Top 50 US Baccalaureate Institutions of PhDs 1995-1999

xiggi · July 28, 2008, 2:45pm

And how often do you see BOTH lists at the same time? By the way, how did it appear … in this thread?

BK, are you familiar with the methodology used by Interesteddad? Why are you not focusing on the real leader (according to this exercise) namely Harvey Mudd? Yes, that is the same school that continues to earn a subpar rating in the much loved Peer Assessment and for which all the PA fanboys have yet to provide a reasonable explanation. What is there to say about the “how deeply academic the culture” is at Harvey Mudd? So, how do you reconcile the PA that recognizes academic excellence and this hitparade of PhDs? I guess that when the example does not fit, it is best to ignore it all together!

When singling out colleges that are part of a CONSORTIUM, should you not consider that the best attribute of a consortium (at least one that DOES work) is the complementary of its programs. Have you considered what might happen when you add the five schools and measure their totals?

Is the value of a degree in Biology only measured by a path to a PhD in Biology? How many students who earn a degree in Biology end up becoming teachers or researchers as opposed to selecting a number of different avenues?

Are degrees that are not direct paths to the obtention of a PhD necessarily of a lesser value? The reality is that the percentage of PhD in the overall education sector is not insignificant, but still extremely small. With fewer than 30,000 science and engineering PhD granted per year, it is intellectually dishonest to draw far reaching conclusions about the state of our undergraduate “academic depth” from such a microscopic sample.

collegehelp · July 28, 2008, 3:37pm

Here is the NSF list adjusted for the size of the school. I divided the number of Ph.D.s by the size of the freshman class in 2001. Not perfect, but it should work.

MIT stands out. There is a big drop-off after Brown and before Duke.

school, PhDs, freshman class size 2001, ratio

Massachusetts Institute of Technology * 1,053 1027 1.03
Oberlin College * 582 684 0.85
Cornell University * 1,545 1950 0.79
Yale University * 973 1296 0.75
Harvard University * 1,209 1639 0.74
Princeton University * 807 1185 0.68
University of California Berkeley 2,330 3773 0.62
University of Chicago * 642 1081 0.59
Stanford University * 937 1615 0.58
Brown University * 774 1377 0.56
Duke University * 688 1615 0.43
Columbia University in City of New York * 531 1338 0.40
University of Pennsylvania * 888 2401 0.37
Northwestern University * 651 1948 0.33
University of California Davis 890 2835 0.31
University of California Los Angeles 1,171 4091 0.29
University of Michigan Ann Arbor 1,562 5476 0.29
University of Virginia Charlottesville 806 2975 0.27
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 1,524 6239 0.24
University of Wisconsin Madison 1,390 6050 0.23
State University of New York at Buffalo 643 2990 0.22
University of Minnesota Twin Cities 1,105 5259 0.21
Pennsylvania State University University Park 1,274 6114 0.21
Brigham Young University * 1,011 5077 0.20
University of California Santa Cruz 575 2909 0.20
University of North Carolina Chapel Hill 698 3682 0.19
University of Texas Austin 1,328 7208 0.18
Ohio State University Columbus 1,038 5964 0.17
University of California San Diego 661 3820 0.17
University of Maryland College Park 752 4357 0.17
University of California Santa Barbara 604 3625 0.17
University of Washington Seattle 814 5094 0.16
Boston University * 569 3601 0.16
University of Iowa 620 3974 0.16
University of Massachusetts Amherst 671 4302 0.16
University of Colorado Boulder 770 4974 0.15
Michigan State University 1,004 6761 0.15
Rutgers State University of New Jersey New Brunswick 794 5436 0.15
Texas A&M University College Station 902 6368 0.14
University of Florida 882 6257 0.14
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 697 4960 0.14
Iowa State University 644 4625 0.14
University of Tennessee Knoxville 523 3898 0.13
University of Missouri Columbia 547 4113 0.13
Purdue University West Lafayette 866 6599 0.13
University of California Irvine 511 3982 0.13
Indiana University Bloomington 829 6745 0.12
University of Arizona 635 5727 0.11
Florida State University 532 5712 0.09
Arizona State University Tempe 535 5983 0.09

collegehelp · July 28, 2008, 5:00pm

Here is a more complete excel spreadsheet of baccalaureate colleges of doctoral recipients 1920-1999 on the NSF website.

