2007 Top Research U Rankings

[Corbett]

<p>

If the DOD cut off funding tomorrow how much of the APL would be able to continue on?

In that case, the APL budget would be much smaller, and JHU’s “research university ranking” would fall. If it doesn’t happen – and since APL has been well funded since 1942, it doesn’t seem too likely – then JHU deserves a high ranking.</p>

<p>

The DOD started and funded the lab at JHU because it wanted a place nearby to do special research work for them.

Yes, and it’s obviously worked out very successfully for both parties. So what’s the problem?</p>

<p>

It is a unique arrangement but still outside the typical competitive university research functon.

Yes, it’s a better arrangement (as far as JHU is concerned) than the “typical competitive university research function”. Other research universities would love to have similar arrangements. Why penalize JHU for such outstanding success?</p>

[Sam_Lee]

<p>Perhaps you should get your facts right before calling others “jealous”:</p>

<p>

The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL), located in Laurel, Maryland, is a not-for-profit, university-affiliated research center employing 4,150 people. APL serves as a technical resource for the Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and other Government agencies. The Lab is a research and development organization rather than an academic division of JHU. However, its on-site APL Education Center offers part-time graduate programs through Hopkins’ Whiting School of Engineering for staff and students from the surrounding Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area.</p>

<p>APL was created in 1942 during World War II under the Office of Scientific Research and Development as part of the Government’s effort to mobilize the nation’s science and engineering expertise within its universities. Its founding director was Merle Antony Tuve. The Laboratory succeeded in developing the variable-time proximity fuse that played a significant role in the Allied victory. Expected to disband, APL instead became heavily involved in the development of guided missile technology for the Navy. At Government request, the University continued to maintain the Laboratory as a public service

.</p>

<p>Please read again; you were wrong that it “always has been a division of Hokpins”.</p>

<p>barrons and I were just trying to get the facts straight. You appear to have an agenda to validate the misleading figures. Let me ask you this: which professors in the JHU engineering school actually work at APL and bring those projects to the classrooms? Which JHU PhDs have their thesis written based on APL projects? From the APL website, I don’t see any evidence JHU students are doing research there (for obvious reason; who would want bunch of students running around and getting their hands on some of the most sensitive projects?) </p>

<p>Source: [Applied</a> Physics Laboratory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_Physics_Laboratory]Applied”>Applied Physics Laboratory - Wikipedia)</p>

[barrons]

<p>Is the research there primarily done by faculty or research staff? The point of the research rankings is to tie it to actual faculty and not some pseudo third party group. That is why the NSF puts a footnote to the JHU ranking–it does not compare directly to what the rest report.</p>

[Sam_Lee]

<p>^exactly. the intellectual connection between APL and JHU is no closer than that between Berkeley and LLL. The differenece is Berkeley does not include LLL’s funding while JHU includes APL’s in its total (and always advertises it for marketing purposes)</p>

[Corbett]

<p>

It offers some night courses that are open to working professionals.

Isn’t that a bit of an understatement?</p>

<p>APL is a major part of JHU’s “Engineering Programs for Professionals” (EPP) continuing education program. This is one of the largest and most successful such programs in the country; it [currently[/url</a>] has more than 2,100 enrolled students, offers 14 different graduate degree programs and more than 450 courses, and has conferred over 5,000 degrees over the past decade (so 500+ degrees annually). </p>

<p>EPP is a joint program of the JHU Engineering School, JHU Arts & Sciences, and APL. However, it [url=<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johns_Hopkins_University_Whiting_School_of_Engineering_Engineering_and_Applied_Science_Programs_for_Professionals]originated”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johns_Hopkins_University_Whiting_School_of_Engineering_Engineering_and_Applied_Science_Programs_for_Professionals]originated</a> at APL](<a href=“http://www.epp.jhu.edu/pdfs/flyers/at-a-glance.pdf]currently[/url”>http://www.epp.jhu.edu/pdfs/flyers/at-a-glance.pdf). And even today, according to [APL](<a href=“http://www.jhuapl.edu/education/edcenter/edcenter.asp]APL[/url]:”>http://www.jhuapl.edu/education/edcenter/edcenter.asp):</a>

For 8 of the 14 degree programs offered by the EPP, the program chair is an APL scientist or engineer.

