Ryerson vs UofT Aerospace Engineering

[chasemcd]

I see this question has been asked here before but that was 9 years ago and I’d like to get more up to do opinions.
I’m trying to make my final decision and any input would be appreciated. I’ve been accepted into both UofT’s Engineering Science program and Ryerson’s Aerospace Engineering undergrad program. Does anyone have any experience with them and know which would be better for someone wanting to go into the Aerospace Industry. My question is will UofT’s superior ranking help me at all or would I be just “desirable” going to Ryerson.

 

[Vanadium 50]

UofT = Toronto? Tennessee? Toledo?

 

[chasemcd]

UofT = Toronto? Tennessee? Toledo?

Sorry I should’ve been more specific University of Toronto.

 

[alan2]

Always go to the best school that will have you. The education is likely comparable, the lifetime benefits are not.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Always go to the best school that will have you. The education is likely comparable, the lifetime benefits are not.

I disagree strongly. In most cases, I recommend attending the best school from which you can graduate debt free. It is a rare case where a "better school" justifies significant increases in debt.

A student I mentored on a science fair project a few years back and published a paper or two with attended Kent State instead of a much better private school. The choice was made due to cost and affordability. This student just accepted an offer for a PhD program at Harvard. All the expensive private school would have added would be six figures of debt.

 

[alan2]

I disagree strongly. In most cases, I recommend attending the best school from which you can graduate debt free. It is a rare case where a "better school" justifies significant increases in debt.

A student I mentored on a science fair project a few years back and published a paper or two with attended Kent State instead of a much better private school. The choice was made due to cost and affordability. This student just accepted an offer for a PhD program at Harvard. All the expensive private school would have added would be six figures of debt.

One student doesn’t mean much. There is great disparity in mid-career salaries which are highly correlated with perceived reputation of school. The more important point is that net cost is usually lower at a higher quality school because they operate on institutional aid, not federal aid. In Michigan, for example, the highest list price public school has the lowest net cost after institutional aid is considered. The cheapest schools are the most expensive and don’t give much in the way of future prospects. This is mostly irrelevant to this post though. I assume this student is Canadian and he’s considering two public universities. The difference in cost is minimal.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

One student doesn’t mean much. There is great disparity in mid-career salaries which are highly correlated with perceived reputation of school. The more important point is that net cost is usually lower at a higher quality school because they operate on institutional aid, not federal aid. In Michigan, for example, the highest list price public school has the lowest net cost after institutional aid is considered. The cheapest schools are the most expensive and don’t give much in the way of future prospects. This is mostly irrelevant to this post though. I assume this student is Canadian and he’s considering two public universities. The difference in cost is minimal.

Not sure how it works in Canada, but having mentored lots of students in the US, real net costs for a given student can vary greatly from average net costs. Students should go ahead and apply for schools across a range. But when deciding which to attend, decisions should be made based on REAL NET COSTS for that student for each school once all the scholarships and grants are factored in, considering DEBT as part of the REAL NET COST.

Many more students will read this thread other than the OP, so I like to speak to BAD ADVICE even if it may not apply to the OP. I've seen many cases where the real net costs of a school like Kent State are much lower than CWRU, UGA are much lower than Ga Tech, Michigan State are much lower than U of M, LSU are much lower than Tulane, etc. And while I only mentioned one student specifically, I've seen the pattern repeated many times - working hard enough with a good plan can make even mediocre schools a great launching pad. Most graduates disappointed with their options after graduation are more to blame than the reputation of their undergraduate schools. Sure, you need a 4.0 GPA from a place like Kent State or a 3.9+ GPA from a place like LSU to be competitive with 3.5 GPAs from CWRU or Ga Tech, but those GPAs from the lesser schools aren't any harder to get, because of the differences in academic rigor.

The idea that incurring six figure debt will pay for itself in lifetime earnings makes a number of assumptions that may or may not be true for a given student. I've known many colleagues still paying off student loans into their 40s. For professionals with advanced degrees, debt incurred on the undergraduate degree really does little for lifetime earnings. If the reputation of the school matters for earnings, it's the school on the advanced degree, not the undergraduate degree. And in STEM disciplines, a good undergrad performance, even at a lesser school, can get most of those advanced degrees payed for with assistantships and such.