<a href=“http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf06319/tables/tabs3.xls[/url]”>http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf06319/tables/tabs3.xls</a>

xiggi · July 28, 2008, 5:06pm

Fwiw, taking CH last number and dividing it by 5 does show the percentages of a class of freshmen that will end up earning a PhD.

Examples:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology * 1,053 1027 1.03 => 20 %
Columbia University in City of New York * 531 1338 0.40 => 8 %
Arizona State University Tempe 535 5983 0.09 => 1.8 %

Of course, the PhDs among us could probably write a 5000 line program with integrals and derivatives that end up multiplying the number listed by about 20% and call it accurate within a 3% range. :)

bclintonk · July 28, 2008, 5:25pm

I don’t know all that much about Harvey Mudd because I’m not a math/science/engineering guy, but I’ve always held its academics in extremely high regard. It gets a respectable 4.1 in PA, pretty high for an LAC, similar to many others in the top 10 in US News (Middlebury = 4.2, Pomona = 4.2, Bowdoin = 4.3, Davidson = 4.2, Haverford = 4.1) and higher than most others in the 10 to 20 range in overall US News rankings. So I don’t think it’s really an outlier here, though I suspect its PA is hurt a little by the view in some quarters that it’s a little too one-dimensional a school (a view I don’t share).

Harvey Mudd is hurt in the overall US News ranking not by its PA rating but by its comparatively low graduation rate (some would say this is actually an indicator of academic rigor); by its comparatively low faculty resources rank (#37 among LACs); a little by its financial resources rank (#13); and by its comparatively low alumni giving rate—all US News factors that I would say have very little to do with academic quality. HM also would be hurt by its comparatively high acceptance rate (30%, owing to the self-selecting character of its applicant pool) but this is erased by its high SAT medians and HS class rank (94% in top 10%), which combine to make it #1 among LACs in selectivity.

I was talking about PA in connection with research universities, but now that you mention it, a similar pattern holds among LACs. The LACs producing the largest percentages of Ph.Ds and their PA ratings (and US News rankings) are:

% earning Ph.D/school/PA/(US News ranking)

<ol>
<li>24.7% Harvey Mudd 4.1 (15)</li>
<li>21.1% Swarthmore 4.6 (3)</li>
<li>19.9% Reed 3.9 (54)</li>
<li>16.8% Carleton 4.4 (5)</li>
<li>15.8% Bryn Mawr 4.1 (24)</li>
<li>15.7% Oberlin 4.2 (20)</li>
<li>14.1% Grinnell 4.3 (11)</li>
<li>13.8% Haverford 4.1 (10)</li>
<li>13.8% Pomona 4.2 (7)</li>
<li>12.7% Williams 4.7 (1)</li>
<li>12.4% Amherst 4.7 (2)</li>
<li>11.3% Kalamazoo 3.2 (67)</li>
<li>11.0% Wesleyan 4.2 (11)</li>
<li>10.6% St John’s</li>
<li>10.4% Wellesley 4.5 (4)</li>
<li>10.0% Earlham 3.5 (69)</li>
<li>9.6% Beloit 3.2 (67)</li>
<li>9.5% Lawrence U 3.3 (56)</li>
<li>9.3% Macalester 4.1 (26)</li>
<li>9.0% Bowdoin 4.3 (7)</li>
<li>8.9% Mount Holyoke 4.0 (28)</li>
<li>8.9% Smith 4.3 (17)</li>
<li>8.8% Vassar 4.1 (11)</li>
<li>8.7% St Olaf 3.6 (54)</li>
<li>8.7% Hendrix 3.2 (71)</li>
</ol>

Now obviously the correlation isn’t perfect. Some of the lesser-known Midwestern schools— Kalamazoo, Earlham, Beloit, Lawrence U, St. Olaf, as well as Hendrix in Arkansas—don’t fare particularly well on either PA or in the overall US News rankings. But generally it’s not their PA score that is pulling them down in the US News rankings. Indeed, in many cases PA is one of their stronger scores relative to other colleges around them in the US News rankings. For example Reed’s 3.9 PA is a standout for LACs ranked in the 50s by US News; second in that range is St. Olaf’s 3.6. Earlham’s 3.5 PA is similarly stellar among LACs ranked in the 60s and low 70s by US News.

