<p>Can anyone list some of the top schools in Biochemistry? Top 10-15 perhaps.</p>
<p>Columbia, UCLA, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, UW Madison, Caltech, UNC Chapel Hill, Harvard, etc..</p>
<p>Many of the small liberal arts colleges have great biochemistry programs. Many students don’t initial think of small liberal arts schools as science places, but many of the best small liberal arts colleges are science powerhouses (e.g., Amherst, Carleton, Grinnell, Harvey Mudd, Haverford, Reed, Swarthmore, Wesleyan, Williams produce the most Ph.Ds in the sciences of the LACs). A liberal arts college provides an atmosphere for high-level research, intense and engaged study, close collaboration with faculty (without competition with grad students for faculty time), classes taught by professors (not grad students), etc. This atmosphere cultivates independent and creative thought, sound reasoning, and effective problem-solving skills.</p>
<p>Bowdoin-- Biochemistry</a> (Bowdoin)</p>
<p>Carleton-- Carleton</a> College Academic Catalog 2007-2008: Biochemistry Concentration</p>
<p>Grinnell-- Biological</a> Chemistry</p>
<p>Haverford-- <a href="http://www.haverford.edu/biochem-biophys/Biochem07AFS.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.haverford.edu/biochem-biophys/Biochem07AFS.pdf</a></p>
<p>Reed-- Chemistry</a> Academic Information</p>
<p>Swarthmore-- Department</a> of Chemistry and Biochemistry</p>
<p>Wesleyan-- <a href="http://www.wesleyan.edu/mbb/%5B/url%5D">http://www.wesleyan.edu/mbb/</a></p>
<p>Williams-- Williams</a> College Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Program</p>
<p>Because biochem often means research, here are the top undergrad producers (by percentage) of future PhDs for bio and chem (no, there's no biochem category, pick out the schools that do both):</p>
<p>
Percent of PhDs per grad
Academic field: Bio and Health Sciences</p>
<p>PhDs and Doctoral Degrees:
ten years (1994 to 2003) from NSF database</p>
<p>Number of Undergraduates:
ten years (1989 to 1998) from IPEDS database</p>
<p>Note: Does not include colleges with less than 1000 graduates over the ten year period </p>
<p>1 California Institute of Technology 5.4%
2 Reed College 4.8%
3 Swarthmore College 4.4%
4 University of Chicago 3.3%
5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3.1%
6 University of California-San Francisco 3.1%
7 Harvard University 3.0%
8 Kalamazoo College 3.0%
9 Harvey Mudd College 2.9%
10 Earlham College 2.8%
11 Johns Hopkins University 2.7%
12 Princeton University 2.6%
13 Haverford College 2.6%
14 Mount Holyoke College 2.6%
15 Yale University 2.5%
16 Rice University 2.5%
17 Lawrence University 2.5%
18 Carleton College 2.5%
19 Stanford University 2.5%
20 Oberlin College 2.4%
21 Cornell University, All Campuses 2.4%
22 Grinnell College 2.3%
23 Hendrix College 2.3%
24 Bryn Mawr College 2.1%
25 Bowdoin College 2.1%
26 Wellesley College 2.1%
27 Amherst College 2.1%
Per Capita Undergrad Production of PhDs and Doctoral Degrees </p>
<p>Academic field: Chemistry </p>
<p>PhDs and Doctoral Degrees: 1994 to 2003 from NSF database </p>
<p>Enrollment from 2004 USNews </p>
<p>Formula: PhDs divided by undergrad enrollment times 1000 </p>
<p>1 Harvey Mudd College 100
2 California Institute of Technology 42
3 Wabash College 38
4 Reed College 30
5 Carleton College 30
6 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 27
7 Bowdoin College 26
8 Grinnell College 24
9 Haverford College 24
10 Franklin and Marshall College 22
11 College of Wooster 22
12 Bryn Mawr College 19
13 Allegheny College 18
14 College of William and Mary 18
15 Texas Lutheran University 18
16 Furman University 17
17 University of Minnesota - Morris 17
18 Knox College 17
19 Occidental College 17
20 University of Chicago 16
21 Bates College 15
22 Rice University 15
23 Juniata College 15
24 Kalamazoo College 15
25 Williams College 15
26 Swarthmore College 15
27 Oberlin College 15
</p>
<p>^ I don't think that is really the way to go. Undergraduate schools that produce the most future pHDs in biochemistry says nothing about the education quality, faculty research productivity, or abundance (or lack there of) undergraduate research internships/opportunities of those schools at the undergraduate level.</p>
<p>The question is, does producing more future pHDs mean that its has a good program in biochemistry? The only thing that can be inferred is that those schools attract people who have a greater tendency to pursue higher degrees of education. It doesn't say much about the quality of the undergraduate program.</p>
<p>Biochemistry - 2006
