NRC PhD Rankings Revised

Graduate School
1

<p>NRC Rankings were revised in April 2011. </p>

<p>"The NRC’s revisions corrected four types of errors in its original report: (1) undercounting first-year students awarded full financial aid; (2) undercounting new graduates who find employment in academia; (3) undercounting faculty honors and awards; and (4) faulty data for nonhumanities faculty’s 2002 publications and consequent errors in citation counts."</p>

<h1>PhD Programs Placed in Top 10:</h1>

<p>Berkeley - 48
Harvard - 47
Stanford - 40
Michigan - 40</p>

<h1>PhD Programs Placed in Top 5:</h1>

<p>Berkeley - 43
Harvard - 40
Stanford - 30</p>

<h1>PhD Programs with Upper Range Including #1:</h1>

<p>Harvard - 19
Berkeley - 16
Stanford - 11
Columbia - 5
MIT- 5
Michigan - 5
Princeton - 5
Yale - 5</p>

<p>National</a> Research Council ranks UC Berkeley?s Ph.D. programs among nation?s best</p>

2

<h1>PhD Programs Placed in Top 10:</h1>

<p>Berkeley - 48
Harvard - 47
Stanford - 40
Michigan - 40</p>

<p>Now this makes sense!</p>

3

<p>in b4 RML discovers this thread</p>

4

<p>Ghostt, this is clearly for PhD programs, in which Berkeley is widely known and accepted to belong to the upper echelon of the world’s best institutions. On this level, Berkeley stands side-by side with other world’s finest schools such as Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton, Yale, Michigan, Columbia and Oxbridge. In this top world where Berkeley sits in, Reed is almost nonexistence. LOL … That’s why if you’ve noticed, I rarely participate in such discussions, because doing so would only be redundant and boring… It’s like trying to reinforce the fact that Bill Gates is super rich or our planet earth is spherical instead of flat. lol</p>

5

<p>I’m saying don’t try to be personal with other members of this forum and try to resort to ad hominem.</p>

6

<p>making the obviously correct prediction that you would be on this like white on rice =/= ad hominem</p>

<p><a href=“http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html[/url]”>http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I’m sorry if my observation insulted you.</p>

7

<p>I don’t understand what you’re saying Ghostt, but I think you - a Reed supporter – shouldn’t be on this thread and shouldn’t be flame-baiting other members of this forum.</p>

8

<p>Did anyone actually go to the report? I find virtually no LACs listed in the database so I wonder at its accuracy.</p>

9

<p>^ Virtually no LACs grant PhDs, correct?</p>

10

<p>Is that based on the R column rankings? If so Wisconsin had 6 programs with 1 in the range and 36 in the Top 10 range. Not too shabby either. Meanwhile highly ranked UVa had cough cough, 7 with 1 in the #1 range. UCLA 35 top 10 and 3 #1s. Cornell 31 and 4.
UMinn 18 and 1. UNC 26 and 1. Illinois 26 and 2. UFla 9 and 1. Umd 20 and 1. UT-Austin 29 and 3. Penn 28 and 4. Duke 17 and 2.</p>

11

<p>^ Barrons, I don’t know if it’s R or S methodology, but since this is a Berkeley report, assume it’s the methodology favoring Berkeley. ;)</p>

<h1>PhD Programs Placed in Top 10:</h1>

<p>Berkeley - 48
Harvard - 47
Stanford - 40
Michigan - 40
Wisconsin - 36
UCLA - 35
Cornell - 31
UT-Austin - 29
Penn - 28
UNC - 26
UIUC - 26
UMD - 20
UMN-TC - 18
UF - 9
UVA - 7</p>

<h1>PhD Programs with Upper Range Including #1:</h1>

<p>Harvard - 19
Berkeley - 16
Stanford - 11
Wisconsin - 6
Columbia - 5
MIT- 5
Michigan - 5
Princeton - 5
Yale - 5
Cornell - 4
Penn - 4
UCLA - 3
UT-Austin - 3
UIUC - 2
UMN-TC - 1
UNC - 1
UF - 1
UMD - 1
UVA - 1</p>

12

<p>Works for me.</p>

<p>A few more–UWash 23 and 2. Wash U 11 and 1. USC (CA) 9 and 1.</p>

13

<p>UCBChemEGrad, </p>

<p>The “# PhD Programs with Upper Range Including #1” for Columbia, MIT, Michigan, Princeton, and Yale should be 7 each, not 5.</p>

14

<p>

</p>

<p>What I’ve never understood about the NRC is what exactly defines a “PhD program”? Specifically, why are certain departments counted as only 1 “program” whereas others are counted multiple times? Why do MCB:Biochemistry/Molecular Biology, MCB: Cell&Developmental Biology, MCB:Genetics/Genomics/Development, and MCB:Immunology each count as 4 separate “programs” but, say, economics as a whole only counts as 1? What’s stopping anybody from splitting economics into separate PhD programs such as Econ:Micro, Econ:Macro, Econ:Behavioral/Experimental, Econ:Econometrics for the purposes of the NRC?</p>

15

<p>UCBChem, Doh! After the Reed/UCB teeth gnashing I was trying to check % of undergrads getting PhDs.</p>

16

<p>sakky–for one they only rate programs with multiple schools having that same major.</p>

17

<p>

</p>

<p>Really? How many schools actually have a “MCB:Immunology” or MCB:Cell/Developmental-Biology major specifically? Even Berkeley doesn’t have those majors; immunology and CDB are ‘emphases’ within the MCB major proper. But every MCB major, regardless of emphasis, will all receive the same degree. </p>

<p>So by that logic, why doesn’t every major with multiple sub-categories each count as a separate PhD “program”? Chemical Engineering at Berkeley has 4 different “concentrations” (i.e. Biotech, chem processing, etc.) Surely plenty of other schools with chemical engineering programs offer similar ‘concentrations’. Why doesn’t each one of them count as a “program”?</p>

18

<p>What is the difference between R and S methodology?</p>

19

<p>Because Sakky, not everyone is as interested as you are in looking for angles. Only something like 70 areas actually get ranked. That’s not unusual. </p>

<p>I think R is faculty reputation and S is effectiveness of PhD training. More or less</p>

20

<p>All I’m saying is that for a dependent variable to be meaningful - i.e. the # of PhD “programs” in the top X - there should be some agreed-upon way to actually reliably measure that variable. </p>

<p>Like I said, what exactly is the definition of a “program”? How do you measure that? If we don’t know, then any discussion regarding the total number of “programs” any school may have is difficult to interpret.</p>