<p>The Gourman report is over 10 years old I think and completely worthless anyway.</p>
<p>OP - tell your parents that trying to rank undergraduate programs in anything is completely and totally silly. Tell them to PM me if they don’t agree. I can’t even come close to listing all the reasons this is true, but here are a few (FYI, I have gone undergrad and grad in chemistry at three very different environments and have taught as well. I know what I am talking about here):</p>
<p>It is a completely non-quantifiable thing.
You only take about 25% of your courses in that major.
More than half of all undergraduates change majors and therefore even if there were any value in ranking departments (and there is not, I say again for emphasis) you would then have gone to a school based on the wrong department.</p>
<p>What parameters could possibly go into the ranking of an undergraduate department? The research and reputation of the professors? That is for grad school. Undergrads often never get involved at that level, and even if they do it is on a very limited basis compared to their entire 4 years at a school. The quality of the labs? We are talking basic undergrad here, again. It rarely makes that much difference.</p>
<p>Now some of these things can be nice to have. New labs are great. Great professors are great too, but sometimes they can’t teach worth a damn. Within the top 100 schools as ranked by USNWR overall, the quality of the courses will be very similar. Biology and chemistry don’t change based on where they are taught. Pick a school based on affordability, size, location, fit to you academically and otherwise, etc. If you are happy at the school, everything else will fall into place no problem.</p>
<p>Man I just hate it when parents do this. It is so totally misguided.</p>