<p>No one cares about “average citations per faculty.” You have “***uoka University,” “University of Friburg,” and a TX cancer center as the “top” research institutions by that metric (incidentally, Friburg has the lowest total score). HiCi or top-journal counts are a little better. Any professional academic knows you can get a huge boost in citation counts by writing a lit review. Also, citations are a bad metric because it punishes having young star junior faculty, which top universities attract. Getting an asst prof job at Harvard or MIT may be a great stepping stone to a tenured position at a 2nd tier school, and top universities use a disproportionately large jr faculty body to recycle fresh and talented blood.</p>
<p>Edit: It bleeped out “F u k uoka University” ;)</p>
<p>Learning in Asia emphasizes rote learning, opposed to less defined or concrete skills that are necessary for jobs. They can memorize the heck out of formulas, but can they apply it when they come to the US.</p>
<p>For those who dismiss these data off hand because of corruption in China, it actually enhances the argument of the success of Chinese institutes in spite of its political weakness. I am not arguing which country is more corrupt in this thread. Likely, the practice of those congressional pork and admission of students because of donations from their parents will spark a corruption outcry in China. </p>
<p>“Very well. Which peers evaluated them? What criteria were their evaluations based on?”</p>
<p>Here is my guess: The peers must be officials from communist propaganda department in Beijing. The criteria have to be credible demonstration of loyalty to Maxism-Leninism-Maoist. </p>
<p>"No one cares about “average citations per faculty. You have “***uoka University,” “University of Friburg,” and a TX cancer center as the “top” research institutions by that metric.”</p>
<p>Sorry, you misunderstood the method. Average citation is per paper not per faculty. </p>
<p>“Getting an asst prof job at Harvard or MIT may be a great stepping stone to a tenured position at a 2nd tier school, and top universities use a disproportionately large jr faculty body to recycle fresh and talented blood.”</p>
<p>You better try yourself to obtain tenure status in MIT or Harvard without publishing papers in high impact factor journals, and without being recognized widely (citations). To my observation, those people failed to get tenure in these places more likely ending up in University of South Florida or similar schools. </p>
<p>"Learning in Asia emphasizes rote learning, opposed to less defined or concrete skills that are necessary for jobs. They can memorize the heck out of formulas, but can they apply it when they come to the US. "</p>
<p>Fact memory is part of the learning, too. Some Asian institutes with low quality professors may overly emphasize this part of the study, and provide inadequate training for critical thinking. My recent visits to China show that they are also improving on the latter part. Furthermore, there are so many Chinese and Indian graduate students in this country, and they have no problem to compete with the students trained in this country. If anything, they seem more dedicated and motivated…, despite some weakness in their undergraduate training.</p>
<p>Average citations per paper is even more ridiculous (and much moreso!). It would punish a university whose faculty member publishes a paper below the mean number of citations. Since citations are very long-tailed (ie, literatures are dominated by few papers), counting average citations per paper produced at that university basically punishes 80% of the marginal production of papers. Obviously a metric shouldn’t punish the production of new papers. </p>
<p>What do you mean by distinguishing yourself outside of publications in high-impact journals and recognition? These are very clearly the most important factors in tenure decisions. If you looked at promoted Harvard/MIT faculty, they would have been very productive in the years leading up to their tenure decision. Sometimes people who are very productive by USF’s standards aren’t as productive by Harvard’s, or (sometimes) their work wasn’t in an area the university wanted to expand. But to discount the importance of publication and peer recognition for tenure decisions is a very extreme view.</p>
<p>Average citations per paper also tends to heavily favor certain journals (and their subfields) without regard to the actual impact of the journal on the field as a whole.</p>
<p>As an example, the Annual Review of Immunology has been the top biological sciences journal in terms of citations per paper for several years. This is not a journal that publishes novel research, nor is it a journal that the majority of biological scientists read or care about. In this way, a university with only a strong immunology department could look “better” than a university with broad strength in the biomedical sciences, where many faculty members publish papers in Nature, Science, and Cell (the broadly regarded “top three” journals, even if cites/paper doesn’t show it).</p>
<p>I have seen many arguments against the use of h-index and similar metrics in the letters to the editor of top journals. I have not seen similar arguments in favor. Professional scientists do not like these metrics. To compound the meaninglessness, this study cited in the OP appears to have taken these controversial metrics and multiplied them by arbitrary multipliers.</p>
<p>If I came up with a formula for applicants to input their SAT scores, class rank, and GPA, then multiplied those numbers by totally arbitrary multipliers and added them up, would you have any confidence that my resulting ranking said anything reliable about the actual intelligence of those students? I would not.</p>
