Imperial College London- where does it stand among American unis?

College Search & Selection
61

<p>

</p>

<p>I could agree with a strong “research” faculty that maybe encourages students to engage in research and continue to be in academia. I disagree with the teaching aspect. There is no link between teaching ability and being a “superior” researcher which is what most faculty in Mich are comprised of.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Selectivity is not solely based on SAT scores. Neither are admissions- High school class rank and previous academic records play a signficant role actually sometimes much more than SAT scores. I was not actually thinking of SAT scores but high school class rank. The top private schools tend to have a higher number of valedictorians, salutatorians and third in their class especially from the top private and public schools. You are gonna see a lot of top kids from Choate/Andover/Exeter going to the ivies. They might be wealthy and privileged but their rigorous high school education has prepared them for college education a bit better than the average US high school student.</p>

<p>I personally believe its possibly the opportunity to be at a top ten major research university and being encouraged to do research not being taught by “superior” faculty. Possibly also faculty mentorship. Hey believe what you want though so superiority can be easily ascertained.</p>

62

<p>“They might be wealthy and privileged but their rigorous high school education has prepared them for college education a bit better than the average US high school student.”</p>

<p>Ya think?</p>

63

<p>

</p>

<p>I disagree. Of course, a PhD dissertation is narrowly-focused and involves original research that can’t be learned in any class, otherwise it wouldn’t be original after all ! Taking the right classes at the undergraduate and graduate level helps you though to both broaden and deepen your knowledge, making it easier to understand/follow the existing technical literature and master/compare different methods and techniques. That’ why US PhD programs for example require coursework and include preliminary exams that test general knowledge in the major field of research and possibly one or two other minor fields (breadth requirement). </p>

<p>As a university professor, I would of course consider an applicant’s research potential as shown for example by publications and past research accomplishments, but, all things being equal, I’d much rather have a graduate student with a stronger technical background like someone from Imperial than an RPI or, for that matter, any elite LAC graduate (yes, I’d pick Imperial over Swarthmore !).</p>

64

<p>

</p>

<p>Does not really matter- most HYPSM Ivy professors would pick Swarthmore over Imperial any day and anytime, and the swarthmore guys continue being world class scientists and being excellent researchers so I dont think they are making the wrong decision. Most Swartmore and William grads end up at HYPSM for their graduate school and excelling there. And I dont think any of the HYPSM are poor research instuitions.</p>

<p>So still my question- what lasting contribution have Imp guys made to science in the last 3 decades?</p>

65

<p>Following up, I was just thinking on the possible damage that could have been done to the field of biochemistry (putting structural biology a whole 50-years back) if Penn and Harvard had decided to reject Anfinsen based on the fact that he lack “technical classes” for going to a LAC like Swarthmore.</p>

66

<p>“There is no link between teaching ability and being a “superior” researcher which is what most faculty in Mich are comprised of.”</p>

<p>Here is a survey from USNWR that shows you might be wrong about the above assumption:</p>

<p>Best Undergraduate Teaching National Universities (2011)</p>

<p>Many colleges have a strong commitment to teaching undergraduates instead of graduate-level research. The schools on these lists are noted by college administrators as paying a particular focus on undergraduate teaching.</p>

<p>Rank </p>

<p>School </p>

<h1>1</h1>

<p>Dartmouth College
Hanover, NH</p>

<h1>2</h1>

<p>Miami University–Oxford
Oxford, OH</p>

<h1>2</h1>

<p>Princeton University
Princeton, NJ</p>

<h1>4</h1>

<p>University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, IN</p>

<h1>5</h1>

<p>College of William and Mary
Williamsburg, VA</p>

<h1>6</h1>

<p>Brown University
Providence, RI</p>

<h1>6</h1>

<p>University of California–Berkeley
Berkeley, CA</p>

<h1>8</h1>

<p>University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Ann Arbor, MI</p>

<h1>8</h1>

<p>University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA</p>

<h1>10</h1>

<p>Stanford University
Stanford, CA</p>

<h1>10</h1>

<p>Yale University
New Haven, CT</p>

<p>Five public universities in the top 10. Michigan and Cal among them too. :-)</p>

67

<p>Dude you have posted this survey a billion times, stop wasting cyberspace.</p>

68

<p>

Well, Miami may be very committed to good teaching, but do they get great students to teach? Their middle 50% CR is 520 - 630. Not bad, but at Swarthmore (for example), it’s 670 - 760. So I don’t know how meaningful this survey can be.</p>

69

<p>sefago, selectivity at Berkeley and Michigan is irrelevant. They will still produce some of the best graduates in many fields regardless of their size in almost the same number. Meaning, if Berkeley produces 700 potential premeds now with their 21% admission rate, they will still produce the same number of potential premeds even if their admit rate will go down to 15%. There is no assurance that Berkeley will produce 300 more potential premeds if they will lower their admit rate.</p>

