MIT vs Carnegie Mellon for Computer Science

Colleges and Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
21

<p>

</p>

<p>I suppose there are a lot of ways one can go through a strong program and ‘not be harmed,’ but there are always additional bonuses to certain programs. I was also hinting that diversity of offerings and / or faculty interests can lead to an enriching experience consisting of an opportunity to get exposed to many things from the experts themselves. I especially agree with the following:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Now whether any of this is applicable to the MIT v. CMU debate depends on how different the MIT and CMU offerings / faculty are. </p>

<p>I think a good example I keep in mind is the math dept of a school like Princeton is very different from that of, say MIT. One is significantly bigger, probably has a lot more professors, course offerings, etc. MIT’s is a very well-rounded department in mathematics, although I daresay from actual insiders I know there may be a thing or two which they don’t have covered, which actually matter. None of this is to say someone attending Princeton, loving it and succeeding in it will be anywhere close to lacking in mathematical training - they will be some of the best around. Also, if one really wants to do certain things (as a grad student), inevitably Princeton will be an almost sure choice. But to say to a math undergrad that MIT doesn’t offer some benefits that Princeton may lack, and that (s)he should choose based on the student culture only would be misleading advice. </p>

<p>Again, none of this may be applicable to our debate, but I do think for it to bear much fruit, one must research how applicable it really is.</p>

22

<p>I think it also depends on the particular field of CS that you’re going into - AI, for instance, is firmly stacked in MIT’s favor (and has been for awhile). I’ve personally had the opportunity to work with 3 huge names in the field, and just skimming the list of current AAAI Fellows, the list is hugely weighted towards MIT professors. If you want to do AI research, MIT is the place to be.</p>

23

<p>“I don’t know why anyone would apply binding early decision (ED) unless they were applying to a high reach dream school.”</p>

<p>They apply ED to match dream schools as well, both to increase chances when possible, and to get the stressful process over with sooner.</p>

24

<p>

</p>

<p>I strongly disagree. The same argument I made before in favor of CMU could be made here. CMU has a machine learning department, plus a robotics institute, plus a language technologies institute (while MIT has researchers in NLP, it doesn’t have an NLP group, and even far-lower ranked schools have an NLP group!), plus a center for computational biology (bioinformatics). I would say both are excellent for AI, but to say that it’s firmly stacked in MIT’s favor isn’t true.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think you saw MIT more because you wanted to see MIT more :wink: If you search the list, CMU has 18, whereas MIT has 16 (if you count deceased recipients, it’s 20-17). Also, most of MIT’s seem to be from 1990, whereas CMU’s have been spread out over the past several years.</p>

<p>[Elected</a> AAAI Fellows](<a href=“http://www.aaai.org/Awards/fellows-list.php]Elected”>Elected AAAI Fellows - AAAI)</p>

25

<p>You guys are so silly. My school’s better. No, my school’s better. Hint: They’re both top schools at what they do.</p>

26

<p>vossron, as I already said, I don’t go to either school. I’m just attempting to quell the seemingly omnipresent (on CC, at least) MIT superiority complex, and giving credit where credit is due (here, CMU).</p>

27

<p>DS works in humanoid neurobotics, (CMU grad). He says that its not the mechanical or the software but the interface between man-machine and the human thinking conscious and autonomous, that are the challenges.</p>

28

<p>

Which I certainly agree with, but I don’t think we’re talking about a big enough difference between MIT and CMU in this regard (if it even exists; this has been discussed in the thread only in terms of speculation) to be a factor. We are not talking about a small backwater department vs. a big department – we are talking about two world-class departments, one of which, it has been suggested, might be slightly larger than the other. </p>

<p>At any rate, pretty soon datalook is going to pop in and inform us about how much better Stanford is than either CMU or MIT, based on the number of tiles on the sidewalk in front of each school’s CS building, so I will echo k4r3n2’s advice for students admitted to both CMU and MIT to visit each school and figure out where they will be happiest and most productive for their undergrad years.</p>

29

<p>“My” school that I’m defending. :wink: It’s the same to us readers.</p>

30

<p>^And how many tiles are there on the sidewalk outside Stanford’s CS building? Can you elaborate on how they have enhanced your educational experience? ;)</p>

31

<p>

</p>

<p>Well sure, like I said my experience talking to those who know about MIT math is that it has a large dept compared to many schools, and I bet given its reputation, MIT EECS is large too. </p>

