<p>can someone do me a favor and list out the top twenty schools that have the best biology undergrad program in the book Gourman Report? My local library doesn't carry the book and I don't want to buy it on Amazon.</p>
<p>Biology rankings from Gourman Report
Caltech
MIT
Yale
Harvard
Wisconsin
UC San Diego
UC Berkeley
U Colorado
Columbia
Stanford
U Washington
U Chicago
Duke
Wash U St Louis
UCLA
U Michigan
Cornell
U Penn
Purdue
Indiana U
UNC Chapel Hill
U Utah
Johns Hopkins
Northwestern
Princeton
UC Irvine
Notre Dame
UC Santa Barbara
UVA
Brown
U Illinois Urbana Champaign
U Pittsburgh
Vanderbilt
U Oregon
SUNY Stony Brook
U Rochester
Tufts
U Minnesota
SUNY Buffalo
U Texas Austin
Florida State
Michigan State
USC
U Connecticut
UC Riverside
Rice
Iowa State
SUNY Albany
Case Western
Boston U
Ohio State
NYU
U Iowa
Penn State
Emory
Brandeis
U Kansas
Rutgers New Brunswick
Tulane
US Air Force Academy
U Missouri Columbia</p>
<p>LACs for bio from Rugg's
Amherst
Bowdoin
Bryn Mawr
Bucknell
Carleton
Claremont McKenna
Colby
Colgate
Colorado C
Dickinson
Franklin & Marshall
Gettysburg
Hamilton
Harvey Mudd
Haverford
Holy Cross
Kalamazoo
kenyon
Lafayette
Lawrence
Macalester
Middleburyt
Mt Holyoke
Occidental
Pitzer
Reed
Rhodes
Smith
St Olaf
St Mary's (MD)
Swarthmore
Trinity (CT)
Vassar
Wellesley
Wesleyan
Wheaton (IL)
Whitman
Williams</p>
<p>also U of Rochester, Johns Hopkins</p>
<p>thank you collegehelp. i have a question, what year was the book you have published? are the stats still reliable for 2007?</p>
<p>and these are for undergrads right?</p>
<p>Gourman hasn't come out with rankings in about 10 years. Doesn't mean it's not a good base to start a college list from though. The list was made by calling professors in various departments at different schools and asking them which programs they think are the best in their field.</p>
<p>The problem many people have with the Gourman report is the opacity of the methods. For all the criticism of USNews, it is a model of rigorous methodology compared to the information available about how Gourman generated the lists.</p>
<p>The actual schools named may or may not have top programs in each field. Just be careful about relying on Gourman's reports.</p>
<p>The Gourman Report was last published in 1997. The rankings agree pretty well with current rankings in fields where current US News rankings are available such as engineering and business. The current validity of the Gourman Rankings can be corroborated in a number of different ways, such as by the opinions of CC posters.</p>
<p>If you're interested in working in research, these undergrad schools produced future PhDs at the highest percentages (courtesy of interesteddad, good agreement with Gourman):</p>
<p>Percent of PhDs per grad
Academic field: Bio and Health Sciences</p>
<p>PhDs and Doctoral Degrees:
ten years (1994 to 2003) from NSF database</p>
<p>Number of Undergraduates:
ten years (1989 to 1998) from IPEDS database</p>
<p>Note: Does not include colleges with less than 1000 graduates over the ten year period </p>
<p>1 California Institute of Technology 5.4%
2 Reed College 4.8%
3 Swarthmore College 4.4%
4 University of Chicago 3.3%
5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3.1%
6 University of California-San Francisco 3.1%
7 Harvard University 3.0%
8 Kalamazoo College 3.0%
9 Harvey Mudd College 2.9%
10 Earlham College 2.8%
11 Johns Hopkins University 2.7%
12 Princeton University 2.6%
13 Haverford College 2.6%
14 Mount Holyoke College 2.6%
15 Yale University 2.5%
16 Rice University 2.5%
17 Lawrence University 2.5%
18 Carleton College 2.5%
19 Stanford University 2.5%
20 Oberlin College 2.4%
21 Cornell University, All Campuses 2.4%
22 Grinnell College 2.3%
23 Hendrix College 2.3%
