Is the chemistry department at Tufts a good one?

<p>I was accepted to Tufts yesterday, and I am BEYOND excited. I am 99% sure that's where I'll end up. I just want to make sure that their chem program is reputable and will give me a good education/prepare me for grad school. Generally, the chemistry major is something that most top level schools teach well so I'm not worried, but I just wanted to double check. Thanks!</p>

<p>My son is a freshman. He’s planning to major in chemistry and get his certification. He took honors chemistry this year and loves it. He’s got to know some other professors in the department through his research. So far he’s very happy. I’m sure there are some not so great professors at Tufts just like at any other school.</p>

<p>I only took one chemistry class (Chem 2 w/ Sykes fall of freshman year) and thought it was pretty good. The only complaints you typically here are about the difficulty of the huge intro classes (lots of busy work in Chem 1) and of classes like Organic Chemistry (which is hard everywhere).</p>

<p>A friend of mine who graduated last spring is now in the PhD program at Stanford and got the opportunity to publish two papers before the end of his time at Tufts. Another friend is a first year in the PhD program at Caltech. I assume they were both well prepared.</p>

<p>I came to Tufts with two other students from my high school school. One of them was a Chem major, began doing research work in her first year, graduated and then took up a PhD at MIT. </p>

<p>I share her story because this isn’t like I’m thinking about the best chem major I know, just the chem major at Tufts I knew the longest. If you’re thinking about grad school, research experience should top your list of goals, and you’d be hard pressed to find another place with so much going on and so much opportunity to break in.</p>

<p>Dan, would you say that amazing grad school options such as this are common? Also, from your experience have you seen that options for undergrads in other sciences, like physics and bio, are often similar?</p>

<p>whoovian,</p>

<p>I have found that the Tufts grads who want to pursue advanced degrees get into very selective advanced degree programs. Getting into these programs is a function of good grades, good test scores and your research/internships. Since there are lots of people with good grades and test scores the differentiator is really research/internships. </p>

<p>To identify the best colleges for access to high quality undergrad education and research opportunities I use the “Carnegie Classification” and the tool on their website (to determine access to research) and the research citation number from the Times Higher Education Ranking to determine research quality (which is measured separately from quantity- which just tends to be a function of size) .</p>

<p>Here is the Carnegie classification I think results in the best access to research for undergrads seeking a healthy exposure to the liberal arts (you can choose another classification if you like):</p>

<p>Medium sized Arts and Science schools with some professional (i.e. access to engineering research as well as pure science research), undergrad focus, closely coupled grad school,and very high research.</p>

<p>The results of this search (in alphabetical order) are:</p>

<p>Princeton
Tufts
Rice </p>

<p><a href=“Carnegie Foundation Classifications”>Carnegie Foundation Classifications;

<p>If you add in a medical school (to provide access to medical research) you get (in alphabetical order)</p>

<p>Tufts</p>

<p><a href=“Carnegie Foundation Classifications”>Carnegie Foundation Classifications;

<p>From the TimesHigherEducation Ranking, I go to the academic specialty I am interested in and go “under the hood” and pull out the research citation number. I figure that any selective grad program is going to think highly of people doing influential research in their domain. Here is the description of this ranking parameter from their website:</p>

<p>CITATIONS: RESEARCH INFLUENCE (30%)
Our research influence indicator is the flagship. Weighted at 30 per cent of the overall score, it is the single most influential of the 13 indicators, and looks at the role of universities in spreading new knowledge and ideas.</p>

<p>Here are some Research Influence Rankings for The Physical Sciences (biology is not in this category):</p>

<p>Princeton 99.8
Harvard 99.2</p>

<p>UPenn 96.2
Columbia 96.1</p>

<p>Tufts 94.8
Yale 94.8
Brown 94.1</p>

<p>Cornell 91.8</p>

<p>Dartmouth 87</p>

<p>As an example, here is where I got the Tufts number
[World</a> University Rankings - World University Rankingsss - 2012-13 - Tufts University - Times Higher Education](<a href=“http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2012-13/world-ranking/institution/tufts-university]World”>Tufts University | World University Rankings | THE)</p>

<p>Here is a full explanation of the methodology
[The</a> essential elements in our world-leading formula - Times Higher Education](<a href=“http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2012-13/world-ranking/methodology]The”>World University Rankings 2012-13 | Times Higher Education (THE))</p>

<p>I think this helps explain why Tufts grads can get into such good grad schools. </p>

<p>If you think quantity of research (or some other parameter) is more important than quality, you can devise your own ranking.</p>

<p>The Carnegie classification method is also good for finding schools with similar attributes to a school that you like. Note that cultures and other attributes can be very different, but I still find the tool useful. Rice has always intrigued me, but I don’t know that much about it.</p>

<p>another attempt at posting the link</p>

<p><a href=“Carnegie Foundation Classifications”>Carnegie Foundation Classifications;

