Anonymous wrote:Since there appears to be a high school student on the thread, I'll address the OP directly. Although my comment on the CogSci programs of URochester and Case Western was based largely on knowledge of these schools, this site may be of interest:
For the undergraduate study of cognitive science, it ranks URochester 12th nationally and Case Western Reserve 26th.
It’s hard to take seriously a list where Swarthmore is ranked in the top 20 and it has a program, not a department, in cognitive science with very few members of the program dedicated to cognitive science. At some point, the disingenuous nature of these posts needs to be called out.
You’ll note that there’s many programs that are far superior to Rochester and Case Western.
An opaque ranking system that puts San Diego State University (an R2 if I'm not mistaken) over Michigan is worthless. SDSU barely has a functional webpage for its Cog Sci department and the faculty are relatively obscure. Rochester on the other hand has a good sized Brain and Cog. Sci department and many of the faculty both national and international leaders in their fields. Case is borderline - very few core faculty.
Anonymous wrote:Since there appears to be a high school student on the thread, I'll address the OP directly. Although my comment on the CogSci programs of URochester and Case Western was based largely on knowledge of these schools, this site may be of interest:
For the undergraduate study of cognitive science, it ranks URochester 12th nationally and Case Western Reserve 26th.
It’s hard to take seriously a list where Swarthmore is ranked in the top 20 and it has a program, not a department, in cognitive science with very few members of the program dedicated to cognitive science. At some point, the disingenuous nature of these posts needs to be called out.
You’ll note that there’s many programs that are far superior to Rochester and Case Western.
An opaque ranking system that puts San Diego State University (an R2 if I'm not mistaken) over Michigan is worthless. SDSU barely has a functional webpage for its Cog Sci department and the faculty are relatively obscure. Rochester on the other hand has a good sized Brain and Cog. Sci department and many of the faculty both national and international leaders in their fields. Case is borderline - very few core faculty.
Anonymous wrote:Since there appears to be a high school student on the thread, I'll address the OP directly. Although my comment on the CogSci programs of URochester and Case Western was based largely on knowledge of these schools, this site may be of interest:
For the undergraduate study of cognitive science, it ranks URochester 12th nationally and Case Western Reserve 26th.
It’s hard to take seriously a list where Swarthmore is ranked in the top 20 and it has a program, not a department, in cognitive science with very few members of the program dedicated to cognitive science. At some point, the disingenuous nature of these posts needs to be called out.
You’ll note that there’s many programs that are far superior to Rochester and Case Western.
An opaque ranking system that puts San Diego State University (an R2 if I'm not mistaken) over Michigan is worthless. SDSU barely has a functional webpage for its Cog Sci department and the faculty are relatively obscure. Rochester on the other hand has a good sized Brain and Cog. Sci department and many of the faculty both national and international leaders in their fields. Case is borderline - very few core faculty.
Just checked the website and it seems like a normal university page? Also faculty and resources are very clear? What’s your issue with SDSU? Also R1 doesn’t automatically mean they are exemplary at every subject. There are many R2s and liberal arts colleges with exemplary programs
Anonymous wrote:Since there appears to be a high school student on the thread, I'll address the OP directly. Although my comment on the CogSci programs of URochester and Case Western was based largely on knowledge of these schools, this site may be of interest:
For the undergraduate study of cognitive science, it ranks URochester 12th nationally and Case Western Reserve 26th.
It’s hard to take seriously a list where Swarthmore is ranked in the top 20 and it has a program, not a department, in cognitive science with very few members of the program dedicated to cognitive science. At some point, the disingenuous nature of these posts needs to be called out.
You’ll note that there’s many programs that are far superior to Rochester and Case Western.
An opaque ranking system that puts San Diego State University (an R2 if I'm not mistaken) over Michigan is worthless. SDSU barely has a functional webpage for its Cog Sci department and the faculty are relatively obscure. Rochester on the other hand has a good sized Brain and Cog. Sci department and many of the faculty both national and international leaders in their fields. Case is borderline - very few core faculty.
