Shanghai-Jiaotong Rankings Posted

Graduate School
41

<h1>1 with a big footnote. The APL is much like the other national labs operated at Berkeley Livermore etc.and not counted by their host schools. JHU just refuses to separate it out so it can be #1 with an asterisk. For general research funding UW is #1.</h1>

42

<p>Harvard pales to Princeton for Math and Physical Science,
Harvard Engineering is a joke.</p>

43

<p>
[quote]
Harvard pales to Princeton for Math and Physical Science

[/quote]

Math yes; Physical Sciences no</p>

<p>According to NRC:
Chemistry - Harvard #3; Princeton not in top 10
Physics - Harvard #1; Princeton not in top 10</p>

<p>According to USNWR:
Chemistry - Harvard #5; Princeton #16
Physics - Harvard #3; Princeton #3</p>

44

<p>


</p>

<p>You wish UW is #1 to you can brag to all your friends and in this forum don't you. All this UW promotion is getting really annoying. Atleast you can stop making false assumptions about APL stop making ridiculous claims for once.</p>

45

<p>Go to: nsf.gov</a> - SRS Universities Report Stalled Growth in Federal R&D Funding in FY 2006 - US National Science Foundation (NSF). This is FY 2006 data issued in the fall of 2007.</p>

<p>Look at table three, Top Academic Research Performers, and the footnote relating to John Hopkins and APL.</p>

46

<p>


</p>

<p>and</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>These two footnotes explain the same exact thing.</p>

<p>My main point of assertion is, JHU APL is not considered a Federally Funded Research and Development Centers administered by academic institutions, which is supported by these two footnotes.</p>

<p>If mean, if you want to nitpick and intentionally exclude data like that fine. If it is to solely supplment your point that UW deserves #1 ranking point in this survey, you are wrong. APL is recognized to be an inherent part of the university, an academic division that is NOT an FFRDC, so in the context of things, it is NOT acceptable to nitpick and say..."well if we exclude this, because APL is not different from any other national labs in the country, UW would be #1."</p>

<p>You can't do that, you can't nitpick like that for your own promotion of your university, your not allowed to exclude academic divisions of universities at will to promote and benefit whatever 2nd ranked university you have at will.</p>

<p>I find it kinda ridiculous that you can assume stuff with absolutely no real knowledge at all of what your talking about. To assume that APL is just like any national laboratory in the world is one thing, but to say JHU refuses to separate this national laboratory in order to self promote itself on the rankings is PREPOSTEROUS. Correct me if I am wrong to say that. PREPOSTEROUS.</p>

<p>Do we want to intentionally boast ourselves up in the rankings to beat #2 UW? Because "Johns Hopkins has for 28 years in a row has been the country's leading academic institution in expenditures in science, medical and engineering research." Give us some respect. We've haven't been #1 for that long trying to screw you guys out of respect. Stop putting us down. Seriously man.</p>

47

<p>Then why does the NSF footnote it? I read that they wanted JHU to take it out and they refused, hence the footnote. Whatever. With all the others relatively close there seems to be something out of place about the JHU numbers. There is only one such lab and it was setup at JHU because it was close to DC . It does not do research requiring competitive proposals and winning grants as do all the other schools' research programs. Thus it is NOT comparable for general research but is a special one-off program. From its own website they highlight that the APL is basically a secret government defense related research center. It is NOT a general public oriented research center. Thuis it is NOT comparable for general university research. This is not research done by university faculty but a large team of separate scientists. Your protests are PREPOSTEROUS.</p>

<p>"Who We Are
The Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) is a not-for-profit center for engineering, research and development. APL is a division of one of the world's premier research universities, Johns Hopkins. Our 399-acre campus, 20 miles north of Washington, DC, is home to 4,300 men and women. We recruit and hire the best and the brightest from top colleges, 68% of those hires are engineers and scientists. We work on more than 400 programs that protect our homeland and advance the nation's vision in research and space science, at an annual funding level of about $680M.</p>

<p>The Laboratory has been a major asset to the nation since it was organized to help the war effort in 1942, four months after Pearl Harbor. We're proud of our heritage from those early days and the can-do attitude and spirit of dedication to the nation's welfare that is still a major element of our culture.</p>

<p>What We Do
APL solves complex problems that present critical challenges to the nation. That's how we decide what work we will pursue, and it's how we've chosen to benchmark our success. Our work reflects a depth of expertise that allows us to take on a surprisingly broad range of programs. And our sponsor base includes most of the nation's pivotal government agencies —especially those that protect our security.</p>

