Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the ranking of various graduate schools, specifically in the fields of mechanical engineering and applied mathematics. Participants seek to understand the overall reputation of these institutions, while acknowledging the variability in rankings based on specific disciplines and faculty expertise.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Exploratory
Main Points Raised
- One participant expresses a desire for a rough ranking of several graduate schools, including MIT, UC Berkeley, and others, for mechanical engineering and applied mathematics.
- Another participant questions the assumption that rankings would be the same across different fields, suggesting that the disciplines may have distinct reputations.
- A different participant speculates that the original poster may want a combined ranking for both fields.
- One participant clarifies that they are applying to both disciplines and seeks insights from those knowledgeable in each area regarding school rankings.
- Another participant advises caution regarding rankings, suggesting that they can be misleading and emphasizing the importance of researching specific degree programs and faculty interests.
- This participant notes that while MIT is highly regarded, UC Berkeley may have a stronger reputation in humanities, and Brown University is also noted for its humanities focus.
- Concerns are raised about the University of Arizona's reputation, with a comment on its branding, while the University of Washington is described as solid, particularly in medicine and related fields.
- One participant asserts that MIT would likely be ranked #1 based on their hearsay.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants do not reach a consensus on the rankings of the schools discussed. There are multiple competing views regarding the reputations of the institutions in different fields, and the discussion remains unresolved.
Contextual Notes
Participants highlight the importance of considering specific research interests and potential advisers over general rankings, indicating that rankings may not accurately reflect the suitability of a school for individual students.