Anonymous wrote:Since there appears to be a high school student on the thread, I'll address the OP directly. Although my comment on the CogSci programs of URochester and Case Western was based largely on knowledge of these schools, this site may be of interest:
For the undergraduate study of cognitive science, it ranks URochester 12th nationally and Case Western Reserve 26th.
It’s hard to take seriously a list where Swarthmore is ranked in the top 20 and it has a program, not a department, in cognitive science with very few members of the program dedicated to cognitive science. At some point, the disingenuous nature of these posts needs to be called out.
You’ll note that there’s many programs that are far superior to Rochester and Case Western.
An opaque ranking system that puts San Diego State University (an R2 if I'm not mistaken) over Michigan is worthless. SDSU barely has a functional webpage for its Cog Sci department and the faculty are relatively obscure. Rochester on the other hand has a good sized Brain and Cog. Sci department and many of the faculty both national and international leaders in their fields. Case is borderline - very few core faculty.
Just checked the website and it seems like a normal university page? Also faculty and resources are very clear? What’s your issue with SDSU? Also R1 doesn’t automatically mean they are exemplary at every subject. There are many R2s and liberal arts colleges with exemplary programs
+1, SDSU seems like a great program. I don’t know why pp made false claims of few faculty- it seems well resourced and like a good place to take advantage of opportunities.
Anonymous wrote:OP back--wow, thank you for all these comments! I haven't yet clicked on the links but will check them out. Honestly my kids is pretty unsure about major but cognitive science is one he's keen on. I think he likes how it blends philosophy and neuroscience to a degree, along with AI for students interested in that. He kind of leans STEM but isn't hard STEM, if that makes sense.
I know that when considering schools of any category it's important to assess their strength in majors of interest, which is why I mentioned these two possibilities. Pitt is definitely on our list. Isn't BU more of a reach? I know that Tufts is. He would probably not be applying to any of his targets ED but will show lots of demonstrated interest for the schools that value that. He is really resisting smaller schools though I know there could be many strong options here, but he isn't interested.
Anonymous wrote:Since there appears to be a high school student on the thread, I'll address the OP directly. Although my comment on the CogSci programs of URochester and Case Western was based largely on knowledge of these schools, this site may be of interest:
For the undergraduate study of cognitive science, it ranks URochester 12th nationally and Case Western Reserve 26th.
It’s hard to take seriously a list where Swarthmore is ranked in the top 20 and it has a program, not a department, in cognitive science with very few members of the program dedicated to cognitive science. At some point, the disingenuous nature of these posts needs to be called out.
You’ll note that there’s many programs that are far superior to Rochester and Case Western.
An opaque ranking system that puts San Diego State University (an R2 if I'm not mistaken) over Michigan is worthless. SDSU barely has a functional webpage for its Cog Sci department and the faculty are relatively obscure. Rochester on the other hand has a good sized Brain and Cog. Sci department and many of the faculty both national and international leaders in their fields. Case is borderline - very few core faculty.
Ranking Terminology
Rankings for both scholars and institutions are evaluated in four ranking categories:
Overall (All Fields)
by Field
by Discipline
by all Specialties with which they are associated
Four ranking metrics are calculated across each of the preceding four categories for scholar rankings:
Productivity (archival publication count)
Impact (citation count)
Quality (h-index)
ScholarGPS® Ranks(geometric mean[4] of productivity, impact, and quality scores)
Additionally, three ranking options are available for each ranking metric for scholar rankings:
Duration:
Lifetime publications, or
Publications from the prior five years
Author contribution credit:
No weighting based on the number of authors, or
Weight authors' publication and citation counts based on the number of authors on a publication. For example, if two authors are listed on a publication, each scholar will be credited with 0.5 publications and half of the publication's citations. The scholar's fractional h-index[3] is also calculated based on these weighted citation counts.
Citation inclusion:
Include all citations, or
Exclude self-citations (citations from publications by the same author)
Ranking metrics are presented both in terms of standard competition rank[1] (e.g., "1,2,3,3,5,6...") and top percentage ( based on the complement of the percentile rank[2], e.g., "Top 3%").
Scholar rankings form the basis of the institutional rankings -- See Institutional Rankings below.
