Princeton Astronomy rules!

[ProfAstro]

http://www.princeton.edu/astro/news-eve ... e/?id=3761

The recent released NAS "Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs" (http://www.nap.edu/rdp/) gave its highest rating to the Princeton University Astrophysics Department. Basing its ranking on 20 factors including publications per faculty member, citations per publication, percent faculty with grants and awards per faculty member, the NAS survey has assessed over 5000 programs in 62 fields. In astrophysics, the NAS ranked 34 graduate programs and gave its top ranking (based on its S rating) to Princeton followed by Caltech, Penn State, UC Berkeley and U Chicago.

Princeton was top ranked in research activity, its level of student support, student outcomes, and in the number of awards per faculty member. Princeton astrophysics faculty (including Associate Faculty) include 8 NAS members, 4 MacArthur Fellows and 2 winners of the Presidental Medal of Science.

Princeton graduate students had the shortest median time to degree and the highest GRE scores. Princeton ranked second (behind U Chicago) in citations per paper and second (behind Penn State) in average number of publications per allocated faculty.

https://www-dept-edit.princeton.edu/ast ... nkings.pdf

[throwawayaccount]

Well my opinion of Princeton astronomy professors just went way way down.

[ProfAstro]

Well my opinion of Princeton astronomy professors just went way way down.

Coming from "throwawayaccount", that really hurts.

[grae313]

Well my opinion of Princeton astronomy professors just went way way down.

Coming from "throwawayaccount", that really hurts.

Oh snap! Watcha got to say to that, throwawayaccount?

[geshi]

Congrats to Princeton. To be honest, this doesn't sound like particularly exciting news. Princeton is pretty much top 5 in everything. Once you get up that high, who cares about the difference between 1, 2, 5, or even 10? Maybe it's just me.

The news that new ranking data has been released is somewhat more interesting. Unfortunately I can't open those excel files on this computer. I get a complaint of "file is too large."

[HappyQuark]

Congrats to Princeton. To be honest, this doesn't sound like particularly exciting news. Princeton is pretty much top 5 in everything. Once you get up that high, who cares about the difference between 1, 2, 5, or even 10? Maybe it's just me.

The news that new ranking data has been released is somewhat more interesting. Unfortunately I can't open those excel files on this computer. I get a complaint of "file is too large."

And besides, astronomy and, to only a slightly lesser degree, astrophysics is just a bunch of stellar stamp collecting anyways. They are like zoologists but of inanimate space objects and really who wants to be one of 'those'. I suppose what I'm getting at is that saying Princeton astro was rated number 1 doesn't make me want to go there any more than if I found out they also had a world renowned hopscotch team. I want to be a real scientist, so I figure I'll go the route of real physics.

just saying.

[ProfAstro]

Congrats to Princeton. To be honest, this doesn't sound like particularly exciting news. Princeton is pretty much top 5 in everything. Once you get up that high, who cares about the difference between 1, 2, 5, or even 10? Maybe it's just me.

It is true, our Self-Promotion Graduate Program is definitely #1 in the country, if not in the entire world.

[ProfAstro]

And besides, astronomy and, to only a slightly lesser degree, astrophysics is just a bunch of stellar stamp collecting anyways. They are like zoologists but of inanimate space objects and really who wants to be one of 'those'. I suppose what I'm getting at is that saying Princeton astro was rated number 1 doesn't make me want to go there any more than if I found out they also had a world renowned hopscotch team. I want to be a real scientist, so I figure I'll go the route of real physics.

just saying.

You are right, of course. But, just for fun, you should check what the following people all have in common:

John C. Mather, George F. Smoot, Raymond Davis Jr., Masatoshi Koshiba, Riccardo Giacconi, Russell A. Hulse, Joseph H. Taylor Jr., Subramanyan Chandrasekhar, William Alfred Fowler, Arno Allan Penzias, Robert Woodrow Wilson, Sir Martin Ryle, Antony Hewish.

Just saying.

[geshi]

You are right, of course. But, just for fun, you should check what the following people all have in common:

John C. Mather, George F. Smoot, Raymond Davis Jr., Masatoshi Koshiba, Riccardo Giacconi, Russell A. Hulse, Joseph H. Taylor Jr., Subramanyan Chandrasekhar, William Alfred Fowler, Arno Allan Penzias, Robert Woodrow Wilson, Sir Martin Ryle, Antony Hewish.

Just saying.