Bottom line, for LACs as well as for research universities, PA seems to track Ph.D. productivity fairly well—certainly much better than does the overall US News ranking.

xiggi · July 28, 2008, 6:20pm

Harvey Mudd does not do *that * bad in the rankings. However, it is simply skewered for being the #1 among LACs in selectivity. While it cannot be hurt there directly, the USNews does not hesitate to rank Mudd among the worst schools in the expected graduation rate. In 2004, USNews did not think it was too ridiculous to expect one the hardest engineering schools in the country to graduate 97% of its class, all the while giving a complete pass to a school such as Smith (80%) in the same metric. HYPS were all at 92-93%, and MIT and Caltech at 93%.

Fwiw, it’s pretty instructive to compare the “comparatively high acceptance rate” of Mudd with the rate of close to 60% at Smith. That never stopped the luminaries who fill the PA sheets to give Smith or Wellesley a much higher rating. So much for selectivity!

As far as low faculty resources rank, you’ll see that this metric is highly variable from one year to another, leaving one to openly wonder how reliable this information truly is. For most schools, it is a real rollercoaster.

This is why it is IMPOSSIBLE to find much logic behind the PA for the Liberal Arts Colleges. The only plausible explanation is the one that combines abject geographical and historical cronyism, dishonesty, and lack of knowledge of the surveyees.

And, that simply confirms what a horrible and irrelevant metric the PA is. Tracking data points that are irrelevant to the undergraduate education is what the PA does best!

Maximus001 · July 28, 2008, 7:00pm

xiggi, you’re missing the point and obfuscating the relevance of the original data. Looking at the absolute # of Ph.D.s produced and the relative # give the college searching student an idea of the seriousness and intellectual rigor of some of the schools.

The absolute ranking of colleges is ridiculous on so many levels. Nevertheless, students seek information dependant on their proclivities and intellectual interests in order to make judgements about their prospective choices and Ph.D. production is meaningful consideration.

bclintonk · July 28, 2008, 7:07pm

Hmmm . . . so that’s why you prefer the “objective” metrics in US News—the ones that according to you impose a “ridiculous” 97% graduation rate expectation on Harvey Mudd, and rely on “highly variable” financial resources data, “a real rollercoaster”? That factor in alumni giving rate, a category where Harvey Mudd takes a big hit? It’s all pretty “horrible and irrelevant to the undergraduate education” as far as I’m concerned. And I’m sorry, I just disagree as to the relevance of producing Ph.D.s As I said, it’s not everything, but it’s some evidence that a school is laying a solid academic foundation for at least some of its students.

FWIW, Smith’s acceptance rate is 52%, Wellesley’s 36%—the latter not too different from Harvey Mudd’s 30%, and not bad considering that by excluding males Wellesley is writing off half the potential applicant pool. Wellesley nonetheless manages to maintain SAT medians comparable to many other top 10 LACs including Carleton, Middlebury, Bowdoin, and Davidson. I agree, though, that Smith’s admissions standards are significantly weaker.

Also FWIW, Harvey Mudd isn’t actually hurt all that much by the graduation rate “expectation” imposed by US News, performance against which counts only 5% in the overall US News ranking. It’s hurt more by its 85% actual graduation rate (20% of US News total ranking), lower than any of the 14 LACs ranking above it in US News. Indeed, the only one close is #11 CMC at 88%.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not knocking Harvey Mudd, which I think is a great school. I’m knocking US News’ ridiculous methodology. I just happen to think that for all its flaws, PA is the least ridiculous part of the US News methodology.

xiggi · July 28, 2008, 7:15pm

Hogwash!

The original data meant very little to nothing without additional information.

Adding the per capita list (which I did) added a bit of value to the entire exercise, but it cannot help oevrcome the microscopic scope of the data. Again, with fewer than 30,000 PhD in the sciences and perhaps fewer than 50,000 in general, this presents a very small fraction of the tertiary education.

