As in the past, Earlham is well-represented in this analysis of the baccalaureate origins of those earning doctoral degrees. Earlham’s shift in rank from 23rd to 26th since the 1998 report should not be given much significance since the total numbers of graduates involved is relatively small. These rankings are certainly meaningful when general levels of productivity are considered (i.e. ranking in the top 10, top 30, etc.), but a change of only a few individuals can produce changes of +/- 5 positions in these rankings without representing any significant difference in the quality of the undergraduate program. From this perspective, it is better to interpret Earlham’s position as essentially the same as in the previous report. We should be proud of our standing near the top of the group of 1,302 institutions comprising the sample for this comparison.