<p>“Average citations per paper is even more ridiculous (and much moreso!). It would punish a university whose faculty member publishes a paper below the mean number of citations. Since citations are very long-tailed (ie, literatures are dominated by few papers), counting average citations per paper produced at that university basically punishes 80% of the marginal production of papers.”</p>
<p>If you are a faculty in Harvard, you should know this by now. If you are not a faculty, welcome to this “extreme” reality! For you to get promotion or tenure, funding is the prime factor. Unless you have major award recognition, the next is your average impact factor (equivalent of average citations for 2 years of the journals your articles were published) and aggregate impact factor of your original publications, particularly those articles you are the senior authors. These have to be supported by at least 7 letters of outside peer referencing you as the “leader” in the field. No top tier research institute in country looks favorably on a pile of marginal low impact factor articles. </p>
<p>“If I came up with a formula for applicants to input their SAT scores, class rank, and GPA, then multiplied those numbers by totally arbitrary multipliers and added them up, would you have any confidence that my resulting ranking said anything reliable about the actual intelligence of those students? I would not.”</p>
<p>The admission offices of many elite institutes are quite pompous in thinking that they are performing a social engineering for the country, based on reading of 2 personal assays and whatever political agenda. They should follow the Caltech or Oxbridge model in selecting students. Their graduates will underperform in foreseeable years to come. The majority rank of professors of these institutes will likely be filled by smart foreign graduates or graduates from other institutes. </p>
<p>This thread is quite entertaining. But it is the time for me to get off this one.</p>
<p>Harvardfan, I might be inclined to agree with you that the fact that Tsinghua University may have more citation counts than high-profile US engineering schools is surprising and perhaps indicative of a meritocratic shift in the global economy. The problem is that you simply take your analysis too far by imputing predictions that are weakly (if at all) supported by the evidence. </p>
<p>Here are just a few of my concerns:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You seem to be equating publication cite count in a particular nation with future (private-sector) R&D jobs created in that nation, which is a tenuous link at best. Job growth has far more to do with entrepreneurial activity and culture, political climate, and general economic growth than it does with citation count per se. There’s a major difference between publishing an idea within the academic literature and then commercializing that idea, for which the private-sector R&D jobs are created. History is replete with examples of countries that had prolific research universities but suffered from stagnant job creation, such as the Soviet Union. Conversely, the United States in the early 1900’s had relatively few top research universities - which at the time were mostly located in Europe - but was a fantastic commercializer of new ideas. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why is it necessarily alarming? As explained above, just because a country publishes an idea first doesn’t mean that it will be able to commercialize it first. A published article is open to the entire world - anybody can read it and attempt to capitalize on it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe so. But so what? The fact that US universities use unmeritocratic admissions policies for their undergrad programs has little if anything to do with their citation counts. After all, the vast majority of undergrads, whether here or in the US, will never engage in research and will never publish any journal articles. Hence, even if the US were to implement purely meritocratic admissions policies, that wouldn’t do anything to improve citation counts. </p>
<p>Now, you may be correct in that US schools may well then choose to import their faculty ranks by hiring foreigners or graduates from other schools. So? As long as those people continue to want to work at US universities, then what is the problem? After all, you said it yourself, as long as the US standard of living is high, then the country will continue to be able to import the best faculty into the country. I am quite sure that the vast majority of newly minted engineering Phd’s who are entering academia would rather take an offer at MIT than at Tsinghua, regardless of what the relative citation count may be. I think you would agree with me that that wouldn’t be a close call in the least.</p>
<p>Now, I agree with you that that may change if the US economy stagnates and China continues to grow. But now we’re getting to the true heart of the problem. What matters in the long term is therefore not the citation count per se, but rather average standards of living. And - let’s be honest - China is not going to exceed the US in terms of average standards of living for many decades, if ever.</p>
<p>I think sakky approached the problem correctly in addressing the question What is the best way to attract the best researchers?</p>
<p>The use of these citation and publication metrics is highly debatable, which is evidenced by this thread to some degree. </p>
<p>I believe sakkys approach is best. In order for China to “end US dominance”, they are going to have to find a way to attract the best researchers. Can China accomplish this? As history has shown, it is inherently difficult to beat the incumbent #1 without bringing something new to the table, which means that China is going to have to attract the best researchers with something that the US simply cannot.</p>
