Engineering and nursing are two areas that if you don't go to a top school, it's okay..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top engineering firms only really actively recruit grads from the Top engineering schools. Not that other grads won’t eventually end up somewhere. They will just have a different path to get there.

This. Prestige matters for engineering at the top levels. There are about 15 ivy/privates and 5 publics that are far above the rest

Yes but remember there are thousands of students at each of these top schools and top companies will not hire them all, only the top students. So the average Joes there will end up in the same places as students from other colleges.

career outcomes at the 1and 5 yr mark as well as phd matriculation lists indicate the average joe engineer at stanford, princeton, penn, MIT, CMU UCB et al do much much better than the average joe at VT or NC state. Not even close.

For DCuM, that is a fairly precise claim. Source?

DP....most of those schools have data published online. We looked that up when ours was applying to engineering. You can break it down by subfield and degree(BS v PhD ) at many schools. we happen to have family members who are or have been in academia and industry in Engineering and all three came up with almost the same 10-15 schools to target. They said aim for match of peers first and the highest level coursework available. Their collective experience was that teaching is quite different at average public T50 engineering versus elite(UCB/GT/ivy/mit /stanford).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top engineering firms only really actively recruit grads from the Top engineering schools. Not that other grads won’t eventually end up somewhere. They will just have a different path to get there.

This. Prestige matters for engineering at the top levels. There are about 15 ivy/privates and 5 publics that are far above the rest

Yes but remember there are thousands of students at each of these top schools and top companies will not hire them all, only the top students. So the average Joes there will end up in the same places as students from other colleges.

Not true

+ 1

[Anonymous]

The standards for RN degree are so low. There are even online programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You will find a job, correct? My know-it-all brother-in-law states this, he's in his 50's and doesn't except things have changed that requirements are more demanding. Other opinions?

There is a fundamental difference between nursing and engineering that you are minimizing…..
How many Nurses have you seen running a Fortune 1000 company?
I love Nurses, but please. By accepting to be a nurse you are be default accepting to be in a subservient position to others in your own health field (Doctors). This is not the case with Engineers.

DP. Viewing nurses as a patient here: they come across as more helpful and personable than doctors. They also appear just as knowledgeable as they do their jobs.

This may be due to the fact the doctor stays in my room for 2 minutes, whereas the nurse is far more dedicated to my care.

I suspect I’ll see the dynamic you mention if I were to look behind the curtain, but I’ll take a nurse over a doctor any day.

You are missing the point. it is not a nurse over a doctor. The nurses could not do their jobs without the doctors' orders. The nurses (RN, BSN) do not have anywhere close to the knowledge needed to manage the patient's medical conditions. NP's are closer but they still require extensive oversight by MD's, and only have adequate training to manage the bread & butter basic human problems without MD consultation and oversight.
It is indeed similar to comparing internet technology type tech degrees with four year engineering degrees, or to phD Engineering. The degrees are all in "technology" but they lead to vastly different jobs/careers. Nursing, NP, and Doctor are all medical degrees, but vastly different career paths.

For the upper-most level of Nursing (NP, MSN, or Doctorate in Nursing) and the careers at the uppermost level of Engineering (careers in industry or academia needing pHD, or CEO goals), a top undergrad is a solid advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top engineering firms only really actively recruit grads from the Top engineering schools. Not that other grads won’t eventually end up somewhere. They will just have a different path to get there.

This. Prestige matters for engineering at the top levels. There are about 15 ivy/privates and 5 publics that are far above the rest

Yes but remember there are thousands of students at each of these top schools and top companies will not hire them all, only the top students. So the average Joes there will end up in the same places as students from other colleges.

career outcomes at the 1and 5 yr mark as well as phd matriculation lists indicate the average joe engineer at stanford, princeton, penn, MIT, CMU UCB et al do much much better than the average joe at VT or NC state. Not even close.

For DCuM, that is a fairly precise claim. Source?

DP....most of those schools have data published online. We looked that up when ours was applying to engineering. You can break it down by subfield and degree(BS v PhD ) at many schools. we happen to have family members who are or have been in academia and industry in Engineering and all three came up with almost the same 10-15 schools to target. They said aim for match of peers first and the highest level coursework available. Their collective experience was that teaching is quite different at average public T50 engineering versus elite(UCB/GT/ivy/mit /stanford).

We get it...You need to justify that tuition bill somehow. But your kid will be working alongside Auburn and Cal State grads regardless, and the market doesn't care about your academic pedigree rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the enginerring discussion in this thread, it appears that most agree that only a small percentage of top students from elite schools see meaningful employment advantages. Given this reality, what justifies paying Ivy League or high-tier private tuition for an engineering degree when state flagships, regional universities, or lower-ranked private schools with merit aid can provide equivalent career outcomes?

They don’t have equivalent career outcomes. Top privates have better outcomes because they are smaller and have higher caliber graduates.

