Top 10 Computer Science Universities

College Majors Math/Computer Science Majors
21

Agreed with @AgentXJP.

/*
Schools with low acceptance rates into their CS programs have a low acceptance rate because they are some of the BEST CS programs.
*/

@goingnutsmom There are many reasons you should not base the ranking or quality of a school’s CS program on the school’s acceptance rate.

First, you should note that a lot of colleges actually try to have as low acceptance rates as possible, so “lie” or “exaggerate” about their acceptance rate by giving out cost-free applications to a lot of people, rejecting tons of applicants later. For example, from 2009 to 2012, Columbia almost halved its acceptance using some “exaggeration” method.

This is a bit of an old post, but take some time to read this post, as commentors nailed explaining about this “exaggerated” acceptance rate issue:
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/tulane-university/1365966-why-is-tulane-ranked-so-badly.html

Second, college ranking is NOT based on acceptance rate. For example, US News doesn’t rank schools based solely on the school’s acceptance rate. In fact, the school’s acceptance rate only makes up 1.25% of all factors when US News ranks colleges.

This link will take you to how US News ranks schools:
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/ranking-criteria-and-weights

Third, acceptance rate shown on google/prepscholar/etc. are all INACCURATE unless specifically stated on the official school’s website. Even then, it should say what college or department it is specific to; otherwise, the acceptance rate shown is an OVERALL acceptance rate.

The reason this matters is, for example, look at Purdue University:
First of all, I’m not sure of the source of this datum, but when you google Purdue University’s Acceptance Rate, 55.8% shows up, and I will use that rate as an example.
The reason 55.8% is totally inaccurate is that Purdue’s Computer Science Department and College of Engineering are EXTREMELY competitive, whereas almost all the other colleges inside Purdue are not much competitive. The acceptance rate of Dept of CS of Purdue cannot be 55.8% because it is far more competitive, whereas, say, Dept of Literature (?) cannot be 55.8% either because it is far less competitive. In other words, the 55.8% is just an averaged “acceptance rate.”

1 Like
22

@HardOREasy, well I was originally pointing out CMU CS program’s as a very highly regarded one and pointing out their low acceptance rate then taken to task over using that as a measure. I know about separating out the different programs. CMU is the same- you have to look at the different department acceptance rate. But my real point was just adding CMU to the list then it gets boggled down and sidetracked which is irrelevant.

23

Though this article, by title, would not appear to be directly relevant to CS programs, the schools included – Pomona, Georgia Tech, Colgate, Hamilton, WUStL, Carnegie Mellon, Denison, Wake Forest, Harvey Mudd and URichmond – generally seem to offer undergraduate opportunities equivalent to that of schools positioned highly in other quasi-rankings (while offering a range of selectivity options):

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4546120

In terms of the thread topic specifically, there doesn’t appear to be a firmly based, nationally published ranking of undergraduate CS programs available, so it would seem that a prospective computer science major could reasonably consider a breadth of factors when selecting a college.

24

@merc81

I really don’t see how that article is anything but some partial coincidence - you keep posting it on many threads but it has no relevance to strength in CS, and doesn’t discuss programs in any sort of detail. While some of those schools are known for their top programs, others are known as very typical, nothing special CS programs. Some are in the middle of that range too.

Either way, it really doesn’t contribute to the thread, nor many of the others it has been posted on. It seems more like an excuse to inject LAC’s into the CS conversation. There are much better ways to do that, as many of the LAC’s listed aren’t even known to be strong in CS compared to other LAC’s.

This is just simply not true. CMU and Denison are in nowhere near the same class for CS, yet are on that list. The same can be said for Harvey Mudd vs Wake Forest. It’s a completely random list when it comes to its relation to CS.

It’s also worth noting that the article itself is in fact sponsored content for Unigo, which the list is directly copied from. Said list has absolutely zero methodology to be found anywhere, not even a subjective one.

Other interesting Unigo rankings include:
Famous Faculty
Fifty Shades of Cray
Hipster Colleges
Social Net-Working It
Life is but a game
Nietzschean Supermen & Superwomen
Fast and Flirtatious

Note: The censored word is U N I G O, which is a website that is blocked on CC.

25

Actually, @PengsPhils, I’ve posted that article a few times because its content discusses aspects of CS programs, such as employment outcomes, that other posters often inquire about.

As to your other points, something that’s generally the case, as I stated, will, by definition not be true for all the included colleges.

Beyond that, personal understandings can play a part in a CC comment as much as any other factor. If I personally think that discussions of departmental rankings commonly – and beyond any methodology – conflate those of graduate schools with their undergraduate counterparts, I may post an alternative point of view from time to time. You, however, may think that, for example, UC-Berkeley or UT-Austin would be stronger for undergraduate CS than, for example, Pomona or Colgate. Prove it if you can.