Nothing noteworthy at all. I have 8 Nobel prizes myself.

... Or was novelty prizes?

[HappyQuark]

And besides, astronomy and, to only a slightly lesser degree, astrophysics is just a bunch of stellar stamp collecting anyways. They are like zoologists but of inanimate space objects and really who wants to be one of 'those'. I suppose what I'm getting at is that saying Princeton astro was rated number 1 doesn't make me want to go there any more than if I found out they also had a world renowned hopscotch team. I want to be a real scientist, so I figure I'll go the route of real physics.

just saying.

You are right, of course. But, just for fun, you should check what the following people all have in common:

John C. Mather, George F. Smoot, Raymond Davis Jr., Masatoshi Koshiba, Riccardo Giacconi, Russell A. Hulse, Joseph H. Taylor Jr., Subramanyan Chandrasekhar, William Alfred Fowler, Arno Allan Penzias, Robert Woodrow Wilson, Sir Martin Ryle, Antony Hewish.

Just saying.

I have a penis as well. What's your point?

[grae313]

And besides, astronomy and, to only a slightly lesser degree, astrophysics is just a bunch of stellar stamp collecting anyways.

You serious? Observational astronomy, maybe. Theoretical? Hell no.

[vesperlynd]

..

[ProfAstro]

I have a penis as well. What's your point?

I am happy for you. Now you just need to procure a functional brain and physics is all yours.

[geshi]

The news that new ranking data has been released is somewhat more interesting. Unfortunately I can't open those excel files on this computer. I get a complaint of "file is too large."

Go to PhDs.org, you can select program rankings based on both the survey score and the regression score.

Ah okay, that worked. Thanks!

[WhoaNonstop]

And besides, astronomy and, to only a slightly lesser degree, astrophysics is just a bunch of stellar stamp collecting anyways. They are like zoologists but of inanimate space objects and really who wants to be one of 'those'. I suppose what I'm getting at is that saying Princeton astro was rated number 1 doesn't make me want to go there any more than if I found out they also had a world renowned hopscotch team. I want to be a real scientist, so I figure I'll go the route of real physics.

just saying.

You are right, of course. But, just for fun, you should check what the following people all have in common:

John C. Mather, George F. Smoot, Raymond Davis Jr., Masatoshi Koshiba, Riccardo Giacconi, Russell A. Hulse, Joseph H. Taylor Jr., Subramanyan Chandrasekhar, William Alfred Fowler, Arno Allan Penzias, Robert Woodrow Wilson, Sir Martin Ryle, Antony Hewish.

Just saying.

I think all these guys were in the paintball tournament I attended yesterday.

-Riley

[grae313]

I have a penis as well. What's your point?

I am happy for you. Now you just need to procure a functional brain and physics is all yours.

This thread is awesome.

So uh... is anyone ready to stop acting defensive and welcome another prof to the forum or do we have to quarrel a bit more first?

[geshi]

This thread is awesome.

So uh... is anyone ready to stop acting defensive and welcome another prof to the forum or do we have to quarrel a bit more first?

I dunno, but the quarrel is pretty hilarious. I suppose we *should* welcome another prof though .

[quizivex]

Sounds like the official start of the 2010-11 forum season has begun. Hopefully it'll be more fun to watch than the slow, boring one last year.

[HappyQuark]

just for a bit of clarification, which I should point out I feel should be completely unneccessary.

My statement about the stellar stamp collector was a joke and, quite obviously, astrophysics and astronomy is more than just cataloging objects.

I was poking fun at the OP who, as far as I can tell, is not really an astronomy professor. Being proud of your department and research is one thing but declaring

It is true, our Self-Promotion Graduate Program is definitely #1 in the country, if not in the entire world.

based on nothing more than a meta-analysis of some highly subjective data pulled 5 years ago is ridiculous. I don't doubt that Princeton has a very good graduate program in physics/astro. However, to suggest that it is any better than any of the other ivy's (with the obvious exception of dartmouth) or any of the other extremely strong programs with no regard to specific field, research focus, quality of staff and facilities or most of the other qualities that make a department the right or wrong choice for a person is a completely different thing.

[ProfAstro]

I was poking fun at the OP who, as far as I can tell, is not really an astronomy professor.

You are right, I am actually just a janitor who cleans Peyton Hall. But a janitor at Princeton Astro is still
better than tenure-track astronomy professor at Harvard

[ultraballer2000]

This topic is now about realistically drawn pokemon.



that's blastoise btw.

