I'm not sure you could call the engineering schools of Columbia, Poly or CUNY "top rated". Cooper Union gets top students (being free), but hardly has top faculty. (Columbia and NYU do have good CS depts, however.)
None of these schools have the Stanford/MIT-like community I believe the plan is designed to create. Throwing money at existing schools is unlikely to create such an environment - the bureaucratic inertia is too large.
[Edit: Didn't mean to imply that Columbia/NYU are in the same league as Stanford/MIT for CS. Their main strengths are physics and math, respectively. ]
Throwing money at existing schools is unlikely to create such an environment - the bureaucratic inertia is too large.
I disagree. It seems it's always easier for a banker turned political appointee to gather some social credibility by proposing starting something from scratch rather than improving what's already there.
I mean which is going to give you more social points at the next fund raiser for the MMA: A) "I want to help these schools expand their campus's no matter what the political opposition" or B) "I have a vision for making NYC the country's next great tech capital".
The idea that a government planned activity is going to cultivate an institution the likes of which happens one or twice a century is pretty preposterous.
I also think you may be dismissing the schools I mentioned too easily. They are all "top rated". I would consider several to be in the top ten engineering schools in the country.
I didn't mean to suggest that I think this project has a significant chance of success. I just assign a much lower success probability to throwing money at one of the existing schools which have already failed.
I'm sorry but how exactly have those schools failed?
the local politicians are already quite willing to take property from other people (by force) in order to help a university expand:
Expansion plans that take a decade to get government approval doesn't imply "quite willing to take property". Everybody involved plays the situation to their own advantage.
I'm sorry but how exactly have those schools failed?
They have failed to become top engineering schools and create a Stanford/MIT-like community.
Expansion plans that take a decade to get government approval doesn't imply "quite willing to take property".
It didn't take 10 years to get government approval, it took 10 years for the government to take property from people against their will. What exactly are you advocating for? Giving our corporate/university overlords the power to steal your land 30 days or less?
There are some great people in the NYU CS dept, but it (and I assume Columbia) are simply not in the same league as Stanford and MIT. Neither of the NYC based schools are top 20 much less top 10 engineering programs.
I agree re: bureaucratic inertia. If you throw money at the same people who built these programs you'll end up with a disaster. Throw some to the people who refused to be part of that nonsense (ie: actual industry leaders) and you'll get much farther.
Well, Columbia is on paper 18th. But I have 2 co-workers who are Columbia grads (1 CS, 1 ME) and when comparing back it sounds like I had a far better experience at a state school for half the money.
Huh? There are plenty of great programs elsewhere. I know few people who graduated with an undergraduate degree with more experience actually working on robots than people from Georgia Tech.
I don't think youknow enough about degrees, degree programs or the state of education elsewhere in the country to even know how little you know about it.
Sure there are lots of schools that are basically nothing more than basic java training centers, but there are lots of great schools out there with very smart guys.
Comments
...New York lacks a top-rated engineering school.
How about Columbia University's Fu School of Engineering, the City College of New York, The Cooper Union, or NYU Poly.
Geez, go back to banking you eejit.
I'm not sure you could call the engineering schools of Columbia, Poly or CUNY "top rated". Cooper Union gets top students (being free), but hardly has top faculty. (Columbia and NYU do have good CS depts, however.)
None of these schools have the Stanford/MIT-like community I believe the plan is designed to create. Throwing money at existing schools is unlikely to create such an environment - the bureaucratic inertia is too large.
[Edit: Didn't mean to imply that Columbia/NYU are in the same league as Stanford/MIT for CS. Their main strengths are physics and math, respectively. ]
Throwing money at existing schools is unlikely to create such an environment - the bureaucratic inertia is too large.
I disagree. It seems it's always easier for a banker turned political appointee to gather some social credibility by proposing starting something from scratch rather than improving what's already there.
I mean which is going to give you more social points at the next fund raiser for the MMA: A) "I want to help these schools expand their campus's no matter what the political opposition" or B) "I have a vision for making NYC the country's next great tech capital".
The idea that a government planned activity is going to cultivate an institution the likes of which happens one or twice a century is pretty preposterous.
I also think you may be dismissing the schools I mentioned too easily. They are all "top rated". I would consider several to be in the top ten engineering schools in the country.
I didn't mean to suggest that I think this project has a significant chance of success. I just assign a much lower success probability to throwing money at one of the existing schools which have already failed.
By the way, the local politicians are already quite willing to take property from other people (by force) in order to help a university expand: http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2010/12/13/us-supreme-court...
existing schools which have already failed.
I'm sorry but how exactly have those schools failed?
the local politicians are already quite willing to take property from other people (by force) in order to help a university expand:
Expansion plans that take a decade to get government approval doesn't imply "quite willing to take property". Everybody involved plays the situation to their own advantage.
I'm sorry but how exactly have those schools failed?
They have failed to become top engineering schools and create a Stanford/MIT-like community.
Expansion plans that take a decade to get government approval doesn't imply "quite willing to take property".
It didn't take 10 years to get government approval, it took 10 years for the government to take property from people against their will. What exactly are you advocating for? Giving our corporate/university overlords the power to steal your land 30 days or less?
There are some great people in the NYU CS dept, but it (and I assume Columbia) are simply not in the same league as Stanford and MIT. Neither of the NYC based schools are top 20 much less top 10 engineering programs.
I agree re: bureaucratic inertia. If you throw money at the same people who built these programs you'll end up with a disaster. Throw some to the people who refused to be part of that nonsense (ie: actual industry leaders) and you'll get much farther.
Well, Columbia is on paper 18th. But I have 2 co-workers who are Columbia grads (1 CS, 1 ME) and when comparing back it sounds like I had a far better experience at a state school for half the money.
If you aren't going to MIT, CMU or Stanford, don't bother going to school to learn CS.
Huh? There are plenty of great programs elsewhere. I know few people who graduated with an undergraduate degree with more experience actually working on robots than people from Georgia Tech.
I don't think youknow enough about degrees, degree programs or the state of education elsewhere in the country to even know how little you know about it.
Sure there are lots of schools that are basically nothing more than basic java training centers, but there are lots of great schools out there with very smart guys.