where would Williams and Amherst rank in the ivy league..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I guess. But with such extraordinarily selective schools, who really cares?

Williams and Amherst, and many other SLACS, are fantastic schools but they would rank lower than any of the Ivies in a head to head competition due to the lack of comparable science and engineering resources. They aren't really comparable which is why they are separately ranked.

Totally agree. Williams and Amherst can't compare with the ivy league because virtually all of them are much larger research institutions. The academic resources of Princeton/Harvard/Cornell/Penn are light years ahead of Williams and Amherst.

And most of it has nothing to do with undergraduate study.

I'd say having access to massive research institutes and facilities is pretty helpful in undergrad. DS does research at the school of Medicine and hasn't a day taken a course in the med school. Some people just use their resources better than others.

Do R1 research universities have higher medical school acceptance rates than SLACs or higher percentages of students getting advanced degrees in STEM? NO.

Maybe people want to use their stem degree for something else? Why do these two stats even matter to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Endowment per student comparisons at the top are overrated. Research universities are less endowment dependent than LACs, which is why trump nearly crumpled them with the endowment tax and they had to be exempt. If higher endowment per student automatically improved your resources and made you a better institution, Soka university would be the first college we’d all be looking to, and Pomona would have 80,000+ applications. Because DCUM is so grad focused, people dismiss very real resources by these institutions, their research centers, and their faculty. It’s a weird opinion I’ve only really seen here.

For SLACs: Soka and Principa are their own stories associated with religion (cult?) money. Those aside, endowment per student rankings: Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Grinnell, Williams, Bowdoin (all well over a million per student)
For research universities: Princeton, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Harvard (all 2 million + per student, except Harvard only 1.75 milllion)

Pretty good way to compare schools: https://www.collegeraptor.com/college-rankings/details/EndowmentPerStudent/

As for the R1’s being less endowment independent than SLACs?

Is that why Columbia (only 448k per student) took 400 kids off the waitlist for its largest class ever and is expanding enrollment permanently?

Is that why Johns Hopkins could only go need blind only after a big Bloomberg donation? (still only 366k per student)

If anything, this proves that private research universities are more endowment dependent than SLACs, not less…

I’m sorry but no- the liberal arts colleges would’ve had a crisis if the endowment tax hit them.

https://www.pomona.edu/ad...ed-college" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.pomona.edu/ad...ed-college
https://www.chronicle.com/article/small-colleges-are-banding-together-against-a-higher-endowment-tax-this-is-why

Unlike LACs, Columbia experienced a double whammy- the endowment tax was hit on them (luckily at a much smaller percentage than originally proposed) and their research funds were hijacked by the administration.
I’m surprised you have this opinion, since the small colleges were all storming capitol hill and paying a ton in representation to get congressional members to stop the endowment tax on small colleges. It was a real crisis that would’ve crippled these colleges. They wouldn’t have been poor, but they basically all would’ve had to massively restructure their budget.
https://williamsrecord.com/470109/news/college-spared-from-endowment-tax-increase/

Clearly you don’t get the point. Columbia and JHU were vulnerable because they have poor endowments.
SLACs played the lobbying game. Surprised you don’t know the real reason SLACs were not taxed. One word: Hillsdale.

wtf are you talking about? jhu’s endowment is 13 billion. How is that poor?

Make this your homework assignment.

how about you become better at math. the fact that you didnt know grad students are funded by research and masters students are cash cows goes to show how bad your endowment per student metric is. slacs are trash relative to ivies and always will be

Why are you so obsessed with putting other schools down? What pleasure does it give you in life? Is there nothing else you could spend your time doing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Endowment per student comparisons at the top are overrated. Research universities are less endowment dependent than LACs, which is why trump nearly crumpled them with the endowment tax and they had to be exempt. If higher endowment per student automatically improved your resources and made you a better institution, Soka university would be the first college we’d all be looking to, and Pomona would have 80,000+ applications. Because DCUM is so grad focused, people dismiss very real resources by these institutions, their research centers, and their faculty. It’s a weird opinion I’ve only really seen here.

For SLACs: Soka and Principa are their own stories associated with religion (cult?) money. Those aside, endowment per student rankings: Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Grinnell, Williams, Bowdoin (all well over a million per student)
For research universities: Princeton, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Harvard (all 2 million + per student, except Harvard only 1.75 milllion)

Pretty good way to compare schools: https://www.collegeraptor.com/college-rankings/details/EndowmentPerStudent/

As for the R1’s being less endowment independent than SLACs?

Is that why Columbia (only 448k per student) took 400 kids off the waitlist for its largest class ever and is expanding enrollment permanently?

Is that why Johns Hopkins could only go need blind only after a big Bloomberg donation? (still only 366k per student)

If anything, this proves that private research universities are more endowment dependent than SLACs, not less…

I’m sorry but no- the liberal arts colleges would’ve had a crisis if the endowment tax hit them.

https://www.pomona.edu/ad...ed-college" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.pomona.edu/ad...ed-college
https://www.chronicle.com/article/small-colleges-are-banding-together-against-a-higher-endowment-tax-this-is-why

Unlike LACs, Columbia experienced a double whammy- the endowment tax was hit on them (luckily at a much smaller percentage than originally proposed) and their research funds were hijacked by the administration.
I’m surprised you have this opinion, since the small colleges were all storming capitol hill and paying a ton in representation to get congressional members to stop the endowment tax on small colleges. It was a real crisis that would’ve crippled these colleges. They wouldn’t have been poor, but they basically all would’ve had to massively restructure their budget.
https://williamsrecord.com/470109/news/college-spared-from-endowment-tax-increase/

Clearly you don’t get the point. Columbia and JHU were vulnerable because they have poor endowments.
SLACs played the lobbying game. Surprised you don’t know the real reason SLACs were not taxed. One word: Hillsdale.

wtf are you talking about? jhu’s endowment is 13 billion. How is that poor?

