Computing Community Consortium (CCC)
Computing Research Policy Blog
Back to May 2006 CRN Table
Back to Taulbee Survey home page
[Published originally in the May 2006 edition
of Computing Research News, Vol. 18/No. 3]
2004-2005 Taulbee Survey
Ph.D. Production at an All-Time High with More New Graduates Going
Abroad; Undergraduate Enrollments Again Drop Significantly
By Stuart Zweben
This article and the accompanying figures and tables present the
results of the 35th annual CRA Taulbee Survey  of Ph.D.-granting
departments of computer science (CS) and computer engineering (CE) in
the United States and Canada. This survey is conducted annually by the
Computing Research Association to document trends in student
enrollment, employment of graduates, and faculty salaries.
Information is gathered during the fall. Responses received by January
9, 2006 are included in the analysis. The period covered by the data
varies from table to table. Degree production and enrollment (Ph.D.,
Master's, and Bachelor's) refer to the previous academic year
(2004-2005). Data for new students in all categories refer to the
current academic year (2005-2006). Projected student production and
information on faculty salaries and demographics also refer to the
current academic year. Faculty salaries are those effective January 1,
The data were collected from Ph.D.-granting departments only. A total
of 232 departments were surveyed, three more than last year. As shown
1, 188 departments returned their survey forms for a response
rate of 81%. This is down slightly from last year’s ten-year
record of 83%, but is still quite comprehensive. The return rate of 10
out of 31 (32%) for CE programs is very low, as has been customary.
Many CE programs are part of an Electrical and Computer Engineering
(ECE) department and do not keep separate statistics for CE vs. EE. In
addition, many of these departments are not aware of the Taulbee Survey
or its importance. The response rate for US CS departments (156 of 174,
or 90%) again was very good, and there was a good response rate (22 of
27, or 81%) from Canadian departments.
The set of departments responding varies slightly from year to year,
even when the total numbers are about the same; thus, we must approach
any trend analysis with caution. We must be especially cautious in
using the data about CE departments because of the low response rate.
However, we continue to report CE departments separately because there
are some significant differences between CS and CE departments.
The survey form itself is modified slightly each year to ensure a high
rate of return (e.g., by simplifying and clarifying), while continuing
to capture the data necessary to understand trends in the discipline
and also reflect changing concerns of the computing research community.
New features this year include some details about Ph.D. employment
outside North America (Table 4),
data about numbers of new graduate
students from outside North America (Tables
5-1 and 13),
about gender and ethnicity of research faculty and postdocs (Tables
and 22), and data about part-time faculty (Table
Departments that responded to the survey were sent preliminary results
about faculty salaries in December 2005; these results included
additional distributional information not contained in this report. The
CRA Board views this as a benefit of participating in the survey.
We thank all respondents who completed this year's questionnaire.
Departments that participated are listed at the end of this article.
Ph.D. Degree Production and Enrollments
During 2004-2005, a total of 1,189 Ph.D. degrees were awarded by the
188 responding departments (Table 1).
This is an increase of more than
15% over last year, and represents the highest Ph.D. production
reported in a single academic year in the history of the Taulbee
Survey. The previous record of 1,113 was set in 1992.
Last year’s prediction by the departments that 1,480 Ph.D.
degrees would be awarded in 2004-2005 was, as usual, overly optimistic.
However, the “optimism ratio,” defined as the actual over
the predicted, was 0.80, higher than last year’s 0.76. Based on
previous experiences, the departments’ prediction of 1,599
graduates for next year is likely to yield an actual production in the
neighborhood of 1,250. This still would result in another record crop
The number of new students entering Ph.D. programs (Table 5)
from 2,887 to 2,749 (5%). This follows an 8% decrease last year and a
5% decrease the previous year. Again this year the decrease is
entirely in the U.S. programs, whose new Ph.D. enrollments are down
more than 7% (this statement is true even when the less reliable
computer engineering data are removed from the U.S. totals). For the
second straight year Canadian departments showed a 20% increase in new
Ph.D. students. While last year the increase was due to the
specific set of schools that reported (whereas individual departments
mainly experienced decreased enrollments), this year there appears to
be an increase in enrollment at most schools.
