<p>i’m planning to major in something along these lines. which top 20-30 ranked schools are stronger in their biology programs?</p>
<p>are you intrested in uni or lac?
are you planning to save money for med school or do you want to do research in undergrad?
this article can give you some things to think about
<a href=“http://www.hhmi.org/BeyondBio101/ubsep.htm[/url]”>http://www.hhmi.org/BeyondBio101/ubsep.htm</a></p>
<p>thanks for the link. i’m more interested in a biomedical undergrad in LAC. No plans for med school. i’m more inclined towards research.</p>
<p>Biology ranking from Gourman Report:
Caltech
MIT
Yale
Harvard
Wisconsin Madison
UC San Diego
UC Berkeley
U Colorado Boulder
Columbia
Stanford
U Washington
UCLA
U Michigan Ann Arbor
Cornell
U Penn
Purdue West Lafayette
Indiana U Bloomington
UNC Chapel Hill
U Utah
Johns Hopkins
Northwestern
Princeton
UC Irvine
Notre Dame
UC Santa Barbara
UVA
Brown
U Illinois U-C
U Pittsburgh
Vanderbilt
U Oregon
SUNY Stony Brook
U Rochester</p>
<p>in viewing the Gourman report you may want to keep this in mind
<a href=“http://www.library.uiuc.edu/edx/rankoversy.htm[/url]”>http://www.library.uiuc.edu/edx/rankoversy.htm</a>
The latter article focuses on the Gourman Report, a print-only source which has been singled out for heavy criticism by those interested in institutional evaluation. Many observers decry the Gourman Report’s lack of identifiable criteria and methodology. As with all other ranking services, we advise anyone consulting the Gourman Report to exercise caution and not overemphasize its seemingly definitive numerical rankings.</p>
<p>The Gourman Report does have clearly identified criteria:</p>
<p>The Gourman Report states that its ratings are based on “extensive reseach” into the following criteria:</p>
<ol>
<li>auspices, control, and organization of the institution</li>
<li>numbers of educational programs offered and degrees conferred (with additional attention to “sub-fields” available to students within a particular discipline</li>
<li>age (experience level) of the institution and the individual discipline or program and division</li>
<li>faculty, including qualifications, experience, intellectual interests, attainments, and professional productivity (including research)</li>
<li>students, including quality of scholastic work and records of graduates both in graduate study and in practice</li>
<li>basis of and requirements for admission of students (overall and by individual discipline)</li>
<li>number of students enrolled (overall and for each discipline)</li>
<li>curriculum and curricular content of the program or discipline and division</li>
<li>standards and quality of instruction (including teaching loads)</li>
<li>quality of administration, including attitudes and policy towards teaching, research and scholarly production in each discipline, and administration research</li>
<li>quality and availability of non-departmental areas such as counseling and career placement services</li>
<li>quality of physical plant devoted to undergraduate, graduate, and professional levels</li>
<li>finances, including budgets, investments, expenditures and sources of income for both public and private institutions</li>
<li>library, including number of volumes, appropriateness of materials to individual disciplines and accessibility of materials</li>
<li>computer facility sufficient to support current research activities for both faculty and students</li>
<li>sufficient funding for research equipment and infrastructure</li>
<li>number of teaching and research assistantships</li>
<li>academic-athletic balance</li>
</ol>
<p>The weight given to each criterion above varies by discipline. </p>
<p>What the Gourman Report does not do is state the weighting system used for each discipline. But, the results seem valid and are consistent with other rankings. </p>
<p>The Gourman Report gives weight to things associated with active research programs and this seems to place LACs at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>Follow EmeraldKitty’s advice and narrow your search. While you’ve already done that somewhat by identifying ‘Biomedicine’ for a major, know that many different kinds of colleges offer that or a closely related field of study. Lots of schools will prepare you well for graduate studies. So just pick a school that has reputation for good academic placement in graduate science programs. For Biomedicine/Biotechnology, I like these strong but usually overlooked schools;</p>