24 Bryn Mawr College 2.1%
25 Bowdoin College 2.1%
26 Wellesley College 2.1%
27 Amherst College 2.1%</p>
<p>can anyone provide a list/link of the top UG colleges / uni's that produce PHD's in--</p>
<p>English</p>
<p>Psychology</p>
<p>Courtesy of interesteddad:</p>
<p>Number of PhDs per 1000 graduates </p>
<p>Academic field: Psychology </p>
<p>PhDs and Doctoral Degrees:
ten years (1994 to 2003) from NSF database </p>
<p>Number of Undergraduates:
ten years (1989 to 1998) from IPEDS database<br>
Formula:
Total PhDs divided by Total Grads, multiplied by 1000<br>
Note: Does not include colleges with less than 1000 graduates over the ten year period </p>
<p>1 Pomona College 21
2 Swarthmore College 19
3 Barnard College 19
4 Vassar College 19
5 Bryn Mawr College 17
6 Wesleyan University 16
7 Pitzer College 16
8 Brandeis University 16
9 Wellesley College 15
10 Grinnell College 15
11 Spelman College 14
12 Williams College 14
13 Clark University 14
14 Haverford College 14
15 Brown University 14
16 Smith College 14
17 Kalamazoo College 13
18 Oberlin College 13
19 Scripps College 13
20 Yale University 13
21 Duke University 13
22 Carleton College 13
23 Drew University 13
24 Rhodes College 12
25 Hendrix College 12
26 Tufts University 12
27 Antioch University, All Campuses 12
28 Davidson College 12
29 Sarah Lawrence College 12
30 University of Chicago 12
31 Hamilton College 12
32 University of Rochester 11
33 Amherst College 11
34 Trinity University 11
35 Southwestern University 11
36 Austin College 11
37 Bennington College 11
38 Reed College 11
39 Emory University 11
40 Union College (Schenectady, NY) 11
41 Denison University 10
42 St John's College (both campus) 10
43 Kenyon College 10
44 Mount Holyoke College 10
45 Bates College 10
46 Occidental College 10
47 Franklin and Marshall College 10
48 Stanford University 10
49 Cornell University, All Campuses 10
50 Knox College 10
51 Allegheny College 10
52 Wake Forest University 9
53 Hope College 9
54 Earlham College 9
55 Beloit College 9
56 Wheaton College (Wheaton, IL) 9
57 Birmingham Southern College 9
58 Trinity College (Hartford, CT) 9
59 University of California-San Francisco 9
60 University of Pennsylvania 9
61 Benedictine College 9
62 Washington University 9
63 University of PR Rio Piedras Campus 9
64 Muhlenberg College 9
65 Agnes Scott College 9
66 Connecticut College 9
67 Harvard University 8
68 University of Michigan at Ann Arbor 8
69 Mills College 8
70 Colgate University 8
71 Rice University 8
72 College of the Holy Cross 8
73 Bard College 8
74 University of California-Irvine 8
75 SUNY at Binghamton 8
76 Carroll College (Waukesha, WI) 8
77 Macalester College 8
78 Hanover College 8
79 Randolph-Macon Woman's College 8
80 Dartmouth College 8
81 University of California-Los Angeles 8
82 Transylvania University 8
83 Furman University 8
84 Bowdoin College 7
85 University of California-San Diego 7
86 Columbia University in the City of New York 7
87 Whitman College 7
88 University of California-Santa Cruz 7
89 Northwestern Univ 7
90 Bucknell University 7
91 University of Dallas 7
92 Princeton University 7
93 Hampshire College 7
94 Pacific Union College 7
95 Fisk University 7
96 University of Denver 7
97 Chatham College 7
98 Southern Methodist University 7
99 Gettysburg College 7
100 Johns Hopkins University 7
101 Skidmore College 7
102 University of Notre Dame 7
103 Tougaloo College 7
104 Nebraska Wesleyan University 7
105 Goshen College 7
106 Bethany College (Bethany, WV) 7
107 College of William and Mary 7</p>
<p>Courtesy of interesteddad:</p>
<p>Number of PhDs per 1000 graduates </p>
<p>Academic field: English</p>
<p>PhDs and Doctoral Degrees:
ten years (1994 to 2003) from NSF database</p>
<p>Number of Undergraduates:
ten years (1989 to 1998) from IPEDS database </p>
<p>1 Yale University 18
2 Swarthmore College 18
3 Amherst College 17
4 Bryn Mawr College 16
5 Bennington College 16
6 Reed College 15
7 Williams College 15
8 Oberlin College 13
9 Carleton College 13
10 Wesleyan University 13
11 St John's College (both campus) 12
12 Pomona College 12
13 University of the South 11
14 Barnard College 11
15 Vassar College 11
16 Haverford College 11
17 Princeton University 10
18 Harvard University 10
19 University of Chicago 9
20 Sarah Lawrence College 9
21 Wellesley College 9
22 Beloit College 9
23 Columbia University in the City of New York 9
24 Brown University 9
25 Agnes Scott College 9
26 Smith College 8
27 Kenyon College 8
28 Kalamazoo College 8
29 Mount Holyoke College 8
30 University of Dallas 8
31 Stanford University 8
32 Davidson College 7
33 Hendrix College 7
34 Bard College 7
35 Earlham College 7
36 Grinnell College 7
37 Goucher College 7
38 Hampshire College 6
39 Dartmouth College 6
40 Occidental College 6
41 College of the Holy Cross 6
42 Middlebury College 6
43 Trinity University 6
44 Scripps College 6
45 College of Wooster 6
46 Colby College 6
47 Bowdoin College 6
48 Hollins College 6</p>
<p>thanks, vassron. I was trying to square these findings with the ruggs/gourman rankings. I see one discrepancy offhand: Beloit C is pretty high in the English class picture - 22nd in grads getting a PhD - but does not show up in Rugg's. </p>
<p>Maybe RUgg's counts things that do not necessarily affect whether one goes on to the highest degree in the field of English.</p>
<p>Collegehelp, do you have gourman report for biochemistry?</p>
<p>Gourman Report ranking for undergraduate biochemistry</p>
<p>Biochem from Gourman
Harvard
MIT
UC Berkeley
Wisconsin
Yale
UCLA
Cornell
UC San Diego
U Chicago
U Illinois
Columbia
U Michigan
U Penn
UC Davis
Brandeis
Northwestern
Princeton
U Iowa
Michigan State
Rice
Case Western
Purdue West Lafayette
Oregon State
NYU
U Oregon
Rutgers New Brunswick
SUNY Stony Brook
U Texas Austin
Iowa State
UC Riverside
Penn State University park
USC</p>
<p>From the Gourman Report about methodology, if you are interested:</p>
<p>INTRODUCTION</p>
<p>Since 1967, The Gourman Report has made an intensive effort to determine what
constitutes academic excellence or quality in American colleges and .universities.
The result of that research and study is found within this book. </p>
<p>The Gourman Report is the only qualitative guide to institutions of higher education
that assigns a precise, numerical score to each school and program. This score is
derived from a comprehensive assessment of each program's strengths and
shortcomings. This method makes it simple to examine the effectiveness of a given
educational program, or compare one program to another. </p>
<p>These deceptively simple numerical ratings take into account a wide variety of
empirical data. The Gourman Report is not a popularity contest or an opinion poll,
but an objective evaluation of complex information drawn from the public record,
private research foundations, and universities themselves. Many of the resources
employed in this research, while public, are not easily accessible. Individual
researchers attempting to collect this data in order to compare institutions or
programs would face a daunting task. </p>
<p>This book is intended for use by: </p>
<p>• Young people and parents wishing to make informed choices
about higher education.
• Educators and administrators interested in an independent
evaluation of their programs .. </p>
<p>• Prospective employers who wish to assess the educational
qualifications of college graduates.
• Schools wishing to improve undergraduate programs
• Foundations involved in funding colleges and universities.