26

You’ve posted it 7 times now, and yes, some have been more relevant than others, which is why I haven’t posted about it before. However, it has no use on this thread. I don’t take issue with your point of view, I take issue with the link, which has no real relevance to your view beyond including more LAC’s in a non-related list, and wouldn’t even be known unless you know your view already.

Are we looking at the same article? I don’t see employment outcomes mentioned anywhere on HuffPo or on the first few slides on the original source. In fact, I see only 2 mentions of computer science in the entire article.

Generally implies at least a majority - I would strongly disagree with even that.

I said nothing of this view, which I agree with. Again, what I take issue with is the link you are using, not your viewpoint. A discussion about the differences between undergraduate and graduate CS and how that translates to rankings and reputation is a very relevant conversation in CS, one often had on this subforum. See below:

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/math-computer-science-majors/1953010-cs-thread-how-can-one-really-measure-the-quality-between-schools-p1.html

I believe I make very similar points towards your view there, as well as some against it. Again, the point is, the article doesn’t even touch on this conversation.

It depends on what the student wants. The heavy research focus of UCB with their lack of undergraduate focus is certainly a negative for many students. Undergraduate CS is hard to compare because the strength comes down to teaching, philosophy of the department, courses offered, as well as the other metrics often used, but not in very high proportion. It’s much more complex than graduate department rank.

All that said, since you mentioned employment outcomes, reputation of those top schools do make a difference there for getting your foot in the door, and have echoing effects from there, even if they are minimized as careers progress. That is often a close reflection of graduate rankings. It’s worth noting, though certianly not as the single and primary factor.

The short version: The link has absolutely no relevance to CS. That doesn’t mean the schools it mentioned don’t, but it means that if they do, you should use a more relevant source, or even your own argument based off personal experience, knowledge, etc.

27

These excerpts from the article have distinct relevance to CS:

28

Those phrases are hardly unique to any of those colleges though. Both of the first two can be said about the school I currently attend. The third is a common component of many practical learning CS programs. The lack of discussion or description makes the article very useless.

And in a discussion of 10 schools, only 3 of them mention CS, and all at basic, single sentence surface level characteristics which are also not unique to the schools.

Context is important. Here are some other full college descriptors from the link:

The word U n i g o shows up five times more than the phrase computer science because this is a piece of sponsored content. That should be a big red flag, as well as the fact that this forum doesn’t allow linking to the site.

If you wanted to showcase these programs helpful, here is a better link that discusses why HMC’s teaching curriculum is designed the way it is, and why it is beneficial. There are others that don’t focus on the gender ratio as well.

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/05/01/178810710/How-One-College-Is-Closing-The-Tech-Gender-Gap

29

@PengsPhils

“. . .generally seem to offer undergraduate opportunities equivalent to that of schools positioned highly in other quasi-rankings (while offering a range of selectivity options) . . .”

THIS is the reason merc81’s post is relevant on this thread. Post #22 succeeds in presenting additional options, beyond large research universities, for students and parents looking for CS programs to explore when determining potential college choices.

1 Like
30

I mean sure, but you’re shouting into the void on this thread, which is already set on prestige and top schools or CS. Not to mention that there aren’t any asking parents or students here, nor would a student or parent look for a breadth of CS options on a random thread devoted to a simple top 10. That purpose is a reach to say the least.

Beyond that, if that was the goal, why not use some credible link instead? That link does quite the disservice to the point it’s trying to make. Listing the colleges by name without it would have been much more effective. Instead, those posts are trying to stake themselves on that article.

I feel like I’m crazy when people are trying to support a sponsored content article from a banned site over trying to find credible links. Again, I am not disagreeing with anything to do with the perspective. I’m simply saying that if that is your goal, that article is a very bad choice.

31

@PengsPhils

If you don’t like the post the solution is simple. Ignore it. You made your point.

Merc81 also indicated in post #22 that this article should not be considered a ranking of CS programs (indeed, as most posters agree, it appears as though none exists at the undergrad level), but that it COULD offer a range of potentially excellent options for those searching for strong CS departments.

I still believe there could be students and parents searching CC (like me), who might find a school they hadn’t considered, even on a topic specific thread such as this.

You don’t have to agree with every link posted on CC.

32

Harvey Mudd, quite good in CS. From a recent article: “The California Institute of Technology, for example, invited educators from HMC to visit its campus and provide training on how to teach computer-science classes for better student retention, Caltech professor Yisong Yue told Business Insider. Caltech is a premiere science and engineering college and was labeled the top school in the world for delivering work-ready graduates in 2016.”

