CS: What are some of the good LACs or small colleges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the number of PhD students from other countries, how many undergraduate students in China and India for instance receive a CS degree relative to US?

Majority rather almost all internationals are prestige whores and go for univ that have name recall back in their countries, such as public state or large privates. Have a look at Umass colleges. You will not find them in these top LACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top three SLACs are:

Harvey Mudd
Grinnell
Pomona

Honorable mentions:
Davidson
Carleton
Middleburry

How easy/difficult is to get CS in these?

Getting admission into these colleges for sure is not easy. Look at their acceptance rates:

Harvey Mudd - 13%
Grinnell - 13%
Pomona - 7%
Davidson - 14%
Carleton - 22%
Middleburry - 10%

Not only getting into these colleges is tough, they have very low enrolment in CS. Mudd has only 48, Grinnell 54, Pomona 33..

Not sure whether its a good idea to chase CS a LAC. With 476 enrolment, Isn't Purdue way better than these LACs?

Why waste time and effort at these LACs?

CS table starts on p11. CS PhD programs are the most selective in the nation. LACs are disproportionately represented. Purdue is not in the top 100. Sure, if you want to do basic sw development, you don’t a PhD, but that misses the point that actual computer science programs look for the best undergrads, and LAC programs punch above their weight. That’s of course a benefit even to the students who don’t intend to pursue PhDs.

https://www.swarthmore.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/institutional-effectiveness-research-assessment/Doct%20Rates%20Rankings%20by%20Broad%20Disc%20Fields.pdf

CS PhD programs are mostly foreigners. American students generally find the opportunity cost of foregoing 5ish years of lucrative employment is too high.

According to Payscale PhD earners average 40% more. Even if it’s half that number, they come out ahead without even counting stipends (~40k.) But that’s beside the point that the programs will pick the best applicants.

No, they are not mostly foreigners, but that also would be beside the point.

https://www.dice.com/career-advice/how-many-computer-science-grad-students-are-international

Yes, CS PhD students are overwhelmingly international. I.e. foreigners.

If the earnings premium you cite is so real, why do American computer scientists mostly get by with just a bachelors?

The link you shared was not specific to PhDs, but yes in the last couple decades visa holders have overtaken US citizens for earning CS PhDs (59%, not 72%; see below link). That isn’t a good argument for why US kids shouldn’t consider CS PhD, it’s actually the opposite.

You don’t know more people earning CS PhDs because the programs have very limited seats which the very best students in the world are competing for.

(As an aside, it’s not common for someone who gets only a bachelor’s degree in CS to end up doing actual computer science; they are more likely to be involved with some stage of the software engineering lifecycle.)

https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20223/international-s-e-higher-education

This is artificially driven by US immigrant visa rules. Someone with a tech MS or better PhD can qualify for a certain visa that the same person without a MS/PhD cannot access.

In Silly Valley there are LOTS of not-brilliant grunt coders who are immigrants and got a PhD -ONLY- because of US visa rules. A handful of those are brilliant and not grunts, but more US natives with advanced degrees are brilliant and not grunts - at least in the valley.

[Anonymous]

Of articles that recommend colleges with strong creative writing programs, this one, although older, showed some effort in defending its choices:

https://contently.net/2014/11/06/resources/tools/training/10-best-colleges-creative-writers/

The Schools

Emory
Hamilton
JHU
MIT
NYU
Oberlin
Princeton
Sarah Lawrence
Sewanee
Yale

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top three SLACs are:

Harvey Mudd
Grinnell
Pomona

Honorable mentions:
Davidson
Carleton
Middleburry

How easy/difficult is to get CS in these?

Getting admission into these colleges for sure is not easy. Look at their acceptance rates:

Harvey Mudd - 13%
Grinnell - 13%
Pomona - 7%
Davidson - 14%
Carleton - 22%
Middleburry - 10%

Not only getting into these colleges is tough, they have very low enrolment in CS. Mudd has only 48, Grinnell 54, Pomona 33..

Not sure whether its a good idea to chase CS a LAC. With 476 enrolment, Isn't Purdue way better than these LACs?

Why waste time and effort at these LACs?

Where did you get these numbers? Pomona currently has 80 declared seniors for CS.

These are graduating students.

https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=grinnell&s=all&id=153384#programs

That list is missing at least 40 students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top three SLACs are:

Harvey Mudd
Grinnell
Pomona

Honorable mentions:
Davidson
Carleton
Middleburry

How easy/difficult is to get CS in these?

Getting admission into these colleges for sure is not easy. Look at their acceptance rates:

Harvey Mudd - 13%
Grinnell - 13%
Pomona - 7%
Davidson - 14%
Carleton - 22%
Middleburry - 10%

Not only getting into these colleges is tough, they have very low enrolment in CS. Mudd has only 48, Grinnell 54, Pomona 33..

