School of Mines

jason.cre wrote:Good luck skiing while living in Golden. 5-6 hour drives were the norm with traffic last season. There is a lot of climbing aorund Golden but it is either incredibly overcrowded (Clear Creek, Eldo) or incredibly crappy (N Table). If climbing and skiing are a priority, stay away from the front range.

Not true at all. All but one day last ski season, I made it in barely over an hour each way to Keystone, A-Basin, Breck and Loveland. And there are certainly overcrowded climbing areas, but there are also plenty that aren't. Golden is a pretty sweet place to live, overall.

helps a lot to get up a bit early. the drive home is usually the rough part. all in all though, golden is a great place to live. lots of stuff to do and lots of cool folks to do it with.

slim wrote:who actually pays tuition to go to grad school in engineering?

Nowadays, many MS students.

brenta wrote: Nowadays, many MS students.

That's been the case since for a while. The PhD students are more likely to get GSR/GSI positions and grants.

fossana wrote: That's been the case since for a while. The PhD students are more likely to get GSR/GSI positions and grants.

Yes, for obvious reasons.

fossana wrote: Almost no one cares who your advisor was unless you go into academia.

True of many MS students, who mostly see their advisors to get some advice on what courses to take and to get graduation paperwork signed. Not so true of those who actually get to do research with their advisors. Especially PhD students--most engineering PhD students end up in industry--but not only.

But to get back to the starting point, while US News ranking may not be the most reliable indicator for graduate studies, when talking about Berkeley, it's good to keep in mind that in most branches of engineering they have strong, well-funded programs and top-notch faculty. Turning down an admission to Berkeley because one plans to seek employment in the Front Range would be a very questionable decision.

brenta wrote: ... Turning down an admission to Berkeley because one plans to seek employment in the Front Range would be a very questionable decision.

not necessarily, you would probably have significantly better networking options if your education and prospective employment are in the same general location.

Unless you plan on staying in academia, rankings and prestige and whatnot are all kind of BS in grad school. I agree that it's more important to find a good, well-connected, and interested advisor and a program with a good relationship with the working world. What might look good for the university certainly might not be valued in the industry.

Mines is sort of in a dilemma at the moment - the current Provost and a couple of the Deans are placing less emphasis on the legacy, industry-valued programs/applications and are trying to transition to a more academic prestige and research-y sort of reputation while expanding enrollment (along with their football facilities). I'm not sure if they can accomplish that while still producing capable engineers that don't need their hands held to make it in the working world. Note this doesn't particularly apply to the bread-winning petroleum aspects.

Either way, the grad school choice should be made only after meeting with the professors in the department and your potential advisor. Make sure there's a project and potential funding/TA positions lined up.

But the climbing access is fantastic. The skiing and mountain access is traffic-y but still not bad to work around.

slim wrote: you would probably have significantly better networking options if your education and prospective employment are in the same general location.

Point taken, but, especially in the high-tech sector, companies connect and recruit globally. To trade something of local value for something of global value is not what I'd recommend to someone seeking an advanced degree in engineering.

Ryan Marsters wrote:Unless you plan on staying in academia, rankings and prestige and whatnot are all kind of BS in grad school. [...] What might look good for the university certainly might not be valued in the industry.

Let's get US News rankings out of the way. I don't care about them. Do you really want to suggest that companies from all over the world give money to Berkeley's engineering programs because they are duped by the bells and whistles of academic prestige BS?

Industry may not be directly interested in the research of the Stanford professor who just got a Fields Medal. Does that imply that Stanford engineering professors are oblivious to industry needs and know little about entrepreneurship?

As far as relevance to industry goes, there are companies who hire MS graduates to "bang on a keyboard" and there are companies with two Turing Award winners in their employ.

I don't object to this part:

Ryan Marsters wrote:it's more important to find a good, well-connected, and interested advisor and a program with a good relationship with the working world.

I just don't think that on average it confers an advantage to schools with "less prestige and whatnot."

i would think that it would be hard to go wrong with either berkeley or mines. both have excellent reputations. i still think it is more of an advantage to attend school where you are hoping to work afterwards. if a company is evaluating 2 candidates who are pretty evenly qualified, from a financial and time perspective the local person would have a slight advantage (company wouldn't have to pay for relocation, person could probably start a bit earlier, etc).

"BS" was perhaps a bit of a strong descriptor as you're right: prestige and ranking does have an effect on the hiring process. However, I'm trying to emphasize the value of the education to the individual so I'll direct my argument more towards that.

