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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hands down Mudd. It’s the lac leader, and few are at a comparable level

You are becoming about as annoying as “Bucknell to the street” boy. Mudd is great but not greater than any other top LAC.

This is flat out wrong for cs. There’s a substantial gap, do not take this advice

Be clear in what you are trying to say. Mudd is the best for CS but you will do fine from Swat, Middlebury or a few other top LACs as well. They are well represented in top firms including a VP that I know at Google.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

I’m not OP but am following and to the question above - because the feel and vibe of the school are important too. I also have a kid who thinks she wants to do CS but really like the feels of the LAC size/scale and also isn’t positive enough on CS that she wants to be at a school where she only does those classes.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

I'm skeptical of the "Harvey Mudd über alles" claim, but surely one can do better than Hamilton. I would imagine the WASP schools all have passable departments, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm skeptical of the "Harvey Mudd über alles" claim, but surely one can do better than Hamilton. I would imagine the WASP schools all have passable departments, no?

Pomona alum fill up Google and Microsoft. Mudd is objectively the best for post grad cs outcomes, though. Their curriculum is also pretty well lauded. It’s a dedicated tech school- they’re supposed to be good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm skeptical of the "Harvey Mudd über alles" claim, but surely one can do better than Hamilton. I would imagine the WASP schools all have passable departments, no?

All of the top LACs will have good departments combined with the close interaction between students and professors of the LAC model.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

[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?

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm skeptical of the "Harvey Mudd über alles" claim, but surely one can do better than Hamilton. I would imagine the WASP schools all have passable departments, no?

Viewers of this topic interested in following suggestions with their own research will note that few LACs offer dedicated computer science buildings, and I believe none offers a building quite on the scale of Hamilton's planned facility. Moreover, even in comparison to the McGregor Center at tech-oriented Harvey Mudd, Hamilton's facility will be 5,000 square feet larger.

[Anonymous]

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?

Mudd only has 48 STUDENTS in CS? Am I reading that correctly? Per year, or total in program. I suspect I’m not reading this correctly

[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?

Mudd only has 48 STUDENTS in CS? Am I reading that correctly? Per year, or total in program. I suspect I’m not reading this correctly

They’re not telling you some critical information- Mudd students usually only major in 1 subject, so there’s Cs, an independent degree, and then there’s CS-Math CS-physics, etc.

Last year, Mudd had 37 CS majors, 52 CS-math majors, 4 CS-Physics majors, 8 MathCompBio majors, and 62 engineering major- some of those students are computer engineering students, but Mudd doesn’t have sub disciplines.