Share this with your social networks Share Print this page Print Contact us Contact

Ranking of Biochemistry, Biophysics, and Structural Biology Graduate Schools

Find An Online Program Now

The rankings below have been generated using the priorities you set. You can change your priorities or get rankings for a different field.

About the rankings »

The box plots in the "Rank" column show the uncertainty in each program's ranking. Learn more.
Hover over table headers to see more details.
Data sources and weights for each item are listed at the bottom of the page.
Better values are shown in green. Worse values are shown in red.
Learn more about the ranking algorithm.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »

Your Ranking of Biochemistry, Biophysics, and Structural Biology PhD Programs

Programs 1–30

Rank	Program	Regres Quality	Survey Quality	Student Outcomes	Jobs at Grad	Diversity	Female Students	Female Faculty
1-4	Massachusetts Institute of Technology Biology/Biochemistry and Biophysics	1-8	1-6	8-85	79%	89-129	42%	24%
1-13	Harvard University Molecular and Cellular Biology	2-11	2-21	7-70	71%	72-116	48%	18%
2-12	Yale University Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry	4-12	3-22	25-108	83%	91-132	46%	20%
1-30	Stanford University Molecular and Cellular Physiology	13-27	1-24	6-155	74%	20-58	46%	36%
2-17	California Institute of Technology Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics	8-15	1-17	10-85	77%	112-142	35%	26%
2-16	University of California-Berkeley Biochemistry and Molecular Biology	1-4	2-15	20-102	53%	109-140	42%	23%
2-17	University of California-San Francisco Biochemistry and Molecular Biology	1-8	4-27	96-145	79%	83-128	52%	17%
2-20	Stanford University Biophysics	2-10	1-14	23-124	74%	133-150	31%	12%
2-29	Kent State University Kent Campus Biomedical Sciences - Cell/Molecular Biology	53-153	36-130	70-148	81%*	3-7	61%	100%
4-31	Cornell University Weill Graduate School of Medical Sciences - Molecular Biology	17-37	7-45	13-119	72%	31-78	58%	23%
5-28	Columbia University in the City of New York Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics	2-12	2-21	94-146	75%	130-152	40%	12%
5-27	University of Wisconsin-Madison Biochemistry	6-16	7-40	68-137	79%	114-148	40%	28%
5-34	Brandeis University Biochemistry	16-32	18-69	62-142	70%	23-72	56%	44%
5-33	University of California-Irvine Molecular Biology and Biochemistry	24-61	9-44	14-96	83%	38-87	50%	25%
6-33	Baylor College of Medicine Biochemistry and Molecular Biology	15-25	3-27	97-148	75%	12-38	44%	20%
Rank	Program	Regres Quality	Survey Quality	Student Outcomes	Jobs at Grad	Diversity	Female Students	Female Faculty
6-35	Harvard University Biophysics	3-15	2-19	34-120	71%	144-153	30%	11%
8-39	Stanford University Biochemistry	6-14	5-29	89-149	74%	101-136	38%	17%
7-43	University of California-Irvine Biological Chemistry	57-92	24-79	2-93	83%	18-57	63%	32%
8-38	University of California-San Francisco Biophysics	3-13	3-28	42-126	79%	155-156	21%	16%
9-41	Johns Hopkins University Biological Chemistry	23-42	12-47	11-96	75%	44-95	44%	25%
9-45	University of California-Berkeley Biophysics	2-12	2-21	34-119	53%	133-150	37%	19%
9-48	University of California-Los Angeles Biochemistry and Molecular Biology	10-19	7-44	102-147	68%	60-109	44%	25%
9-48	University of Virginia-Main Campus Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics	28-57	17-63	4-72	83%	57-111	60%	11%
11-54	University of California-Berkeley Comparative Biochemistry	11-19	7-31	7-107	53%	89-134	40%	29%
12-58	George Washington University Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics	65-118	65-135	9-90	91%	18-61	65%	35%
13-65	University of California-Irvine Physiology and Biophysics	43-76	16-68	28-123	83%	64-109	50%	20%
12-62	Vanderbilt University Biochemistry	32-84	12-54	31-114	81%	71-127	65%	5%
13-60	University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey Biochemistry	19-61	30-96	44-118	75%	9-24	51%	35%
15-63	Brandeis University Biophysics and Structural Biology	13-26	27-82	72-142	70%	82-130	33%	46%
14-68	Johns Hopkins University Biochemistry and Molecular Biology	66-125	36-108	3-70	75%	22-72	64%	36%

