Both of them are very good programs. I'm a 1996 graduate of Rice's Chemistry program (started out as an engineering major, but decided that if I was going to suffer, it may as well be for something I like). You really can't go wrong with anything in the science or engineering fields at Rice. (and their "academ" departments have improved lately too, not that some of us care about that) One warning: they expect a lot, preparation-wise. Things are not easy, straightforward, or handed to you. They want students who already know a lot coming in. The chemistry program kicked my a$$ for a while... I didn't make the best grades, but getting through it proved to be enough. My career has gone fairly smoothly, in part because you get a lot of respect for just getting through Rice alive. Also, nothing you will ever do again (after graduating) will seem all that difficult by comparison. It's not all bad... I had a good research experience there, and Rice people are fun and creative. Let me know if you want to know more...
The Chemistry Department has a Nobel Laureate. http://www.chem.rice.edu/CHEM_faculty_dtl.cfm?FDSID=437
As a Rice "academ" I can attest to a much improved Economics department. Bottom line is this: At Rice you are constantly surrounded by smart people. The curriculum is nice and all, but 95% of what you learn is 1) learned outside of the classroom and 2) dependent upon your own effort. Winkler in the house? I know you.
Both of the programs are very strong. I know more about the Chemistry department because I'm majoring in BioChem, but a ton of my closest friends are engineers. Really you can't go wrong either way, and you could always just be a ChemE and combine the two...
Yay academs. Trader_Jorge, is the improvement better as of the 2002-2003 academic year? Because I gave up on Economics at Rice the year before that. For the sake of current students and entering classes, I sure hope so, because it's such a shame that students of the most popular major at Rice have had to suffer so. Rice has some excellent academ departments. I had the privilege of taking classes with some excellent professors who cared about teaching and were damn good at it. Edc, with regard to your post, all I've got to say is *gag*. hfh
Azadre - I'd be happy to give you more info, though I'm not exactly sure what questions you have. Academs - they've worked hard to improve those departments over the years. (though some of us S/Es miss the days when nearly everyone was an S/E, just because it was nice to have so much company) While the school's reputation was strongest in S/E stuff at the time, most of my better teachers were in academ subjects. Part of it was that I usually got to pick who I wanted to take academ classes from, and picked the classes based on the profs I had heard good things about. The other reason was that, of course, science profs at institutions like Rice, UT, etc. are hired strictly to do research. No one cares how they teach. Trader_Jorge is right about constantly being surrounded by smart people - smarter than you would have ever thought possible. (some of you guys might be among them ) While these people are great to have around, they make for some tough competition. No matter how well you did in high school, half of you are going to be in the bottom 50% at Rice. An unfortunate consequence is that some professors don't really teach. Or they present some stuff, but it's not enough to teach you how to solve the problems in your homework or exam. You know a lot, but still have no idea where to begin on the problems. It probably helps to be prepared; to study extra in high school or freshman year, before you get into your major classes. For chemistry majors, it would help to do a little research in your sophomore year, as an introduction to upper-division life. Is Economics really the most popular major? Are the majority of students academs now (even before the "big three weeding out process")? Oh, and Relativist - hfh??!? "What time is it?"
Yah, but though dude is a Prof, I think it's much more impressive when you can claim graduates as winners of Mr. Nobel's prize. My uncle went to Rice for his undergrad, and won the physics prize. Though he was a Physics major he is, for all intents and purposes, an engineer. (He builds radio telescopes, and won his price for discoveries relating to building a radio telescope). In addition, your Mr. Smalley won the prize for the discovery of fullerines, which in turn is very much a devlopment of materials science, and therefore an essential engineering concept. If you're looking for the true living areas of chemistry, you really have to look more to the fields that relate to Organic Chemistry, Medicine, and Pharmicology, subjects that are best learned at schools with strong affiliated medical schools. Rice is first and foremost a school for engineering types. Despite it's proximity to the medical center, it's really not associated with any of the exciting things going on there. Everything innovative revolves around the physical sciences and Physics. I am not, in any case displaying any bias toward the physics/engineering areas simply because of my relationship to people who graduated from Rice and excelled in their fields. My late grandfather was a Rice graduate in Chemistry but again, he focused on practical applications very much more important to engineerign in the modern world than chenistry -- he spent his career working for an oil field company. If you are truly intrested in Chemistry, all of the growth areas are much more closely related to biology and organic chemistry, or areas that are so closely related to engineering that you might as well be an engineer. Final thoght -- Engieeers have the highest income comming out of college as undergrads, but they are also severely limited in their growth potnential -- also they end up spending alot of time in areas that would be best considered 'blue collar' where their hands get dirty. The pure science majors, on the other hand, prove less useful immediately, but to truly soar to lofty points, you need a pure science major and a PhD. Real work is for engineers, and research is for pure sciences.
