[comp.edu] equipment

ncmagel@ndsuvax.UUCP (ken magel) (08/09/87)

     One topic I have not seen this group address, but which should be interest
ing since there are both academic and industry people as active contributors is
the concentration by industry on aiding the most prestigious universities to the
exclusion of the rest of us.  Of all the gifts of equipment made by U.S. 
industry in 1985-86, more than 70 % went to the 20 top schools in the nation
( e.g., Stanford, MIT, Univ. of Texas).  Yet those schools graduate less than
1% of the B.S. in Computer Science, less than 10% of the M.S. in Computer 
Science and less than 25 % of the Ph.D. in Computer Science graduates and the
percentages of graduates from those schools is going down.  In almost all cases
those schools were not more aggressive in going after equipment grants.  In 
many cases, they hadn't even figured out how to use the equipment by the time 
it arrived.  Why does industry concentrate on those few schools when most of
their potential employees come and increasingly will come from other schools?
In some cases, those other schools have individual programs fully as large as
the programs at the favored few.  They could benefit just as much from gifts of
equipment and students at those schools would be likely to be more favorably
impressed with the giver since the school would not have alternative equipment.

andy@rocky.STANFORD.EDU (Andy Freeman) (08/11/87)

In article <402@ndsuvax.UUCP> ncmagel@ndsuvax.UUCP (ken magel) writes:
>				Of all the gifts of equipment made by U.S. 
>industry in 1985-86, more than 70 % went to the 20 top schools in the nation
>( e.g., Stanford, MIT, Univ. of Texas).  Yet those schools graduate less than
>1% of the B.S. in Computer Science, less than 10% of the M.S. in Computer 
>Science and less than 25 % of the Ph.D. in Computer Science graduates and the
>percentages of graduates from those schools is going down.

You are going to hate to read this.  Remember three years ago when
"every" school started an AI program?  Where did they get the staff
for these programs?  Stanford just started a BSCS program and is very
concerned about finding adquate staff (especially professors).  (If
you'd like to hear why Stanford didn't think an undergrad program
was a good idea, despite substantial long-term pressure and
offered incentives, please ask.)

I am NOT saying that all of the best people/work are/is at the best
schools or that none of the bad people/work are/is at them.  However,
there is a critical mass phenomena and good computer science professors
are not nearly as common as computer science departments.

There is also the issue of what industry supports.  At Stanford, we
have to buy equipment for "mundane" activities like coursework.
Equipment is donated for specific research projects.  There may also
be a "type of research" question.  For example, a lot of universities
have workstation development projects; most of them look like rather
mundane industry projects - the kind of thing that universities don't
do very well.  Industry's reluctance to support these "competitors"
is very understandable.  In short, industry tries to support activities
that universities do better (and that industry benefits from) when such
support makes a difference.  Industry supports exceptions because
such support makes a bigger difference than support for the average.

>In many cases, they hadn't even figured out how to use the equipment by
>the time it arrived.

Examples please.  My friends at other top schools say that they have
much the same problems we do; we're using what we've got as efficiently
as possible and we still don't have enough.  (My research is currently
stalled partly because of a computron shortage.  I'm hoping to get a
lot done during a planned machine exchange because some of the old
computers will still be here while a newer one is being installed.)
Occasionally we get machines that are unusable - industry expects us
to make them useful in return for the donation.  (Different schools
have different priorities.  Stanford doesn't do much of this sort of
thing; MIT and CMU do more of it.)  Some of this is good, but we've
got to be careful because it isn't always the best use of our resources.

-andy
-- 
Andy Freeman
UUCP:  {arpa gateways, decwrl, sun, hplabs, rutgers}!sushi.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:  andy@sushi.stanford.edu
(415) 329-1718/723-3088 home/cubicle

gore@nucsrl.UUCP (Jacob Gore) (08/12/87)

/ nucsrl:comp.edu / andy@rocky.STANFORD.EDU (Andy Freeman) /  4:29 pm  Aug 10, 1987 /
>(If
>you'd like to hear why Stanford didn't think an undergrad program
>was a good idea, despite substantial long-term pressure and
>offered incentives, please ask.)

