Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You could go to just any school but what's the point if you will struggle for a job with the economy the way that it is
Actually the way the economy is- is much lower unemployment rates for college graduates than for the broader population, and much lower unemployment raters for engineers than for college graduates in general. In other words, engineering jobs abound. So the way the economy is, and the way it's going to be (with US high school students woefully lacking in math and science) is that demand for engineers will continue to be strong, with supply struggling to keep up. So the engineering graduates from the Clemsons and the University of Floridas and from the NC States are going to be able to get jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LovelySummer
and folk at higher caliber places are going to take the few that are avail.
Disagree. GaTech, MIT, and CalTech aren't going to scoop up all the jobs with the rest of the engineering graduates from the Clemsons and UFs and NCStates unable to get a job.
With 2% unemployment AND strong demand moving forward, that points moreso towards a conclusion of you DON'T have to go to the highly touted engineering schools to find an engineering job upon graduation. So you ask what's the point if you will struggle for a job with the economy the way it is, when the point is you generally WON'T struggle for an engineering job with the economy the way it is. And therefore the point is that those 'other' engineering schools can be good options for parents and students who don't feel the student's personality and background suits the culture of a GaTech or MIT.
I'm just saying there ARE options, and a student doesn't have to lose out exercising those options. It still remains that GaTech IS a great value for the money- for an in-state student, that is, I just think people should have as much information as possible when making a decision as big as where to go to engineering school. And IMO, US economic information and school culture information matters. So students and parents need not feel like they HAVE to go to a GaTech or MIT to get an engineering degree and an engineering job upon graduation. It's an option amongst multiple options, so school culture IMO becomes as much a valid factor in that decision as how highly the school is touted, and I'd argue it's an even MORE important factor than how highly the school is touted. That's the point.
But yeah, if you like the GaTech culture or you want an engineering job in the Atlanta vicinity out of college, then you pretty much should apply to GaTech.
Engineering jobs aren't interchangeable. The better the school, the better the jobs. Most engineers want to work on something interesting. The advantage of going to MIT and GT is not only the instructors and brand name, it's that you will be going to school with smarter kids. Peers who will end up in better jobs and will pull their friends in when HR asks to recruit. Or you may be able to avoid that whole rat race all together and meet people with whom you can start a company.
Engineering jobs aren't interchangeable. The better the school, the better the jobs.
A generalization that simply isn't the case. My company recently hired engineers from GaTech, University of Florida, Mississippi State University, University of Dayton, NC State, and plenty of other engineering schools. And the jobs pay well.
This is just like the 'few jobs in today's economy' comment- somebody's gut feel that, when the evidence is actually looked at- turns out to be not so true. What IS true is that if you go to GaTech, you put yourself higher on the list for Atlanta area jobs, and if you go to Standford, you put yourself higher on the list for Silicon Valley jobs. And to some extent, when you go to a state school, you put yourself higher on the list for jobs in that state. So location does play a factor. The closer an engineering school is to an employer, the greater the chance of getting a serious look from that employer.
Another point is that with the diversity that exists in engineers and their interests, "better job" is a totally subjective phrase. Some engineers love consulting. Some love R&D. Some love manufacturing. 'Better' is completely dependent on the interests of a given engineer. Interested in peteroleum engineering as a 'better' engineering job? Might want to consider University of Texas at Austin or maybe Rice University, etc. Better is a subjective term, and especially with as many engineering opportunities as there are in the US, cannot be applied objectively to draw a conclusion linking the top tier schools to 'better' jobs and the other schools to 'lesser' jobs. The facts simply don't support that notion, just like they don't support the notion of there being few engineering jobs in the US so it takes a top tier school's degree to snag up one of those few.
Knowing the data, knowing the facts makes for better decision-making. That's the case in the business world after you get a degree, and also for parents and students picking colleges and universities to attend to get a degree.
Yes. A teacher is supposed to TEACH. People pay lots of money to go to schools so that teachers TEACH knowledge to help them get further in life. Less apt to explanation is just another way of saying being lazy in their teaching work, being awful teachers. Explanation is the BASIC function a teacher is supposed to supply. As far as hand holding and patience, that is another matter completely because often the hand holding and patience was the job of TAs. But a professor who doesn't explain things in a way that TRANSFERS knowledge is an awful professor, plain and simple, and one who puts things on tests that weren't covered in class and that the professor didn't tell the class to make sure to go investigate on their own- is a waste of a student or parent's money- because that student's grade will more than likely not reflect their ability or work. In the REAL world, businesses let employees know what is expected of them. This garbage of telling you 70% of what is expected and torpedoing you with 30% that was never mentioned bears NO resemblence to the working world.
So yes, because so much money is paid for an education, awful teaching IS such a bad thing.
'''
Lots of engineering schools are hard. But many don't intentionally try to torpedo students, and many have professors who actually, gasp, EXCEL at instructing students. Amazing that paying parents would want professors teaching their children who can actually INSTRUCT, isnt' it? Why should they care in grade school, care in high school, when school is typically free, and then all of a sudden NOT care in college when they pay out of pocket? Answer- they should care, and they pay enough to EXPECT quality teaching.
Well...to cut to the chase...prospective students to Georgia Tech and schools like it...think it (and they) exists to teach and professors are their teachers. They are not. Professors at research universities are expected to do research and more importantly, bring in sponsored research from which Georgia Tech skims off a good deal of the money.
Teaching undergraduates wastes a prof's time that s/he could otherwise spend on research. Profs care about their research and their research assistants because that is what furthers their careers and earns them tenure. Having to teach undergraduate classes is really a form of 'punishment' and if a prof is out of the classroom and only doing research, that's because he is bringing in enough money to offset the money earned from the students paying for the class. A prof that is a great teacher but is not publishing or worse, can't bring in the money can kiss his career at Tech goodbye. A lousy teacher that is publishing and winning grants, he's staying at Tech. Hopefully a prof like that will move permanently out of the classroom and into the lab.