Had to reply to that one - we don't call Chemistry "the central science" for nothing. As an undergrad, I focused on Inorganic Chemistry and did materials-type research; I had almost majored in Materials Science, but decided at the last minute that I wanted a pure science emphasis instead of an engineering emphasis. However, the biomedical stuff at Rice isn't bad. They collaborate with the medical center across the street, which includes Baylor College of Medicine, UT-Houston, M.D. Anderson, and all sorts of world-renowned medical research. Never dealt with either of our Nobel laureates personally, though from everything I hear Dr. Curl is really cool and Smalley is... not someone you want to deal with. As far as the relative "success" of Rice graduates out in the real world... well, a lot of my fellow Chemistry majors are now researchers and are into the Postdoc phase of their lives. Some were going to med school anyway; others changed their minds and went to law school at some point, or dropped out to write software. (but that's true for lots of majors) I actually managed to get a faculty position before all the researcher-wannabes, but it's probably not one that any of them would consider successful. It doesn't pay much and involves very little research... and a lot of teaching.
Rice takes the top 2 percentile. They would have to seriously mess these students up to not have quality graduates. They don't, so they do. A chemistry major will not likely get you a good job without an advanced degree. Engineering will.
I was in Smalley's intro chemistry course AND Dr. Curl's chemistry lab back in 1997 when they both won the nobel prize. Kinda cool to actually be in their courses when they won.
What are your perspectives on Coach Hatfield's comments? Personally, I am embarrassed by his comments and angry that the administration/faculty/students have done nothing (more) to correct the situation on campus. If Coach Hatfield made the same comments at UT Austin, would he be employed on the 40 Acres? Probably not. Partly because football is a religion at UT and the varsity football team at Rice SUCKS; and partly because the UT faculty and students would not have allowed those comments to go un-addressed. University (A Different Grain) Blue
Even though Hatfield made a public statement that he would follow university rules and regs, he may well still lose his job. The university president and faculty have taken Hatfield's comments very seriously. As an alumn, I see his comments as unfortunate and am glad that he made his followup public statement. This should be enough. BTW, Rice University is very fortunate to have a football of Hatfield's caliber. His teams always play hard and overachieve. His teams also show a tremedous amount of character, which reflects nicely upon the university. I can go as far as saying that Rice can not find a better coach. If you look at the the coaches they have had had over the the last 20 years or so, you will find either coaches that sucked or coaches who left after their first good season. Hatfiled has had several good seasons (by Rice football standards) and has not left.
On Coach Hatfield's comments: those of us Rice fans and alums who care about football (don't know why anyone who isn't a football fan is even making it their business) have discussed the issue at length. Most of us feel that it has already been handled appropriately. For those familiar with the case and the evidence behind it, here are the logical reasons to decide whether or not to be upset: 1. Did he really say that? He was not quoted directly, and claims he was misquoted. The author of the article was looking for a conservative Christian opinion to generate controversy, and to reaffirm her (?) point that the world of college athletics is a homophobic place. 2. Did he violate university policy? If he'd actually kicked somebody off the team, he would have. But, no, he didn't do anything. Apparently he's not allowed to have free speech either. 3. Is he ever going to violate university policy? President Gillis already addressed that question, and Coach Hatfield said he would not. So, until he does, I don't see the problem. His character is well known to Rice players and fans, and none of us actually believe he would kick someone off the team if they weren't causing a disruption. 4. How does the team feel about their coach's beliefs? Actually, they feel fine about it. At the Student Association meeting, all the players came out to defend their coach. So this isn't causing any problem on the team. The only harm that our coach's viewpoints might cause is that we wouldn't recruit too many gay players anytime soon. However, that's not a huge percentage of the players out there. On the other hand, some Christian conservative players who agree with Hatfield would be more comfortable playing there than at other schools, so it would be a boost to recruiting in that regard. I know this is controversial, and likely to open a can of worms. From the Rice fan bulletin board, most alumni, fans, and (definitely) players' parents support the coach's right to express his opinions. The dissenting voices come from a portion of the student body, particularly "politicos" (student government and the like). And faculty, most of whom think athletics is a distraction that should be eliminated to begin with. I've always tried to speak well of Rice in my posts; however, if it's going to be such a "PCU", then I'm not sure if I can recommend it to prospective students as much as I used to.
