<p>We've heard so much about how Harvard being #1 in the world...how everyone seems like math/engineering genius at Cal Tech/MIT and that the best of the best around the world want to get admitted to the top colleges here. </p>
<p>So I am a bit surprised how US colleges did in international programming contest:</p>
<p>Are we hyping ourselves? Most schools in other countries are a lot less expensive. Maybe internationals should think twice before they dump $$$ for presumably "much better" education in the US?</p>
<p>Funny thing is Hong Kong U, the school from my hometown, did better than even CalTech when many students there would pay 10x the tuition to come to CalTech, thinking CalTech is much better. :) Maybe people who are interested in comp sci should give Waterloo in Canada a serious look? Much cheaper tuition there too.</p>
<p>Not sure, but maybe there is a difference between the quality of the students and quality of the education/university in general? For example, China has almost 5 times the population of the US, yet fewer colleges/universities. Assuming intelligence is distributed as evenly as it is here, China would have many more "smart" people than the US. With fewer colleges and even fewer "good" colleges, all the brains would be in a few colleges. For the Russian schools, a similar thing would take place. For the other European schools, I think the fact that there aren't many "good" schools there leads all of the intelligence to be concentrated in one place. Therefore, MIT/CalTech suffer from not having all of the best minds available for this competition whereas those international schools do. Just a hypothesis. Doesn't explain why Penn State is higher than MIT/CalTech however (though maybe the fact that the margin was only 1 point has something to do with it...).</p>
<p>One explanation is that the contestants may not be the best representative of school (i.e. the best mind in the field at the school doesn't bother to join), secondly, there are many 'top brains' who don't really care which school they attend (i.e. it's not unusual that a single genius from Waterloo will beat the whole MIT/Caltech students combined -- think of Eric Demaine.). But in any case, MIT/Caltech average students (esp. International students) or professors are better than let's say Waterloo's. That's what build the reputation for the school and why international students are vying for those places.</p>
<p>ironic for me that first place is a school from my hometown and yet I'm trying to get in another school for comp sci...</p>
<p>waterloo is seriously a good school, especially their math departments which also has a big reputation in Canada (to math students anyhow)</p>
<p>as for MIT argument that rtkysg presented, I can disagree that maybe one single genius from waterloo was able to be better than MIT for that one incidence. However I'd strongly question your first explaination as the applicants to MIT are known not only for their strong stats but also for involvment with school activities, and from that I think its more safe to assume that their team will be made of the top students (if not the bests). Also only a very small percentage of applicants from a particular country looks at international schools, the majority are content with schools within their own country. Out of those taht stay within their own country there are also some "bright and smart" kinds that are no less competitive than applicants of Mit/Cal which explains the results for chinese schools ( huge application pool, small as hell acceptance rate at the top schools)</p>
<p>although one contest does not accurately measure the overall qualities of a school, you cant ignore the results by saying that " oh MIT's better no matter what"</p>
<p>I'm biased, but IMHO I think all the top schools in the world are located here. Just look at the endowment at american colleges; top 20 or so are in the billions.</p>
<p>Honestly, I think such contests are taken way more seriously in foreign countries. You have to be very smart to do well, but to win you have practice extremely hard. These contests are more important in other countries. I know people on the Caltech team, I don't think they trained very intensively for the contest (a couple of hours a week max is my guess). But there were some IMO gold medallists and high scorers on the Putnam exam on the team, so they are definitely on a very high level.</p>
<p>interesting question....MIT/Caltech get many IOI (international olympiad in Informatics) people who win gold medals at the international level in high school. I think certain contests aren't as important when in college (?)</p>
<p>"it's not unusual that a single genius from Waterloo will beat the whole MIT/Caltech students combined -- think of Eric Demaine"</p>
<p>That is very possible, but Erik Demaine is a math prodigy, not just your any old brilliant math person. There will never be that many Erik Demaines, Terence Taos, etc. These people come by very rarely.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That is very possible, but Erik Demaine is a math prodigy, not just your any old brilliant math person. There will never be that many Erik Demaines, Terence Taos, etc. These people come by very rarely.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed, I just amplified the example, esp. since Demaine is from Waterloo and majors in CS/math</p>
<p>I don't think you can draw too many conclusions about the overall strength of education at any university, foreign or domestic, based on the outcome of these structured and highly specialized competitions. They tend to depend more on the talent and apptitude of the individual contestants rather than the general quality of the instruction or average intelligence of the student body at any given school.</p>
<p>Similarly, you shouldn't conclude that the top school in the US for a given year is the one whose student wins the Jeopardy College Tournament - not even for schools that produce multiple winners or finalists over the years. It's another highly-artificial contest where success largely depends on having a special knack for that sort of thing.</p>
<p>i disagree
i think multiple high placers in these contests has something to say about the quality of students and the quality of education. u cant have good students without a good education system.
besides, whats left in a university if there arent any good students? a large portion of a schools reputation and quality is based on their students. what would harvard be if they didnt have all great students studying there?</p>
<p>Very few students at MIT or CalTech have an ambition to become a programmer. Programming is a technical skill. Many schools now teach very little in pure programming, leaving it to the student to pick it up as he works through theory and design courses.</p>
<p>For these tests of highly-specialized talent, it usually says a lot more about the existence of a motivated professor or program coordinator who recruits and funnels kids into the contests and helps them prepare. </p>
<p>Consider an analogy: back in the 60s and 70s when UCLA was winning all those NCAA basketball championships year in and year out, did that somehow prove that UCLA students, in general, were excellent basketball players or at least had a high average level of athletic talent? No, it said a lot more about the coach and his ability to put together a winner out of a few highly talented individuals. It's often the same with any highly-specialized contest: it depends mostly on a few talented individuals often guided by a coach or mentor. </p>
<br>
[QUOTE=""]
<blockquote>
<p>u cant have good students without a good education system<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Sure you can. Ever hear of Ramanujan? One of the best mathematicians ever, yet he didn't come from a good educational system. Most of his math education system came from reading a British college math test cram book.</p>
<p>For highly-specialized skills like math, programming, Jeopardy, or basketball, the importance natural talent of a few individuals often trumps the importance of the system from which the champions arose.</p>