Hey everyone. I’ve been a lurker here for a while and wanted to finally ask a question.
I was accepted into Steven’s Institute of Technology and UMass Amherst’s Commonwealth Honors College, both under a Computer Science major. I plan on adding a physics major to this as well no matter which college I attend. I’d also like on apply to grad school for a PhD right out of undergrad, but of course that is subject to change.
UMass is offering me 14k out of a total price of 49k, and Steven’s is offering 21k out of a total price of 64k.
For a Computer Science and Physics double major, which college would you guys think to be best? I’m currently leaning toward UMass due to their strong research basis, but Steven’s still has a draw for me.
Stevens is among the oldest and best universities in the nation for computer science and physics, particularly in applications of quantum physics to computing, communications, and cryptography (perhaps that would be a particular area of interest to combine CS and physics). Stevens also has one of the highest starting and mid-career salaries, and return on investment of tuition of all institutions in the the United States (12th on Bloomberg Business Week/Payscale’s survey, “What’s Your College Degree Worth, 2017”) as well as one of the largest and most effective co-op and internship programs in America. Stevens also has a strong research program in both areas, and undergraduate research opportunities are there as well. BTW, it is Stevens, not “Steven’s”.
I think UMASS has much stronger, world class, computer science department. Being in the honors college and doing well in your classes should help in getting you into cutting edge research.
This makes the research strength of UMass all the more important, as brought up already. UMass is the clear choice here, especially being cheaper.
Stevens is a tech institute, thus its high salary. That’s not reflective of CS salaries specifically. While I can’t speak to Physics, it’s also not known for its CS research either. It’s very solid for CS (I’d say Top 30 or so), but not “one of the best universities in the nation”.
If you take a look at research output here, you can see UMass is around 20 no matter how you slice it, often higher, and Stevens is around 75 or lower.
Stevens does have a good co-op program if that’s of importance to you, but I think given the grad school ambitions and still sufficient CS recruiting available at UMass, it still is the better fit for OP.
One of my Stevens classmates went to UMass for his master’s in CS, and then after that to U of Illinois for his PhD in CS. He had a very low opinion of the program and the faculty there, and he was certainly in a position to render an unbiased opinion. Stevens is a technological university first and foremost, and CS is one of its oldest and most respected curricula. As I said before in a few specific areas of CS (quantum cryptography, computability/unsolvability, machine learning) Stevens has among the leading research programs in the US. It has a high level of research funding from major industries as well as government (Stevens was one of three universities in the US to be designated a Cybersecurity Center of Excellence by the NSA - it is a three year appointment that is offered to other meritorious programs as well). I don’t think that those research sponsors would be sponsoring Stevens’ research if it were not of world class quality. Commercial educational rankings (such as USNWR for example) mean nothing. If those are what you use as criteria to select a school, you really are making a mistake.
Stevens graduates enjoy the salaries and return on investment of their time in school and tuition that they do not only because they are technical graduates (CS, engineering, science, etc.) but because employers know they are superior problem solvers as a result of their broad-based education and not just narrow specialization in a specific area. Payscale’s salary survey had a sub-survey of engineering only schools. In that survey, Stevens came in at fifth in the nation. Since that survey was of only engineering graduates, they all have good salaries (because they are in engineering), so that eliminates the salary bias that a preponderance of technical graduates would influence in a general survey across all majors. So, in conclusion, your assertion is disproven, seriously.
One of the Internet pioneers for example who is known to this day as the “Grandfather of the Internet”. This particular individual (now a professor at U. of Pennsylvania) was a CS graduate of Stevens in the 1960s (at a time when CS was a new and distinct program at many schools). He was the inventor of the Transmission Control Protocol, which provides error-free transmission in packet switched networks, most notably today’s Internet. Is that a product of a “non-best” CS university? Doubt it.
To the OP, I wish you the best in your academic and professional endeavors.
I’d point out I never referenced US news once. I linked directly to a research site that simply looks at the paper output by specialties in CS. It itself is made by a CS researcher.
There’s a reason that list is dominated by tech schools and many top options for engineering are missing:
So, in other words, all schools not awarding over 50% of their degrees in engineering are not included in that rank. Including UMass Amherst and many other top engineering and CS schools. That’s not proof of top salaries by any means.
Additionally, Payscale is not a very good data source. By that survey, OP should rather go to Webb Institute. It’s very noisy data with selection bias.
A single historical alumni is a silly argument for the better school to attend. There’s plenty of top researchers currently at UMass to cite if that’s the name of the game, but it isn’t. You don’t get status as a “top” CS school, whatever that means, by having one famous alumni.
In terms of Cybersecurity, Stevens is one of many schools with the designation. While still good, it’s not a sign of a top CS program, simply that they are doing research the NSA values, along with 100 or so other schools. I wouldn’t call all 100 top CS programs inherently. https://www.cybersecuritymastersdegree.org/dhs-and-nsa-cae-cd-designated-schools-by-state
It’s a very good CS program, as well as engineering, I’m not saying it isn’t. I’m just saying UMass is the better comparable option, and you are making claims far above what it can back up.
