<p>My son is still struggling among H, Y and S after visiting all three schools in 10 days. Kids at Y gave him the best impression - friendly. However, he intends to study biology (at least at this moment). We know in general, H and S have the top biology programs. How good is the biology program at Y when compared with H and S?</p>
<p>Yale is very strong in biology. Most rankings place it in the top 5-10 programs nationwide. At the undergrad level there is probably no noticeable difference in quality of the biology program among any of the three schools your son is considering. If he likes Yale better, he should go to Yale.</p>
<p>So I looked up some numbers, and the last time the NRC did rankings (admittedly a long time ago) Yale came out just as strong as Harvard and Stanford in biological sciences.
In Biochemistry and Molecular Biology: Harvard was 5th, Stanford 2nd, and Yale 6th
In Cell and Developmental Biology: Harvard was 5th, Stanford 11th, and Yale 10th
In Ecology and Evolutionary Biology: Harvard had no program (unranked), Stanford 1st, and Yale 17th
In Genetics: Harvard was 3rd, Stanford 5th, and Yale 8th
In Neurosciences: Harvard was 3rd, Stanford 5th, and Yale 2nd
In Pharmacology: Harvard was 7th, Stanford was 17th, and Yale was 1st
In Physiology: Harvard was 37th, Stanford was 7th, and Yale was 1st</p>
<p>So, in total, out of the 7 biological fields, Yale was better than both Harvard and Stanford in 3, better than Harvard but not Stanford in 1, better than Stanford but not Harvard in 1, and worse than both in 2.</p>
<p>Obviously, 2 caveats. These rankings were from about a decade ago, though I think they represent a general picture that is still true: Yale, Harvard, and Stanford are all about equally good in the biological sciences.
Plus, these are graduate program rankings. At the undergraduate level, in general, any of the top schools would give a great education, and I personally think that specific program rankings are virtually useless for undergrads.</p>
<p>Yale and Caltech have the best undergraduate biology programs in the country. A hugely disproportionate number of graduates of both Caltech and Yale get into the top graduate programs and get prestigious fellowships (such as the NIH fellowship) after graduation. Talk with several professors and students at these schools who are involved and you will see.</p>
<p>Yale, in particular, is a great choice because while it isn't "overrun" with bio majors like certain other schools, it spends more on bioscience research per student than any other university in the country by a fairly wide margin. In terms of the strength of the departments overall (and you have to say departments, since there are literally thousands of bioscience researchers at a place like Harvard or Yale, across a number of different official departments), Yale is at least the equal of H and S. Yale also has the advantage of its research taking place right near the central campus, whereas at other schools it often takes place miles away at a medical center.</p>
<p>Yale is great in biology. But to claim its biology programs are as good as Harvard and Stanford is a little out of wack. For example, if you check US NEWS rankings in biology and all related biology subfields. Over the years. the top programs contenders have been Harvard, Stanford, MIT, UCSF, and Berkeley. Yale is a notch below that. </p>
<p>Another metric you might want to check is the prestigious NIH pioneer award winners by surfing
<a href="http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/pioneer/Recipients05.aspx%5B/url%5D">http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/pioneer/Recipients05.aspx</a>
<a href="http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/pioneer/Recipients06.aspx%5B/url%5D">http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/pioneer/Recipients06.aspx</a>
<a href="http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/pioneer/Recipients04.aspx%5B/url%5D">http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/pioneer/Recipients04.aspx</a></p>
<p>Unfortunately for you, Yale does not look so good in this award. Let alone competing with Harvard and Stanford.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For example, if you check US NEWS rankings in biology and all related biology subfields. Over the years. the top programs contenders have been Harvard, Stanford, MIT, UCSF, and Berkeley. Yale is a notch below that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>US News graduate program rankings have even less validity than their undergraduate rankings. They rely entirely on peer assessment.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Another metric you might want to check is the prestigious NIH pioneer award winners by surfing
<a href="http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/pioneer/Recipients05.aspx%5B/url%5D">http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/pioneer/Recipients05.aspx</a>
<a href="http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/pioneer/Recipients06.aspx%5B/url%5D">http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/pioneer/Recipients06.aspx</a>
<a href="http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/pioneer/Recipients04.aspx%5B/url%5D">http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/pioneer/Recipients04.aspx</a></p>
