No one cares about any of these rankings except possibly US News and World Report.

The only real ranking that matters is revealed preference; if you had the choice of any two schools, which would you choose? The compiling of all that across all applicants should capture all their preferences, and show their rank is roughly proxied by the acceptance rate ranked lowest to highest. Now that acceptance rate isn't included in the US News ranking, schools don't have the incentive to push it up so it should show revealed preference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't the Harvard manager just tell the MIT grad to fix their engine?

Or you get students like Bill Gates who can build the stuff and manage the people.

Very rare skillet at the highest level. Bill Gates doing both well is questionable. At least a Zuck, another Harvard dropout, didn't have Paul Allen.

Zuck just had people to steal the idea and initial funding from!

That initial idea was questionable. But maybe what you really need to ideate, build, and manage is a non-evil twin (perhaps one who can row). The WV twins have done pretty well post settlement too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having good engineering schools is overrated (especially for undergrads). All you really need is fairly good CS at this point.

Having good engineering is still very important. The new wave of self-driving cars will need mechanical engineers, and the new wave of bodily replacements/enhancements will need biomedical engineers. Of course CS is vital in all of that too but the engineers are still needed

Engineering isn't all that important to being a great university though. It is why there are specialty universities to fill that niche. At the undergrad level, CS is what a school needs. Not having a strong CS program is a major issue given the shift in majors happening (and yes, some old school boomer departments might call it computer engineering).

Huh? Engineering is fundamental to a top undergrad school. It's no coincidence that generally the best CS schools also have strong engineering programs.

You could say the same thing about econ and CS rather than engineering. Thinking about it, that might actually be more true and covers more top CS programs too!

The bigger point is having great engineering isn't central to being an excellent college or having a strong CS department. You can't really succeed as a college period without CS now (the top universities and SLACs caught on pretty quickly), which is a huge shift from when a lot of this crowd was in school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having good engineering schools is overrated (especially for undergrads). All you really need is fairly good CS at this point.

Having good engineering is still very important. The new wave of self-driving cars will need mechanical engineers, and the new wave of bodily replacements/enhancements will need biomedical engineers. Of course CS is vital in all of that too but the engineers are still needed

Engineering isn't all that important to being a great university though. It is why there are specialty universities to fill that niche. At the undergrad level, CS is what a school needs. Not having a strong CS program is a major issue given the shift in majors happening (and yes, some old school boomer departments might call it computer engineering).

Huh? Engineering is fundamental to a top undergrad school. It's no coincidence that generally the best CS schools also have strong engineering programs.

Not really.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having good engineering schools is overrated (especially for undergrads). All you really need is fairly good CS at this point.

Having good engineering is still very important. The new wave of self-driving cars will need mechanical engineers, and the new wave of bodily replacements/enhancements will need biomedical engineers. Of course CS is vital in all of that too but the engineers are still needed

Engineering isn't all that important to being a great university though. It is why there are specialty universities to fill that niche. At the undergrad level, CS is what a school needs. Not having a strong CS program is a major issue given the shift in majors happening (and yes, some old school boomer departments might call it computer engineering).

Huh? Engineering is fundamental to a top undergrad school. It's no coincidence that generally the best CS schools also have strong engineering programs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't the Harvard manager just tell the MIT grad to fix their engine?

Or you get students like Bill Gates who can build the stuff and manage the people.

Very rare skillet at the highest level. Bill Gates doing both well is questionable. At least a Zuck, another Harvard dropout, didn't have Paul Allen.

Zuck just had people to steal the idea and initial funding from!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No school in US News top 10 has a weak engineering program. The weakest is Yale and they're not terrible.

Chicago does not have any traditional engineering program to speak of. The do have a school of Molecular Engineering, but that's really applied physics and chemistry/biology (i.e. you have to take quantum mechanics as part of the program). There is no engineering school. They are "old school" in still thinking of undergrad education as (in the words of longtime president Robert Hutchins): "Education is not to teach men facts, theories, or laws; it is not to reform them, or amuse them, or to make them expert technicians in any field; it is to teach them to think, to think straight if possible; but to think always for themselves."

Opinions vary on the UChicago Kool-Aid, but most who there really do still believe this.

That’s kind of a lame validation, they still teach lots of “facts” in their science programs. And then creating a molecular engineering program in recent years essentially shows they’ve been trying to get into engineering

Anonymous wrote:

No school in US News top 10 has a weak engineering program. The weakest is Yale and they're not terrible.

Chicago does not have any traditional engineering program to speak of. The do have a school of Molecular Engineering, but that's really applied physics and chemistry/biology (i.e. you have to take quantum mechanics as part of the program). There is no engineering school. They are "old school" in still thinking of undergrad education as (in the words of longtime president Robert Hutchins): "Education is not to teach men facts, theories, or laws; it is not to reform them, or amuse them, or to make them expert technicians in any field; it is to teach them to think, to think straight if possible; but to think always for themselves."

Opinions vary on the UChicago Kool-Aid, but most who there really do still believe this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having good engineering schools is overrated (especially for undergrads). All you really need is fairly good CS at this point.

Having good engineering is still very important. The new wave of self-driving cars will need mechanical engineers, and the new wave of bodily replacements/enhancements will need biomedical engineers. Of course CS is vital in all of that too but the engineers are still needed

Engineering isn't all that important to being a great university though. It is why there are specialty universities to fill that niche. At the undergrad level, CS is what a school needs. Not having a strong CS program is a major issue given the shift in majors happening (and yes, some old school boomer departments might call it computer engineering).

Obviously correct. Just look at Harvard and Yale.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't the Harvard manager just tell the MIT grad to fix their engine?

Or you get students like Bill Gates who can build the stuff and manage the people.

Very rare skillet at the highest level. Bill Gates doing both well is questionable. At least a Zuck, another Harvard dropout, didn't have Paul Allen.

Skillset, sorry!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't the Harvard manager just tell the MIT grad to fix their engine?

Or you get students like Bill Gates who can build the stuff and manage the people.

Very rare skillet at the highest level. Bill Gates doing both well is questionable. At least a Zuck, another Harvard dropout, didn't have Paul Allen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having good engineering schools is overrated (especially for undergrads). All you really need is fairly good CS at this point.

Having good engineering is still very important. The new wave of self-driving cars will need mechanical engineers, and the new wave of bodily replacements/enhancements will need biomedical engineers. Of course CS is vital in all of that too but the engineers are still needed

Engineering isn't all that important to being a great university though. It is why there are specialty universities to fill that niche. At the undergrad level, CS is what a school needs. Not having a strong CS program is a major issue given the shift in majors happening (and yes, some old school boomer departments might call it computer engineering).

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't the Harvard manager just tell the MIT grad to fix their engine?

Or you get students like Bill Gates who can build the stuff and manage the people.

Anonymous wrote:Having good engineering schools is overrated (especially for undergrads). All you really need is fairly good CS at this point.

Having good engineering is still very important. The new wave of self-driving cars will need mechanical engineers, and the new wave of bodily replacements/enhancements will need biomedical engineers. Of course CS is vital in all of that too but the engineers are still needed

Doesn't the Harvard manager just tell the MIT grad to fix their engine?