In summary, Georgia Tech is not about teaching and learning...it's about research. Really, that's the first thing they should tell every freshman on his or her first day...or better yet...before they enroll.
In summary, Georgia Tech is not about teaching and learning...it's about research. Really, that's the first thing they should tell every freshman on his or her first day...or better yet...before they enroll.
That is beyond stupid. Is research a component of the university, absolutely, but to say that takes precedent over education is absurd. The two are linked and the school is near the top in the country for nearly every engineering program it offers for a reason.
That is beyond stupid. Is research a component of the university, absolutely, but to say that takes precedent over education is absurd. The two are linked and the school is near the top in the country for nearly every engineering program it offers for a reason.
No don't kid yourself, research takes precedence over teaching. i had a "facts of Georgia Tech life" talk with a prof over lunch years ago. And sadly, research is what Tech is really about. Undergrad teaching is a cash cow that profs have to do and if the class load for a prof is increased it's because the prof isn't bringing in enough grants. That prof told me that any talk about the importance of "teaching" at Tech is just lip service. Great teachers won't be kept by GT unless they do good research and bring in more money than it costs Tech to pay them. I can understand why one of my profs said at the beginning of a class that "I don't care about undergraduates". GT profs are not as receptive of undergrad students with questions after class in their offices as say Georgia State or Kennesaw State profs. Given a choice, most GT profs would rather not teach undergrands. I recall one of my GT profs pleading with the class to sign up for the next semester of his course so there would be enough to make it. Otherwise he would "have to teach Calculus"...and he rolled his eyes.
Do not make the mistake of thinking Georgia Tech is first and foremost a teaching school. It's not...it is a research school. Probably more suited for graduate students.
As for the rankings, they are judging the quality of the faculty which means research. There is no assessment about how well they teach. And a lot of that reputation comes from the graduate studies and that is what is more closely linked to research than undergrad classes.
I was a research intern at Tech for 3 years in the microelectronics research center in conjunction with TSRB. At the time I was there, the EE professors I knew, I referred to as teachers. Primarily, their function was to do research (several of them with very strong ties to IC packaging and $ from Intel Capital), and they taught 1 or 2 classes a week. Their classes were data dumps. The lessons were good and if you understood abstract concepts like electromagnetics on microscopic scales, they made sense. They had office hours, but you had to come with specific questions. In the end, you were left on your own to prepare for exams.
As mentioned above, this suits some students more than others. It suited me extremely well. I generally wish to be left alone to complete my tasks (and still do, even in engineering management). Making contact with these guys also helped quite a bit in obtaining a research intern position, and even helped with job interviews afterwards. Though I chose a different route, this "lack of" attention towards me as a student by these professors forced me to teach myself. This also suited me just fine, as it was in conjunction with the way I was raised. I was provided resources and then told to teach myself (we're talking advanced math and science topics my folks insisted I self-study as a kid).
The end result of this, as I have mentioned before on this forum is my ability to jump into lots of different projects and tasks with a rudimentary understanding, and emerge successful; I teach myself along the way; If you do this enough times, over time you can grasp even the most complex concepts with relative ease, with the only barrier being time you have to study material; This does translate into success on the job and more $ in my pocket.
That said, I'm envious at times, of those who fell in with the right crowds, didn't spend their free time meeting girls off campus, and started research and manufacturing based businesses immediately upon graduation. There's always the future!
No don't kid yourself, research takes precedence over teaching......
Do not make the mistake of thinking Georgia Tech is first and foremost a teaching school. It's not...it is a research school. Probably more suited for graduate students.
As for the rankings, they are judging the quality of the faculty which means research. There is no assessment about how well they teach. And a lot of that reputation comes from the graduate studies and that is what is more closely linked to research than undergrad classes.
Exactly. If a student is especially interested in research then they kinda ARE limited to the highly touted research schools for a better shot at success. But if they are interested in other more typical job pursuits then there are a multitude of options where a student will not constantly come across researchers who are loathe to teach undergrads and who therefore perform poorly at this job task. Parents should really be thinking in those terms, particularly if they do not get the in-state rate and therefore do not get the low math denominator in the value for the money calculation or salary returns on tuition calculation. Both values depend highly on the For The Money tuition part. Professor headache for the money should also be on parents' minds.
I know of several firms hiring top tier engineering talent approaching the 80 mark nowadays out of Georgia Tech. Many firms do not start all employees the same pay, even in the same grade, and lawyers do not have any case for 'equal pay' as you outlined it.
I can confirm one of Atlanta's largest companies starts employees at vastly different salaries depending on where they graduate from. There are some severe pro-GT biases here to the point that it made for some hilarious conversations - someone justified giving "Employee A" a higher salary than "Employee B" because "Employee A" was a GT grad and "Employee B" was only a Harvard grad.
The reality is that there IS bias and it varies from corporation to corporation. It generally reflects the views (or more importantly, alma maters) of the executives. Is the VP a Thunderbird graduate? Guess what. The organization will probably put emphasis on recruiting from Thunderbird and pay them more too.
Why the favoritism? Because favoring your alma mater does yourself a favor. The stats come out (like you see here in the links) that your university has higher starting salaries, median salaries, etc. and your degree increases in value. So when you negotiate for a higher salary, you can point to the latest stats showing your degree is a hot item. The more grads you hire from your school at higher salaries, the more your degree looks good, thereby helping you to get a higher salary, promotions, and justify hiring more grads from your school... it's a self-perpetuating cycle. That is why you'll find many corporations have significant employee skews towards 2-3 "favored" schools.
It is educational-nepotism and it is quite real.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
