<p>I have a friend who is a junior in high school, he has a passion for chemistry and knows he wants to study chemistry in college, I am a senior and am trying to help him with looking at some different colleges, while I am bias because I will be attending Vanderbilt next year, I am wondering what are some good colleges for studying chemistry at the undergraduate level? If anyone has access to a reliable ranking database for this that would be appreciated also, or if anyone knows if Vandy has a good chem department I am interested in that also....Thanks for the help.</p>
<p>berkeley is the best</p>
<p>Illinois (UIUC), Michigan and University of Rochester all have excellent programs.</p>
<p>Gourman Report undergrad chemistry ranking:
Caltech
UC Berkeley
Harvard
MIT
Columbia
Stanford
Illimois Urbana Champaign
U Chicago
UCLA
Wisconsin Madison
Cornell
Northwestern
Princeton
Yale
Purdue
UNC Chapel Hill
Ohio State
Texas Austin
Iowa State
Indiana Bloomington
UC San Diego
Minnesota
Notre Dame
Penn State
Brown
U Rochester
Carnegie Mellon
U Penn
Rice
Michigan Ann Arbor
U Washington
Colorado Boulder
Texas A&M
USC
U Pittsburgh
U Florida
UC Riverside
dartmouth
UC Santa Barbara
UC Irvine
Johns Hopkins
UC Davis
U Utah
U Oregon
Duke
Michigan State
RPI
UVA
Florida State
Vanderbilt
Case Western
u Iowa
Georgia Tech</p>
<p>Berkeley!</p>
<p>College of Chemistry...6 building mini-campus...small college atmosphere in a big research university. College residents are chemistry, chemical engineering, and chemical biology majors. Plutonium was discovered in one of the chemical engineering building labs. Berkeleium & Californium on the periodic table...'nuff said. :D</p>
<p><em>Yeah, I'm biased</em></p>
<p>^^No, you are not. :)</p>
<p>I've heard great things from a friend who studies chem at Carnegie Mellon.</p>
<p>Northwestern is 2nd among privates (behind MIT and tied with Cornell/Stanford) in terms of #NSF Career Award from 2001 through 2006 and quite a few of the winners are in Chemistry department. The research is very vibrant with all these young rising stars. Research opportunities for undergrads seem to be plenty for undergrads during the school year and summer (the summer opportunites under Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) are open to students from other schools also but I'd imagine NU students may have the edge in a tie-break).<br>
Welcome</a> to the NU Nanoscale Science & Engineering Center
REU:</a> Summer Research Experience for Undergraduates at Northwestern</p>
<p>I think Carleton's chem is really good too.......
I have heard UCB 's Dean of Chem Department is a alum of Carleton</p>
<p>i thought UCSD would be better than UCLA?</p>
<p>If interested in state schools, Wisconsin and UIUC should also be an excellent choice.</p>
<p>UCB.</p>
<p>[end of discussion]</p>
<p>10 char</p>
<p>It's funny to watch these discussions and the names of schools that are suggested by various members. Now if I was to say that the University of Minnesota, Morris (a public liberal arts college with a total student population of 1700 students, all-undergrad) provides an excellent undergrad education in chemistry I would most likely be ridiculed with statements like how can such a small school stand up to a school like Berkeley.</p>
<p>However, no one does any real analysis of the numbers and instead rely on emotions and what they've heard from others. Therefore I collected the names of most of the colleges suggested in this thread and looked at how many of their graduates went on to earn a PhD, which I would assume most would rate as a good indicator of the quality of the undergrad program. I also included some other all-undergrad institutions with strong programs in chemistry. </p>
<p>So here is my methodology using National Science Foundation data. For the years 1997-2006 I calculated the number of bachelor's in chemistry earned from each institution. Then I calculated the number of students that originally earned their bachelor's from that institution who earned their PhD during the same 1997-2006 time period. Then some simple division to compare the number of bachelor's degree recipients to those that earn a PhD after graduating from the institution. This is the industry standard manner in which to measure this statistic.</p>
<p>And the Results for Chemistry...
