Live data from Hacker News

A Northwest Pipeline to Silicon Valley

nytimes.com

61–66 of 66 posts

Re: A Northwest Pipeline to Silicon Valley

#61

It's funny, because it seems to me that a lot of the talent coming out of UW CSE isn't going to make it into the valley in any meaningful way. UW CSE is still entirely focused on grades. There's literally no way to include anything but grades in your admission application -- not even recommendation letters. I've talked to some of the admissions faculty, and their argument is that it's unfair to people who are totally…

Wait. I'm confused reading the admission comments. It seems you get admitted to UW undergrad, and then after two years you apply to the CSE thing. Are you considered undeclared until then? Is there any kind of test or is it entirely based on grades in the initial weeder classes? That seems like kind of a big risk to people who want to study a specific subject and might not get admitted to it. The'd just have to switc…

There are quite a few universities which use this system. Basically, you get admitted to the school, take some prerequisite classes, then apply to the major. For most majors, just having taken the prerequisites will get you in. UW's CSE program is what's called "highly competitive", i.e. good luck.

And yes, it's quite high risk. After being rejected my co-founder printed out his rejection letter and framed it, dropped out of UW, and took a job as the head of development for a local iPhone shop. Most people either keep trying, or switch to a math major. It's extremely stupid and elitist.

Re: A Northwest Pipeline to Silicon Valley

#62
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol, this is why I laughed to myself when reading this article. There are tons, I mean tons, of great startups coming out of UW, but they are not coming from the CSE program. They are coming from math, physics, life sciences, and even the entrepreneurship program at the Foster b-school. All the kids who I've met making waves in the Seattle startup scene are informally trained hackers. Oh and by the way, did I mention…

I think you're right about UW CSE, but I'd like to point out similar observations on a different axis. I know lots of software people in and around Seattle, and I've worked at a couple startups here. A few are "informally trained hackers", but most are formally trained -- only elsewhere (mostly Stanford, or east coast schools you've heard of). While everyone knows that UW has a good CS department, I don't think I kno…

Most everyone I know from the CSE program who've graduated are now working for Facebook. They seem to be a major recruiter from there. They even opened a Seattle office fairly recently.

Re: A Northwest Pipeline to Silicon Valley

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait. I'm confused reading the admission comments. It seems you get admitted to UW undergrad, and then after two years you apply to the CSE thing. Are you considered undeclared until then? Is there any kind of test or is it entirely based on grades in the initial weeder classes? That seems like kind of a big risk to people who want to study a specific subject and might not get admitted to it. The'd just have to switc…

North of Washington, across the border, we have 2 big name schools: UBC and SFU. Both schools require prospective students to spend 1 to 2 years (SFU 1-year, UBC 2-years) taking "required courses" (Math, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, CS courses, and a few GEs) before they can apply to the CS program. Both UBC and SFU have solid track records (beating UW consistently) when it comes to ACM CS competition: https://sites.…

  taking "required courses" (Math, Physics, Chemistry, Biology...
So smart. Many of my best developers came from outside of CS: bus driver, ballet dancer, EE, history, poly sci, mfg, aerospace, etc.

Re: A Northwest Pipeline to Silicon Valley

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

North of Washington, across the border, we have 2 big name schools: UBC and SFU. Both schools require prospective students to spend 1 to 2 years (SFU 1-year, UBC 2-years) taking "required courses" (Math, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, CS courses, and a few GEs) before they can apply to the CS program. Both UBC and SFU have solid track records (beating UW consistently) when it comes to ACM CS competition: https://sites.…

taking "required courses" (Math, Physics, Chemistry, Biology... So smart. Many of my best developers came from outside of CS: bus driver, ballet dancer, EE, history, poly sci, mfg, aerospace, etc.

It's the same story with EE at UBC to my knowledge; they also have to spend 1-2 years taking required courses so they're not that far different really.

What is exactly you're trying to point out? :)

Re: A Northwest Pipeline to Silicon Valley

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, UW is already mostly an elite university; its very hard to get in these days without the means to also getting into other elite universities like Stanford or UCB. Second, if all you want to do is make it into UW CSE, it is a risk. I remember the anxiety I went through as an undergrad waiting to here about whether I was excepted into the program or not. I got in, but it was by no means certain (I had 2.9/3.2/3.…

> First, UW is already mostly an elite university UW had a ~58% admit rate in 2011, MIT's was 9.6%, Harvard's was 6.2%, and Stanford was 7.1%. To say "it's very hard to get in these days without the means to also getting into other elite universities" is patently false.

This is a slightly complicated topic. It comes down to a substantial difference between elite state institutions and elite privates, undergraduate and graduate programs, and engineering/cs vs general majors.

Elite private universities (stanford, harvard) tend to have very small undergraduate populations and draw from a national or international pool of applicants. This of course makes them highly selective, as spots are scarce and the applicant pool is large. Public universities (Berkeley, UW) have very large undergraduate student bodies (often 5 times the size of a small private) and require a much larger portion of in-state students. More slots, smaller applicant pool means a much higher admission rate and generally lower numbers (SATs and so forth). Like another poster mentioned, 25%ile at MIT > 75% at UW, but the top 25% of the class at UW is larger than the entire undergrad population at MIT. The difference in nature of undergraduate admissions makes the averaging kind of meaningless.

At the graduate level, elite private and public universities tend to admit roughly similar numbers of students. And not surprisingly, admission rates are much more comparable. Elite publics, for some reason, seem to do particularly well at the grad level in engineering and computer science (aside from Cornell, the ivies don't really show up much on the top 10 lists, while Berkeley, Illinois, Michigan, Texas, and so forth are highly ranked - by the same magazine (US News) that doesn't put a single public into the top 20 at the undergrad level).

Lastly, there is the question of the degree itself. At top publics, engineering often requires a second admissions process - you get into Berkeley or UW, and then you have to keep your grades high enough to gain admission to the engineering or CS major. You can gain admission directly to the major from high school, but that's tougher. And the process of getting the degree itself is daunting - I don't know much about UW, but the coursework in CS at Berkeley is extremely rigorous (and I have no reason to think it wouldn't be at UW as well). As with UW, Berkeley does have a much larger undergraduate population. It's less selective because of that (and the in-state quota), but on the way out, we're talking about students in the top quarter of the class, from a major that is extremely difficult to enter and complete.

All in all, I'm not surprised that people would feel that the undergrads who make it out of CS from UW are among the top grads that year. The grad level programs are already known to be top 10, so I don't think that even comes up.

Re: A Northwest Pipeline to Silicon Valley

#66

It's funny, because it seems to me that a lot of the talent coming out of UW CSE isn't going to make it into the valley in any meaningful way. UW CSE is still entirely focused on grades. There's literally no way to include anything but grades in your admission application -- not even recommendation letters. I've talked to some of the admissions faculty, and their argument is that it's unfair to people who are totally…

Right there with you- as a current UW student who briefly considered CSE I decided against it because the mentality (the vibe, even) of the department clashed against my startup aspirations and the learning mindset necessary for creating a startup.

I was instead drawn to the Informatics program, which is less technical but provides a much better environment for entrepreneurship: we trade project management, information organization, and a web design/development focus for computer science theory and engineering.

A tragic design/planning flaw of UW is that the engineering departments are on the opposite side of campus (~8 minute walk) from the business school. Collaboration is isolated and leaves little serendipitous idea exchanges that could very well develop into potent startups. I can only imagine how things might be different if UW had made the two neighbors...

Post reply on HN