Not sure whether its a good idea to chase CS a LAC. With 476 enrolment, Isn't Purdue way better than these LACs?

Why waste time and effort at these LACs?

Extremely hard to get in, much harder than Purdue. LACs are for kids looking for their educational model. Small classes, close interaction with professors, etc. It is a superior educational model (demonstrated by the fact that kids of professors are far more likely to go to a LAC than anywhere else including the kids of professors at research institutions) but it is. It for everyone.

Yes, I can attest to that. Kids of professors/deans at MIT, Stanford, CMU, UW Seattle, UC Boulder etc. are studying at Mudd currently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top three SLACs are:

Harvey Mudd
Grinnell
Pomona

Honorable mentions:
Davidson
Carleton
Middleburry

How easy/difficult is to get CS in these?

Getting admission into these colleges for sure is not easy. Look at their acceptance rates:

Harvey Mudd - 13%
Grinnell - 13%
Pomona - 7%
Davidson - 14%
Carleton - 22%
Middleburry - 10%

Not only getting into these colleges is tough, they have very low enrolment in CS. Mudd has only 48, Grinnell 54, Pomona 33..

Not sure whether its a good idea to chase CS a LAC. With 476 enrolment, Isn't Purdue way better than these LACs?

Why waste time and effort at these LACs?

Extremely hard to get in, much harder than Purdue. LACs are for kids looking for their educational model. Small classes, close interaction with professors, etc. It is a superior educational model (demonstrated by the fact that kids of professors are far more likely to go to a LAC than anywhere else including the kids of professors at research institutions) but it is. It for everyone.

Yes, I can attest to that. Kids of professors/deans at MIT, Stanford, CMU, UW Seattle, UC Boulder etc. are studying at Mudd currently.

Yes, for example Chem Noble prize winner's daughter is studying at Grinnell

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top three SLACs are:

Harvey Mudd
Grinnell
Pomona

Honorable mentions:
Davidson
Carleton
Middleburry

How easy/difficult is to get CS in these?

Getting admission into these colleges for sure is not easy. Look at their acceptance rates:

Harvey Mudd - 13%
Grinnell - 13%
Pomona - 7%
Davidson - 14%
Carleton - 22%
Middleburry - 10%

Not only getting into these colleges is tough, they have very low enrolment in CS. Mudd has only 48, Grinnell 54, Pomona 33..

Not sure whether its a good idea to chase CS a LAC. With 476 enrolment, Isn't Purdue way better than these LACs?

Why waste time and effort at these LACs?

Extremely hard to get in, much harder than Purdue. LACs are for kids looking for their educational model. Small classes, close interaction with professors, etc. It is a superior educational model (demonstrated by the fact that kids of professors are far more likely to go to a LAC than anywhere else including the kids of professors at research institutions) but it is. It for everyone.

Yes, I can attest to that. Kids of professors/deans at MIT, Stanford, CMU, UW Seattle, UC Boulder etc. are studying at Mudd currently.

Yes, for example Chem Noble prize winner's daughter is studying at Grinnell

Education wise there is something at the top LACs. A Chemistry Nobel Prize winner's son is at Reed, and another Nobel laureate who is a professor at Stanford has a son at Harvey Mudd. I believe they can always pick up the phone, and their kids will be admitted wherever they want. But they trust the top LACs about their child's education.

[Anonymous]

holy cross if okay with catholic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hamilton

+1 DS wanted a small engineering school, we hoped for a LAC. Hamilton was the best compromise we found. In the end, we realized it was his choice, and he chose the engineering school.

But Hamilton is great for this profile.

With respect to the OP, Hamilton, with its new computer science facility, will enhance its CS curriculum with additional courses in hardware, and its labs will be notably well equipped for activities in electronics and robotics.

Any respectable cs department would already have this. Very concerning anyone was teaching cs without it.

Colleges that have enhanced their CS curricula and facilities cannot be presumed to have had inadequate curricula and facilities prior to such enhancements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hamilton

+1 DS wanted a small engineering school, we hoped for a LAC. Hamilton was the best compromise we found. In the end, we realized it was his choice, and he chose the engineering school.

But Hamilton is great for this profile.

With respect to the OP, Hamilton, with its new computer science facility, will enhance its CS curriculum with additional courses in hardware, and its labs will be notably well equipped for activities in electronics and robotics.

Any respectable cs department would already have this. Very concerning anyone was teaching cs without it.

Colleges that have enhanced their CS curricula and facilities cannot be presumed to have had inadequate curricula and facilities prior to such enhancements.

Just…not true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top three SLACs are:

Harvey Mudd
Grinnell
Pomona

Honorable mentions:
Davidson
Carleton
Middleburry

How easy/difficult is to get CS in these?