In addition, the most salient void is a comparative analysis of all the terminal degrees. Without comparing the PhD to other degrees, it is simply a misleading exercise. While the data itself has some value and relevance, the conclusions and interpretations drawn from the simplistic analyses have none!

And finally, before measuring the seriousness and intellectual rigor of some of the schools with some accuracy, one might wonder about the intellectual rigor of the PhD degree itself. Do all PhD come from prestigious and rigorous schools? Hardly!

collegehelp · July 28, 2008, 9:46pm

some LACs and small schools
1920-1999 Baccalaureate Origins
school, total PhD recipients, science and engineering PhD recipients

Oberlin C. 4,875 2,793
Dartmouth C. 3,487 2,238
CA Institute of Technology 3,470 3,396
Rice U. 2,928 2,379
Swarthmore C. 2,843 2,009
Carleton C. 2,374 1,636
Barnard C. 2,370 1,272
Wellesley C. 2,309 1,179
Wesleyan U. CT 2,209 1,321
Smith C. 2,184 1,083
Amherst C. 2,124 1,231
Pomona C. 2,104 1,424
Reed C. 1,970 1,525
Saint Olaf C. 1,879 1,058
Wheaton C. IL 1,873 802
Vassar C. 1,816 994
Williams C. 1,815 1,163
Mount Holyoke C. 1,749 1,026
C. of Wooster 1,716 1,003
Bucknell U. 1,672 1,173
Radcliffe C. 1,512 802
Grinnell C. 1,501 978
Calvin C. 1,500 775
Bryn Mawr C. 1,467 808
Haverford C. 1,454 952
Union C. NY 1,450 1,094
Franklin & Marshall C. 1,449 1,088
Occidental C. 1,433 891
Antioch C. OH 1,431 981
Colgate U. 1,427 879
Manhattan C. 1,357 950
C. of the Holy Cross 1,248 680
Middlebury C. 1,216 707
Davidson C. 1,195 655
Bowdoin C. 1,185 738
Hope C. 1,184 773
Lafayette C. 1,171 872
U.S. Naval Academy 1,130 786
Kalamazoo C. 1,123 812
Macalester C. 1,103 659
Allegheny C. 1,102 713
Denison U. 1,059 662
Lawrence U.-WI 1,057 592
Furman U. 1,035 497
Hamilton C. 1,024 563
Valparaiso U. 1,020 585
Bates C. 1,019 667
CO C. 1,008 674
Drake U. 1,007 411
Earlham C. 1,002 648
Depaul U. 979 467
U. Richmond 978 530
Gettysburg C. 977 562
Trinity C. CT 968 600
La Salle U. PA 960 501
Seton Hall U. 957 419
Beloit C. 946 654
Knox C. 926 591
Wittenberg U. 916 488
Bradley U. 910 533
SUNY C. at Oswego 908 370
Providence C. 893 520
Dickinson C. PA 886 475
SUNY C. at Cortland 869 282
Wabash C. 863 585
Cooper Union 859 826
Marshall U. 859 339
Fairleigh Dickinson U. 857 533
St. Lawrence U. 850 544
Muhlenberg C. 847 543
Colby C. 835 480
Saint Joseph’s U. PA 815 555
Luther C. 808 382
Berea C. 807 460
Trinity U. TX 785 454
Kenyon C. 779 481
Butler U. 771 356
Whitman C. 762 512
Clarkson U. NY 757 691
Harvey Mudd C. 757 738
John Carroll U. 753 431
Creighton U. 741 418
Old Dominion U. 740 367
Millersville U. PA 739 270
Canisius C. 738 459
SUNY C. at Brockport 738 263
Alfred U. 737 564
Santa Clara U. 734 507
Albion C. 733 423
U. Scranton 731 467
Concordia C.-Moorhead 727 381
U.S. Air Force Academy 727 568
East TN State U. 723 241
SUNY C. at Buffalo 722 145
Saint John’s U. MN 720 455
Lamar U.-Beaumont 717 355
Juniata C. PA 716 483
CA U. of PA 715 135
Gonzaga U. 715 343
U. New Orleans 710 445
Sam Houston State U. 707 228
Towson State U. 707 282
Baldwin-Wallace C. 702 302
Samford U. 701 163
TN Technological U. 700 421
Gustavus Adolphus C. 699 403
FL Atlantic U. 698 374
Springfield C. MA 694 151
U. of Saint Thomas MN 694 428
Birmingham Southern C. 691 301
C. of NJ 687 164
Hobart William Smith C. 686 408
Washington and Lee U. 686 362

xiggi · July 28, 2008, 9:56pm

It seems that a lot of the information discussed herein was part of a recently released study, with the exception that they used better and more recent data.

