<p>Though still not finalized, plans are underway for the Princeton Neuroscience Institute to become a reality by 2011.</p>
<pre><code>First announced two years ago, the institute will cost an estimated $450 million with the construction of new facilities, the creation of endowed professorships and the expansion of the undergraduate certificate program as well as the graduate and postgraduate programs.
</code></pre>
<p>***2005 Chronicle of Higher Education - Faculty Scholarly Ranking: NEUROSCIENCES</p>
<p>1 Yale U. 1.90
2 Vanderbilt U. 1.89
3 Johns Hopkins U. 1.78
4 Mayo Graduate School 1.71
5 U. of California at San Francisco 1.68
5 Duke U. 1.68
7 Brandeis U. 1.67
8 U. of California at Berkeley 1.58
9 U. of Pittsburgh 1.54
10 U. of Pennsylvania 1.51 </p>
<p>(Princeton not top 10)</p>
<p>***National Research Council Faculty Quality Ranking: NEUROSCIENCE</p>
<p>1 (tie). University of California-San Diego 8.6 4.8
1 (tie). Yale University 8.6 4.8
3. Harvard University 8.1 4.7
3. University of California-San Francisco 8.1 4.7
5. Columbia University in the City of New York 7.6 4.6
5. Stanford University 7.6 4.6
7. Johns Hopkins University 7.2 4.5
8. Washington University in St Louis 6.7 4.4
9. California Institute of Technology 6.2 4.3
9. University of California-Berkeley 6.2 4.3
9. University of Pennsylvania 6.2 4.3
9. University of Washington-Seattle Campus 6.2 4.3
13. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5.8 4.2
13. Rockefeller University 5.8 4.2
15. University of California-Los Angeles 4.4 3.9
16. Baylor College of Medicine 3.9 3.8
16. Brandeis University 3.9 3.8
16. Case Western Reserve University 3.9 3.8
16. Duke University 3.9 3.8
16. University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 3.9 3.8
21. University of California-Irvine (Psychobiology, School of Arts and Sciences) 3.5 3.7
22. Cornell University 3.0 3.6
22. Northwestern University 3.0 3.6
22. University of Chicago 3.0 3.6
22. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 3.0 3.6
22. University of Wisconsin-Madison 3.0 3.6
22. Yeshiva University 3.0 3.6
28. Emory University 2.5 3.5
28. Stony Brook University 2.5 3.5
28. University of Iowa 2.5 3.5
28. University of Oregon 2.5 3.5
28. University of Virginia-Main Campus 2.5 3.5
28. Vanderbilt University 2.5 3.5
34. Mayo School of Health Related Sciences 2.1 3.4
34. University of California-Irvine (Anatomy and Neurobiology, School of Medicine) 2.1 3.4
34. University of Colorado at Boulder 2.1 3.4
34. University of Minnesota-Twin Cities 2.1 3.4
34. University of Pittsburgh-Main Campus (Behavioral Neuroscience, School of Arts and Sciences) 2.1 3.4
34. University of Southern California 2.1 3.4
34. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas 2.1 3.4
41. Colorado State University 1.6 3.3
41. The University of Texas Medical Branch 1.6 3.3
41. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 1.6 3.3
41. University of Pittsburgh-Main Campus (Neurobiology/Anatomy/Cell Biology, School of Medicine) 1.6 3.3
41. University of Rochester 1.6 3.3
46. Rutgers University-New Brunswick/Piscataway 1.1 3.2
46. University of Arizona 1.1 3.2
48. Georgetown University 0.7 3.1
48. The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston 0.7 3.1
48. The University of Texas at Austin 0.7 3.1
48. University of Connecticut (Neuroscience, School of Arts and Sciences) 0.7 3.1
52. Brown University 0.2 3.0
52. Drexel University 0.2 3.0
52. New York University 0.2 3.0
52. Ohio State University-Main Campus 0.2 3.0
52. The University of Tennessee Health Science Center 0.2 3.0
57. Baylor University 0.0 3.0*
57. Bowling Green State University-Main Campus 0.0 3.0*
57. Dartmouth College 0.0 3.0*
57. Florida Atlantic University 0.0 3.0*
57. Indiana University-Bloomington 0.0 3.0*
57. Iowa State University 0.0 3.0*
57. Louisina State University Health Sciences Center at New Orleans 0.0 3.0*
57. Loyola University Chicago 0.0 3.0*
57. Marquette University 0.0 3.0*
57. Mayo Graduate School 0.0 3.0*
57. Medical College of Georgia 0.0 3.0*
57. Medical College of Wisconsin 0.0 3.0*
57. Medical University of South Carolina 0.0 3.0*
57. Mount Sinai School of Medicine 0.0 3.0*
