<p>Aside from MIT & CMU, what are some of the stronger (in terms of course variety, research opportunities for undergrads etc) Computer Science programs on the east coast?</p>
<p>Princeton, Cornell</p>
<p>I picked Harvey Mudd based largely on the strength of the CS program -- it has really great teachers and everyone one could need.</p>
<p>Stanford has some very big names, but I hear they don't teach much....</p>
<p>Does it have to be East Coast? Some of the absolute strongest programs are at publics like Berkeley, UT-Austin, and Illinois. Illinois has always been a pioneer, Berkeley is, well, Berkeley and UT has the distinction of having the fastest academic supercomputer on earth. I wouldn't limit to East Coast privates...</p>
<p>Is there a limit to your search besides location? How high or low do you want the schools to be,</p>
<p>
[quote]
UT has the distinction of having the fastest academic supercomputer on earth.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really? I thought Berkeley had that for Blue Gene/L, but I suppose that it isn't quite "academic," as it's at the lab managed by Berkeley.</p>
<p>Computer Science rankings from Gourman Report:
MIT
Carnegie Mellon
UC Berkeley
Cornell
U Illinois
UCLA
Yale
Caltech
U Texas Austin
Wisconsin
Maryland College Park
Princeton
u Washington
USC
SUNY Stony Brook
Brown
Georgia Tech
U penn
U Rochester
NYU
Minnesota
U Utah
Columbia</p>
<p>^^ I guess Gourman just forgot about Stanford, eh?</p>
<p>Gourman lists Stanford second for GRADUATE comp sci. Stanford is primarily a graduate school.</p>
<p>Stanford's primarily a grad school? While I agree that Stanford is stronger for grad, I wonder why Gourman doesn't apply the same logic for Berkeley. Berkeley would probably be tippy-top in grad CS, but it's also tippy-top for undergrad CS.</p>
<p>I've been to Stanford and it's just not that close to the east coast, even with JetBlue nonstop service to San Jose :-)</p>
<p>East coast schools ranked in the top 50 in order of graduate faculty quality NRC peer review. This would exclude undergraduate only institutions, but you seemed interested in research institutions. More than one on a line is a tie.</p>
<p>MIT
CMU
Cornell
Princeton
Brown/Harvard
Maryland/Yale
NYU/UMASS
Columbia
Penn/Rutgers
Duke/UNC
GeorgiaTech/StonyBrook/Rochester
JohnsHopkins/Virginia
Syracuse/Pittsburgh
Florida
RPI</p>
<p>Missing from this list is Waterloo and Toronto in Ontario. Waterloo is especially well known for CS, think Research in Motion and Blackberries.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've been to Stanford and it's just not that close to the east coast, even with JetBlue nonstop service to San Jose :-)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is if you're in Uzbekistan! Or something...</p>
<p>This is what I believe. Does anybody know what Gourman ranking is based on? faculty reputation? quality of students? quality of research? or contribution to the industry?</p>
<p>For computer science, Stanford is 2nd to none in any of those categories. The IT inventions churned out from Stanford can not be matched by any other university on earth.</p>
<p>gourmans ranking definitely suck. U.S. news is a million times better, and that's not saying anything.</p>
<p>Computer science program ranking by National Research Council. Rating is based on academic peer assessment.</p>
<p>Institution Quality Rating (1993)
Stanford University 4.97
Massachusetts Inst of Technology 4.91
University of California-Berkeley 4.88
Carnegie Mellon University 4.76
Cornell University 4.64
Princeton University 4.31
University of Texas at Austin 4.18
U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 4.09
University of Washington 4.04
University of Wisconsin-Madison 4.0
Harvard University 3.94
California Institute Technology 3.93
Brown University 3.86
Univ of California-Los Angeles 3.73
Yale University 3.73
University of Maryland College Park 3.69
New York University 3.60
U of Massachusetts at Amherst 3.59
Rice University 3.55
University of Southern California 3.52
University of Michigan 3.49</p>
<p>
[quote]
U.S. news is a million times better, and that's not saying anything.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that's going a bit far. US News ranking is purely peer scores, as they're too lazy to make a more complex ranking.</p>
<p>Generally, Gourman's rankings make sense, and the methodology is explained in the book. Sometimes, though, there are things that I don't get -- like not putting Stanford for undergrad CS or UC Santa Cruz for undergrad linguistics.</p>
<p>datalook-
Your criticism of the Gourman Report made me laugh. I think the list you posted and the Gourman list are almost the same. I think there are only three schools on your list that are not on the Gourman list.</p>
<p>collegehelp, what is Gourman ranking based upon? Any link for its ranking methodology?</p>
<p>datalook-
Gourman explains his method in his book. The exact weights given to various factors depend on the particular major. But, some of the most convincing evidence that the Gourman method works well is when I see lists posted by knowledgeable CC members that agree pretty well with Gourman. Here is the Gourman method. It is a little long. There is no link.</p>
<p>INTRODUCTION</p>
<p>Since 1967, The Gourman Report has made an intensive effort to determine what
constitutes academic excellence or quality in American colleges and .universities.