70

<p>

</p>

<p>that particular survey evaluates the ability of the faculty to teach rather than the quality of the school’s students.</p>

71

<p>

Yeah–but so what? A person would be nuts to go to Miami over Swarthmore just based on this survey.</p>

72

<p>^ No. I would attend Swarthmore over Miami. But I would rather go to Berkeley than Swarthmore. That’s probably a matter of personal choice. But that decision is also driven by the fact that Berkeley is academically stronger than Swarthmore. </p>

<p>Now, about that survey.</p>

<p>I’m saying that that survey dispels all those wrong notions that all public schools have lousy teaching standards. That survey is real, available, verifiable proof that some public-run institutions offer the best teaching quality.</p>

73

<p>

Are they really producing “world class academics” though?</p>

<p>Baccalaureate Origins of S&E Doctorate Recipients
[nsf.gov</a> - NCSES Baccalaureate Origins of S&E Doctorate Recipients - US National Science Foundation (NSF)](<a href=“http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08311/]nsf.gov”>Archive Goodbye | NCSES | NSF)
Cornell does extremely well in producing science and engineering PhDs per capita and its top 10 overall among “Very High Research” universities. Berkeley does pretty well as well and falls under the top 20 but the only Ivies it beats on a per capita basis is Dartmouth and Penn while it falls behind the University of Chicago (top 5), Duke (top 15), Caltech (numero uno), MIT (numero dos), Rice (top 5), Hopkins (top 10) and Case Western (top 15).</p>

<p>Michigan is not a top 50 school in this measure.</p>

<p>[The</a> Rhodes Scholarships - Winner Statistics by Endorsing Institutions](<a href=“Office of the American Secretary | The Rhodes Scholarships”>Office of the American Secretary | The Rhodes Scholarships)
Cornell, Michigan and Berkeley have produced a grand total of 15 Rhodes Scholars over the last 25 years or so combined, 8 of which are thanks to Cornell. These are hardly earth-shattering results. </p>

<p>I don’t have information for the Marshall Scholarship.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/pdfs/wsj_college_092503.pdf[/url]”>http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/pdfs/wsj_college_092503.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
Cornell, Michigan and Berkeley don’t do all that great in professional school placement as well. They fall behind every Ivy, Stanford, Duke, etc. as well as a multitude of LACs again despite Cornell’s location in the Northeast (where most of the graduate schools are used as part of the sample), Michigan’s location in the Midwest (Michigan Law, Chicago Business and Chicago Law are used) and Berkeley’s location in the West (only UCSF Med is used so this is more excusable).</p>

<p>

Haha those southern WASPish Duke boys are playing lax, sipping Cabernet, dipping Tobacco, nibbling on Caviar and cruising into top professional programs (6th overall according to WSJ), gaining admittance to top PhD programs (top 15 National University) and winning Rhodes Scholarships (top 10 overall). Take that you pompous Ivy League and underfunded public school schmucks!!;)</p>

74

<p>“Does not really matter- most HYPSM Ivy professors would pick Swarthmore over Imperial any day and anytime, and the swarthmore guys continue being world class scientists and being excellent researchers so I dont think they are making the wrong decision.”</p>

<p>but why? if you’re living in a “neutral” country (i.e. not the UK or the US) Imperial would be recognized. people would know about it. outside america, very few people know about swarthmore.</p>

75

<p>

</p>

<p>Well because its not a beauty contest mate. I did not say it was more popular outside the US. Au contraire, you will be hardpressed to find people in the US who know that the schools exist.</p>

<p>I was talking about selection for graduate school. The elite 3 LACs are just slightly below HYPSM in terms of the intellectual ability of their students. Informed HYPSM professors know this and see no reason why they should reject such students based on which school is popular for whatever reasons. Judging even by the number of students at elite LACs who end up going PhDs at Cambridge and Oxford, and completing their programs quite well I doubt they are being hampered by name recognition or lack of “technical” knowledge.</p>

76

<p>bruno123: “Taking the right classes at the undergraduate and graduate level helps you though to both broaden and deepen your knowledge, making it easier to understand/follow the existing technical literature and master/compare different methods and techniques. That’ why US PhD programs for example require coursework and include preliminary exams that test general knowledge in the major field of research and possibly one or two other minor fields (breadth requirement).”</p>

<p>Yeah, that’s the particular reason why I tend to dislike the US style PhD programs. Regardless how good you are in your chosen topic, you have to do two years of master level courses (most of them have nothing to do with your field and PhD topic) and the striking fact is that at many schools, your minor field(s) have to be something completely different from your field of research. </p>

<p>“General knowledge” and " breadth requirement" for some, “useless waste of time” for others. I know a guy who did a PhD in history at an Ivy, and despite he was dealing with Antiquity, he had a minor field in XXth century Africa; really useful stuff for him, have to say… After all, what is a PhD if not extremely narrowed research? </p>

<p>BTW, I, again, have to agree with sefago, as I’m quite convinced that the general student body at the top 3-5 LAC’s is definitely better by any standards than the students of Imperial.</p>

