4 replies to this topic

[berrygator]

Could you please rank these schools based upon their engineering: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Texas A&M, University of Texas at Austin, and Rice? Also, is it worth going to Rose or Rice and paying for tuition than getting substantial aid for UT and A&M? Thanks.

[Art Montemayor]

Berrygator:

I've had 48 years of experience working with, for, and over graduates from 3 of the universities you've listed. I graduated from one of these.

I've had very little experience with graduates from Rose-Hulman. I didn't know it existed until 15 years ago.

If you take ANY recommendation of one of these institutions over the others without you, personally, confirming the allegations or basis for the selection you would (in my opinion) be making a very serious mistake. Universities don't make good engineers; good engineers make themselves and produce a good recognition for their universities. That has been my experience.

I seriously doubt if anyone can have the audacious courage to stand up and recommend that you go to any one of the universities (instead of the other options) in order to become a successful, good professional engineer. Any serious engineer doing that would be laughed at as nothing more than a dedicated alumni bent on spreading fame for his university - and that is all.

If you have intentions of getting a good, solid engineering education (which might - or might not - give you a good start at becoming a good professional), then start researching the facilities and the resources of the places where you have been (or have a chance at) selected for attendence as a student. Just because you would like to go to Texas A&M doesn't mean that they will accept you at Aggieland - the same applies for Rice and the U of T. Get serious. You are talking about some very tough schools to get in to take Chemical Engineering from a scholastic qualifications point of view. I know what I'm talking about with respect to these three universities. My two daughters graduated from A&M; one took her medical degree there. My son was not accepted. It's not about money; it's about academic qualifications and the ability to STAY and continue to compete academically for the duration it takes to earn a degree.

The only ranking that really will matter for you - should you qualify and become accepted by the schools mentioned - is the ranking that YOU GIVE THEM. Graduating from an expensive or prestigious university does not guarantee that you will become a successful, rich, and reknowned engineer. Your successful career can only be forged by your dedicated and hard work applied every day of competing at the university level - and no one else. And thank God for that natural and logical fact. Otherwise, we could hope to have famous universities and depend on them to produce the leaders of the engineering world - which is not the actual and real fact.

I hope the above helps to put the subject into a practical perspective for you and for all potential Chemical Engineering Students out there who aspire to excel.

[berrygator]

Thank you for the very extensive reply. I do realize that going to an expensive school will not automatically make you successful. The question I really want answered though is, how is Rose-Hulman seen in the engineering community? Non-engineers have never even heard of the school. My teacher at school told me that once you get out of college, the biggest factor on job resumes is the college you attended. He says that he would rather have a person who made average grades at MIT, Stanford, or Rose compared to a person who made straight A's at UT or A&M. I really like Rose. I have visited (and yes, I got my acceptance letter), liked the campus, liked pretty much everything about the school. They have this program called Rose Ventures where they have this giant building off campus. Companies bring work they need done and Rose students get work experience. So can you tell me is Rose highly esteemed in the engineering community or is this some myth?

[Art Montemayor]

Berrygator:

I can only give you my opinion and the experience that 48 years as a practicing Chemical Engineer have given me. I don't know how many engineering projects your teacher has led, managed, or worked under but I have accumulated a few - most of them in the International Arena. It is my opinion, and I can assure you that many of my professional colleagues with similar credentials will also agree that it is ludicrous to state what you claim your teacher said.

To say that one "would rather have a person who made average grades at MIT, Stanford, or Rose compared to a person who made straight A's at UT or A&M" is not only absurd - but insulting to all the past and existing leaders in the engineering field - especially Chemical Engineering - that have not only graduated from UT and A&M but who are teaching there. I don't know how old or educated you are, but when I mention names like George Mitchell, Michel Halbouty, Ernie Ludwig, James Fair, Charles D. Holland, Ron Darby, Michael L. McGuire, Milton Beychok, and many hundreds more that I could name in detail if I had the time and the space in this Forum to do so, you would have to be impressed. Some the previous names are men who have led, pioneered and raised the level of the engineering bar as it is known today. They have led industrial giant companies, made fortunes, pioneered or invented innovative and revolutionary engineering methods, have initiated radical and revolutionary engineering calculation methods, and are known in the industry as the caliber of engineers that others stand up and to the side when these persons come into a room.

I would ask how many world-scale engineering projects your teacher has led and how many engineering projects has he/she successfully led or spearheaded. How many engineers have worked successfully under this teacher and for how long? Can your teacher match my credentials and resume? To have a believable opinion you must first compile a factual, real record of achievements as a professional engineer.

It has been my esteemed honor to have studied under some, known others, and also been classmate to others. In my career I not only have worked with graduates of M.I.T., I also have had them work under me. Some I would never hire again because I considered them weak as engineers. This does not mean that graduates of M.I.T. are considered bad by me. What it means is that some engineers that graduate from M.I.T. have been found deficient by me. There are other graduates from M.I.T. who have been brilliant – just like there have been great ones from Rice, U of T, and Texas A&M. This factual experience proves to me that what I stated is correct: The school does not make the engineer. It is the engineer who makes himself – and, in the process, builds a reputation for that school.

I have heard of Rose-Hulman as an engineering school. I don’t know how long the school has been producing engineers. I have not heard or read anyone stating any thing superlative about Rose-Hulman's ability to out-class other engineering schools. Perhaps it is because I don't suscribe to the Rose-Hulman alumni news. Texas A&M has been in the business since 1876 and U of Texas even longer. Good engineers can come from any school. And if you decide to go to Rose-Hulman, you can also become a great one – but not necessarily because of Rose-Hulman. If you succeed, it will be because of your own effort and hard work – not Rose-Hulman’s.

And another thing your teacher told you that is an untruth: The biggest thing that you can put is your resume that future employers will look for is NOT YOUR UNIVERSITY. The biggest thing you can add to your resume are successful achievements and projects - regardless of where you went to school, where you were born, the color of your eyes, or your athletic prowess. Successful companies are only interested in achievers and doers when it comes to solving problems. They don't care what you look like or where you came from - as long as you make them a profit. And thank God for that, because it makes the competing field very level for everyone.

Good Luck on your choice and future career.

[berrygator]

Thanks again for the reply. My teacher graduated from Rose-Hulman (yes, I am sure this has led to some bias, but I think you attending UT or A&M has made you biased. I think it is hard to be unbiased on this issue because of past experiences.) Then he got his PhD in Analytical Chemistry from the University of Chicago (I think he got it here.) He taught Chemistry for 1 year at the University of New Orleans. Then he spent many years working for Saudi Aramco and some other companies I do not remember. He also chose people for jobs. This is where he talked about how he would rather have the MIT guy. My knowledge of his career is limited.

And yes I see that many great engineers came from UT/A&M. Since they started before 1900, I would expect multiple brilliant engineers from these large schools. Rose was established in 1874 and is an engineering school only. (Their football team is the "Fightin' Engineers".)

I came on here to get the advice of an engineer, and to see if Rose really is highly esteemed in the engineering world. Since you do not know much about Rose, you cannot help me there. But I do value your other opinions.

But I just do not see how the school you go to does not matter. If people could learn just as much at a public university compared to a private university, why does anyone go to private schools? Once again, I do realize that the school doesn't make the engineer. But doesn't the school make it easier to be a better engineer. Can't I learn more at Rose? It just seems to me that Rose has more resources and facilities strictly for engineering that public colleges cannot compare to. Please respond. Thank you