I don’t even understand your point. Small may be great for liberal arts but not for engineering. Think about it. GT, Cal, and Illinois aren't producing great engineers despite their size, they're producing them because of it. When you have 50 faculty members in one department instead of 5, you get cutting edge research, diverse expertise, and opportunities that small programs simply can't match.

This is why the truly elite engineering schools, whether public like Cal and GT or private like MIT and Stanford, are all substantial in size. Even the small elite privates aren't actually small. MIT has more than 11,000 students and Stanford has more than 17,000.

Small programs often mean limited options. Want to switch from mechanical to aerospace? Sorry, we don't offer that. Interested in AI applications in civil engineering? Our one CS professor is already overloaded.

The alumni networks at large schools aren't weaker, they're exponentially stronger. There are more GT grads in engineering leadership roles than graduates from most small programs combined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top engineering firms only really actively recruit grads from the Top engineering schools. Not that other grads won’t eventually end up somewhere. They will just have a different path to get there.

This. Prestige matters for engineering at the top levels. There are about 15 ivy/privates and 5 publics that are far above the rest

Yes but remember there are thousands of students at each of these top schools and top companies will not hire them all, only the top students. So the average Joes there will end up in the same places as students from other colleges.

career outcomes at the 1and 5 yr mark as well as phd matriculation lists indicate the average joe engineer at stanford, princeton, penn, MIT, CMU UCB et al do much much better than the average joe at VT or NC state. Not even close.

For DCuM, that is a fairly precise claim. Source?

DP....most of those schools have data published online. We looked that up when ours was applying to engineering. You can break it down by subfield and degree(BS v PhD ) at many schools. we happen to have family members who are or have been in academia and industry in Engineering and all three came up with almost the same 10-15 schools to target. They said aim for match of peers first and the highest level coursework available. Their collective experience was that teaching is quite different at average public T50 engineering versus elite(UCB/GT/ivy/mit /stanford).

We get it...You need to justify that tuition bill somehow. But your kid will be working alongside Auburn and Cal State grads regardless, and the market doesn't care about your academic pedigree rankings.

Assuming your kid just wants to work at Bechtel or the equivalent…but tell me how many Auburn or Cal State grads you will work next to at a VC fund or a hedge fund or a PE fund or McKinsey…or all the other options available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the enginerring discussion in this thread, it appears that most agree that only a small percentage of top students from elite schools see meaningful employment advantages. Given this reality, what justifies paying Ivy League or high-tier private tuition for an engineering degree when state flagships, regional universities, or lower-ranked private schools with merit aid can provide equivalent career outcomes?

They don’t have equivalent career outcomes. Top privates have better outcomes because they are smaller and have higher caliber graduates.

I don’t even understand your point. Small may be great for liberal arts but not for engineering. Think about it. GT, Cal, and Illinois aren't producing great engineers despite their size, they're producing them because of it. When you have 50 faculty members in one department instead of 5, you get cutting edge research, diverse expertise, and opportunities that small programs simply can't match.

This is why the truly elite engineering schools, whether public like Cal and GT or private like MIT and Stanford, are all substantial in size. Even the small elite privates aren't actually small. MIT has more than 11,000 students and Stanford has more than 17,000.

Small programs often mean limited options. Want to switch from mechanical to aerospace? Sorry, we don't offer that. Interested in AI applications in civil engineering? Our one CS professor is already overloaded.

The alumni networks at large schools aren't weaker, they're exponentially stronger. There are more GT grads in engineering leadership roles than graduates from most small programs combined.

MIT has 4500 undergrads…not sure how the additional 5500 grad students matter. Stanford is 7850…unlike MIT the 10,000 grad students are in many non-STEM areas.

The top privates PP mentioned are also large schools by your definition, so not sure what argument you are putting forth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You will find a job, correct? My know-it-all brother-in-law states this, he's in his 50's and doesn't except things have changed that requirements are more demanding. Other opinions?

Do you mean accept?

[Anonymous]

OP you sound stupid!

[Anonymous]

What is with the demeaning comments about BSN nursing as a profession? If you don’t want to go to med school or have a strong desire to do direct patient care you are somehow less than everyone else in the medical field? Grow up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the enginerring discussion in this thread, it appears that most agree that only a small percentage of top students from elite schools see meaningful employment advantages. Given this reality, what justifies paying Ivy League or high-tier private tuition for an engineering degree when state flagships, regional universities, or lower-ranked private schools with merit aid can provide equivalent career outcomes?

They don’t have equivalent career outcomes. Top privates have better outcomes because they are smaller and have higher caliber graduates.

I don’t even understand your point. Small may be great for liberal arts but not for engineering. Think about it. GT, Cal, and Illinois aren't producing great engineers despite their size, they're producing them because of it. When you have 50 faculty members in one department instead of 5, you get cutting edge research, diverse expertise, and opportunities that small programs simply can't match.

