From a5170e85c3ff17f961c63318abd50dc466cd38c4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Charles Sutton Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 13:38:27 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] new post --- _posts/2017-11-12-cs-rankings.md | 79 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+) create mode 100644 _posts/2017-11-12-cs-rankings.md diff --git a/_posts/2017-11-12-cs-rankings.md b/_posts/2017-11-12-cs-rankings.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000000..d41bd374728a8 --- /dev/null +++ b/_posts/2017-11-12-cs-rankings.md @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ +--- +layout: post +title: To PhD applicants: A word about department rankings +author: Charles Sutton +tags: +- phd applications +date: 2017-11-12 12:00:00 +--- + +When I was applying for my PhD, I used rankings of computer science +departments to help me decide where to apply. +Rankings are never perfect, but I didn't have access to +detailed knowledge of the research landscape, +and the rankings helped to steer me in the right direction. +In retrospect, I can see that the rankings were not perfect, and +I made one or two silly mistakes about where to apply, +but I would have made even more silly mistakes without them. + +I'm saying this to give you this context: +I'm not anti-ranking. Very possibly rankings have had a negative effect +on higher education overall, but they can be useful if done right, and if +you read them in the right way. + +The Computing Research Association has just released a statement +[urging everyone to ignore the new rankings](https://cra.org/cra-statement-us-news-world-report-rankings-computer-science-universities/) of global computer science departments +from US News and World Report. I'm sorry to see this, because I found the US News rankings +helpful when I was an undergraduate. But I've read the new US News rankings, and I have to agree with the CRA. + +These US News rankings are absurd. They are garbage. No one should read them, +and I won't even link to them. You can find them easily via a search engine. Please don't. The ranking +methodology is flawed, for a simple reason that any computer science researcher +could tell them immediately. And we did. Influential researchers in computer science +pointed out the flaws directly to editors at US News; they were ignored. +I don't know why the editors of US News would ignore this feedback, +unless they cared a lot about creating a controversy that would generate +page views, and not at all about helping students who are applying +for their PhD. + +I'll repeat: **Please do not read these rankings at all, not even if you intend take my advice and ignore them.** If you click on them, even to laugh at them, +you are spending advertisers' money to support this magazine in misleading + PhD applicants +who are not as well informed as you. + +My advice: If you need rankings, instead go to +[CSRankings.org](http://csrankings.org/). This is a fully open ranking from [Prof Emery Berger](https://emeryberger.com/) at UMass Amherst that ranks global computer science departments +directly by the amount of research they produce. You can filter +the rankings by geographic area and research area. No ranking is perfect, but this is defensible and open. + +I mentioned that rankings are only useful if you read them correctly. +Here are some thoughts about how to do that: + +* Overall ranking is not the same as subject specific ranking. +The department ranked #50 isn't ranked that way because its research is #50 +in every area of CS. Instead, it will have some research areas that are #50 --- +which is still pretty damn good --- but a few groups that are in +the top five. If you are in one of those top groups, then you are in a top group, with all the same excitement and opportunity as the top groups +at a bigger name school. + +* Disregard small differences in ranking. Ranking is an ill-defined +problem, so you can't take small differences seriously. As far as overall strength goes, +the school ranked #1 is exactly the same as the school ranked #5. +Exactly the same. But #1 is going to be overall stronger than #18. + +* For your PhD, what matters most is your supervisor and their group, +rather than the department overall. This relates to what I said +above, and is probably worth a blog post of its own. + +* Rankings are not life. The distinctions that we are talking about +here are small distinctions at the very top. The school ranked #100 +--- I haven't looked up what it is --- is a fine university with brilliant +researchers where you will learn a lot. Here's an analogy. The weakest football player in the English Premier League, who spends most of his time on +the bench, is still a prodigiously talented football +player who would run circles around anyone who you and I have ever met. The difference between Lionel Messi and that guy --- that's the level of difference we're talking about here. + +The key point: **Use rankings as a way to discover departments** +you didn't know about that are strong in your area. Don't use them +as a way to decide between departments: For that, you should be reading +the work of potential supervisors that interest you. Doing a PhD is about +learning to do research. What types of papers do you want to write?