<p>The expertise we bring includes advanced technology; highly qualified, technically diverse teams; hands-on operational knowledge of the military and security environments; and a basic systems engineering approach. We offer an outstanding creative staff, augmented by world-class facilities, and the ability to develop effective solutions to difficult problems.</p>

<p>Also see:</p>

<p>Not-so-secret</a> science - Baltimore Business Journal:</p>

48

<p>
[quote]
APL is managed by Johns Hopkins just as NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab is managed by Caltech.</p>

<p>APL of JHU is not a Federally Funded Research and Development Centers as Caltech's NASA JPL is.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If JHU can do that, then can't Berkeley include LBNL? And LLNL? And its de-facto med school, UCSF? If that were so, the total research expenditures dwarf JHU's and UW's.</p>

49

<p>^I feel like I'm talking to a bunch of idiots. I'm sorry.</p>

<p>Did you read my post? LBNL and LLNL respectively are federally sponsored centers for research and development. Hence the name "Federally Funded Research and Development Centers administered by academic institutions"</p>

<p>The footnotes explicitly say that APL Is not in the class of LBNL, LLNL, JPL, or any of other FFRDC centers labeled in the following link: Master</a> Government List of 36 Federally Funded Research and Development Centers Fiscal Year 2004 - Table of Contents</p>

<p>So please, stop comparing an academic division of an university that offers part-time graduate programs through Hopkins’ Whiting School of Engineering with LBNL,LLNL or whatever crap you want to throw at me.</p>

<p>If you just reread my post and thread, instead of implicitly ignoring every thought process that I have to say, maybe you would an EXACT reply to the question and statement you have just asserted.</p>

<p>To Barrons:</p>

<p>Have you completely gone off the page and into the complete different stratosphere in space? Your original assertion was and I quote:</p>

<p>
[quote]
The APL is much like the other national labs operated at Berkeley Livermore etc.and not counted by their host schools. JHU just refuses to separate it out so it can be #1 with an asterisk. For general research funding UW is #1.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In order to be in a class similar to that of other national labs, APL must qualify under the banner of FFDRC. Each footnote that I have indicated distinctly SHOWS YOU THAT ALL RESEARCH LABS AT HOST SCHOoLS WITH FFDRC DESIGNATION ARE EXCLUDED FROM RESEARCH FUNDING RANKINGS. THEY EXPLICITLY STATE JHU APL IS NOT A FFDRC in TWO OF THESE ARTICLES.</p>

<p>So in one point, you make that APL should be exclude. Footnotes gives explicit reason why APL does not qualify for exclusion. They make exclusive explicit mention to that in the footnotes, so it simple is not possible to justify that APL should warrant exclusion, even by referrence to the footnotes because simple put, the footnotes proves you wrong.</p>

<p>What more do you have to say other than blatantly making up ridiculously preposterous lies and self asserting that because of this this this, you are allowed to exclude an academic division off from a university in order to self propagate your own UW elitism or whatever. I'm not going to stand by that. You assertions about whether or not research at APL is conducted is in line that qualifies as an institute that generates grants via proposals and competitive proposals....is just ridiculous. Come on, that is not the original argument.</p>

<p>You can claim that APL is not an exact replicate of what your perception is of a perfect fundamental research center that focuse on basic research sciences for the public oriented good and all that crap.</p>

<p>Fundamentally, you skipped the question whether or not APL deserves an FFDRC designation. You've truly screwed yourself into place. Just stop talking to me, I feel like I'm just wasting my time and effort here.</p>

50

<p>PPL. If 30 years of dominance means anything, you can't simply make comparisons with national labs because APL is a degree offer institutions with many connections with the physics commmunity in JHU itself. Though it is a simple anonmaly in its intent and creation, I highly disagree with anyone stating that you can A) designate APL to be in the same class as LLBNL, LLNL, JPL or any FFDRC or B) you can just say in a hypothetical situation that if APL was separated from the mother organization, that XYZ would become #1. I disagree with that.</p>

<p>Had simple minded geniuses like you thought of it just now, JHU wouldn't have dominated the NIH/Federal Expenditure charts for 28 years years now would they??? APL has existed time and time again as an age old part of this JHU institution. Tell me how you can someone twist and manifest a new ranking chart based on assumptions that APL doesn't deserve to be there and contradict 28 years worth of data and I'll give you a smiley face because you truly deserve it if you can achieve such a fate.</p>

