Graduate programs climb in rankings

Compared to 2009, the University’s graduate programs have generally risen in the 2010 rankings. Most notably, the sociology department rose from 13th last year to third this year.

In economics, the University tied for the best program in the country with Harvard, MIT and the University of Chicago. Last year, Princeton’s economics department was ranked third with Harvard, Stanford and UC Berkeley.

Princeton saw similar improvement with its history program, which now occupies the top spot along with Stanford, UC Berkeley and Yale after placing fourth last year.

The University’s politics program also rose from fourth to first, ranking alongside Harvard and Stanford this year. The Wilson School also ranked fourth in the list of public affairs programs, alongside the University of Georgia, as it did last year as well.

The Graduate School’s math program held steady, claiming sole possession of first place for its fourth consecutive year. The computer science program also held constant, placing sixth alongside Cornell and the University of Washington and ranking below MIT, Stanford and UC Berkeley.

The physics program ranking also remained unchanged in third place with Caltech, Harvard and UC Berkeley. Princeton’s biology program remained in 12th place alongside Duke, and the chemistry program stayed in 16th place for the third straight year. The School of Engineering and Applied Sciences was ranked 18th among engineering schools, along with Harvard and UC Santa Barbara.

English saw a decline from fourth to seventh place, which it now shares with Cornell and the University of Chicago. The University’s psychology department also fell from fifth place to eighth.

Several faculty members noted that the rankings accurately reflect the high quality of the University’s graduate programs.

“I am not surprised that our program ranks number one,” Kathleen DeGennaro, graduate administrator for economics, said in an e-mail. “There are quite a few reasons why we are at the top but the quality of the faculty is a primary reason.”

Politics professor Keith Whittington, who serves as director of graduate studies for the politics department, echoed DeGennaro’s sentiment.

“We have managed to assemble a large, intellectually diverse and academically impressive group of faculty and have attracted the students to match,” he said in an e-mail.

Computer science professor Bernard Chazelle, the director of graduate studies in his department, said that though he is “pleased” with the computer science program’s ranking, the department is always striving to rise higher in the rankings.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

“It’s been the historical mission of the computer science department to break into the top 5 and we’re getting there,” Chazelle said in an e-mail, adding that the University’s computer science faculty is much smaller than many of its competitors’.

“The departments ahead of us in the ranking (and quite a few behind us) are easily twice or three times our size. In addition to much larger faculty, they have incomparably greater resources (buildings, research positions, lab infrastructure, etc.),” he explained. “It is fair to say that, per faculty, we are the No. 1 computer science department in the country.”

Still, Chazelle added, “we won’t rest until our No. 6 ranking improves further.”

But the rankings do not offer a precise assessment of the programs, University spokeswoman Cass Cliatt ’96 said.

“We appreciate the recognition of the quality of the graduate education we offer, although we don’t believe that any formulaic ranking can capture the distinctiveness of any individual program,” Cliatt said in an e-mail.

The importance of the rankings pales in comparison to personal research on the part of prospective students, Cliatt added.