<p>Worcester Polytechnic Institute
U of Alabama-Birmingham
Michigan State University (The Lyman Briggs School)
Northwestern University</p>
<p>Yes, if you want to do research you need to avoid LAC’s, and instead focus on Research I universities. These are schools with large research components, award significant numbers of PhD’s each year, and have large research endowments. If research is really what you are looking for going to one of these places is going to be much more beneficial to you than a small LAC. </p>
<p>I’ve always assumed that the draw to LAC is the fact that they are smaller, allow more individual attention, and have a greater emphasis on teaching. But these things all work against them in being outstanding centers of research (not that the two have to be mutually exclusive), but they have facilities that are not as up to date, they can’t attract top faculty in their fields (which is what the Ivies have in their favor), and those end up impacting their ability to attract grants for research.</p>
<p>Research I universities, in addition to what I’ve already pointed out, are also the most likely to have projects available to get undergrads involved in research - not only helping a prof with theirs, but also in getting undergrads to conduct their own studies under the guidance of appropriate professors.</p>
<p>Here are some LACs with relatively large biology programs, in order by relative size of biology program:</p>
<p>college, total bachelors, biology bachelors, biology ratio</p>
<p>WOFFORD COLLEGE 247 48 0.19
AUGUSTANA COLLEGE 540 93 0.17
COLORADO COLLEGE 523 83 0.16
EARLHAM COLLEGE 249 41 0.16
JUNIATA COLLEGE 332 50 0.15
HENDRIX COLLEGE 230 32 0.14
WHITMAN COLLEGE 337 48 0.14
AGNES SCOTT COLLEGE 204 27 0.13
SWARTHMORE COLLEGE 364 46 0.13
ALLEGHENY COLLEGE 455 61 0.13
PRESBYTERIAN COLLEGE 268 36 0.13
GRINNELL COLLEGE 367 45 0.12
KALAMAZOO COLLEGE 285 34 0.12
OHIO WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY 377 41 0.11
DENISON UNIVERSITY 514 56 0.11
KNOX COLLEGE 265 30 0.11
BOWDOIN COLLEGE 414 45 0.11
CARLETON COLLEGE 455 48 0.11
LAFAYETTE COLLEGE 541 58 0.11
WELLS COLLEGE 91 10 0.11
URSINUS COLLEGE 361 40 0.11
REED COLLEGE 310 34 0.11
BRYN MAWR COLLEGE 299 32 0.11
RHODES COLLEGE 334 37 0.11
LAWRENCE UNIVERSITY 314 32 0.1
POMONA COLLEGE 394 40 0.1
CONNECTICUT COLLEGE 452 45 0.1
SPELMAN COLLEGE 533 54 0.1
ILLINOIS WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY 462 48 0.1
COLLEGE OF WOOSTER 391 39 0.1
CENTRE COLLEGE 258 25 0.1
COLBY COLLEGE 486 48 0.1
ST MARY’S COLLEGE OF MARYLAND 396 38 0.1
HAVERFORD COLLEGE 323 32 0.1
DAVIDSON COLLEGE 426 44 0.1
AUSTIN COLLEGE 310 32 0.1
SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 311 31 0.1
WILLIAMS COLLEGE 531 48 0.09
GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS COLLEGE 703 63 0.09
SAINT OLAF COLLEGE 708 67 0.09
BATES COLLEGE 450 41 0.09
MOUNT HOLYOKE COLLEGE 553 52 0.09
ALBION COLLEGE 309 29 0.09
BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY 856 77 0.09
MUHLENBERG COLLEGE 595 54 0.09
WILLAMETTE UNIVERSITY 420 38 0.09
FRANKLIN AND MARSHALL COLLEGE 433 39 0.09
SEWANEE: THE UNIVERSITY OF THE SOUTH 313 27 0.09
BIRMINGHAM SOUTHERN COLLEGE 236 18 0.08
OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE 459 39 0.08
DEPAUW UNIVERSITY 522 43 0.08
HANOVER COLLEGE 217 17 0.08
COLLEGE OF SAINT BENEDICT 475 37 0.08
KENYON COLLEGE 399 31 0.08
FURMAN UNIVERSITY 643 49 0.08
DICKINSON COLLEGE 512 43 0.08
HOLLINS UNIVERSITY 189 15 0.08
WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY 398 28 0.07
UNIVERSITY OF PUGET SOUND 579 39 0.07
BELOIT COLLEGE 261 17 0.07
HARVEY MUDD COLLEGE 176 13 0.07
CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE 288 19 0.07
MACALESTER COLLEGE 428 30 0.07
SMITH COLLEGE 688 48 0.07
SAINT JOHNS UNIVERSITY 494 35 0.07
MILLSAPS COLLEGE 225 15 0.07
ST LAWRENCE UNIVERSITY 499 34 0.07
OBERLIN COLLEGE 722 54 0.07
COLGATE UNIVERSITY 646 37 0.06
WELLESLEY COLLEGE 603 38 0.06
SCRIPPS COLLEGE 172 10 0.06
DREW UNIVERSITY 359 23 0.06
HOBART WILLIAM SMITH COLLEGES 446 28 0.06
GETTYSBURG COLLEGE 597 34 0.06
UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND 757 44 0.06
WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY 722 35 0.05
WABASH COLLEGE 181 9 0.05
GOUCHER COLLEGE 272 14 0.05
AMHERST COLLEGE 428 21 0.05
COLLEGE OF THE HOLY CROSS 675 35 0.05
