PhD Program Ranking

[Danlee07]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I've found most MSTP are already higher tiered schools including Ivy League schools and UC schools. For MD/PhD or MSTP programs, how did you determine program rankings? Did you look at the US News Ranking or some other source for MD Rankings and PhD programs separately?

But then for those who did just Biochemistry PhD then to MD, how did you determine PhD program rankings? I've found it difficult when looking at NRC, US News, grad-schools, Peterson's, etc. because some schools with Medical Centers have their own PhD programs. For example, there is a University Department of Biochemistry. But then, there's also a University Medical Center Department of Biochemistry. In the ranking sources mentioned above, the University Departments are typically ranked, not the University Medical Center Department.

I'm also considering research interest and funding, but would like to know more about rankings/reputation and post-graduation prospects..

 

[SBR249]

I'm by no means an expert, but I would put even less stock in PhD departmental rankings than med school rankings.

The way I personally look at grad departments is by faculty interests. Is there breadth? Is there a critical mass of faculty? Are there at least a few ~5 whose work I am interested in at this particular moment in time? Are there well known PIs in the fields that I'm interested in? etc etc. I feel that graduate training is a lot more about the PI and lab than it is the school or the department overall. Many lesser known schools/departments have quality faculty and opportunities.

 

[pseudoknot]

I'm by no means an expert, but I would put even less stock in PhD departmental rankings than med school rankings.

The way I personally look at grad departments is by faculty interests. Is there breadth? Is there a critical mass of faculty? Are there at least a few ~5 whose work I am interested in at this particular moment in time? Are there well known PIs in the fields that I'm interested in? etc etc. I feel that graduate training is a lot more about the PI and lab than it is the school or the department overall. Many lesser known schools/departments have quality faculty and opportunities.

The post above nailed it. The rankings for med school are fairly worthless, but for PhD programs they are profoundly so. The only thing is that bigger name schools will tend to have more money, but you don't need rankings to figure that out and it shouldn't be your only consideration.

 

[justgo]

You can look at funding levels for institutions and individuals here: http://report.nih.gov/

I browse by location when I am trying to compare institutions. Then you can search for individual faculty as well.

I actually do think that PhD rankings can be interesting.....but I think that the peer-reputation scores are the most important as folks will hire you based upon what they think of the department in which you studied....so reputation is the best predictor of that. PhDs.org has nice ranking tools where you can set your priorities etc. Its by no means perfect, but you can get some interesting info about places that are in your periphery.

Publicaitons in "big name" journals are important but also look at the referencing scores on papers and look at publications in field specific journals that you might not know of as an undergraduate. As your mentors that have different personalities and aptitudes for "prestige".

 

[Danlee07]

You can look at funding levels for institutions and individuals here: http://report.nih.gov/

I browse by location when I am trying to compare institutions. Then you can search for individual faculty as well.

I actually do think that PhD rankings can be interesting.....but I think that the peer-reputation scores are the most important as folks will hire you based upon what they think of the department in which you studied....so reputation is the best predictor of that. PhDs.org has nice ranking tools where you can set your priorities etc. Its by no means perfect, but you can get some interesting info about places that are in your periphery.

Publicaitons in "big name" journals are important but also look at the referencing scores on papers and look at publications in field specific journals that you might not know of as an undergraduate. As your mentors that have different personalities and aptitudes for "prestige".

Which funding am I supposed to look at? I went to http://report.nih.gov/ --> Investigators and Trainees. There's "Research Career Awardees, Fellows, and Trainees

I've looked extensively at graduate-school.phds.org and got many of my schools on my list from it, but some of their info seems outdated and exclude many schools.

 

[SBR249]

Which funding am I supposed to look at? I went to http://report.nih.gov/ --> Investigators and Trainees. There's "Research Career Awardees, Fellows, and Trainees

I've looked extensively at graduate-school.phds.org and got many of my schools on my list from it, but some of their info seems outdated and exclude many schools.

On http://report.nih.gov click on the "Funded Organizations" icon near the center of the page, search for the school or use the alphabetical list. The institution page will report funding at that particular institution broken down by category (training, research, fellowships, etc), by component (school of medicine, graduate school, school of nursing, school of arts/sciences, school of engineering, etc), by individual department, or by grant type (F30/31/32, T32, R01, K01, etc).

 

[SBR249]

I actually do think that PhD rankings can be interesting.....but I think that the peer-reputation scores are the most important as folks will hire you based upon what they think of the department in which you studied....so reputation is the best predictor of that.

From what I've seen, your PI and your publication record are the top considerations when hiring. A well-connected and well-regarded PI can secure you interviews and put in a good word for you. Your publication record obviously speaks to your productivity.

 

[Danlee07]

So that's the strongest factor that you looked at when you decided? Even if my research interest isn't certain (applying to Umbrella PhD programs not just specific departments Biochem), factor on mainly the PI's record?

 

[justgo]

So that's the strongest factor that you looked at when you decided? Even if my research interest isn't certain (applying to Umbrella PhD programs not just specific departments Biochem), factor on mainly the PI's record?

I think if you are not sure what work you want to do then you can't so much focus on the individual PI reputations (By the way, it is highly debatable as to whether the best strategy for a student is to join the most high impact lab.....that's like a whole new thread). I think this is where departmental reputation combined with NIH funding levels combined with PI spread comes into play.

The fact is that if you are in particular fields there are schools that are regarded as being the very very top that no one would question why you went there or think that it was the best option you had when you applied...then there are schools that are seen as good, but second tier, third tier, and on and on. You can say whatever you like about individual labs, but there are reputational opinions about school tiers. I think that is the only import of rankings.....but it is an import all the same.

For example, you could do biochem at Berkeley, MIT/Harvard, UCSF, CalTech......and no one would look at any of those schools and think that you didn't get into the others when you applied. If you went to say JHU in this same field, folks think that you went to JHU because it was the "next best" even if the PI you worked with was like god. This has been my experience and the experience of several friends who are now junior faculty.

Go to a deep school with good funding that is high enough in the rankings to represent your package and I think you will be good to go.

 

[Danlee07]

If you went to say JHU in this same field, folks think that you went to JHU because it was the "next best" even if the PI you worked with was like god. This has been my experience and the experience of several friends who are now junior faculty.

Go to a deep school with good funding that is high enough in the rankings to represent your package and I think you will be good to go.

Does "this same field" mean biochemistry? If that is, then that was the impression I was getting...

What about the reputations of both UChicago, Baylor COM, Mayo, Rice? I didn't apply to any Top 10 (MIT/UCs/Scripps/Rockefeller/Stanford/CalTech/Ivys etc)... For biomedical research, and more specifically cardiovascular biochemical research, I think these are one of the tops. But on a Do you or anyone else know of any ranking list that represents reputation that is more accurate than just funding (i.e. US News). NRC seemed reliable until I saw the comments from faculty and how far the ranking spread was.

This list seem like the general reputation?
http://whichuniversitybest.blogspot.com/2009/06/biochemistry-molecular-biology-ranking.html

 

[justgo]

Yes "same field" meant biochem. As to what is the "top" in biochem.....I'm no expert and can't so much accurately answer that as I am not going to go into Biochem. I know Chicago has big dudes in cardiovascular biochem/biophysics but couldn't tell you about the other places on your list.

The list you linked to is an older NRC ranking, so I think it would be less accurate than any recent NRC rankings. I would look at things like the Times Chronicle of higher Education as well perhaps, but ultimately an exact list is not important.

If you look at a number of ranking sources there will be a consensus about what the "top" schools are across the ranking systems and any of those should be safe bets for you. They you can make the final choice based on specific interests etc.