FYI: NRC Rankings Are Out!

Graduate School
21

<p>Good job, Dunnin!</p>

22

<p>Nice and interesting work, Dunnin.</p>

<p>Here is a ranking by # of top 3 programs according to R ranking (I used your data):</p>

<p>Berkeley 34
Harvard 28
Stanford 23
Princeton 20
MIT 19
Yale 15
Wisconsin 15
Michigan 12
Cornell 11
UCLA 11
Chicago 11
Columbia 10
Caltech 10</p>

<p>Here is another ranking by # of top 3 programs according to S ranking (I used your data again):</p>

<p>Stanford 28
Harvard 26
Berkeley 22
Princeton 19
MIT 16
Yale 15
Caltech 12
Wisconsin 11
Michigan 10
Columbia 9
UCLA 8
Chicago 8
Cornell 6</p>

23

<p>I can’t comment on other fields, but at least for electrical engineering, the NRC ranking doesn’t look credible.</p>

<p>Cornell for example is ranked between 17 and 32 in the R ranking and between 13 and 43 (!!) in the S ranking. Harvard on the other hand is ranked 4-15 in the R ranking and 1-3 (!!) in the S ranking. Does anybody really think Harvard’s EE program is better than Cornell’s or top 3 ?</p>

<p>BTW, MIT itself was only 7-15 in the R ranking and 6-18 in the S ranking. Some schools that were ranked very high in the Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index (which uses similar data and metrics), for example Rice, are ranked pretty low by the NRC (in Rice’s case, 40-72 in the R ranking and 22-56 in the S ranking).</p>

<p>Besides, ranges as large as 22-56 or 40-72 look meaningless to me.</p>

24

<p>Although not broken down by specialties, the [THE engineering ranking](<a href=“World University Rankings 2010-11 | Times Higher Education (THE)”>http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/engineering-and-IT.html&lt;/a&gt;), which is based on data provided by Thomson Reuters, looks far more accurate to me. </p>

<p>Harvard for example is not even listed in the top 50 programs according to THE.</p>

25

<p>Take a look for example at the [2007 FSP index for EE](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/stats/productivity/page.php?year=2007&primary=5&secondary=50&bycat=Go”>http://chronicle.com/stats/productivity/page.php?year=2007&primary=5&secondary=50&bycat=Go&lt;/a&gt;):
Rice is # 1 and Cornell is # 2. How come they rank so low then according to the NRC (which uses 2005-2006 data) ?</p>

26

<p>bruno, a quick look your THE ranking seems to indicate every score is based on PER FACULTY MEMBER ratios. Therefore a school with 10 highly regarded faculty members would score higher than a school with 40 highly regarded and 30 average faculty members. See the problem there? The school with 40 highly regarded has an enormous breadth of expertise which is not accounted for in the THE methodology.</p>

<p>In the end it doesn’t really matter, since most Ph.D. students work primarily with one Ph.D. committee chair… that’s the only faculty member that is critical to a Ph.D. student.</p>

27

<p>I think I’ll take about an hour today to look at the top 15 only, and break the placements out by Major Area. Will post when done.</p>

28

<p>@DunninLA: I believe the NRC also utilizes metrics that are computed on a “per faculty” basis. Otherwise, the rankings would be biased towards larger programs.</p>

<p>Anyway, in a study that claims to be “data-based”, the reliability of the data is essential. Unfortunately, the talk on the net suggests the data the NRC used may not be that reliable after all, see e.g. the discussion [here](<a href=“NRC Rankings | Not Even Wrong”>NRC Rankings | Not Even Wrong) and comments/responses below. </p>

<p>That wouldn’t matter if nobody cared about the rankings (as it is mostly the case with magazine rankings, at least as far as graduate school is concerned). However, a study sanctioned by an “official” body like the NRC may have a significant impact on well-known programs, affecting their ability to get grants and recruit students. It also affects the lives and careers of students/faculty associated with these programs. That is why it is essential to get it right.</p>

29

<p>Why does Harvard have a higher job placement rate(92%,90% ) in math,and CS respectively,than both MIT &Stanford…Or did i crunk the numbers wrong?</p>

30

<p>Here are some compilations I did for the six “Broad Fields” used by this NRC iteration. Agricultural Sciences are the new sixth Broad Field.</p>

<p>I am listing here the same 20 Universities from my post above, just now divided out by Broad Field. Same methodology: # R1 placements *3 + #R2 Placements *2 + #R3 placements + # S1 placements *3 + #S2 placements *2 + # S3 placements. Then sum up and rank order from high to low in each Broad Field.</p>

