It’s not just about the number of courses, but also the content of the courses. I once again bring attention to the LAC AI course that was linked by another poster, which was very light in overall rigor and depth compared to it’s RU counterparts.
Still looking for that list of the top 5 LACs for CS. If you ask people for the top 5 CS schools outside the LAC sphere most lists look very similar. Just wondering what the LAC list looks like.
Then comparisons can be drawn.
Harvey Mudd for sure, but it seems to be an anomaly because I literally cannot find another LAC which focuses so much on engineering/CS AND is highly selective.
If I had to do it all over again, I’d avoid getting a straight CS degree. Instead I’d go for a degree in something like computational biology, computational math, computational linguistics, data science, scientific visualization - something more interdisciplinary and applied, and less theoretical. That’s just me and it isn’t meant to be general advice. Most of what I’ve used throughout my software career was taught in the first three or four classes of my CS program, or was self-taught. I’ve rarely used the theoretical stuff from my upper-level CS classes.
If a genie granted me one wish that was to be applied to College Confidential, that wish would be to ban lists of top colleges for particular subjects, or at least for CS. People need to pick the college and learning environment that suits them, and not pick based on any kind of subjective rankings.
^^That doesn’t help people sort through all the options. It’s interesting that a top LAC CS program list has never been discussed or debated.
Harvey Mudd is always mentioned so can we all agree it should be slotted in at #1 LAC for CS?
Now, if we could only find contenders for #s 2-5…
Not sure how listing the top 5 LACs for CS helps people sort through all the options. Rather, it limits what schools they look at. People are far too obsessed with lists on CC.
I read that LACs only produce about 1% of all the CS graduates in the US, so they’re really a minor player in all this. I suppose that’s why nobody has bothered trying to come up with a list.
^^ Actually if they were interested in finding the best LAC CS program, it would help them zero in on the best LAC programs.
Would you not mention HMU?
Might as well ask what are the top five movies of all time, or the top five books of all time, or who are the top five doctors in the US.
I didn’t mention HMU because I don’t believe in the idea of top schools for CS. That’s because I’ve worked long enough to have seen that where you went to school doesn’t correlate well with how productive you are in the workplace. From what I can tell, the people who think otherwise tend to not have relevant work experience in software development.
Telling.
Seems like the thread is now veering into the question: are elite LACs better/worse than elite RUs for CS?
Which is probably a question that most college-bound students will never get to answer even if they tried (by applying), since very few will be admitted to elite LACs or RUs (or their CS majors, in the case of elite CS majors at schools not otherwise considered elite).
Some things are not quantifiable.
“That doesn’t make sense. I’m here in the Bay Area. Mudd is extremely tiny, and I only know two graduates from there. Yet I know several dozen Ivy League graduates. I’m scratching my head trying to figure out how you know more Mudd graduates than Ivy League graduates.”
Let me clarify - I also know more ivy league grads than HMU, I was saying compared to a couple of ivies individually, I’ve come across more HMU grads. And this includes my stint at a s/w company in Seattle.
@tk21769 “A little farther away at Johns Hopkins University, yes, a student would have even better opportunities. Until a few years ago, if one met the prerequisites, maybe a JHU undergrad could have gotten into a course with a guy who helped invent the field of statistical NLP for speech processing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Jelinek).
Or, one could enroll in the kind of LAC where you’d get full attention from professors who studied under top people at places like JHU, and still have very good (if not paradigm-shifting) research opportunities.”
First off Jelinek graduated from MIT and taught at Cornell and JHU, all superb research universities. Your argument for a LAC is that you could get lucky and get a professor who learned under someone like Jelinek at JHU. Well why not just go to JHU or Cornell or MIT and learn from the master himself or similar people? Any reason Jelinek didn’t do his groundbreaking NLP work at a LAC?
@theloniusmonk asked
He’d be too busy grading tests and holding office hours.
@theloniusmonk
Absolutely, if you’re the kind of student who could thrive at JHU/Cornell/MIT, those are great options. One of the features that makes a top RU attractive (compared to a LAC) is the opportunity for exposure - direct or indirect - to top scholars like a Frederick Jelinek. I’m not disagreeing with you about that.
However, typically, for the “average” student at those schools (who would be above average at most other schools), most of the exposure will be indirect. S/he won’t be getting much face time with scholars of that caliber. S/he might be hearing their lectures, or getting discussion/lab sections with their graduate students. When I refer to “[LAC] professors who studied under top people at places like JHU” I’m thinking of where they got their doctorates.
My own undergraduate degree is from UChicago, not a LAC. One thing I love about that place (and a very few others) is that it more-or-less combines the best of both worlds (LAC and RU). Students get the resources of a major research university, but also the small classes of a LAC. Its CS department is a notch below the cream of the crop (and it doesn’t have EE) but if Stanford/MIT isn’t an option, then one might find a good alternative among relatively small private research universities like that (including the Ivies, but also places a bit less selective like Rochester.) Or, consider a LAC. For me, or for one of my kids, the greater student-faculty engagement at a LAC would tend to trump the greater course selection at a state university. But again, you have to compare individual schools and programs (plus costs etc.)
As for listing the “top 5” LACs , that is difficult not only for CS but for most other majors. Virtually all department rankings are graduate program rankings. They generally are based on bibliometric data (publication/citation volume) or on peer assessments (academic opinion polls, which I suspect are based much more on research production than teaching/mentoring quality). You’d first have to define a good basis for comparison, then a way to measure/assess it.
For most good HS students, I wouldn’t advise choosing a college primarily for CS (or other major) strength. Look for colleges that meet more general criteria (overall quality, net price, admission selectivity, location/size/other personal preferences), then narrow down to the ones with strong programs in your intended major. Among the US News top LACs, schools that seem to have relatively strong CS programs (in terms of course selection, student-faculty research activity, outcomes) include Swarthmore, Pomona, Carleton, and Barnard (women only). Number 5? I dunno, maybe Oberlin or Wesleyan. Or Reed (even though it’s a new department with limited course offerings). Bucknell if you want the engineering program. Williams seems to be very good, but being out in the boonies might be a disadvantage for internships. Or any number of other places, depending on what you want to do – like double major with something else.
Suppose you wanted to combine CS with Geology in a double major.
Some of the Keck Consortium LACs would seem to be good for that
(https://keckgeology.org/member-schools/).
In the 10 years from 2006-2015, tiny Carleton College generated more alumni doctorates in Earth Sciences than any other institution (in absolute numbers, not per capita). It seems to have a decent CS program, too.
LACs focus on undergraduate teaching rather than graduate-level research. Large research universities often give short-shrift to undergraduate teaching to focus on graduate students and research.
Would they compare well in CS and geology to the small schools with “Mines” or “Mining” in their names?
By reputation, I associate “mines” schools with aspects of geology such as mineralogy, petrology and forms of sedimentology that have direct economic applications, but to a lesser extent with varied topics such as plate tectonics, general sedimentology, geomorphology and glaciology that a LAC student might prefer.
“LACs focus on undergraduate teaching rather than graduate-level research. Large research universities often give short-shrift to undergraduate teaching to focus on graduate students and research.”
Yeah he probably didn’t learn anything at MIT, given he was taught by grad students.
Is it possible that a grad student at MIT knows more about a computer science than a professor at a LAC, any LAC?