</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>I don’t see how the JHU lab is any different from UCB’s LBNL, LANL, and LLNL. It’s a university-affiliated lab with a purpose for government-funded research. The only reason why the UC system had to bid for management of its labs (despite the long history of UC affiliation) was due to questions in breach of security. The Republican controlled Congress opened up bidding for management of the labs. UC joined forces with Bechtel, et. al after U Texas bid with Lockheed Martin for control. UC won that bidding.</p>

<p>JHU has probably one of the most prestigious medical schools in the country. If you look at the data posted, JHU remains #1 by research funding when its medical school funds are removed, every other university drops…something’s fishy.</p>

[Sam_Lee]

<p>

If you look at the data posted, JHU remains #1 by research funding when its medical school funds are removed, every other university drops…something’s fishy.

</p>

<p>Other than the top-ranked biomedical engineering which is probably the least related to what goes on at APL, JHU’s engineering isn’t really in the top-10 yet its stated research funding is so much bigger than that for Berkeley/Stanford/MIT. Clearly, something doesn’t add up and that’s what actually prompted me to dig deeper at the first place. Then things started to make sense once I learned about APL.</p>

[Corbett]

<p>

Basically JHU is cheating the numbers to look better. It is always reported by NSF with a note to that effect.

I pretty much second everything barrons wrote and also think JHU has been cheating its numbers big time.

barrons and I were just trying to get the facts straight.

</p>

<p>In that case, let’s get the following facts straight.</p>

<ol>
<li>Federal science & engineering (S&E) research expenditures are tabulated by NSF – not by JHU, UCB, or other individual schools. NSF publishes an annual ranking for “Federal obligations for science and engineering to the 100 universities and colleges receiving the largest amounts”. The latest NSF ranking, for Fiscal Year 2005, is available [url=<a href=“Archive Goodbye - NCSES | NSF - National Science Foundation”>Archive Goodbye - NCSES | NSF - National Science Foundation]here.[/url</a>] </li>
</ol>

<p>According to Table 5 of the NSF report, JHU is #1 for S&E by far, at $ 1,233,948,000 (p. 180 of the ASU report lists a slightly higher value of $ 1,277,292,000, probably because it includes non-S&E expenditures.)</p>

<p>If you don’t like the way NSF calculates these numbers or ranks schools, then criticize NSF, not JHU. JHU is accurately reporting the NSF results, not “cheating”.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Contrary to the assertion above, the NSF rankings do not make any note to the effect that JHU’s ranking is due, in part, to APL.</p></li>
<li><p>The NSF report does mention (on p. 284) that “In FY 2005, APL accounted for more than 95% of DOD’s [Dept. of Defense’s] total S&E funding of $428 million to Johns Hopkins.” Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that DOD funding to APL doesn’t count. So let’s subtract 100% of the $428 million from JHU’s total. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>And it doesn’t matter. Even without it, JHU would still rank #1.</p>

[Corbett]

<p>

I don’t see how the JHU lab is any different from UCB’s LBNL, LANL, and LLNL. It’s a university-affiliated lab with a purpose for government-funded research.

Look closer. APL is not merely “affiliated” with JHU – it is owned by JHU. So drop the word “affiliated”: it is a university lab with a purpose for government-funded research.</p>

<p>In theory, JHU could choose to let APL’s Federal contracts expire, then use APL for other purposes, like private sector research or academic research. Or they could simply disband the whole operation and turn it into a shopping mall (not going to happen, of course – but it could).</p>

<p>Berkeley does not have this degree of control over LBNL, LANL, and LLNL.</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>Actually LBNL is UC run versus the corporate/private management set-up at LLNL and LANL.
UC still has full control of the lab management:

Altogether, it has some 4,000 University of California employees, of whom about 800 are students. Each year, the Lab also hosts more than 3,000 participating guests. There are approximately two dozen DOE employees stationed at the laboratory to provide federal oversight of LBNL’s work for the DOE.</p>

<p>The Laboratory Director is appointed by the Regents of the University of California and reports to the President of the University of California. The current director of the Laboratory is Steve Chu. Although LBL is governed by UC independently of the Berkeley campus, the two entities are closely interconnected: over 200 LBL researchers hold joint appointments as Berkeley faculty and over 500 Berkeley graduate students conduct research at LBL.