For the first time, we requested information about the number of new
students who come from outside North America. Table 5-1
data for the fall 2005 class. Top-ranked U.S. departments have a
somewhat higher fraction of domestic students than do lower-ranked
departments, and Canadian departments have a lower percentage of Ph.D.
students from outside North America than do their U.S. counterparts.
Trends from these data will not be visible for a while, but will be of
interest to our community.
The number of students who passed qualifiers (Table 1)
the past year from 2,318 to 2,059 (11%), which follows a 50% increase
last year. On a per-department basis, the number passing qualifiers
decreased from 12.3 to 11.1, but this still is well above the rate of
6.5 per department five years ago. The number who passed thesis
proposal exams (Table 1)
rose to 1,240 from 1,025 (21%), on the heels
of a 16% increase last year. While the thesis proposal data in this
table are less comprehensive than other data about the Ph.D. pipeline,
they also suggest a continued increase in Ph.D. production for the
short term. Total Ph.D. enrollment (Table 6)
decreased slightly, from
14,234 to 13,958 (2%), following two consecutive years of increases in
the neighborhood of 20%. If the decreases on the entrance end of the
pipeline continue to balance or outweigh the increases at the exit, the
increased production currently seen should end after a few years.
Figure 3 shows the longer-term trend of the number of CS Ph.D.
graduates, normalized by the number of departments reporting to the
Taulbee Survey. The figure also indicates the number of new students
entering Ph.D. programs and the number of students who passed
qualifiers. These also are normalized for the number of departments
reporting. The graph offsets the qualifier data by one year from the
data for new students, and offsets the graduation data by five years
from the data for new students, to approximate the lag between student
entrance into the pipeline and the qualifier and exit timeframe for the
same cohort. This figure may be useful in predicting the timing of
changes in Ph.D. production rates.
Table 4 shows employment for new Ph.D. recipients. Of those who
reported employment, 43% took academic employment in North America
(compared to 60% last year and 63% the year before). Most of these
academic positions again were in Ph.D.-granting departments, and once
again a smaller percentage went into tenure-track positions (17.5% vs.
27.5% last year and 34.2% the year before). There was a significant
increase this year in the number who went to other CS/CE departments
(72 vs. 31 in each of the past two years). Perhaps the increased total
Ph.D. production, coupled with the modest growth rate of faculty in
Ph.D.-granting departments (discussed later in this report), is making
it possible for non-Ph.D.-granting CS/CE departments to obtain a larger
share of the supply of new Ph.D.s.
This year there was a decrease (from 122 to 95) in the number of
postdoctoral positions taken by new Ph.D.s. This is the opposite of the
situation last year, and the number of new graduates taking
postdoctoral positions this year is comparable to that of two years
ago. Interestingly, the total number of postdocs in the academic
departments (309, see Table
17) actually rose slightly (from 295 last
year), suggesting a multi-year nature to most postdoctoral
Figure 4 shows the employment trend of new Ph.D.s to academia and
industry, and the proportion of those going to academia who took
positions in other than Ph.D.-granting CS/CE departments. During the
past two years, the gap has been closed between those taking academic
jobs and those taking industry jobs, as economic conditions in industry
improve. The situation still is not what it was during the dot-com boom
years when industry employment exceeded that of academia.
Despite increased Ph.D. production, the proportion of new graduates who
are reported as unemployed is a very low 1.5% and the proportion
reported as “employment unknown” is similar to that of
earlier years. However, the proportion (11.8%) of Ph.D. graduates who
were reported taking positions outside North America, among those whose
employment is known, is considerably greater than at any time since the
mid-90s (it was 4.5% last year, and ranged from 3.0% to 5.4% during the
past eight years). This is the first evidence within the Taulbee Survey
that globalization and offshoring is moving new graduates of Ph.D.
programs away from the United States and Canada. It should be noted,
however, that this survey question was changed this year to request
more detailed information, and therefore some part of the reported
increase in employment outside North America may be due to response
The data in Table 4
also indicate the areas of specialty of new CS/CE
Ph.D.s. Year-to-year fluctuations among these data are common.