<p>** this is not a ranking of ALL schools in each Broad Field. It is ONLY a ranking of the 20 strongest OVERALL programs from my post above. In that sense is is only relevant to understanding how the top 20 overall research universities compare in quality across the six Broad Fields. **</p>

<p>Agricultural Sciences </p>

<p>Rank / School / R1 / R2 / R3 / S1 / S2 / S3 / Weighted Sum<br>
1 Wisconsin 6 / 0 / 2 / 3 / 2 / 2 / 35
2 Cornell 1 / 3 / 0 / 1 / 2 / 0 / 16
3 Penn St. 2 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 15
4 Illinois 2 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 1 / 13
5 UCB (alone) 1 / 0 / 1 / 2 / 0 / 0 / 10
6 Yale 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 4
7 Columbia 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 2
13 Harvard 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
13 Stanford 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
13 Princeton 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
13 MIT 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
13 Caltech 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
13 UCLA 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
13 Chicago 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
13 Michigan 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
13 Hopkins 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
13 Penn 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
13 UCSB 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
13 Duke 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0</p>

31

<p>Here are the other five Broad Areas:</p>

<p>Biological and Health Sciences</p>

<p>Rank / School / R1 / R2 / R3 / S1 / S2 / S3 / Weighted Sum<br>
1 UCB + UCSF 4 / 4 / 2 / 2 / 3 / 3 / 37
2 Stanford 1 / 5 / 2 / 5 / 2 / 0 / 34
3 Yale 3 / 1 / 3 / 5 / 2 / 1 / 34
4 Harvard 4 / 4 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 0 / 33
5 MIT 4 / 1 / 0 / 5 / 0 / 0 / 29
6 Hopkins 0 / 3 / 2 / 2 / 3 / 0 / 20
7 UCB (alone) 2 / 2 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 2 / 19
8 Michigan 1 / 1 / 2 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 17
9 Penn 1 / 3 / 0 / 2 / 0 / 0 / 15
10 UCLA 1 / 1 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 12
11 Princeton 0 / 1 / 1 / 2 / 0 / 0 / 9
12 Penn St. 1 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 9
13 Caltech 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 6
14 Duke 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 5
15 Columbia 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 1 / 5
16 Chicago 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 3
17 Cornell 0 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 3
19 Wisconsin 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
19 Illinois 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
19 UCSB 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0</p>

<p>Engineering </p>

<p>Rank / School / R1 / R2 / R3 / S1 / S2 / S3 / Weighted Sum<br>
1 MIT 3 / 3 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 3 / 21
2 Stanford 2 / 1 / 0 / 3 / 0 / 1 / 18
3 UCB (alone) 2 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 2 / 18
4 Caltech 1 / 1 / 1 / 3 / 1 / 1 / 18
5 UCSB 2 / 0 / 1 / 2 / 0 / 0 / 13
6 Princeton 0 / 1 / 0 / 2 / 0 / 1 / 9
7 Yale 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 5
8 Michigan 0 / 1 / 2 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 4
9 Illinois 0 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 4
10 Harvard 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 3
11 Penn St. 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 2
12 Cornell 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 2
13 Wisconsin 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1
14 Duke 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1
17 Columbia 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
17 UCLA 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
17 Chicago 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
17 Hopkins 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
17 Penn 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0</p>

<p>Humanities </p>

<p>Rank / School / R1 / R2 / R3 / S1 / S2 / S3 / Weighted Sum<br>
1 Harvard 6 / 3 / 0 / 3 / 1 / 1 / 36
2 Princeton 4 / 4 / 2 / 3 / 1 / 0 / 33
3 UCB (alone) 3 / 5 / 1 / 1 / 4 / 0 / 31
4 Stanford 3 / 2 / 0 / 3 / 4 / 0 / 30
5 Yale 3 / 3 / 1 / 3 / 0 / 1 / 26
6 Columbia 4 / 2 / 0 / 1 / 2 / 2 / 25
7 Duke 2 / 1 / 0 / 2 / 2 / 1 / 19
8 Chicago 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 0 / 1 / 19
9 UCLA 1 / 2 / 0 / 2 / 0 / 0 / 13
10 Penn 2 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 8
11 Michigan 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 5
12 Penn St. 0 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 5
13 MIT 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 1 / 4
14 Cornell 0 / 2 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 4
15 Hopkins 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 4
16 UCSB 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 3
17 Wisconsin 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2
18 Caltech 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
18 Illinois 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0</p>

