This jives with engineering industries, where USC is a consistent producer of aerospace/mechanical and tech talent. USC is considered a top school in many other research fields as well.
I think it's more likely that you actually know very little about academics at these institutions.
Disclaimer: I work at UPenn (doing research!) and went to USC.
There is only one ivy, Cornell, in the top 10 (though Princeton does clock in at 11). Like I said, I'm not a huge fan of these rakings, and using them to the digit (4th place vs 6th place) is genuinely absurd. But overall, you'll see here that large public research universities, none of which crack the top 20 for US News undergraduate college rankings, are much more prominent where it comes to engineering.
There are reasons in the methodology for this as well - I think that the algorithm used to create the general rankings isn't similar to this one, which (like the ranking for grad programs) is more academic and research focused (not considering average SAT, admission rates, funding, and so forth).
But overall, the Ivies actually aren't highly notable where it comes to computer science and engineering. Large public research universities, as well as elite non-ivy privates, tend to predominate here.
This does make a certain amount of sense. If a STEM major is an "equalizer", where smart people who went to less prestigious schools can compete on (more) equal footing, it would make sense that students at highly selective undergraduate programs might eschew engineering or CS in favor of fields where their undergrad school might provide a stronger differentiator. And, conversely, if a super smart undergrad at San Jose state will have trouble overcoming the pedigree disadvantage in international relations, but can get a more equal crack through engineering, it would make more sense to study STEM.
I'm definitely guilty of some "just-so" reasoning here, but it does fit.
The high school student needs to ask the question, "where is the best place to get a undergraduate degree in a specific field"? Generic rankings, especially ones that are heavily influenced by the university's research record, are pretty useless for undergraduate education quality.
I can think of dozens of engineering schools. I listed the only one in the east that is comparable to Stanford or CalTech, not a comprehensive list of all the schools that are not as good. I hope now you understand the purpose of my previous post. Thanks.
What measure are you using for top universities? Looking at US News' top engineering schools, Cornell, UCLA, Berkeley, CMU and Georgia Tech are all in the top 15.
usc is a money-oriented pay-for-prestige institution, and most folks know it, which is why it always lags ucla (and others) in prestige outside of the cinema school (even that has been bought, by old-money hollywood). other programs, like engineering, are solid, but suffer from the overall shallowness of usc’s image, as well as the many scandals that have further tarnished the brand.
Ok, they are both top 100 for engineering and top 50 for business programs.
I think you are confusing "great" with "top" or "prestigious". They are great universities.
And college rankings aren't everything. Those universities put out a high volume entrepreneurs, more than most of the top 50 engineering schools. For example, I don't see most of the top engineering schools on this list: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHB_9l_UAAE8Fzn.jpg
Considering USC's rapid rise up the rankings by employing their money wisely, I would say that you can in fact "buy" engineering ranking in US News, if the institution makes it a priority.
General engineering and computer science are separate rankings. For 2009, they are #6 in "Computer Engineering", behind MIT, Stanford, CMU, UC Berkeley, and UIUC. This is actually a substantial improvement from the 12th place that I remember. Maybe "industry orientation" improves your US News ranking :-/
I can probably find rankings that put Harvard at wildly different rankings in all of those categories too. The fact of the matter is, outside of Law and Business (okay okay, Math too), Harvard does not exactly float to the top of anybody's personal list as a source of any kind of great engineering. That's okay, that's not what the school focuses on.
We actually had this exact discussion recently at a client site and brainstormed top schools we could look to recruit from for C.S. and Mechanical Engineering types and Harvard was not on anybody's list for either of those. Not top-10 and not in the discussion at all.
Most people are wildly surprised to find out that folks like Bill Gates and Zuckerberg studied at Harvard, almost verbatim the response is "Harvard has a C.S. department?" Most people assume Stanford or MIT.
This jives with engineering industries, where USC is a consistent producer of aerospace/mechanical and tech talent. USC is considered a top school in many other research fields as well.
I think it's more likely that you actually know very little about academics at these institutions.
Disclaimer: I work at UPenn (doing research!) and went to USC.
reply