<p>Interesting. I'm applying for biology graduate school for fall '06 admission, and my (MIT) academic advisor suggested that I apply to Harvard, Stanford, UCSF, Caltech, UC Berkeley, Johns Hopkins (the top-ranked programs on that list) -- and UCLA. </p>
<p>Although the UCLA biology dept doesn't seem to fare well in the rankings, I think it's seen as a respectable school to get your PhD from, at least in the eyes of professors at top-ranked schools.</p>
<p>Unlike most of the people on this board, I wouldn't worry about what USNews has to say about the value of your PhD. I would say that your advisor has a better idea than someone at USNews about what departments get people JOBS.</p>
<p>Well, considering that the USNews graduate rankings are determined by department heads, I would think that they're fairly accurate. After all, I would think that if anybody would know what the top departments are, it would be the department heads at the various schools.</p>
<p>"Rankings of doctoral programs in the sciences are based on the results of surveys sent to academics in each discipline during the fall of 2001 (or, in the case of geology, during the fall of 1998). Rankings were first published the following spring. The questionnaires asked individuals to rate the quality of the program at each institution on a 5-point scale: outstanding (5); strong (4); good (3); adequate (2); or marginal (1).</p>
<p>Individuals who were unfamiliar with a particular school's programs were asked to select "don't know." Scores for each institution were totaled and divided by the number of respondents who rated that school.</p>
<p>...Questionnaires were sent to the department heads and deans or directors of graduate studies at each program in each discipline."</p>
<p>However, if you say that you don't like USNews, then fair enough. Which ranking do you want to use? Do you want to use the National Research Council's ranking? Many people say that the NRC study is a more comprehensive survey of graduate programs. So let's see what happens when we use it:</p>
<p>Biochem/Molec Biol</p>
<p>1 Cal San Francisco 4.84
2 Stanford 4.83
3 MIT 4.83
4 Cal Berkeley 4.81
5 Harvard 4.80
6 Yale 4.59
7 Cal Tech 4.57
8 Wisconsin 4.55
9 Cal San Diego 4.53
10 Johns Hopkins 4.38
11 Columbia 4.38
12 Colorado 4.26
13 Washington (St. Louis) 4.22
** 14 UCLA 4.20 **</p>
<p>Cell Biology</p>
<p>1 MIT 4.86
2 Rockefeller 4.77
3 Cal San Francisco 4.76
4 Cal Tech 4.73
5 Harvard 4.70
6 Stanford 4.55
7 Cal San Diego 4.50
8 Washington 4.48
9 Washington (St. Louis) 4.39
10 Yale 4.37
11 Princeton 4.36
12 Cal Berkeley 4.16
13 Duke 4.11
14 Chicago 4.10
15 Wisconsin 4.05
** 16 UCLA 3.99 **</p>
<p>Ecol/Evol/Behav </p>
<p>1 Stanford 4.51
2 Chicago 4.51
3 Duke 4.49
4 Cornell 4.44
5 Cal Davis 4.42
6 Princeton 4.34
7 Washington 4.30
8 Cal Berkeley 4.29
9 Wisconsin 4.18
10 Texas 4.12
11 SUNY Stony Brook 4.12
12 Michigan 4.10
13 Washington (St. Louis) 3.94
14 Penn 3.90
15 Minnesota 3.88
16 Georgia 3.87
17 Yale 3.83
** 18 UCLA 3.82 **</p>
<p>Neurosciences</p>
<p>1 Cal San Diego 4.82
2 Yale 4.76
3 Harvard 4.73
4 Cal San Francisco 4.66
5 Stanford 4.64
6 Columbia 4.58
7 Johns Hopkins 4.47
8 Washington (St. Louis) 4.43
9 Cal Berkeley 4.32
10 Penn 4.30
11 Cal Tech 4.30
12 Washington 4.28
13 Rockefeller 4.23
14 MIT 4.21
** 15 UCLA 3.91 **</p>
<p>Pharmacology
1 Yale 4.45
2 Texas Southwestern Med Ctr 4.39
3 Cal San Diego 4.36
4 Johns Hopkins 4.21
5 Duke 4.18
6 Vanderbilt 4.17
7 Harvard 4.14
8 North Carolina 4.03
9 Washington 4.02
10 Penn 4.02
11 MIT 3.90
12 Wisconsin 3.89
13 Michigan 3.85
14 NYU 3.84
15 Emory 3.83
16 Stanford 3.81
17 Colorado 3.81
18 Rochester 3.79
19 Iowa 3.79
20 Minnesota 3.76
21 Arizona 3.71
22 Kansas 3.70
23 Virginia 3.65
24 Columbia 3.65
25 Chicago 3.64
26 SUNY Stony Brook 3.62
27 Texas 3.61
28 Albert Einstein College of Med 3.59
29 Kentucky 3.56
30 North Carolina State 3.53
31 Mayo Graduate School 3.53
32 Georgetown 3.52
33 Cal Davis 3.51
34 Michigan State 3.50
35 Rutgers 3.49
36 Texas Health Sci Ctr Houston 3.47
37 Miami 3.42
38 Medical University South Carolina 3.41
** 39 UCLA 3.40 **</p>
<p>Physiology
1 Yale 4.48
2 Cal San Diego 4.47
3 Penn 4.27