<p>Math and Physical Sciences </p>

<p>Rank / School / R1 / R2 / R3 / S1 / S2 / S3 / Weighted Sum<br>
1 Princeton 4 / 0 / 0 / 5 / 0 / 0 / 27
2 Harvard 1 / 3 / 1 / 3 / 4 / 0 / 27
3 UCB (alone) 4 / 1 / 1 / 2 / 1 / 3 / 26
4 Caltech 2 / 2 / 1 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 20
5 MIT 2 / 1 / 2 / 0 / 3 / 1 / 17
6 Stanford 2 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 0 / 2 / 14
7 UCLA 1 / 0 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 9
8 Columbia 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 6
9 UCSB 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 5
10 Illinois 0 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 3
11 Wisconsin 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 3
12 Michigan 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 2
13 Penn St. 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 2
14 Cornell 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 2
15 Hopkins 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2
16 Chicago 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 1
17 Penn 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 1
18 Yale 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
18 Duke 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0</p>

<p>Social and Behavioral Sciences </p>

<p>Rank / School / R1 / R2 / R3 / S1 / S2 / S3 / Weighted Sum<br>
1 Harvard 5 / 0 / 1 / 4 / 1 / 1 / 31
2 Stanford 2 / 2 / 0 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 19
3 Princeton 2 / 0 / 0 / 3 / 1 / 0 / 17
4 UCB (alone) 1 / 2 / 2 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 12
5 Hopkins 1 / 1 / 0 / 2 / 0 / 0 / 11
6 Michigan 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 10
7 Wisconsin 0 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 2 / 10
8 Chicago 2 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 9
9 Penn 0 / 2 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 8
10 UCLA 0 / 2 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 0 / 8
11 MIT 1 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 7
12 UCSB 1 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 7
13 Penn St. 0 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 2 / 7
14 Columbia 1 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 5
15 Cornell 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 4
16 Duke 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 3
17 Illinois 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2
18 Yale 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
18 Caltech 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0</p>

32

<p>^Some schools that should be there are missing. On the other hand, why would Yale/Duke be “ranked 18th” for math/physical sciences if scores are zeros? </p>

<p>It seems like you picked out 18 schools first and ranked them in each area. But readers can get confused and think those are 18 best schools in each area when they are not.</p>

33

<p>Many of the posts focus on top-3 finishes. So schools with good program all around but without top-3 finishes could look worse than some schools that aren’t as balanced but have 1 or 2 top-3 programs. A more comprehensive way to rank is to get the averages (or averages of the low ends and high ends?) in those 5 broad areas using the rankings of different departments.</p>

34

<p>

In other words, Northwestern might appear on these lists… :)</p>

35

<p>

</p>

<p>That is bewildering news to UCSF.</p>

<p>Especially bewildering considering we are talking about PhD programs, not MD, many of which, like neuroscience, are duplicated on either campus.</p>

<p>While you are at it, why don’t you throw in Davis since it has a vet school that Berkley doesn’t? Toss in UCSC too.</p>

36

<p>UCB,
Northwestern already appears in few fields like chemistry or material sciences. Congrats to you for being able to brag about your alma mater; we all expected Berkeley to do well in graduate rankings. After all, it was my second choice among the grad schools I was considering.</p>

37

<p>

right, true. I was asking and answering a different question… how do the top 20 OVERALL compare in each of the six Broad Fields.</p>

<p>I honestly didn’t want to take 45 minutes for each Broad Field to manually tally the results, but since you asked :)</p>

<p>Here are the first three. Tomorrow for the rest. </p>

<p>This is a WEIGHTED ranking. R1 and S1 placements get 3 points, while R2 and S2 placements get 2 points. </p>

<p>Agricultural Sciences</p>

<p>Rank / School / R1 / R2 / R3 / S1 / S2 / S3 / Weighted Sum<br>
1 Wisconsin 6 / 0 / 2 / 3 / 2 / 2 / 35
2 Cornell 1 / 3 / 0 / 1 / 2 / 0 / 16
3 Penn St. 2 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 15
4 Illinois 2 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 1 / 13
5 UC Davis 2 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 12
6 UCB (alone) 1 / 0 / 1 / 2 / 0 / 0 / 10
7 Minnesota 1 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 8
8 UC Riverside 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 6
8 Washington 1 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 6
8 Georgia 0 / 1 / 2 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 6
11 tOhio St. 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 1 / 5
11 UMass 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 5
13 Yale 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 4
13 Purdue 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 4
13 Arkansas 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 4
16 Mich. St. 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 3
17 Columbia 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 2
17 Rutgers 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2
17 Iowa St. 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 2
17 Florida 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2
21 Nebraska 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1</p>