A ranking survey of “top” schools means nothing. UMass being a larger school likely will have more volume of research output, but with respect to quality of that output and influence, Stevens every bit matches or exceeds what they do. Again, the Payscale salary survey (which is quantitative, unlike academic ranking surveys (of which USNWR is probably the most read and known) which are largely qualitative popularity contests. I suppose Payscale isn’t a very good source to you because its results conflict with your opinion however it is the only widely taken quantitative survey of this kind to my knowledge. While salary of course isn’t everything (one goes to college/university to obtain an education, hopefully) it is a readily measured statistic that has some correlation with the economic value of the skills the graduates bring to the marketplace. Most of the academic ranking surveys such as USNWR are highly subjective and depend upon the subjective opinion of the institution rendered by other academics. This type of survey, obviously, weights the household names in academia disproportionately.
In addition to the gentleman I cited above, there are more notable Stevens CS alumni. One I can think of who has a PhD in CS from Stevens is a top 5% cited author in the research on computability and intractability, another with “only” a BS was the inventor of the Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP), which is the standard translation algorithm for email on the Internet (making possible the transmission and reception of email across any set of computer operating systems and Internet connections - without which email would not practically exist because one would be limited to communicating only with users having your particular OS), another was a widely cited author of compiler theory textbooks - there are many more. Perhaps you can look up some of the “famous” CS alumni of UMass.
When I was with Bell Labs one of their most heavily recruited CS (and engineering/science) schools was Stevens. In New Jersey for example Bell Labs had more CS graduates of Stevens than any other school. Bell Labs was the leading CS industrial research institution in the world at that time. The Googles, Apples, Amazons, Yahoos, et al of the world today would not exist without the technology created by Bell Labs and its cadre of computer scientists in which Stevens graduates were prominently represented.
By the way, Webb is a great choice if one is interested in Naval Architecture and marine engineering. Stevens too has one of the foremost programs in that field in the US. The Davidson Laboratory is the largest non-governmental Ocean Engineering/Hydrodynamics/Ocean Physics research lab in America. A third of Webb’s faculty are Stevens PhD and master’s degree holders. It is also tuition free and very selective - more so than UMass and equaling Stevens actually.
I really don’t think you understand. That ranking, literally by definition, does not include most schools that are not tech schools. It’s objectively incomplete, regardless of Payscale data. It’s not about whether it supports what I believe. You keep complaining about US News ranks, but I never once cite them.
Again, famous alumni and historical importance of companies is not relevant to a comparison of better current school to attend. I’m not going to pretend that should affect OP’s decision in any way.
I go to Northeastern and do not attend UMass at all. I have worked with grads from both schools and have worked on a research team for a top tech company. UMass’s reputation is far more known in that regard than Stevens. I think you’re assuming that because you’re biased to Stevens, I am to UMass. I have no horse in this race.
And your citing of another survey of research output has similar selection biases and incompletenesses.
My mention of USNWR was there only as an example because it is arguably the most widely read of academic rankings (and one of the most flawed). I can see you did not mention it, nor did I say you did.
Apparently, the representation of Stevens alumni in the top industrial CS research lab in the world for example is at odds with your assertion of “far more known”.
I have no horse in this race either. Again, best wishes and best of luck to the OP. I am certain he/she will do well regardless of which school he/she attends.
“I really don’t think you understand. That ranking, literally by definition, does not include most schools that are not tech schools. It’s objectively incomplete, regardless of Payscale data.”
Perhaps I could have made it a bit clearer:
There are two separate Payscale surveys being discussed here. The first is the general survey including all of some 1100 schools whose graduates Payscale surveyed (which encompasses all fields, majors, areas of study, students, etc.). The second was a smaller subsurvey including only engineering schools. The engineering-only subsurvey would eliminate the bias of the students being in a generally high paid field from affecting the results - equivalently - since all are engineering students, the effect of the high salaried field would equally “bias” all the respondents, therefore, it is effectively eliminated in comparing the graduates of individual engineering schools.
What that boils down to is that since Stevens graduates come in near the top of the engineering-only subsurvey, there must be other factors in that high ranking besides the premise that engineering in general is a well compensated field. In the case of Stevens, that factor is that industry is aware of the broad-based education Stevens students receive and as a result, they are valued as problem solvers more highly than those of many other schools.
This is not true and you clearly didn’t check the methodology then. It is not a survey, it is looking directly at CS paper output by the CS department. It is using the academic standards of the field and is complete in what it measures, as well as being without selection bias.
The only bias it has is that bigger departments are advantaged, but a bigger department with more research also benefits students.
