Unofficial Biology/Biomedical/MCB PhD Rankings

[Pepperoni]

Where do you guys rank the top 20 PhD program for MCB, and where do WUSTL, UWM, and Emory fall among them?

Not an official ranking (because there isn't one), but cite reasons - be it NIH funding, NSF funding, quality of program, students, faculty, nobel laureates, citations, whatever the reason, as long as there are reasons - would like to see a gradcafe compiled unofficial ranking of these programs, if possible. IMO I think momentum is fair to include - declining, on a rise, steady, etc.

[BeakerBreaker]

This is a near pointless exercise to involve multiple people on this site. There will be no consensus on what the 20 "best" graduate programs are in a field. If you want the metrics, they are freely available online; otherwise, sites like US News use their own. You will be the best judge when it comes to appraising each program's value based on what you feel is important.

WUSTL, UWM, and Emory are all good schools for MCB. You will probably find that there are other factors much more important to your decision among these high caliber schools than their absolute ranking in some subjectively influenced list.

[Pepperoni]

Thanks for the input - I'm not looking for a definitive list - more to formulate some kind top tier, middle tier, picture of how these schools are regarded. Who better than to poll the current and prospective students? This may be shallow of me, but reputation is an important factor to me. Of course that is among the least important factors, for sure, but I would like to know how the community regards these programs.

For example, though this is not apples to apples, there is no definitive "ranking" for MBA programs either. But everyone "knows" Harvard, Wharton, Stanford, uchicago, are among the top tier when it comes to the caliber, reputation, and job potential of these programs. I'm trying to form a mental image of a corollary for these programs.

Not looking to cause any harm here, at all. Maybe a near pointless exercise but humor me

[Infinito]

8 hours ago, BeakerBreaker said:

 

 

This is a near pointless exercise to involve multiple people on this site. There will be no consensus on what the 20 "best" graduate programs are in a field. If you want the metrics, they are freely available online; otherwise, sites like US News use their own. You will be the best judge when it comes to appraising each program's value based on what you feel is important.

WUSTL, UWM, and Emory are all good schools for MCB. You will probably find that there are other factors much more important to your decision among these high caliber schools than their absolute ranking in some subjectively influenced list.

Absolutely agreed.

The best piece of advice that I can give you @Pepperoni and anyone else asking this question is that you need to take department rankings with a grain of salt. Even for US News, their rankings are heavily influenced by undergraduate prestige, endowment, etc. This sometimes translates over to the graduate programs, but the correlation isn't strong. Just think of a couple of schools with huge university endowments, and then remember that most of that money is not dedicated towards departments or graduate funding.

Finding out about all these unquantifiable/subjective metrics is the point of interviews. There's noway somebody could give you a definitive 20 school ranking without having interviewed or been to a majority of those schools.

But, I'm going to throw you some helpful information.

Schools receiving large amounts of NIH funding tend to have incredibly strong graduate research programs and infrastructure for those sciences. 
Check out the Tables of NIH Funding to US Schools, which I found compiled at Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research.

For example, the ranked list of schools awarded NIH funding can be found here.

Another great resource to look at would be the Shanghai Academic Ranking of World Universities. They have good breakdowns by broad subjects, which give more weight to graduate level research. Also Phds.org gives you intervals of rankings based on surveys from doctoral recipients from a bunch of schools. The Bio/Integrated Biology and Biomedical Sciences one can be found here. 

Since I can't be unbiased as I am happy at (and attend) UCSF, I'll give you an example of why GradCafe or US Newsweek rankings would suck to be used as a metric. 

For instance, UCSF has been the #1 recipient of NIH funding for many years (as in the table above). Additionally, their Shanghai ranking in Med and Life Science categories puts them in the top 5 overall. However, if you compare them to other rankings, they fall short because they don't have undergraduates, alumni, or a large endowment (which is heavily weighed in other rankings). Yet, almost every scientist and person in the life sciences field, especially on the West Coast, would know what UCSF is, and it's high caliber level of excellence. Despite this, most of my non-science friends and family keep confusing my institution with Berkeley or SF State. So, if you're in it for the layman's prestige , you'll probably be disappointed in a lot of your choices if that's your sole metric, or even something you're considering AT ALL. 

TL;DR: Do your own research, go on interviews. Nobody here can answer your question besides giving a nebulous list of Top Tier Schools (much easier to judge based on top 20 NIH funded schools). Thread should be closed before people get the opportunity to flame.

 

[BeakerBreaker]

Here are a couple of anecdotes that have shaped my view on this:

My mom has an MBA from Stanford, and even 40+ years after she graduated, she is still talking about how "it was okay that she went to the #2 school because she got into Harvard and turned them down." A close friend of mine was accepted into a Tier 1 law school, but also was accepted into a Tier 2 law school with full tuition paid, and this made her decision very difficult.

The MBA/J.D./etc. worlds are just fundamentally different than what goes on in science. The prestige of the program has a huge impact on your ability to find internships or clerkships and further your career. Science is a little more meritocratic. Nobody is going to bat an eyelash if you present a keynote talk at a conference and happen to be from the University of South Dakota. Similarly, if you publish three papers in Nature, your career prospects are going to be fairly good no matter what institution you're coming from.

I just think - and this is sincere - that using prestige metrics to shape your decision is going to be a mistake. A couple other issues that will greatly affect your success would be: 1) who would you be working with (even if you go to Harvard, not all Harvard labs are the same), and 2) will you be in an environment where you will thrive and be inspired/allowed to do your best work (such as umbrella program vs. specialized).

The prestige of the lab (lab, not school in most likelihood) will be good for networking opportunities, but that is fairly limited in scope. If you do good work, your institution won't be a big factor.

Definitely don't make the mistake of using the opinion of people outside the field either. I know you aren't doing this, but I just felt like adding a mini-rant section for all of the people who thought I was absolutely nuts to consider schools in the midwest like UT: SW, a "no-name" school, and turn down 3 Ivy league schools in the process.

Anywho, I hope you find a good university that fits what you're looking for scientifically. The extent to which I used rankings was I opened up U.S. News to look at the top ~150 schools and make sure I hadn't missed anything noteworthy (like UT:SW, Scripps, Cold Spring Harbor) that I might have otherwise overlooked. I didn't apply to Harvard or Stanford, not because I thought I wouldn't get in, but because I didn't see enough labs there I thought would fit my research interests. I'd totally look into WUSTL, UW:M, and Emory more if you have even the slightest interest because you certainly can succeed at any of those three provided the schools turn out to be good fits for you.

Edited February 17, 2017 by BeakerBreaker

[MoreInformation]

I'll play. Here's my list, criticize as you please: 

Top 5: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, UCSF, Caltech

Top 10: Berkeley, Yale, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, University of Pennsylvania

Top 15: Princeton, Duke, Scripps, Washington University in St. Louis, University of Chicago

Top 20: UCSD, Cornell, UCLA, Rockefeller, University of Michigan 

NOTE: No ordering within each group of 5, too subjective. 

Edited February 17, 2017 by MoreInformation