Anonymous wrote:Stanford
Harvard
MIT
UC Berkeley
Carnegie Mellon
UT-Austin
Caltech
Michigan
Georgia Tech
Cornell
Princeton
Columbia
Rensselaer
Worcester
UIllinois - Urbana-Champaign
Harvey Mudd
Virginia Tech
Purdue
Texas A&M

Anonymous wrote:I did my graduate work at UT, and my undergraduate work at a SLAC. I think my classes were uniformly more rigorous at the SLAC and fewer people were lost in the shuffle. Although we didn't have top notch resources for research, we had collaborating labs, and I had a lot more independence in my undergraduate research than the average student who gets involved in research at UT. My senior year was a lot like grad school. I mentored several undergraduates at UT and spent several semesters as a TA, so I'm not talking out of my ass. MIT and Stanford have the advantage of having a really strong peer group; in fact my good friend went to MIT for undergrad and the level at which the introductory courses went into much greater depth (by a huge margin) than either my classes at my SLAC or the courses I TAed for at UT. Unless we are talking about grad classes or deans scholar classes, a lot of courses (even junior level courses) taught in my subject (a STEM subject) were kind of high school part 2 at UT.

There were a few exceptional students who took advantage of the resources of being at a large research university and had independence in labs, took grad classes, took advantage of various programs oriented toward undergraduates, etc. They were the exception, but some of them had phenomenal experiences.

I think you get a lot more close mentoring at a SLAC, and some places like Reed, Harvey Mudd, Carleton, etc. have very strong undergraduate STEM programs. Also even if you are not at a research powerhouse, there are programs like NSF-REUs so you can get great lab experiences. You are also more likely to do an undergraduate thesis in a smaller program unless you are in an honors program. You are also more likely to get exposed to more in depth seminar classes as an undergraduate.

I don't think it is always so cut and dry about where the better place to get an undergraduate STEM education is--a large top notch research university versus other environments. I think my liberal arts education was great, and the alumni network, although small, is exceedingly loyal and helpful.

DH went to a regional school, and did exceptionally well, had summer research experiences, and won national awards. I also know a number of people who were in my graduate program who did well despite coming from relative "no name" schools (everyone had research experience with professors and often through REUs and other summer internships). You don't have to go to Stanford or MIT or UT or Michigan to get in a lab as an undergrad--and getting closer mentorship and the sort of relationships that lend themselves to excellent letters of recommendations are much much harder at a large flagship state school.

Anonymous wrote:MIT
Cal Tech
Mich
GT
UMD
Ill
Wisconsin
Cal Davis
Texas
Stanford
Carnegie Mellon
Pitt

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are great universities to go to for graduate school, but YMMV for undergrad. A lot of top tier research universities are notorious for not focusing on undergraduate education, especially in STEM where hot shot professors are under a lot of pressure to secure grant funding.

What is this acronym?

Anonymous wrote:These are great universities to go to for graduate school, but YMMV for undergrad. A lot of top tier research universities are notorious for not focusing on undergraduate education, especially in STEM where hot shot professors are under a lot of pressure to secure grant funding.

Anonymous wrote:These are great universities to go to for graduate school, but YMMV for undergrad. A lot of top tier research universities are notorious for not focusing on undergraduate education, especially in STEM where hot shot professors are under a lot of pressure to secure grant funding.