<p>But as you yourself said, size isn’t even a positive in its own right. Rather, size can indicate better representation of different subfields, and that diversity can be beneficial in terms of resources. All I’m saying is I think taking a closer look at the two depts and seeing what is represented well where is worth it. (Karen seems to agree on this point that some schools are stronger in some areas.) Even if the two schools were identical in size, it’s possible for one to offer more diversity in terms of faculty and other offerings. And when it comes to two top notch computer science schools, this kind of academic diversity can be extremely desirable (i.e. when I don’t have to wonder if the faculty serving me are already immensely famous, I care more about how much there is out there for me to toy with and pick from and sample, audit, research, etc). </p>

<p>There are many degrees of complexity all this can go to. For instance, Caltech has a very tiny math dept, but apparently some posters have claimed it to offer a lot more variety in classes than much bigger ones. On the other hand, the small faculty size leads to problems when one wants to get into specialized research and can’t find someone to help. Replace ‘math’ with CS and ‘Caltech’ with one of the schools we’re talking about, and maybe there are lots of variables to juggle to decide what one should really believe.</p>

<p>I think one must analyze the specifics of: what classes are offered, what kinds of research are available (and on that note, what kinds of professors teach there), professor quality, ease of getting research, diversity of exposure to different academic disciplines, means of exposure.</p>

<p>I also think to most undergrads, this entire discussion might be overkill, because maybe they really don’t care and just want a good CS education. But for what it’s worth, I think I would myself care about this kind of discussion. Maybe that’s just strange, but then again, someone who wants to decide between two schools with potentially very different undergrad cultures largely based on the CS depts might fall in one of these strange categories. </p>

<p>To fully decide our issue, I think someone who’s really done the homework on what is and isn’t offered by each school’s department needs to speak.</p>

32

<p>mathboy98, you’re right about all this being overkill for undergrads. I admit my contributions are a little self-serving here, because this discussion has actually helped me make my own decisions for grad school. (I’m not applying to Stanford for grad school, and while I’d love to go to Berkeley, I really need to get away from California, so CMU and MIT are the most logical choices. Oh how I’d love to be faced with that choice!) I guess I need to do my homework–which I will if I’m actually faced with the choice.</p>

33

<p>^ Self-serving is OK :slight_smile: honestly I think this is the kind of discussion I wish were fleshed out more on CC. I still think it can be useful for a certain class of undergrads, especially since one does after all go to school to learn something; meaning, it’s conceivable that the specifics of two departments may be very useful to know before committing to 4 or so years there. </p>

<p>I myself think the undergrad years are a much nicer time to take advantage of academic diversity, because one can spend entire terms on certain kinds of topics, whereas after the first year or so of graduate study, often one gets very serious and has to spend tons of time learning stuff in one’s field beyond the very basic stuff. I’ve heard of professors (and senior graduate students) cautioning other prospective graduate students about dabbling and not really getting anywhere, whereas this is perfectly acceptable as an undergraduate, nay perhaps helpful to decide future plans with sufficient exposure!</p>

34

<p>Turn down both MIT and Carnegie Mellon.</p>

<p>Go to a state school, have a ton of time to play around with computers in your spare time, found a company, and become a billionaire.</p>

<p>Honestly, the two guys who hit it big from my high school in software both went to state schools.</p>

35

<p>^ Confirmation bias.</p>

36

<p>^ Piper bias.</p>

37

<p>I think confirmation bias is actually recognized :wink: While people can definitely go to state schools, play with computers, and end up billionaires, this is not a dependable route - just as dropping out of Harvard and founding the next Facebook is not a dependable route. </p>

<p>Turning down great opportunities expecting to get lucky and hit it big is just not going to work out in most cases, and I don’t see how it’s wise to recommend that to anyone.</p>

38

<p>

</p>

<p>CS =/= Software Engineering</p>

39

<p>

</p>

<p>Here is my proof. The tiles on the sidewalk outside Stanford’s CS building were indeed dontated by Google and Yahoo’s founders, and endorsed by Vinton Cerf (father of internet) and Ted Hoff (inventor of microprocessor). This adds 1.732% extra chrisma to that CS department, and 3.1415926% extra pride to Stanford CS students. Hence the proof. ;)</p>

40

<p>^ Do you mean?</p>

<p>3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164
0628620899862803482534211706798214808651328230664709384460955058223172
5359408128481117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381964428810975
6659334461284756482337867831652712019091456485669234603486104543266482
1339360726024914127372458700660631558817488152092096282925409171536436
7892590360011330530548820466521384146951941511609433057270365759591953
0921861173819326117931051185480744623799627495673518857527248912279381
8301194912</p>