<p>“You can add up NAE, NAS and Institute of Medicine members for each. I would say UCSD and UCLA have more members than Michigan… Michigan has a weak faculty compared to comparable universities, especially in the sciences…even with an in-house medical school.”</p>
<p>UCBChemEGrad, you cannot assume that a faculty is weak if it lacks NAE, NAS and Institute of Medicine members. For example, Princeton’s Mathematics department has 14 members of the NAS. Cal only has 6. Is Princeton’s Mathematics department that much better than Cal’s? Chicago only has 2, while Columbia and Cornell each have 1. Those 4 mathematics departments are also stellar. By the way, Michigan has 4, UCLA has 3 and UCSD has 2. </p>
<p>For Engineering, Michigan has 26 members of the NAE. Only MIT, Stanford, Cal, UIUC and Caltech have more. Michigan is 6th, tied with CMU and Georgia Tech. UCSD has an impressive 23 and UCLA has 19. </p>
<p>The fact of the matter is, while a university may have 100, 200 or even 300 members of major Academies, those are still merely a tiny fraction of the overall faculty. In many instances, those members do not teach undergraduate students. But regardless, a faculty’s overal strength will be determined by the strength of its departments across the board, not by the number of members it has. From that point of view, I would rate Cal’s faculty between #1 and #3 and Michigan’s between #5 and #7. The strengths of Michigan’s departments and programs support the fact that it has a top 10 (arguably top 5) faculty.</p>