Why?

Jacob Gore				gore@EECS.NWU.Edu
Northwestern Univ., EECS Dept.		{gargoyle,ihnp4,chinet}!nucsrl!gore

gwl@rruxa.UUCP (George W. Leach) (08/12/87)

In article <402@ndsuvax.UUCP>, ncmagel@ndsuvax.UUCP (ken magel) writes:
> 
>      One topic I have not seen this group address, but which should be interest
> ing since there are both academic and industry people as active contributors is
> the concentration by industry on aiding the most prestigious universities to the
> exclusion of the rest of us.  Of all the gifts of equipment made by U.S. 
> industry in 1985-86, more than 70 % went to the 20 top schools in the nation
> ( e.g., Stanford, MIT, Univ. of Texas).  Yet those schools graduate less than
> 1% of the B.S. in Computer Science, less than 10% of the M.S. in Computer 
> Science and less than 25 % of the Ph.D. in Computer Science graduates and the
> percentages of graduates from those schools is going down.  In almost all cases
> those schools were not more aggressive in going after equipment grants.  In 
> many cases, they hadn't even figured out how to use the equipment by the time 
> it arrived.  Why does industry concentrate on those few schools when most of
> their potential employees come and increasingly will come from other schools?
> In some cases, those other schools have individual programs fully as large as
> the programs at the favored few.  They could benefit just as much from gifts of
> equipment and students at those schools would be likely to be more favorably
> impressed with the giver since the school would not have alternative equipment.


      Coming from a small school in the backyard of AT&T Bell Labs I
too had such questions.  Murray Hill, Whippany, Holmdel and Piscataway
are/were major BTL locations all within driving distance of Newark.
Yet, I can't think of any BTL people that taught at my school while
I was an undergrad.  Now, I do know some people, but they are contemporaries
of mine.  Former graduates, who now teach in an adjunct capacity.  In
addition, being so close to the headquarters of BTL, and the many other
companies that make up AT&T in New Jersey one would think that a school
could easily obtain equipment grants and funding for research activities.
In addition, the IBM Corporate Headquarters and the Watson Research 
Center are not all that far away either.


      The New Jersey Institute of Technology, like the city of Newark
itself, suffers from an identity crisis.  We are surrounded by other
universities with better known and certainly more prestigious programs
in Computer Science: Princeton, Rutgers, New York University, and 
Columbia.  In addition, there is further competition with other schools
in the same class as NJIT: New York Institute of Technology, Stevens
Institute of Technology, New York Polytechnic University and others.


      The major companies that are providing research funding, equipment,
faculty members, etc.... are interested in potential employees for the
purpose of research efforts, not the people who will help build software
products.  The vast majority of the graduates of Computer Science 
programs will be involved in product development, maintenance and 
support.  The cream of the crop will be involved in research.  And the
cream of the crop are to be found (for the most part) at the top 10
to 20 programs.  


       Many of the better know researchers at Bell Labs and Bellcore
have or are currently teaching at universities like NYU, Princeton
and Columbia.  At one time in the mid 70's Al Aho was head of the 
Math Department (or EE I forget) at Stevens.  The closest I have seen
anyone at BTL coming to NJIT, was when Dennis Ritchie gave his talk
on "Little Languages" there one afternoon.  But being so close to
these great research facilities you would think activities like this
would be more widespread at the smaller universities as well as the
larger, more well know ones.


George W. Leach

Bell Communications Research      New Jersey Institute of Technology 
444 Hoes Lane       4A-1129       Computer & Information Sciences Dept.
Piscataway,  New Jersey   08854   Newark, New Jersey   07102
(201) 699-8639

UUCP:  ..!bellcore!indra!reggie
ARPA:  reggie%njit-eies.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA

From there to here, from here to there, funny things are everywhere
Dr. Seuss "One fish two fish red fish blue fish"