<p>Unfortunately for you, Yale does not look so good in this award. Let alone competing with Harvard and Stanford.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>DId you ever consider that the NIH awards research related to medicine (it is the National Institutes of HEALTH) and that Harvard and Stanford both have superior medical schools? This award says little about the strength of the biology programs.</p>
<p>And, to repeat what I say every time, graduate rankings have very little bearing on undergraduate strength.</p>
<p>Edit: Looking over those awards, I noticed that many of them weren't even given to biologists (you will find engineers, chemists, and physicists on those lists).</p>
<p>What you posted is a miniscule sample size, datalook, especially over just three years. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute-funded faculty is a much larger sample size and also represents some of the most prestigious basic biological science laboratory investigators in the country, and in that area, Yale does much better (example, in 2001, Yale had 17 HHMI funded investigators, Stanford had 15, MIT had 13, Penn had 11, Caltech had 8, Princeton had 4, and Brown had 1). In other words, all the schools you listed, including Yale, are extremely well-known and have some of the world's top laboratories in biology. There are a few other top places such as WUSTL (which had 10 HHMI investigators) and Johns Hopkins (which, like Yale, had 17). Note to svalbardlutefisk as well, as you might gather from the above, Yale's biomedical research is just as good if not better than Harvard's or Stanford's especially on a per faculty basis.</p>
<p>How about you also look at overall numbers of National Academy of Sciences-elected faculty in the biological sciences (which, like HHMI, is also MUCH more prestigious than the pioneer award) and compare them relative to the number of bioscience majors at each school. In that measure you would find that Yale is stronger than Harvard, Caltech, Stanford, MIT, Berkeley, etc., especially after you consider if the research takes place on the central campus versus some remote, undergrad-inaccessible medical campus. </p>
<p>Bottom line is that for grad school, they are all great (with various sub-departments being slightly higher in some of the silly "survey-based" rankings, simply because they are larger then their peers), but for undergraduate bio, Yale and Caltech are tops.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What you posted is a miniscule sample size, datalook, especially over just three years.
[/quote]
You are right. The sample size is small and only over 3 years. But a strong pattern evidently exists there. Out of the 30+ NIH pioneer award winners, more than 10 winners have ties to Harvard, including graduates and faculty members. Stanford has claimed 7 winners, plus 2 ties. I can NOT find any winner with ties to Yale. This data clearly proves that H and S are stronger players in biomedical research. These winners are young and famous researchers. They are playing critical roles in shaping the biomedical areas.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How about you also look at overall numbers of National Academy of Sciences-elected faculty in the biological sciences (which, like HHMI, is also MUCH more prestigious than the pioneer award) and compare them relative to the number of bioscience majors at each school. In that measure you would find that Yale is stronger than Harvard, Caltech, Stanford, MIT, Berkeley, etc
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In NAS membership, here is how H, S, and Y look like in biochemsitry and genetics:</p>
<p>H: biochemistry (11), genetics (2)
S: biochemistry (6), genetics (11)
Y: biochemistry (7), genetics (1)</p>
<p>So there is no sign to show Y is stronger than H and S. </p>
<p>
[quote]
US News graduate program rankings have even less validity than their undergraduate rankings. They rely entirely on peer assessment.
[/quote]
Graduate program ranking and undergraduate ranking in a given field should be very similar, if both exist, as I have shown you based on US NEWS engineering rankings.</p>
<p>Biological Sciences (Ph.D., overall)
Ranked in 2007* </p>
<p>Rank/School Average assessment
score (5.0 = highest)
1. Stanford University (CA) 4.9
2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4.8
University of California--Berkeley 4.8 </p>
<p>Biological Sciences Specialties: Biochemistry/Biophysics/Structural Biology
Ranked in 2007* </p>
<ol>
<li> Harvard University (MA) </li>
<li> Massachusetts Institute of Technology<br></li>
<li> Stanford University (CA) </li>
</ol>
<p>Biological Sciences Specialties: Cell Biology
Ranked in 2007* </p>
<ol>
<li> Harvard University (MA) </li>
<li> Massachusetts Institute of Technology<br></li>
<li> Stanford University (CA) </li>
</ol>
<p>Biological Sciences Specialties: Ecology/Evolutionary Biology
Ranked in 2007* </p>
<ol>
<li> University of Chicago<br></li>
<li> Harvard University (MA)
University of CaliforniaBerkeley<br></li>
</ol>
<p>Biological Sciences Specialties: Genetics/Genomics/Bioinformatics
Ranked in 2007* </p>
<ol>
<li> Massachusetts Institute of Technology<br>
Stanford University (CA) </li>
<li> Harvard University (MA) </li>
</ol>
<p>Biological Sciences Specialties: Immunology/Infectious Disease
Ranked in 2007* </p>
<ol>
<li> Harvard University (MA) </li>
<li> Stanford University (CA) </li>
<li> University of CaliforniaSan Francisco<br></li>
</ol>
<p>Biological Sciences Specialties: Microbiology
Ranked in 2007* </p>
