<p>This is just my opinion. I was hoping to hear yours.</p>
<p>1) Stanford
2) MIT
3) Cornell
4) Carnegie Mellon University
5) UC Berkeley
6) Princeton
7) Caltech
8) UT Austin
9) Georgia Tech
10) University of Illinois</p>
<p>Honorable Mentions: Harvey Mudd, Michigan, UW Madison, Harvard</p>
<p>(I know CalTech looks a little underrated, but that is simply because my metrics place value on size of institution in terms of weighing research production and current technological impact.)</p>
<ol>
<li>Massachusetts Institute of Technology</li>
<li>California Institute of Technology</li>
<li>Stanford University</li>
<li>Columbia University</li>
<li>University of California-Berekely</li>
<li>ROSE-HULMAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY</li>
<li>Georgia Institute of Technology</li>
<li>University of Illinois</li>
<li>Purdue University</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon University</li>
</ol>
<p>List from Bestcollegesonline.Com</p>
<p>^Cornell definitely should be in top-5.</p>
<p>@WutTheBuzz, can you explain the metrics you used? Rankings without rationale are useless.</p>
<p>What credibility do YOU have to rank these institutions??</p>
<p>I have very little credibility, I am simply ranking them as a technophilic fanboy focused mainly on developments in AI, robotics, and machine learning. </p>
<p>Cutting-edge research like this is what most impressed me:
Stanford - [YouTube</a> - Stanford’s Robotic Audi TTS](<a href=“Stanford's Robotic Audi TTS - YouTube”>Stanford's Robotic Audi TTS - YouTube)</p>
<p>Cornell - [url=<a href=“Home | Cornell Chronicle”>Home | Cornell Chronicle]robot</a> adapts to injury<a href=“old%20but%20groundbreaking”>/url</a></p>
<p>Cal Berkeley has machine learning courses taught by UC Irvine PhD’s, best in the world. </p>
<p>The idea that columbia or purdue would be ranked above Carnegie Mellon is simply ridiculous. Also, Cornell should at least be on the list. And Rose-Hullman has an endowment of less than $200 million. </p>
<p>This is a topic that should be debated</p>
<p>You are ranking schools based on your impression of Youtube videos???</p>
<p>OK - not on your list, Virginia Tech designed an interface so that a blind person could drive a car, see [YouTube</a> - Blind Driver Challenge: Daytona International Speedway, Rolex24](<a href=“Blind Driver Challenge: Daytona International Speedway, Rolex24 - YouTube”>Blind Driver Challenge: Daytona International Speedway, Rolex24 - YouTube)</p>
<p>So Stanford students came up with an autonomous car? Va Tech, one-upped that with an autonomous boat. [YouTube</a> - Virginia Tech: Autonomous Boat](<a href=“Virginia Tech: Autonomous Boat - YouTube”>Virginia Tech: Autonomous Boat - YouTube)</p>
<p>The Va Tech RoMeLa lab also produced Charli, the first autonomous untethered humanoid robot in the U.S.</p>
<p>Developments in AI, robotics and machine learning don’t occur just in the well recognized name brand universities. Then again, some of the universities on your list may be there solely because they have general name recognition rather than cutting edge research. You could try to rank based on NSF grants to faculty in AI and Robotics. I don’t know where that information would be available. But you might find some universities that you never thought of getting a lot of funding for their cutting edge research, e.g., University of Minnesota.</p>
<p>While those are cool innovations, they are obviously not as remarkable as autonomous cars or self-aware robots. Navigation and coordination for an autonomous boat would be infinitely easier than programming a car to navigate through traffic up a windy mountain road. </p>
<p>Also, if the Stanford car drives autonomously and navigates via Google Maps, why is it necessary to build an interface for blind people to drive? What is the purpose? It seems to just add more potential for human error than it eliminates…</p>
<p>I do agree that both VA Tech and Minnesota deserve honorable mentions, but frankly these aren’t quite as groundbreaking of achievements as the recent completed projects at the universities I’ve listed.</p>
<p>More youtube video evidence! I like it!</p>
<p>Yeah, an autonomous boat is much easier than an autonomous car that has to drive up Pike’s Peak at the highest speed possible. For comparison, all the autonomous cars in the first DARPA challenge failed; it was that hard.</p>
