<p>So probably WAS are at the top here, but after that I'm wondering how the rep of Smith, Oberlin, Grinnell, Wesleyan, Carleton, Reed etc. compare for Bio in the eyes of grad schools?</p>
<p>Actually, there are probably about seven or eight LACs all bunched up at the top in terms of science Ph.D producers, with WAS (I assume you mean Williams, Amherst and Swarthmore) somewhere in the middle of the pack:</p>
<p>Well, is the relationship of % of PhDs to rep of PhDs at top grad schools the same thing?</p>
<p>That Howard Hughes data is interesting, but unfortunately, it fixates on the absolute number of doctorates produced, but that unfairly penalizes schools that just have a small student body. Obviously if you're not going to produce a large absolute number of doctorates if you just don't have a lot of students in the first place. </p>
<p>I believe a more fair way would be to look at the percentages of graduating students who go on to graduate school.</p>
<p>While the following is not entirely fair either (in that it only looks at the percentage of students who go on to doctoral programs in the physical sciences, math, and engineering), it may be useful.</p>
<p>"INSTITUTION %
1. Harvey Mudd College 34.4
2. California Institute of Technology 33.7
3. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 17.3
4. Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art 12.5
5. Webb Institute of Naval Architecture 11.0
6. Reed College 8.7
7. Rice University 8.0
8. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 7.3
9. Polytechnic Institute of New York 7.2
10. Carnegie-Mellon University 6.8
11. University of Chicago 6.5
12. University of California at San Diego 5.5
13. New Mexico Institute of Mining 5.5
14. Swarthmore College 5.2
15. Worcester Polytechinic Institute 5.2
16. Stevens Institute of Technology 5.0
17. Colorado School of Mines 4.9
18. Haverford College 4.9
19. Harvard College 4.6
20. Illinois Institute of Technology 4.5
21. Princeton University 4.5
22. South Dakota School of Mines 4.4
23. Johns Hopkins University 4.2
24. Case Western Reserve University 4.1
25. Carleton College 4.0
26. Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology 4.0
27. Lehigh University 3.9
28. New College of the University of South Florida 3.9
29. Pomona College 3.7
30. Illinois Benedictine 3.6 "</p>
<p>I would also refer you to post #49 in this thread, by George Hagstrom. George Hagstrom, Ben Golub, and I have discussed the merits of LAC's like Harvey Mudd vs. Caltech, and in particular, which LAC's are able to produce students who are able to later get into and complete doctorates at Caltech. The Caltech PhD commencement data indicate that several LAC's, notably Amherst, Harvey Mudd, Reed, Williams, and Pomona are very well represented, especially when you consider the small size of these schools compared to other places.</p>
<p>So not to offend anyone or anything, but I always thought Reed was this eccentric hippy school that would carry a stigma with it -is this not the case?</p>
<p>Yeah, it carries the stigma of being very intense, and if you graduate you carry the stigma of having gone through a lot of work and being qualified for many things.</p>
<p>Reed IS an eccentric, hippy school. But it also has the reputation for being extremely intellectual:</p>
<p>Take these quotes from Wikipedia</p>
<p>"Reed is considered a haven for intense intellectuals and idealists. It promotes its dedication to "the life of the mind" to a greater degree than other liberal-arts colleges, and emphasizes its differences -- in both pedagogy and student life -- from similar institutions. Reed maintains a 10:1 student-to-faculty ratio, and its small classes emphasize a "conference" style, in which the teacher often acts as a mediator for discussion rather than a lecturer. While large lecture-style classes exist, Reed emphasizes its smaller lab and conference sections. Reed's high admissions standards also contribute to the intensity of the environment."</p>
<p>"The Princeton Review in its publication "The Best 361 Colleges," published in August 2005, ranked Reed number 1 in its category "Best Overall Academic Experience For Undergraduates." It also ranked number 1 in the "Students Never Stop Studying" category. It, of course, also ranked number 1 in the category of "Students Ignore God On A Regular Basis"</p>
<p>"Reed has produced the second-highest number of Rhodes scholars (31), for any liberal arts college, as well as over 50 Fulbright Scholars, over 60 Watson Fellows, and 2 MacArthur ("Genius") Award winners. A very high proportion of Reed graduates go on to earn Ph.D.s, particularly in the sciences, history, political science, and philosophy. Reed is third in percentage of its graduates who go on to earn PhDs in all disciplines, after only Caltech and Harvey Mudd. Reed is first in this percentage in biology"</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_college%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_college</a></p>
<p>So if comparing schools like Swarthmore and Reed in terms of capabilities of the student body and professors, political leanings, and rep, how would you go about doing that?</p>
<p>Sakky: Here is more comprehensive list of PhD production that includes all engineering, math, and all hard sciences (inc. bio, but not psych or social sciences). This is the percentage of actual graduates from each school that earned a PhD in one of those fields over the most recent ten-year period for which data is available. The ten year period for counting actual grads is offset five years earlier than the period for counting actual PhDs, since it takes a fews years for a grad to get a PhD!</p>
