<p>People are always quoting me! hehe! </p>
<p>And I agree Sam, Northwestern does indeed belong among the “Very Good”. It was my mistake. </p>
<p>As for Nanotechnology, I agree with many when they say it is more of a graduate-level discipline. MAjoring in EE as an undergrad is probably the best way to prepare for a graduate degree in Nanotechnology.</p>
<p>Does’nt u penn have nanotech? Maybe i am wrong.</p>
<p>The recruitment coup this year of UCLA’s chair, Sir Fraser Stoddart, along with 25 other scientists in his labs, has taken Northwestern’s already stellar nanotechnology department headed by Chad Mirkin one last notch up the ladder. Northwestern has placed itself among the top few programs of its kind in the world in the field. </p>
<p>[International</a> Institute for Nanotechnology](<a href=“http://www.iinano.org/]International”>http://www.iinano.org/)
[NU</a> Chemistry](<a href=“Department of Chemistry - Northwestern University”>Department of Chemistry - Northwestern University)
[Sir</a> J. Fraser Stoddart Elected to the Royal Society of Edinburgh](<a href=“http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2008/03/stoddarthonor.html]Sir”>Sir J. Fraser Stoddart Elected to the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Northwestern University News)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just a nit - but these cutoffs seem rather arbitrary. A top 12 separating ‘Very Good’ from ‘Good’? This ranking seems to generally align with the NRC ranking. In the NRC ranking, Wisconsin, UCLA, and Chicago all had a score of 4.46, while Yale was 4.38. The only other schools with rankings over 4.0 were UT-Austin (4.28), Northwestern (4.23), and Texas A&M (4.11). If we were to include these schools in the very good category, then that seems not only a clearer break at a ‘top 15’, but it also seems reasonable since they all broke 4.0. It also seems somewhat arbitrary to end the ‘good’ schools tier at Rice and Washington, which were tied with the lowest scores in the ‘good’ group at 3.70, yet exclude Florida with a 3.67? And to really get picky, although Berkeley is indeed in a league of its own in most areas, the difference in NRC chemistry rankings between it (4.96) and Caltech (4.94) don’t seem THAT big…</p>
<p>The NRC top 30 chemistry programs for reference:</p>
<p>1 Berkeley 4.96
2 Caltech 4.94
3 Stanford 4.87
4 Harvard 4.87
5 MIT 4.86
6 Cornell 4.55
7 Columbia 4.54
8 Illinois 4.48
9 Wisconsin 4.46
10 UCLA 4.46
11 Chicago 4.46
12 Yale 4.38
13 Texas-Austin 4.28
14 Northwestern 4.23
15 Texas A&M 4.11
16 Indiana 3.99
17 UNC 3.97
18 Penn State 3.95
19 UCSD 3.95
20 Princeton 3.92
21 Minnesota 3.89
22 Ohio State 3.87
23 UCSF 3.86
24 Purdue 3.83
25 Penn 3.78
26 Iowa State 3.76
27 Johns Hopkins 3.74
28 Washington 3.7
29 Rice 3.7
30 Florida 3.67</p>
<p>Berkeley’s chemistry history, and recent history with the $500 million biochemical sciences institute puts it in a league of its own.</p>
<p>Cal has an entire campus (6 buildings if I am not mistaken) devoted entirely to Chemistry. In fact, it is fair to say that Cal has a college of Chemistry, just as it has a college of Engineering or a college of LSA.</p>
<p>Why do people keep putting NRC ranking? It’s so outdated!</p>
<p>^^ Yep, yep…spent 3 years there. </p>
<p>6 buildings shared between chemistry and chemical engineering…chemistry library and an ultra low temperature laboratory.</p>
<p><a href=“http://chemistry.berkeley.edu/about/facts.html#facil[/url]”>http://chemistry.berkeley.edu/about/facts.html#facil</a></p>
<p>
Because it’s the best.</p>
<p>New rankings are due later this year, that will replace the 1995 rankings. And we can post those rankings for another 10 years or more…</p>
<p>It’s the best in 1995 but a lot have happened since then. There’s no nanotech in 1995. US News is a lot more subjective but at least the opinion is based on what’s going on these days.</p>
<p>^ Yes, but really very little changes among top programs, despite advances in sciences…the top dawgs will remain near or on top. Do you really expect to see a big change among the Top 10 programs?</p>
<p>The NRC rankings take years to develop. They were supposed to come out every 10 years, but have been delayed.</p>
<p>I don’t think the NRC is going to have a nanotech category anyway. Nanotech is an engineering application…</p>
<p>And in 1995, I was using Apple’s eWorld…what a joke that was :)</p>
<p>I didn’t say I would expect a big change but the margin is big enough to make US News look more reliable. If you think about it, at any given University, none of the assistant professors were at the school 13 years ago. This applied to most of the associate professors as well. Only the full professors were the ones that were more likely there 13 years ago; not to mention all the turn-over. If NRC takes years to develop, that actually means the data they used weren’t just from 1995; a lot of them were even older than that. I think you know what I am getting at.</p>
<p>^ Yes, yes…we’ll see later this summer.</p>
<p>It will be good fodder for intense discussion.</p>
<p>Most bears don’t live that long in the wild either. Trees do. ;)</p>
<p>^ Trees are static…bears are dynamic. </p>
<p>Bears climb trees…;)</p>
<p>Yea…but they can’t stay on top of it for a long time. Some may fall and die!</p>
<p>The tree is the defacto mascot of your dysfunctional band…your true mascot is the politically correct “Cardinal”…*** is that? A color…how ingenious.</p>
<p>
To be replaced by a new litter of cubs…ready to sharpen their claws against the tree bark…and feast on your seeds.</p>
<p>Hmm…you seem to underestimate the challenge out there. If the mother dies, the survival rate of her cubs is almost zero (most often killed by wolves and other male bears). Few scratches are considered nothing to trees. :)</p>