Ranking of Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering 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 »

Your Ranking of Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering PhD Programs

Programs 1–30
RankProgramRegres QualitySurvey QualityStudent OutcomesJobs at GradDiversityMinority StudentsMinority Faculty
1-6California Institute of Technology Bioengineering1-81-111-4973%*69-73 8% 0%
1-5University of California-San Francisco Bioengineering2-92-66-3267%14-39 10% 7%
1-7CUNY Graduate School and University Center Biomedical Engineering18-435-2812-5583%1-4 27% 10%
2-15University of California-Berkeley Bioengineering2-92-66-3243%14-39 10% 7%
2-15University of California-San Diego Bioengineering1-52-613-4868%59-70 6% 0%
2-16University of Washington-Seattle Campus Bioengineering1-63-1614-4663%10-31 14% 2%
4-19University of Wisconsin-Madison Biomedical Engineering18-379-353-1889%11-29 24% 2%
4-20University of Maryland-College Park Bioengineering15-345-204-3173%*19-48 8% 10%
4-24Johns Hopkins University Biomedical Engineering8-215-2613-5076%12-32 16% 4%
4-22University of Virginia-Main Campus Biomedical Engineering9-217-2831-6380%40-65 5% 11%
6-27Rice University Bioengineering5-214-215-2662%33-60 3% 6%
5-26University of Pennsylvania Bioengineering5-155-2710-4080%15-48 10% 0%
5-29Yale University Biomedical Engineering7-182-1214-5773%*35-62 6% 0%
5-28Duke University Biomedical Engineering3-134-2519-5567%31-57 14% 2%
5-29New Jersey Institute of Technology Biomedical Engineering38-6016-471-10NA2-7 14% 12%
RankProgramRegres QualitySurvey QualityStudent OutcomesJobs at GradDiversityMinority StudentsMinority Faculty
6-31Massachusetts Institute of Technology Biological Engineering, Health Science and Technology1-63-1773-7478%48-65 8% 4%
6-30University of Michigan-Ann Arbor Biomedical Engineering3-134-2550-6966%17-45 15% 4%
7-35University of Miami Biomedical Engineering49-6529-619-5373%*2-8 56% 6%
9-36Cornell University Biomedical Engineering31-5411-4432-6073%*7-17 39% 4%
9-37Georgia Institute of Technology-Main Campus Bioengineering7-218-3410-4871%18-45 8% 2%
10-35Boston University Biomedical Engineering5-189-3220-5376%40-62 12% 0%
10-36University of California-Irvine Biomedical Engineering19-4310-4116-59100%46-66 16% 0%
10-40Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Biological Systems Engineering44-6327-627-4773%*4-9 25% 10%
13-39Northwestern University Biomedical Engineering10-2313-4325-5673%26-56 10% 6%
13-38Purdue University-Main Campus Biomedical Engineering24-4924-532-1983%12-33 17% 3%
15-38Emory University Biomedical Engineering16-3811-359-3673%*10-38 7% 3%
14-40Oregon Health & Science University Biomedical Engineering22-4511-351-8NA36-65 0% 7%
14-41University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Agricultural Engineering41-5926-5727-60NA8-22 25% 12%
15-43Columbia University in the City of New York Biomedical Engineering12-307-3437-6878%16-44 8% 0%
16-40Georgia Institute of Technology-Main Campus Biomedical Engineering16-3811-359-3671%10-38 7% 3%

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 minority students (Minority Students)
This measure shows the percentage of non-Asian minority doctoral students based on data from the program questionnaire. Programs reported the race or ethnicity of graduate students enrolled in fall 2005. This variable is calculated as the number of students listed as non-Hispanic Blacks, Hispanics, or American Indians or Alaska Natives, divided by the total number of students whose whose race or ethnicity was specified. Students whose race or ethnicity was unspecified were excluded from the calculation. Your weight = 2. Larger values are better. (Source: NRC, 2010)
Percentage of minority faculty (Minority Faculty)
This variable reports the percentage of faculty members who are non-Asian minorities based on data from a 2006 program questionnaire. The value was calculated as the number of faculty listed as non-Hispanic Blacks, Hispanics, or American Indians or Alaska Natives, divided by the total number of faculty with specified race or ethnicity. Faculty members with unspecified race or ethnicity were excluded from the calculation. The calculation did not consider faculty allocations. 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.