<p>To the OP, are you asking about rankings for CS or tech? For a combination of both, I’d say:</p>
<ol>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>UC Berkeley</li>
<li>Caltech</li>
<li>CMU</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>UIUC</li>
<li>UT-Austin</li>
<li>Georgia Tech</li>
</ol>
<p>edit: it’s eerily similar to the US News CS rankings, but that honestly wasn’t my intention. Also, that’s coincidentally the order (roughly) that they’re ranked for engineering & technology in world rankings.</p>
<p>Berkeley and Caltech over CMU and Cornell? Serious west coast bias! If anything it should be a 3-way tie for 3rd between Cal, Cornell, and CMU. </p>
<p>And you can’t really compare these schools to Caltech. All three of these schools have close to as many professional faculty dedicated exclusively to computer science and engineering as Caltech has in its entire institution. At a certain point, size has to matter. Why is Caltech ranked so high for you?</p>
<p>Compare Caltech compsci research to
[Cornell</a> Chronicle: Robot learning](<a href=“Home | Cornell Chronicle”>Home | Cornell Chronicle)
and
[May</a> 20: Carnegie Mellon and INTA Collaborate To Develop A Sensing Tool To Track Magnetic Nanoparticles For Tissue Engineering - Carnegie Mellon University](<a href=“http://www.cmu.edu/news/archive/2011/May/may20_nanoparticlestool.shtml]May”>http://www.cmu.edu/news/archive/2011/May/may20_nanoparticlestool.shtml)</p>
<p>Nanotech & Robots wins.</p>
<p>AI isn’t all about robots/autonomous control. There’s other cool stuff like NLP and computer vision, etc. Why are you limiting it to AI? What do you even define as “cutting edge”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not at all. That’d make sense if it were just CS, but you asked for CS and tech, so (as I said) what I posted is based on both. Just look at rankings of CS and of technology/engineering:</p>
<p>[Top</a> Universities for Engineering & Technology 2010-2011](<a href=“http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/engineering-and-IT.html]Top”>http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/engineering-and-IT.html)
[ARWU</a> in Engineering/Technology and Computer Sciences - 2010](<a href=“http://www.arwu.org/FieldENG2010.jsp]ARWU”>http://www.arwu.org/FieldENG2010.jsp)
[ARWU</a> in Computer Science - 2010](<a href=“http://www.arwu.org/SubjectCS2010.jsp]ARWU”>http://www.arwu.org/SubjectCS2010.jsp)
[Best</a> Engineering School Rankings | Engineering Program Rankings | US News](<a href=“http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-engineering-schools/eng-rankings]Best”>http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-engineering-schools/eng-rankings)
[Best</a> Computer Science Programs | Top Computer Science Schools | US News Best Graduate Schools](<a href=“http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-schools/computer-science-rankings]Best”>http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-schools/computer-science-rankings)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>
^^ this is from yesterday. </p>
<p>In any case, I still say those rankings exhibit enormous west-coast bias, and while I agree that perhaps Berkeley should share a 3rd place ranking with CMU and Cornell, Caltech is simply too small to really be competitive with those schools in this category. Each of these three schools have programs specifically dedicated to CS/tech that are as big as CalTech is in its entirety. If you compare the output of viable computational research and enormous technological breakthroughs, it is undebatable that CMU should be at the top of this list ranked well-above Berkeley. </p>
<p>Cornell and CMU deserve a little more love is what I’m saying, they are very comparable institutions in terms of research opportunities/projects, faculty, and job opportunities to Stanford or MIT, Cornell and CMU are just not nearly as wealthy.</p>
<p>Also, why does Times Higher Education rank Princeton 4th? Princeton has been growing leaps and bounds in the past 10 years or so, but 4th? That’s fairly generous…</p>
<p>When I say CS/Tech, what I mean is Computer Science and Computational Engineering or Electrical Engineering with Computational Emphasis. I’m talking about that real tech stuff. Show me the projects Caltech and Berkeley students are doing that compare to these projects in robot learning and nanotech. </p>
<p>Intro to CompSci @ CMU and they’re already teaching parallel computation.