The result of that research and study is found within this book. </p>
<p>The Gourman Report is the only qualitative guide to institutions of higher education
that assigns a precise, numerical score to each school and program. This score is
derived from a comprehensive assessment of each program's strengths and
shortcomings. This method makes it simple to examine the effectiveness of a given
educational program, or compare one program to another. </p>
<p>These deceptively simple numerical ratings take into account a wide variety of
empirical data. The Gourman Report is not a popularity contest or an opinion poll,
but an objective evaluation of complex information drawn from the public record,
private research foundations, and universities themselves. Many of the resources
employed in this research, while public, are not easily accessible. Individual
researchers attempting to collect this data in order to compare institutions or
programs would face a daunting task. </p>
<p>This book is intended for use by: </p>
<p>• Young people and parents wishing to make informed choices
about higher education.
• Educators and administrators interested in an independent
evaluation of their programs .. </p>
<p>• Prospective employers who wish to assess the educational
qualifications of college graduates.
• Schools wishing to improve undergraduate programs
• Foundations involved in funding colleges and universities.
• Individuals interested in identifying fraudulent or inferior
institutions ..
• Citizens concerned about the quality of today's higher education.
For all of these researchers, the breadth and convenience of the data in The
Gourman Report can greatly facilitate the study of higher education. </p>
<p>Method of Evaluation </p>
<p>Much of the material used in compiling The Gourman Report is internal-drawn
from educators and administrators at the schools themselves. These individuals are
permitted to evaluate only their own programs-as they know them from daily
experience-and not the programs of other institutions. Unsolicited appraisals are </p>
<p>occasionally considered (and weighed accordingly), but the bulk 'of our
contributions come from people chosen for their academic qualifications, their
published works, and their interest in improving the quality of higher education. It
attests to the dedication of these individuals (and also to the serious problems in
higher education today) that over 90% of our requests for contributions are met
with a positive response. </p>
<p>In addition, The Gourman Report draws on many external resources which are a
matter of record, such as funding for public universities as authorized by legislative
bodies, required filings by schools to meet standards of non-discrimination, and
material provided by the institutions (and independently verified) about faculty
makeup and experience, fields of study offered, and physical plant. </p>
<p>Finally, The Gourman Report draws upon the findings of individuals, associations </p>
<p>and agencies whose business it is to make accurate projections of the success that </p>
<p>will be enjoyed by graduates from given institutions and disciplines. While the </p>
<p>methods employed by these resources are proprietary, their findings have </p>
<p>consistently been validated by experience, and they are an important part .of our </p>
<p>research. </p>
<p>The Gourman Report's rating of educational institutions is analogous to the grading
of a college essay examination. What may appear to be a subjective process is in
fact a patient sifting of empiricar data by analysts who understand both the "subject
matter" (the fields of study under evaluation), and the "students" (the colleges and
universities themselves). The fact that there are virtually no "tie" scores indicates
the accuracy and effectiveness of this methodology. So does the consistent
affirmation of the ratings in The Gourman Report by readers who are in a position
to evaluate certain programs themselves. </p>
<p>The following criteria are taken into consideration in the evaluation of each
educational program and institution. It should be noted that, because disciplines
vary in their educational methodology, the significance given each criterion will vary
from the rating of one discipline to the next; however, our evaluation is consistent
for all schools listed within each field of study. </p>
<ol>
<li>Auspices, control and organization of the institution; </li>
<li>Number of educational programs offered and degrees conferred
(with additional attention to "sub-fields" available to students
within a particular discipline);</li>
<li>Age (experience level) of the institution and of the individual
discipline or program and division;</li>
<li>Faculty, including qualifications, experience, intellectual interests,
attainments, and professional productivity (including research);</li>
<li><p>Students, including quality of scholastic work and records of
graduates both in graduate study and in practice;
• The Goullnan Report-Undergraduate </p></li>
<li><p>Basis of and requirements for admission of students (overall and
by individual discipline) </p></li>
<li><p>Number of students enrolled (overall and for each discipline); </p></li>
<li><p>Curriculum and curricular content of the program or discipline
and division;</p></li>
<li><p>Standards and quality of instruction (including teaching loads); </p></li>
<li><p>Quality of administration, including attitudes and policy toward
teaching, research and scholarly production in each discipline,
and administration research;</p></li>
<li><p>Quality and availability of non-departmental areas such as
counseling and career placement services;</p></li>
<li><p>Quality of physical plant devoted to undergraduate, graduate and
professional levels; </p></li>
<li><p>Finances, including budgets, investments, expenditures and
sources of income for both public and private institutions;</p></li>
<li><p>Library, including number of volumes, appropriateness of
materials to individual disciplines, and accessibility of materials;</p></li>
<li><p>Computer facility sufficient to support current research activities
for both faculty and students;</p></li>
<li><p>Sufficient funding for research equipment and infrastructure; </p></li>
<li><p>Number of teaching and research assistantships; </p></li>
<li><p>Academic-athletic balance.
ipecific information about the data used to rank institutions and programs is
Ivailable in Appendix A and Appendix B.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Thanks. collegehelp.</p>
<p>The 18 categories listed seem a little too complicated. It remains unclear how the raw data for each category is collected for a given institution, and what weightings for these categories are finally chosen.</p>
<p>In computer science, why is Stanford not ranked? Why is yale ranked above Princeton? Does Gourman have any raw data (numbers for the 18 categories) to convince us?</p>