<ol>
<li> Harvard University (MA) </li>
<li> Stanford University (CA) </li>
<li> University of WisconsinMadison<br>
Washington University in St. Louis<br></li>
</ol>
<p>Biological Sciences Specialties: Molecular Biology
Ranked in 2007* </p>
<ol>
<li> Harvard University (MA) </li>
<li> Massachusetts Institute of Technology<br></li>
<li> Stanford University (CA) </li>
</ol>
<p>Biological Sciences Specialties: Neuroscience/Neurobiology
Ranked in 2007* </p>
<ol>
<li> Harvard University (MA) </li>
<li> Stanford University (CA) </li>
<li> Johns Hopkins University (MD) </li>
</ol>
<p>Notice that US NEWS graduate school rankings are based on surveys from academic peers. So according to the people who are the experts in biological science, H and S are clearly more reknowned than Y.</p>
<p>Datalook, you didn't read my whole sentence. I said compare the numbers relative to the number of bioscience students (grad and undergrad majors) at each school. Caltech and Yale are way ahead of the others. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the US News rankings are based almost entirely on overall department size, i.e., sheer numbers of faculty and students. Many academics have even written papers on that fact - surveys are done, but the way they are done leads to that result in 99% of cases. They are totally meaningless when it comes to education either at the grad or undergrad level. Furthermore, you only show the top three - if there were a university were ranked #4 in all of those "subspecialties" I would say it would "rank" higher than any of the other schools that poked into the top three, except maybe Harvard. (even though, as I said, such ranking would be meaningless relative to department quality since it is almost entirely based on size).</p>
<p>It's always funny when college prospectives bust out the arbitrary college rankings......it's funnier when they bust out arbitrary graduate school rankings. </p>
<p>You're going to get a similar education whether you go to Harvard, Yale, or Stanford: the differences are negligible. At all 3 schools, you're going to be taught by accomplished TAs and Profs (btw, most of them attended no-name schools as undergrads), and you're going to use the same textbooks and learn the same stuff (in general).</p>
<p>In this day and age of standardized education and electronic resources, it really matters very little where you get an undergraduate education....in the natural sciences at least. But if you are going to choose between HYS, seriously, make the decision based on location/costs instead of which school is ranked a notch higher in some arbitrary ranking for some broad category, for that year. </p>
<p>If you happen to be a California resident reading this, I have only one thing to say: Go to a UC school. Save your money for grad/professional school. Seriously, what are you thinking? If you're smart, you're going to accomplish great things no matter where you go to school. You might have to look harder, but the opportunites are there...... I'm sure this guy would say the same thing: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Z._Fire%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Z._Fire</a></p>
<p>I disagree regarding the UC's. I would choose almost anywhere over the UC's for undergrad - even a no-name college. They are overcrowded and impersonal to an extreme. For a Ph.D., obviously, several of the UCs are on par with Harvard, Yale and MIT across a wide range of departments.</p>
<p>posterX, did you ever attend at UC school?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you happen to be a California resident reading this, I have only one thing to say: Go to a UC school. Save your money for grad/professional school. Seriously, what are you thinking? If you're smart, you're going to accomplish great things no matter where you go to school. You might have to look harder, but the opportunites are there...... I'm sure this guy would say the same thing:
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, I don't know about that. I would instead say that * if you are California middle class who is getting no scholarship offers * then you should consider UC. But there are plenty of Californians who don't fall into that category.</p>
<p>As a case in point, I know 2 Californians who got into both Berkeley and Harvard...and found out that Harvard was actually * cheaper * once financial aid was factored in. They came frmo modest financial backgrounds, and Harvard is very aggressive on need-based aid. Basically, Harvard offered them full grants, whereas Berkeley wanted them to take out loans. I will always remember one of them acidly joking that he had always dreamed of going to Berkeley, but he couldn't afford it, so he had 'no choice' but to go to Harvard. </p>
<p>Or take my brother. He could have gone to Berkeley. But he would have had to pay. On the other hand, Caltech offered him a * full merit ride with stipend , via the so-called President's Scholarship program. So his choice was to either go to Berkeley and pay, or go to Caltech * and get paid. What would you have done? </p>
<p>And then of course there are other people who are rich enough not to care. Let's face it. If you come from a family of millionaires, the difference in UC in-state cost and that of a private school is basically meaningless. </p>
<p>The point is, UC's are only a good deal for a subset of the California population, not ALL Californians.</p>