Does anyone have any thoughts on WUSTL CS program? Everything else about the college seems top notch.
I wouldn’t put it up there with the top schools here, and one thing that concerns me about it is that the intro course (as well as the second possibly, unsure) are done online via recorded lecture. It has the courses you need but I don’t think it offers anything unique or a super strong CS reputation with it. @thshadow would know more, as they have a kid who just enrolled for CS there. My knowledge is not that extensive on their program.
Just saw I missed the RPI question - very strong reputation, particularly in the northeast. Of course they go to the valley as well. Usually seen as WPI but a bit more intense, a bit better regarded. They have a pretty decent co-op style (ARCH I think for googling purposes) program (like the full one Northeastern has) though many students do internships there as well. Troy is getting better but still isn’t the most vibrant place. For some scale, I think most in tech would know RPI better than WUSTL.
While there seems to be quite a few top CS programs the consensus is that 4 are above all the others(which is rare to find such agreement in other subjects). My question is what separates CMU, Stanford, Berkeley and MIT from the others? Why wouldn’t/couldn’t other programs reach the same level?
I don’t think it’s that they are so far above the others, they are just the ones people can most easily agree on, so they appear to be above the others. The areas they do have the clear advantages in are research and a collection of the brightest classmates. It also has a reputation factor that kind of feeds the cycle. For someone going into industry I don’t think they offer an inherently better education really. Many would not do well with the large class sizes at some of these, like Stanford and Berkeley. They don’t have inherently better introductory teaching either, which I would argue is objectively found in better forms elsewhere. But the research opportunities will be hard to match, and connections with classmates will likely be valuable. I think that’s a product of a cyclical reputation cycle, allowing them to attract some of the most talented students for CS, which in turn brings value to the schools. This gets into the whole philosophical argument of how much value school X adds over school Y, and whether it’s not simply the student who determines the outcome, not the school they attend.
Short version: Top research and reputation are the unique characteristics.
Just thought that I’d be the third person here to mention that Rice sounds like a good fit for you. It’s often compared to WUSTL and has strong computer science faculty, an extensive curriculum, has a good reputation (especially in the south) and is considered a top research university.
@Srabookworm Yes Rice is a very interesting option and somewhere I would consider of course. When you say it’s often compared to WUSTL, in what ways?
Similar acceptance rate, roughly similar class sizes, similar average SAT and ACT scores, generally similar popular majors - those are the main things that come to mind. In general, many people I know who applied to one also applied to the other. I’ve heard that they just have a “similar vibe” or something along those lines.
There definitely seems to be a strong bias towards CS programs based mostly on their graduate program from what I can tell. @PengsPhils has pointed out there are some terrific programs that give a better education at least for the bachelor’s degree offered. The only ranking I can find concerning CS programs based solely on their undergraduate teaching is the following:
http://www.collegechoice.net/rankings/best-computer-science-degree/
Any thoughts on this ranking and the difference between CS bachelor’s programs as opposed to graduate programs ?
One of the inputs to that ranking itself is the US News Graduate rankings. So basically it’s more or less another reflection of graduate programs. I’ve also never seen that ranking before and would put little if anty stock in it. Honestly, the silicon valley link upthread about recruiting I think says a bit more about undergraduates than others, and even then it doesn’t say much at all. Really getting a handle on undergraduate CS programs is pretty hard to do really, and you wouldn’t be the first to struggle with it. I think this thread below would be a good read that may get at some of the underlying problems:
When it comes to research, I also think that the following link gives some better raw data to consider and also breaks down research by subtopics so you can see, for example, where the top/most AI papers are coming out of in the last X years.
Note: This is a gauge on research alone and nothing else. Its use is best as a single data point, not an end all be all.
PS: That forum is probably a good resource to check out for you and future questions as it has more CS people on it than this thread has following it closely.
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/math-computer-science-majors/
Research is a very valuable tool in CS and most any field of study. For the undergraduate student, quality research and program flexibility are often difficult to integrate into the classroom process. Research requires more time/money than a classroom lecture hall. Since 1970, the entire undergraduate student body at WPI has revolved around undergraduate research projects which are integrated with classroom development in three different areas. “Rankings” do not exist for this program as no other school is doing this quit the same way… Any large graduate school in CS is likely to publish the most research papers. The question is: What will your UNDERGRADUATE research paper be? Some projects have developed into serious enterprises.
Take a look at these undergraduate CS projects currently at WPI: https://www.wpi.edu/academics/departments/computer-science/major-project.
@retiredfarmer Good to know. Thanks for the link. There are some interesting projects for sure.
Looking at your stats scores… are pretty average OOS for the top ranked public & private CS schools.
Your most impressive stat is “class president”. This is a mark of approval by your peers. Stanford loves class presidents.
60 credits? I see 8 or so AP courses. 11 to 12 AP courses are the norm for top schools. You can get out of your first year at the top public schools with that (GT, Cal). The private schools (MIT, Stanford) will not give you any credit for those because they want you and your money for four years.
@Greymeer I’m not sure if you looked correctly then for scores and AP classes.
Both MIT and Stanford take AP credit, and Stanford even accepts a good deal.
Not sure where you got that idea, nor is the rest of your comment coherent really. I count 11 AP’s, but that is not a “norm” for top schools. Many high schools don’t even offer 11 AP courses. After 6 AP’s or so, pretty much every school cares less and less with each additional one. On top of that, being “average” for the top schools is about as good as it gets. It means it’s still a reach school, but someone has a good chance and it’s worth putting out apps. What’s the point of that comment?
@PengsPhils “?”
Um, that his stats are average for top CS programs… What makes him stand out is being class president…
As far as AP credit goes: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-MIT-so-stingy-with-awarding-AP-credits
The same can be said of other private colleges. Don’t expect to get credit.
Incoming freshmen at elite colleges all majors average 9 to 12 AP courses. Top 100 colleges average 4 to 8 AP courses.
Keep in mind that he is applying for CS. The number of AP courses will be higher among engineering and CS (STEM) applicants than business/english majors.
This is all pretty minute details that don’t really help with selection/search though, and irrelevant given that OP has 11 AP courses and never claimed to be expecting 60 credits at every school, just at a public like UF.
Is there a source for this? Haven’t seen/heard this one before.