57. Oregon Health & Science University 0.0 3.0*
57. Princeton University 0.0 3.0*
57. Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science 0.0 3.0*
57. SUNY Health Science Center at Syracuse 0.0 3.0*
57. Saint Louis University-Main Campus 0.0 3.0*
57. Temple University 0.0 3.0*
57. Texas A & M University 0.0 3.0*
57. The University of Texas at Dallas 0.0 3.0*
57. Tulane University of Louisiana 0.0 3.0*
57. University of Alabama at Birmingham 0.0 3.0*
57. University of California-Davis 0.0 3.0*
57. University of California-Riverside 0.0 3.0*
57. University of Cincinnati-Main Campus 0.0 3.0*
57. University of Colorado Health Sciences Center 0.0 3.0*
57. University of Delaware 0.0 3.0*
57. University of Houston 0.0 3.0*
57. University of Illinois at Chicago 0.0 3.0*
57. University of Kansas Main Campus 0.0 3.0*
57. University of Kentucky 0.0 3.0*
57. University of Maryland-Baltimore 0.0 3.0*
57. University of Maryland-Baltimore County 0.0 3.0*
57. University of Maryland-College Park 0.0 3.0*
57. University of Massachusetts Medical School Worcester 0.0 3.0*
57. University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey 0.0 3.0*
57. University of Nebraska Medical Center 0.0 3.0*
57. University of North Texas 0.0 3.0*
57. University of South Florida 0.0 3.0*
57. University of Utah 0.0 3.0*
57. University of Vermont 0.0 3.0*
57. Virginia Commonwealth University 0.0 3.0*
57. Washington State University 0.0 3.0*
57. Weill Cornell Medical College 0.0 3.0*
57. Wesleyan University 0.0 3.0*
57. West Virginia University 0.0 3.0*
57. Wright State University-Main Campus 0.0 3.0*
106. Rutgers University-Newark -0.3 2.9
106. Tufts University -0.3 2.9
106. University of Connecticut (Neurological Sciences, School of Medicine) -0.3 2.9
109. University of Florida -0.7 2.8
109. University of Massachusetts-Amherst -0.7 2.8
109. Wake Forest University -0.7 2.8
112. Florida State University -1.2 2.7
113. MCP Hahnemann University -1.7 2.6
113. Michigan State University -1.7 2.6
115. Pennsylvania State University-Main Campus -2.1 2.5
115. SUNY Health Science Center at Brooklyn -2.1 2.5
115. SUNY at Buffalo (School of Medicine) -2.1 2.5
115. Wayne State University -2.1 2.5
119. CUNY Graduate School and University Center -2.6 2.4
119. Syracuse University -2.6 2.4
121. Purdue University-Main Campus -3.1 2.3
122. SUNY at Albany -3.5 2.2
122. SUNY at Buffalo (Biological Sciences, School of Arts and Sciences) -3.5 2.2
122. Uniformed Services University of the Health Sci -3.5 2.2
125. Albany Medical College -4.0 2.1
125. University of Miami -4.0 2.1
127. George Washington University -4.5 2.0
127. Kent State University-Kent Campus -4.5 2.0
129. Medical University of Ohio at Toledo -4.9 1.9
129. University of Missouri-Columbia -4.9 1.9
129. University of Oklahoma Norman Campus -4.9 1.9
132. Ohio University-Main Campus -5.4 1.8
133. University of Louisville -5.9 1.7
134. Georgia State University -6.8 1.5
135. Loma Linda University -8.2 1.2
136. Montana State University-Bozeman -9.1 1.0
137. Kansas State University -9.6 0.9
138. University of California-Santa Barbara -10.1 0.8
139. Boston University -10.5 0.7
139. Clark University -10.5 0.7
139. Texas Woman's University -10.5 0.7
142. University of Puerto Rico-Rio Piedras Campus -11.0 0.6
143. Northern Arizona University -11.5 0.5
144. Miami University-Oxford -11.9 0.</p>
<p>So why does Yale have the reputation of being bad for sciences at the undergraduate level?</p>
<p>When people say Yale is weak in the sciences, they are talking only about the hard physical sciences and engineering, and they are often comparing it to schools like Stanford, which are very strong in this area. Yale's physical sciences are very good compared to most universities in the country - just not as good as the very top schools and not as good as it's own other departments, especially those in arts and humanities, which they are famous for. Princeton and Harvard, and of course, Cal Tech are stronger in the physical sciences, but Yale's department is still very good.</p>