• Individuals interested in identifying fraudulent or inferior
institutions ..
• Citizens concerned about the quality of today's higher education.
For all of these researchers, the breadth and convenience of the data in The
Gourman Report can greatly facilitate the study of higher education. </p>
<p>Method of Evaluation </p>
<p>Much of the material used in compiling The Gourman Report is internal-drawn
from educators and administrators at the schools themselves. These individuals are
permitted to evaluate only their own programs-as they know them from daily
experience-and not the programs of other institutions. Unsolicited appraisals are </p>
<p>occasionally considered (and weighed accordingly), but the bulk 'of our
contributions come from people chosen for their academic qualifications, their
published works, and their interest in improving the quality of higher education. It
attests to the dedication of these individuals (and also to the serious problems in
higher education today) that over 90% of our requests for contributions are met
with a positive response. </p>
<p>In addition, The Gourman Report draws on many external resources which are a
matter of record, such as funding for public universities as authorized by legislative
bodies, required filings by schools to meet standards of non-discrimination, and
material provided by the institutions (and independently verified) about faculty
makeup and experience, fields of study offered, and physical plant. </p>
<p>Finally, The Gourman Report draws upon the findings of individuals, associations </p>
<p>and agencies whose business it is to make accurate projections of the success that </p>
<p>will be enjoyed by graduates from given institutions and disciplines. While the </p>
<p>methods employed by these resources are proprietary, their findings have </p>
<p>consistently been validated by experience, and they are an important part .of our </p>
<p>research. </p>
<p>The Gourman Report's rating of educational institutions is analogous to the grading
of a college essay examination. What may appear to be a subjective process is in
fact a patient sifting of empiricar data by analysts who understand both the "subject
matter" (the fields of study under evaluation), and the "students" (the colleges and
universities themselves). The fact that there are virtually no "tie" scores indicates
the accuracy and effectiveness of this methodology. So does the consistent
affirmation of the ratings in The Gourman Report by readers who are in a position
to evaluate certain programs themselves. </p>
<p>The following criteria are taken into consideration in the evaluation of each
educational program and institution. It should be noted that, because disciplines
vary in their educational methodology, the significance given each criterion will vary
from the rating of one discipline to the next; however, our evaluation is consistent
for all schools listed within each field of study. </p>
<ol>
<li>Auspices, control and organization of the institution; </li>
<li>Number of educational programs offered and degrees conferred
(with additional attention to "sub-fields" available to students
within a particular discipline);</li>
<li>Age (experience level) of the institution and of the individual
discipline or program and division;</li>
<li>Faculty, including qualifications, experience, intellectual interests,
attainments, and professional productivity (including research);</li>
<li><p>Students, including quality of scholastic work and records of
graduates both in graduate study and in practice;
• The Goullnan Report-Undergraduate </p></li>
<li><p>Basis of and requirements for admission of students (overall and
by individual discipline) </p></li>
<li><p>Number of students enrolled (overall and for each discipline); </p></li>
<li><p>Curriculum and curricular content of the program or discipline
and division;</p></li>
<li><p>Standards and quality of instruction (including teaching loads); </p></li>
<li><p>Quality of administration, including attitudes and policy toward
teaching, research and scholarly production in each discipline,
and administration research;</p></li>
<li><p>Quality and availability of non-departmental areas such as
counseling and career placement services;</p></li>
<li><p>Quality of physical plant devoted to undergraduate, graduate and
professional levels; </p></li>
<li><p>Finances, including budgets, investments, expenditures and
sources of income for both public and private institutions;</p></li>
<li><p>Library, including number of volumes, appropriateness of
materials to individual disciplines, and accessibility of materials;</p></li>
<li><p>Computer facility sufficient to support current research activities
for both faculty and students;</p></li>
<li><p>Sufficient funding for research equipment and infrastructure; </p></li>
<li><p>Number of teaching and research assistantships; </p></li>
<li><p>Academic-athletic balance.
ipecific information about the data used to rank institutions and programs is
Ivailable in Appendix A and Appendix B.</p></li>
</ol>