Bell Labs simply doesn’t have the relevance it had before it today’s landscape, despite its undoubted historical significance. Academic institutions plus the big tech companies are making the most headway today and in most cases are directly working with each other for CS, with most companies having direct monetary relationships with schools through grants and scholarship programs. Ask a CS researcher at a top school, and they aren’t clamoring to work at Bell but rather Google likely.
I never cited the first payscale survey. I am saying that that factor is that many other top CS/engineering schools are being left off the second list. This is objectively the case. If you were to include those, I suspect Stevens would settle down to be around 30ish. The claim that Stevens is 5th in salary for “engineering” schools is incredibly misleading because of how payscale defines engineering schools.
Unbacked subjective claims like this one and many others you made is where I take issue. It’s easy to claim this about many engineering schools with no backing.
I too agree both are good schools, and of course the student is far more important than the school. I’m only taking issue because of your misrepresentative, uncited, and false claims you’re consistently making here. I think when you look at what the OP wants, UMass is the better option.
The engineering-only Payscale survey included 223 schools. While that is a minority of the 674 schools in the US that offer ABET accredited programs (source, ABET website), it is a sufficient number to be statistically significant. The engineering only Payscale survey, as I understand it, includes data from people who identify themselves as engineering majors therefore, once again, this is a comparison of like data between the schools in the survey.
In my experience in recruiting for my employers I have had discussions with others in engineering recruiting that they are aware of Stevens’ broad-based curriculum and they believe that to be valuable to their business, so it is a substantiated claim. If you look at the Stevens catalog you will find that much coursework outside of the student’s immediate major is required along with a very high credit load (142-154 credits is typical of engineering and CS majors). The reason for that is the depth courses that Stevens requires that are not required in many other schools.
The fact one publishes a research paper isn’t what is important. Many research papers get published in many fields every year. Most aren’t of much consequence. There is a distinction between the quantity (volume) of papers published and the impact they have on the field. A few papers with high impact are more significant that a large number with moderate or no impact, for example.
Of those 223 schools, they only had enough data to rank 15% of them. That’s nowhere near enough to extrapolate from.
Yes. Of only 35 schools who they had enough data for, ignoring flat-out any school that has less than half of their degrees in engineering. That disqualifies nearly every state school to start, many of which have great engineering placement.
Again, maybe you should actually read the methodology before criticizing something. It’s not all papers, but rather only those that are accepted to the top CS conferences. The ones of consequence, as you put it.
Ironically, a lot of your posts regarding ranking criticism are substantiated in this methodology/FAQ page, explaining how the method avoids the pitfalls.
@Anttl462 Sorry that you are stuck in the middle of a ranking argument…
“I was accepted into Steven’s Institute of Technology and UMass Amherst’s Commonwealth Honors College”
You need to evaluate the best situation for you during the next four years.
Visit both schools - particularly met with professors, graduate students and students. Discuss current projects and graduate outcomes. Can’t emphasize enough!!!
Print both CS and physics curriculum. Dive into AP credit requirements and map our all four years at both schools.
Your environment. Amherst, a college town with a large campus, versus Hoboken, vibrant city in sight of the largest city that NEVER sleeps. They are completely different. Will you use the endless amenities of NYC? Do you value a close relationship with a relatively small student body?
Where do you expect to live/work after graduation. What field? NYC for finance application?
Teaching environment - small classes with traditional exams and access to professors or a large community and multiple choice exams. Also, very different.
Cost threshold…what is it debt worth to you?
Living, housing, dining UMass is a traditional college scene while Stevens is going through a growth spurt with upperclassmen living in Hoboken in apartments. Hoboken is a terrific safe place to live, easy to navigate and has endless yummy food options.
Back to the OP, consider the location of each school carefully because they offer completely different environments.
Stevens is a small campus in a densely settled area very close to NYC, with all has to offer. Gorgeous views of Manhattan, but helicopters are constantly flying back and forth along the River (noisy). The kids we met at Stevens were incredibly nice and adored their school. UMass Amherst is a very large campus in a sleepy part of the state. Amherst is nice but the downtown is small and remote. The closest airport (Hartford) is about an hour away and Boston is probably 2 hours (or more, depending on traffic). The UMass Honors College has a good reputation, and is perhaps a little calmer than the rest of campus, but are you comfortable with the extra level of work required for the thesis? Final note, I have heard that if you aren’t a partier you can feel a bit isolated at UMass, but this is only hearsay, not personal experience.
Both are excellent schools. Where you see yourself being happiest over the next four (or more) years - city or country?
@KLSD, @jmek15, thanks for the helpful info. I plan on visiting both campuses next week, so I’ll ask about things like projects and research opportunities especially, because that’s what I’d like to focus on the most. In terms of the town, I feel I’d personally like Amherst better due to calmness, but we’ll see once I visit the campuses, I might end up falling in love with the vibrant life of Hoboken!