Multi-year trends are difficult to discern, though during the past
decade the AI/robotics and programming languages/compiler areas
generally have been on a declining trend, while the graphics/HCI area
generally has been on an increasing trend.
The proportion of women among new Ph.D.s dropped from 18.0% in 2004 to
14.7% in 2005 (Table 2).
The proportion of nonresident alien Ph.D.s
rose from 48.2% in 2004 to 53.4% in 2005 (Table 3).
There was an
offsetting drop in the proportion of white, non-Hispanic and
Asian/Pacific Islanders. African-American, Native-American/Alaskan
Native, and Hispanics collectively accounted for only 3.4% of the
total, up slightly from 2.6% last year. The difference is mainly
attributable to an increase in the proportion of Hispanics.
Current Ph.D. enrollment proportions are almost the same this year as
last. However, there is a slight increase in the proportion of
nonresident aliens in the Ph.D. programs (55.6% vs. 52.8% last year),
and a slight decrease in the proportion of Asian/Pacific Islanders.
This is despite the reports of declining applications from abroad to
Ph.D. programs, at least in the United States. African-American and
Hispanic proportions remain dismal, in the 1% to 2% range, and the
proportion of Native Americans is even lower.
Master's and Bachelor's Degree
Production and Enrollments (Tables
Master's degree production (Tables
9, 10) totaled 9,286 students, a
decrease of 6% (following an increase of 8% the previous year). This is
reasonably consistent with the 8% drop in new Master’s students
two years ago. There also was a 17% drop in new Master’s students
reported in last year’s survey. There was very little difference
in gender and ethnicity characteristics of Master’s recipients
compared to last year’s survey. Actual Master’s degrees
awarded exceeded last year’s projections by only 10%, compared to
a 21% underestimate the previous year. This year's enrollment figures
for Master’s programs (Table 13)
are about 2.5% greater than
those of last year, while expected Master's production (Table 12)
to 6% below last year’s expectations. As we did with new Ph.D.
students, this year we are able to report (Table 13)
the count and
proportion of new Master’s students coming from outside North
America. Among the 36 top-ranked U.S. departments the same trend noted
among new Ph.D. students was observed, with top departments having a
greater proportion of new domestic Master’s students than
lower-ranked departments. However, this trend was not evident for
departments not ranked in the top 36. Canadian departments had a
smaller proportion of non-North American new Master’s students
than did their U.S. counterparts, consistent with the observations for
new Ph.D. students.
There were 18,232 Bachelor's degrees awarded in 2004-05 (Tables
10), a 13% decrease compared to last year (following last year’s
5% increase that was explained totally by the additional number of
departments reporting compared to the previous year). Graduation
figures are now starting to reflect the results of the significantly
decreased enrollments in our undergraduate programs that have been
observed in the past two surveys and reported widely in the media. On
top of the decreased overall production, there was a decreasing
proportion of female Bachelor’s degrees, from 17.0% in 2003-04 to
14.7% in 2004-05. There also was an increase, from 54.4% to 59.6%, in
the proportion of white, non-Hispanics receiving Bachelor’s
degrees, and a slight decrease in the proportion of Asian/Pacific
Islanders receiving these degrees. These statistics indicate a
continuing, and even increasing, diversity problem within our
Actual Bachelor’s degree production in departments reporting this
year was below the projection from last year’s reporting
departments by more than 7%. Projected Bachelor's production for this
11) would forecast another 13% decrease, which is
believable given the continued drop in enrollment.