77

<p>

</p>

<p>I am not judging the “quality” of the general student body at Imperial versus, let’s say, Swarthmore. I’m just saying that a specialized degree from Imperial provides better academic preparation for narrowly focused PhD research in engineering for example than a B.S in general engineering from a LAC. </p>

<p>Suppose for example that you are an engineering major who wants to pursue original PhD research in a narrow area of electrical/information engineering, let’s say, signal processing or control theory. A quick look at [3rd and 4th-year options](<a href=“http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/electricalengineering/internal/curriculumug”>http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/electricalengineering/internal/curriculumug&lt;/a&gt;) available to EE/ISE majors at Imperial (i.e. EE3(T), EE4(T), ISE3(M), or ISE4 courses) will immediately reveal a list of ** several ** classes that are directly relevant to research in those areas and would constitute excellent background preparation for a future PhD candidate. Conversely, if you take a look at [all options available]( <a href=“http://engin.swarthmore.edu/courses.php”>http://engin.swarthmore.edu/courses.php&lt;/a&gt;) in “general engineering” at Swarthmore (covering the full spectrum from mechanical to civil and electrical engineering), there isn’t much there that is directly relevant again to PhD research in the aforementioned areas except some very basic undergraduate classes such as ENGR 058 and ENGR 071. </p>

<p>Of course, as a professor, I wouldn’t admit a 2:2 student from Imperial, but again, all things being equal (grades, research accomplishments, etc.), I would choose an Imperial graduate over one from Swarthmore as, based on his/her likely coursework, he/she is probably technically more qualified. </p>

<p>I guess you might argue that taking engineering as a study case is really unfair since LAC’s are particularly unsuited for engineering education. However, even in a field like mathematics, where Swarthmore has a highly respected department and exceptionally bright students, there is no way it can compete in breadth and depth with the [3rd and 4th-year options](<a href=“http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/ugprospectus/facultiesanddepartments/mathematics/mathscourses”>http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/ugprospectus/facultiesanddepartments/mathematics/mathscourses&lt;/a&gt;) at Imperial’s 4* math department (highest possible score on the official peer-reviewed Research Assessment Exercise conducted on behalf of the British government).</p>

78

<p>@sefago: Nobel winners and truly world-changing research are outliers, even at MIT, Cambridge or Harvard. Most ordinary, day-to-day research is not really groundbreaking, which doesn’t mean though that it is unimportant or irrelevant. </p>

<p>If you look at the past 100 years (not necessarily the last 30 years), Imperial did have a few world-changing contributions to humanity like the discovery of penicillin, or the foundations of fiber (British English “fibre”) optics or holographic images. However, as I argued above, using outliers to judge the ** average quality ** of an institution’s research output is IMHO a methodological error. Much more relevant than that is the fact that, in official peer-reviewed research assessment exercises conducted by outside professional experts (and not High School seniors or college undergrads), a very high percentage of Imperial’s submitted research is ranked “world-leading” or “internationally excellent” in “originality, significance and rigo(u)r”. Could we say the same about RPI or any other lower-ranked US schools that some posters here would choose over Imperial ?</p>

79

<p>

</p>

<p>Nope, I was not judging the average institutions research output but addressing your previous statements. </p>

<p>You claimed that you believe Swarthmore grads are technically less prepared for graduate school than say Imperial student. However whileyour opinions are valid sometimes and intuitive in several fields its not really so in others. I said that is not possible- you would have to explain how and why these students end up becoming excellent researchers if they are unprepared. </p>

<p>Swarthmore is undergraduate focussed. Its not sensible to compare the graduate students who have won prizes, because they have little if any, or even the faculty. The sample for Imp you provided are overwhelmingly not undergrads. At the undergraduate level the students at Swarthmore would have Imperial College students on an intellectual level for breakfast. They would also beat students from more reputable and famous American universites.</p>

<p>This shows clearly based on the “outcome” act that in the last 5 decades (I am able to compromise that far), they have managed to produce really notable big names in science. Not just Nobels. I just started with Nobels because I am kind of lazy. I can start naming them if you feel like it. A lot of the people who make the HYPSM and others famous are from some of these schools which offer a “poor education.” I can make a safe bet that you would be hardpressed to make similar claims for the technically focussed **undergraduates ** at Imperial. </p>

<p>You would have to revert to the faculty and research ratings. </p>

<p>Anyways personal opinion is that I dont think more classes=more technical knowledge or that good students let school get in the way of their education. </p>

<p>And no, 5 Nobel laureates from a LAC that has 1500 students while some **undergraduates ** from schools focussed on science and engineering are struggling to get just above 1 is no outlier.</p>

80

<p>

</p>

<p>Let me google that for you:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>As regards your claims on being ill-prepared:</p>

<p><a href=“http://engin.swarthmore.edu/AlumSchools.htm[/url]”>http://engin.swarthmore.edu/AlumSchools.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>