measure faculty distinction for HYPSMCB

College Search & Selection
1

<p>B = Berkeley.</p>

<h1>National medal of science:</h1>

<p>1) Harvard (33 winners)
2) Stanford (30 winners)
3) Berkeley (24 winners)
4) Caltech (22 winners)
5) MIT (20 winners)
6) Princeton (17 winners)
7) Yale (8 winners)</p>

<h1>Nobel prize:</h1>

<p>1) Harvard (30 winners)
2) Stanford (16 winners)
2) Caltech (16 winners)
2) MIT (16 winners)
5) Berkeley (14 winners)
6) Princeton (10 winners)
7) Yale (5 winners)</p>

<h1>Wolf prize</h1>

<p>1) Berkeley (9 winners)
2) Stanford (7 winners)
2) Caltech (7 winners)
4) Harvard (6 winners)
4) Princeton (6 winners)
6) MIT (2 winners)
6) Yale (2 winners)</p>

<h1>membership in National academy of science:</h1>

<p>1) Harvard (158 members)
2) Berkeley (130 members)
3) Stanford (125)
4) MIT (104)
5) Princeton (70)
6) Caltech (68)
7) Yale (65)</p>

<h1>membership in National academy of engineering:</h1>

<p>1) MIT (108)
2) Stanford (86)
3) Berkeley (74)
4) Caltech(30)
5) Princeton (20)
6) Harvard (15)
7) Yale (6)</p>

<p>Average rank:
Harvard=(1+1+4+1+6)/5=2.6
Stanford=(2+2+2+3+2)/5=2.2
Berkeley=(3+5+1+2+3)/5=2.8
MIT=(5+2+6+4+1)/5=3.6
Caltech=(4+2+2+6+4)/5=3.6
Princeton=(6+6+6+4+5)/5=5.4
Yale=(7+7+6+7+7)/5=6.8</p>

<p>Tier 1: H S B
Tier 2: M C
Tier 3: P Y</p>

2

<p>Maybe it would be better to divide all those numbers by the size of the student body...and maybe consider including some non-science awards</p>

<p>Look at your results, the first tier is comprised of the largest schools there. CPY are the smallest and it is of little surprise then that they take up the last places. If you normalize that data for the size of the student body or at least the size of the faculty, then I am sure Princeton and Caltech will move up considerably and Berkeley will fall.</p>

3

<p>It also might be worth adding statistics for Columbia as it is the 2nd smallest Ivy and is arguably one of the best faculties of any school in the world.</p>

4

<p>Don't forget chicago there buddy: 78 Nobels</p>

5

<p>Well, the way Chicago claimed that 78 is different from how Stanford counted their 16. Please note the difference in the way different schools claim Nobels.</p>

6

<p>also note that this is not a measure of undergraduate faculty distinction. These are research awards, not teaching awards. There are national awards for excellence in teaching, why dont you use those as a measure? are you only concerned with how well other smart people respect your professor, or are you also concerned with how well you can respect your professor for taking time and being good at teaching you material?</p>

7

<p>If most of the awards are for research it will not do much for you as a lowly undergrad as many of these professors are most likely not teaching undergrad but are probably working with PhD students. The chance of having this person as a freshman is pretty nil. Their time and efforts will continue to be on conducting research that bring $$ to the college and writing for books/ journals. So yes I have to agree with TheCity on this one as an undergrad one should look for someone who has obtained excellence in teaching.</p>

8

<p>Stop adding new letters. College excellence is a zero sum game, and not every college can be great. In order to have the really good ones, some of them have to be "mediocre" within context of all others. For example, I have no doubt that state schools offer better educations today than Harvard did 200 years ago. However, in relational terms some schools have to be "bad" in order for others to be "good." Therefore, not every college can reach HYPSMC status no matter how fast they improve. The acronym can never be HYPSMCCCPSODIUDJISHFUHADFI. </p>

<p>So let's end it at HYPSMC and leave it at that.</p>

9

<p>In terms of faculty size, it should be like
Harvard > Berkeley > Yale > Stanford > MIT > Princeton > Caltech.
So if you divide the total faculty distinction by the size of faculty to create an ratio: distinction per faculty, Caltech will be the best without any doubt, Stanford/MIT/Princeton may fall in 2nd tier. Harvard/Berkeley will be in 3rd tier. Yale remains at the bottom.</p>

<p>As for acedemic reputation, I think Berkeley is definetly on par with Harvard, Stanford, and MIT, at least more so than Yale.</p>

10

<p>Wow, you are a genius. He was measuring strength of the science faculty in these schools , and it makes more sense to write HYPSMCB instead of HYPSMC + Berkeley, since whether you like it or not Berkeley is, in fact, a top science school.</p>

11

<p>Yeah, but as an underagrad are you even going to come within 1000 feet of any of these "distinct" professors? Especially at C-Berk or Harvard?</p>

<p>Profs at such places as Williams, Swarthmore or Amherst are just as good if not as famous and do their research with undergrads ONLY.</p>

12

<p>Nobody said anything about undergrad</p>