Good Computer Science School

College Search & Selection
41

<p>Oh, so since MIT does it that way it must be so. We mustn't contradict MIT.</p>

<p>Note that if it were true that every Ivy had Philosophy degrees under their History departments, would you say oh, obviously that must be a good thing or would you say, huh, that's a little odd, they should be separate. So yeah, it is odd whether it is something Harvard does, Yale does, or MIT does. Doesn't matter to me which college thinks CS is merely a sub-part of EE, it doesn't make it valid.
To say CS should be part of EE is like saying the creation of the blackboard and chalk has anything to do with the equations written on the blackboard. Bluntly, EE is hardware, CS is software. If you get a CS degree as part of your EE degree, then you really aren't devoted 100% to either. (Computer Engineering might be a combination, but I am talking about pure CS not some other variant.) Both EE and CS have a right to be a separate degree. If it was the reverse (you couldn't get any EE degree without majoring in CS and taking core courses in algorithms, compilers, etc.) I think EEs would be complaining. So why should you take CS as part of some other department?
Why should it only be offered that way? So ideally, if you want pure CS, go for the school with the pure CS department.
Oh, really? Really? Egads! Heresy.</p>

42

<p>Another option that has not really been brought up is that you don't have to go to CMU to get a good CS education. While I am sure their program is top notch (after all, they did very well in the DARPA challenge, which bodes well for all CS and engineering), there are plenty of places to get a good CS education at the undergraduate level. Many here may not agree with me, but I have long felt that your UG school is really not that important (within reason), and its grad school where the name of your school makes a difference. That being said, the original poster is obviously well ahead of the curve - he mentioned writing batch files at age 8. For someone like that, CMU may be the best place for them, but it may not, and as such, I would highly advocate looking into an instate public school and see if their CS is acceptable for his/her goals (which will probably be the case). Private school education is so expensive, and in my personal opinion, is not worth it at the undergrad level, unless of course you receive scholarships or grants. I have a n EE degree, and attended a very affordable state school. I know people that attended the big name engineering school that now pay 1000$ a month in student loans (while that is probably not the norm, a private education will cost a lot in loans). I am in a much better situation, 2 years after graduation than I would have been otherwise. While this is not the only consideration for a future college student, it is one that must be addressed.</p>

<p>Depending on the location you are interested in, Maryland, UMass, Penn State, or maybe even UVA/Va Tech may be worth a look.</p>

43

<p>
[quote]
Now, I agree that CMU may have been able to buck the trend and actually have increased its CS starting salaries in the last 2 years. That's possible. But if that's the case, then it definitely defied national trends.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If the figures quoted in the SCS Career Counseling statistics page and the SCS Freshman Advisor's presentation are correct, then, yes, CMU did. Their salary figures show consistent increases since 2003.</p>

<p>Before that, of course, CS salaries everywhere were artificially inflated. It's not really a matter of salaries falling temporarily as much as it's a case of them adjusting to the distortions of the dot.com bubble.</p>

<p>I'll repeat what I said before. CMU is an excellent school. My S is having a wonderful, challenging time there. I suspect there are comparable educations available at many schools, including some relatively inexpensive state schools*. The difference for him was the campus and the faculty. Do some research and visit for yourself. Pick the school for how you feel about it, not its reputation or because of what other people say you should do.</p>

<p>BTW, there are several legitimate views on what CS can be, particularly from the point of view of someone entering college. What attracted you to this? Do you want to create computers or robots? Do you want to write systems software such as operating systems, networks, etc., applications such Microsoft Word or Google search tools? Are you interested research into how people can interact with computers or Artificial Intelligence? Different schools have different emphasis, so you should look at their class offerings and talk to the faculty to understand what they are best at, especially if you have a serious interest in an area. That's a legitimate factor, too.</p>

<p>Fortunately, if you're less sure of what you want to do, the larger schools have quite a few options, so you don't really have to be that serious about choosing before you see what it's like. My S wanted to write video games, but now he's discovered a love for writing systems software -- operating systems, compilers, some really challenging stuff.</p>

<p>It's all good if it's good for you. Good luck in your search. </p>

<p>*behannah's certainly right, too, though she left out the University of Texas. Of course, it's as hard to get into as CMU, particularly for OOS students.</p>

44

<p>
[quote]
Oh, so since MIT does it that way it must be so. We mustn't contradict MIT.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I didn't say that "it must be so". I am simply asking whether you are willing to go on the record in saying that you think MIT is wrong and you're right. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Note that if it were true that every Ivy had Philosophy degrees under their History departments, would you say oh, obviously that must be a good thing or would you say, huh, that's a little odd, they should be separate.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, since you asked, my answer would be that I would refrain from making any comment whatsoever considering that I don't consider myself to be an expert on pedagogy or in education administration. </p>

<p>
[quote]
So yeah, it is odd whether it is something Harvard does, Yale does, or MIT does. Doesn't matter to me which college thinks CS is merely a sub-part of EE, it doesn't make it valid.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So in other words, you just answered my question. You think that MIT is wrong and you're right. Well, allright then, at least we all know where you stand. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If you get a CS degree as part of your EE degree, then you really aren't devoted 100% to either. (Computer Engineering might be a combination, but I am talking about pure CS not some other variant.) Both EE and CS have a right to be a separate degree. If it was the reverse (you couldn't get any EE degree without majoring in CS and taking core courses in algorithms, compilers, etc.) I think EEs would be complaining. So why should you take CS as part of some other department?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I would say that all of the top technical employers don't seem to have any problem in hiring MIT EECS graduates, despite the fact that they are apparently not "100% devoted to EE or CS". In fact, they're paying quite high starting salaries for these apparently not-fully-devoted graduates. Are you saying all these employers are wrong too, and you're right? Why don't they just fire all of their MIT guys immediately and replace them with a bunch of pure CS grads from, say, UMass-Boston? </p>

<p>
[quote]

Why should it only be offered that way? So ideally, if you want pure CS, go for the school with the pure CS department.
Oh, really? Really? Egads! Heresy.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would tend to say that if there doesn't really seem to be a problem, then there is no need to invent one. It really doesn't seem like the MIT EECS department is hurting in any way just because they don't break out CS into a separate division.</p>