I’m scared of opinions. When I had joined IISc, and was seeking a research supervisor, a colleague opined to me about a senior professor that he was forgetful, super-busy, and I should not meet him. My first meeting with the professor went for 4 hours! And he still remembers my name.
I hate giving opinions; definitely not without these words of caution: "I may be wrong!" That said, let me proceed by describing my life before and after I joined IISc.
CAUTION: This is a long article, and may take multiple edits in future. You can directly jump to the last section: IISc vs others.
The answer to your question depends on your basis for comparing two colleges. Rankings and statistics certainly help, but I strongly doubt them. I remember: the Bollywood movie Lage Raho Munna Bhai had once been ranked as one of the top "Crime" movies on IMDB (it's actually a comedy movie)! Apparently, it had a high rating and "Crime" was one of its genres. It seems they've changed their opinion (algorithm) now. :)
Actually, only those who have studied/taught/stayed in an institute know the reality. In most cases, even they don't. It's very common to compare institutes based on placement, infrastructure, facilities, alumni, and sometimes, even fees! The more insightful compare the faculty, their qualifications, their publications, the course structure, the syllabus, etc. It's ironic: if you’re really qualified to judge an institute based on its publications/courses, etc., why would you need a college in the first place! It's thus natural for most people to adopt the former comparison criteria.
The best way to know about an institute is to take a feedback from the present/past students. But one should be careful since opinions can be fatal. They may be heavily biased by the opinion-giver's own experiences, and on their being optimistic/pessimistic. So, I would focus on the following:
- My experience with IISc
- My take on some of my friends' experiences with NUS and other non-Indian institutes
Please note that the following has been written keeping in mind an Indian student, who has a dilemma whether or not to go abroad for higher studies.
Pre-IISc:
After BE, I wanted to go for higher studies in engineering, but not for an ME/MTech, since I had heard from confirmed sources that it was nothing but a scaled version of BE, and focused on credits, grades, assignments, CGPA, etc., which I had always hated. I was more interested in a research-oriented course. So, once the GATE results were out, I applied for both MSc (Engg.) and PhD at IISc. To be safe, I also decided to take the IISc Entrance Test in Mathematics (which has been called off now). I trusted the Engineering Mathematics we had been 'taught' during BE, and was under the impression that I can crack the exam, until I bought the book, Principles of Mathematical Analysis by Walter Rudin, which was mentioned on the IISc website, as one of the important resources for preparation.
Preparation:
The first two pages of the book were enough to shatter my over-confidence. I felt cheated. No one, in the past 17 years of my life (12 in school, 1 in coaching, and 4 in BE), had ever taught me anything this book stated. And this was supposed to be Basic Mathematics. It was not Calculus. It was not Linear or Quadratic Equations or Matrices. It was about showing the existence of irrational numbers. It was about proving that some bounded sets do not have a largest element. And such beautiful proofs! How dare my Mathematics teachers keep me ignorant of these wonders!
Alas! I could understand only about 10% of the 30-35 pages I had read/practised. Since all of this was new to me, I resorted to my seemingly good old Engineering Mathematics books to prepare for the test. Not surprisingly, I scored only 15-20% marks in the test. Nevertheless, based on my GATE score, I was shortlisted for an interview by the department of Computer Science and Automation (CSA), IISc.
In the past, I had faced a few interviews (only during my BE placements), where interviewers asked me questions about how much I knew about their company and why I wanted to join them, and what was the difference between C++ and Java, etc. This was going to be my first academic interview. The syllabus was indicated on the CSA website, and few references too were mentioned. I was supposed to prepare any two subjects out of Linear Algebra, Probability Theory, Optimization, and Discrete Mathematics. Since by now, I was aware of my ‘knowledge’ in Mathematics, instead of reading from the suggested references, I followed the For Dummies books for both Probability and Linear Algebra.
Interview:
Before the interview, a so-called "warm-up" test was conducted, which was objective type, and lasted for half an hour. I did some mistakes, but wasn't too worried since we had been assured that it wasn't eliminative. The interview was held in a classroom where five professors sat on chairs facing the blackboard. After a very short introduction (which they had read out from my application), they directed me towards the blackboard and asked me what I had prepared. It was a completely new experience: I picked up a chalk, and gave them Probability and Linear Algebra. It started with some very basic questions on Probability:
- What's the probability that a head appears on tossing a coin? (It's not 1/2 !)
- What's a pmf?
- What's a pdf?
- What's the difference between independence and mutual exclusion?
- Are two mutually exclusive events independent?
Their questions mostly depended on my answers: if I couldn't answer a question, they would start asking easier ones.
Once they were done with Probability, they started Linear Algebra. They asked me what a vector space was, to which I hesitantly replied, "A space of vectors!" This was evidence enough to conclude I knew nothing about vector spaces. So, they asked me what an eigenvalue of a matrix was. Since I was already nervous, it took me a series of wrong answers before I convinced them that I knew only how to calculate eigenvalues, thanks (?) to Control Systems. Since I had done my BE in Electrical and Electronics, and was thus not formally trained in algorithms and data structures, the only question from this domain (which was also the last) was to write the binary search algorithm in the language of my choice.
While leaving, I apologized for giving some wrong answers, but they assured that they would decide based on my approach, and not my answers. Testing my research-orientation was their primary interest. I was impressed by their humility and helpful attitude. Unlike usual job interviews, the interviewers had been on my side! After the 40-minute interview, I had lunch in the canteen, where I could see students and professors chatting. They discussed about research, about education, about publications, about ethics, and what not. I had never before been in such a place. I was so eager to join IISc!