The number of new undergraduate majors dropped another 21%, from 15,950
to 12,532 (see Table 14
7). This follows last year’s
10% drop in new majors and a 23% drop the year before that. Accounting
for the fact that more departments are reporting to the survey now than
did three years ago, we effectively have seen a halving of the number
of new majors entering our programs over a three-year period. Total
enrollment in Bachelor's programs (Table 16)
is down nearly 14% from
last year and 30% compared to three years ago.
The number of new pre-majors in computer science is once again down
considerably from last year (24%, following a 20% drop last year),
although the number of pre-majors in computer engineering rose by 21%
this year. Because computer science programs dominate our survey, the
net effect of these two changes is a decrease of 15% in total pre-major
counts. It therefore is likely that the decreases in the number of
undergraduate majors, at least in our computer science programs, will
continue for another year.
Faculty Demographics (Tables
Total faculty sizes continued to grow, at a 3% rate during the past
year. Almost all of this increase is due to the 4% growth in
tenure-track faculty, the dominant category. Other faculty categories
are relatively flat compared to last year.
Table 4 shows 351 new Ph.D. graduates known to have taken faculty
positions at CS/CE Ph.D.-granting departments. Tables
19 and 20
indicate that a total of 404 persons were hired during the past year.
Thus, over 85% of the faculty hires made this past year by
Ph.D.-granting CS/CE departments appear to have been new Ph.D.s (about
10% higher than last year), with the rest a combination of faculty who
changed academic position, persons joining academia from government and
industry, new Ph.D.s from outside of North America and from disciplines
outside of CS/CE, and non-Ph.D.-holders (e.g., taking a teaching
faculty appointment). As was the case last year, the fraction of
tenure-track hires who were new Ph.D.s appears to be over 80% (179 new
Ph.D.s taking tenure-track faculty positions at Ph.D.-granting
programs, and 222 new tenure-track faculty members hired by these
This year's 3% growth in total faculty size falls short of the 6%
growth predicted by departments in last year's survey. After two
consecutive years of good predictions in this regard, over-optimism has
crept back in. Thus, this year’s prediction of 6% growth in total
faculty size should be viewed with an appropriate degree of
Table 23 on faculty “losses” shows an increase, from 75
last year to 103 (though less than 2% of all faculty), in the number
who left academia this past year through death, retirement, or taking
nonacademic positions. The retirement number went from 45 to 56. The
amount of “churn,” the number of professors moving from one
academic position to another, dropped from 87 to 61.
The percentage of newly hired women faculty rose to 22% from 17% last
year. This compares favorably with the 15% proportion of
new female Ph.D.s shown in Table 2.
A similar situation is noted when
considering only new tenure-track faculty hires. The percentage of
newly hired postdoctoral students who are women rose to 18% this year
from 15% last year.
Ethnicity data for newly hired faculty, in general, mirror the trends
in the production of new Ph.D.s relative to the various ethnicity
categories. The proportion of white, non-Hispanic hires decreased,
while the proportion of nonresident aliens increased. However, the
proportion of Asian/Pacific Islanders hired increased, while the
proportion receiving Ph.D.s decreased. As has been observed for the
past few years, disproportionally fewer nonresident aliens are being
hired into tenure-track faculty positions (26%) compared to nonresident
aliens’ proportion of the new Ph.D.s produced (53.4%). The
increased proportion of new Ph.D.s taking jobs abroad (reported
earlier) no doubt is contributing to the widening of this gap from
This year, Tables
21 and 22 also show gender and ethnicity data of
current research faculty and postdocs. Also new this year is Table
22-1, which reports data on part-time faculty.
Research Expenditures and Graduate
Student Support (Tables
Table 24-1 shows the department's total expenditure (including
costs or "overhead" as stated on project budgets) from external sources
of support. Table
24-2 shows the per capita expenditure, where
capitation is computed two ways. The first is relative to the number of
tenured and tenure-track faculty members, which also was the method
used prior to last year’s survey. The second is relative to
researchers and postdocs as well as tenured and tenure-track faculty.
