Over at The Chem Blog, Kyle has a post on the latest chemistry rankings by the National Science Foundation and US News and World Report. I guess we’re approaching the deadline in the contest to come up with the stupidest way to quantify scientific quality, because the Chronicle of Higher Education (sub. req’d) just reported another “new standard for measuring doctoral programs.”
The company that developed the system calls it completely objective and, for a mere $30,000 per year, will provide the data to university deans interested in keeping tabs on their faculties. The new system bases rankings on “scholarly output,” which accounts for “the number of book and journal articles published by each program’s faculty, as well as journal citations, awards, honors, and grants received.” These numbers are plugged into highly scientific equations to generate highly bogus final rankings. I guess the equations are something like: 1 Nobel Prize = 3 Priestley Medals = 10 ACS Local Section Awards, and 1 Letter to Nature = 3 JACS Comms = 10 Org Letts. Someone should tell them that using math doesn’t equate to being objective.
Anyway, rather than tell you how stupid the new system is, see for yourself. Here are the top 5 chemistry departments using data from 2005:
1. Harvard
2. Yale
3. MIT
4. Northwestern and UCSF (tie)
Interestingly, their system also ranks Jimmy Carter and William Henry Harrison as the best presidents of all time, and Vanilla Ice as the best rapper.
School rankings, impact factors, h-indices, j-factors…they’re all bull. If one thing is clear, it’s that the greatest value of these numbers is in marketing. The annual college rankings sell a lot of US News magazines, and it seems like all the scientific journals are trumpeting their impact factors to attract both subscriptions and submissions.
Don’t take the bait.
(more…)