Chronicle</a> Facts & Figures: Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index</p>
<p>Biochemistry - 2007
Chronicle</a> Facts & Figures: Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index</p>
<p>With respect to the comment above, both the Ph.D undergrad origin lists and the faculty productivity list you propose are proxys for undergrad excellence. But they are just that proxys... I certainly don't think the faculty productivity measure is any better indicator of quality (in fact, I think it's worse, but I'm willing to concede that reasonable minds may differ). </p>
<p>Faculty productivity tells you about levels of research being done, but often the most productive scholars aren't spending lots of time in the classroom. They leave the teaching to grad students and sometimes other professors. So, I would contend that faculty productivity doesn't tell you a great deal about the quality of undergraduate education. (Although it probably speaks more to gradute education.)</p>
<p>I think PH.D production tells you more than just "that those schools attract people who have a greater tendency to pursue higher degrees of education." Ph.D programs are competitive and can attract the best students (combination of innate intelligence and undergrad preparation), so the fact that certain schools produce lost of Ph.D. students does tell you something about the quality of the program. In other words, Ph.D. programs are consumers and they pick from the best programs.</p>
<p>According to the lists posted by vossron, it seems that elite LACs like Harvey Mudd, Haverford, Reed and a few others which top both of the above lists are worthy of consideration as "best departments for undergraduate studies." Especially b/c those schools have extensive resources (among the nation's highest per student endowment figures) providing an "abundance of undergraduate research internships/opportunities," high quality labs, best educated professors, etc. In addition, b/c they focus solely on undergrad education, I'd argue that they do it even better (no distraction from grad students).</p>
<p>Again, reasonable minds can differ. These are all sources of information, and Some of us are just saying one would be wise to consider certain LACs in addition to major research universities.</p>
<p>Are you sure that EVERY chem major from HMC from 1994 to 2003 got a Ph.D.? It seems a bit unreasonable...obviously it's still going to be very high.</p>
<p>My reading of vossron's chemistry chart is not that HMC sent 100% but rather a raw number of 100 per 1000 students. s/he says: "Formula: PhDs divided by undergrad enrollment times 1000" </p>
<p>That adjusts the raw number totals by different enrollments to provide a common basis of comparsion.</p>
<p>I could be wrong b/c I didn't do it, but that's my reading...</p>
<p>that makes more sense, i wasn't really reading it carefully. however the number just seems a little too perfect.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Undergraduate schools that produce the most future pHDs in biochemistry says nothing about the education quality
[/quote]
On this point we simply disagree; self-selection is clearly a factor, but I believe quality undergrad instruction is generally a prerequisite to gaining admission to and then succeeding in a PhD program.</p>
<p>I copy these tables from posts by interesteddad, who distills them from IPEDS and NSF data. It would be helpful if I changed the 1000 to percentage. :) I've read that the original purpose of the IPEDS data was to show that LAC graduates are not at a disadvantage compared the research U BA/BS grads; it's not meant to be a ranking. My impression is that the 25+ schools in the lists are more or less considered to all be excellent schools. Other schools provide quality biochem undergrad instruction, as others have posted. The more info, the better, I think.</p>
<p>Does producing 1% more pHD graduates mean much? How can you take such a difference and use it to compare undergraduate schools?</p>
<p>Most of those schools only differ by 0.1% is marginal at best.</p>
<p>My question to you is this. Whose decision is to to pursue a higher degree of education? Are you basing your assumption that if everyone in that undergrad person wants to apply for a graduate degree, pHD programs would cherry pick from the best schools with the best programs. </p>