Harvey Mudd - 125 Bachelor's, 63 graduates earn PhDs, 50.4%
Franklin & Marshall - 134 Bachelor's, 37 graduates earn PhDs, 27.6%
Carleton - 197 Bachelor's, 47 graduates earn PhDs, 23.9%
U of MN-Morris - 121 Bachelor's, 28 graduates earn PhDs, 23.1%
MIT - 660 Bachelor's, 96 graduates earn PhDs, 14.5%
UC-Berkeley - 1251 Bachelor's, 149 graduates earn PhDs, 11.9%
Carnegie Mellon - 338 Bachelor's, 39 graduates earn PhDs, 11.5%
U of Michigan - 880 Bachelor's, 86 graduates earn PhDs, 9.8%
U of Wisconsin - 851 Bachelor's, 75 graduates earn PhDs, 8.8%
Northwestern - 558 Bachelor's, 48 graduates earn PhDs, 8.6%
U of Illinois UC - 1188 Bachelor's, 102 graduates earn PhDs, 8.6%
Cornell University - 790 Bachelor's, 63 graduates earn PhDs, 8.0%
Michigan State - 745 Bachelor's, 49 graduates earn PhDs, 6.6%
Stanford - 464 Bachelor's, 30 graduates earn PhDs, 6.5%
UCLA - 1022 Bachelor's, 65 graduates earn PhDs, 6.4%
UCSD - 1557 Bachelor's, 92 graduates earn PhDs, 5.9%
U of Rochester - 422 Bachelor's, 24 graduates earn PhDs, 5.7%</p>
<p>Of all the schools mentioned, I don't find it surprising that the all-undergraduate liberal arts colleges rise to the top and there is quite a large margin between the all-undergrad institutions and the flagship institutions. All of the schools mentioned have strong chemistry programs, and I am not trying to make a blanket statement that all-undergraduate institutions are always better than larger institutions, but this data clearly shows that strong all-undergraduate institutions give students a measurable advantage when it comes to preparing their students for further study (often at the larger institutions mentioned).</p>
<p>All data was gathered from the National Science Foundation, [url=<a href="http://caspar.nsf.gov/index.jsp?subHeader=WebCASPARHome%5DWebCASPAR%7C%5B/url">http://caspar.nsf.gov/index.jsp?subHeader=WebCASPARHome]WebCASPAR|[/url</a>]</p>
<p>I would be happy to answer any questions you may have about my analysis.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, no one does any real analysis of the numbers and instead rely on emotions and what they've heard from others.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>collegehelp's list is from a published ranking, not emotions. my post was all about numbers and links, not emotions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Therefore I collected the names of most of the colleges suggested in this thread and looked at how many of their graduates went on to earn a PhD, which I would assume most would rate as a good indicator of the quality of the undergrad program. I also included some other all-undergrad institutions with strong programs in chemistry.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>People can argue PhD production is not a good indicator of any program; it's a good indicator of the "personality" of the student body. LAC grads are more inclined to go to grad schools in just about any academic field. There's a huge difference between earning PhDs in 3rd-tier grad schools and top-15 schools. I don't see any "measurable advantage" unless you show me a comparison of which grad programs they end up.</p>
<p>Sam Lee, I was not trying to discredit either your post or that of collegehelp, I was mainly talking towards those that just make one sentence claims of an institution's domination.</p>
<p>But I would argue that just because a ranking is published does not mean it is credible. The Gourman rankings have been highly criticized as he has never explained his methodology. I encourage you to read this article or others about the Gourman rankings The</a> Chronicle: Articles: 11/07/1997</p>
<p>To provide an excerpt:
Dr. Gourman says he does not receive information from institutional research officials, admissions offices, or public-relations offices.
Instead, he says, faculty members, department chairmen, deans, and even presidents write letters to him about their universities and departments. With that information, he says, "50 trained people working for me around the country" evaluate the data and help assign scores. The letters used for the rankings are destroyed to protect the individuals who provide him with information, he adds. "We're not hiding anything," he says. "What is there to hide, anyway?"</p>
<p>So if someone from your department/institution does not write a letter to this guy, then how does he score your institution ...
I'd be interested to hear your insight on this. </p>
<p>The piece of information your provided about Northwestern being ranked 2nd among privates for NSF Career Awards is a valuable piece of information and I wish more would provide those types of supporting arguments. </p>
<p>I was not trying to say that the data I provided is definite proof of certain school's superiority. I wanted to add that data to the body of knowledge and provide support for the idea that you can get an excellent undergrad education at a small school. I know not all want to go on to earn PhDs, but many, especially in the sciences have that in mind and see a PhD as a necessary step in their potential professional career.</p>
<p>Also, I think we would all agree that there are many great schools that can provide you an excellent undergrad education and what will really matter is how well you succeed at the institution you choose to attend and what opportunities (research, internships, etc …) you choose to take advantage of.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For the years 1997-2006 I calculated the number of bachelor's in chemistry earned from each institution. Then I calculated the number of students that originally earned their bachelor's from that institution who earned their PhD during the same 1997-2006 time period.
[/quote]
Why would you calculate the percentages over the same time period? An undergraduate cohort from 1997-2006 likely would not obtain a PhD during the same period.</p>
<p>That is a very legitimate question. Obviously we are dealing with different cohorts of students. No one nationally follows the academic careers of individual students and therefore the statistics from NSF are the best place to find this data. It would be just as problematic to say that it takes students X number of years to earn a PhD after they complete their Bachelor's and therefore create a timelag. </p>
<p>Very large changes in enrollment can have an affect on my statistics. Thank you for your question. It is a very good one to raise.</p>