<p>[Carnegie</a> Classifications | Institution Profile](<a href=“Carnegie Foundation Classifications”>Carnegie Foundation Classifications)</p>

<p>The URL was too long, so I had to eliminate the search string. </p>

<p>To reproduce my results, click on the URL in the previous post and check all the boxes except “graduate instruction program” and then click on “find similar” . Repeat with all the boxes checked to add the med school.</p>

<p>Note that the “teaching” category in the Times ranking relates to teaching Phd students, not undergrads.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Is it me or international college rankings are too focused on grad school? Many people who use these rankings are interested in undergraduate teaching, too…</p>

<p>Thanks for the info Mastadon! I appreciate all that trouble you went through with the links and all; very cool date to see</p>

<p>Whoovian</p>

<p>Biology is tricky because it is quite broad and spans a couple of categories. For Clinical, Pre-Clinical and Health (i.e. Pre-Med), here are some numbers</p>

<p>Harvard 93.2
Tufts 93.2</p>

<p>UPenn 87.2
Columbia 87.1
Yale 85.1</p>

<p>Cornell 81.1
Northwestern 81.1</p>

<p>Brown - NR
Dartmouth –NR</p>

<p>This might explain why one of my friends (who is a prominent researcher at Harvard) speaks so effusively about Tufts pre-med program.</p>

<p>For biology related to general Life Sciences, Tufts apparently does not produce a sufficient quantity of research to qualify for the ratings. </p>

<p>In general, I tell people that if you like the culture/environment and can find a research project that excites you, then Tufts is a good match if you want to go on to grad school. </p>

<p>Due to the fact that we don’t have the breadth of research that the bigger universities have though, Tufts is not necessarily the best match for everybody’s interests.</p>

<p>Catria,</p>

<p>That is my opinion, but others can draw their own conclusions from reading the methodology. The assumption appears to be that undergrads benefit more from association with grad students than professors… </p>

<p>“The results of the survey with regard to teaching make up 15 per cent of the overall rankings score.
The teaching and learning category also employs a staff-to-student ratio (an institution’s total student numbers) as a simple (and admittedly crude) proxy for teaching quality.
The proxy suggests that where there is a healthy ratio of students to staff, the former will get the personal attention they require from the institution’s faculty.
This measure is worth 4.5 per cent of the overall ranking score.
The teaching category also examines the ratio of doctoral to bachelor’s degrees awarded by each institution.
We believe that institutions with a high density of research students are more knowledge-intensive and that the presence of an active postgraduate community is a marker of a research-led teaching environment valued by undergraduates and postgraduates alike.
The doctorate-to-bachelor’s ratio is worth 2.25 per cent of the overall ranking score.
The teaching category also uses data on the number of doctorates awarded by an institution, scaled against its size as measured by the number of academic staff it employs.
As well as giving a sense of how committed an institution is to nurturing the next generation of academics, a high proportion of postgraduate research students also suggests the provision of teaching at the highest level that is thus attractive to graduates and effective at developing them.
Undergraduates also tend to value working in a rich environment that includes postgraduates. This indicator is normalised to take account of a university’s unique subject mix, reflecting the different volume of doctoral awards in different disciplines, and makes up 6 per cent of overall scores.
The final indicator in the category is a simple measure of institutional income scaled against academic staff numbers.
This figure, adjusted for purchasing-power parity so that all nations may compete on a level playing field, indicates the general status of an institution and gives a broad sense of the infrastructure and facilities available to students and staff. This measure is worth 2.25 per cent overall.”</p>

<p>Holy good god. Um… Yes. That.</p>

<p>Now for a controversial idea.</p>

<p>It could be argued that the teaching index in this ranking is actually inversely proportional
to undergraduate teaching quality. Why not just turn the index around and assume low numbers are better when you want to use this ranking methodology to assess the teaching aspects of undergrad programs at research universities? </p>

<p>Aren’t engineers annoying? They are obsessed with taking things apart to try to understand how they work, then trying to invent something better…</p>

<p>This information is very helpful.</p>

<p>Does anyone know how difficult it is to major in chemistry, get ACS certification, and have another major/minor? And be a pre-med. And what is the usefulness of ACS certification?</p>

<p>Here is some info:</p>

<p><a href=“http://chem.virginia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/why-should-i-seek-an-acs.pdf[/url]”>http://chem.virginia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/why-should-i-seek-an-acs.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://chem.tufts.edu/undergraduate/2013_chemistry_changes.pdf[/url]”>http://chem.tufts.edu/undergraduate/2013_chemistry_changes.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/graduate-school/541777-american-chemical-society-certified-bs-chemistry-degree-worth.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/graduate-school/541777-american-chemical-society-certified-bs-chemistry-degree-worth.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The only component of the teaching score that actually correlates somewhat with undergraduate teaching is the student-to-staff ratio.</p>