<p>How my school did (haha):</p>
<p>Applied economics 2
Environmental engineering 12
Environmental toxicology 17
Entomology 18
Food science 19
Forestry and forest science 25
Bioengineering 28
Genetics 37
Chemical engineering 39
Mathematics 44
Chemistry 45
Microbiology 46
Industrial engineering 45
Plant science 46
Polymer and fiber 50</p>
<p>[What’s</a> New](<a href=“http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/Resdoc/PGA_044475]What’s”>http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/Resdoc/PGA_044475)</p>
<p>Okay they will release them Tuesday. Does this mean I will be able to find them there?</p>
<p>I’m trying to download the rankings, but the NAP site appears to be having some trouble today…</p>
<p>They release data, not rankings per se. You can find a ranked version at [Find</a> the Graduate School That’s Right for You — PhDs.org Graduate School Guide](<a href=“http://graduate-school.phds.org/]Find”>http://graduate-school.phds.org/)</p>
<p>They finally are here! Well almost here…</p>
<p>Major issues already being reported.</p>
<p>[UW</a> Engineering - NRC Assessment of Research Doctorate Programs | <a href=“http://www.engr.washington.edu%5B/url%5D”>www.engr.washington.edu](<a href=“http://www.engr.washington.edu/news/nrc_response0910.html]UW”>http://www.engr.washington.edu/news/nrc_response0910.html)</a></p>
<p>[Erroneous</a> NRC Ranking Data for UW CSE](<a href=“http://www.cs.washington.edu/nrc/]Erroneous”>http://www.cs.washington.edu/nrc/)</p>
<p>^^Oh great! Here we go again! No wonder it took forever to get them out…</p>
<p>If anybody just wants the rankings, go to [Find</a> the Graduate School That’s Right for You — PhDs.org Graduate School Guide](<a href=“http://graduate-school.phds.org/]Find”>http://graduate-school.phds.org/)</p>
<p>Seems like a waste of $4 million to me…</p>
<p>Berkeley Press Release:
[09.28.2010</a> - National Research Council ranks UC Berkeley’s Ph.D. programs among nation’s best](<a href=“National Research Council ranks UC Berkeley's Ph.D. programs among nation's best | Berkeley”>National Research Council ranks UC Berkeley's Ph.D. programs among nation's best | Berkeley)
</p>
<p>Be prepared to deal with uncertainty though. According to the NRC for example, MIT’s PhD program in electrical and computer engineering (usually rated # 1 in most “commercial” magazines) is ranked anywhere between 7 and 15 !</p>
<p>It gets worse if you go down the list. Cornell’s ECE ranking, if I understood it correctly, is supposed to be between 17 and 32 ,and RPI’s for example, between 40 and 79 !</p>
<p>I wonder how ranges like that are of any practical use to prospective students.</p>
<p>HAHA, it’s out. Let the ranking battle begin!!!</p>
<p>Inside Higher Ed has a spreadsheet showing top 3 for both methodologies:
<a href=“http://insidehighered.com/content/download/367660/4465647[/url]”>http://insidehighered.com/content/download/367660/4465647</a></p>
<p>Here’s a link to PhDs.org to crunch the numbers with your preferences:</p>
<p>[Find</a> the Graduate School That’s Right for You — PhDs.org Graduate School Guide](<a href=“http://graduate-school.phds.org/]Find”>http://graduate-school.phds.org/)</p>
<p>Congrats UCBChemEGrad, you must be very proud.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought the NRC published ranking ranges only. How did you come up with the list above ?</p>
<p>Anyway, it is funny that any mention to the THES or ARWU rankings is immediately deleted from the “college search and selection” board on the excuse that those aforementioned rankings apply to graduate school only. Nevertheless, a thread about a quantitative-based assessment of PhD programs is allowed on this board. The moderators’ bias is showing !</p>
<p>Initially the committee was deeply divided on whether an effort to rank programs should be undertaken at all. However, there was universal agreement within the committee that efforts that relied entirely on reputation or on single measures of scholarly productivity could be misleading to potential applicants and others. The quality of reputational measures depends critically on who is asked and how knowledgeable they are about scholarship in a discipline. Thus the committee focused on doctoral program faculty…The committee also wanted to convey the degree of uncertainty in rankings. Very early in the study process the committee agreed that presentation of ranges of rankings would best convey the uncertainty inherent in any ranking study. It felt that a technique that combined the regression results with the survey results would give a more accurate estimate of program