Getting admission into these colleges for sure is not easy. Look at their acceptance rates:

Harvey Mudd - 13%
Grinnell - 13%
Pomona - 7%
Davidson - 14%
Carleton - 22%
Middleburry - 10%

Not only getting into these colleges is tough, they have very low enrolment in CS. Mudd has only 48, Grinnell 54, Pomona 33..

Not sure whether its a good idea to chase CS a LAC. With 476 enrolment, Isn't Purdue way better than these LACs?

Why waste time and effort at these LACs?

CS table starts on p11. CS PhD programs are the most selective in the nation. LACs are disproportionately represented. Purdue is not in the top 100. Sure, if you want to do basic sw development, you don’t a PhD, but that misses the point that actual computer science programs look for the best undergrads, and LAC programs punch above their weight. That’s of course a benefit even to the students who don’t intend to pursue PhDs.

https://www.swarthmore.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/institutional-effectiveness-research-assessment/Doct%20Rates%20Rankings%20by%20Broad%20Disc%20Fields.pdf

CS PhD programs are mostly foreigners. American students generally find the opportunity cost of foregoing 5ish years of lucrative employment is too high.

According to Payscale PhD earners average 40% more. Even if it’s half that number, they come out ahead without even counting stipends (~40k.) But that’s beside the point that the programs will pick the best applicants.

No, they are not mostly foreigners, but that also would be beside the point.

https://www.dice.com/career-advice/how-many-computer-science-grad-students-are-international

Yes, CS PhD students are overwhelmingly international. I.e. foreigners.

If the earnings premium you cite is so real, why do American computer scientists mostly get by with just a bachelors?

Inaccurate data.

That article refers to "graduate students" which includes masters students. The number of masters students FAR outweigh the number of CS PhD students; and there are FAR more international masters students than PhD students. Article also includes "information sciences" which is not CS. The data cited is inaccurate and misleading with regards to domestic/international CS PhD students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top three SLACs are:

Harvey Mudd
Grinnell
Pomona

Honorable mentions:
Davidson
Carleton
Middleburry

How easy/difficult is to get CS in these?

Getting admission into these colleges for sure is not easy. Look at their acceptance rates:

Harvey Mudd - 13%
Grinnell - 13%
Pomona - 7%
Davidson - 14%
Carleton - 22%
Middleburry - 10%

Not only getting into these colleges is tough, they have very low enrolment in CS. Mudd has only 48, Grinnell 54, Pomona 33..

Not sure whether its a good idea to chase CS a LAC. With 476 enrolment, Isn't Purdue way better than these LACs?

Why waste time and effort at these LACs?

CS table starts on p11. CS PhD programs are the most selective in the nation. LACs are disproportionately represented. Purdue is not in the top 100. Sure, if you want to do basic sw development, you don’t a PhD, but that misses the point that actual computer science programs look for the best undergrads, and LAC programs punch above their weight. That’s of course a benefit even to the students who don’t intend to pursue PhDs.

https://www.swarthmore.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/institutional-effectiveness-research-assessment/Doct%20Rates%20Rankings%20by%20Broad%20Disc%20Fields.pdf

CS PhD programs are mostly foreigners. American students generally find the opportunity cost of foregoing 5ish years of lucrative employment is too high.

According to Payscale PhD earners average 40% more. Even if it’s half that number, they come out ahead without even counting stipends (~40k.) But that’s beside the point that the programs will pick the best applicants.

No, they are not mostly foreigners, but that also would be beside the point.

https://www.dice.com/career-advice/how-many-computer-science-grad-students-are-international

Yes, CS PhD students are overwhelmingly international. I.e. foreigners.

If the earnings premium you cite is so real, why do American computer scientists mostly get by with just a bachelors?

Inaccurate data.

That article refers to "graduate students" which includes masters students. The number of masters students FAR outweigh the number of CS PhD students; and there are FAR more international masters students than PhD students. Article also includes "information sciences" which is not CS. The data cited is inaccurate and misleading with regards to domestic/international CS PhD students.

More importantly, why would more internationals in CS PhD programs be a reason to avoid? Are we suddenly ok with surrendering the future of arguably the most important STEM field? Weird argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of articles that recommend colleges with strong creative writing programs, this one, although older, showed some effort in defending its choices:

https://contently.net/2014/11/06/resources/tools/training/10-best-colleges-creative-writers/

The Schools

Emory
Hamilton
JHU
MIT
NYU
Oberlin
Princeton
Sarah Lawrence
Sewanee
Yale

This is similar to a list that USA Today printed:

“The 10 Best American Colleges for Writers”

1. Emory
2. Hamilton
3. JHU
4. MIT
5. NYU
6. Wash U
7. UIowa
8. Columbia
9. UMichigan
10. Colorado College