4 ms·

Top schools do not teach the material differentially better. Yale teaches computer science quite well (I'm a graduate!) but not particularly better than any oth

by emmett 14y ago

Top schools do not teach the material differentially better. Yale teaches computer science quite well (I'm a graduate!) but not particularly better than any other school. CMU and MIT also have great CS programs, but they're not substantially superior to what you get at Yale. Or at any UC school. What Ivy League schools do teach better than other schools is exactly what Justin says: how to fit in to the elite.

_delirium 14y ago
Ah, ok, I don't disagree with that. I had read the anti-credential argument as being against formal education entirely. I do agree that the finer distinctions of university rankings are unimportant, especially at the undergraduate level, and serve mostly as a pedigree. I wouldn't differentiate at all among, say, the top-20 CS schools, and I'd differentiate only weakly between the top-20 and top-100. To the extent I would, it's mostly in that the top-20 tend to have "harder" programs, since they typically accept stronger students, so their curricula can often be designed with higher expectations and covering more material. But there are plenty of solid programs at non-Ivy-League places like Cal Poly Pomona or Purdue.
- justin 14y ago
  I'm not against formal education entirely. I don't believe that everyone derives benefit equivalent to the cost (both to themselves, and the public cost) of college tuition, but clearly there are a large number of professions that require a formal education, including ones in software development. Like Emmett point out, however, I think any potential incremental benefit of a CS education at a top school is very much overvalued by recruiters.
  - tossacct 14y ago
    >>>I don't believe that everyone derives benefit equivalent to the cost (both to themselves, and the public cost) of college tuition The "everyone" that you are referring to consists of the vast majority of university majors, which happen to be non-vocational. I would say that STEM majors are generally pretty close to vocational, but as you say lots of people can get the degree without actually learning anything useful to any specific employer. Which is what vocational schools are for. The biggest pity is that vocational schools aren't held up as great opportunities - lots of them are intellectually challenging - can you name and describe the function of all of the moving and non moving parts in your car? Also vocational schools are just as social as long as they are encompassed in a normal junior college. Oh and JOBS that pay MONEY. The funniest part of the tragedy is that (on average) someone going to vocational school for a law certificate is going to make less money than someone going to vocational school for an electrician or plumbing or automotive repair certificate. Have we mentioned debt and compound interest?
_pius 14y ago
CMU and MIT also have great CS programs, but they're not substantially superior to what you get at Yale. Or at any UC school. Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion, man. Memes aside, that contrarian claim may or may not be true, but where's the evidence to support it? On a related note, the OP lost me with the claim that "Speaking as a graduate of one, top schools [just] teach you credentialing and ladder climbing." That doesn't match what I've seen at MIT or CMU, but perhaps it's true at Yale? :P At the very least, it's an extraordinary claim (for engineering majors) presented with something falling far short of extraordinary evidence.
- spin 14y ago
  This is just one anecdote here: I am a physics graduate of a state school. I thought my physics program was excellent. I have since studied some additional math from MIT's OpenCourseWare and some machine-learning classes from Coursera. In my opinion, the quality of the classes are roughly the same. But what I have noticed is that a lot more of the original research comes from the big-name universities. (I suppose that professors compete to go where the most funding is, and also where they can get access to the best grad students.) If I wanted to get a PhD in machine-learning, I'd most want to go to U.Toronto or UCL (University College London). Because that's where the action is. As a graduate student, if I'm studying the xyz algorithm, I might be learning it from the guy who invented the xyz algorithm. (As well as surrounded by grad students and post-docs who are studying the next version of the xyz algorithm.) I suppose that, in the STEM fields, there's a trickle-down effect to the undergrads. Surely there's more energy in studying something right where it's being invented.
  - richardjordan 14y ago
    I think that's a great point. With the more advanced stuff, who you studied under will probably have some bearing on a candidate's learning. Perhaps still not an exact indicator of their commercial viability, but still a different kettle of fish than the undergraduate level.
- svachalek 14y ago
  I would think that scientifically speaking, the burden of proof would be on the elite schools to show that they are superior teachers. Marketing-wise, of course they don't need to prove anything, but in any market where a brand is untouchable that brand tends to degrade. At the time I got my engineering degree, my dept was in the top 20. It was pretty clear through the entire 4 years that educating undergrads was not a serious priority for the professors or the dept as a whole; research was king. I'd be pretty open to evidence that colleges without world-renowned research are actually better teachers.
SqMafia 14y ago
"Yale teaches computer science quite well (I'm a graduate!)" Same here (DC' 04) but from my experience places like Waterloo produce graduates that are phenomenal compared to Yale. They leave Waterloo with such a wealth of actual working experience. Even when I was at Yale recruiters from Microsoft would complain to my professor that Yale graduates were lacking in actual experience. Don't discount the value of experience in learning theory because a great deal of CS is driven by real problems encountered. It's harder for the theoretical stuff to sink in without understanding the problem they can be applied to. I don't think I am alone in this regard. In any case, dollar for dollar, if you're going to hire new college grads your money will go farther on graduates from schools that have a strong internship program. So in a sense, school does matter. Maybe what is more true is the label "Ivy League" doesn't matter, not in CS anyways.
- emmett 14y ago
  Waterloo is actually special (unlike Yale, MIT, or CMU). The internship program there is brilliant and does indeed produce significantly more experienced students on graduation. It's also not particularly prestigious, which just goes to prove Justin's point.
  - SqMafia 14y ago
    That would be his point if he said "Ivy Leagues don't matter". But if we agree that someone from Waterloo stands out then credentials do matter. If I was looking for candidates, I would search first for "Waterloo" or other schools with programs like them. It might not be prestigious to some people but where I work Waterloo carries a lot of weight. We also love Brown.