<p>While I do agree that standard of living is an important aspect, I dont agree with sakkys emphasis on it. People generally dont go into academia for the money. As long as the standard of living is good enough, they are perfectly happy given the right academic environment. China shouldnt worry about exceeding the US in its standard of living.</p>
<p>What do academics want? Id argue that academics want to have a large amount of academic freedom, which includes a large amount of research money and the freedom to pursue whatever problem they want. The best model so far for creating an ideal academic environment is Bell Labs: a lot of research money and a lot of academic freedom. The sheer density of world class research that came out of that institution is amazing. Steven Chu, the Energy Secretary, elaborates on this point in his Compton Lecture at MIT: </p>
<p>His goal is to create the optimal scientific atmosphere, which is the best way to attract the best minds in the world. He is trying to recreate that magic now by promoting the Joint BioEnergy Institute.</p>
<p>So is the goal to make another Bell Labs in China? Id argue not quite. What made Bell Labs successful in the 70-80s does not necessarily translate into 2010. The Information Age has changed the entire playing field in terms of bringing the scientific community together.</p>
<p>Like sakky mentioned, China isnt going to outcompete the US unless it can provide researchers with something the US cannot. Id argue that until China can do this, the US will probably stay on top.</p>
<p>In fact, not only is there no problem, I think this is one of the main reasons I have lots of faith in our graduate programs. Believe me, I have relations outside of the US, and they would absolutely love to come study here. But the reality is, it’s very hard for many such students to make it here, and actually among other factors, one of the ones determining who comes here includes being very academically competitive. While I certainly share your concern about the state of elite undergraduate programs, I don’t think there’s a specific concern I see about the graduate ones. If anything, if a bunch of academically talented individuals from some other nation were recruited to study for undergrad in the US, more so than now, I’d be happier than with the social engineering stuff you’re mentioning. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think standard of living would probably be some degree of a good factor. After all, academics desire secure positions in which to conduct their work, so that they can focus on what they love to do. Thus, I’m pretty sure they would take their surroundings into consideration at least to a decent extent. Of course, I don’t think most of them care way too much, as long as the place is clean, easy to live in, and lets them focus on what they like while leading a good life otherwise. Nevertheless, most people I know (again international) would still prefer to come to MIT for graduate school than go elsewhere. A big factor could include how graduates of MIT or whatever other good US school are doing eventually – this might be in fact the biggest factor of all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like I said much earlier at the beginning of this thread, I learned so much about the field of mathematics and who the stars in it are, and what they’re doing by talking to people around the circle. Not by looking up statistics. I think to gauge the impact of a professor’s work, it’s important to defer to the experts, or become really really educated on the given field. Frankly, being quite into this stuff, I still can’t make an especially intelligent remark on my very own field of study and its masters. I couldn’t tell you why so and so professor is a rising star and is likely to revolutionize so and so aspect of the field, but there are academics who could. </p>
<p>But to get back on track, I think standard of living, this and that considered, along with the business about professors’ impact in the field, the main thing the US needs to do to keep its edge in my opinion is to make sure it attracts the best to the graduate programs; like sakky hinted about standard of living, once someone’s settled in the US and has experienced both terrific academics and nice living standards, there’s a pretty good chance this individual is not leaving the US, and will serve its needs. If I were a student, international or not, who knew a school in the US would maximize my chances of getting my ideal job in a place with academic freedom, top academics, and great living standards, I’d take it in an instant if given an offer.</p>
<p>Overall the approach here is the same as sakky’s, but potentially allowing for several factors other than standard of living to dominate what makes a graduate program of the US ideal to other students. And one of these is that somehow, I would guess that going to MIT would do more for my prospects of getting the ideal job than going outside. But this to me is the main thing: am I going to have a better chance at my ideal career coming out of a US grad school, even if I don’t live in the most beautiful part of the US.</p>
<p>Perhaps a better term that I should have used is ‘quality of life’ as opposed to simple standard of living, which does imply a purely economic standpoint, for I certainly agree that most academics don’t care that much about pure money past a certain threshold. What they care about is enjoying a lifestyle in which they can pursue the intellectual lifestyle that they desire and raise their families in a conducive environment.</p>