51

<p>Phead128: you are typically a level-headed user, so please don't fly off the handle at me for a simple remark.</p>

<p>Your argument is one of "what's in a name?" The difference in definition is shaky. Those labs are federally sponsored. But so is the entire University of California, Berkeley--it's federally and state-sponsored. Should none of the research done there count? I know not all research funds come from the government, but the university is sponsored by the government.</p>

<p>More than that, these labs are run by Berkeley. Berkeley faculty do much of the research (if not nearly all). Berkeley students are heavily involved too. So how different is it? Does it really matter that it's federally sponsored? Of course JHU's lab isn't--JHU is a private school.</p>

<p>I notice, also, that you did not address the fact that UCSF, Berkeley's de facto med school, contributes much research. Adding in its research expenditures puts Berkeley ahead of even JHU. But of course, UCSF too is government-sponsored.</p>

<p>You messaged me about this before, Phead128, and I explained it to you then. I don't know how much clearer I can make it--sometimes, things are not so clear-cut. My point is: if JHU can include APL, then Berkeley can include LBNL and LLNL.</p>

<p>I know it's hard to accept, but JHU might not be the incontrovertible research breadwinner of the US, or the world.</p>

52

<p>
[quote]
Should none of the research done there count?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I've never asserted that none of the research done there counts. I'm simply referring to a new article that includes tables with footnotes that says they do not count.</p>

<p>Don't blame me, Don't ask me, I'm just using an article for a referrence. So has others and I have proved to them time and time again that the same article they use has essential the same exact data and information that the other footnotes try to assert.</p>

<p>Why doesn't none of these research done there count?</p>

<p>Ask the article writer. Ask the person who created the rankings and ask the person who put the footnotes there in the first place.</p>

<p>I'm not trying to be the bad person here, don't place the blame on me. Its like burning the messenger for supposely bringing foul information that does not place your favored university at #1 or #2. I'm simply defending whatever assumptions that is made to place my alma mater #2. I'm not trying to assert anything. Just trying to make up for false assumptions.</p>

<p>I don't know how to address the fact that UCSF is Berkeley's de factor med school. Maybe its true, I don't know, its not like I'm trying to avert an argument with you, I don't have enough time to answer you two guys attacks with just simply information that irrelevant to the core and simple nature of the original argument....which is what Barrons and I were speaking of.</p>

<p>I can have a talk with you about that issue at a different time, but I just want to clear this issue up or whether or not APL deserves its place and whether or not UW should knock JHU off #1 in the ranking scales. I feel its just unjustified and simply illogical to assume and assert something that the two footnotes that I have mentioned clearly put off as wrong. I feel that is just wrong. I'm srry if I feel that way but I do.</p>

<p>I'm level headedness? I suggest you read the thread again, no seriously , SERIOUSLY, just reread what I have to say instead of just simply jumping on and snapping at one comment that I have to say with something seriously irrelelvant. Most of what I have to say usually correlates to what I have to say in the latter parts of my post. The latter half corresponds to your question about LBNL and LLNL, but then again, I have to go back and talk about UCSF now don't I.</p>

<p>Jeez...I feel like I'm getting hot headded over things that are just simple, yet truly hard to argue for.</p>

53

<p>My point is, if a article or ranking states that the entire UC Berkeley state system (although it is government funded) is not an FFDRC center. Then whose to blame for that? Not me. </p>

<p>True, If you put UC Berkeley with the de factor medical school in the mix, JHU would FOR SURE be knocked out of the #1 spot. That I have to submit to. But the way I think of it is...is it feasible to put all state systems that are "federall funded" as a desginated FFDRC? State schools and federall sponsored state systems would get an overwhelming nod and attention and would be ranked favorably if that is the case.</p>

<p>I see no reason why the article rankers must do that. Though its true, If you put the UC system into the mix with UCSF, you will get a totally different ranking. I'll agree to that.</p>

<p>EDIT: I just want to apologize for those who may have thought I was blasting them. I was, just to make it fair, Barron, you make a legit argument about the actual reason for existence for APL, the type of science they actually conduct, and whether or not they are actually in line with basic science research conducted at normal universities, or whether or not they are special one-off team of scienctists has its merits, and I applaud you for that, and I agree with you, but that was never the original intent of the argument.</p>

