Engineering degree in SIM or PSB

last SG · 2007-09-20T15:38:57+00:00

better go PSB. if you go SIM... ppl will go SIMI SAI EH DEGREE??

No9 SG

And to TS, I am sorry I dun mean to be blunt and nasty, but the other forumnites are right. There’s no point getting an engineering degree if its not from NTU or NUS. Get a ACCA or CPA or CFA. better prospects.

EngAudListCo_Director SG

Let me give those who contributed in this thread and who are graduates and undergrads of engineering from NTU a bit of history lesson...

As you guys know, it was previously known as Nantah.

In the late 80s, NTU was previously known as Nanyang Technological Institute (NTI). There are engineering degree courses offered in the then NTI but since it is term as a technological institute, the degree are being awarded by NUS.
My CEO in a previous company that I worked in is a first class honours engineering holder and he studied in NTI but his honours was conferred in NUS.

Subsequently, due to high tech manufacturing and MNCs coming in to Singapore to "value add" to our progress for higher chain industrialisation, the country need more better trained engineers. NTI was later made the 2nd recognised university and renamed as the present NTU. As such, the engineering degrees are also made recognised but to some extent, it still derives from NUS.

As such, more engineering places are allocated to meet the demands for engineers and IT professionals working in High Tech Industries. Over time, both universities have opened more spaces but the rate at which NTU is offering seems to be much more than NUS. As such, getting into NUS becomes more competitive.

My year, the spaces available for engineering (civil, mechanical, electrical) from NUS was approximately 600. Mind you that was the dragon year. You could see the pride that filled me when I was being enrolled there and I never regretted it.

Talking about ranking, based on "The Times Higher Education Supplement" in the ranking for 2006

http://www.thes.co.uk/statistics/international_comparisons/2006/top_100_tech.aspx
(need to subscribe to access the articule but it can be viewed at the NUS webbie)

NUS was ranked 8th while NTU was 15th in technology. So if you compare apple to apple and disregard all other faculty's contribution, what basis is your argument when you quote:

"haha...i dun think u noe ur facts well man.
NUS is ranked so well because its a comprehensive university,they offer Law, Medicine, Philosophy..blah blah...even if you remove the engineering schools from NUS..they will still do well!!
NTU is ranked well because we are DAMM BLOODY good in engineering."

A word of advice....please support your claim....didnt NTU teach you what is Harvard referencing or you have to reference your findings?

In conclusion, a question to all who contributed in this thread and who are graduates and undergrads of engineering from NTU. I believed you guys have studied and worked hard and NTU has given you all the opportunities to excel while the time you are there or still there.
However, that time when you have gotten your A level results, sincerely ask yourself this question, have you put down NUS as your first choice come NTU or NTU engineering as 1st choice knowing that chances of going to NUS is close to zero?

Maybe "dumping ground" is a harsh word and if I have offended anybody, my apologies but I still feel NUS engineering is still the better choice.

Wega007 SG

http://rankingwatch.blogspot.com/2006/12/analysis-of-thes-rankings-australian.html

interesting pt.. on THES

Methodologically, the index is open to some criticism. It is not specified who is surveyed or what questions are asked. The student internationalisation indicator rewards entrepreneurial volume building but not the quality of student demand or the quality of programs or services. Teaching quality cannot be adequately assessed using student-staff ratios. Research plays a lesser role in this index than in most understandings of the role of universities. The THES rankings reward a university's marketing division better than its researchers. Further, the THES index is too easily open to manipulation. By changing the recipients of the two surveys, or the way the survey results are factored in, the results can be shifted markedly.

This illustrates the more general point that rankings frame competitive market standing as much or more than they reflect it.

Results have been highly volatile. There have been many sharp rises and falls, especially in the second half of the THES top200 where small differences in metrics can generate large rankings effects. Fudan in China has oscillated between 72 and 195, RMIT in Australia between 55 and 146. In the US Emory has risen from 173 to 56 and Purdue fell from 59 to 127. They must have let their THES subscriptions lapse.

Second, the British universities do too well in the THES table. They have done better each successive year. This year Cambridge and Oxford suddenly improved their performance despite Oxford's present problems. The British have two of the THES top three and Cambridge has almost closed the gap on Harvard. Yet the British universities are manifestly under-funded and the Harvard faculty is cited at 3 1/2 times the rate of its British counterparts. It does not add up. But the point is that it depends on who fills out the reputational survey and how each survey return is weighted.

Third, the performance of the Australian universities is also inflated.

Despite a relatively poor citation rate and moderate staffing ratios they do exceptionally well in the reputational academic survey and internationalisation indicators, especially that for students. My university, Melbourne, has been ranked by the 3703 academic peers surveyed by the THES at the same level as Yale and ahead of Princeton, Caltech, Chicago, Penn and University of California, Los Angeles. That's very generous to us but I do not believe it.

[/b]

« Previous Page