« Student gets an F, blames teacher. Again. | Main | Without chemistry lawyers, life itself would be impossible. »

December 09, 2004

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452383469e200d8341cd74353ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Where CS faculty got their degrees:

Comments

Suresh Venkat

Fascinating. Looks like CMU does the best at attracting top level Ph.Ds to their faculty, far more so than any other place.

MIT is often viewed as "inbreeding central": the chart though suggests that it is no worse than Stanford, and definitely not worse than CMU. Stanford suppposedly has a policy about not hiring its own grads, so I wonder how that number got so high (there is a loophole: if you go somewhere else for a while they don't mind so much)

David Molnar

Are the CMU numbers for the CS department alone, or for the entire School of Computer Science? I knew CMU was a large place, but I hadn't realized quite how large.

John Iacono

So here is a ranking the schools on this chart
based on the number of their graduates in schools
on the chart, normalized by the current size of their
faculty.

#1 (1.81) MIT
#2 (1.34) Stanford
#3 (1.21) Berkeley
#4 (0.70) Wisconsin
#5 (0.55) Cornell
#6 (0.52) CMU
#7 (0.48) Toronto
#8 (0.41) Princeton
#9 (0.31) Washington
#10 (0.16) UIUC
#11 (0.13) Texas

Jeff Erickson

David: The CMU are for the computer science department only.

One major caveat about these numbers: Different departments define "computer science" differently. We chose to count tenure-track faculty in computer science departments only, regardless of the area in which they received their PhDs. So computer architechts with computer science degrees from UIUC who work in Cornell's ECE department are not counted, but Harvard-degreed psychologists working in the CS department at CMU are.

Mugizi  Rwebangira

I remember doing this informally when I was applying for grad schools a few years ago.

My impressions were:
(1)Berkeley and MIT excelled in placing grads at top places (compared to CMU and Stanford).
(2)A large fraction of Stanford faculty went to Berkeley.
(3)CMU faculty graduated from Berkeley or MIT.
(4)MIT faculty came from Berkeley or MIT.

Only (4) seems supported by your data.

My (subjective) conclusion was that Berkeley and MIT were slightly better in placement and MIT and Stanford were slightly better in recruitment.

As my contribution I divided the number of graduates placed at {MIT,Stanford,Berkeley,CMU} by the total number of graduates teaching at schools in the table.(Total graduates would be better but that is not available).

1.Stanford (34/58) = .59
2.MIT (45/79) = .56
3.CMU (27/52) = .52
4.Berkeley (28/58) = .48

Bah, this looks within the margin of error.

Turning to the faculty side here is the number of faculty from {MIT,Stanford,Berkeley,CMU} divided by total faculty size:

1.MIT (27/35) = .77
2.Stanford (22/40) = .67
3.CMU (56/100) = .56
4.Berkeley (29/43) = .55

This looks more significant. MIT and Stanford seem to hire a noticeably larger fraction from {MIT,Stanford,Berkeley,CMU} than CMU or Berkeley.

Obviously I wouldn't put too much weight on such analysis without a much more rigorous methodolgy. Still, very interesting.

Here is another indicator of student outcomes (ACM dissertation awards):

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~rweba/doctoral.html

David Molnar

Thanks for the clarification on the numbers. I think your choice to count people in CS departments regardless of what their degree was in is sound. After all, people move interests and move fields.

Victor Glazer

Jeff, I think your numbers for Toronto are off. I don't know where everybody got their PhDs, but here are the ones I'm sure about:

MIT: Baecker, Rackoff, Marbach, Terzopoulos (4)
Stanford: Wortman (1)
Caltech: Jepson, Roweis (2)
Princeton: Almgren, Mendelzon, Mylopoulos (3)
Wisconsin: Kutulakos, Miller (2)

Victor Glazer

I just realized that this whole time I have been looking at the Toronto _column_ instead of the Toronto _row_. Sorry about the confusion. So your numbers for MIT and Wisconsin match mine, and Caltech doesn't count, which leaves Stanford and Princeton. Actually, CMU, Harvard and Washington don't seem quite right either:

CMU: Molloy, Demke-Brown (2)
Harvard: Cook, Hadzilacos (2)
Wash: Hertzmann (1)

Georgia Tech CS:

at least Prof. Milos Prvulovic got PhD from UIUC CS (advised by Josep Torrellas) http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~milos/

Georgia Tech ECE:

at least Prof. Raghupathy Sivakumar got PhD from UIUC CS (advised by Vaduvur Bharghavan)
http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~siva/

Cornell ECE:

at least the following professors are recent UIUC CS PhD holders:

José F. Martínez (PhD 02)
Sergio Servetto (PhD 99)

according to your statistics, only one UIUC PHD is on Wisconsin CS faculty, but actually there are two:

Prof Gurindar S. Sohi
Prof Jude W. Shavlik

Well, rankings should not count only the faculty placements, though this is an important factor. I have heard that UIUC has the third or fourth largest number of researchers in TJ Watson, which is arguably the best industrial research lab for CS grads. How do you account for that?

James Landay

This list posted by Eric is wrong:

He wrote:
"Turning to the faculty side here is the number of faculty from {MIT,Stanford,Berkeley,CMU} divided by total faculty size:

1.MIT (27/35) = .77
2.Stanford (22/40) = .67
3.CMU (56/100) = .56
4.Berkeley (29/43) = .55"


The Berkeley and Stanford %s seem to be swapped. Assuming the numbers are right, Berkeley is .67 and Stanford is .55.

James Landay

The list Eric posted seems to be wrong. He said:

"Turning to the faculty side here is the number of faculty from {MIT,Stanford,Berkeley,CMU} divided by total faculty size:

1.MIT (27/35) = .77
2.Stanford (22/40) = .67
3.CMU (56/100) = .56
4.Berkeley (29/43) = .55
"

Assuming the underlying numbers are correct, the Berkeley and Stanford %s are swapped. Berkeley should be #2 at .67 and Stanford #4 at .55

James

sohbet

Jeff, I think your numbers for Toronto are off. I don't know where everybody got their PhDs, but here are the ones I'm sure about:

ruya

www.ruya-tabirleri.com

sohbet

http://www.ruya-tabirleri.com/

oyunlar

Well, rankings should not count only the faculty placements, though this is an important factor.

Rüya Tabirleri

This ranking system is ver useful ..Thanks

http://www.ruya-tabirleri.org

The comments to this entry are closed.