The higher the ranking, the more external funding is received by the
department (both in total and per capita). Canadian levels are shown in
The data show some interesting and perhaps surprising features this
year. Mean and median expenditures, both in total and on a per capita
basis (no matter which capitation method is used), actually declined
for the U.S. top 12 departments and for departments ranked 25-36.
Double-digit percent decreases were frequent among these groups. Means
and median expenditures for departments ranked 13-24 and Canadian
schools typically showed double-digit increases in total and per capita
(though the maximum value among the Canadian schools declined), while
departments ranked greater than 36 showed increases in total
expenditures and median capitation expenditures, but decreases in mean
capitation expenditures (with a large decrease in the maximum
capitation expenditures). Computer engineering expenditures generally
declined, though the median of total expenditures rose slightly. These
mixed reports suggest that it has become harder for faculty to obtain
and/or sustain funding for computing research in the U.S. CRA has
reported on the funding story extensively through the years, and these
data are consistent with the declining state of research funding that
has been noted recently.
Table 25 shows the number of graduate students supported as
students as of fall 2005, further categorized as teaching assistants,
research assistants, fellows, or computer systems supporters, and split
between those on institutional vs. external funds. All categories of
departments in the U.S. showed decreases in the number of teaching
assistants (with higher-ranked departments showing the largest
decreases), while Canadian departments showed increases. This is the
first year where the U.S. figures show a consistent story in teaching
assistant employment, and likely reflects the decreased demands in the
undergraduate programs within these departments.
The support for research assistants is somewhat mixed. Top 12
departments showed a considerable decline (over 20%) in the number of
externally supported research assistants, but this was somewhat offset
by an increase in the number of research assistants supported on
institutional funds. This pattern is consistent with the decline in
research funding discussed above. In total, these departments supported
13.5% fewer research assistants compared to last year’s survey.
The number of full-support fellows declined by a similar amount.
For departments ranked 13-24, there were fewer externally funded
research assistants and full-support fellows this year, but
sufficiently more institutionally supported persons in these categories
to compensate. It is interesting that external support of students
declined for these departments although external research funding had
increased last year. This may result from the different time periods
reflected in these two sets of data. External funding covers the most
recently completed fiscal year, while the student support data are for
the fall 2005 term.
Departments ranked 25-36 reported a significant increase in the number
of externally funded research assistants, offset slightly by a decline
in the number of institutionally supported research assistants. This is
surprising in view of the decline in externally funded research for
these departments. The number of full-support fellows for these
departments held steady during the past year.
Departments ranked greater than 36 showed increased numbers of research
assistants receiving support from both external and institutional
sources, with some offsetting decreases in the number of full-support
fellows in both categories.
Canadian schools reported a significant increase in the number of
full-support fellows. Institutionally supported research assistants
also increased greatly, while externally supported research assistants
declined by a comparable amount. Computer engineering departments
reported a significant decline in externally funded research
assistants. However, the small number of such programs and their
frequent combination with electrical engineering programs within these
departments make these data less reliable.
Respondents were asked to "provide the net amount (as of fall 2005) of
an academic-year stipend for a first-year doctoral student (not
including tuition or fees)." The results are shown in Table
Canadian stipends are shown in Canadian dollars. Again this year,
some median values increased while others decreased compared to last
year’s report. In strata showing a decrease, it appears to be
because some departments within the stratum reported this information
one year and not the other. With the exception of departments ranked
13-24, where median salaries for teaching assistants rose more than 7%,
any increases in graduate student salaries were modest.
Faculty Salaries (Tables
Each department was asked to report individual (but anonymous) faculty
salaries if possible; otherwise, the department was requested to
provide the minimum, median, mean, and maximum salaries for each rank
(full, associate, and assistant professors and non-tenure-track
teaching faculty) and the number of persons at each rank. The salaries
are those in effect on January 1, 2006. For U.S. departments,
nine-month salaries are reported in U.S. dollars. For Canadian
departments, twelve-month salaries are reported in Canadian dollars.
Respondents were asked to include salary supplements such as salary
monies from endowed positions.