<p>KyleDavid, man, I love you, how can I possibly hate you. Your points with UCSF and UC System and other federall sponsored systems has its merits too. Though I do agree if you add those into the mix as well, privates would be an another situation all together and your points do have extensive merits. But your points on LLNL and LBNL are just...not right. Thank you, Have a wonderful day.</p>

<p>I'm just trying to clear up any misconceptions or any...weird assumptions about rankings and JHU's APL to the public. Just here for that reason and for that reason only.</p>

54

<p>
[quote]
I've never asserted that none of the research done there counts.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I know you haven't, but your rationale behind excluding LBNL and LLNL should mean that Berkeley's own expenditures don't count.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Don't blame me, Don't ask me, I'm just using an article for a referrence.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're doing more than that. You're vehemently asserting JHU's "superiority," with that article for your backing, and in the process put down other schools like UW. In all honesty, I think the article is highly flawed; if JHU can have APL, then Berkeley can have LBNL, LLNL, etc. The same can be said of other universities with similar circumstances.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Its like burning the messenger for supposely bringing foul information that does not place your favored university at #1 or #2.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, it's more like burning the messenger for going berserk on other members needlessly.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm level headedness? I suggest you read the thread again, no seriously , SERIOUSLY, just reread what I have to say instead of just simply jumping on and snapping at one comment that I have to say with something seriously irrelelvant.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm saying that in most other threads where I have seen you post, you seem level-headed. And all of the sudden, when JHU is brought into the fray--in a discussion of something where JHU excels--you grow rabidly vehement, and make unnecessary comments like: "If you just reread my post and thread, instead of implicitly ignoring every thought process that I have to say, maybe you would an EXACT reply to the question and statement you have just asserted" and "I feel like I'm talking to a bunch of idiots. I'm sorry."</p>

<p>I have read the thread. I don't need you to spell anything out or help me with comprehension; I'm just fine in that area. I can say that your, uh, passion is really unwarranted. You don't need to fly off the handle like that and put not only other schools down, but other members. Methinks Duke syndrome is spreading. :(</p>

55

<p>
[quote]
You're doing more than that. You're vehemently asserting JHU's "superiority," with that article for your backing, and in the process put down other schools like UW. In all honesty, I think the article is highly flawed; if JHU can have APL, then Berkeley can have LBNL, LLNL, etc. The same can be said of other universities with similar circumstances.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, if you reread my post, I was responding to Barron's put down on JHU by asserting that if APL was excluded, he explicitly stated "UW would be #1."</p>

<p>
[quote]
I know you haven't, but your rationale behind excluding LBNL and LLNL should mean that Berkeley's own expenditures don't count.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, if you reread my posts again, you see that it was not ME that said Berkeley's own expenditures do not count. I explicitly referred to footnotes that state that FFDRC centers which includes Berkeley's LBNL and LLNL are centers that are excluded from the rankings.</p>

<p>Shall I quote them again? Its not ME that said it, I referred to quotes that said it. I referred to quotes that said FFDRC Centers (and I displayed a list of FFDRC which included JPL, LBNL, and LLNL) does not count. Jeez, seriously, can you be more wrong. Just pls, do me a favor, reread everything i have to say. I'm not asserting anything or creating my own rationale, i'm just referring to what is fact and what is not.</p>

<p>If you think the footnotes that I referred to were my own distinct self create rationale or argument, then you are truly mistaken.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You're doing more than that. You're vehemently asserting JHU's "superiority," with that article for your backing, and in the process put down other schools like UW.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well I'm sorry if you think that way. If you had read the argument that I was in, my sole purpose was to rebutt Barron's assertion that he explicit states that JHU shouldn't be at at the top with APL and that "UW is #1".</p>

<p>I can't let that happen... surely if you knew what was going on, you would know that I'm just purely defending my institution. If it seems like my institution was being paraded at all to look superior, it was, but only for the purpose of correcting mass confusion and stupid assumptions about designation of APL to the same class as other national laboratories around the nation and to correct mistaken assumptions of whether or not APL deserves its place in the rankings.</p>

<p>Thats all.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You don't need to fly off the handle like that and put not only other schools down, but other members. Methinks Duke syndrome is spreading.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Tell Barrons to not put JHU down first with his explicitly first strike post. "UW is #1" and all this ridiculous crap. Surely you have not read the post or the thread earlier if you have skipped that crucial and very important part.</p>