As an example - there's a civil engineering (not my major, by the way) professor at Mines who has published numerous papers, a few books, and teaches quite a few rigorous courses. He is well-funded by government sectors and has a number of minions under him. There is some value. He is prestigious - the school likes his research output. From a rankings and prestige output, he's alpha dog.

At the same time, the professor is so self-absorbed and proud of his accomplishments that his students receive little mentoring or opportunity to do their own research or thinking. Everything they do is directed by the professor (with little explanation and/or room for discussion) and in support of the professor's research (contributes to his prestige). One of his ugrad semester exams had problems drawn straight from a book example and it was open book. The dude did not particularly care about the students or teaching. Other, non-government sectors of the industry think the professor's work is nearly useless and has little field proof to support it. Sure, the mathematics and models work out nice and cherry, but it isn't what is observed in the field nor does it have a practical application.

^Now, not all professors are like that, of course. Yes, there are plenty who get wrapped up in their own research at the expense of their students. However, I can think of several professors/programs both prestigious and great for teaching real world skills. I'm just saying that a prestigious professor or program does not always equate to a good education or mentorship, nor is a research-y thesis always valued by the industry.

Which all ties in with the original: choose a program based on meeting/speaking with the professors in-person rather than on the school reputation.

As per choosing a school where you want to work - the students and professors meet with many local industry reps on a monthly basis at professional society meetings. This is a great chance to network and really helps with getting one's foot in the door, which gives an edge to the local guy and keeps the professors well plugged in with job opportunities. Good professors will be plugged in nationally and will have companies calling them every semester for candidates. I think half of my grad class stayed local, a quarter moved out of state/country, and another quarter found other life pursuits.

My buddy Dave just finished graduate school at School of Mines and loved it, he's a ripping climber and gets out often....plenty of stuff to keep you busy around there.

Saw some people mentioned Tahoe skiing being better or something but Tahoe has barely had snow the last couple years, very unreliable......I spent February in Jackson last year and nothing compares to there anyway.

which civil professor?

slim wrote:if a company is evaluating 2 candidates who are pretty evenly qualified, from a financial and time perspective the local person would have a slight advantage.

Agreed, but I'd suggest that the same person, having gone through the better program, would usually hold an advantage.

Besides, suppose that you graduate during a slump in the economy. All of a sudden, Indiana and Nebraska look more inviting than they did when you started grad school, even though access to climbing is still substandard.

brenta wrote: Agreed, but I'd suggest that the same person, having gone through the better program, would usually hold an advantage. Besides, suppose that you graduate during a slump in the economy. All of a sudden, Indiana and Nebraska look more inviting than they did when you started grad school, even though access to climbing is still substandard.

by saying evenly qualified i was also meaning in terms of programs. ironically, i think indiana and nebraska had a tougher time than colorado during the last downturn.

slim wrote: by saying evenly qualified i was also meaning in terms of programs.

It looks like we have different criteria to assess the quality of a program.

slim wrote:ironically, i think indiana and nebraska had a tougher time than colorado during the last downturn.

Of course: they couldn't even go climbing. :-)

brenta wrote: It looks like we have different criteria to assess the quality of a program.

i said that i think ROI is the most important aspect of choosing where/why/how to go. that doesn't necessarily mean that is how i assess the quality of the program.

how do you assess the quality of a program? maybe our criteria aren't that different. did you go to berkeley?

I'm not a Berkeley alumnus, and I'm not a former Berkeley faculty, but I know that program well having visited, had joint projects, and what not.

ROI can be measured in several ways. Usually in dollars or some other currency. In a broader sense, though, education (the investment) should help one achieve what one wants to be in life (the return). In this sense, I agree that ROI is a good metric.

Different students will thrive in different environments, and different departments have different strengths. One cannot make blanket statements, but especially in graduate school, there's a clear advantage in being where high-impact--sometimes groundbreaking--research takes place; where one can benefit from the exchange of ideas with many very bright people who have related interests; where relevant problems are more likely to come one's way than in other places; where a student doesn't often need to worry about resources.

In terms of climbing and skiing investment, be prepared for significant investment in waiting. Waiting in lineups at clear creek and eldo to get on just about any line after work/weekend. Waiting 30-40 minutes in lift lineups at any of the front range resorts (non powder day). Waiting 3 hours in traffic to get there.

Is the investment worth it? Sure, maybe. But there are a lot better places to get out and actually ski or climb without a couple hundred thousands noobs smoking joints surrounding you at every turn.

notsoepic wrote: But there are a lot better places to get out and actually ski or climb without a couple hundred thousands noobs smoking joints surrounding you at every turn.

If you would like to be helpful, name a few areas with good, uncrowded skiing and climbing near nationally recognized engineering graduate schools.