[grae313]

Being proud of your department and research is one thing but declaring

It is true, our Self-Promotion Graduate Program is definitely #1 in the country, if not in the entire world.

based on nothing more than a meta-analysis of some highly subjective data pulled 5 years ago is ridiculous.

Huh? I don't think he needed to cite any data to make that declaration.

However, to suggest that it is any better than any of the other ivy's...

Did he? He just announced the results of the rankings. He didn't tell anyone to go to Princeton because it's number one. I dunno... I don't see why you're attacking him for his post. You seem really defensive to me. What's wrong with a prof coming to these forums and plugging their university?

Also the comment about me needing to "procure a functional brain" is a classic troll comment. If ProfAstro really is an astronomy/astrophysics professor then his/her comments on the forum so far don't reflect well on the #1 grad program in the world.

u mad bro?

Seriously though. You just wish you were a prof at Princeton who could talk *** this well :p

[kroner]

I bet Princeton astro could take blastoise in a fight.

[kroner]

I bet ProfAstro could take blastoise in a fight.

[ultraballer2000]

I bet Princeton astro could take blastoise in a fight.

That may be the case, but only because Princeton is an ivy-type school. I'd like to see it up against a charizard.

I bet ProfAstro could take blastoise in a fight.

idk man.. look at that beast.

[WhoaNonstop]

Now I have extra motivation to perform on the GRE in order to get into Princeton just to debunk the identity of this professor.

-Riley

[HappyQuark]

However, to suggest that it is any better than any of the other ivy's...

Did he? He just announced the results of the rankings. He didn't tell anyone to go to Princeton because it's number one. I dunno... I don't see why you're attacking him for his post. You seem really defensive to me. What's wrong with a prof coming to these forums and plugging their university?

In my neck of the woods calling something #1 usually implies that all others are #2 or less and, additionally, that being #1 is better than being less than #1. That might just be a local thing though.

Also the comment about me needing to "procure a functional brain" is a classic troll comment. If ProfAstro really is an astronomy/astrophysics professor then his/her comments on the forum so far don't reflect well on the #1 grad program in the world.

u mad bro?

Seriously though. You just wish you were a prof at Princeton who could talk *** this well :p

touché

Since I overreacted, I've made a peace offering to celebrate Princeton and our new friend ProfAstro. I'm not much of a photoshop guru but I figure it's the thought that counts.

[geshi]

Those are some epic pokemon drawings. Blastoise for the win!

[ProfAstro]

Since I overreacted, I've made a peace offering to celebrate Princeton and our new friend ProfAstro. I'm not much of a photoshop guru but I figure it's the thought that counts.

I was looking forward to some more sparring, but can't turn down such a nice peace offering. Peace be with you, bro. And now let me go to collect some more stamps and play some hopscotch with our #1 Ultimate Hopscotch team.

[ultraballer2000]

EDIT: kroner, the picture was pretty creepy so I've changed.

VENUSAUR!

[kroner]

That one is just a little bit creepy.

[geshi]

Gengar, my favorite.



(Alternate version with ghastly, haunter and gengar all in 1!)

[ultraballer2000]

that gengar is pretty freaky. I would honestly be scared if I saw that hanging out in the corner of my bedroom or something.

[WhoaNonstop]

that gengar is pretty freaky. I would honestly be scared if I saw that hanging out in the corner of my bedroom or something.

Creepy... Yes..

However, I don't think it would hurt you... I'm sure it can't move very fast and it's teeth aren't sharp. Plus I'm sure you could drop kick it pretty far.

-Riley

[pqortic]

I think the thread beginner meant to help people become familiar with Princeton astronomy program and in a way encourage more people to apply there. what I don't understand is that why some of you are discussing the cartoon characters here which are to be interesting for kids aging 6 to 10.

[geshi]

I think the thread beginner meant to help people become familiar with Princeton astronomy program and in a way encourage more people to apply there. what I don't understand is that why some of you are discussing the cartoon characters here which are to be interesting for kids aging 6 to 10.

*AAAAHHHEMMMM* Clearly you did not read the credo of Ultraballer:

This topic is now about realistically drawn pokemon.

I think I've made my point.

What I don't understand is why you are not sharing your favorite realistically drawn pokemon.