<p>Biological and Health Sciences </p>

<p>Rank / School / R1 / R2 / R3 / S1 / S2 / S3 / Weighted Sum<br>
1 UCB + UCSF 4 / 4 / 2 / 2 / 3 / 3 / 37
2 Stanford 1 / 5 / 2 / 5 / 2 / 0 / 34
3 Yale 3 / 1 / 3 / 5 / 2 / 1 / 34
4 Harvard 4 / 4 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 0 / 33
5 MIT 4 / 1 / 0 / 5 / 0 / 0 / 29
6 Hopkins 0 / 3 / 2 / 2 / 3 / 0 / 20
7 UCB (alone) 2 / 2 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 2 / 19
8 UCSF (alone) 2 / 2 / 0 / 1 / 2 / 1 / 18
9 Michigan 1 / 1 / 2 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 17
10 Penn 1 / 3 / 0 / 2 / 0 / 0 / 15
11 UCLA 1 / 1 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 12
12 WashU 1 / 0 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 11
13 Princeton 0 / 1 / 1 / 2 / 0 / 0 / 9
13 Penn St. 1 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 9
15 Vanderbilt 1 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 8
15 N. Carolina 0 / 2 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 8
15 UC San Diego 0 / 0 / 1 / 1 / 2 / 0 / 8
18 Caltech 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 6
18 Case West 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 6
18 UC Davis 1 / 0 / 3 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 6
21 Tufts 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 5
21 Duke 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 5
21 UConn 0 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 5
21 UMASS 0 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 5
21 Columbia 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 1 / 5
21 Baylor 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 3 / 5
27 Rockefeller 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 4
27 Pitt 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 4
27 Washington 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 4
30 Chicago 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 3
30 Cornell 0 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 3
30 Georgia 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 3
30 Dartmouth 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 3
35 Minnesota 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2
35 Rutgers 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2
35 Florida 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2
35 Indiana 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 2
35 UC Irvine 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 2
35 Brandeis 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 2
41 Loyola 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 1
41 Virginia 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 1
41 Northwestern 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1
41 NYU 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1
41 Iowa 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1
41 Ohio St. 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1
41 Cold Spring 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 1
41 Emory 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1</p>

<p>Engineering </p>

<p>Rank / School / R1 / R2 / R3 / S1 / S2 / S3 / Weighted Sum<br>
1 MIT 3 / 3 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 3 / 21
3 Stanford 2 / 1 / 0 / 3 / 0 / 1 / 18
3 Caltech 1 / 1 / 1 / 3 / 1 / 1 / 18
3 UCB (alone) 2 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 2 / 18
6 UCSB 2 / 0 / 1 / 2 / 0 / 0 / 13
7 Princeton 0 / 1 / 0 / 2 / 0 / 1 / 9
7 GA Tech 0 / 2 / 2 / 0 / 1 / 1 / 9
9 Texas 2 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 7
10 UC San Diego 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 6
11 Yale 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 5
12 Michigan 0 / 1 / 2 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 4
12 Illinois 0 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 4
14 Harvard 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 3
14 Purdue 0 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 3
14 Brown 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 3
17 Penn St. 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 2
17 Cornell 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 2
17 Colorado 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2
17 Boston U 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2
17 Florida 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2
22 Wisconsin 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1
22 Duke 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1
22 Washington 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1
22 Northwestern 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1
22 Cincinnati 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 1
22 UMASS 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 1</p>

38

<p>I continue to be puzzled about what he heck happened to Cornell. They fail to excel really in ANY of the five Broad Fields outside of Agricultural Sciences, and even there Wisconsin cleans their clock and they become Penn St.'s peer … weird. How can Brown score higher than Cornell in Engineering (admittedly my ranking weights placement in R1/S1 and R2/S2 proportionally higher than placements into R3/S3, but still ? (scratching head emoticon inserted here). Could it be that the type of faculty who can set up wherever they choose just don’t want to live in Ithaca, NY?</p>

39

<p>

Sure…Davis used to be Cal’s farm school. Davis, Berkeley and SF made up the original UC long before the southern branch came to be known.</p>

<p>Sam, I was just giving you a hard time. :-)</p>

40

<p>The following site gives some interesting information about the NRC report.</p>

<p>A short summary of the 2010 NRC report </p>

<p>[A</a> short summary of the 2010 NRC report | The University of Chicago](<a href=“http://news.uchicago.edu/btn/nrc.summary.php]A”>http://news.uchicago.edu/btn/nrc.summary.php)</p>