It's interesting to see the pattern here. MIT, Stanford, Cornell, CMU and UCLA make about 90k. I couldn't find the data for Caltech but I have a feeling even they will be around this much.
Next come Berkeley and UMich with about a 10k drop from the above. At about 80k.
Then after more than a 10k drop are GT, UT, UIUC and UCLA (CSE). At about 65k - 70k
And at the bottom are Purdue and Drexel - About 60K
Now, most of these schools are in the top 15 when it comes to CS. I am wondering how come there is a difference of 30k between them.
They all are ABET accredited programs (I think), and I assume that someone at MIT will learn the same stuff as someone at Purdue. I do know that MIT is far tougher to get in, so the students will generally be smarter.
Here's my question: Do MIT grads earn more (a LOT more) because they are smarter, or because they are students of MIT? What will happen if I take the resume of an MIT graduate, with all his national awards, projects and everything else, and just change the College name from MIT to Purdue. Keeping everything else the same, will he still be worth 90k?
Also, I was honestly quite surprised to see Cornell and UCLA making it to the 90k club. I was sure that Berkeley, and even UMich were better than both for CS. Any explanation? You think Berkeley's large EECS enrollment might have something to do with this?
*Note that some universities don't have a separate CS. So for them, the data is for the closest major I could find (CSE, EECS).