[May</a> 2: Carnegie Mellon Revamps Courses for Introductory Computer Science - Carnegie Mellon University](<a href=“http://www.cmu.edu/news/archive/2011/May/may2_introcompsci.shtml]May”>http://www.cmu.edu/news/archive/2011/May/may2_introcompsci.shtml)</p>
<p>I’ve heard these Big 4 are the only ones in contention for the HP Memristor grants too. I can’t wait until they start working on those well on the way to computer-simulated neurology.</p>
<p>That being said, I have mad respect for everything Caltech does in terms of quantum physics research, biomedical engineering, etc. etc. and I’m not saying CalTech isn’t full of fkn geniuses. I’m just saying that CalTech has far fewer resources and brainpower dedicated to the areas of raw computational engineering/science than the other institutions listed. I stand by my original rankings, but I really would like to be convinced they are wrong because it would mean I get to learn about awesome research.</p>
<p>
Incorrect. UCSB does memristor work, but I don’t think Berkeley does, although they were discovered there: [HP</a> figures out how memristors work, predicts robot use | Emerging Tech | ZDNet UK](<a href=“News and Advice on the World's Latest Innovations | ZDNET”>News and Advice on the World's Latest Innovations | ZDNET)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They both do comparable projects in a wide variety of areas in computer science, EE, robotics, nano, etc.</p>
<p>[Welcome</a> to Robotics! - Robotics Wiki](<a href=“Robotics - Robotics”>Robotics - Robotics)
[Computer</a> Science, Caltech - Groups](<a href=“Computing + Mathematical Sciences”>Computing + Mathematical Sciences)
[ROUKES</a> GROUP :: Nanoscale Systems](<a href=“http://nano.caltech.edu/]ROUKES”>http://nano.caltech.edu/)</p>
<p>[Robotics</a> Group Wiki - UC Berkeley Robotics and Intelligent Machines Lab Home Page](<a href=“Berkeley Robotics and Intelligent Machines Lab”>Berkeley Robotics and Intelligent Machines Lab)
[Research</a> Projects | EECS at UC Berkeley](<a href=“http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Research/Projects/]Research”>http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Research/Projects/)
[BNNI[/url</a>]</p>
<p>So your emphasis is on CS/EE. By “real tech stuff,” I think you mean “information technology,” which encompasses CS and EE and everything in between. Since you hadn’t specified, I took it to mean more general tech (e.g. engineering in general). </p>
<p>I was going to tie Cornell and Caltech for #5, but I think Cornell’s awesome nano program edges out Caltech’s. </p>
<ol>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Berkeley</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>Caltech</li>
<li>UIUC</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Georgia Tech</li>
<li>UT-Austin </li>
</ol>
<p>I also tend to focus on larger programs that produce quality in both breadth and depth, but I think that concentrated quality should be rewarded here as well. That’s why Caltech is up there. UIUC is definitely higher-quality and edges out Princeton for quality in breadth/depth. I couldn’t decide on Georgia Tech and UT so I cheated and tied them. ;)</p>
<p>FWIW, I’m starting my CS PhD at MIT soon (also got into CMU, Berkeley, and Cornell), and am finishing at Stanford now, which should tell you something about my conviction that Berkeley’s at #3. 
And for the record, I put Stanford at #1 because I think it’s indisputably #1 in CS, also at the very top in EE, kicks *** in computer engineering, robotics, and AI, and has amazing nano facilities - some in the Allen building, but it just finished building a brand-new 100,000 sq ft nano center in the new SEQ:</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://tusb.stanford.edu/2010/10/new-seq-changes-the-face-of-stanford-engineering.html]New”>http://tusb.stanford.edu/2010/10/new-seq-changes-the-face-of-stanford-engineering.html]New</a> SEQ Changes the Face of Stanford Engineering | The Unofficial Stanford Blog](<a href=“http://nano.berkeley.edu/welcome/welcome.html]BNNI[/url”>BNNI)</p>
<p>So that’s why it edges out MIT in my opinion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, a few additions: their faculties in EECS are not the concentrated genius you find at Stanford and MIT. Yes, CMU’s SCS is huge and has the largest faculty and the greatest breadth/depth, but that’s at the expense of concentration of quality. Neither Cornell’s faculty nor its research quite match the “big 4” in CS.</p>
<p>My mistake on the memristor presumption. </p>
<p>As for Phantas, yes, the ranking is overall information technology program, but come on, Berkeley over CMU and Cornell? Maybe the University of California System in its entirety (including UCSB nanotech/EE, UCI machine learning, UCSD/UCSF biotech, etc.) but Berkeley alone doesn’t hold a candle to CMU or Cornell.</p>
<p>I will concede they can all three be tied for third, but honestly I think that’s only if you rollover the incredible research done at SB and Irvine to the entire system. Honestly, Berkeley nanotech? And those robotics projects aren’t half as cool as the two cornell projects that I’ve listed in this thread.</p>
<p>Plus resources dedicated to CS/Engineering undergrads at Cornell and CMU vs Berkeley. Groundbreaking PhD work does regularly stem out of the Berkeley programs (like memristors) but as an overall program (strength of faculty, strength of student body, resources per student allocation, etc.), CMU and Cornell each win out over Berkeley.</p>
<p>The thing is CMU and Cornell both offer Berkeley-level research production, but the competitiveness of undergraduate student bodies (CS/eng.) are comparable to Caltech or Stanford, well above Berkeley.</p>
<p>I’m glad we agree on 1) Stanford and 2) MIT. #3 is still arguable.
Show me some specific research coming out of schools competing for the 3rd spot, cause as of now I still hold Cornell as a top-3 school… (across undergrad, masters, and PhD, not just the masters/PhD program)</p>
<p>This may be the coolest undergrad project I’ve ever seen a school organize: [Cornell</a> Chronicle: Robot learning](<a href=“Home | Cornell Chronicle”>Home | Cornell Chronicle) </p>
<p>and my school let us design a roller coaster…
And look at this:
[Cornell</a> Chronicle: Ranger robot walks a marathon](<a href=“Home | Cornell Chronicle”>Home | Cornell Chronicle)</p>
<p>These are both from this month.</p>