▲ 44 points
back
23 comments
I can't agree more with this piece. Having recently (5 years ago) been at NYU, I can tell you the NYU the author remembers nostalgically is completely gone. It's a shell of a school, massive and well funded, yet intellectually just going through the motions. If you are not going to Stern you are absolutely wasting your money.
> If you are not going to Stern you are absolutely
> wasting your money.
Clarification: NYU's tax law program is widely regarded as the best program in the country and has been for some time. I can not imagine anyone with any connection-to/experience-with tax law saying an aspiring tax lawyer would be wasting their money at NYU.
Not sure about that, was talking undergrad only. I can't speak for the quality of education at Stern undergrad, but I can certainly say it is good for your career, whereas going to Courant doesn't really mean shit for a career in tech.
Certainly not surprised to hear tax law program is bad too.
Edit: I thought you meant the opposite. Regardless, still only talking about undergrad.
You're kidding right? Kids coming out of Courant are in decent demand, especially in NYC tech departments.
Not in any higher demand than any other schools with CS degrees. As someone who is currently doing and has done a lot of hiring for NYC tech companies I can tell you a Courant degree is not a significant plus on a resume, in the way a Stanford or CMU degree is.
> in the way a Stanford or CMU degree is.
Nice to see that Stanford and CMU CS grads are as overrated as ever.
Please keep that attitude. Those of us who recruit from other schools thank you.
We recruit from any school. But I know there are some programs that are better than others. All you can do is use that as a positive signal, not a rule. A degree from a less prestigious program doesn't mean we wont look at you. I don't even have a degree.
Curious what other schools you are using as examples of positive signals in the recruiting process. Waterloo? MIT? A few others come to mind, but not many...
NYU's law school has been an elite institution for some time. The same is true of the philosophy and Italian studies departments.
" The same is true of the philosophy and Italian studies departments"
If I may ask what kind of job can one get graduating with those degrees that will pay for the massive tuition bill? What is the expected pay for having a degree in those two majors?
Also, NYU Applied Math is really solid. Until reading this I thought it was their flagship department.
I've been interested in the ITP program [0] for awhile and would be curious to hear any graduates' responses to this article...
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tisch_School_of_the_Arts#Intera...
This article is yet another thread in a long line of people complaining about NYU's rise. My personal favorite comes from the local rap group, Ratking:
Seems random, like Stanford transplanted to the fountain and the arch
Infecting the apple, a cancer in its heart
Why'd you make a campus out the park?
If it keeps spreading, It'll be deaded
Panting and parched.
A giant satellite campus is sufficient condition to say a university "eats world"? Does this expression mean something less grandiose than I imagine?
I think the Abu Dhabi campus is just one symptom of the greater problem the author is making. Grand real estate ambitions in lower Manhattan cost a lot of money; what many consider over-the-top perks for professors (or administration) also cost a lot of money. The school has a small endowment compared to what it would like to consider its peer group; therefore the cost of all these things, which, in the author's opinion, do very little to improve a student's education all fall onto the students as increased tuition.
I tend to agree wholeheartedly with the author, and see symptoms of the same thing at my alma mater, which feels the need to rebrand itself as Stony Brook University instead of SUNY Stony Brook, because it doesn't want to sound as much like a state school.
All of what you mention can be true and I still find it comical to say "NYU eats world." The British Empire "ate the world." Many people have wrote "Google eats the world." Grand real estate ambitions in NYC and a giant satellite campus in Abu Dhabi is not eating the world.
Ah, but for a certain breed of New Yorker, downtown Manhattan constitutes the world.
While human rights violations by a major US university's satellite campus are certainly concerning, on the topic of professor salaries, so what? NYU has top programs in a number of areas (The Courant Institute, for instance), and Manhattan, especially lower Manhattan, ain't cheap. If you want to compete with the Stanfords and the MITs and the Harvards of the world for top talent, you are going to have to spend some bread. I don't see the problem here.
You've conveniently ignored the main thrust of the author's argument and gone for something she spent almost no time on at all. The faculty salaries are not nearly as concerning as NYU handing out cash outside of compensation packages, and allegations of nepotism.
She specifically cites one individual who was given use of a university-owned apartment despite not being affiliated with the university except familial connections - he was neither staff nor student. She also cites other individuals who were given loans by the university to purchase personal property, which were never repaid and in fact written off very soon after. She goes on to cite other examples of school administrators using NYU's funds as their private bank account.
Extreme compensation packages is one thing (and arguably necessary), but corruption and nepotism is a whole 'nother ball game.
In any case, the main thrust of the author's argument aside, her complaint about the professor salaries isn't the salaries, but rather the intent of the institution. Why does NYU have to compete with MIT and Harvard? The author laments the loss of an institution whose primary mission was the education of its citizenry, not competing for the wealthiest students from around the world.
The author argues that NYU was not, and did not need to become, a "world class" institution, and that despite attracting world-class faculty talent from around the world it is failing at the mission of educating New Yorkers, both in its focus on international prestige at the expense of quality education, and in its poor finances compared to other high-end institutions that passes the financial cost of this glory-seeking directly onto students in ever-increasing sums.
On the topic of professor salaries, so what?
The debate isn't so much about professor salaries across the board; but rather the discrepancy between senior-level salaries, and those of so-called adjunct professors (who are paid so poorly that the "professor" title hardly seems to apply).
This has been a major sleeper scandal evolving over the past 20 years -- hardly unique to NYU; and hardly a trivial matter, if you are concerned about the long-term health of the academic system, that is.
Hi, I might work at a place like NYU, but in a neighboring country (which is an exercise left to the reader).
I have no doubt, by the way that NYU operates like us: the government of the host nation throws so much money at the school that the satellite campus hands back excess many as excise taxes/tribute to the main campus in the name of administrative overhead.
This is not unqiue. In said country, multiple top tier US schools have come. And the reason is obvious. The school makes money on this arrangment, and spend next to nothing for the privilege.
What company would say no in this arrangement outside the education sector?
Courant is getting better, but when I was there the faculty was lackluster and was so heavily based on mathematical theory that it was getting smoked by more modern programs like CMU's or Stanford's. I would not recommend Courant to anyone looking to study CS, but it may have changed. Evan Korth was doing a lot to make moves, but a lot of the faculty was antiquated and it looked like he was fighting an uphill battle. During one of my lectures I literally had a TA stand behind a professor as he lectured and wave his hands frantically as the professor taught us incorrect things. The TA would stay behind for a few minutes and explain what the professor, in his senility, had gotten wrong. Another class I had a teacher cancel literally 2 weeks in a row of class, as well as probably 4 or 5 other individual classes throughout the semester (nearly half the semester was canceled because he was "sick"). Of course the tested material remained the same...
All that for the bargain price of just $55,000 a year. I dropped out 6 months later and have never looked back.
> so heavily based on mathematical theory
er, that would be the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, and while the CS department is within it, it's not really surprising that they would have a focus on mathematics. And they are indeed very well respected, especially in applied mathematics (and to a lesser extent, pure mathematics).
Not sure why this comment bothered me so much, but there are important things outside of CS :) I'm not very familiar with their reputation in computer science circles, however.
Sorry, you're absolutely correct, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. As a math institute I have no problems with it, and it has a great reputation. I have a number of friends who felt the program was good.
Regardless, the main problems with the place are the people teaching in the CS program, not the material being taught (although that could use an update as well).