<p>That is not the case. Its mostly individual decisions that govern whether or not they even decide to get a pHD. Its like not quality of the program dictates whether or not they will get a pHD. Its the tendency for schools to attract students who want to rigorously apply for and get a pHD in the first place. With that said, it shows that certain schools have more students with the mindet of getting pHDs, not the list of schools the are the most successful in getting students into pHDs. Two very different things.</p>
<p>One example can be ou can have an average program, but the school is filled with students who are likeminded and many people want to pursue a terminal degree. Given the larger applicant pool from this particular school, you may have a significantly great chance of producing more pHD students just by the volume of percentage recieved. Quality may play a role, but that cannot be the only inferrence that can be made from this list. Is it because these schools attract bright minds to want to become pHDs to begin with? Could be as well as quality of the program. It could be both.</p>
<p>I agree that faculty productivity ranking may be an even worse proxy. It is atleast a biochemistry ranking lol.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Does producing 1% more pHD graduates mean much? </p>
<p>How can you take such a difference and use it to compare undergraduate schools?</p>
<p>Are you basing your assumption that if everyone in that undergrad person wants to apply for a graduate degree, pHD programs would cherry pick from the best schools with the best programs.
[/quote]
No.</p>
<p>I'm not comparing undergrad schools. Like I said before: "... it's not meant to be a ranking."</p>
<p>No. My assumptions are limited: The schools on the lists provide quality undergrad instruction in those fields, are a good bet for those wanting to get a PhD in those fields and go into research, and that some studying biochem will so do.</p>
<p>Students who go into college with the idea of obtaining a PhD will influence others who didn't have that goal, but may acquire it due to the contact. So this list is helpful.</p>
<p>Just when I thought we had finalized the college list!</p>
<p>I was an undergraduate biochemistry major in the 1990s. The schools I considered were Bowdoin, Virginia Tech, Wisconsin, and MIT. I had read in a book that Bowdoin was the best undergrad biochem program. But I didn’t want to stick my folks with a $20,500 (seems cheap now, huh?) tuition bill, nor did I want to go to such a small school. I didn’t like the representatives from MIT because they came across as very snobbish - as if I was privileged just to talk to someone from MIT. Wisconsin was a medically-oriented program with a great reputation and was a very large program. Virginia Tech’s program was not oriented toward a med school and was (at least at the time) the largest undergrad biochem program in the nation. I ended up at VT for many reasons, but mostly it was a combination of the school’s size, the scope of elective courses available, and the good reputation it had for promoting undergraduate research opportunities while not pushing students into doctoral programs. In short, the program fit me. It really shouldn’t matter so much what ranking a program has - after all, that’s always someone’s opinion. VT is regarded very highly among academics and industry professionals alike, but so are Wisconsin and Bowdoin, and of course MIT is too. A prospective student should consider what he or she might want to do with a B.S. in Biochem - med school, vet school, PhD program, industry, etc., and try to choose a program that will prepare him or her best for that outcome. Equally important is the fit for the student - large/small school, large/small program, opportunities for elective study and undergrad research, etc.</p>
<p>Wow…I wasn’t aware of the fact that Bowdoin had a top notch Biochem program. thats really cool.
especially because I am leaning to study bio, or chem. or biochem</p>
<p>I always thought Berkeley was known for its chemistry program. Does this not carry over into Biochem?</p>
<p>^ Yes, Berkeley offers a BS Chemical Biology. It’s residential college is the esteemed Berkeley College of Chemistry.</p>
<p>[College</a> of Chemistry - University of California at Berkeley - Undergraduate Degree Programs](<a href=“http://chemistry.berkeley.edu/student_info/undergrad_info/prospective_undergrad/degree_choice.html]College”>http://chemistry.berkeley.edu/student_info/undergrad_info/prospective_undergrad/degree_choice.html)
</p>
<p>FWIW, Berkeley’s graduate biochem program is ranked No. 1 by USNWR:
<a href=“http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/grad/che/biochemistry[/url]”>http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/grad/che/biochemistry</a></p>