<p>how are princeton's chem and bioscience departments?</p>
<p>I wonder the same thing actually.</p>
<p>The president's a biochemist, and orgo at Princeton is reputedly one of the best (and toughest) around.</p>
<p>bioscienceeee not sure i'd imagine it'd be very good. its molecular biology department is also one of the best.</p>
<p>they've spent soo much money on sciences recently. The mol bio department is amazing- with nobel prize winners. The chem-e department is also very good- the person who is working on organic compounds for cell phones is a professor there. The chem department i'm not as sure about, although they are getting a new building and more funding soon. Physics department is world renowned.</p>
<p>Also, if youre interested in an interdisciplinary approach to molecular biology, check out the lewis sigler institute and the integrated science program- headed by David Botstein, an NAS member who everyone in the biological sciences knows, revolutionized the field, and many think deserves the nobel prize. And yes, he teaches a freshman course.. and yes, he knows everyone by name.</p>
<p>Well for one thing you won't find the president claiming women can't be scientists... :p</p>
<p>There has been more focus on the sciences since Tilghman became president, so I would say that the sciences are top-notch. The whole undergrad-focus comes into play too when you consider that you are competing with less grad students for research opportunities, etc.</p>
<p>Interestingly, female science students pick Harvard over Princeton by an even higher margin than their male counterparts - according to reports in re the Class of 2009!</p>
<p>At Harvard, the yield rate for female admits is even higher than for males, whereas at Princeton, the opposite is true.</p>
<p>And finally, the Class of 2009 will be slightly over 50% female at Harvard, but at Princeton the percentage of females in the freshman class will decline to 47%.</p>
<p>But just because they're female doesn't mean they're scientists and I don't think the stats specify whether they are scientists or not. Perhaps females are flocking to Harvard for Folklore & Mythology</p>
<p>Folklore and Mythology .....yes</p>
<p>Well, this whole yield rate thing seems more like it's based on teenage illusions than looking at the realities of academic/social/community dynamics. Here's a link of interest about gender pay disparity:</p>
<p>mentions Harvard lagging behind, using incomprehensive methods of assessment, Summers, problems even before Summers: <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/01/24/gender_gap_separates_harvard_other_top_schools?mode=PF%5B/url%5D">http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/01/24/gender_gap_separates_harvard_other_top_schools?mode=PF</a></p>
<p>Princeton's the only Ivy to close that gap.</p>
<p>Faculty salaries at Harvard are considerably higher than they are at Princeton - whether for boys or girls! One of those uncomfortable "realities of academic/social/community dynamics", eh?</p>
<p>Isn't that because cost of living is higher in Boston?</p>
<p>And since a lot of faculty teach mostly grad students... versus more undergrad at Princeton?</p>
<p>Sorry guy ...</p>
<p>Still true after COL adjustment (Princeton is not "cheap living" anyway), and stats published by COHE do not include medical faculty. Indeed, if the truth be known, FAS undergrad/grad ratios are similar at Harvard, Yale and Princeton.</p>
<p>It is Penn and Duke that lobbied for that "cost of living" adjustment. In the USNews "faculty resources" category, <em>Penn</em> is #1, with Harvard #2, and Duke is tied with Princeton for #3.</p>
<p>Byerly, I'm not sure that I see the fact that they pay H professors more than P professors as uncomfortable.</p>
<p>It was not I who introduced expenditures as a bragging point in re the faculty or the sciences generally, Mea. I have only responded with known statistical data.</p>
<p>You did actually. I mentioned the inequality. Seriously? You thought "yea, well the professors at Harvard are rich!" as any rebuttal against the fact that their men are paid significantly higher than their women? Clearly, our priorities/ideals differ, and not just in preference for universities.</p>
<ol>
<li>"...they've spent soo much money on sciences recently...."</li>
</ol>
<p>(In a Princeton bragging post)</p>
<ol>
<li>"Here's a link of interest about gender pay disparity ... mentions Harvard lagging behind...."</li>
</ol>
<p>(In another Princeton bragging post - making negative reference to Harvard)</p>
<ol>
<li>"bioscienceeee not sure i'd imagine it'd be very good. its molecular biology department is also one of the best..." </li>
</ol>
<p>(A bragging post by you)</p>
<ol>
<li>"Well for one thing you won't find the president claiming women can't be scientists...</li>
</ol>
<p>There has been more focus on the sciences since Tilghman became president, so I would say that the sciences are top-notch."</p>
<p>(Another bragging post, with the requisite sneer at Harvard)</p>
<p>Princeton's bioche/molecular bio/physics is so good they got David Bottstein from Stanford.</p>
<p>... they enticed him with a huge pay increase and a huge budget.</p>
<p>Academically, he was certainly a step up from the prior director of the Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics.</p>
<p>You're not one to criticize negative references and sneers, Byerly, and certainly not bragging points. You're blundering around with weak defenses and loose rebuttals.</p>
<p>
[quote]
1. "...they've spent soo much money on sciences recently...."</p>
<p>(In a Princeton bragging post)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A Princeton bragging post? That was zante's reply to the OP. Yes, actually, sometimes people actually answer the OP's questions. Here, let me break it down for you:
OP: how are the sciences?
zante: well-funded.</p>
<p>question, and a direct answer to the question. The concept is probably foreign to you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
2. "Here's a link of interest about gender pay disparity ... mentions Harvard lagging behind...."</p>
<p>(In another Princeton bragging post - making negative reference to Harvard)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This was no more a negative reference to Harvard than your juxtaposition of Harvard and Princeton yield rates. I juxtaposed a Boston news article about Harvard lagging behind with teh fact taht Princeton is the only ivy to close that gap (at which point, may I add, you started bragging about high pay/expenditures --> relevancy to a gender pay disparity? Funny, you still haven't replied.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
3. "bioscienceeee not sure i'd imagine it'd be very good. its molecular biology department is also one of the best..." </p>
<p>(A bragging post by you)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>see 1. it's one of those answer things.</p>
<p>
[quote]
4. "Well for one thing you won't find the president claiming women can't be scientists...</p>
<p>There has been more focus on the sciences since Tilghman became president, so I would say that the sciences are top-notch."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>(Another bragging post, with the requisite sneer at Harvard)
[/quote]
Again, you're not one to talk about sneering. Secondly, it's relevant. Thirdly, it's true - Tilghman has put more focus on the sciences. What's your problem?</p>
<p>And more generally speaking, what is your point with that entire post? Are you attempting to inundate us all with these posts so that no one will notice that you never actually reply when confronted?</p>
<p>
[quote]
they enticed him with a huge pay increase and a huge budget.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Funny you should say that after mentioning that all Harvard professors get paid so much...</p>