<p>A major characteristic of China that severely detracts from its quality of life, even (or perhaps especially) at a place like Tsinghua is pollution. I wouldn’t want set roots in a city like Beijing, where Tsinghau is located, as I would be concerned for my, and especially my children’s, overall health. The World Bank has found that 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world are in China, and Forbes found that the top 10 world’s most polluted cities are Chinese. To be fair, China just happens to have a lot of cities and hence lots of opportunities to be included on a list of top cities of any kind, and China has also been improving its pollution metrics lately. But still, the fact remains that the average US city, and certainly the average US college town, is far cleaner than a corresponding location in China. </p>
<p>Academics also prize intellectual freedom, which is obviously notably lacking in China. I highly doubt that many of the world’s top researchers would appreciate having their Internet access restricted by the Great Firewall/Golden Shield, or not even being allowed access to certain print news publications, even if their research is purely technical in nature and has nothing to do with politics or social commentary. The mere fact that the ability to speak their minds is constrained is deeply offensive to most academics. The ‘intellectual’ quality of life is thereby reduced. </p>
<p>But there’s an even larger point besides. Innovation is not the province of academia only. Much - arguably most - innovation occurs outside campus boundaries. Like I said before, history is replete of examples of nations producing initial innovations, often times within the university setting, but then having some other nation successfully capitalizing on the innovation. For example, Canadian researchers at the University of Toronto were credited with discovering the connection between insulin and diabetes, but it was the US pharmaceutical firm Eli Lilly that successfully commercialized that discovery. Academics in numerous countries such as the UK, Germany, and the USSR, produced a series of innovations in computers - Englishman Alan Turing being credited as the father of computer science - but it was the United States that clearly stood at the forefront in developing a powerful computer industry, with IBM controlling a whopping 75% of the world’s market share in computer by the 1960’s. How many people can even name a single British, German, or (former Soviet) computer company? </p>
<p>Like I said, much - probably most - innovation is actually fostered by private companies, and company growth and development has much more to do with entrepreneurial culture and general market conditions and political economics than it does with university settings in general, and certainly little to do with citation count. Entrepreneurs and businessmen care a great deal about economic standards of living.</p>
<p>The posters on this forum are quire ignorant. Calling top notch Indian and Chinese universities is simply unacceptable. Dissing the IIT’s is even worse, I’m sure not a single one of you would be admitted to the IIT’s. Have you even taken a look at their selection criteria?</p>
<p>I think many of the brighter students at US universities could get into the IITs with training; I personally am well familiar with them. The story of those is that you need to be intelligent and usually have specifically good training to do well on their entrance exams.</p>
<p>While I think putting down the schools would be a mistake, given the people who go there are often really bright, I don’t think the IITs have quite the same goal or strengths as many US universities which are excellent for math/science/engineering. They’re a brutal experience, and I know graduates of them that’re really exceptionally bright, but the focus on large-scale research seems more prevalent elsewhere. Different goals, but all good schools, and with extremely sharp people. </p>
<p>Some of these sharp people come to the US and do wonderful things when they get there.</p>
<p>Do you think with Indian government, by opening 10 more IITs in a span of 3 years, will be able to maintain the quality of education at these institutes? These IITs don’t have buildings, teaching staff, labs but still boost an acceptance rate of under 6%.</p>
<p>It take years for an institute to become good and centuries to become great.</p>
<p>^^ MIT probably has lots more money, and is in general just a better put together thing because it can support professional and research interests alike, and it has the edge over most places in the world.</p>
<p>What is undoubtable, however, is that the caliber of IIT students is very high. I know graduates of that school, and they easily are some of the most scarily bright, analytical people I’ve ever seen. </p>
<p>It’s clear, though, that most IIT students would love to go to school at top technical schools like Berkeley and MIT. Many graduates of that school system are pretty excited when I tell them I go to Berkeley, and MIT is held in similar esteem. I think a great combo for students of India would be to go to IIT for undergrad (where it’s brutal, and you just become a stronger academic thinker for it), and then go to Berkeley or MIT for graduate school. I know some graduates of IIT who did just something like this, i.e. did their Ph.D. in Berkeley for computer science. The resources and connections of a school like MIT become more crucial than ever for graduate school, even if they’d be great to have for an undergraduate.</p>
But it doesn’t mean that calibre of US students at top US school is any less. And also the high caliber of the student body not necessary make an institute great. It is always the other way around.</p>