** 4 UCLA 4.23 **</p>
<p>And UCLA does not appear at all in the Molec/Genetics category, although that by itself may not mean much, as not every school has entries in each category. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, the NRC ranks UCLA about the same as does USNews when it comes to overall graduate biology department quality. The NRC identifies one subfield (physiology) as being particularly strong, on the other hand, another (pharmacology) as being not so strong. You can get an average value of NRC biology ranking by just adding up all the rankings of the subfields that UCLA participates in, dividing by the number of subfields. Do the math and it turns out that UCLA's average biology ranking is 18, which is about the same as USNews's ranking of 20. So USNews and NRC are in basic agreement. </p>
<p>All NRC rankings available here in case you want to check my sources:</p>
<p>Again, the NRC study was done by an analysis of the reputations of the departments, as judged by academics themselves. For those who want to review the methodology of the NRC study, it is available here.</p>
<p>What other rankings do you want me to use? Do you want to use Gourman? I don't have access to the latest one, but I can go and get it and print what I find. Or even better, maybe somebody else can do it for me. I do seem to remember that an old Gourman ranked UCLA somewhere around #15 in graduate biology. True, #15 is better than an average value of 18 according to the NRC, or 20 according to USNews, but that's still not very strong proof that biology is one of UCLA's star disciplines. For example, I would argue that UCLA is far stronger in the social sciences like sociology or psychology than it is in biology. Both USNews and the NRC agree that UCLA's social sciences departments are better than its bio department.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>Do you have much else that you do for fun besides peruse rankings of universities? My God, you need a new hobby.</p>
<p>You don't go to any program based on the ranking alone, you go based on who you'll work with, as well as other factors. Yes, higher ranked departments are more likely to have stellar profs, but otherwise it's rather unimportant because PLACEMENT matters more than where you went to school. If there's a hotshot at Cal State Suckville that is willing to take you in, it may be better to go there than the bigger name.</p>
<p>But the almighty rankings say otherwise. Just use common sense. Where the hell did common sense go?</p>
<p>UCLAri, are you trying to put words in my mouth? Did I ever SAY that you should go to a particular program solely on a ranking? Why don't you point to the quote where I specifically said that you should do that. Oh, you can't do it, can you? Allright then. </p>
<p>I simply dispute the assertion that UCLA has a strong or highly ranked biology department, relative to its other departments. Nothing more, nothing less. The assertion is not backed by any evidence that I am aware of. I do not like to see assertions that are unsupported by the evidence.</p>
<p>Whether you choose to go to UCLA for biology is completely up to you. If you want to go there because you like their style or because they are doing exactly the research you want to do, that's one thing. But to say you're going because the department is highly ranked is wholely unsupported by the evidence. </p>
<p>And besides, since you talk about placement, what evidence do you have that UCLA is particularly strong when it comes to placement?</p>
<p>You miss the point, Sakky. You're trying to show that UCLA's biology department is somehow deficient based on the fact that it's ranked in the TOP 25 departments nationwide. TOP 25 is the key phrase here.</p>
<p>That means, that out of the hundreds of research universities, and thousands of colleges otherwise, it's in the TOP 25.</p>
<p>I know that perspective is totally lost on these forums. Anything below top 25 around here is simply for the plebes, but think about that. TOP 25 out of hundreds, thousands even. It is still strong, relative to its other departments. You're simply looking at it too narrowly. Instead of thinking that there are only 25 universities in the country (common mistake around here), consider the stakes in terms of hundreds or thousands. </p>
<p>I don't have any evidence that the UCLA bio department is great at placement. But if an MIT academic advisor is recommending it, I'd say it's probably pretty damn good at getting people jobs. I'm just trying to make the point that rankings are often a poor indicator of the real strength of a department. Comparing the ranking of a biology department to the ranking of an English department is like apples and watermelons. Sure, they're somewhat the same, but not really.</p>
<p>UCLAri, where've you been man?</p>