<p>do you think I'm as angry as I am now had that first strike comment not been in place? From the way I see of it, his school was annoyingly pranced around to the place of superiority. I responded with key facts and comments, and now look. I look like the devil right now for putting down other schools when ITS A FACT that he claimed #1 first and put down MY school. </p>

<p>Come on KyleDavid. I love you man, but you seriously do need to learn to get a glimpse of the root of all this fury before assuming that I'm wrong or I'm the bad guy. Seriouslly.</p>

56

<p>sorry to ruin the intense stand-off but, who loves me?... anyone?</p>

<p>I am keeping tally</p>

57

<p>
[quote]
you see that it was not ME that said Berkeley's own expenditures do not count....Shall I quote them again? Its not ME that said it, I referred to quotes that said it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Phead128, I get it. It was not you. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Jeez, seriously, can you be more wrong.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Can your asinine comments be more misplaced?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Just pls, do me a favor, reread everything i have to say. I'm not asserting anything or creating my own rationale, i'm just referring to what is fact and what is not.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You were relaying information from an article, but in doing so are fully accepting responsibility for the article. When you use something for support in a debate, you cannot simply say, "Don't shoot the messenger!" because it's more than that: you too are using it and become something more than a messenger.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If you had read the argument that I was in, my sole purpose was to rebutt Barron's assertion that he explicit states that JHU shouldn't be at at the top with APL and that "UW is #1".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Who cares whether it is? You don't need to repeat yourself ad nauseum, bold obvious statements, and call others idiots for having a different take on the issue.</p>

<p>
[quote]
you would know that I'm just purely defending my institution.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's what all the Duke supporters say. :rolleyes: (No, this is not an invitation for others to bring Duke into the fray, again.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
stupid assumptions about designation of APL to the same class as other national laboratories around the nation and to correct mistaken assumptions of whether or not APL deserves its place in the rankings.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, it's all in a gray area, occupied not only by APL, but LBNL, LLNL, and so on.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Tell Barrons to not put JHU down first with his explicitly first strike post.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not your parent. You can act responsibly and maturely respond to such a claim. He was not "striking" out. He was making a statement that you may then proceed to debunk, but you needn't use such petty tactics as ad hominem attacks, "you can't do this, you can't do that" dictations, superfluous and instigating "I find it ridiculous" comments, all-caps explanations, excessive bolding, etc. It's become more a matter of how you're saying it rather than what you're saying.</p>

<p>
[quote]
his school was annoyingly pranced around to the place of superiority.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hmm, sounds a little like, oh I don't know, JHU?</p>

<p>
[quote]
when ITS A FACT that he claimed #1 first and put down MY school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How dare he dethrone the god that is JHU? Really, it's not as though he was malicious in his statement. Do you honestly think I was malicious in asserting that Berkeley kicks both JHU's and UW's butt? No. I don't even go to Berkeley. I was demonstrating the very slight differences in definitions that can drastically change the perception of this ranking.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Can't you READ.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Can't you read? "I don't need you to spell anything out or help me with comprehension." Nor do I need you to remind me to read something. But thanks for the consideration. :)</p>

58

<p>I guess, the problem is, that, I wasn't arguing with you KyleDavid. The issue here is, I feel compelled to reexplain everything that was talked to you again, because your a third party person joining this argument.</p>

<p>Surely, I can't express the feelings that I have now to have to reiterate every sentence fragment so often to you every step of the way. Just please, I don't need to be arguing with you. You weren't even in the original argument in the first place, AND I gave merits to your argument. Your just nitpicking the fact that I've gone overboard, but the problem is, You are the problem that I've gone overboard. In fact if it weren't for you, this conversation would not be occuring at this moment when I'm typing.</p>

<p>I'm truly fondled by the fact that you think you can join in in the middle of a heated argument and not expect to get smacked around. Don't join if your not wishing to willing to participate collaboratively and if you basically raising questions again that requires reiteration from the last post. Its really annoying man, stop it.</p>

<p>P.S. your just making me look stupid in your post. like, I have no other way to reply than just to say shut up ok. just shut up.</p>

59

<p>Yes. It has appeared that I have contracted the Duke Syndrome everybody. I'm going to shoot myself to death right now. Have a good night.</p>

60

<p>
[quote]
I'm truly fondled by the fact that you think you can join in in the middle of a heated argument and not expect to get smacked around.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure you don't mean to use another word there?</p>

<p>Wow guys, it's only August?</p>