by emmett 14y ago

_delirium 14y ago

Ah, ok, I don't disagree with that. I had read the anti-credential argument as being against formal education entirely. I do agree that the finer distinctions of university rankings are unimportant, especially at the undergraduate level, and serve mostly as a pedigree. I wouldn't differentiate at all among, say, the top-20 CS schools, and I'd differentiate only weakly between the top-20 and top-100. To the extent I would, it's mostly in that the top-20 tend to have "harder" programs, since they typically accept stronger students, so their curricula can often be designed with higher expectations and covering more material. But there are plenty of solid programs at non-Ivy-League places like Cal Poly Pomona or Purdue.

justin 14y ago
I'm not against formal education entirely. I don't believe that everyone derives benefit equivalent to the cost (both to themselves, and the public cost) of college tuition, but clearly there are a large number of professions that require a formal education, including ones in software development. Like Emmett point out, however, I think any potential incremental benefit of a CS education at a top school is very much overvalued by recruiters.
- tossacct 14y ago
  >>>I don't believe that everyone derives benefit equivalent to the cost (both to themselves, and the public cost) of college tuition The "everyone" that you are referring to consists of the vast majority of university majors, which happen to be non-vocational. I would say that STEM majors are generally pretty close to vocational, but as you say lots of people can get the degree without actually learning anything useful to any specific employer. Which is what vocational schools are for. The biggest pity is that vocational schools aren't held up as great opportunities - lots of them are intellectually challenging - can you name and describe the function of all of the moving and non moving parts in your car? Also vocational schools are just as social as long as they are encompassed in a normal junior college. Oh and JOBS that pay MONEY. The funniest part of the tragedy is that (on average) someone going to vocational school for a law certificate is going to make less money than someone going to vocational school for an electrician or plumbing or automotive repair certificate. Have we mentioned debt and compound interest?

_pius 14y ago

CMU and MIT also have great CS programs, but they're not substantially superior to what you get at Yale. Or at any UC school. Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion, man. Memes aside, that contrarian claim may or may not be true, but where's the evidence to support it? On a related note, the OP lost me with the claim that "Speaking as a graduate of one, top schools [just] teach you credentialing and ladder climbing." That doesn't match what I've seen at MIT or CMU, but perhaps it's true at Yale? :P At the very least, it's an extraordinary claim (for engineering majors) presented with something falling far short of extraordinary evidence.

spin 14y ago
This is just one anecdote here: I am a physics graduate of a state school. I thought my physics program was excellent. I have since studied some additional math from MIT's OpenCourseWare and some machine-learning classes from Coursera. In my opinion, the quality of the classes are roughly the same. But what I have noticed is that a lot more of the original research comes from the big-name universities. (I suppose that professors compete to go where the most funding is, and also where they can get access to the best grad students.) If I wanted to get a PhD in machine-learning, I'd most want to go to U.Toronto or UCL (University College London). Because that's where the action is. As a graduate student, if I'm studying the xyz algorithm, I might be learning it from the guy who invented the xyz algorithm. (As well as surrounded by grad students and post-docs who are studying the next version of the xyz algorithm.) I suppose that, in the STEM fields, there's a trickle-down effect to the undergrads. Surely there's more energy in studying something right where it's being invented.
- richardjordan 14y ago
  I think that's a great point. With the more advanced stuff, who you studied under will probably have some bearing on a candidate's learning. Perhaps still not an exact indicator of their commercial viability, but still a different kettle of fish than the undergraduate level.
svachalek 14y ago
I would think that scientifically speaking, the burden of proof would be on the elite schools to show that they are superior teachers. Marketing-wise, of course they don't need to prove anything, but in any market where a brand is untouchable that brand tends to degrade. At the time I got my engineering degree, my dept was in the top 20. It was pretty clear through the entire 4 years that educating undergrads was not a serious priority for the professors or the dept as a whole; research was king. I'd be pretty open to evidence that colleges without world-renowned research are actually better teachers.

SqMafia 14y ago

"Yale teaches computer science quite well (I'm a graduate!)" Same here (DC' 04) but from my experience places like Waterloo produce graduates that are phenomenal compared to Yale. They leave Waterloo with such a wealth of actual working experience. Even when I was at Yale recruiters from Microsoft would complain to my professor that Yale graduates were lacking in actual experience. Don't discount the value of experience in learning theory because a great deal of CS is driven by real problems encountered. It's harder for the theoretical stuff to sink in without understanding the problem they can be applied to. I don't think I am alone in this regard. In any case, dollar for dollar, if you're going to hire new college grads your money will go farther on graduates from schools that have a strong internship program. So in a sense, school does matter. Maybe what is more true is the label "Ivy League" doesn't matter, not in CS anyways.

emmett 14y ago
Waterloo is actually special (unlike Yale, MIT, or CMU). The internship program there is brilliant and does indeed produce significantly more experienced students on graduation. It's also not particularly prestigious, which just goes to prove Justin's point.
- SqMafia 14y ago
  That would be his point if he said "Ivy Leagues don't matter". But if we agree that someone from Waterloo stands out then credentials do matter. If I was looking for candidates, I would search first for "Waterloo" or other schools with programs like them. It might not be prestigious to some people but where I work Waterloo carries a lot of weight. We also love Brown.