Baccalaureate Origins of S&E Doctorate Recipients
NSF 08-311 | July 2008

[nsf.gov</a> - SRS Baccalaureate Origins of S&E Doctorate Recipients - US National Science Foundation (NSF)](<a href=“Archive Goodbye | NCSES | NSF”>Archive Goodbye | NCSES | NSF)

Salient results were:

Baccalaureate colleges graduate relatively small numbers of undergraduate degree holders compared to doctorate- and master’s-granting institutions. However, when normalized by the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded, the baccalaureate colleges as a group yield more future S&E doctorates per hundred bachelor’s awarded than other types of institutions, except research universities. A group of 50 small, private baccalaureate schools (the Oberlin 50) was studied in the mid-1980s and was found at that time to contribute greatly to producing future S&E doctorates.

These schools have long outproduced (by yield) even the research universities. Over the 1997–2006 decade, the yield ratios of all of these types of institutions and the differences among types of institutions varied little, with slight drops in yield through 2002 reflecting declining numbers of S&E doctorates awarded.

Comparing just private institutions, however, the research universities have very similar institutional yields as the Oberlin 50 schools.** Private institutions, whether research universities or baccalaureate colleges, outperform public institutions in the proportion of their bachelor’s degree recipients becoming future S&E doctorate recipients. **The number of 1997–2006 S&E doctorate recipients per hundred bachelor’s degrees awarded in all fields 9 years earlier is higher among private research universities and the Oberlin 50 liberal arts schools. All private bachelor’s colleges as a group have about the same yield as public research universities

Top Schools From Which S&E Doctorate Recipients Received Bachelor’s Degrees
After normalizing for number of bachelor’s awarded 9 years earlier, more than half of the top 50 baccalaureate-origin institutions of 1997–2006 S&E doctorate recipients were baccalaureate colleges, and most of the rest were private research universities. The top 5 baccalaureate-origin institutions in terms of number of S&E doctorates per hundred bachelor’s awarded in all fields 9 years earlier were: California Institute of Technology, Harvey Mudd College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Reed College, and Swarthmore College.



1   CalTech                          Private        713 35.2
2   Harvey Mudd College Private     329 24.9
3   MIT                         Private     1,867   16.6
4   Reed College              Private       353 13.8
5   Swarthmore College  Private     482 12.9
6   Carleton College               Private      525 11.7
7   University of Chicago   Private     873 10.8
8   Grinnell College                  Private       338 10.5
9   Rice University            Private      664 10.5
10  Princeton University    Private     1,135   10.3
11  Harvard University              Private     1,775   9.9
12  Bryn Mawr College                   Private     276 9.7
13  Haverford College              Private      264 9.5
14  Pomona College             Private      323 9.1
15  New Mexico Mining   Public      118 8.7
16  Williams College              Private       428 8.4
17  Yale University          Private        1,087   8.4
18  Oberlin College           Private       577 8.2
19  Stanford University              Private        1,351   8.1
20  Johns Hopkins University    Private     691 7.7
21  Kalamazoo College              Private      195 7.7
22  Cornell                       Public/private        2,536   7.6
23  Case Western             Private        491 7.5
24  Washington College  Private     27  7.5
25  Brown University               Private      1,076   7.4
26  Wesleyan University Private     497 7.1
27  Carnegie Mellon University  Private     660 7.1
28  Macalester College            Private       268 6.9
29  Amherst College            Private      285 6.8
30  Duke University             Private     1,050   6.8
31  Beloit College             Private      146 6.5
32  Bowdoin College           Private       243 6.5
33  Wellesley College                Private        381 6.5
34  Rensselaer Polytechnic   Private        632 6.4
35  Earlham College            Private      147 6.2
36  Franklin and Marshall   Private     262 6.0
37  Lawrence University Private     153 6.0
38  University of Rochester Private     671 5.7
39  California-Berkeley         Public      3,199   5.7
40  Dartmouth College             Private       609 5.7
41  Occidental College           Private        218 5.7
42  Hendrix College          Private        115 5.6
43  Vassar College            Private       319 5.6
44  Trinity University           Private        274 5.6
45  College of William and Mary Public      698 5.6
46  St John's College (Annapolis, MD)   Private     48  5.5
47  Bates College              Private      227 5.5
48  Whitman College           Private       154 5.4
49  Brandeis University         Private     374 5.4
50  Hampshire College            Private        123 5.3</p>