Scholar Ranking
Scholars are ranked in each category and by each ranking metric for various criteria. The ranking proceeds as follows.
First, the top percentage rank[2] of a scholar within a category for any ranking metric is calculated as follows:
= Total scholars within a category
= Standard competition rank of the scholar within a category
= Frequency of scholars with rank
Top Percentage Rank
where
Productivity = Top percentage rank by publication
Impact = Top percentage rank by citation count
Quality = Top percentage rank by h-index
Note that is based on the standard Percentile Rank[2], but is not rounded to the nearest integer i.e., is given as a decimal number.
Next, the ScholarGPS® Ranks of each individual scholar, which is reported in terms of a pair of rankings is determined by calculating the composite score (defined as the geometric mean[4])
From the distribution of these composite scores, we determine the pair
where
and
As evident, a scholar's ScholarGPS® rank and ScholarGPS® top percentage rank are determined by that scholar's score relative to the distribution of scores of scholars in the population to which the scholar is being compared. A scholar's ScholarGPS® Rankspair can be determined relative to the universe of scholars (Overall), relative to scholars in the scholar's Field or Discipline, or relative to scholars in any Specialty associated with the scholar.
Recall that each ranking metric can be determined relative to a Field, a Discipline, or a Specialty; can be computed with or without author and citation weighting; and can be over the scholar's lifetime or the prior five-year period. In fact, each ranking metric is a multi-indexed entity
where is the duration over which the metric is determined (lifetime, prior five years), indicates the weighting type (weighted/unweighted authors/citations), indicates whether self-citations are or are not included, indicates the category over which the metric has been determined (Overall, Field, Discipline, or Specialty) and indicates the metric type (productivity, impact, quality, or composite score). To avoid this cumbersome notation, and because it will be clear from the context what the complete specification of the metric is, we drop all but the most necessary indices. For example, would be some metric related to productivity, and the context will identify the other circumstances under which it was determined.
We define the metric pSTPR to be the STPR metric computed with respect to publications and citations weighted by author, with no self-citations. This metric personalizes the STPR metric to individual scholars and is routinely used by ScholarGPS to determine such rank distinctions as Highly Ranked Scholar or Top Scholar (see below).
Scholar Activity and Scholar Recognition
For certain purposes (such as scholar ranking or institutional ranking), ScholarGPS classifies all scholars as being active or inactive. ScholarGPS defines an active scholar as one who has published an archival publication within the preceding five year period of the current year. Where the distinction applies, users will be given the option to see a result based on active scholars or on all scholars. All scholars thus includes retired and even deceased scholars (but that might be included in the active category due to the five-year capture window). The five year window was chosen to capture scholars whose publication activity level might be conducted over longer periods of time (e.g., scholars in certain humanities).
ScholarGPS identifies scholars who attain levels of excellence that merit special recognition. ScholarGPS introduces two such classes: Highly Ranked Scholars and Top Scholars. In both cases, the figure of merit used to determine such scholars is the personalized ScholarGPS Top Percentage Rank (pSTPR, defined above). Scholars may be placed into one of these categories based on their lifetime achievements, or based on their ranking as determined over the preceding five year period. Scholars are compared within the peer group appropriate to the recognition, which may be: (i) the entire universe of scholars ("Overall"); (ii) within the scholar's specific Field; (iii) within the scholar's specific Discipline or (iii) within each Specialty that the scholar is associated with. Thus, a Highly Ranked Scholar or Top Scholar may be given the award for their overall performance, and/or their performance in their Field, Discipline and Specialties. Some scholars receive the award in multiple categories.
Highly Ranked Scholars represent the most elite group of scholars whose scholarly excellence places them at the very top of their peer group. Such scholars lie in the top 0.05% of all scholars in that peer group as determined by the relevant pSTPR (Overall, Field, Discipline or Specialty). Highly Ranked Scholars are always identified on their profile pages, as well as being easily found using the ScholarGPS Highly Ranked Scholar page.
