Seems like you need a subscription to read WSJ/THE rankings.
Why is Cal Techs happiness so low? No football or Greek? J/K.
There is a pretty painless registration to see the list at the Times Higher Ed site, and this post has some highlights: WSJ - College Rankings
2 Likes
Iām not sure how you decide on the lower/upper level distinction. Take your classifications on Caltechās courses, for example. The lecture notes, psets and exams of its CS 21 course is linked below:
http://users.cms.caltech.edu/~umans/cs21/
I canāt find a similar link to its algorithm course CS 38, but it was mentioned on Quora that it was one of the hardest courses at Caltech. I just donāt see how they can be classified as ālower levelā courses. Theyāre likely more advanced than āupper levelā courses at many other schools. Could this be the reason for a lower āhappinessā score (for some of its students) there, as mentioned by another poster above?
They are lower level at Caltech, even though they may be hard, like Ma 1abc.
Anyway, getting back to the point: you previously claimed that āMost top CS programs (Cornell included) required both an algorithm course and a theory course on computability and complexity, at least once upon a timeā as support for the claim of a ātrend of inflated grades, less rigorous majors and curriculaā.
Do you have any specific examples of colleges that previously required both courses, and when, but no longer do so?
Cornell is one such college that Iāve already mentioned. I donāt know when the change took place, but I suspect it was relatively recent.
It seems to me the classification of courses as ālower levelā or āupper levelā is artificial. Itās the coursesā contents that matter, not whether they are generally taken by lowerclassmen or upperclassmen at a particular college.
Cornellās 2011-2012 catalog does not list CS 4810 (theory of computing) as required for either version of the CS major:
It looks from old Cornell catalogs that there used to be two versions of theory of computing, CS 381/3810 and CS 481/4810, where CS 381/3810 was the less difficult one (although CS 481/4810 was absent for a few years in the late '00s). The most recent Cornell catalog showing CS 3810 as required for the CS major was 2008-2009.
https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/39078
We went from UC ābashingā and ācheerleadingā to debating CS coursework at our finest institutions. Feels like Groundhog Day! 
The only thing missing are the long soliloquies coming from the UofC folks and we would have the trifecta.
3 Likes
Iāll watch for that for prime time tonight. 
Might I remind members of the forum rules: āOur forum is expected to be a friendly and welcoming place, and one in which members can post without their motives, intelligence, or other personal characteristics being questioned by others."
and
āCollege Confidential forums exist to discuss college admission and other topics of interest. It is not a place for contentious debate. If you find yourself repeating talking points, it might be time to step away and do something elseā¦ If a thread starts to get heated, it might be closed or heavily moderated.ā
1 Like
I believe the survey questions were similar to the following. Apparently students from Caltech and a lesser extent MIT who participated in the survey averaged a lower scores than peers on some of these questions. I believe Caltech students averaged ~7.4/10, while students from Harvard averaged ~8.9/10. While such rakings can be amusing, I wouldnāt put much stock in to this student surveyā¦ or rankings in general. There are many possible alternative explanations besides Caltech genuinely rating worse than peers in these metrics. For example, perhaps Caltech/MIT students are more likely to follow instructions and attempt to provide genuine ratings, and less likely to mark everything 10, without reading carefully.
- To what extent does your college or university provide opportunities for collaborative learning?
- To what extent does the teaching at your university or college support critical thinking?
- To what extent does the teaching at your university or college support reflection upon, and making connections among, things you have learned?
- To what extent does the teaching at your university or college support applying your learning to the real world?
- To what extent did the classes you took in your college or university so far challenge you?
- If a friend or family member were considering going to university, based on your experience, how likely or unlikely are you to recommend your college or university to them?
- Do you think your college is effective in helping you to secure valuable internships that prepare you for your chosen career?
- To what extent does your college or university provide opportunities for social engagement?
- Do you think your college provides an environment where you feel you are surrounded by exceptional students who inspire and motivate you?
- To what extent do you have the opportunity to interact with the faculty and teachers at your college or university as part of your learning experience?
Their World University do not include this student survey category and place a greater emphasis on research. Caltech does much better with this methodology, tied for highest ranked university in the United States (#1 in world was Oxford).