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »

Item Descriptions

Rank: A range indicating how this program ranked in 500 simulated rankings based on your priorities. Programs are sorted by their median rank. Learn more.
NRC regression-based quality measure (Regres Quality): The NRC's measurements of overall program quality are based on 20 key variables (19 in the humanities) such as GRE scores, student support and faculty publications. To calculate the regression-based quality measure, the relative importance, or weight, of a variable was set by the extent that it correlated with programs viewed most favorably by evaluators in each field. Learn more. Your weight = 3. Larger values are better. (Source: NRC, 2010)
NRC survey-based quality measure (Survey Quality): The NRC's measurements of overall program quality are based on 20 key variables (19 in the humanities) such as GRE scores, student support and faculty publications. To calculate the survey-based quality measure, evaluators in each field identified the variables that they considered to be the most important indicators of program quality. Learn more. Your weight = 5. Larger values are better. (Source: NRC, 2010)
Student support and outcomes (Student Outcomes): This variable is a composite of other measures of student support and outcomes, including 6-year or 8-year graduation rates (for non-humanities programs and humanities programs, respectively), time to degree, job placement within academia, percentage of first-year students with full financial support, and whether a program collects data about the employment outcomes of its graduates. The relative importance of these variables was determined by the direct assessments of some 50 faculty in each field. Your weight = 2. Larger values are better. (Source: NRC, 2010)
Placement Rate (Jobs at Grad): This variable shows the percentage of students with definite plans at graduation (either a job or a postdoctoral position), based on data from the student questionnaire. Your weight = 2. Larger values are better. (Source: SED, 2000–2004)
Diversity in the academic environment (Diversity): This variable shows a composite measure of diversity generated by the National Research Council. It includes data on percent of faculty and students from underrepresented minorities, percent of female faculty and students, and percent of international faculty and students. The relative importance of these variables was determined by the direct assessments of some 50 faculty in each field. Your weight = 1. Larger values are better. (Source: NRC, 2010)
Percentage of female students (Female Students): The percentage of female doctoral students Your weight = 2. Larger values are better. (Source: NRC, 2010)
Percentage of female faculty (Female Faculty): This measure reports the percentage of female faculty members, based on data from a 2006 program questionnaire. Faculty allocations were not considered in the calculation. Your weight = 2. Larger values are better. (Source: NRC, 2010)

Data Sources

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System: IPEDS is an annual, comprehensive set of surveys of all colleges and universities in the United States. The surveys are conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics. Learn more
National Research Council: The National Research Council conducts periodic assessments of doctoral programs in the United States. Our data comes from the most recent assessment in 2010. Learn more
Survey of Earned Doctorates: The NSF/NIH/NEH/USED/USDA/NASA Survey of Earned Doctorates is an annual survey of all new recipients of doctorates from US universities at graduation. The average of the response rates for the 2000–2004 surveys was 92%. Learn more
Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering: The Survey is an annual assessment of the number and characteristics of graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in science, engineering, and health-related fields It is conducted by the National Science Foundation. Learn more

* Value is missing. The value shown is based on the average for other programs in the same field. Learn more.

The graduate school rankings on PhDs.org have been made possible by grants from The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and The Burroughs Wellcome Fund.
The National Postdoctoral Association and The Center for Science and the Media have served as the project's fiscal sponsors.