 

[gwnorth]

Both U of T (Toronto) and Ryerson are public universities located in Toronto, Canada. Cost of attendance will be comparable at both. The OP is weighing U of T's greater overall reputation in general and that of it's Engineering Sciences program specifically to the greater sector specificity of Ryerson's aerospace engineering program.

OP I'm not an engineer but I know from speaking to people who hire at least summer interns that a student from U of T will be chosen over one from Ryerson. U of T's engineering sciences program is notoriously academically rigorous (even more so than "regular" engineering). If you think you can handle the rigour I don't think the fact that it doesn't specifically target the aerospace industry is going to be a detriment to your educational outcome or to your ability to gain employment in the sector.

 

[alan2]

Not sure how it works in Canada, but having mentored lots of students in the US, real net costs for a given student can vary greatly from average net costs. Students should go ahead and apply for schools across a range. But when deciding which to attend, decisions should be made based on REAL NET COSTS for that student for each school once all the scholarships and grants are factored in, considering DEBT as part of the REAL NET COST.

Many more students will read this thread other than the OP, so I like to speak to BAD ADVICE even if it may not apply to the OP. I've seen many cases where the real net costs of a school like Kent State are much lower than CWRU, UGA are much lower than Ga Tech, Michigan State are much lower than U of M, LSU are much lower than Tulane, etc. And while I only mentioned one student specifically, I've seen the pattern repeated many times - working hard enough with a good plan can make even mediocre schools a great launching pad. Most graduates disappointed with their options after graduation are more to blame than the reputation of their undergraduate schools. Sure, you need a 4.0 GPA from a place like Kent State or a 3.9+ GPA from a place like LSU to be competitive with 3.5 GPAs from CWRU or Ga Tech, but those GPAs from the lesser schools aren't any harder to get, because of the differences in academic rigor.

The idea that incurring six figure debt will pay for itself in lifetime earnings makes a number of assumptions that may or may not be true for a given student. I've known many colleagues still paying off student loans into their 40s. For professionals with advanced degrees, debt incurred on the undergraduate degree really does little for lifetime earnings. If the reputation of the school matters for earnings, it's the school on the advanced degree, not the undergraduate degree. And in STEM disciplines, a good undergrad performance, even at a lesser school, can get most of those advanced degrees payed for with assistantships and such.

I have no idea where you are getting your figures. Nobody graduates with a BS and a 6 figure debt. In fact, students from crummy schools, almost across the board, have higher debt than students from good schools that give institutional aid and they, on average, experience significantly higher salaries both at graduation and later in their careers.

 

[StatGuy2000]

To the OP:

Contrary to what others have commented on here, when it comes to aerospace engineering specifically, Ryerson actually has a very strong ranking/reputation from what I know from speaking with various people. So if you are certain that this is what you want to pursue, then Ryerson is an excellent choice for you.

The caveat to this is if you are not certain whether to pursue aerospace engineering or not, or may want to consider other engineering programs. In this respect, the engineering science program at U of T has advantages, since that program is specifically designed to be a generalist engineering program that, after 2 years of common set of technical courses, allows you to specialize in various areas, including aerospace (other areas include electrical & computer, math & stats & finance, engineering physics, robotics, infrastructure, etc.) I'm not sure if Ryerson's other engineering is as highly ranked in that respect.

Ultimately, I don't think either choice is a bad option.

(BTW, please note that I am an U of T graduate, but not in engineering)

 

[gwnorth]

I would take a look at the academic calendar for both programs to see how much of each degree is dedicated to aerospace courses specifically. While Ryerson may call it's program aerospace engineering the reality is that the first 2 years are most likely to be more focused on general engineering and the last 2 years being where you take courses specific to aerospace. If that is the case then there may not be much of a difference between Ryerson's Aerospace program and U of T's Engineering Science + Aerospace stream. I still maintain that when it comes to engineering U of T is going to trump Ryerson. Also note that a career in aerospace is most likely going to require a masters degree (eventually) and U of T's program will set you up very well for that.

 

[angolapilot2002]

Hello so I am currently also a student on the same question and planning to apply for a place on these two universities in toronto. Searched on reddit everywhere and thought I was the only one on this dillema and found out no I was not alone and found here this threa. From the last comment I saw I think it changed all of my ideas of how and which one would I pick. I was leaning slowly to Ryerson University due to its name as it says Aerospace Engineering but from reading and seeing the course structure it is not much different to the course structure of ryerson so for the name and the reputation I will probably go to U of T in hopefully fall 2021