University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center named best place to work by The Scientist magazine
Magazine’s readers place Health Sciences campus at No. 4 among academic workplaces

lmao "organic chemist", paul the internet bully, no matter what you do or say, you still fail at life. You do keep me laughing though so keep up the ignorance.

Funding only important to the "outside world?" It's one of the crucial barometers in gauging the research productivity and impact of an institution. As a purported biologist, you might be aware that there's a not-so-subtle correlation in the quality of faculty and students of an institution and how much money it brings in, as a whole. What about rankings? OU is noticeably absent from US News's med school rankings. To top students, these rankings are important--not meant to be used as a strict guide, but if a school isn't in, say, the top 50, it's almost certainly going to be shunned by the highest-caliber students and researchers. In regards to the faculty at OU: how many National Academy members are at OU HSC? ASU's CMUP study says zero at OU HSC and two at OU-Norman.(http://mup.asu.edu/research_data.html) That's, um, 39 less than nearby UT Southwestern in Dallas and 59 less than UT's main campus in Austin (both of which can legitimately lay claim to top researchers, postdocs, students, etc.). Certainly, not all quality faculty members are in a National Academy but regardless, by now you're surely getting the point--these sort of representative statistics that I mentioned in my previous post are indeed indicative of the quality of an institution. OU's statistics are (at best) average, hence OU HSC is correspondingly a merely average institution. OU may (?) have a few great people, but they are unquestionably few and far between, as with any "average" institution. Take it from an organic chemist: *you*, matthew, obviously have no clue.

Take it from a cell and molecular biologist, Paul is just being the bitter loser that he is. He obviously has no clue. OUHSC does in fact have some of the top researchers, post-docs, and students that are doing cutting edge research and have, in the past, made some great discoveries. And for the record, how much money a place brings in is somewhat important to the outside world, but to people working there what matters is how much funding they bring in.

So Paul "in Yukon" admits he's still over 1000 miles away. Yukon Terriory maybe Pauly boy. Still bitter about the Sonics I see. Man that was like so 2007.

Not to point out the obvious, but being a "great place to work" doesn't at all imply that OU HSC is a superior institution. Or even an above-average one. Though I'm over a thousand miles away, I can still hear the collective laughter at UCSF and Princeton on having OU sharing space on a list with their programs for, well...anything. The total research expenditures of OU HSC--which are what *actually* matter for attracting top students, faculty, and researchers--are still embarrassingly low compared to other public medical schools. Now, back to your regularly-scheduled celebration of Oklahoma's mediocrity...

Pretty impressive list we are on.

Thank god the government is in the business of subsidizing health care...good work!