Anonymous wrote:(However, if one ever becomes a consulting engineer, usually later in their career, they will need a PE license.)

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BC isn't weak in engineering. Just stop. This has to a BU or NEU troll.

We are looking into engineering programs and think BCs is not even ABET approved yet -

The Human-Centered Engineering program is being designed to meet the standards of ABET, the main body for accreditation of engineering programs in the United States.

An engineering program cannot apply for ABET accreditation until after it has graduated its first class. With that in mind, we expect to apply for ABET accreditation in the year following the graduation of the Class of 2025. ABET accreditation will be applied retroactively to the previous years’ classes.

Incidentally, Stanford’s engineering programs, with the exception of CivE and MechE, are no longer ABET accredited.

Stanford felt the ABET requirements for some of the engineering majors were too restrictive and chose to select their own major requirements. Those Stanford grads not having trouble getting jobs

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.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BC isn't weak in engineering. Just stop. This has to a BU or NEU troll.

We are looking into engineering programs and think BCs is not even ABET approved yet -

The Human-Centered Engineering program is being designed to meet the standards of ABET, the main body for accreditation of engineering programs in the United States.

An engineering program cannot apply for ABET accreditation until after it has graduated its first class. With that in mind, we expect to apply for ABET accreditation in the year following the graduation of the Class of 2025. ABET accreditation will be applied retroactively to the previous years’ classes.

Incidentally, Stanford’s engineering programs, with the exception of CivE and MechE, are no longer ABET accredited.

Stanford felt the ABET requirements for some of the engineering majors were too restrictive and chose to select their own major requirements. Those Stanford grads not having trouble getting jobs

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.

UNC doesn’t have engineering school. Most of engineering programs moved NCSU last century.

Anonymous wrote: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.

x10000
BINGO.

Anonymous wrote:The engineering students at UVa are from TJ, so their stats are quite high.

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 wrote: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.

This - and old-fashioned hard work also helps.

Anonymous wrote:BC isn't weak in engineering. Just stop. This has to a BU or NEU troll.

Most BC engineering programs are not accredited

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the undergrad engineering list:

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/engineering-doctorate

FYI, that "undergrad" list you linked is solely based on peer assessment reviews, which is rather bogus methodology according to many.

The first link for the best engineering schools is based on much more comprehensive data.

FYI, no one here is talking about grad schools, so the link for undergraduate programs is much more applicable and appropriate.

You really think that the strength of the graduate engineering program has nothing to do with the strength of the undergraduate program?? Sorry, I think you are completely wrong, and I would wager that most people in the engineering world would agree with me.

+1

Anonymous wrote: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.

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 wrote: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.

The point of the thread is the opposite…weak engineering programs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Typically, the students who get into MIT have much higher stats than those who got into engineering at Elizabethtown. I think test results would show a difference.

And much higher stats than UVA, obviously.

The engineering students at UVa are from TJ, so their stats are quite high. Helpful to have the nation’s top high school delivering such talented students year after year. Asian families know the value of a dollar and their kids end up at SpaceX just the same.

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 wrote:The directives “Must go to Ivy League school” and “Must study engineering” are in conflict with each other. My upper class WASPy family were appalled when I chose to study engineering. Very déclassé.

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.

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.