleges

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s just people not very well acquainted with Mudd. Some engineering students end up falling flat on their face in physics classes and have to take Pomona physics classes, which have better profs/more support, to pass.

This is strange. Do you mean that a prestigious STEM college doesn't have better profs than Pomona? Physics is hard, but that is not a prof's fault if the student is finding it hard. As far as I know, one of Mudd's physics prof is a visiting faculty at Caltech. ALL of Mudd's faculty have a PhD from a prestigious institution, and to be a faculty at Harvey Mudd, one needs to teach extremely well.

Read between the lines a bit - Pomona has easier physics courses

This.

[Anonymous]

I’ll be honest. I’m one of those that have never heard of it. But I’m sure it’s hard. Engineering has a good deal of wash outs and even my engineer who is almost done, has officially declared he hates school and wishes he would have majored in something else. 🤣

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ll be honest. I’m one of those that have never heard of it. But I’m sure it’s hard. Engineering has a good deal of wash outs and even my engineer who is almost done, has officially declared he hates school and wishes he would have majored in something else. 🤣

Generally, every family with very high-achieving kids particularly interested in pursuing an engineering major will definitely know the top engineering schools in the country, namely, (in no particular order) MIT, Caltech, Harvey Mudd, Georgia Tech, UC Berkeley, Michigan, CMU, Purdue, Illinois, etc.

[Anonymous]

I went to an engineering school on par with Rose Hulman/RPI/Clarkson. Freshman year my calculus prof took us to the MIT website and said we were using the same textbook and following the same syllabus as the corresponding MIT course. We did the same for Organic Chemistry and Physical Chemistry, but following the respective syllabus from those professor's prestigious alma maters.

For a lot of subjects I think there are only a couple of textbooks that are used to teach a course anywhere--there just isn't that much variation. Everyone teaches from the same famous textbook.

For my undergrad, all our classes were curved to a 2.7 GPA, so it wear really hard to graduate with a very good GPA. I don't know if more prestigious schools have an easier curve.

I have no idea if classes would have been harder at more prestigious schools, but I got into a top grad school for my PhD and was very well prepared. In fact, I did better than my classmates from much more prestigious undergrads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s just people not very well acquainted with Mudd. Some engineering students end up falling flat on their face in physics classes and have to take Pomona physics classes, which have better profs/more support, to pass.

This is strange. Do you mean that a prestigious STEM college doesn't have better profs than Pomona? Physics is hard, but that is not a prof's fault if the student is finding it hard. As far as I know, one of Mudd's physics prof is a visiting faculty at Caltech. ALL of Mudd's faculty have a PhD from a prestigious institution, and to be a faculty at Harvey Mudd, one needs to teach extremely well.

Read between the lines a bit - Pomona has easier physics courses

ding ding ding! and at colleges with a much wider gap in student stem skills than Mudd vs Pomona, the rigor gap is not conicidentally much wider...undergrad rigor varies, this variance is understood well by phD, MD, JD and the job market, and matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to an engineering school on par with Rose Hulman/RPI/Clarkson. Freshman year my calculus prof took us to the MIT website and said we were using the same textbook and following the same syllabus as the corresponding MIT course. We did the same for Organic Chemistry and Physical Chemistry, but following the respective syllabus from those professor's prestigious alma maters.

For a lot of subjects I think there are only a couple of textbooks that are used to teach a course anywhere--there just isn't that much variation. Everyone teaches from the same famous textbook.

For my undergrad, all our classes were curved to a 2.7 GPA, so it wear really hard to graduate with a very good GPA. I don't know if more prestigious schools have an easier curve.

I have no idea if classes would have been harder at more prestigious schools, but I got into a top grad school for my PhD and was very well prepared. In fact, I did better than my classmates from much more prestigious undergrads.

your grad school was likely acutely aware of how rigorous the program was at your school, whether or not the school itself was on uber-prestige lists. The peer schools you compared it to (RH, RPI..) are WELL KNOWN among stem professors and are considered top for rigor. Professors making the decisions for phD look beyond the names the average joe public knows

[Anonymous]

You are way too early to be zeroing in on particular engineering schools based on rigor.

I mean sure, good to understand the lay of the land for your sophomore but let me gently suggest that if you are nurturing ideas in your 10th grader about the comparative rigor of their future engineering program being of utmost importance you should slow your roll so you don’t do a disservice to your kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are way too early to be zeroing in on particular engineering schools based on rigor.

I mean sure, good to understand the lay of the land for your sophomore but let me gently suggest that if you are nurturing ideas in your 10th grader about the comparative rigor of their future engineering program being of utmost importance you should slow your roll so you don’t do a disservice to your kid.

OP here. First of all, I am amazed by all the interesting viewpoints. While reading them, I was saying to myself, 'Oh, I didn't know this or that.' So far, I have understood there are a variety of engineering schools catering to a variety of students. Yes, we are far away from applying, and we, as parents, will make sure our child applies to the colleges he thinks he is fit for.
My original query was not about selectivity but about perceived and actual rigor. Someone told me this week to think about colleges good at "undergraduate education" and "graduate education." To look at what our kid wants to be in the future when the time comes to apply: whether he wants a PhD or wants to join the workforce straight out of college. Depending on the answer, the college list will evolve. To look at ABET certification, too, when making a list, etc.
I am thankful that all the posters in this group have made wonderful viewpoints. Please keep them coming!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are way too early to be zeroing in on particular engineering schools based on rigor.