<p>In the biological sciences, Yale has an outstanding reputation- as good as any top school. (just ask all the pre-meds you find there!) It doesn't surprise me at all that Yale has the most well-regarded neuroscience faculty.</p>
<p>This thread is not about Yale. However, since you asked, Yale and Caltech actually have the strongest undergraduate science and engineering programs in the country. </p>
<p>Of course, Caltech and Yale are both a little smaller than say, Stanford or Berkeley, particularly at the graduate level (i.e., fewer Ph.D. students in general) so they may not be as well-known as Yale's "best-in-world" Drama School or something, but they are better on a per-student basis.</p>
<p>See a more detailed post on the subject here:</p>
<p>Balderdash. Harvard is better than you even.:)</p>
<p>Well, posterX, a few corrections are called for in your posts.</p>
<p>To begin, the answer to your question “Will the new Institute help Princeton move up from its #57 spot in the rankings?” is almost certainly, yes. </p>
<p>Neuroscience is a NEW field for Princeton, whereas it is a well-established one at Yale thus explaining (but then you already knew this didn’t you) why Princeton is not currently ranked highly on these lists. I suspect that Princeton’s development in this field will be quite rapid given the University’s commitment to it.</p>
<p>I hope that in the future you'll be more careful with your citations. The first ranking you are citing is NOT produced by the Chronicle of Higher Education as you seem to suggest in your first post. This survey is the work of a private company and the results were simply reported in the Chronicle without endorsement by them. </p>
<p>The survey is, in fact, controversial and is not universally accepted as authoritative. It was the work of a private company called Academic Analytics of which the State University at Stony Brook is a partial owner. These are rankings not of the overall reputation or quality of particular departments, but of something the authors call the “Faculty Scholarly Productivity,” essentially a measure of how frequently faculty members appear in print or are cited. </p>
<p>To its credit, The Chronicle of Higher Education wrote what appears to be a fairly balanced examination of the work of this company. You’ll see that there is some praise (mostly from universities paying $30,000.00 a year for company’s services) but also some withering criticism of the techniques that have led to some very curious results such as the following in their ranking of English departments.</p>
<p>(from the Chronicle’s article)</p>
<p>“But a close look at other data in the index has some college officials raising their eyebrows. The University of Georgia's No. 2 ranking in English, for instance, has caused some scoffing. Say you have an exceptionally bright undergraduate poised to enter graduate school in English, says one university administrator who did not want to be named: "Would you really recommend the person attend the University of Georgia? It's where this unidimensional figure gets out of touch."</p>
<p>Now, as an advocate for Princeton, which is ranked #1 in English by this study, you might find it odd that I should criticize the company’s system. Look, however, at the top ten universities for English. I won’t quibble with the University of Georgia’s rank at #2, but neither Yale, nor Harvard ranks even in the top ten. (I suspect posterX that you’ll find some reason to dismiss this particular ranking as it applies to Yale!) Both Yale and Harvard are widely known to have outstanding English departments and it simply doesn’t make sense that neither would make even the top ten. The problem is in what is being measured and how it’s being measured.</p>
<p>Another example will be found here, where, in Philosophy, Princeton is tied for second and Harvard and Yale (again, both known for being powerhouses in this area) don’t make the top ten.</p>
<p>Here is the article in the Chronicle that reviews the company’s work:</p>
<p><a href="http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i19/19a00801.htm%5B/url%5D">http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i19/19a00801.htm</a> = Chronicle article evaluating Academic Analytics</p>