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/A-tiny-California-college-whose-graduates-outearn-10972119.php

33

Undergrad is very hard to rank (if not almost impossible).
There is a reason why the USNews has an overall undergrad ranking over ‘undergrad major ranking’.

Personally for undergrad, go the best school you can get into without breaking your bank.
Your peers rather than the professors has more influence in your learning during the four years.

Anyways, the “top 10 computer science universities”. From my experience, no one really cares outside high schoolers or on forums (or parents/alumnis who love to brag).
Is the “top 10” ranked out of “which school is the most renown” or “which school offers the best overall education” or “which school forces you study the most in your field for undergrad” or “which school has the best overall job placement” or “which school has good grad placements” or “which school has most research opportunities” or “which school has a very difficult curving system” or “which school offers the most courses” or “which school offers the most depth”?

If we go by the top schools with overall “difficult” undergrad cs programs, I would personally claim:
University of Chicago - This school starts with a functional programming language for its introductory class. And its honors intro course with Haskell I hear is no joke. Most students in the US majoring in CS would have probably dropped out of CS if they went to UChicago.
CalTech - This school makes you study from morning to night. Pretty much over 99% of the high school students right out of school would probably fail within the first semester or two. That said, this school does not have the breadth (it has the depth if you are going to the purer side of computer science). It breeds future professors, not future workers.
Rice University / Brown University - I consistently hear good reviews of how their undergrad programs are some of the best overall in the US.
Harvey Mudd College - This school is a very STEM focused liberal art college. Students here overall breathe on sciences

And then there’s the usual suspects like MIT, Stanford, CMU, UIUC, etc.
Truth is for undergrad, rankings in a ‘major’ is extremely difficult. And it doesn’t help that quite a chunk of your courses in undergrad are OUTSIDE your major and thus your peers overall in the school probably have bigger influences on you than the grad rankings itself.
I mean look at Bill Gates and Mark Zuck. Both are from Harvard. Harvard ain’t rank 1 in CS but the fact that your peers are people like them has a bigger influence in the learning in undergrad.

Just go the best school you can get into (and afford without being financially crippled).
Overall though, college learning has more to do with the professor you get in the course.
You could attend the best CS school on the planet and your Intro Programming might only require you to study like 1~2 hours a week.
You could attend a no-one-really-knows CS school and your Intro Programming might require you to study 30~80 hours a week (though at this point, I really question if the “Intro” course is actually an “Intro” and whether you are actually learning a common starting language or Assembly + Functional Programming + CS Theory + etc).
No one really knows. Plus in college, some students “avoid” all the difficult professors and have an easy time getting high GPA in their majors. Some students study so much more in the same courses but have lower GPA. Too much variables in play. Anyways, if you are really stubborn about rankings, just use your brains and figure out after looking at the overall undergrad USNews ranking and the grad ranking. That said, any school in the top 50 in the USNews undergrad should open plenty of opportunities for one anyways to worry about rankings in undergrad.

Anyways, Rice, Brown, Princeton, Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, Duke, USC, UMich, UWiisconsinMadison, UWashington, CMU, UIUC, etc. are all good schools for CS too. Just know for UWashington, you have to directly apply to the major (like UIUC). Take that into note before applying to colleges! Goodluck

34

A social acquaintance has a state flagship undergrad an an engineering MS from MIT. I’m better acquainted with the spouse, but I’ve heard both recommend that path to a couple people. I think the paraphrased quote was more like, “it’s your money, spend it how you like. Our kids are not going to a prestige U for undergrad.”

Everyone likes a luxury good. That’s kind of the point to them.

35

Just follow by the USNews ranking and look at the private schools.
It’s more or less the actual ranking in terms of need based aid.

Generally from my experience I noted that:
Harvard, Princeton has the best financial aid
then Yale, Columbia, Stanford, MIT
then WuStL, CalTech, Duke, UPenn, etc.

That said, overall I feel the USNews primarily ranks its privates by how good the need based aid is.
It’s honestly the one of the very few reasons I actually like the USNews undergrad rankings.
I have quite a lot about the rankings I disagree in the USNews but it does seem to be a good indicator of which private schools have good need based.

36

How is need based (or merit based) aid for Berkeley, UUIC, UT Austin and Georgia Tech for out of state candidate?

37

@infinityprep1234 terrible, not sure, terrible, and terrible. You’ll have a better shot with full needs-met privates for financial aid.

Expect to pay full price at UT, GaTech, and Berkeley.

38

No merit for UIUC as well. Expect to full price

39

What about UVa or UNC for the out of state candidate?

40

thanks @Jpgranier and @ACT2017