<p>

xiggi · July 28, 2008, 10:11pm

Here’s another way to look at the data:



**PRIVATE SCHOOLS**
1   Private 713 35.2    California Institute of Technology
2   Private 329 24.9    Harvey Mudd College
3   Private 1,867   16.6    Massachusetts Institute of Technology
4   Private 353 13.8    Reed College
5   Private 482 12.9    Swarthmore College
6   Private 525 11.7    Carleton College
7   Private 873 10.8    University of Chicago
8   Private 338 10.5    Grinnell College
9   Private 664 10.5    Rice University
10  Private 1,135   10.3    Princeton University
11  Private 1,775   9.9 Harvard University
12  Private 276 9.7 Bryn Mawr College
13  Private 264 9.5 Haverford College
14  Private 323 9.1 Pomona College
16  Private 428 8.4 Williams College
17  Private 1,087   8.4 Yale University
18  Private 577 8.2 Oberlin College
19  Private 1,351   8.1 Stanford University
20  Private 691 7.7 Johns Hopkins University
21  Private 195 7.7 Kalamazoo College
23  Private 491 7.5 Case Western Reserve University
24  Private 27  7.5 Washington College
25  Private 1,076   7.4 Brown University
26  Private 497 7.1 Wesleyan University
27  Private 660 7.1 Carnegie Mellon University
28  Private 268 6.9 Macalester College
29  Private 285 6.8 Amherst College
30  Private 1,050   6.8 Duke University
31  Private 146 6.5 Beloit College
32  Private 243 6.5 Bowdoin College
33  Private 381 6.5 Wellesley College
34  Private 632 6.4 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
35  Private 147 6.2 Earlham College
36  Private 262 6.0 Franklin and Marshall College
37  Private 153 6.0 Lawrence University
38  Private 671 5.7 University of Rochester
40  Private 609 5.7 Dartmouth College
41  Private 218 5.7 Occidental College
42  Private 115 5.6 Hendrix College
43  Private 319 5.6 Vassar College
44  Private 274 5.6 Trinity University
46  Private 48  5.5 St John's College (Annapolis, MD)
47  Private 227 5.5 Bates College
48  Private 154 5.4 Whitman College
49  Private 374 5.4 Brandeis University
50  Private 123 5.3 Hampshire College</p>

<p>**PUBLIC SCHOOLS**<br>
15  Public  118 8.7 New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
39  Public  3,199   5.7 University of California-Berkeley
45  Public  698 5.6 College of William and Mary</p>

<p>**PUBLIC/PRIVATE SCHOOLS**
22  Public/private  2,536   7.6 Cornell University, all campuses

barrons · July 28, 2008, 10:42pm

Small liberal arts schools will always do better on a per capita analysis so I hardly call this real normalizing, partially just the type of student that selects a LAC. Also it’s pretty difficult to send 500 bio majors on to get PhD’s from one school. We can stick to comparing apples and apples. Big research with big research and small LAC with the like.

xiggi · July 28, 2008, 10:52pm

^^–^^

It’s not my analysis, Barrons. The authors are Joan Burrelli, Science and Engineering Indicators Program, Division of Science Resources Statistics, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 965, Arlington VA 22230 (<a href="mailto:jburrell@nsf.gov">jburrell@nsf.gov</a>; 703-292-7793).