<p>The real “gold standard” for this kind of evaluation is done by the National Research Council to which you refer in the second part of your post. Unfortunately, their last study is from 1995 and the new one that was supposed to be out in 2005 has been delayed and may not appear until 2008. You might have noted to your readers that Yale’s neuroscience department was already in operation in 1995 while such a concentration did not even exist at Princeton. (It’s a little difficult to rank something that doesn’t exist.) Here is a link to a summary of the 1995 report.</p>
<p>In that study, Yale still ranks second in neuroscience but, contrary to your previous post, did not do well in the physical sciences.</p>
<p>Overall graduate department faculty rankings in different disciplines were as follows in that study:</p>
<p>Physical Sciences and Mathematics</p>
<ol>
<li> Berkeley</li>
<li> MIT and Caltech tied</li>
<li> Harvard and Princeton tied</li>
<li> Cornell</li>
</ol>
<p>Biological Sciences</p>
<ol>
<li> UCSF</li>
<li> MIT and UCSD tied</li>
<li> Harvard, Stanford and Yale tied</li>
<li> Berkeley</li>
</ol>
<p>Arts and Humanities</p>
<ol>
<li> Berkeley</li>
<li> Princeton</li>
<li> Harvard</li>
<li> Columbia</li>
<li> Cornell and Yale tied</li>
</ol>
<p>Universities with Highest Number of “Distinguished” Programs</p>
<ol>
<li> Berkeley (32 programs)</li>
<li> Stanford (28 programs)</li>
<li> Harvard (25 programs)</li>
<li> Princeton (24 programs)</li>
<li> MIT (20 programs)</li>
<li> Cornell (19 programs)</li>
<li> Yale (19 programs)</li>
</ol>
<p>So…be careful “what you wish for” with these rankings and please avoid misleading readers by not citing sources accurately. If you want to call the Academic Analytics study authoritative, you’ll need to accept some pretty low rankings for Yale in many areas. (I’m going to bet you’ll want to discard those particular rankings.) </p>
<p>If you’re supporting use of the more widely-respected National Research Council rankings it would be fair of you to point out that Princeton didn’t have a neuroscience program at the time those rankings were compiled. You’ll also need to be accepting of the remainder of those pesky NRC rankings!</p>
<p>PtonGrad2000: is there an updated version of the NRC rankings? While I find them interesting, 1995 is ancient history in Penn years (in the holy penn revolutionary calendar 1995 is year 1AR)</p>
<p>"AR" of course being "After Rodin," the arrival of our saintly Judith Rodin who would rule with an iron fist from 1994-2004. Truly our Charlemagne in a pantsuit.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The National Research Council has launched its latest project to assess U.S. research doctorate programs. Like previous efforts in 1983 and 1995, the new study is designed to: help universities improve the quality of these programs through benchmarking; provide potential students and the public with accessible, readily available information on doctoral programs nationwide; and enhance the nation's overall research capacity. Data collection for the study began during the week of July 24, 2006, and final data will be available in late 2007.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>[url=<a href="http://www7.nationalacademies.org/resdoc/%5DSource%5B/url">http://www7.nationalacademies.org/resdoc/]Source[/url</a>].</p>
<p>You're totally off topic. The rankings are what they are - I was just wondering if the University has ambitions to move up from its #57 spot. They'll need more than just a new building in 2011, they will also need to hire faculty, pay for their research or get grants, and plan to build another new building pretty soon to keep up with all the top ranked programs that are also spending a billion dollars on new science buildings.</p>