[HappyQuark]

Clearly the best of the realistic pokemon is magikarp

[WhoaNonstop]

what I don't understand is that why some of you are discussing the cartoon characters here which are to be interesting for kids aging 6 to 10.

The question is: Why stop at the 6 to 10 age group, when we can hit the 3 to 5 age group as well?



-Riley

[grae313]

Hahahaha a FINE peace offering by anyone's standards

[pqortic]

what I don't understand is that why some of you are discussing the cartoon characters here which are to be interesting for kids aging 6 to 10.

The question is: Why stop at the 6 to 10 age group, when we can hit the 3 to 5 age group as well?



-Riley

He was a professor from Princeton man, we pissed him off. I guess to protest this, they won't take any student this year.

[astroprof]

What surprises me about the original post (copied from a Princeton
University press release) is that any institution would go to the
trouble of trying to claim that they are number 1. The whole point
of the new rankings is that the committee could not decide on a
definitive order, and thus provided a range of rankings instead of
absolutes. Princeton has apparently decided that they know better
(based on less information!) and thus have created a linear ranking
scheme by combining the R- and S-rankings at the 5th and 95th percentile.
I do not question that Princeton is a "top-ranked" program with excellent
faculty and excellent students. However, Caltech can also claim to be
number 1 in the R- and S-rankings; and there are at least two number 2s.
So, what is the point of all this? In my opinion, it makes sense to group
programs as "top 10", or "top 20", but to pull out the "We are number 1"
signs is just silly.

Regardless of the absolute or relative rankings, ultimately you need to
find a graduate program that is a good match to you - in terms of research
areas, research productivity, and overall environment. Thus, your rankings
may be significantly different than the NRC's; for example, you may put additional
weight on time-to-degree and probability of completing a degree, and put less
weight on the percentage of students who are international. Thus, the overall
usefulness of the survey for prospective graduate students is that you now
have the ability to assess various aspects of graduate programs in a more
systematic and uniform manner.

I particularly encourage prospective students to look at the time-to-degree
and completion statistics. You will need to be careful interpreting the
6-year completion rates that are tabulated - these will be underestimates
of the actual completion rate if the median time to degree is 5+ years.
However, you can calculate an indicative total completion rate by looking
at the average number of students entering and the average number of
degrees awarded each year. If a program is in steady-state (i.e., neither
growing significantly nor reducing its student population), the ratio of
the number of degrees per number of entering students is indicative of the
average completion percentage for the decade. Programs that have relatively
short time-to-degree (less than 6 years) and high total completion rates
(greater than 52%) are good programs to investigate further to see if they
have interesting/relevant research groups.

Also, for the prospective astronomy graduate students on this forum, you may
want to consider carefully the size of the entering classes as you contemplate
which programs are "safety" schools. In general, the larger programs in astronomy
are higher ranked, and thus are both more competitive and also, at the same time,
likely to accept more students than the lower ranked schools. Identifying
appropriate "safety schools" is thus a complex function of department size and
competitiveness. One solution, of course, is to apply to Physics programs that
have astronomers on their faculty, as Physics programs are usually larger and
are less likely to have significant fluctuations in the number of entering
students each year. There are a number of excellent astronomy programs that
are not singled out in the NRC survey since they are contained within Physics
Departments. [Of course, if you go this route, you would be in a physics program
and your fellow classmates might think that astronomy is just about predicting the
future based on the positions of the planets, not about stamp collecting...]


astroprof

PS - I also find it hilarious that the NRC ranks astronomy programs in
the range of 1-34, but only lists 33 possible programs. On the positive
side, that means that no one is actually "last" in a linearized scheme.
On the negative side, it might lead one to question the validity of the
survey if they can't count accurately the number of programs in a small
field like astronomy.

[WontonBurritoMeals]

In my opinion, it makes sense to group
programs as "top 10", or "top 20", but to pull out the "We are number 1"
signs is just silly.