Best US Universities in THE World University Rankings
1 . Caltech / Harvard
3. Stanford
4. MIT
5. Princeton
6. Berkeley
7. Yale
8. Chicago
9. Columbia
10. JHU / Penn
12. UCLA
ā¦
29 Brown
ā¦
39. Dartmouth
Got it. I misunderstood. But even if itās a natural consequence of an easier way through school, if most schools are doing it, then Iād think graduate rates would still be relevant. That is, if you donāt attribute this trend to just a sub-set of schools who are benefiting in the rankings from the higher numbers, then it makes sense to include it as a variable in the formula. I mean, graduating is important, and if in fact weāve made it easier, then all the more reason to get it done in 4 years. My kids whoāve graduated thus far have had no problem at all graduating in 4 years.
Thanks, @Data10. I think Caltech is such a great institution, underrated by most rankings.
1 Like
Well, youāll be happy to know that one of our pet institutions, oft maligned as being a touchy-feely, hands on program at the expense of theory, requires 3 courses on data structures and algorithms and one on the theory of decidability and computability. I have no idea what any of that is. 
US News uses the Carnegie classification of Higher Ed. (For example, U-Santa Clara was upgraded to R1 by Carnegie, so SCU moved from Regional to the Big Unis on USNews the following year.)
US News FAQ states:
Regional Universities offer a full range of undergraduate programs and provide graduate education at the masterās level. However, they differ by offering few, if any, doctoral programs.
The R* Carnegie classification states:
Doctoral Universities
Includes institutions that awarded at least 20 research/scholarship doctoral degrees during the update year and also institutions with below 20 research/scholarship doctoral degrees that awarded at least 30 professional practice doctoral degrees in at least 2 programs. Excludes Special Focus Institutions and Tribal Colleges.
The first two categories include only institutions that awarded at least 20 research/scholarship doctoral degrees and had at least $5 million in total research expenditures (as reported through the National Science Foundation (NSF) Higher Education Research & Development Survey (HERD)).
- R1: Doctoral Universities ā Very high research activity
- R2: Doctoral Universities ā High research activity
Both statements fit with my earlier post about Cal Polyās lack of doctoral degrees.
The best I know, PhDs are only offered at 4 CSUs, Fullerton, Fresno, San Diego and San Francisco. Not only does Cal Poly not offer enough to meet the Carnegie classification, they donāt offer any.
I do find it interesting that any methodology would care about doctoral degrees when it comes to ranking undergraduate programs. I do see the minor allure of having more opportunities for undergraduate research, but many who malign their undergraduate institutions, especially large state research schools, cite professors who care more about their research than teaching undergrads.
2 Likes
We went from UC ābashingā and ācheerleadingā to debating CS coursework at our finest institutions. Feels like Groundhog Day!
The only thing missing are the long soliloquies coming from the UofC folks and we would have the trifecta.
Californians do make up ~ 12% of the nationās population, though we did lose representation in US Congress, and weāre one of the top economic forces in the world, though weāll probably continue to lose companies to places like Texas.
I do perhaps have a relevant question[s] for @ucbalumnus:
What are the prereq differences between UCBās L&S CS and CSE? And does L&S enforce its greater GE requirements on the major, languages, etc.?
I read an interview with David Patterson, Turing Award winner from Cal, who was asked how he managed to be dedicated to both teaching and research. He replied:
āI think its a common misperception that those are in conflict. What I have seen is that thereās a correlation between great research and great teaching. The principle on which higher education in the United States is based on is that we can attract great people who want to push the frontiers of research and theyāll also be great in the classroom. Though, Iām sure youāve had examples of people whoāre terrible teachers. Theyād also be terrible researchers! Thereās some people who only do one and not the other, but boy, Iāve seen a lot of examples of them together.
Thereās a picture taken when I was chair of the department. On the Berkeley campus, the highest teaching award is the Distinguished teaching award. There were five of us [in the picture] who won that award, and Iām looking at that photo now and all five of us have been elected to the National Academy of Engineering, and three of the five, including me, have won the Turing award! Thatās the highest research award in Computer Science and they won the highest teaching award at Berkeley. Thatās concrete evidence of the correlation!ā
I had him back when he was a dynamic, young prof researching RISC processors, the foundation for the chips that we all have in our phones now.
2 Likes
I certainly think researchers can be great teachers. Richard Feynman is an even older, classic example. The opposite can also be true, that instructors who do only that can simply be bad at it.