<p>As far as your claims regarding physical sciences go, I think you're a little off now - for example, in chemistry, Chronicle's Faculty Scholarly Index 2005 ranks Harvard and Yale as the top two chemistry programs in the nation. Part of this is that Harvard and Yale have recently built new chemistry buildings and have been poaching faculty from other schools you mentioned. They also do very well in engineering -- for example, Yale ranks #4 in the country in electrical engineering and #3 in the country, after Caltech and Berkeley, in mechanical engineering. A totally separate survey by ISI/Sciencewatch placed Yale at #1 in engineering in the U.S. overall and Harvard was also in the top five (see sciencewatch.com). Of course, if you are basing your opinions on prejudice, you may not recognize changes in the past 10 years in the academic pecking order.</p>
<p>Oh my, posterX, where should I start?</p>
<p>You seem not to have understood my previous post (which was simply an effort to correct yours). Rather than bore the other readers here, why dont you PM me and Ill be happy to explain again.</p>
<p>Here are the salient points.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>No one is disputing that Yale has a strong neuroscience program. This thread was intended to discuss Princetons initiatives in this area, not to compare them to Yales which is something you seemed to want to do.</p></li>
<li><p>Princetons institute is just now being created and thus a discussion of rankings in neuroscience would be totally irrelevant at this point.</p></li>
<li><p>You continue to refer to the Faculty Scholarly Index as something produced by the Chronicle of Higher Education. It is not associated with that well-respected publication. It is the work of a private company and is not universally respected.</p></li>
<li><p>If, however, you wish to assert that this Index IS a reliable measure of the quality of programs at different universities, then youll have to accept its very low rankings for your alma mater, Yale, in many areas where most people (including me) consider Yale to be strong.</p></li>
<li><p>Also, Im afraid youre misinterpreting the intentions of this private companys work. They were trying to assess the productivity of faculty members on a per capita basis. They were not trying to assess the relative strength of similar departments at different institutions. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Finally, its a little odd that you would be referring to my claims regarding physical sciences. These are not my claims at all. They are simply rankings from one of the two surveys you cited in your first post on this thread.</p>
<p>So I know you are very proud of Yale and that you mean well, but lets avoid referring to others as prejudiced and lets all strive to play fair in reporting surveys accurately and with the correct attributions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So…I know you are very proud of Yale
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually he doesn't even go to Yale. Traditionally when somebody is 'proud' of something he/she must be in some way associated with it.</p>
<p>It's like me saying I'm 'proud' of the Asian economic miracle when I am not Asian and had nothing to do with it. Just doesn't work.</p>
<p>So if posterx isn't proud, what is he/she? A fanboy?</p>
<p>JohnnyK, yes, 1995 IS ancient and its been disappointing that the National Research Council has not yet completed its new analysis which should have come out a couple of years ago. Its currently expected within the next year and undoubtedly there will be many changes since 1995! I see that GR has already provided a link.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So if posterx isn't proud, what is he/she? A fanboy?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have concrete evidence he works at Yale's admissions department</p>
<p>I would say that posterX has been, for lack of a better term, pwned.</p>
<p>posterX didn't just get pwned. He got pwn3d. ;)</p>
<p>the first $30 million is in:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S18/12/55I34/index.xml?section=topstories%5B/url%5D">http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S18/12/55I34/index.xml?section=topstories</a>
<a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/05/18/news/18516.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/05/18/news/18516.shtml</a></p>