The National Science Foundation published a list of the top 50 schools for producing graduates that go on to a doctorate in Science or Engineering. This should be a decent measure of how well they are educating their STEM undergrads. (You can find the list with some additional info added here: Baccalaureate to Ph.D. in Science and Engineering (Feeder Schools)
You find that some highly ranked US News school are not on the list. (If you look at the addended spreadsheet I have published, you will find those schools, along with their US News ranking, listed on the far right.)
It worries me that a school like Columbia (US News number 4) is not in the top 50, but, unfortunately, it doesn’t surprise me when I look at other aspects of how Columbia seems to be managed. For example, you can read about their 3-2 engineering program here Columbia University – Another 3-2 Program Like Wash. U.’s? and you can read about their education school here New York’s Mayor Boomberg Is Focusing Responsibility Where It Mostly Belongs .
I don’t think this is a very good way of evaluating how well a school is preparing its students, particularly in the field of engineering. There is often no reason to pursue a PhD in the industry, an MS being sufficient in all but a few fields.
Instead, you wind up capturing something other than “preparedness” — perhaps academic connections, emphasis on research, or just promotion of graduate school to undergrads (others have told me that it was heavily suggested to them). A better measure would be the pass rates on the FE exam, though I’m not sure if those are available for each school. Some schools require students to take the exam, which I think is a great idea.