<p>Colleges with no medical school:
MIT ranks #6; Cornell ranks #18</p>
<p>Colleges with medical school:
Brown ranks #27; Dartmouth ranks #15</p>
<p>These are the exceptions but in general you are right. I think USNWR needs to be much clearer on which items should be counted so we can compare apples-to-apples.</p>
<p>^ Cornell has weill med school and a pretty good one too!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Truer words have never been spoken about USNWR and its instructions. Perhaps we should ask Morse to type UNDERGRADUATE in GIGANTIC RED LETTERS on each page of his PA survey. It does seem that myopia remains rampant among the secretaries and clerical assistants who fill the surveys before getting one of the bosses to sign and mail it back. </p>
<p>Bless his heart!</p>
<p>xiggi, if you are to rate Amherst’s chemistry, how would you rate it? Similarly, how would you rate Berkeley’s undergrad chemistry? Please use the same scale that USNews uses.</p>
<p>
At SOME top universities ;), the presence of a medical school (and other grad and professional schools) actually enhances the research opportunities for undergrads. For example, at Penn, there are 175 open undergraduate research positions in Biomedical Science listed at this very moment, many of them in the medical school (click on each listing for details):</p>
<p>[Center</a> for Undergraduate Research and Fellowships](<a href=“Penn CURF”>Penn CURF)</p>
<p>^ Very true. In that case we should revisit UCSF’s possible inclusion in the Berkeley numbers:
[UCSF</a> School of Medicine](<a href=“http://obgyn.ucsf.edu/education/whuri/whuri_2011.aspx]UCSF”>http://obgyn.ucsf.edu/education/whuri/whuri_2011.aspx)
</p>
<p>;)</p>
<p>^ The thing is, it’s a helluva lot easier for an undergrad to cross a single street (literally) to participate in medical research, instead of an entire bay. ;)</p>
<p>just curious: anyone know why berkeley and UCSF parted ways? i.e. why isn’t UCSF berkeley’s medical school?</p>
<p>^ [UCSF</a> History | <a href=“http://www.ucsf.edu%5B/url%5D”>www.ucsf.edu](<a href=“http://www.ucsf.edu/about/history-1]UCSF”>History of UCSF | UC San Francisco)</a></p>
<p>It doesn’t matter because UCB’s on its way out of the top 25 regardless.</p>
<p>^ You mean the USNWR top 25. Perhaps it will. They can keep tweaking the methodology to get any results they want. It doesn’t matter because USNWR is on its way out of business regardless.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is the relevance of that question to this thread? Does USNews even rate the various chemistry UG departments in its annual Best College edition?</p>
<p>On a personal basis, I could not care less about this … so perhaps you should ask UCB for his educated opinion on that issue. I like his opinions a lot better since he found a way to use large red letters. :)</p>
<p>Berkeley chemistry = 5 or “distinguished”.
Amherst chemistry = 4 or “strong”.</p>
<p>xiggi, didn’t you say that those over 2,500 school presidents and professors are ignorant about the distinction between undergrad and postgrad and that they do not know the difference between undergrad and postgrad? </p>
<p>If a guy like you or me knows the difference between undergrad and grad/postgrad, why do you seriously think those schools presidents and professors don’t?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I dont think they are ignorant per se as opposed to the fact that majority believe that research and their faculty not students or undergraduate academics is what is important in judging a department. So they dnt really care about the curriculum or Research opportunities at the undergraduate level. They do care though about the breadth and depth of research that their peers in other universities are doing.</p>
<p>They are kind of rating themselves/overalldepartments not really the undergraduate programs which is really of no interest to them- not surprising academics tend to be narcissitic.</p>
<p>^ How would we know that what you said is true? </p>
<p>Wasn’t the question given to them clear enough for them to understand and answer?</p>
<p>On a scale of 1-10 here are chemistry/ chemical engineering ratings (I can only rate the ones I am familiar with):</p>
<p>10 Caltech
9 MIT
7 Brown
7 Harvard
5 Berkeley
3 URI</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t really want to go back to a topic that has been discussed over and over again on CC, but, generally speaking, the breadth and depth of their peers’ research generally translates into a stronger undergraduate curriculum (broader offering of electives/ more up-to-date options) and better undergraduate research opportunities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This assumes they read the survey, let alone the instructions!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fwiw, isn’t there something between undergrad and postgrad? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>because it is so darn obvious!</p>