<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>