I missed this. From the March edition of the Scientist. The top 10 in North America:
1. The J. David Gladstone Institutes, San Francisco
2. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle
3. US Environment Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
4. Emory University, Atlantic, GA
5. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC
6. Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia
7. National Institute of Diabetes & Digestive & Kidney Diseases, NIH, Bethesda, MD
8. Wadsworth Center, Albany, NY
9. Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia
10. USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD
Harvard?
They rose from #88 last year to an incredibly high #17 in 2006. Are thing that bad out there that Harvard is in the top 20? The one place not mentioned is Howard Hughes. Sure they're not a REAL institution, but when I entered Tom's lab I was under Howard Hughes and the benefits were great (well at least better than Harvard).
Top Institutes outside of North America?
1. Friedrich Miescher Institute for Biomedical Research (Switzerland)
2. MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge (UK)
3. University of Bergen, Bergen (Norway)
4. Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot (Israel)
5. Institut Pasteur, Paris (France)
6. Umea Plant Science Centre, Umea (Sweden)
7. University of Dundee, Dundee (UK)
8. Biozentrum, University of Basel, Basel (Switzerland)
9. ETH Zurich, Zurich (Switzerland)
10. University of Manchester, Manchester (UK)
- Log in to post comments
Two in my neighborhood. Don't even have to move...
ha, coturnix; i am sure the average reader is guessing that you do not live in Seattle!
None in the Boston area ...
(and yeah why is Harvard in the top 20? 88 sounds about right)
Does it have to do with counting to 2, or the obvious mistake that Discovery Institute is not in the top 10?
Let me tell you, my own institution is nothing to write home about, without many swear words, for a postdoc.
Wadda ya know...did my postdoc at #9. It was nice. Didn't feel like #9 nice, but then again, I wasn't in a position to compare.
Dalhousie? Surely they're joking? Is the list actually of the best places for seafood?
Man, Harvard postdocs are a bunch of whiners, though. They have all the big advantages, in terms of career prospects, but that isn't good enough for them. They want their pipette tips served to them in golden boxes, by flower-bedecked technicians wearing white togas.
Wow, I never even considered any of those institutions for a future postdoc. I heard from several people that working at the NIH wasn't that great.
As for Emory, it's gorgeous and their graduate housing is amazing. Anyone know how they rank in cell bio research?
U,
Yes the whole "big advantages, in terms of career prospects" is true. But they do take advantage of this fact by throwing scraps at us. Untill the Summers scandal there was no help for postdocs with respect to daycare and other services. Might I add that the glorious postdoc position at HMS wasn't enough for you to stay?
So, these places are being evaluated based on daycare? Short-term benefits are useless, if you end up underemployed at the end of your postdoc, and never end up earning enough money to put your kids through college.
As for ditching HMS, my problem was with science in general. Harvard was no worse than other places... well, except in terms of organization. Interlab communication was very poor, and with no real efforts put into improving things (I'm guessing people were trying to save coffee budgets, by making sure that not too many researchers knew about talks, etc). And, as far as that is concerned, I severely doubt that a place like Dalhousie would have a better speaker schedule or better access to expertise than HMS. Maybe it is better for postdocs in social sciences or marine biology? That is hard to believe as well.
Anyways, I have no problem with the quality of a Dalhousie education, but to say that it is superior to Harvard for a postdoc is ridiculous.
U,
I agree, not many places can beat the HMS speaker schedule. Although, access to the speakers here is not as good as at Columbia U. (although I'm guessing that it would depend on the department). It's funny that you mention interlab communication, that was rated as one of Harvard's strengths. As for daycare, it's a major issue balancing a family life and work. You and I know that ignorance of this issue, is what did Summers in.
I think that Summers believed that women are stupid, and that did him in. Daycare is a luxury that you offer if you want to compete for long-term employees, and while he failed there too, it was a minor point compared to his basic disrespect for females.
I don't think that daycare is a valid criteria for determining whether you should postdoc somewhere. The effect on the next thirty years of your career should be the major issue. Your professorship is where you should seriously worry about quality-of-life issues.
no Max Planck? If I'd stayed on for a PhD, my dream job would've been at their institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Heck, I see so much good stuff coming out of all the MPG Institutes.
how does one extend 'biological differences between men and women' to 'women are stupid'? Is there anything substantive behind your characterization of Summers beyond his infamous talk?
If there is, I stand corrected. I don't mean to be antagonistic, I just didn't see anything particularly wrong in his speech.
It does amaze me that things like daycare benefits would be so important. I might have a different view if I start a family before I become a resident, but mom and dad (as well as several of dad's fellows) all had children without any of the bennies being talked about now.
I agree the two are not equivalent.
It is very important. When the New Research Building (NRB) at the medical school was built, postdocs at Harvard were asked what services were needed, #1 answer was daycare. What did Harvard build in the lobby of NRB, a gym.
Balancing postdochood and starting a family is harder today than ever before. Two factors are 1) medical expenses and child care expenses are higher today than ever before 2) the ratio of postdocs to upcomming faculty positions is worse than it's ever been. And why do you think that so many women are leaving academia?
Read this entry for more on this topic:
http://scienceblogs.com/transcript/2006/03/caltech_survey.php
I can totally see that. Mom put off residency because they couldn't afford to pay for daycare. And then grandma had to fly in to freaking North Dakota...from India to help raise me.
I guess I'd probably think that way if I had a family or prospects.
Well, it's a bit of hyperbole, but it falls closer to the mark than 'he just wanted to generate debate'. See, in his talk, Summers, in a calm, reasonable, almost endearing fashion, presented the 'gosh, look at these interesting differences' approach to the issue of gender differences. Or rather, that's what he wanted you to think. People that read the text see it that way, because Summers is not a stupid man; he uses classic coercion techniques to get the audience or reader to see things his way. Of course, this is exactly what ID people do as well, when presenting their viewpoints to the general public. Seem open, seem non-evil, 'just want to generate discussion about other possibilities', and don't let on that your purpose is the banning of the teaching of evolution.
See, it's what Summers didn't say in his talk that was so important. Study after study shows that women are selected against in the job market, despite being equivalent or superior candidates. He ignored studies that showed that in some countries (e.g. Iceland), women consistently outperform males in mathematics and the sciences. There was a great New York Times (I think it was the NYT) article about the subject, immediately after Summers' talk. Summers was very selective in his choice of 'research' to present, to push home the point that women are biologically less suited for science.
Why would he do that? He was merely trying to provide 'scientific' evidence justifying Harvard's low numbers of female professors in the sciences, and, at that point in time, reduction in number of female full professors in the sciences. No, he wasn't there for discussion of the topic, or to promote research in the field, he was defending Harvard's gender bias.
His later apology was paternalistic in its tone, and in it, he basically said, 'okay girls, you're right, you got me, ha ha.' If he actually had any interest in the subject matter, he would have written in that apology why he was wrong, and listed some of the work that countered his arguments. This, of course, he would not do, as he believed that he wasn't wrong, and that women aren't really suited for science.
In other words, he gave his talk to say, 'we don't hire women, because they just aren't as good as men for the purpose, and here's the research to prove it; however, since we're such fair people, we'll do whatever we can to let you into the field too' (wink wink).
Remember that Cold Spring Harbor used to publish work scientifically proving that Anglo-saxons were more intelligent than other races; Summers should be intelligent enough to know that research into gender differences is equally susceptible to bias effects, and so his quoting of papers from only one perspective was surely on purpose.
Anyways, the guy is gone, and good riddance.