CMU ranked #4 in the world in computer science (Pittsburgh, Washington: schools, universities)

[SewickleyPA]

Only Stanford, MIT, and Cal Berkeley (Silicon Valley/Boston) are ahead:

ARWU Subject 2009 Computer Science (http://www.arwu.org/ARWUSubject2009Computer.jsp - broken link)

[Fiddlehead]

I was going to make some snarky comment, just for fun, but decided I'm being too feisty today.

Truth is, I think this is pretty cool. That is some high-powered competition. Do many of the tech gurus at CMU stay in the area? Seems like a great, affordable place for tech startups.

I just learned have a nephew by marriage who is president of the Geeks Society at some upscale prep. school in Mass. Super bright kid. He is all charged about majoring in English Lit. at MIT (yes they have it, go figure..), with of course a comp. sci. minor, but I think I might clue him in to CMU on the odd chance he does not get into MIT on his terms.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by Fiddlehead

Do many of the tech gurus at CMU stay in the area? Seems like a great, affordable place for tech startups.

Quite a few of these well known companies are in Pittsburgh: Affiliated Companies - Carnegie Mellon University

Here's a recent article that says there are over 20 language tech companies in the area:

Carnegie Mellon behind region's companies leading in language tech - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Article about one dude: Focus - CMU Grad Student Starts Company

This article says 95% (total grads, not tech gurus) leave Pittsburgh: Project Olympus: Keeping CMU Grads in Pittsburgh

[NYCAnalyst]

What? I'm a CMU grad and this is disappointing.

I was hoping we were at least #2, ahead of Cal and Stanford.

BTW, 95% of grads leave this city because the well-paying job opportunities are few and far between. I can sum up many of the CMU grads like this:

• The CS / engineers end up working in Silicon Valley or somewhere else for engineering
• The Tepper guys go to NYC to work on Wall Street
• The CFA guys go to NYC / LA to try for Broadway / Hollywood.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by NYCAnalyst

What? I'm a CMU grad and this is disappointing.

I was hoping we were at least #2, ahead of Cal and Stanford.

Be patient. CMU is much younger than those other institutions.

[Tombstoner]

I don't think youth has much to do with it. CMU was on the ground floor with Simon and Newell in the '50s and many CS-related disciplines were actually born in Pittsburgh (so again, youth ain't the problem). CMU has parlayed that into a truly impressive program, but while being #4 is impressive, like NYCAnalyst, I'm sorry it's not even higher.

[Hopes]

I was trying to make him feel better.

[Joshbarblahblah]

I think that one should be cautious about all academic rankings. The ARWU uses a dubious methodology and its rankings are bizarre. According to their ranking of 100 World Universities, UWashington, UC-Santa Barbara, Pitt, and Rutgers all rank higher than Carnegie Mellon, McGill, Brown, and UVA?

While UWashington, UC-Santa Barbara, Pitt, and Rutgers are all fine universities...I wouldn't suggest that any of them are better than CMU, let alone Brown.

http://www.arwu.org:80/ARWU2009.jsp

[BrianTH]

Pitt edged CMU based on the publication/citation-related factors--and actually that isn't surprising, because Pitt has really become a prolific and high-quality research institution.

[Fiddlehead]

Originally Posted by Joshbarblahblah

I think that one should be cautious about all academic rankings. The ARWU uses a dubious methodology and its rankings are bizarre. According to their ranking of 100 World Universities, UWashington, UC-Santa Barbara, Pitt, and Rutgers all rank higher than Carnegie Mellon, McGill, Brown, and UVA?

While UWashington, UC-Santa Barbara, Pitt, and Rutgers are all fine universities...I wouldn't suggest that any of them are better than CMU, let alone Brown.

ARWU 2009

I would urge caution in taking these rankings too seriously. It seems like by the standards of this ranking, Nobel Prizes of Alumni and Faculty, citations in top journals,etc.,elite research universities would be well compared for research performance. And they might just be ideal for educating world-class researchers. However, these standards may or may not reflect quality education for an individual outside that elite group. For what it is, it seems pretty sound. Far weaker, in my opinion, are peer-based rankings, whereby faculty rank other schools in terms of prestige, and they tend to assume schools like Harvard or Berkeley are excellent across the board, which is rarely true. I would assume that CMU has a higher, peer-based ranking than Pitt, for instance, but Pitt's recent rise in performance-based rankings suggests they are more dynamic and likely accurate.

Also, as a person who conducts research and publishes, I would suggest that papers in Science and Nature are valuable, of course, but in my field (conservation ecology) they usually signify research that is so general and global as to be useless. We have a problem in the federal science culture, whereby researchers chase these publications, and get hefty pay raises when they achieve them, but do not assist land managers with important applied problems. So, these standards and rankings have their place, but are not always a gold-standard of quality in research or education.