Here we report tables comparable to those used in previous Taulbee
surveys. The tables contain data about ranges and measures of
central tendency only. Those departments reporting individual salaries
were provided more comprehensive distributional information in December
2005. A total of 162 departments (86% of those reporting salary data)
provided salaries at the individual level.
The minimum and maximum of the reported salary minima (and maxima) are
self-explanatory. The range of salaries in a given rank among
departments that reported data for that rank is the interval ["minimum
of the minima," "maximum of the maxima"]. The mean of the reported
salary minima (maxima) in a given rank is computed by summing the
departmental reported minimum (maximum) and dividing by the number of
departments reporting data at that rank.
The median salary at each rank is the middle of the list if you order
its members’ mean salaries at that rank from lowest to highest,
or the average of the middle two numbers if there is an even number of
items in the set. The average salary at each rank is computed by
summing the individual means reported at each rank and dividing by the
number of departments reporting at that rank. We recognize that these
means and medians are only approximations to the true means and medians
for their rank.
Overall U.S. CS average salaries (Table
27) increased between 3.7% and
4.1%, depending on tenure-track rank, and 4.8% for non-tenure-track
teaching faculty. These increases compare favorably with the 2.5% to
3.3% levels experienced last year for tenure-track faculty and the 4.0%
level for non-tenure-track teaching faculty. Departments ranked
13-24 gave the highest average increases at the assistant and full
professor level (5.4% each), while departments not ranked in the top 36
gave the highest increases to associate professors (4.0%). Canadian
salaries (shown as 12-month salaries in Canadian dollars) rose 3.1% to
4.4% with the greater increase at the full professor rank and the
smaller at the assistant professor rank.
Median salaries for new Ph.D.s (those who received their Ph.D. last
year and then joined departments as tenure-track faculty) increased
3.4% from those reported in last year’s survey (Table
level of increase is more in line with the average increases for
continuing faculty, after two years of very small increases for new
As predicted last year, our field is producing Ph.D.s at a record rate,
and the short-term forecast is for continued record production. While
there is no evidence in our employment statistics that the increased
production is resulting in an inability of Ph.D. graduates to find
work, an increasing fraction of new Ph.D.s appear to be taking
positions outside of North America. In the wake of accelerating
globalization of the marketplace, this is not surprising.
Three consecutive years of decreasing numbers of new Ph.D. students,
and a sharply reduced pipeline at the Bachelor’s level, will make
it difficult to sustain this production rate in the longer term.
Moreover, it is not yet clear when the decline in our undergraduate
program enrollments will end. The double-digit percent decrease in
bachelor’s production observed this year is likely to continue
for the next several years. Coupled with the declining
representation of women in our undergraduate programs, our ability to
produce a workforce that is sufficiently educated technically to meet
the needs of the job market in computing is being severely challenged.
The declining enrollments at the Bachelor’s level also will
increasingly challenge the ability of CS/CE departments to grow their
faculty as they desire.
For tables that group computer science departments by rank, the
rankings are based on information collected in the 1995 assessment of
research and doctorate programs in the United States conducted by the
National Research Council [see
The top twelve schools in this ranking are: Stanford,
Institute of Technology, University of California (Berkeley), Carnegie
Mellon, Cornell, Princeton, University of Texas (Austin), University of
Illinois (Urbana-Champaign), University of Washington, University of
Wisconsin (Madison), Harvard, and California Institute of Technology.
All schools in this ranking participated in the survey this year.
CS departments ranked 13-24 are: Brown, Yale, University of
(Los Angeles), University of Maryland (College Park), New York
University, University of Massachusetts (Amherst), Rice, University of
Southern California, University of Michigan, University of California
(San Diego), Columbia, and University of Pennsylvania.  All schools
this ranking participated in the survey this year.
CS departments ranked 25-36 are: University of Chicago, Purdue,
Rutgers, Duke, University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill), University
of Rochester, State University of New York (Stony Brook), Georgia
Institute of Technology, University of Arizona, University of
California (Irvine), University of Virginia, and Indiana. All schools
in this ranking participated in the survey this year.