WHEATON COLLEGE 356 18 0.05
BARNARD COLLEGE 600 30 0.05
MILLS COLLEGE 194 9 0.05
TRINITY COLLEGE 492 25 0.05
HOPE COLLEGE 638 30 0.05
VASSAR COLLEGE 614 31 0.05
MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE 632 29 0.05
RANDOLPH-MACON COLLEGE 235 12 0.05
SWEET BRIAR COLLEGE 132 7 0.05
PITZER COLLEGE 207 9 0.04
PRINCIPIA COLLEGE 113 5 0.04
WHEATON COLLEGE 604 21 0.03
UNION COLLEGE 132 4 0.03
HAMILTON COLLEGE 457 15 0.03
VIRGINIA MILITARY INSTITUTE 278 9 0.03
SKIDMORE COLLEGE 597 10 0.02</p>
<p>keep in mind that biology is a very broad discipline. Some of those Gourman ranked schools are very narrowly focused. For Instance, at MIT or Cal Tech you will not find any ecology, evolution or otherwise organismaly oriented biology. If cell biology is your gig, then you’re set. As an undergraduate, it’s more important you build a good foundation of biological knowledge…this includes basic principles of evolution and ecology which you just won’t get at the more tech oriented schools. </p>
<p>Bottom line, make sure you check the curriculum (and none of this is valid if you just plan on going to med school). Very good integrative programs include Berkeley, Cornell, Harvard, Chicago, Stanford, etc.</p>
<p>Cheers,
CUgrad</p>
<p>Based solely on this one statisic:</p>
<p>Reed College ranks first in the nation in the production of future Ph.D.s in the life sciences.</p>
<p>This ranking is based on the percentage of graduates, not number of graduates. Reed is a very small school, 1340 total students this year.</p>
<p>
You won’t find any classes on evolution and ecology at MIT or Caltech, true. But graduates of MIT and Caltech are still taught the principles of ecology and evolution as it relates to other problems in biology. Biology isn’t about facts, anyway, it’s about learning the principles necessary to solve problems in biological systems.</p>
<p>Graduates of the MIT and Caltech biology programs do just fine for themselves in biologically-related careers.</p>
<p>I second CUgrad’s observations. And I’ll re-assert my plug for Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Sure it’s a runner-up to its in-state rival MIT, but the academic strength of the two schools is by no means separated by a chasm. And WPI does offer in depth organismal, evolution and ecology courses that provide a solid general biology background. Unlike MIT, it’s got a fine liberal arts component. THe gap between WPI and MIT is not great.</p>
<p>Haha, which paths aren’t available to an MIT biology grad that are available to someone who took a few courses in evolution or ecology?</p>
<p>I also wouldn’t say that MIT is particularly weak in the humanities, arts, and social sciences – we have top-flight departments in political science, linguistics, and economics, among others. MIT students are required to take about a quarter of their classes in the humanities, arts, and social sciences.</p>
<p>I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but I do feel an obligation to point out incorrect information.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The major hole in your logic is that the elite LAC’s send plenty of their students to top PhD programs. That means that 1 of 3 things must be true:
A) These LAC’s indeed provide such research opportunities that will pre their graduates for the top doctoral programs
B) Research projects must not be very important for undergrads in terms of gaining admission to the top doctoral programs.<br>
C) The top doctoral programs are being dumb in admitting these students.</p>
<p>To give you an idea of what I’m talking about, check out the PhD commenement data at Caltech in 2005. Notice how 4 students who received their PhD’s at Caltech had done their undergrad at either Amherst, Williams, or Swarthmore. That’s the same number as had done their undergrads at MIT. </p>
<p><a href=“http://pr.caltech.edu/commencement/05/phd.pdf[/url]”>http://pr.caltech.edu/commencement/05/phd.pdf</a></p>
<p>Note: I think it’s fair to compare MIT vs. WAS because while AWS has more total undergrads (about 4000 vs. 5000), the fact is, most AWS students study the humanities or social sciences and would therefore have far less interest in getting a PhD from Caltech as opposed to the typical MIT undergrad who is far more likely to have studied something technical. Heck, I think that the numbers are stacked in FAVOR of MIT. Nevertheless, the fact remains that just as many newly minted Caltech PhD’s in 2005 had done their undergrad at AWS compared to MIT.</p>