<p>No, UCLAri, you miss the point. I never said that UCLA's biology department is deficient. Again, show me the precise quote where I specifically said that the biology department is deficient. Oh, once again, you can't do it, can you?</p>
<p>I am disputing a quote that was made previously. Here is the quote, in case you forgot:</p>
<p>
[quote]
UCLA is not only recognized for its atheletics. It has strengths in the sciences too, mainly biology.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As far as I can tell, UCLA's strengths are *not * in biology. UCLA is far stronger in other areas, most notably the social sciences, than in biology. Even in the sciences, biology seems to be one of UCLA's weaker disciplines, relative to its other disciplines. If anything, people should be touting its chemistry department or its physics department, not its biology department, because its biology department is one of the weaker departments at UCLA. That's like Yale bragging about the strength of its engineering school. </p>
<p>
[quote]
That means, that out of the hundreds of research universities, and thousands of colleges otherwise, it's in the TOP 25.</p>
<p>I know that perspective is totally lost on these forums. Anything below top 25 around here is simply for the plebes, but think about that. TOP 25 out of hundreds, thousands even. It is still strong, relative to its other departments. You're simply looking at it too narrowly. Instead of thinking that there are only 25 universities in the country (common mistake around here), consider the stakes in terms of hundreds or thousands.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Come on, let's curb the hyperbole. Thousands? Get real. Go look at the NRC rankings yourself, and you will see there in any biology subdiscipline, there are only a couple hundred PhD-granting departments in the whole country in that subdiscipline. There is no point in talking about all the liberal arts colleges and other colleges that don't even grant PhD's. After all, if you're trying to get your PhD in biology, what do you care about places like Williams or Amherst that don't offer PhD's at all? These rankings have to do with departments associated with PhD programs, which should be of interest only to those people who want to get the PhD. Obviously to get the PhD, you have to go to a school that offers a PhD.</p>
<p>Or perhaps your position is that you are looking at things only as an undergrad, and UCLA is a "top 25" place to go for biology. Oh really? Are you sure? The rankings that have been published have to do only with PhD-granting departments. UCLA may well be a top 25 biology school when you are only looking at those schools with biology PhD granting departments. What about if you are looking at ALL schools? Is UCLA still a top 25 biology school for undergraduates? Seems dicey to me. For example, I strongly suspect that you could get a better undergraduate biology education at a place like Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Wellesley, or Pomona than you could at UCLA. After all, the LAC's specialize in undergraduate education. </p>
<p>The point is, you can't have it both ways. If you want to say that UCLA is a top 25 biology program looking only at PhD-granting institutions, then you have to admit that there are only a couple-hundred such institutions in the country, not thousands. If you want to say that UCLA is a top 25 biology OVERALL, particularly in terms of undergraduate education, then you have to come up with a case for why UCLA is better than Williams or any other LAC when it comes to undergraduate biology. But you can't play both ends of the field. You have to pick one and stick with it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
rankings are often a poor indicator of the real strength of a department.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would argue that when it comes to PhD-level education and research, rankings are an EXTREMELY good indicator of the real strength of a department. After all, if a department was really strong (however you define 'strong'), then why wouldn't a ranking demonstrate that? For both USNews and the NRC, the rankings are compiled from the opinions of the academics themselves. So if a department is strong, why wouldn't fellow academics know about it enough to give it a strong ranking? Are these academics all conspiring to keep the UCLA Biology Department down? If so, why would they do that - what do they gain by keeping the UCLA Biology department down? - and why only the Biology department, and not also the UCLA chemistry department or the sociology department? </p>