HE IS AN ASTRONOMY PROFESSOR AT PRINCETON. YOU NEED TO BE RESPECTFUL. WE NEED TO WELCOME MORE PROFESSORS ONTO THESE BOARDS. YOU ARE MAKING IT AN UNCOMFORTABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR PROFESSORS BY DISAGREEING WITH ONE.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

May the wind be always at your back,
-WontonBurritoMeals

[HappyQuark]

What surprises me about the original post (copied from a Princeton
University press release) is that any institution would go to the
trouble of trying to claim that they are number 1. The whole point
of the new rankings is that the committee could not decide on a
definitive order, and thus provided a range of rankings instead of
absolutes. Princeton has apparently decided that they know better
(based on less information!) and thus have created a linear ranking
scheme by combining the R- and S-rankings at the 5th and 95th percentile.
I do not question that Princeton is a "top-ranked" program with excellent
faculty and excellent students. However, Caltech can also claim to be
number 1 in the R- and S-rankings; and there are at least two number 2s.
So, what is the point of all this? In my opinion, it makes sense to group
programs as "top 10", or "top 20", but to pull out the "We are number 1"
signs is just silly.

Regardless of the absolute or relative rankings, ultimately you need to
find a graduate program that is a good match to you - in terms of research
areas, research productivity, and overall environment. Thus, your rankings
may be significantly different than the NRC's; for example, you may put additional
weight on time-to-degree and probability of completing a degree, and put less
weight on the percentage of students who are international. Thus, the overall
usefulness of the survey for prospective graduate students is that you now
have the ability to assess various aspects of graduate programs in a more
systematic and uniform manner.

I particularly encourage prospective students to look at the time-to-degree
and completion statistics. You will need to be careful interpreting the
6-year completion rates that are tabulated - these will be underestimates
of the actual completion rate if the median time to degree is 5+ years.
However, you can calculate an indicative total completion rate by looking
at the average number of students entering and the average number of
degrees awarded each year. If a program is in steady-state (i.e., neither
growing significantly nor reducing its student population), the ratio of
the number of degrees per number of entering students is indicative of the
average completion percentage for the decade. Programs that have relatively
short time-to-degree (less than 6 years) and high total completion rates
(greater than 52%) are good programs to investigate further to see if they
have interesting/relevant research groups.

Also, for the prospective astronomy graduate students on this forum, you may
want to consider carefully the size of the entering classes as you contemplate
which programs are "safety" schools. In general, the larger programs in astronomy
are higher ranked, and thus are both more competitive and also, at the same time,
likely to accept more students than the lower ranked schools. Identifying
appropriate "safety schools" is thus a complex function of department size and
competitiveness. One solution, of course, is to apply to Physics programs that
have astronomers on their faculty, as Physics programs are usually larger and
are less likely to have significant fluctuations in the number of entering
students each year. There are a number of excellent astronomy programs that
are not singled out in the NRC survey since they are contained within Physics
Departments. [Of course, if you go this route, you would be in a physics program
and your fellow classmates might think that astronomy is just about predicting the
future based on the positions of the planets, not about stamp collecting...]


astroprof

PS - I also find it hilarious that the NRC ranks astronomy programs in
the range of 1-34, but only lists 33 possible programs. On the positive
side, that means that no one is actually "last" in a linearized scheme.
On the negative side, it might lead one to question the validity of the
survey if they can't count accurately the number of programs in a small
field like astronomy.

Now that right there is most certainly an astro professor. I retract all my previous statements on the matter and would like to offer you an overdue welcome to the forums. As WontonBurritoMeals points out, we rarely get to have a professor on board and it's always beneficial when we do.

[geshi]

[Of course, if you go this route, you would be in a physics program
and your fellow classmates might think that astronomy is just about predicting the
future based on the positions of the planets, not about stamp collecting...]

Funny story. I have a few astro friends here at OSU. When they tell people (non-scientist people) they're astronomers, they actually get this reaction a lot. Apparently people do think astronomy = astrology. Who knew?

Welcome again to the forums to astroprof! Since we seem to have restarted the welcoming process.

Side-question: Does derailing the thread into a sharing of pokemon pictures count as making it an uncomfortable environment? I think it makes it more comfortable ^^.

[noojens]

Pretty sure admissionprof is the only genuine professor who actually posts on these forums.

I don't doubt that other professors read and lurk, sure, but no other posts I've read from people claiming to be professors look legit to me.

That said, admissionprof's posts over the years have been invaluable. She's one of the few posters I pay attention to anymore.

[ProfAstro]

We still rule!

Apply to our #1 program now, so we can reject you, collect your application fee and use it for beer.

[kroner]

Hey! Hey, that is not nice.

I will not be applying to your program. No thank you sir.

[WhoaNonstop]

We still rule!

Apply to our #1 program now, so we can reject you, collect your application fee and use it for beer.

If I am accepted into Princeton I will personally buy you an application fee worth of beer.

-Riley