Are the classes that top-tier school such as Harvard and MIT "harder" than classes are lower tiers?

College Search & Lists
1

Hi!
I’m posting this thread because I am curious about the actual difference between top tier schools and lower tier schools in terms of the class material and difficulty themselves.

For example, if I get into MIT and UCLA and I am majoring in Computer Science (which both schools are good at), would I be learning more material, and would I be more enriched in my knowledge of the subject after I graduate at MIT (which is ranked considerably higher)?

In other words, would going to a higher ranked school give me more knowledge of the subject, and would the classes be harder than going to a lower-ranked school that is still high?

Thanks!

2

Overall ranking may not necessarily mean that one school is necessarily better or worse than the other in learning outcomes for a given major, and student-specific characteristics may affect whether one is better or worse for that student.

If you can convince a CS graduate to go through the syllabi, exams, and other course materials for various CS courses at each school and tell you how they compare, that may answer your question more specifically and usefully.

3

Alright, I deleted that portion to eliminate confusion. I actually meant like MIT would be ranked higher than UCLA on computer science, but not too much higher).
Basically, I want to know if a higher tier major in a school is due to the experience, or the actual material being taught and the difficulty of the class.

4

See the last paragraph of reply #1.

5

Large differences in admission selectivity, together with large differences in faculty resources, probably do correlate with significant differences in the pace and rigor of instruction. That doesn’t necessarily mean anyone has taken the trouble to measure (and publicize) related indicators for schools that interest you. There are many hundreds of colleges. They are complex institutions (with great variation even among their own courses/departments/professors).

Have a look at the ranking methodologies. AFAIK, none of the major rankings consider any factors directly related to course rigor. The National Survey of Student Engagement has surveyed many factors related to course rigor, but deliberately avoids using their surveys to rank colleges.

6

Look at the bios of the professors teaching the classes. Many went to so called “lower tier” schools. You do the math on whether they are easier.

7

I think it makes sense to look at the fields of research the profs at your school are engaged in and then think it through. At some point what you learn is a product of the professors’ specific research interests.
Read the bios of the profs and grad students. That will give you a good idea of how engaging the department will be for you. In the end, a school will not be more or less of value because the classes are easier or harder. The difference will be in how engaged you are as a student. Which school will engage you more?

8

If you can visit, sit in on classes. That will give you the most information about any particular school you are interested in. Generally there is a difference between schools, but that difference doesn’t always match various rankings and may not be totally correlated across all majors. (College A may not be more in depth than College B for every major.)

Also, the difference may mainly be in the freshmen classes based upon the expected knowledge of incoming freshmen with the higher level of depth from some courses being covered in later courses instead.

I know there was a local cc Bio Prof who told his students that his course was the same exact course they would get anywhere they went to college. One of my lads was in his course. That same lad sat in on his brother’s course at a higher level (Top 30ish) Research U and was astounded at the difference. He called his own course (the CC course) Bio-Lite ever after. The difference? He told me his class talked about a topic saying, “There’s an enzyme that helps with this process…” and his brother’s class on the same topic discussed multiple enzymes (8 or 9 I think), by name and exactly what each did. Since I know the prof I opted to take him a copy of the first test from the higher level school. It took him about 30 seconds to figure out what he had been telling his students wasn’t true. He now tells them his course will replace many college Bio 101 courses, but not all. It depends upon where they go.

I know similar things are also true in math courses (tougher Calc problems, etc). CS and other classes? I have no first hand info. Sit in on classes if you can.

9

If you can find the course web pages that have things like syllabus, lecture notes, assignments, exams, etc., that may be a more complete view of each course to compare between schools, since a single lecture may not necessarily be a good comparable snapshot of the course at different colleges.

10

I don’t think a hs kid can constructively analyze the difference. But the strengths of peers at X Univ can allow a higher depth and breadth of teaching and expectations (tests, projects) than at Z Uni. The bar for an A grade can be higher, based on this. If peers come in with the highest preparation, you may not be comfortable with the pace and rigor they’re ready for. It depends.

But better knowledge after graduating from X? Not necessarily. There are fabulous CS grads from many different levels of college rankings.

11

I agree. Course rigor is generally determined by the strength of its students, especially the dispersion of strength/ability within its student body. For example, a school like Caltech can offer the most rigorous courses in math/science because of its student body’s strength and its low (probably the lowest) dispersion of that strength.

12

@ucbalumnus I agree that looking at lecture notes, etc, can work too, but for many kids, sitting in on classes and getting a true “feel” seems more impressive - at least - from those I’ve heard back from at school. To them there’s something about getting the actual sense of it by being there over just seeing things in black and white comparing how Class A worked at College A vs College B.

If one has access to someone older and more knowledgeable (BTDT folks) or has a bit of knowledge themselves, seeing the notes, etc, would be very profitable to get their thoughts about.