CS departments that are ranked above 36 or that are unranked that
responded to the survey include: Arizona State University,
Boston University, Brandeis, Case Western Reserve, City University of
New York Graduate Center, Clemson, College of William and Mary,
Colorado School of Mines, Colorado State, Dartmouth, DePaul, Drexel,
Florida Institute of Technology, Florida International, Florida State,
George Mason, George Washington, Georgia State, Illinois Institute of
Technology, Iowa State, Johns Hopkins, Kansas State, Kent State,
Lehigh, Michigan State, Michigan Technological, Mississippi State,
Montana State, Naval Postgraduate School, New Mexico State, North
Carolina State, North Dakota State, Northeastern, Northwestern, Nova
Southeastern, Ohio, Ohio State, Oklahoma State, Old Dominion, Oregon
State, Pace, Pennsylvania State, Polytechnic, Portland State,
Rensselaer Polytechnic, Southern Methodist, State University of New
York (Albany and Binghamton), Stevens Institute of Technology,
Syracuse, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Toyota Technological Institute
(Chicago), Tufts, Vanderbilt, Virginia Polytechnic, Washington State,
Washington (St. Louis), Wayne State, West Virginia, Western Michigan,
Worcester Polytechnic, and Wright State.
University of: Alabama (Birmingham and Tuscaloosa), Arkansas
Rock), Buffalo, California (at Davis, Riverside, Santa Barbara, and
Santa Cruz), Central Florida, Cincinnati, Colorado (at Boulder,
Colorado Springs, and Denver), Connecticut, Delaware, Denver, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Houston, Illinois (Chicago), Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana (Lafayette), Maine, Maryland (Baltimore Co.), Massachusetts
(at Boston and Lowell), Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri (at Columbia,
Kansas City and Rolla), Nebraska (Lincoln and Omaha), Nevada (Las Vegas
and Reno), New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina (Charlotte), North
Texas, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pittsburgh, South Carolina, South
Florida, Tennessee (Knoxville), Texas (at Arlington, Dallas, El Paso,
and San Antonio), Toledo, Tulsa, Utah, Wisconsin (Milwaukee) and
Computer Engineering departments participating in the survey this year
include: Georgia Institute of Technology, Northwestern,
Purdue, Rensselaer Polytechnic, and the Universities of Tennessee
(Knoxville), California (Santa Cruz), Central Florida, Houston, and
Canadian departments participating in the survey include:
Concordia, Dalhousie, McGill, Memorial, Queen's, Simon Fraser, and York
universities. University of: Alberta, British Columbia, Calgary,
Manitoba, Montreal, New Brunswick, Ottawa, Regina, Saskatchewan,
Toronto, Victoria, Waterloo, Western Ontario, and Universite Laval.
Betsy Bizot once again provided valuable assistance with the data
collection, tabulation, and analysis for this survey. Jean Smith
suggested many valuable improvements to the presentation of this report.
- The title of the survey honors the late Orrin E.
Taulbee of the
University of Pittsburgh, who conducted these surveys for the Computer
Science Board until 1984, with retrospective annual data going back to
- Although the University of Pennsylvania and the
Chicago were tied in the National Research Council rankings, CRA made
the arbitrary decision to place Pennsylvania in the second tier of
- All tables with rankings: Statistics sometimes
are given according
to departmental rank. Schools are ranked only if they offer a CS degree
and according to the quality of their CS program as determined by
reputation. Those that only offer CE degrees are not ranked, and
statistics are given on a separate line, apart from the rankings.
- All ethnicity tables: Ethnic breakdowns are drawn
from guidelines set forth by the U.S. Department of Education.
- All faculty tables: The survey makes no
distinction between faculty
specializing in CS vs. CE programs. Every effort is made to minimize
the inclusion of faculty in electrical engineering who are not computer
Copyright © 2007 Computing Research Association. All Rights
Reserved. Questions? E-mail: email@example.com.