I agree- and I like how they combined the LACs but this hurt several publics with UMich the top at #24
Well, honestly, publics and privates are apples and oranges in my view. You get what you pay for and if you are OOS you are paying too much. The WSJ/THE rankings also have separate rankings for privates and publics and for LACs (with accurate inclusions like Wake Forest and Trinity University in the LAC universe that USNWR totally misses due to their gerrymandering approach to āregionalā and some midsize schools).
2 Likes
This is the WSJ top 10 for those that canāt access itā¦
All comes down to what your child prioritizes and what makes them tick.
2 Likes
I think you can access WSJ/THE for free just by registering in the THE website. Correct me if I am wrong.
You are correct. I didnāt realize having logged in as a subscriber. Sorry for any confusion.
1 Like
Honestly, it makes no difference in outcomes as to those 4 schools and kids likely really wonāt know at 17/18 whatās best for them (you can call me paternalistic but you canāt call me deluded for saying that). They need us to remind them of the value of good mental health, self-esteem and personal satisfaction with lived experiences and how it must weigh heavily in their equation. The WSJ/THE ranking clearly reflects student satisfaction and engagement throughout the list, unlike any other rankings; to me, after two years obsessing over college options (as evidenced by my heavy CC usage), it āfeelsā right. Clarification: I have no economic interest in WSJ or THE.
5 Likes
Yes, the #1 public should definitely be higher than that.
2 Likes
While it may āfeel rightā, the WSJ/THE rankings are not any more meaningful or less arbitrary than the other listed rankings. I suspect that the weightings were selected to make the overall ranking output of the list feel right, rather than trying to be a meaningful formula. The subcategory rankings are more interesting because some may be unexpected or not match with the usual order of high endowment per student colleges. A summary is below.
Outcomes ā 40% (graduation rate, salary, academic reputation, debt)
1 . Princeton
2. Duke / Harvard / Stanford
5. MIT / Yale
Resources ā 30% ($$$ per student, SF ratio, publications per faculty)
1 . Harvard
2. MIT
3. Yale
4. Stanford
ā¦
7. Princeton (I expect the focus on undergrad is hurting Princeton in publications per faculty compared to HYSM)
ā¦
220. Berkeley (publics tend to do poorly in this category)
Engagement ā 20% (college student survey asking about critical thinking, whether theyād recommend to friends, number of subjects taught,. ,etc. )
1 . Dordt (religious colleges tend to well in this category)
2. Cedarville / Samford (not Stanford)
4. Harvard
5. Baylor / BYU / Michigan / Notre Dame
ā¦
170. MIT (lowest among HYPSM by wide margin)
ā¦
670. Caltech (among lowest of all colleges)
Environment-- 10% (racial, international, SES, and faculty diversity)
1 . La Sierra
2. UC Irivne / Cal State Northridge (public colleges tend to well, particularly ones in CA)
4. Cal State LA
5. UMass Boston / Rutgers / SF State
ā¦
120. Harvard (typical among HYPSM type colleges)
ā¦
235. Caltech
ā¦
415. Bowdoin / Notre Dame
4 Likes
State universities generally want students to graduate as quickly as they can, since most students are subsidized state residents. The longer a subsidized state resident stays, the more subsidy that student consumes, leaving less education available for others. Hence state universities have various rules to keep students from staying there perpetually without graduating.
1 Like
Most top CS programs (Cornell included) required both an algorithm course and a theory course on computability and complexity, at least once upon a time. A few still do.
Can you name some schools and when they required both courses?
Thereās more to rankings than just happiness, though of course that is important. There are probably four colleges in their top-10 that donāt abound in happiness - MIT, Cal Tech, JHU, and probably Princeton. Even Brown says that while Providence is nice, Boston is only a hour away.
2 Likes
CMU, Caltech, HMC, for example. MIT offers a two-course sequence on algorithm but gives students the choice to take the course on computability and complexity instead of the second algorithm course. Stanford also requires both, but its theory course on computability and complexity seems to have less depth.
Whatās behind such low rankings on engagement?
I have no idea which of the ranking systems is the best or whether it is possible or advisable to even rank them in the first place, but thereās something about the WSJ/THE consolidated LAC/national format that really helps to highlight how many great colleges there are in the US. Lots of terrific choices between 101-200 and beyond.
6 Likes
CMU, MIT, and Stanford each require one upper level theory course (see link for course numbers):
Harvey Mudd requires CS 140 although it does introduce some concepts in the required lower level course CS 81. Caltech actually does require two courses, CS 21 and CS 38.
But back to your previous claim: which colleges required two upper level CS theory courses but now require just one or none, and when did they require two?
I believe youāre incorrect about CMU and Stanford. CMU requires 15-251 āGreat Ideas in Theoretical Computer Scienceā, in addition to 15-451. Stanford also requires CS 103, which covers at least some aspects of computability and complexity, in addition to its algorithm course CS 161. Cornell also required both some time ago but Iām not sure when it made the change.
CMU 15-251 looks like a lower level introduction to CS theory, math proofs, discrete math, and similar topics, perhaps similar to Harvey Mudd CS 81. By upper level CS theory courses, I was expecting that you meant courses like 15-451 (algorithm design and analysis, required at CMU) and 15-455 (complexity theory, optional) or courses with similar content at other schools.
In the table below, bold indicates a required course for CS majors.
| College | Lower level theory courses | Upper level algorithms | Upper level complexity theory | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caltech | CS 6, CS 21, CS 38 | CS 139 | CS 117abc, CS 151 | CS 21, CS 38 appear more in depth than most lower level courses |
| CMU | 15-251 | 15-451 | 15-455 | |
| Cornell | CS 2800 | CS 4820 | CS 4810 | |
| Harvey Mudd | CS 81, Math 55 | CS 140 | CS 142 | |
| MIT | 6.042, 6.006 | 6.046 | 6.045 | One of 6.045 or 6.046 is required |
| Stanford | CS 103 | CS 161 | CS 154 | |
| UCB | CS 70 | CS 170 | CS 172 | |
| UIUC | CS 173 | CS 374 | CS 475 |
Which college used to require both upper level courses of the type listed above for the CS major but no longer does?
The division between lower and upper levels seem entirely arbitrary. I assume weāre talking about the first course on computability and complexity and the first course on algorithms. Some colleges may delve deeper and/or earlier in such courses than other colleges, so their courses arenāt entirely equivalent. But the point is that some colleges do require their CS students to have taken at least one course in each of these areas.
But what of your claim that many colleges have been reducing their requirements in these courses?
The lower / upper level distinction is based on reading the course descriptions.