Top Scholars are those individuals whose pSTPR places them in the top 0.5% of all scholars. The Top Scholar category is thus more encompassing than the elite Highly Ranked Scholar category, and allows for the recognition of more individuals particularly in domains of expertise where there might be few Highly Ranked Scholars. Top Scholars still represent a class of excellent scholars, and should be considered subject experts. ScholarGPS allows for the identification of Top Scholars in three ways: Top Scholars by Expertise, which identifies Top Scholars by Field, Discipline or Specialty, Top Scholars by Institution, which identifies Top Scholars who are associated with a specific institution, and Top Scholars by Country, which identifies Top Scholars by the country they are associated with.
Institution Ranking
Institutional Rankings are based on the quality and quantity of active scholars in each institution who are highly productive (number of publications) and have generated outstanding work of meaningful impact (citations) and excellent quality (h-index). Data used in the calculations of institutional rankings are based on the lifetime contributions of the included scholars, weighting each publication and citation by the number of authors, and excluding self-citations. Uniquely, ScholarGPS® rankings are available separately for academic institutions (universities and colleges), and non-academic institutions (private or public industries including health care systems, and research institutions).
In general, the ranking categories for an institution are representative of the following areas within an institution:
Overall (All Fields): The institution overall
Fields: Schools or Colleges (e.g., College of Engineering)
Disciplines: Departments or divisions
Specialties: Institutes or research centers
The critical mass of quality scholars necessary for institutional rankings was determined based on an extensive optimization analysis to (1) make institutional rankings nearly independent of institution size and (2) avoid penalizing institutions for scholars who are inactive, or active in only a small number of focused research areas.
Specialties
Since Specialties are characterized by focused scholarly activities that may span across multiple Disciplines, and because publication and citation traditions can vary substantially from Discipline-to-Discipline and Specialty-to-Specialty, care must be taken in the ranking of institutions relative to this ranking category. However, regardless of the Specialty, the Institution's ranking in any Specialty must reflect both the quality and quantity of outstanding scholars associated with the Specialty. Based on extensive internal research and the recommendations of our panel of distinguished advisors, we calculate the institutional rankings in Specialties based on the active scholars in each Specialty.
The institutional Specialty Rank Score is defined as:
=
where
is the Institutional Rank Score in Specialty
is the set of admissible scholars in the institution relative to Specialty
is the ScholarGPS® Top Percentage Rank (see Scholar Ranking above) of Scholar
Disciplines
As for Specialties, Disciplines are characterized by focused scholarly activities, and because publication and citation traditions can vary substantially from Discipline-to-Discipline, care must be taken in the ranking of institutions relative to Disciplines. Based on extensive internal research and the recommendations of our distinguished advisors, we calculate the institutional rankings in Disciplines based on the active scholars in each Discipline.
The institutional Discipline Rank Score is defined as:
=
where
is the Institutional Rank Score in Discipline
is the set of admissible scholars in the institution relative to Discipline
is the ScholarGPS® Top Percentage Rank (see Scholar Ranking above) of Scholar
Fields
ScholarGPS associates each Discipline with one and only one Field. Therefore, institutional excellence in the Disciplines that comprise a Field will yield a high institutional ranking in the Field. Based on our research and the recommendations of our advisors, we calculate the institutional rankings in Fields based on the active scholars in each Discipline for those Disciplines belonging to the Field of interest.
The institutional Field Rank Score is defined as:
=
where
is the Institutional Rank Score in Field
is the set of admissible scholars associated with the institution relative to the Disciplines belonging to Field
is the ScholarGPS® Top Percentage Rank (see Scholar Ranking above) of Scholar
Overall (All Fields)
An institution's overall ranking correlates to the institution rankings in the Disciplines that comprise the institution. Based on our research and the recommendations of our advisors, we calculate the institutional rankings based on the active scholars in each Discipline.
The institutional Overall (All Fields) Rank Score is defined as:
=
where
is the Overall (All Fields) Institutional Rank Score
is the set of admissible scholars associated with the institution across all Disciplines
is the ScholarGPS® Top Percentage Rank (see Scholar Ranking above) of Scholar
I don't see how one can call it opaque when they give you the equations
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}