This is why the truly elite engineering schools, whether public like Cal and GT or private like MIT and Stanford, are all substantial in size. Even the small elite privates aren't actually small. MIT has more than 11,000 students and Stanford has more than 17,000.

Small programs often mean limited options. Want to switch from mechanical to aerospace? Sorry, we don't offer that. Interested in AI applications in civil engineering? Our one CS professor is already overloaded.

The alumni networks at large schools aren't weaker, they're exponentially stronger. There are more GT grads in engineering leadership roles than graduates from most small programs combined.

MIT has 4500 undergrads…not sure how the additional 5500 grad students matter. Stanford is 7850…unlike MIT the 10,000 grad students are in many non-STEM areas.

The top privates PP mentioned are also large schools by your definition, so not sure what argument you are putting forth.

Actually, the graduate student numbers reinforce my point about resources. Those 6,500 or so grad students at MIT aren't just padding enrollment, they're what drives the school's ability to offer resources that might not otherwise be available. Grad programs drive the research that undergrads get to participate in. PhD students are running the labs, mentoring undergrads on cutting edge projects, and creating the research ecosystem that justifies world class facilities. The massive graduate programs at schools like MIT, Stanford, Cal, and GT are exactly why their undergrads have access to opportunities that smaller programs simply can't provide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Engineering is about to be replaced by AI... a lot of basic nursing functions too, but high level stuff will survive.

Lol

You think you can't train AI to do some math?

That's one of the few things it's good at.

Architects are screwed—the nimrods who make airy conceptual drawings will be fine (altho... AI DOES do pretty good unrealistic airy conceptual drawings) and then all the nuts and bolts and detail work will be AI.

Plumbers and electricians will get AI generated printouts of exactly where to put what. It'll be pretty great. Really bring down housing costs. Not so much for kids currently in engineering school.

And AI can definitely adjust the IV drip based on readings. The nurses who clean the poop off the elderly will still have jobs tho.

Seems optimistic that housing costs will decrease due to AI. I think it's more likely profits will increase for those building the homes, and it's not likely they will pass the savings onto buyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the enginerring discussion in this thread, it appears that most agree that only a small percentage of top students from elite schools see meaningful employment advantages. Given this reality, what justifies paying Ivy League or high-tier private tuition for an engineering degree when state flagships, regional universities, or lower-ranked private schools with merit aid can provide equivalent career outcomes?

They don’t have equivalent career outcomes. Top privates have better outcomes because they are smaller and have higher caliber graduates.

I don’t even understand your point. Small may be great for liberal arts but not for engineering. Think about it. GT, Cal, and Illinois aren't producing great engineers despite their size, they're producing them because of it. When you have 50 faculty members in one department instead of 5, you get cutting edge research, diverse expertise, and opportunities that small programs simply can't match.

This is why the truly elite engineering schools, whether public like Cal and GT or private like MIT and Stanford, are all substantial in size. Even the small elite privates aren't actually small. MIT has more than 11,000 students and Stanford has more than 17,000.

Small programs often mean limited options. Want to switch from mechanical to aerospace? Sorry, we don't offer that. Interested in AI applications in civil engineering? Our one CS professor is already overloaded.

The alumni networks at large schools aren't weaker, they're exponentially stronger. There are more GT grads in engineering leadership roles than graduates from most small programs combined.

Bingo!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top engineering firms only really actively recruit grads from the Top engineering schools. Not that other grads won’t eventually end up somewhere. They will just have a different path to get there.

This. Prestige matters for engineering at the top levels. There are about 15 ivy/privates and 5 publics that are far above the rest

Yes but remember there are thousands of students at each of these top schools and top companies will not hire them all, only the top students. So the average Joes there will end up in the same places as students from other colleges.

career outcomes at the 1and 5 yr mark as well as phd matriculation lists indicate the average joe engineer at stanford, princeton, penn, MIT, CMU UCB et al do much much better than the average joe at VT or NC state. Not even close.

For DCuM, that is a fairly precise claim. Source?

DP....most of those schools have data published online. We looked that up when ours was applying to engineering. You can break it down by subfield and degree(BS v PhD ) at many schools. we happen to have family members who are or have been in academia and industry in Engineering and all three came up with almost the same 10-15 schools to target. They said aim for match of peers first and the highest level coursework available. Their collective experience was that teaching is quite different at average public T50 engineering versus elite(UCB/GT/ivy/mit /stanford).

We get it...You need to justify that tuition bill somehow. But your kid will be working alongside Auburn and Cal State grads regardless, and the market doesn't care about your academic pedigree rankings.

Assuming your kid just wants to work at Bechtel or the equivalent…but tell me how many Auburn or Cal State grads you will work next to at a VC fund or a hedge fund or a PE fund or McKinsey…or all the other options available.

Yes, because working for a hedge fund is what they should aspire to do.