USNews Rankings in Immuno/ID

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Immunology/Infectious Disease

1. Harvard
2. Stanford
2. Yale
4. Johns Hopkins
5. UCSF
5. Wash. U.
7. UCB
7. UCLA
 
Hey Teerawit, u got the rankings for genetics? If so please post. Thanks!
 

Members do not see ads. Register today.

Teerawit said:
1. Harvard
2. Stanford
2. Yale
4. Cal. Tech.
5. UCSF
6. UCB
6. UCSD
6. Wash. U.
9. Johns Hopkins
10. Yale
Click to expand...

Hey, thanks!
 
Chouster said:
Hey Teerawit, u got the rankings for genetics? If so please post. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Sure thing:


Genetics/Genomics/Bioinformatics

1. Harvard
2. MIT
2. Stanford
4. Cal. Tech.
5. UCSF
6. UCB
6. UCSD
6. Wash. U.
9. Johns Hopkins
10. Yale
 
mercaptovizadeh said:
Hey, thanks!
Click to expand...

Oops, I was looking at the wrong list while typing the Immunology rankings 😳 i edited my original post.
 
Teerawit said:
Immunology/Infectious Disease

1. Harvard
2. Stanford
2. Yale
4. Johns Hopkins
5. UCSF
5. Wash. U.
7. UCB
7. UCLA
Click to expand...

Thanks- do you know if the US News rankers included Rockefeller and MSK Immuno labs when they were compiling the list? In other words, is Cornell considered as a med school alone as the Tri-I when being ranked? I guess the same would be true for U of WA and the Hutch -- do you know how affiliated institutions were dealt with?
 
Thanks- do you know if the US News rankers included Rockefeller and MSK Immuno labs when they were compiling the list? In other words, is Cornell considered as a med school alone as the Tri-I when being ranked? I guess the same would be true for U of WA and the Hutch -- do you know how affiliated institutions were dealt with?
Click to expand...

They are dealt with all seperately, as they are financially unaffiliated, and none of the three ever will be - especially for the purposes of rankings etc... The md/phd program, chemical biology program, and bioinformatics program are pretty much the only things that are formally shared between all three institutions.

I imagine the Hutch and UW fall into this category.

Places like Harvard have their labs spread all over (BID/MGH/Brigham/Longwood/Cambridge), but they are affiliated through financially and institutionally connected faculties.
 
I'm not sure that's true for the USNews medical school rankings. It always seems that affiliated institutions, even if not financially/administratively linked, do go into the rankings calculations. CHOP, UPenn, and the Wistar Institue, for example, are not financially or administratively connected and they are always included in UPenn's research funding numbers when the USNews rankings are published.

There's a way to settle this debate. One can find the NIH medical school funding numbers from previous threads. That only lists the funding for the medical school, and does not include affiliated institutions. My impression in the past was that almost none of the top schools could be explained by their medical schools alone, usually with a gap of tens to hundreds of millions, and therefore affiliated institutions must be included in the numbers.

Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree here. I don't really understand isleofman's question as written and I don't know if this is the same for the graduate school rankings.
 
Neuronix said:
I'm not sure that's true for the USNews medical school rankings. It always seems that affiliated institutions, even if not financially/administratively linked, do go into the rankings calculations. CHOP, UPenn, and the Wistar Institue, for example, are not financially or administratively connected and they are always included in UPenn's research funding numbers when the USNews rankings are published.

There's a way to settle this debate. One can find the NIH medical school funding numbers from previous threads. That only lists the funding for the medical school, and does not include affiliated institutions. My impression in the past was that almost none of the top schools could be explained by their medical schools alone, usually with a gap of tens to hundreds of millions, and therefore affiliated institutions must be included in the numbers.

Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree here. I don't really understand isleofman's question as written and I don't know if this is the same for the graduate school rankings.
Click to expand...

Let me oblige:
http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/award/rank/microbiology04.htm

FYI:

1. UWashington
2. Harvard
3. Alabama
4. Cornell
5. Emory
6. AECOM
7. UCLA
8. Jefferson
9. UNC
10. Wisconsin

Quite a disparity between this list at the USNWR list, especially considering that places like Emory and Jefferson are underrated.
 