By the way, the interesting part was not the LAC versus the research universities part, but the “normalized” performance of public versus private research schools.

As the NSF researchers stated, “Private institutions, whether research universities or baccalaureate colleges, outperform public institutions in the proportion of their bachelor’s degree recipients becoming future S&E doctorate recipients.”

Not exactly the same conclusion one might have reached after reading the OP, isn’t it! Berkeley’s performance ranked 39th and MIT 3d? It’s not quite the same as

barrons · July 28, 2008, 11:13pm

Yes, whatever. Everyone but you knows what UCB and the other top states do and what MIT does. They both produce many great graduates. MIT just has a little easier path. Big deal. The fact remains a top grad from a good state school can go anywhere a Harvard or MIT grad goes be it in science or running a company.

xiggi · July 28, 2008, 11:35pm

Barrons, you’re making a real effort to find a negative in what I am posting here. Do you think I disagree with your statement that Berkeley “produces many great graduates?” The absolute numbers posted in the OP are there to positively confirm that.

The only difference is that a school such as Berkeley is simply not the best at producing PhDs as it barely makes a top 50 list that is controlled for size.

Absolute numbers represent one thing; normalized performance … another. I am sorry that the NSF itself dentifies the most performing schools as non-publics, and that their own conclusions seem to contradict what is often thrown around as factual evidence, namely the academic superiority of public research universities and the need to access a graduate school or graduate students for a competitive scientific education.

collegehelp · July 29, 2008, 6:58am

It would be a better study if it also controlled for average SAT level. Publics have excellent resources but have an obligation to educate a broader range of students. The difference between publics and privates could be due to differnces in average student ability.

This is not a criticism of public universities. It is a criticism of research methods.

Publics may have a smaller proportion of PhD material than privates. Privates tend to have higher average SATs. Yes, I know that publics have large numbers of top students. I am talking about the proportion of top students. Ideally, it would be factored into the normalization process.

LACs may seem like superior producers of PhDs than universities but it is probably a function of differences in curriculum. Universities offer majors in fields that have a job market for bachelors and masters level students:

education
engineering
business
and so on.

So when normalizing, you should divide by the number of students who were undergraduates in that particular PhD major who had SATs or GPAs above a certain level. Dividing by the entire enrollment works against universities.

You can make a living in these fields without a PhD. The traditional Arts and Sciences curriculum at LACs encourages encourages students to seek PhDs so they can make a living in that field.

johnwesley · July 29, 2008, 7:39am

^^I think that is sort of the point of the whole exercise. The rap against LACs traditionally has been that they couldn’t compete with research universities in producing research oriented graduates – particularly in theoretical science. People may say, “Ah, I knew that all along.” but, they would be in the ex poste facto minority.

Venkat89 · July 29, 2008, 7:56am

^maybe students at LACs feel a greater need to go on to graduate school. It might not be too much more for someone at a big research school like Michigan or Wisconsin to go and get an MS in science or engineering with only an extra semester or year. And for someone instate, paying less than 20k (bringing total costs to still about half that of 4 years at a private college) to get a more marketable degree, it might be seen as worth it. They may feel that with an MS they do not need to go back for a PhD to further their careers. Compare that to someone at a LAC where they cannot get an MS. I’m not too sure about the availability of terminal Master’s programs in areas like biology and chemistry (though I do know there are a bunch in engineering) so if there are a large number of schools that offer a 1 or 2 year MS in the pure sciences, maybe I’m wrong.

barrons · July 29, 2008, 11:18am

"Barrons, you’re making a real effort to find a negative in what I am posting here. Do you think I disagree with your statement that Berkeley “produces many great graduates?” The absolute numbers posted in the OP are there to positively confirm that.

The only difference is that a school such as Berkeley is simply not the best at producing PhDs as it barely makes a top 50 list that is controlled for size"

Obviously you think there is a big difference. I think this is a false conclusion based on comapring two mutually exclusive groups. Big state U students are not the same as small LAC students. They may have different goals and backgrounds. But to imply that anyone pondering going through to a PhD will be worse off going to UCB over a LAC is just wrong.

Top 50 US Baccalaureate Institutions of PhDs 1995-1999

CONNECT WITH US