MSc (Engg.) @ IISc:
I was selected for the M. Sc. (Engg.) program (and not PhD) based on that interview, and was happy. This program is composed of two parts: coursework and research, with more weightage given to the latter. The coursework demanded 12 credits (3 subjects). I credited 5 courses: Linear Algebra & Applications, Probability & Statistics, Computational Methods of Optimization, Design & Analysis of Algorithms, and Analysis-I. I enjoyed all the courses and was amazed by the knowledge and teaching skills of the faculty members. I’m sorry if it seems I’m exaggerating, but I learnt much more in one semester here, than I did during four years of BE. In the first semester itself, I had to select my research supervisor from a list of nine prospective ones. I was given one month to meet each one of them, research about their research, discuss with them about their work, and at the end, make a decision about my research supervisor. It was great interacting with them, sharing interests, discussing ideas, etc. Each was better than the previous one, in some way or the other. Finally, I made a proposal and my advisor was kind to accept me as his student. Except the one (and only one of its kind) freshers’ party, the first semester was very hectic.
I studied and studied and only studied. The content of all subjects was new, but not even one was unimportant. My advisor was kind to meet me whenever I needed him. I would tell him about the problems I faced. He was a busy person, since he had 12 ME and 4 research students under him. But he always found time to meet me. Towards the end, I had to drop one course, and at the end of the first semester, I had 2 D’s, 2 C’s, and a whopping knowledge of four foundational subjects! Rest of the program was about research, which went well, and taught me a lot: how to give a presentation, how to write a paper/report, etc. I developed a taste for Mathematics, and would read books, articles, novels, comics, watch documentaries, video-lectures, audit courses, etc. I learnt how to teach, and gained interest in teaching and counseling. I would actively participate in departmental activities, attending seminars, and everything under the Computer Science sun.
The Chairman is very supportive and is always approachable. He used to conduct meetings with students to discuss about their problems. Everything would be organized and handled solely by faculty and students: there’s a system administration team that maintains the common lab systems and student mail servers, and a web-team that handles the CSA webpage. Students majorly handle placements at IISc. There’s a team of students, with representatives from each department, who communicates with companies, inviting them for placements. All these facts are available online, and are not very relevant here. What’s relevant is that how I found IISc different from other places.
IISc vs others:
As far as I know about NUS and some US universities my friends have been (and are) in, the key difference lies in the freedom a student gets to enjoy. It’s much better for PhD students. But if you are an MS student in such a university, you will have to follow your lab, since industries and the government fund labs, and expect returns. This way, students too are expected to deliver, rather than understand. I know of a friend who had to study advanced subjects in the first semester itself. He obviously didn’t complain, since he was oblivious. This, according to me, is cheating! Stress should be paid on understanding the basics, rather than preparing students to merely work in labs. Moreover, unlike in IISc, students may have to pay money to credit/audit courses in other departments. This becomes a problem for those who couldn’t get sufficient scholarships, and barely manage to pay their rents, mess-bills, etc. In IISc (and other Indian government-funded institutes), this is not the case. Yes, the stipend may be comparatively less: presently, it’s INR 8,000 pm for masters, and INR 18,000 pm for PhD students, but it’s proportional to the standard of living. For example, one of my friends pursuing PhD in the US says it’s compulsory for him to buy a car. On the other hand, at IISc we all have bicycles. And stress is paid on rigor and understanding, rather than merely knowing. For example, the department of CSA offers foundational courses like Linear Algebra, Probability & Statistics, Discrete Structures, Optimization, Graph Theory, etc., which every student (esp. research students) is expected to study. Apart from this, other departments offer a multitude of courses: Mathematical Logic, Real Analysis, Topology, Measure Theory, Functional Analysis, Matrix Theory, Numerical Methods, and many more, which any IIScian can attend for free!
According to me, there’s nothing missing at IISc (especially in Computer Science), be it infrastructure, faculty, availability of journals/conference proceedings, a research atmosphere (you’re invited to have a visit to the lush-green campus), you name it. It’s one of the best places in the country for Mathematics (along with TIFR, ISI, CMI, IMSc). Yet, it’s unpopular among most people. IIScians often encounter relatives/friends who ask questions like: “IISc? What does it stand for? Didn’t you get into any of the IITs?” Let alone India; in Bangalore, the locals and auto-drivers still refer to it by the phrase “Tata Institute”, and very few know it as “IISc”, or “Indian Institute of Science”, or “Bharateeya Vigyaan Sansthaan”. But it still modestly remains the first choice for GATE toppers.
I would encourage one to explore more options abroad, but with utmost care, lest your MS becomes just another IT job, where you’d deliver more and understand less. The best combination would be a masters from IISc (the list includes few IITs, TIFR, ISI, CMI, IMSc, etc.), and then go abroad for a PhD. I have joined PhD at IISc itself, since I have lot more to learn: from my research supervisor, the Mathematics here, and my own research. You can join either the M.E./M.Tech., or the M. Sc. (Engg.), or the Ph. D. programs. More details could be found at the websites of CSA, IISc
PS: This is a (very) long article, since I didn’t want to merely compare institutes based on statistics and ranking. Instead, I have shared my experience with IISc. This is my dedication towards a great institution.