For those who are interested in STEM and don’t have a good starting point, these universities are all members of the American Association of Research Universities, they are broadly considered the best universities for research.
“Founded in 1900, the Association of American Universities comprises 62 distinguished research universities across the United States that continually advance society through education, research, and discovery. Our universities earn the majority of competitively awarded federal funding for academic research and are educating tomorrow’s visionary leaders and global citizens.”
Public
Georgia Institute of Technology (2010)
Indiana University (1909)
Iowa State University (1958)
Michigan State University (1964)
The Ohio State University (1916)
The Pennsylvania State University (1958)
Purdue University (1958)
Rutgers University – New Brunswick (1989)
Stony Brook University – The State University of New York (2001)
Texas A&M University (2001)
University at Buffalo – The State University of New York (1989)
The University of Arizona (1985)
University of California, Davis (1966)
*University of California, Berkeley (1900)
University of California, Irvine (1966)
University of California, Los Angeles (1974)
University of California, San Diego (1982)
University of California, Santa Barbara (1995)
University of Colorado, Boulder (1966)
University of Florida (1985)
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (1908)
The University of Iowa (1909)
The University of Kansas (1909)
University of Maryland at College Park (1969)
*University of Michigan (1900)
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities (1908)
University of Missouri, Columbia (1908)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1922)
University of Oregon (1969)
University of Pittsburgh (1974)
The University of Texas at Austin (1929)
University of Virginia (1904)
University of Washington (1950)
*The University of Wisconsin – Madison (1900)
Private
Boston University (2012)
Brandeis University (1985)
Brown University (1933)
California Institute of Technology (1934)
Carnegie Mellon University (1982)
Case Western Reserve University (1969)
*Columbia University (1900)
*Cornell University (1900)
Duke University (1938)
Emory University (1995)
*Harvard University (1900)
*The Johns Hopkins University (1900)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1934)
New York University (1950)
Northwestern University (1917)
*Princeton University (1900)
Rice University (1985)
*Stanford University (1900)
Tulane University (1958)
*The University of Chicago (1900)
*University of Pennsylvania (1900)
University of Rochester (1941)
University of Southern California (1969)
Vanderbilt University (1950)
Washington University in St. Louis (1923)
*Yale University (1900)
Canadian
McGill University (1926)
University of Toronto (1926)
Yes this is a good starting point and there are many more that do good research (and of course there are just a couple of LAC’s, as the organization favors larger universities). Having said that, the universities above have met fairly rigorous requirements to join a fairly exclusive organization that values research. They also kick universities out that fail to meet their standards for research, most recently the University of Nebraska.
This is biased to large universities. Certainly there are smaller schools (like Harvey Mudd) that are actually better than many in this list. Plus, the undergrad research experience definitely isn’t great at all these schools.
I think that this is a list of very good universities.
There are other very good universities that I might prefer to some of the ones on this list such as Harvey Mudd, UBC, McMaster, Waterloo,… The company that I am retired from hires plenty of CS majors from UMass Amherst. There are of course many other universities that some might argue are just as good, and it might depend upon one’s intended major and personal preferences.
The nice thing about this list is that it gives a wide range of very good research universities, from the most difficult to get into, to those that many will have a better chance of admittance.
I’ve never understood the fascination with research universities for undergraduate studies. The VAST majority of the research being conducted is being done by doctoral candidates, often forced to teach undergrads as part of their funding. Many of the schools on the list have reputations for giant lectures and TAs with limited command of English who are not trained to teach. My son’s school, Cal Poly, which does not have a doctoral program, is FAR better for undergraduate education than my school, proudly displayed on the list, was.
Every list has its shortcomings, this is in no way an end all or be all list, but many posters come here to find a starting point, and many of them are into research.
Cal Poly…didn’t know all the courses are taught by professors.
Research dollars isn’t a great measure. Because the research is being done mostly by grad students at those colleges. An undergrad sometimes can get some research experience, but a lot of the time they aren’t working directly with a prof (working with grad students). And often research is tough to get as a frosh or even sophomore. Smaller schools that don’t have grad schools often can offer opportunities sooner and more responsibility because there are no grad students to help the profs.
Go to a research university for grad school. But it isn’t necessarily the best choice for undergrad.
This is definitely a great list … if you want to get a PhD, and don’t know where to start. I would bet that most of the tenure-track professors at 4-year college and universities in the US got their doctoral degrees from one of these schools. As a first approximation, these are the US schools that prospective PhD candidates should be targeting, although there may be specific programs at unlisted schools that are also worthy of serious consideration.
But for undergraduate studies? Not so much. Anyone who thinks that a bachelor’s degree from (say) SUNY-Buffalo, Arizona, or Iowa State will open more doors than a bachelor’s degree from (say) Dartmouth, Georgetown, or Harvey Mudd is going to be in for a surprise. Then again, I doubt that anyone actually thinks that.
For the record, the correct name of this group is the “Association of American Universities (AAU)” – not the “American Association of Research Universities”.
Not all instructors are… faculty at CSUs may be tenure track professors (assistant, associated, full) or non-tenure-track lecturers (who may be full or part time).