<p>So that really begs the question of if the elite LAC’s like AWS are so poor at offering research opportunities, then why did Caltech admit them for doctoral studies? Heck, I’m sure that there were other students from MIT or other big research schools who applied to Caltech and didn’t get in because Caltech decided to admit those LAC kids instead. Was Caltech being dumb?</p>
<p>sakky makes a good point. If a high school student’s goal is to do world-class biology-related research, then a PhD is certainly necessary, such that earning a PhD becomes an intermediate goal. So how can the student maximize her chances of earning a PhD? One way is by attending a school which has a history of a high percentage of its graduates ultimately earning PhDs.</p>
<p>This list is from Weighted Baccalaureate Origins Study, Higher Education Data Sharing Consortium. It shows baccalaureate origins of people granted PhDs in Biological Sciences from 1992 to 2001, so it’s a bit dated. The list shows the top 10 institutions in the nation ranked by percentage of graduates who go on to earn a PhD. </p>
<p>The list is not dominated by Research I universities.</p>
<p>Reed
Calif. Inst. of Tech.
Swarthmore
Univ. of Chicago
Kalamazoo
MIT
Earlham
Harvey Mudd
Univ. of the Sciences in Philadelphia
Grinnell</p>
<p>Not once, ever, in any of the three universities I have been affiliated with, have I met a graduate from MIT in any department of ecology or evolutionary biology (my own field). Believe me, I think MIT is truly one of the worlds great universities (and I recognize it’s strengths in the social sciences). However, for an undecided student who is not sure about whether they want to go to graduate school or medical school, or even which subset of biology they want to enter–the tech schools are limited. And having taught introductory biology many times, I can assure you that the students at MIT and CalTech are certainly not getting the principles of ecology and evolution…</p>
<p>…That being said, would I turn down MIT for Michigan State because it has an EEOB program? Not in a million years. However, as a student having a strong interest in biology, but not sure which direction to take, I would probably turn down MIT for other schools with more integrative departments (e.g. Berkeley, Cornell, Chicago, Stanford, Harvard etc.).</p>
<p>just my 2 cents.</p>
<p>Cheers,
CUgrad</p>
<p>Sakky and myself rarely agree, but we’re in the same boat here. As much as I am a strong proponent of research universities–especially in the sciences–there really is no real disadvantage to attending a top notch LAC if grad school is your goal. First, every graduate admissions department knows that the research opportunities are more scarce for these students–it’s not held against them. Second, graduate ad-coms certainly know about and understand the quality of the general education that these students get. Bottom line is top applicants from LACs are smart, smart students who will learn the necessary bench work during their first year or two when they do rotations.</p>
<p>Lastly…LAC professors absolutely do research, it’s just not at the forefront of their job description–teaching is. I’m actually collaborating right now on a paper with a professor from Harvey Mudd college.</p>
<p>Anyway, the difference between unis and LAC’s for me is all about feel and diversity of offerings.</p>
<p>thanks.
CUgrad</p>
<p>Yay, CUgrad! Ecology suffers from neglect in most biology departments, unfortunately. :(</p>
<p>brocollie, many LACs provide excellent research opportunities. If they don’t offer them, they’ll arrange for you to have them anyway. I knew a Davidson neuroscience major who conducted research at Columbia (with funding from Davidson). You’d be better off trying to decide exactly what you want in a college, making a list of potential colleges, and then examining their biology programs. You’re going about the process backwards. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Look, my inention was not to denigrate MIT. It’s nearly obvious that MIT is a great university and one of the best in the world. I was just comparing the offerings in organismal biology/ecology and the Humanities at two primarily technical schools. And honestly, I have not heard praises for MIT’s offerings in the Humanities.</p>