<p>It is true that there is no dearth of Indian students who are good in science/math and would have done well in any country but that should not lead to making the IITs the best institute. </p>
<p>I posted earlier that I think the best US students of math and science definitely are up to the caliber of IIT students. </p>
<p>Ramanujan is a phenomenon, I’d not give him as an example for anything at all. People still wonder what the hell happened and how he came about ;)</p>
<p>I don’t think the IITs are the best institute. I said most IIT students would love to study at MIT or Berkeley, I’m sure over studying at any IIT school. One young guy who graduated from the IIT undergrad program actually was saying the people around him who made it from there to MIT were really brilliant. I don’t think we should go too much into this, and I don’t know specifics of the caliber of foreign students because I haven’t studied anywhere but the US, but I can say I’ve not been particularly happy with the academic caliber of students of many elite undergraduate schools, though I haven’t personally met someone who goes to MIT and isn’t impressive. I do think the graduate students I know from elite schools in the US are some of the brightest people I’ve ever met, however. Some of these are international. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is slightly vague. It defends what you mean by “institute” – when I say “MIT” I could mean the undergraduates, the grad students, the professors, etc. I disagree that a mediocre student would be made great by a high quality institute, if that’s what you’re saying. A student who has the drive to benefit from a school can undergo transformation, but I’d not call that student mediocre in the first place. But certainly an institute can be brilliant even independent of students. For instance, the faculty can be stellar.</p>
<p>I think you’re holding a misconception. I have several family members from the previous generation who attended the IIT’s (I attend MIT). What they have suggested (and what I have gathered talking to Indian students from India studying at MIT) is that many of the top IIT students who come to the US are brilliant inspite of having attended IIT. Many of them acknowledge that their laboratory training was horrible, and that their creative thinking was not stimulated much at all. They also suggested that most of their peers at the IIT were simply interested in getting a high paying job, end of story. </p>
<p>I think the IIT’s are great for producing students who are going to do step-by-step research or want to work in a tech company that requires analytical thinking. But from my training thus far at MIT, I have gathered that MIT beats out places like IIT in creating super-creative types like Shannon, etc. There is a very intimate relationship between the faculty and the students. Most people who attend MIT/IIT are smart enough to learn most of the material in their respective field with a little assistance. However MIT provides a more nurturing environment for people who ant to question fundamental assumptions and tear down and rebuild entire fields.</p>
<p>Both Sakky and harvardfan miss a crucial reason for US dominance in science and engineering: Funding. Please imagine such scenario: If Bush like presidents sit in the oval office for 2 more decades, and the funding for science and engineering goes down 20% from the current level. China, in the meanwhile, opens up a little more, and quadruples its funding for science and technology. You are a professor, and just lose your job from MIT because of insufficient funding. You receive a phone call from Tsinghua University the next day that Tsinghua invites you to join them with 5 million dollars start-up fund, and 20% higher salary than you earn in MIT, and of course, freedom to pursue your science as far as you can obtain your own funding later from China Natural Science Foundation. What will you do?</p>
<p>This is not an impossible scenario since there are quite a few American Professors in Tsinghua now.</p>
<p>First off, I hope you weren’t responding to my post, which explicitly stated I think MIT is probably better for the purpose of studies. A lot of US universities are. I just said I’m not very impressed with the academic level of students going to many elite schools. I did not include MIT in this. </p>
<p>Second, I will suggest that one of the main problems is that there isn’t as much opportunity in India to do much with all this creative research potential. Many such individuals would be better served coming to the US, and if they’re staying in India, they might as well try to survive, and IITs give exactly the skills needed to get a high-paying job. My dad has suggested that many of his colleagues hated computer science, but did it anyway – some of them vastly preferred theoretical physics, pure mathematics, etc. I’m today pursuing my interest in pure mathematics because there are tons of options and the US just seems more flexible. That’s one of its greatest strengths. My cousins in India still are mainly worried about surviving, and doing something like pure mathematics for the large part seems a foregone conclusion. The reality is that people like me and you have it really, really good because we have all these options here – not only schools like MIT which help nurture our interests, but also many more options waiting for us after we graduate. </p>
<p>Of course, let’s be totally honest. Most engineers at Berkeley, Stanford or MIT undergrad probably aren’t going to be creative superstars either – they’re probably looking for very good jobs. For many, the IIT undergrad model is fine – not the best, but fine. Also, a lot of undergrad is spent gaining basic skills, and graduate school is often where more interesting work is done.</p>