I stand corrected, per @ucbalumnus, but it is indeed a matter of semantics. My son’s favorite teacher thus far, is indeed a Full Time Lecturer, and he makes that well known if ever addressed as Professor (sort of like a Master Sargent being called Sir :D). He does though have a PhD in Mechanical Engineering. What you won’t find are graduate students teaching any facet of the undergraduate curriculum, with the exception of voluntary tutoring sessions. Compare that to Berkeley where they typically have 60+ TAs in Mechanical Engineering alone (that’s not to pick on UCB, all big research institutions are the same, it’s just the one that I had the stats from via ASEE).
I think it’s a perfectly fine list for someone to start with. Like ABET certification, it indicates a minimum standard met by all members.
Naturally LACs are missing from a list of members of the Association of American Universities. That doesn’t mean they’re not perfectly good places for studying the sciences, and it would be helpful for someone to compile a list of research-intensive LACs. There is at least one thread per week about computer science programs at LACs.
Given that the overwhelming majority of students going to graduate school come from universities - 2/3 of those receiving PhDs last year did their undergrads at a doctoral university - I think providing a starting point for students interested in universities is not at all a bad thing.
Obviously no one would suggest the AAU list contains a definitive list of the best programs in STEM. Note that Chicago, UNC Chapel Hill, and Emory are members but do not offer engineering, to cite only one example.
That is in good measure due to the fact that universities graduate more undergrads to begin with, and isn’t necessarily an indication that they provide superior preparation for entry to a PhD program.
Interestingly, several types of institutions produce exactly as many PhDs as you’d expect given their enrollments - high research activity universities, doctoral universities, and baccalaureate colleges. When it comes to very high research activity universities and master’s universities, however, the former overperforms and the latter underperforms.
Enrollment by institution type
[ul][]26.2% Very high research activity
[]12.9% High research activity
[]10.7% Doctoral university
[]33.6% Master’s university
[li]16.6% Baccalaureate college[/ul][/li]Source: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_317.40.asp (I excluded “special focus” colleges and CCs.)
Production of PhDs by undergrad institution type
[ul][]48.0% Very high research activity
[]14.2% High research activity
[]4.43% Doctoral university
[]18.0% Master’s university
[li]15.25% Baccalaureate college[/ul][/li]Source: WebCASPAR
The NSF noted precisely the same phenomenon in its 2013 study of PhD production.
Probably not a big surprise when considering the undergraduate admission selectivity and the mix of majors at very high research activity universities and master’s universities.
For example, in California, the UCs are very high research activity universities where most students are liberal arts majors (though they do offer more pre-professional majors like engineering majors, business, agriculture and natural resources majors). The CSUs are master’s universities where most students are in pre-professional majors and intend to enter the workforce upon graduation; they are also mostly less selective than the UCs. So it is no surprise that going on to PhD programs is more likely among UC students than CSU students.
This does not mean that a CSU student cannot go on to PhD study; it merely means that relatively few students do so, probably due to selection effects on the students (i.e. the CSUs attract mostly students who want to go to work after graduation).
This list omits not only Harvey Mudd and other LACs, but also Olin, Cooper Union, and some strong public technical institutes such as New Mexico Tech. Those omissions aside, it’s a pretty good list, maybe as much as an indicator of overall RU quality as of STEM strength in particular.
On the private side especially, it exposes pretty much the same set of schools you’ll see near the top of the USNWR, Forbes, or Kiplinger rankings. A PhD production ranking (either by absolute or per capita numbers) will show many of the same top schools. It includes most private universities that claim to meet 100% of demonstrated financial need; it includes few private universities that don’t. All eight Ivies are on it. 5 of the 8 original “public Ivies” are on it. It includes many state universities that, for engineering students especially, may represent a better balance of quality and value than the top 20-30 USNWR schools.
By and large, these are the richest universities in America. More money pays for bigger/better labs and libraries, higher faculty salaries, better financial aid. Better stuff attracts more distinguished faculty and stronger students from all over the country. All that attracts more grant money. Etc., etc. So, many of these universities will show up on any reasonable list of top 100 colleges. Add ~30 LACs, a few technical institutes, maybe some strong regional/masters universities, and you’d have an even better ~100 college starting point for strong STEM students.
@tk21769 not quite all the Ivies, Dartmouth is not a member.
@warblersrule “Obviously no one would suggest the AAU list contains a definitive list of the best programs in STEM. Note that Chicago, UNC Chapel Hill, and Emory are members but do not offer engineering, to cite only one example.”
While most of us think Engineering when talking STEM, it is actually Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. The schools above are very strong in Science and Math.
Back to my original point, in what way does producing high level doctoral level research lead to high quality UNDERGRADUATE education. Don’t cite the outcomes. Cite the leading indicators you believe create the effect.
Personally, for many of the schools in the list, I believe the correlation has nothing to do with causation. It’s a self perpetuating phenomenon based on list based reputation. That attracts high level students and they succeed in spite of the less than ideal educational arrangements those schools present them (giant classes with instructors given no training or incentive for quality teaching).