Top 10 Neuroscience Programs

Stephan Anagnostaras stephan at
Fri Apr 14 01:10:44 EST 1995

In article <3mjrjv$s4g at>, begreger at
(Bradley Edward Greger) wrote:
> On Feb. 20th 1995 "The Scientist" published a list on the top 10 
> 1  Washinton University in St. Louis
> 2  Yale
> 3  Johns Hopkins
> 4  Stanford
> 5  MIT
> 6  Cornell
> 7  U. of Chicago
> 8  Harvard
> 9  U.C. Irvine
> 10 Rockefeller
> Personally I feel there are a few conspicuous omissions from this list, 
> namely: U.C. San Diego, U.C. San Francisco and the University of 
> Washinton in Seattle; and probably a few more I can't think of at the moment.

This list is just stupid. UCSD, UCLA, Berkeley, and UCSF all have better
Neuroscience programs than Irvine does, almost any way you would measure
these programs (e.g., student selectivity, faculty, etc.).  Harvard
and Johns Hopkins also don't have particularly good programs.
Michigan, Purdue, UIUC, Duke are all better than those.  What a dumb
list.  What are the citations based on? #citations / faculty member?
Considering that UCLA and UCSD each have almost 200 faculty in their
neuroscience programs it is hard to believe Irvine has more citations...

You are also certainly correct about Univ of Washington, which is
at least better than Yale, JH, Harvard, UCI, and Stanford. What
is the deal here?  Why are Yale, JH, and Harvard on this list
at all?



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list