<p>My top list: </p>
<p>Harvard
Stanford
Berkeley (yes, Berkeley)
MIT
Caltech
Princeton
Chicago
Cornell
Columbia
Yale
UIUC
Penn
Wisconsin
UCLA.</p>
<p>I'll provide data to support my list later.</p>
<p>Ranking Universities by their memberships in The National Academy of Sciences </p>
<p>The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. </p>
<p>The current membership in NAS is a good measure of a university in science in terms of faculty reputation. NAS membership, in my view, is one of the best indicators (if not the best) for evaluating the strength and reputation of research universities. </p>
<p>Below are the universities with most membership in the national acadmy of sciences (as of 2004, new members selected in 2005 not included) </p>
<p>1) Harvard (153 members)
2) Berkeley(127)
3) Stanford (121)
4) MIT (102)</p>
<p>5) Caltech (65 members)
6) U of California at San Diego (64)
7) Princeton (63)
8) Yale (62)</p>
<p>9) U of Wisconsin (42)
10) Chicago (40)</p>
<p>11) Cornell (39)
11) U of Washington (39)</p>
<h1>Others in the top:</h1>
<p>Columbia (36)
U Penn (34)
UCSF (30)
UCLA (29)
UIUC (24)
UC-Davis (22)
UC-SB (22)
UC-Irvine (20)
Duke (16 members)</p>
<p>Ridiculous........</p>
<p>GROUP I:
California Institute of Technology
Harvard University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Princeton University
Stanford University
University of California-Berkeley</p>
<p>GROUP II:
Columbia University
Cornell University
University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Yale University</p>
<p>GROUP III:
University of California-Los Angeles
University of California-San Diego
University of Chicago
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of Pennsylvania
University of Texas-Austin</p>
<p>I'd definitely include Rockefeller. It's a graduate school, though. </p>
<p>In Alexandre's list I'd definitely move U Chicago to Group II. It's tops in ecology/evolution and one of the very best in physics. I'd also add Johns Hopkins to Group III.</p>
<p>Ain't nothing wrong with University of Rochester in sciences.</p>
<p>datalook,</p>
<p>How about the fraction of total faculty who are members of the NAS? This would distinguish a university where being a member of NAS is common, and perhaps a university with a huge faculty, only a small fraction of whom have reached this level.</p>
<p>It's also a bias towards schools with large research output. UCSF isn't even an undergraduate institution.</p>
<p>I don't know why people are always surprised that Berkeley is a top university. It has top-10 departments in like 28 fields. As a research institution it's second only to Harvard.</p>
<p>This "ranking" is as meaningless as all the others, and for the same obivos reasons. The best place for a particular student may, or may not, be on this list at all. Depends on what that particular student wants or needs in education.</p>
<p>Why is Berkeley often overlooked when people discuss top science universities? It does not fit the stereotype of small, private, highly selective admissions, northeastern. Since it is a state school it has no need to market itself to gain applications from top students, it has a captive audience in the most populous state.</p>
<p>To take a dramatic example: NAS members as percentage of total faculty. Berkeley 127/1965= 6.5%
Caltech 65/310= 21%</p>
<p>Which is better 127>65, or 21%>6.5%?</p>
<p>Neither is better. They are different.</p>
<p>Actually the top research schools are UCLA, Wisconsin and Michigan. NSF total spending reports.</p>
<p>^^You are missing the point. UCLA has a much higher student population so obviously their spending reports will be higher.</p>
<p>Yes and no Confidential. Research spending is almost entirely done at the graduate level. UCLA's graduate school is no larger than Penn's, Columbia's, USC's, NYU's or Harvard's.</p>
<p>but more money doesnt necesarily mean better research. Caltech,Berkeley,Harvard,Chicago,Stanford,MIT combined probably makes up most of the ultra important discoveries in science.</p>
<p>Why is this?</p>
<p>
[quote]
but more money doesnt necesarily mean better research. Caltech,Berkeley,Harvard,Chicago,Stanford,MIT combined probably makes up most of the ultra important discoveries in science.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is very untrue. Many important, Nobel Prize winning, National Science Medal winning, otherwise amazing discoveries have been made at UCLA, UCSD (this one is overlooked for some bizarre reason), UCSB, and Columbia. </p>
<p>If you want a good indication of the quality of a program, look at the number of NAS members.</p>
<p>Irockice, I agree that the 6 schools you list probably contribute more to science than other schools (altough I think Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Michigan, Princeton, UCLA and Wisconsin contribute quite a bit too), but to say that they make up most of the important discoveries in Science I think is overstating it a tad bit.</p>
<p>Wisconsin discovered the importance of Vitamin D--now in all milk--that ended the spread of rickets which was a common childhood disease. It invented Warfarin which has probably saved more heart attack victims than any other medication and has also been very effective in controlling animal pests.
And recently they were the first to isolate Stem Cells and hold the patents on many of the first stem cell lines and isolation procedures. </p>
<p>A UW grad working at Illinois invented the transistor and integrated circuits--and two Nobel prizes for his work. </p>
<p>These are just a few of the better known advances.</p>
<p>UCLA physicists were recently featured in the Economist for their work on cold fusion. While it may be considered the bane of nuclear researchers (because of its sordid past), these two scientists have made a serious discovery that has been acknowledged as well-researched and well-documented. </p>
<p>The first Internet connection was made at UCLA, and connected a UCLA computer to one up at Stanford.</p>
<p>Vital functions of ATP were discovered at UCLA.</p>
<p>UCLA astrophysicists are key researchers in many current projects at JPL.</p>
<p>The list goes on and on. I may try to be fair about UCLA in most things, but here I could gush for days.</p>
<p>Just FYI, USC has more research spending that UCLA.</p>
<p>The point here is to compare with the other top schools, and no body denied UCLA belongs to best research university.</p>