[Lawrence</a> Berkeley National Laboratory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LBNL]Lawrence”>Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>The LANL employees are not UC employees anymore…that was changed in 2006. UC’s affiliation with LANL is that it appoints 3 board members.</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>It’s interesting that JHU’s APL and Berkeley’s LBL were founded on the same principles to help the US during WWII. Berkeley’s lab is owned by the DOE (land is owned by UC) and JHU’s lab is owned by the university but, “At Government request, the University continued to maintain the Laboratory as a public service.”</p>

[Sam_Lee]

<p>

And it doesn’t matter. Even without it, JHU would still rank #1.

</p>

<p>That’s because of JHU’s med school, not fields that are relevant to most undergrad and non-medical grad students. Subtract APL/med school for JHU and subtract med schools for all others, you’ll get a more accurate picture. I am not saying JHU isn’t #1; I am pointing out why those numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. That’s where the disconnect between the figure and JHU’s ranking in science/engineering is. Please don’t say I am being jealous as my alma mater benefits from having a med school too and I bet its rank would be lower if the ranking excludes med schools.</p>

[barrons]

<p>I had the NSF report right in front of me. There is a footnote annotation to the JHU ranking (a) “The JHU includes the APL with $709 Million in total R & D expenditures.”
If you subtract that from the $1,499 Million reported JHU is not #1, or 2, or 3</p>

<p><a href=“Archive Goodbye - NCSES | NSF - National Science Foundation”>http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08300/pdf/tab27.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[kyledavid80]

<p>Does anyone know how much in research LBNL does? Wikipedia says it has a $500 million budget (though that probably includes salaries, etc.)…</p>

<p>Add that to Berkeley’s and include UCSF’s to make it more comparable, and it comes out far ahead of JHU.</p>

<p>But even then, the labs probably shouldn’t be included, unless they are integral to the research of the university and the university is very involved (faculty, students, school funds also going to it, etc.).</p>

<p>And if the med school research could be separated, it’d make the list clearer.</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>

And if the med school research could be separated, it’d make the list clearer.

</p>

<p>It can be separated…look at the data again and pull up pg. 166.</p>

[DunninLA]

<p>this is an utterly irrelevant publication.</p>

<p>These nine “measures” have little correlation to peer awarded rankings. Peer awarded rankings are the most relevant measure of a programs esteem and quality.</p>

<p>to further muddle things, notwithstanding the irrelevance of the nine measure, even within them the authors make no distinction between a #1 ranked program (of which UC Berkeley and Stanford have the most) and a #25 ranked program. </p>

<p>This is barely more than a list of schools that can say “Yeah, we do a lot of stuff sorta well”</p>

[45_Percenter]

<p>Fortunately, the eagerly anticipated third editon of the highly regarded NRC ranking of Ph.D. programs, which hasn’t been updated since 1995, is scheduled to be released by late spring of this year.</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>^ Yes, that will definitely excite some conversation on this board.</p>

[sofla951]

<p>Does anyone know the exact date the NRC rankings come out…it seems like they keep pushing it back. Also I heard the new NRC report is very different from the past ones and I also thought I heard they aren’t doing “rankings” in the traditional sense, more like groups, but I could be wrong.</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>^ They are doing the rankings…just more groups and supposedly changed some criteria.</p>

<p>All they say is it will published in late spring…no firm date. It was supposed to be in February. The NRC also said it will notify schools of general rankings before it actually gets published…likely so the college marketing departments can get ready to toot their horns. </p>

<p>[National</a> Research Council Again Delays Planned Rankings of Doctoral*Programs - Chronicle.com](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/news/article/3515/national-research-council-again-delays-planned-rankings-of-doctoral-programs]National”>http://chronicle.com/news/article/3515/national-research-council-again-delays-planned-rankings-of-doctoral-programs)

Just last month the council was planning to release the rankings in February. While she would not commit to a specific date, Ms. Kuh said she expected the report to be out between mid-May and mid-June

</p>

<p>Another good presentation:
<a href=“http://www7.nationalacademies.org/resdoc/CGS%20Slide%20Presentation.pdf[/url]”>http://www7.nationalacademies.org/resdoc/CGS%20Slide%20Presentation.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;