I'm not sure that's true for the USNews medical school rankings. It always seems that affiliated institutions, even if not financially/administratively linked, do go into the rankings calculations. CHOP, UPenn, and the Wistar Institue, for example, are not financially or administratively connected and they are always included in UPenn's research funding numbers when the USNews rankings are published.
Click to expand...

It may be the case for CHOP, Wistar etc... as they are Penn affiliates.

Similarly, Cornell-Manhattan has many clinical affiliates that may contribute to the clinical-funding complex (Westchester Psychiatric Facility, if they get funding for trials, for example), but they make a nominal contribution since the research complex is centralized around NYH.

Cornell-Ithaca does not contribute to the funding picture of Cornell-Manhattan in rankings either, for whatever reason, though somewhat fairly (though the rankings can be, and are often tweaked by including functionally separate units)

Rockefeller and Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute are not Cornell affiliates, or vice-versa, by any means. I'm sure they would balk at the characterization, though there is an extremely cordial relationship that rises above the provinciality.

Let me oblige:
http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/award...robiology04.htm

FYI:

1. UWashington
2. Harvard
3. Alabama
4. Cornell
5. Emory
6. AECOM
7. UCLA
8. Jefferson
9. UNC
10. Wisconsin
Click to expand...

*note that rockefeller and sloan aren't even on the micro/immuno dept rankings, as they have none (though, obviously, they do get a non-trivial amount of related funding)
 
Habari said:
It may be the case for CHOP, Wistar etc... as they are Penn affiliates.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a better definition of affilliate is required. I think CHOP and Wistar would also balk at the idea being a Penn "affiliate" in much the same way as you listed for your NYC counterparts. They are standalone institutions. CHOP, as a children's research institude and hopsital, also receives a ton of private donation. This still doesn't get at my question of whether SKI and Rockefeller are included in the USNews research funding dollars for Cornell Med. I'll try to do some more research on this later if someone doesn't beat me to it.
 
This still doesn't get at my question of whether SKI and Rockefeller are included in the USNews research funding dollars for Cornell Med. I'll try to do some more research on this later if someone doesn't beat me to it.
Click to expand...

They aren't. That's the point I'm failing to make, along with pointing out that institutional agreements and affiliates are technically different.

For example, just because the scripps and oxford (skaggs oxford scholars) have an arrangement to train students doesn't make oxfords funding piled into scripps. The same for Rockefeller, Cornell and Ski. Also, Ski is complicated because it is incorporated in multiple ways (as an institute, as a clinical operation, a philanthropic foundation, and now a new graduate school - and it is possible to be affiliated with one or many of them financially, but not all). But whatever, 'nuff of this ...
 
Sorry to break in on the pissing contest boys, but rankings are practically worthless. Even the NIH table referenced by Dr&Geek which seems so straightforward does not tell the whole story. That table only includes grants awarded to faculty in departments of microbiology, immunology & virology; it does not include grants awarded to faculty other departments (medicine, pathology, genetics, etc.) doing micro & immuno work. Since faculty groupings vary from school to school, at any one institution there may actually be more microbiology grant dollars awarded to faculty outside the micro department than to faculty under the micro banner.

One thing that no one can dispute is that the Weill Cornell/Rockefeller/Sloan-Kettering Tri-Institutional MD-PhD Program ranks #1 in terms of length of the program name. At the other end of the spectrum would be Tufts MD-PhD Program, ranking #41 among MSTP institutions. Undoubtedly, this difference in rankings explains why the Tri-I's MSTP grant is so much larger than that awarded to Tufts. It is interesting to note that Tri-Is name is about 4 times longer than Tufts, but Tri-I has about 10x the number of MSTP slots that Tufts has. So there is obviously some sort of multiplier effect for having such a long name.
 
Maebea said:
One thing that no one can dispute is that the Weill Cornell/Rockefeller/Sloan-Kettering Tri-Institutional MD-PhD Program ranks #1 in terms of length of the program name. At the other end of the spectrum would be Tufts MD-PhD Program, ranking #41 among MSTP institutions. Undoubtedly, this difference in rankings explains why the Tri-I's MSTP grant is so much larger than that awarded to Tufts. It is interesting to note that Tri-Is name is about 4 times longer than Tufts, but Tri-I has about 10x the number of MSTP slots that Tufts has. So there is obviously some sort of multiplier effect for having such a long name.
Click to expand...