<p>Percentage of PhDs per graduates </p>
<p>Academic field: All Engineering, Hard Science, and Math </p>
<p>PhDs and Doctoral Degrees: ten years (1994 to 2003) from NSF database<br>
Number of Undergraduates: ten years (1989 to 1998) from IPEDS database<br>
Formula: Total PhDs divided by Total Grads </p>
<p>Note: Does not include colleges with less than 1000 graduates over the ten year period<br>
Note: Does not include MDs. </p>
<p>1 California Institute of Technology 34.0%
2 Harvey Mudd College 23.5%
3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 16.1%
4 Reed College 10.2%
5 Rice University 8.6%
6 Swarthmore College 8.3%
7 Princeton University 7.6%
8 Carleton College 7.5%
9 New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology 7.4%
10 University of Chicago 7.1%
11 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 6.7%
12 Case Western Reserve University 6.5%
13 Harvard University 6.4%
14 Carnegie Mellon University 6.1%
15 Johns Hopkins University 6.0%
16 Haverford College 6.0%
17 Grinnell College 5.8%
18 Cornell University, All Campuses 5.6%
19 Kalamazoo College 5.5%
20 Stanford University 5.5%
21 Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology 5.2%
22 Yale University 5.2%
23 Cooper Union 5.0%
24 Oberlin College 4.7%
25 Lawrence University 4.7%
26 Bryn Mawr College 4.7%
27 Williams College 4.6%
28 Pomona College 4.5%
29 Colorado School of Mines 4.5%
30 Bowdoin College 4.4%
31 Earlham College 4.4%
32 Brown University 4.3%
33 University of Rochester 4.3%
34 University of California-Berkeley 4.2%
35 Wabash College 4.2%
36 Duke University 4.1%
37 Worcester Polytechnic Institute 4.1%
38 Amherst College 4.0%
39 Stevens Institute of Technology 4.0%
40 St Olaf College 4.0%</p>
<p>Here's the same deal, but for just PhDs in Bio and Health fields. Still does not include Psych. Same time frames, etc.</p>
<p>Percent of PhDs per grad </p>
<p>Academic field: Bio and Health Sciences </p>
<p>PhDs and Doctoral Degrees: ten years (1994 to 2003) from NSF database<br>
Number of Undergraduates: ten years (1989 to 1998) from IPEDS database<br>
Formula: Total PhDs divided by Total Grads, multiplied by 1000 </p>
<p>Note: Does not include colleges with less than 1000 graduates over the ten year period<br>
Note: Does not include MDs. </p>
<p>1 California Institute of Technology 5.4%
2 Reed College 4.8%
3 Swarthmore College 4.4%
4 University of Chicago 3.3%
5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3.1%
6 University of California-San Francisco 3.1%
7 Harvard University 3.0%
8 Kalamazoo College 3.0%
9 Harvey Mudd College 2.9%
10 Earlham College 2.8%
11 Johns Hopkins University 2.7%
12 Princeton University 2.6%
13 Haverford College 2.6%
14 Mount Holyoke College 2.6%
15 Yale University 2.5%
16 Rice University 2.5%
17 Lawrence University 2.5%
18 Carleton College 2.5%
19 Stanford University 2.5%
20 Oberlin College 2.4%
21 Cornell University, All Campuses 2.4%
22 Grinnell College 2.3%
23 Hendrix College 2.3%
24 Bryn Mawr College 2.1%
25 Bowdoin College 2.1%
26 Wellesley College 2.1%
27 Amherst College 2.1%</p>
<p>Excellent work, interesteddad, and it goes to prove my point - that the elite LAC's are fully competitive with research universities when it comes to having their students get into and complete technical doctoral programs. </p>
<p>Not that I want to burden you with extra work, but you would mind doing the same analysis for all doctorates (including humanities and social sciences)?</p>
<p>Sakky:</p>
<p>Already have that one. Same deal. In this spreadsheet, the number is the total PhDs per 1000 undergrads. So just divide the number by ten if you want a percentage. In other words, the 358 for CalTech is 35.8% of all graduates got a PhD.</p>
<p>Number of PhDs per 1000 graduates </p>
<p>Academic field: ALL </p>
<p>PhDs and Doctoral Degrees: ten years (1994 to 2003) from NSF database<br>
Number of Undergraduates: ten years (1989 to 1998) from IPEDS database<br>
Formula: Total PhDs divided by Total Grads, multiplied by 1000 </p>
<p>Note: Does not include colleges with less than 1000 graduates over the ten year period<br>
Note: Includes all NSF doctoral degrees inc. PhD, Divinity, etc., but not M.D. or Law. </p>
<p>1 California Institute of Technology 358
2 Harvey Mudd College 247
3 Swarthmore College 211
4 Reed College 199
5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 183
6 Carleton College 168
7 Bryn Mawr College 158
8 Oberlin College 157
9 University of Chicago 153
10 Yale University 145
11 Princeton University 143
12 Harvard University 143
13 Grinnell College 141
14 Haverford College 138
15 Pomona College 138
16 Rice University 131
17 Williams College 127
18 Amherst College 124
19 Stanford University 114
20 Kalamazoo College 113
21 Wesleyan University 110
22 St John's College (both campus) 106
23 Brown University 106
24 Wellesley College 104
25 Earlham College 100
26 Beloit College 96
27 Lawrence University 95
28 Macalester College 93
29 Cornell University, All Campuses 90
30 Bowdoin College 90
31 Mount Holyoke College 89
32 Smith College 89
33 Vassar College 88
34 Case Western Reserve University 87
35 Johns Hopkins University 87
36 St Olaf College 87
37 Hendrix College 87
38 Hampshire College 86
39 Trinity University 85
40 Knox College 85
41 Duke University 85
42 Occidental College 84
43 University of Rochester 83
44 College of Wooster 83
45 Barnard College 83
