Which Top 50 colleges are weak when it comes to Engineering? And besides the obvious (MiT, Stanford, Cal), strong?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Some good engineering schools that I haven't seen mentioned here (and I've only skimmed the thread, so I've probably missed some of them) are Colorado School of Mines, RPI, Rose-Hulman, Embry-Riddle, Carnegie Mellon, Harvey Mudd, Olin, Northeastern, and Georgia Tech.
Engineering is more of a meritocracy than some other fields. You don't have to go to a top school to be a top engineer. You need a good engineering brain, a knack for your field, and a strong interest. |
Anonymous
My upper-class British friend went to Harrow, which is more Etonian than Eton. At the time he attended, the boys still had to wear waistcoats, top hats, and tailcoats for special occasions and carry a cane. When he announced his intention to study engineering, he was told, "Gentlemen don't become engineers." His teachers thought classics or PPE (politics, philosophy, and economics) were more appropriate avenues for patricians, which may be true if one doesn't need to work for a living. My friend studied engineering anyway and has done very well for himself. |
Anonymous
They send maybe 40 kids to UVA…and I doubt those are the same students who were also accepted to MIT, Princeton, Stanford, etc. Obviously, UVA has hundreds…probably thousands of engineering majors who of course are not from TJ. I also doubt the 45 kids from TJ at UVA are all engineering majors. |
Anonymous
The point of the thread is the opposite…weak engineering programs. |
Anonymous
While one doesn’t have to go to a top engineering program to be a top engineer, that logic doesn’t make top engineering schools one par with weaker schools. It’s just means some engineers are good that didn’t go to top schools. They are not mutually exclusive. This is the same as any field. Of course companies recruit from the top engineering schools. These companies do not have recruiting events at every school - only the top engineering schools that they know regularly produce great engineers. |
Anonymous
+1 |
Anonymous
Most BC engineering programs are not accredited |
Anonymous
This - and old-fashioned hard work also helps. |
Anonymous
Many TJ students who are attending UVa actually are in A&S as pre-med students. There might well be more TJ grads on that A&S pre-med path at UVa than there are TJ grads in UVa’s E School, which is somewhat counter-intuitive. What many on DCUM do not seem to realize is that lots and lots of students at TJ actually are aiming for Medical school (and the $$$ from being an MD). Those pre-med students often choose TJ over base HS because TJ is the “most rigorous” HS within FCPS. I have been surprised that the number of TJ students going on the some E School is not higher than it is. |
Anonymous
x10000 BINGO. |
Anonymous
|
UNC doesn’t have engineering school. Most of engineering programs moved NCSU last century.
|
Anonymous
Right. The point is that ABET accreditation doesn’t matter when selecting employees for most employers; reputation is much more important. The only issue is that engineers without ABET degrees will find it difficult (or impossible, depending on the state) to get licensed. Licensing is required for almost all civil, and a few mechanical engineering jobs, but most graduates go into jobs that do not require licensing because of “industrial exemption.” (However, if one ever becomes a consulting engineer, usually later in their career, they will need a PE license.) Also, Stanford faculty never liked the fact that they had to defend their program to ABET committee filled with professors (from other schools) every 7 years. That is a big reason most departments gave up accreditation. There is a twist to the story though: Stanford recently imposed a 100-unit cap on their majors (180 units are required for a BS or BA), unless more units are required for accreditation. ABET requires 120-125 units. This was opposed by almost all engineering faculty but was pushed through successfully by others. So, only CE and ME could keep their longer majors. Some other engineering departments have begun to think of re-establishing accreditation because they believe 100 units is too low to have a coherent engineering degree. However, re-accreditation process is going to be long and expensive; we’ll see where this goes. |
Anonymous
A diploma from a top school will help you find your first job, but after that you have to prove yourself. The best engineer I ever hired was a Vietnamese immigrant who came to the States at 14 with no knowledge of English. He started out at a community college and later transferred to an inexpensive regional university while working long hours on the side. He was head and shoulders above the graduates I hired from top engineering schools. The latter were generally solid and usually quite good, but he had that rare genius and creativity you can't teach. He would generate solutions that didn't occur to anyone else. He was also humble and hard-working. |
Anonymous
That is very interesting! I understand the benefits of exploring diverse areas, but placing limits on what one can learn seems contrary to the mission of a liberal arts education and would be particularly limiting in engineering. I suppose students could get over the 100-unit cap by taking related classes that are not specifically designated as engineering classes, like physics, applied math, or chemistry. This rule would make it hard to get a minor in a second engineering field. For example, a major in mechanical engineering and a minor in aerospace engineering is a useful combination, but it would be very difficult to keep one's credit hours under 100. |
Anonymous
True if one is consulting on construction-related matters or wants to sign blueprints. However, if one is a Consulting Engineer working in many other fields (e.g., defense electronics, consumer electronics, and a wide range of other areas outside construction), then a PE is not required. |