Wow I just never thought of it that way! :laugh:
 
Maebea said:
Sorry to break in on the pissing contest boys, but rankings are practically worthless. Even the NIH table referenced by Dr&Geek which seems so straightforward does not tell the whole story. That table only includes grants awarded to faculty in departments of microbiology, immunology & virology; it does not include grants awarded to faculty other departments (medicine, pathology, genetics, etc.) doing micro & immuno work. Since faculty groupings vary from school to school, at any one institution there may actually be more microbiology grant dollars awarded to faculty outside the micro department than to faculty under the micro banner.

One thing that no one can dispute is that the Weill Cornell/Rockefeller/Sloan-Kettering Tri-Institutional MD-PhD Program ranks #1 in terms of length of the program name. At the other end of the spectrum would be Tufts MD-PhD Program, ranking #41 among MSTP institutions. Undoubtedly, this difference in rankings explains why the Tri-I's MSTP grant is so much larger than that awarded to Tufts. It is interesting to note that Tri-Is name is about 4 times longer than Tufts, but Tri-I has about 10x the number of MSTP slots that Tufts has. So there is obviously some sort of multiplier effect for having such a long name.
Click to expand...
hahahahaha....
 
ranking methodologies aside, does anyone have the new neuroscience rankings? thanks!
 
Maebea said:
Sorry to break in on the pissing contest boys, but rankings are practically worthless. Even the NIH table referenced by Dr&Geek which seems so straightforward does not tell the whole story. That table only includes grants awarded to faculty in departments of microbiology, immunology & virology; it does not include grants awarded to faculty other departments (medicine, pathology, genetics, etc.) doing micro & immuno work. Since faculty groupings vary from school to school, at any one institution there may actually be more microbiology grant dollars awarded to faculty outside the micro department than to faculty under the micro banner.
Click to expand...

This is true, and I failed to mention it. These rankings can also be manipulated by particular departments - i.e. the only reason why Duke's Surgery department has the the most money is because they include their cancer center AND AIDS research center in their departmental funds. Not only does this metric exclude out-of-department related research, it may also include research which has little to do with the department itself.

I gather that most people will agree that these metrics are only starting points for students to investigate whether or not an institution has the mentors and the community to support to their particular research interests. While I think Maebea's comment is humorous, there ARE ways to determine that one thing is truly better than another, and I would argue that this approach is better than a silly USNEWS reputational score. If the data is skewed, but one knows how the data is skewed, does this mean that the data does not provide any useful information?
 
Doctor&Geek said:
The only way is to sit in CRISP and search by state and add up the numbers affialiated to an institution.
Click to expand...

Not really. People in past years have asked this same question and I've looked it up this way:

http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/award/awardtr.htm -- Total NIH awards by institution. From that one can find:

Cornell Med $123,779,276
SKI $90,428,774
Rockefeller $72,576,760
Cornell U. $185,957,006 (for comparison)

I found the US News Rankings for 2007 here:
http://www.popyard.com/cgi-mod/post.cgi?cate=1&page=1&num=13083&r=0

and this lists:
Cornell University (Weill) (NY)
15 66 4.1 4.2 3.73 11.5 4.3% $286.2 $141.3 4.9 $33,345 410

The $286.2 is the NIH research funding in millions. Again, the US News site says that number is for the medical school and its "affiliated" (whatever that means) institutions, unless marked with a * (and it is for some, but not for Cornell). So I added up Cornell Med + SKI + Rockefeller, and that gives me $286.8 million. That's suspiciously close to the US News figure of $286.2 million. Even though it's not the exact same number, it leads me to believe those institutions are being included in the medical school research ranking.

Now, I'm not trying to be a rankings ***** here, I was just trying to answer isleofman's question (if this really was his question). As little as the rankings may or may not mean, we get lots of questions on this board and in person about the ranking methodology and I think it's important to understand them in order to put them in proper context. It's the same with every argument IMO.