quality.</p>
<p>From the NRC’s published PDF of results. If you download the PDF you can read some of the data, but there aren’t any hardcore rankings so to say.</p>
<p>It looks like Harvard is the best, followed by Berkeley, and Stanford. The next cluster includes Princeton, MIT, Yale, and Columbia.</p>
<p>See [National</a> Research Council Report 2010 - The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences](<a href=“http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/faculty/national_research_council_report_2010.php]National”>http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/faculty/national_research_council_report_2010.php).</p>
<p>Universities with most #1s (if one of the ranking categories by NRC for a given field is #1, then the school is coded #1)</p>
<p>Harvard (27)
Princeton (19)
Berkeley (18)
Stanford (18)
MIT (12)
Yle (11)</p>
<p>Universities with most top 5s (if one of the ranking categories by NRC for a given field is top 5, then the school is counted top 5)
Harvard (46)
Berkeley (41)
Stanford (39)
Yale (33)
Princeton (27)
Columbia (24)
MIT (23)</p>
<p>^^^ Therefore the link to PhDs.org to crunch the numbers for the hardcore ranking enthusiasts.</p>
<p>I’ll have to have a look and see how you did that datalook.</p>
<p>I took a different approach. I used the link from post #12 and noted the number of times a school occupied the R1, R2, R3, S1, S2, S3 slots.</p>
<p>Weighted Total: I then multiplied R1 and S1 by 3, since they are the top grouping of schools in that field. I multiplied the R2 and S2 totals by 2, since they are the 2nd grouping in that field. I then added R1, R2, R3, S1, S2, S3 for all the schools I thought might be in the top 20. This method of weighting and summing clearly awards breadth of offerings … perhaps this is not the best way to weight it.</p>
<p>Note: Since the University of California once consisted of just Berkeley, and UCSF was established as the UC medical school and for demographic reasons was situated in San Francisco instead of Berkeley, I consider UCSF to be Berkeley’s medical school.</p>
<p>Here is the tally:</p>
<p>Position, School, R1/R2/R3/S1/S2/S3/Weighted Total</p>
<p>1 UCB + UCSF 16 / 14 / 8 / 9 / 9 / 8 / 137
2 Harvard 16 / 8 / 4 / 13 / 9 / 4 / 129
3 Stanford 11 / 10 / 2 / 15 / 9 / 4 / 122
4 UCB (alone) 14 / 12 / 8 / 8 / 7 / 7 / 119
5 Princeton 10 / 7 / 3 / 16 / 2 / 1 / 100
6 MIT 10 / 6 / 3 / 6 / 5 / 5 / 78
7 Yale 7 / 4 / 4 / 9 / 3 / 3 / 69
8 Wisconsin 6 / 4 / 5 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 53
9 Caltech 4 / 4 / 2 / 8 / 2 / 2 / 52
10 Columbia 6 / 4 / 0 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 42
11 UCLA 3 / 5 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 0 / 42
12 Penn St. 3 / 3 / 1 / 5 / 2 / 5 / 40
13 Chicago 4 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 1 / 4 / 38
14 Michigan 3 / 3 / 6 / 1 / 4 / 5 / 37
15 Hopkins 2 / 5 / 2 / 4 / 3 / 1 / 37
16 Illinois 2 / 6 / 3 / 3 / 0 / 2 / 32
17 Penn 3 / 5 / 0 / 3 / 0 / 4 / 32
18 Cornell 1 / 7 / 3 / 1 / 2 / 4 / 31
19 UCSB 3 / 2 / 1 / 3 / 2 / 1 / 28
20 Duke 3 / 1 / 1 / 3 / 2 / 2 / 27
21 UC Davis 3 / 2 / 1 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 23
22 Washington 2 / 1 / 3 / 0 / 4 / 2 / 21
23 Texas 5 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 1 / 20
24 UCSD 2 / 0 / 2 / 2 / 3 / 0 / 20
25 UCSF (alone) 2 / 2 / 0 / 1 / 2 / 1 / 18
26 Minnesota 2 / 2 / 2 / 0 / 2 / 1 / 17
27 Rutgers 2 / 2 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 13
28 UMASS 1 / 1 / 0 / 2 / 0 / 2 / 13
29 Northwestern 0 / 1 / 2 / 0 / 3 / 2 / 12
30 Florida 0 / 4 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 8
31 UC Irvine 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 0 / 4</p>
<p>two Universities I see immediately that slipped considerably using the new methodology are Cornell and UCSD. Two positive surprises are Penn St. and Wisconsin, who both seem to have moved up considerably overall.</p>
<p>It is also significant that a new, sixth grouping of specific subfields that is new to this NRC study is composed of the Agricultural Sciences. Now there are six major areas of research whereas in the 1994 publication there were five. Not sure how this affects things yet.</p>
<p>I hope that the Professor at Texas A&M who compiled stats last time does so again. This is too much work counting placements. :)</p>
<p>Whereas the prior NRC study divided the Ph.D. world into 41 sub areas, the current study appears to have divided the world into 59 sub areas.</p>