<p>Furthermore, even if you don't like rankings, then what alternative do you have? Should we just draw school names out of a hat? Are you implying that you have a better way to do it? </p>
<p>
[quote]
But if an MIT academic advisor is recommending it, I'd say it's probably pretty damn good at getting people jobs
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First, again, why? Why should we believe that this advisor is giving advice based on what will get jobs? This advisor may be recommending UCLA based on the fit of molliebatmit's research to UCLA's research, or her personality, or any other host of factors. I see no evidence that this has anything to do with getting jobs. </p>
<p>Secondly, as you saw from molliebatmit's response, the advisor also named a bunch of other schools that just "coincidentally" happened to be at the top of the list of the other rankings. UCLA happened to be the only outlier. That's even more proof that the rankings coincide quite heavily with what academics respect. If that advisor recommended a bunch of schools that seemed to have no relationship to the rankings at all, then that might call the rankings into question. However, the advisor named a whole bunch of the schools at the very top of the rankings, and then also UCLA. Hence, the rankings seem to hold up extremely well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
UCLAri, where've you been man?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Avoiding posts like the one above.</p>
<p>I'm not going to bother with the rest of the post, because it's old hat, but I'll deal with this one tidbit:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, even if you don't like rankings, then what alternative do you have? Should we just draw school names out of a hat? Are you implying that you have a better way to do it?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Go to the department that offers you:</p>
<p>The best possible advisor
The best placement in the work you want to do (for example, a top 10 dept. may not do well in placing you at a LAC as others may)
The best FUNDING
The best experience</p>
<p>Going to the top ranked school is not always the best choice, simply because you may not want what they offer in terms of a tenure-track future.</p>
<p>Many liberal arts colleges have limited graduate programs, although they may not be in biology. </p>
<p>I guess the question is "When does the top stop?" At what point is a school not a top school? If there are 300 colleges that offer a certain program, do only the top 10 really matter? 25? Is there some number you guys want to define, or is just when you feel icky because the number is so far from 1?</p>
<p>This general discussion site is detatched from reality, in the sense that when people get 4s or (god forbid!) 3's on ap tests, they cry, or explain away, or talk about how upset they are. Or if they get a 1490, or only a 3.90000 unweigted average.</p>
<p>When looking at grad school rankings, shouldn't one be even more concerned about the particular area of your subject instead of the subject as a whole? Say you go to a school with a weak overall bio department, but its microbiology area is phenominal. How much does the rest of the department matter?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Go to the department that offers you:</p>
<p>The best possible advisor
The best placement in the work you want to do (for example, a top 10 dept. may not do well in placing you at a LAC as others may)
The best FUNDING
The best experience
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And the presumption here is that top-ranked departments are not good at offering any of these things. Or that low-ranked departments are very good at offering these things. So what low-ranked department happens to be unusually good at offering all of these things? Are you trying to say that the UCLA biology PhD program offers unusually good funding, or good advising, or good placement, or a good experience, relative to other higher ranked programs? I don't think you are saying any of these things, so I don't see why you are raising this point. </p>