46 Bennington College 82
47 Columbia University in the City of New York 81
48 Whitman College 80
49 University of California-Berkeley 79
50 College of William and Mary 79</p>
<p>May I have the spreadsheet (you can send it to me via my open email), or if it's on the Internet, may I have a link?</p>
<p>And if there were a way of measuring Ph.D production as a % of <em>actual science majors</em>, the order would be shuffled yet again--but, probably with the same six or seven LACs in the top twenty. In answer to the OP, SAW do not, as a group dominate the two lists mentioned in this thread; of the three only Swarthmore consistently beats Carleton and Reed--in absolute numbers or as a % of total graduates, and probably because it has one of the few Engineering programs among LACs. </p>
<p>In post # 4 Sakky said,
"That Howard Hughes data is interesting, but unfortunately, it fixates on the absolute number of doctorates produced, but that unfairly penalizes schools that just have a small student body. Obviously if you're not going to produce a large absolute number of doctorates if you just don't have a lot of students in the first place."</p>
<p>
[quote]
SAW do not, as a group dominate the two lists mentioned in this thread; of the three only Swarthmore consistently beats Carleton and Reed
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's not really an indication of the quality of the science departments at Amherst and Williams. Williams, I know, has excellent science departments. </p>
<p>Rather, it's more a reflection of Williams and Amherst being somewhat more "pre-professional" in orientation. Not that they are pikers in PhD production by any means, but they just attract a little different student body.</p>
<p>You really see these kinds of difference jump out when you compare, for example, Duke and Dartmouth against UChicago and Rice. Nobody would argue that Duke and Dartmouth aren't great schools. They just aren't as popular with nerdy academic types and are more popular with the popped-collar Future Investment Bankers of America. </p>
<p>I don't see this as a quality issue at all, but rather an issue of campus style and orientation.</p>
<p>Webcaspar does give the number of grads by field, if interesteddad wants to run the numbers, but you have to be careful. Although the first assumption is that science PhD's were science majors in undergrad, remember that some of the science types who go to LAC's go there for the "liberal" education. For example, there is a Nobel laureate scientist who was a history major in college. Took plenty of science too, but liked history.</p>
<p>Even so, most PhD scientists probably were science majors, but difficult to break it down more than that. Lots of people move between engineering, physics, and computer science, for example. There are many flavors of biology, biochem, and bioengineering majors.</p>
<p>this chart might be helpful to get a rough idea of percentages
of peoples who use LACS for grad school prep
<a href="http://web.reed.edu/ir/phd.html%5B/url%5D">http://web.reed.edu/ir/phd.html</a></p>
<p>I'm not interested in that kind of breakdown. To me, the more interesting use of the PhD stats is to compare a school's ranking across a wide range of fields. To use an extreme example, CalTech is #1 in Physics PhDs, but I would dare say off the bottom of the charts in English PhDs. That tells me something about the relative emphasis/popularity/resources of the two departments and something about the interests of CalTech's students.</p>
<p>Now, that's a rather obvious example. But, apply the same approach for other schools and you can learn something about each one.</p>
<p>For example, Swarthmore is clearly a social science power house, ranked #1 in per capita PhD production in econ, poli sci, sociology, and #2 in psych. The fact that it holds its own in the humanities (tied for #2 with Yale) and #6 in science/math/eng (or #3 if you take out the three top tech schools CalTech, Mudd, and MIT) indicates that it's solid across the board -- a good all-purpose place where you can count on at least decent stuff in almost any department.</p>
<p>Contrast to Rice that is #5 in science/math/engineering, but #40 in social sciences and #38 in the humanities -- a pretty clear indication which departments get the action. I wouldn't have known that Rice was so heavily math/science/engineering oriented.</p>
<p>How is that different from just asking what are the most popular majors?</p>
<p>JohnWesley, I think it is different because the unfortunate truth is certain majors at certain colleges are popular with the students not because they're particularly good, but because, frankly, they're easy. </p>
<p>Let's face it. There really are a lot of college students who aren't really interested in studying or learning - they just want to get an easy degree. And there are some students who aren't even that interested in the degree. For example, in my school, certain majors were known as 'football player majors' because they had plenty of guys who were interested only in staying eligible to play on Saturday. Suffice it to say that these guys didn't care too much about the academic quality of their department. </p>
<p>Nor is this specific to just players trying to stay eligible. There are plenty of other non-athletes who simply decide that they really don't like to study or work very hard, and so they flock to majors where they don't have to. These majors may not be of high quality, but they certainly are "popular".</p>