I absolutely agree. I’ve seen kids do well in CS even going to the smallest religious schools - graduating with multiple 6 digit job offers. One thought in my mind seeing this has been wondering about the depth of knowledge going in. If they have it going in to school, the school mainly gives them contacts and the piece of paper. If they are more or less “basic” going in, I think a school with more depth could provide more knowledge. I just have no idea which schools those might be in reality as I’m nowhere near a CS expert. It could be that very small religious college in addition to places like Carnegie Mellon or RIT (also places where I personally know graduates have had terrific offers).

13

First of all, let’s address the fact that in the grand scheme of things, the difference between MIT and UCLA is marginal when it comes to computer science. The United States has something like 3000-4000 colleges and universities. If you look at the U.S. News rankings, MIT is ranked at #3, with a total score of 94 out of 100; UCLA is ranked at #19, with an overall score of 82 out of 100. There aren’t any good undergraduate CS major rankings for a variety of reasons, but there are probably like 100+ doctoral programs in CS. At the graduate level, both MIT and UCLA are in the top 15 or so for CS.

So speaking on a broad scale, the differences between MIT and UCLA in terms of educational quality and prestige are pretty marginal. They seem large when you are only looking at the universe of uber-competitive schools, but in the grand scheme of things? Not so much.

Unlikely. The undergraduate computer science curriculum is fairly similar at most schools, and both UCLA and MIT are big enough to attract researchers doing cutting-edge research in the field who will also largely be teaching classes (or at least influencing what the department teaches to some degree). If there are any differences, it’ll likely be in elective classes or special opportunities (like research, independent studies, special seminars, extracurricular projects, etc.)

Not necessarily. There are lots of things that influence the difficulty of a class, especially the difficulty to an individual student. One example is that MIT only has 4,600 undergrads, whereas UCLA has 31,000; your classes will almost certainly be larger at UCLA (especially the introductory ones). Some students may thrive in larger lecture classes and some students may need a smaller environment.

I wouldn’t necessarily advocate for an undergraduate student using the bios of professors and graduate students to determine where to attend. Aside from the fact that undergraduate education is a holistic experience (you don’t spend all your time in one department like a PhD student), at that point in time your academic interests aren’t fully solidified yet. They shouldn’t be - unless you are an unusual high schooler, you don’t yet have enough domain knowledge to know what deeply interests you on the level that would allow you to make such decisions. You may have some vague notions (like AI/ML or robotics), but not only are those probably covered at most schools with good CS departments, they’ll probably change a lot.

The professors’ research interests really mostly impacts the electives and upper-level courses that are offered, and you can determine whether those seem interesting by leafing through the course catalog.

14

@Creekland : Eh I guess the visit thing helps, but what about multi-section courses which are common at the intro. Level in STEM. The prospective student would then have to know about the heirarchy of quality and rigor in said dept. and choose accordingly to get any real information meaning that the student needs to.do.the research (that is really care) before hand. The syllabi and materials of said instructors in conjunction with a strategic visit is the best for STEM.

@juillet : I suspect that size differences influence mainly intro. And intermediate courses in something like CS as well as social sciences and it “could” impact the syllabi. If you wanna be efficient with grading in a large lecture (BTW, even MIT and Princeton have that for intro. Courses in STEM), you won’t put very complex homeworks in the syllabus, or you may test differently. However in upper divisions bets are off as sizes shrink at almost any school. At that point, if two schools are overall a high caliber, regardless of any selectivity differences(and then STEM student credentials and stats at most highky ranked universities are higher than average and super compressed so may not mirror the differences between the overall selectivity of two schools if it exists. If UCLA’s best self select into CS, some of the differences in statistical credentials will close between it and MIT) rigor differences cannot be predicted. It will come down more to institutional and specifically the department’s culture with regards to undergraduate teaching (if there is one).

This makes it hard to predict any trends. There are special darlings like CMU that are on some other stuff and folks know of that, but honestly most schools don’t market the reality and details of undergraduate education because it doesn’t sell as well as research based prestige or really any type of prestige regardless of how it was gained. Often the teaching environment is the last on the mind of prospectives and we just accept anything from rankings and marketing material as a proxy for a gauge of academic and teaching environment when in reality it takes a lot of work for ANYONE to truly assess it and whether or not it is a fit or will optimize learning for whoever. There are simply very little standards for a lot of undergrad. Programs and a lot of freedom for instructors and departments to do whatever within reason.

I recommend folks doing these STEM (at least those who don’t assume that “I know my education will be great because this school is ranked x overall”…so more academically serious folks) degrees or comparing programs to start at departmental websites to feel it out initially, look for coursework online or something, and generally get enough info. To make an informed class(es) or departmental visit if possible. Some STEM programs may be under-rated or under appreciated for undergrads and some that glitter won’t be gold necessarily.

When I started comparing life sciences materials between top ranked schools, there seemed like therw was no rhyme or reason to trends in rigor and anything was possible no matter the relative rank. Whenever I was surprised, I had to research underlying issues such as the history of the school and those departments actively seeking reform of curricula (was it discussed in on and off campus publications? Did the schools seek a grant for reform? Etc). It takes a lot. Far more than many HS students in their last year or really anyone who doesn’t care that deeply about teaching and education to do.