Besides, I think going down the list of top 20 schools on the USNews and applying to those (I know at least one SDNer who did this) would have been better than the way I applied. I applied thinking: "I'm not a rankings *****! I won't use US News!" So I applied to a practically random scattershot of places from word of mouth from old PIs (who in retrospect had no idea), and now I know I had no idea of the research opportunities at lots of big research schools I probably had a shot at. That's not to say I'm not happy where I ended up (I am), but rather that the rankings are definately better than not having anything for pre-meds to go on. Even if people sometimes take them too seriously, it still gives some sort of clue to clueless pre-meds. It's just like this site. Having some information is better than not having any information.
 
One way to do this is to evaluate the schools by citations; in other words, evaluating their scientific impact.

http://in-cites.com/analysis/index.html

http://in-cites.com/institutions/mol_1995-2005.html

For example:

The Most-Cited Institutions in Molecular Biology & Genetics,
1995-2005
Rank Institution Papers Citations Citations Per Paper
1 HARVARD UNIV 7,689 416,927 54.22
2 UNIV TEXAS 5,044 186,889 37.05
3 UNIV CALIF SAN FRANCISCO 3,185 168,901 53.03
4 MAX PLANCK SOCIETY 4,385 154,371 35.20
5 STANFORD UNIV 2,758 144,164 52.27
6 MIT 1,766 133,578 75.64
7 JOHNS HOPKINS UNIV 3,082 130,381 42.30
8 UNIV CALIF SAN DIEGO 2,514 121,930 48.50
9 YALE UNIV 2,600 121,435 46.71
10 NCI 3,096 117,443 37.93
11 COLUMBIA UNIV 2,320 110,556 47.65
12 WASHINGTON UNIV 2,351 108,702 46.24
13 BAYLOR COLL MED 2,519 107,481 42.67
14 UNIV CALIF BERKELEY 2,217 105,894 47.76
15 UNIV PENN 2,903 103,510 35.66
16 UNIV WASHINGTON 2,650 102,356 38.62
17 EUROPEAN MOLEC BIOL LAB 1,586 96,463 60.82
18 UNIV CAMBRIDGE 2,528 91,360 36.14
19 UNIV TOKYO 3,474 86,127 24.79
20 UNIV OXFORD 2,111 83,144 39.39

http://in-cites.com/analysis/05-fourth-imm.html

TOP 5 INSTITUTION RANKINGS IN:
Immunology

January 1, 1995 - August 31, 2005

RANK VIEW INSTITUTION PAPERS CITATIONS CITATIONS
PER PAPER
1 HARVARD UNIV 3,782 129,657 34.28
2 NIAID 2,040 76,419 37.46
3 NCI 1,802 55,433 30.76
4 UNIV TEXAS 2,146 49,355 23.00
5 STANFORD UNIV 1,215 48,504 39.92

http://in-cites.com/institutions/mic_1994-2004.html

The Most-Cited Institutions in Microbiology,
1994-2004
Rank INSTITUTION PAPERS CITATIONS
1 Harvard Univ
1790
55695

2 Inst Pasteur
2244
47438

3 NIAID
1475
40251

4 Univ Texas
1582
29812

5 Univ Wisconsin
1387
29414

6 Max Planck Society
1207
25432

7 NCI
991
25337

8 USDA
1758
24219

9 Johns Hopkins Univ
852
23916

10 Univ Washington
986
23488

11 Stanford Univ
866
22313

12 Washington Univ
714
22122

13 Univ Penn
803
22120

14 Univ Oxford
963
21576

15 INRA
1383
21220

16 Ctr Dis Control & Prevent
1110
20721

17 Cornell Univ
999
20001

18 Univ Calif Los Angeles
859
19571

19 CNRS
1059
19054

20 Univ Alabama
853
17470
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Interest in OXCAM
Replies
1
Views
539
Fencer
Fencer
Mr.Smile12
Post-Helene check-in
Replies
0
Views
916
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
S
Disclosing other CTE deadlines in LOI/update?
Replies
1
Views
612
Maebea
M
aram529
Graduating from College in 3 Years - Advice for Physician-Scientist Applications
Replies
7
Views
2K
dl2dp2
D
Mr.Smile12
HPSA/SDN GenAI survey in health professions programs
Replies
1
Views
1K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
Top Bottom