<p>Look, like it or not, UCLA is ranked either #20 or #18 in the rankings. Those are the cards on the table, read 'em and weep. You can choose to read those cards any way you want to read 'em, but at the end of the days, you cannot deny that those are the cards on the table. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Going to the top ranked school is not always the best choice, simply because you may not want what they offer in terms of a tenure-track future.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said that going to the top-ranked school is always the best choice. </p>
<p>However, it all gets back to what you define to be "strong". It was opined that UCLA had a particularly "strong" biology department, stronger than its other science departments. However, I think we can now all agree that UCLA does not have a particularly highly ranked biology department relative to its rankings in other disciplines. </p>
<p>So now what you're doing is just redefining what the word 'strong' means. Basically strong means 'what works for you'. Fine. But then in that case, you would have nothing to say to some guy who goes to the bottom-ranked school in the country and say that his school is "stronger" than UCLA. His school may indeed be stronger than UCLA, using the new customizably pliable definition of the word "strong". The word 'strong' then basically loses all meaning.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Many liberal arts colleges have limited graduate programs, although they may not be in biology
[/quote]
</p>
<p>None have any PhD programs. I wasn't talking about general graduate programs. I was talking specifically about PhD programs. That's the point. </p>
<p>
[quote]
When looking at grad school rankings, shouldn't one be even more concerned about the particular area of your subject instead of the subject as a whole? Say you go to a school with a weak overall bio department, but its microbiology area is phenominal. How much does the rest of the department matter?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And conversely if you go to a school with a strong general bio department, but a weak microbiology area, and you do microbiology, the strength of all the other bio departments don't matter to you. Or put another way, UCLA's strength in physiology doesn't do much for those PhD students studying pharmacology.</p>
<p>This also leads to a larger general point. Look, guys, the fact is, rankings matter. Whether you like them or not, whether you agree with them or not, they matter. We can argue over how much they matter and how much they SHOULD matter, but I think nobody disputes that they do matter. All things being equal, you want to go to the program that is more highly ranked. After all, why even have rankings if they don't mean anything? Why did the NRC (a nonprofit organization) spend so much money conducting a ranking if rankings are meaningless anyway? I doubt that anybody would take the position that rankings have no meaning.</p>
<p>seriously whos cares!!!!! UCLAri I suggest you just stop trying, Sakky is known for blabbing on and on until you concede...and Sakky seriously, UCLA is an amazing school and it's bio program is world class just because you're too shallow and apparently believe that a school/program ranked #18-20 isn't a good school/program then fine. The only schools/programs that are good are those ranked in the top 10. You win, happy?</p>
<p>I'm impressed that Stanford is considered very prestigious in many asian countries.</p>
<p>In Japan, the ranking would be:</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>MIT/Stanford</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Columbia/Berkeley</li>
</ol>
<p>I think most people don't know other universities well in Japan.</p>
<p>is Columbia really that well known oversees, more so than Cornell or Chicago???</p>
<p>I wouldn't be surprised</p>
<p>Harvard, Yale, and Stanford are in a league by themselves. Princeton, MIT, and Caltech are in a secondary league. All other schools are not worth mentioning when it comes to top, world-wide name recognition.</p>
<p>Chicago??? yeah i agree throw UCLA in there...</p>
<p>From what experience do you speak from? Almost all of the itnernationals or people with experience internationally mentioned Berkeley, and many mentioned UCLA.</p>
<p>What does top mean? How do you justify defining your leagues?</p>
<p>gutrade - people most definitely know berkeley... simply because berkeley is one of the top research universities in the world. Go to China (im from china) and you say Berkeley and people will know instantly what you are talking about.</p>