Which universities are best in sciences?

College Search & Selection
21

<p>No USC is not even close. Total research spending 2003</p>

<p>University of California at Los Angeles $693,801,000
University of Wisconsin at Madison $604,143,000
University of Michigan $600,523,000
University of Washington $589,626,000
University of California at San Diego $556,533,000
University of California at San Francisco $524,975,000
Stanford University $482,906,000
University of Pennsylvania $469,852,000
University of Minnesota $462,011,000
Pennsylvania State University $458,066,000
University of California at Berkeley $446,273,000
Cornell University $443,828,000
Massachusetts Institute of Technology $435,495,000
University of California at Davis $432,396,000
Texas A&M University $407,041,000
Washington University in St. Louis $406,642,000
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign $390,863,000
Ohio State University $390,652,000
Baylor College of Medicine $381,461,000
Duke University $375,133,000
Harvard University $372,107,000
University of Arizona $367,128,000
University of Colorado $365,472,000
University of Florida $359,312,000
Columbia University $354,497,000
University of Pittsburgh $348,792,000
University of Southern California $340,597,000</p>

22

<p>"The first Internet connection was made at UCLA, and connected a UCLA computer to one up at Stanford."</p>

<p>Thats such a manipulation of the definition of the internet, in that context its defined as one computer sending a message to another. The Internet as we use it today is a product of CERN in large part. ARPANET is more like computer equivalent of the telegraph a achievement but not really what is meant in that statement.</p>

23

<p>Sory I may've remembered wrong. Mind post a link?</p>

<p>Beside that, your list pretty much proves the spending index has nothing to do with how good a univerisy is good at science, which was my point.</p>

24

<p>Actually it proves you don't know much about which schools are strong in science research. Most funding is very competitive among the top U's in the US.</p>

<p>Stats are from the COHE but you have to subscribe.</p>

25

<p>what is COHE????</p>

26

<p>haha, what is COHE:)</p>

<p>It only proves you know nothing but some numbers. If that is the only thing you have at hand, stick to it. UM,UW,UCLA, laughable (doesn't mean they are bad schools). Penn State above Cal, is that what you want to prove? </p>

<p>BTW I read some reports from theCenter.ufl.edu, please fill some more numbers there. And I know scientific research since I am doing that for living.</p>

27

<p>At what level? Are you a grad student?</p>

28

<p>Now I am a full time researcher who has 2 Nature papers with my name on in last 1.5 years. And some others, including a book by MIT press. And you can conclude that scientists are not always knowledgeable:)</p>

29

<p>I hate to play the credentials game, but credentials? Full-time researcher at what level? For what organization? I'm just curious.</p>

<p>As a researcher, I find it odd that you disparage UCLA, despite its overall strength as a research institution. It's certainly top-15 in graduate programs, and has made fantastic discoveries in a wide variety of fields.</p>

30

<p>"Now I am a full time researcher who has 2 Nature papers with my name on in last 1.5 years. And some others, including a book by MIT press. And you can conclude that scientists are not always knowledgeable"</p>

<p>Are we suppose to believe that at face value?</p>

<p>guess I got beat to it</p>

31

<p>In that case im a Nobel Prize winner ex-Putnam Fellow</p>

32

<p>I cannot say more. But believe me researchers get bored all the time. And publishing on nature is not that hard at all if you got RIGHT advisor, working with RIGHT group. </p>

<p>Of course, I recognize UCLA is among the best (overall top 15~20, I guess we agreed on this:), but one notch below Berkeley.</p>

33

<p>Oh man, I would never argue otherwise. Berkeley, in my eyes, is incredible. UCLA, for me offered a better program, but if I had been interested in slightly different things, I would've gone to Cal in a heartbeat.</p>

<p>Cal, in my eyes, is a rival to the best Ivy league in anything. UCLA is up there, but it can't put itself that high yet. I'll make sure it does one day though.</p>

34

<p>I concur. Probably my word was a little bit misleading (to me, too), but UCs are exceptional research institutes.</p>

<p>My first post was to disagree with Barrons, because I remember USC has a higher ranking (or spending) in research somewhere that UCLA, but it is not as good as UCLA, yet.</p>

35

<p>Well, now we've come full-circle, and agree. Life's odd that way.</p>

<p>I just think that people have the mistaken notion that USNews ranking denotes the strength of a school's research programs. It doesn't. It's another arbitrary distinction people have placed upon universities in an attempt to place them in neat categories.</p>

<p>I'd say that UCB, UCLA, and UCSD are amazing research institutions by any measure. I'd maybe even argue that UCSD beats out UCLA by many, if not most measures.</p>

36

<p>UCSD is better in bio-related areas, because they have too many big names, who can publish on Nature for the same results that our neighboring lab got at approximately the same time. It is life. But other than that, and probably some of engineering majors, UCLA is better.</p>

37

<p>I'm trying to be modest. Stop. ;-)</p>

<p>The problem with UCLA as a student isn't finding good research, it's choosing what you want to do...</p>

38

<p>How would you rank top science programs for quality undergraduate education? I'd like to see two lists, like USNWR does, schools that offer graduate education, and a list of those which only provide undergrad degrees.</p>

39

<p>In terms of grad school and research production, the list in the first post is pretty much spot on. There's no point in ranking it because each school has strengths and weaknesses in different areas. </p>

<p>In terms of UG quality of education, all of those schools are good. I've seen course outlines and problem sets for classes in MIT and Caltech and if the difficulty of those courses are the norm, then it's safe to say their programs are very rigorous. Berkeley might not be so great because they are known to have enormous class sizes that are taught by TAs. I'm not sure if the same holds true for UW or UIUC, but it might considering they are state schools. This is debatable, but in my opinion a great supplement to a basic science curriculum is availability of upper level courses and research opportunities. In this regard, those research unis have a leg up on small schools and LACs.</p>

40

<p>Sorry, I am not able to do that since I did not go to college in U.S. It is easier to critize, but not otherwise. I've seen successful people from all kind of schools, even CSUs, SUNY, or Montana, Idaho, the like. But going with a brand name is a safe bet.</p>

<p>One thing I can say is graduate programs are different from their undergraduate ones. Most (not all) top researchers hate to teach undergraduate students. But to be around them, you may have an opportunity to get involved even though not easily, getting a good letter from them can overcome 300 points deficits in your GRE test, or 0.5 in your GPA.</p>

<p>For the same level graduate schools, ranking won't be useful, instead a konwed and active advisor can be a deciding factor for your future academic (even industrial) career. I remember there is a list popular among bio-PHDs about which 100 labs are sure bet for your landing a job in academic. Not which schools. </p>

<p>This is pretty much I knew.</p>