I mean sure, good to understand the lay of the land for your sophomore but let me gently suggest that if you are nurturing ideas in your 10th grader about the comparative rigor of their future engineering program being of utmost importance you should slow your roll so you don’t do a disservice to your kid.

+1. Putting the cart before the horse.

[Anonymous]

another thing is that some schools really try to weed out the engineering majors. IMO this is not necessary. if you choose a school that is known for weeding out, then it is going to be a tough time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have started to enter into the college admissions process. My DS is a sophomore and is very much interested in studying engineering in college. I know we are a little far from applying to colleges, but in my family, we believe in research and in making well-thought-out decisions about academic, social, and financial fit. I would appreciate some clarification about the rigor, selectivity, job prospects, reputation, etc., of engineering colleges.

Through our preliminary research, we came to know many engineering colleges, both private and public, offer various levels of academic rigor. A little background: I came to know about Harvey Mudd when my co-worker told me her son chose Mudd over Caltech. That piqued my interest in learning more about it. Last year, another student I came across in our school chose Mudd over CMU and Rice.

I have looked at more than 20-30 posts here at DC Urban for unbiased discussions, and whenever anyone speaks about Harvey Mudd, they seem to always add a disclaimer, “it is HARD,” “a pressure cooker,” or “it’s very tough to graduate…”

But at the same time, when talking about top colleges for STEM, names like Caltech, MIT, and CMU are suggested without any such disclaimer. They are also HARD, I believe. Are the students at Harvey Mudd not as meritorious (as other well-known colleges) in handling the rigor?

I understand that It is not a household name, but I know it’s very well-known in the STEM world. Then, why does Harvey Mudd carry such a disclaimer along with its name? Why is Harvey Mudd’s academic rigor emphasized so much when all the top STEM colleges have similar academic rigor?

Maybe you haven't been here long? Because I've heard the same about all these other colleges. And also about Cornell engineering. Probably others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:another thing is that some schools really try to weed out the engineering majors. IMO this is not necessary. if you choose a school that is known for weeding out, then it is going to be a tough time.

I remember when I was in a freshman engineering survey class, they did the whole “look right, look left, one of you won’t graduate in engineering” spiel. It was indeed true, but not really supportive. Ha ha. I’ve wondered if this has changed at all, culturally. Back then it was a bit of an embrace the grind, resent the other majors, kind of vibe. At least on tours and websites, schools seem to suggest a more supportive vs weed out approach, but maybe it’s marketing. I still remember Physics exams freshman year where the averages were ridiculous. Like 30/100. Good times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:another thing is that some schools really try to weed out the engineering majors. IMO this is not necessary. if you choose a school that is known for weeding out, then it is going to be a tough time.

Another reason to aim high and for the most prestigious which also happen to be most rigorous: getting in is the hard part but staying in engineering is not: the ivies and MIT and Mudd and swarthmore and hopkins all have over 92% persistence/continuation in Engineering after freshman year(typically when engineering has to declare the major), some have 97%. Ds are basically unheard of and Cs are rare. Smaller classes/cohorts leads to much more professor and departmental support.
These schools also are among the ones that have the highest percent pursue phD, and of course place into top industries and have the highest starting salaries.
I think you are very wise to be investigating now, OP! Goals are important for students to have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s just people not very well acquainted with Mudd. Some engineering students end up falling flat on their face in physics classes and have to take Pomona physics classes, which have better profs/more support, to pass.

This is strange. Do you mean that a prestigious STEM college doesn't have better profs than Pomona? Physics is hard, but that is not a prof's fault if the student is finding it hard. As far as I know, one of Mudd's physics prof is a visiting faculty at Caltech. ALL of Mudd's faculty have a PhD from a prestigious institution, and to be a faculty at Harvey Mudd, one needs to teach extremely well.

Read between the lines a bit - Pomona has easier physics courses

DD attends Pomona as a math major and hates taking classes at Mudd. It’s not that the classes are harder, because the content is more difficult; the professors at Mudd suck and are eager to mark down than up- this is great for students who don’t need high scores since they’ll be going to Google or Apple, but DD wishes to go to grad school and Mudd profs are really unhelpful.

Mudd students struggle just as hard in Pomona math courses as Pomona students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:another thing is that some schools really try to weed out the engineering majors. IMO this is not necessary. if you choose a school that is known for weeding out, then it is going to be a tough time.

I remember when I was in a freshman engineering survey class, they did the whole “look right, look left, one of you won’t graduate in engineering” spiel. It was indeed true, but not really supportive. Ha ha. I’ve wondered if this has changed at all, culturally. Back then it was a bit of an embrace the grind, resent the other majors, kind of vibe. At least on tours and websites, schools seem to suggest a more supportive vs weed out approach, but maybe it’s marketing. I still remember Physics exams freshman year where the averages were ridiculous. Like 30/100. Good times.

My dad went to engineering school in the 1940/ and he said his school said — look left, look right, they will both be gone before graduation.

I have a kid on college and a sophomore and I disagree with PPs that sophomore year is too early to be thinking about a general list. We found that spring of junior year was totally overwhelming with APs and stuff, particularly if your kid plays a spring sport, will go to prom, etc., so not much time to look at colleges. Summer is not great because there are no colleges in session and our kid also worked the whole summer. Fall of senior year is an utter disaster because so many schools now have rolling applications due early in the fall. So spring of sophomore year and fall of junior year actually is a good time to get a general list and maybe do some preliminary visits to get a general idea of what you might like. We waited with our oldest and then ended up feeling very stressed in fall of senior year, not having enough info to make decisions about EA and ED and cramming in a whirlwind tour on the Jewish holiday long weekend.