Make this your homework assignment.

how about you become better at math. the fact that you didnt know grad students are funded by research and masters students are cash cows goes to show how bad your endowment per student metric is. slacs are trash relative to ivies and always will be

You sound like you go to Johns Hopkins. Not a compliment. Yes, Johns Hopkins has a spectacular endowment per student. They have been need blind — forever.

Nope try again. I went to a top school with above 80% yield. Amherst and Williams at 39 and 40% for a reason

https://www.ivywise.com/blog/college-yield-rates/

+1, I don't know how this is even a debate here. The students debate with their feet, and they aren't entering Williams or Amherst. They're slow to go test required, because they know their average test score stats would plummet and they'd lose more cross-admit battles when their acceptance rates shoot up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Endowment per student comparisons at the top are overrated. Research universities are less endowment dependent than LACs, which is why trump nearly crumpled them with the endowment tax and they had to be exempt. If higher endowment per student automatically improved your resources and made you a better institution, Soka university would be the first college we’d all be looking to, and Pomona would have 80,000+ applications. Because DCUM is so grad focused, people dismiss very real resources by these institutions, their research centers, and their faculty. It’s a weird opinion I’ve only really seen here.

For SLACs: Soka and Principa are their own stories associated with religion (cult?) money. Those aside, endowment per student rankings: Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Grinnell, Williams, Bowdoin (all well over a million per student)
For research universities: Princeton, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Harvard (all 2 million + per student, except Harvard only 1.75 milllion)

Pretty good way to compare schools: https://www.collegeraptor.com/college-rankings/details/EndowmentPerStudent/

As for the R1’s being less endowment independent than SLACs?

Is that why Columbia (only 448k per student) took 400 kids off the waitlist for its largest class ever and is expanding enrollment permanently?

Is that why Johns Hopkins could only go need blind only after a big Bloomberg donation? (still only 366k per student)

If anything, this proves that private research universities are more endowment dependent than SLACs, not less…

I’m sorry but no- the liberal arts colleges would’ve had a crisis if the endowment tax hit them.

https://www.pomona.edu/ad...ed-college" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.pomona.edu/ad...ed-college
https://www.chronicle.com/article/small-colleges-are-banding-together-against-a-higher-endowment-tax-this-is-why

Unlike LACs, Columbia experienced a double whammy- the endowment tax was hit on them (luckily at a much smaller percentage than originally proposed) and their research funds were hijacked by the administration.
I’m surprised you have this opinion, since the small colleges were all storming capitol hill and paying a ton in representation to get congressional members to stop the endowment tax on small colleges. It was a real crisis that would’ve crippled these colleges. They wouldn’t have been poor, but they basically all would’ve had to massively restructure their budget.
https://williamsrecord.com/470109/news/college-spared-from-endowment-tax-increase/

Clearly you don’t get the point. Columbia and JHU were vulnerable because they have poor endowments.
SLACs played the lobbying game. Surprised you don’t know the real reason SLACs were not taxed. One word: Hillsdale.

wtf are you talking about? jhu’s endowment is 13 billion. How is that poor?

Make this your homework assignment.

how about you become better at math. the fact that you didnt know grad students are funded by research and masters students are cash cows goes to show how bad your endowment per student metric is. slacs are trash relative to ivies and always will be

Why are you so obsessed with putting other schools down? What pleasure does it give you in life? Is there nothing else you could spend your time doing?

time spent preventing kids from making bad slac decisions is worthwhile. luckily most of them are already smart enough to realize this hence the piss poor yield at williams and amherst among other slacs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I guess. But with such extraordinarily selective schools, who really cares?

Williams and Amherst, and many other SLACS, are fantastic schools but they would rank lower than any of the Ivies in a head to head competition due to the lack of comparable science and engineering resources. They aren't really comparable which is why they are separately ranked.

Totally agree. Williams and Amherst can't compare with the ivy league because virtually all of them are much larger research institutions. The academic resources of Princeton/Harvard/Cornell/Penn are light years ahead of Williams and Amherst.

And most of it has nothing to do with undergraduate study.

I'd say having access to massive research institutes and facilities is pretty helpful in undergrad. DS does research at the school of Medicine and hasn't a day taken a course in the med school. Some people just use their resources better than others.

Do R1 research universities have higher medical school acceptance rates than SLACs or higher percentages of students getting advanced degrees in STEM? NO.

Agree.

If you go outside the very very narrow range of HYS or WASP. The second tier lacs (T5-T10) have much much better results than the second tier R1 research Us (Chicago WashU Emory Duke). JHU is an exception in R1 Us, but you know JHU. Your DC has to work 10x harder there.

Medical acceptance rate is one thing. The more problematic issue is the weedout rate, which is invisible.
At liberal arts colleges the weedout rate is extremely low. Same for HYS.

Once you go down to the second tier R1 research Us, the weedout rate is much higher. Half of the incoming class at WashU want to pursue premed. By sophomore, half of the premed kids are weeded out by Orgo.

In contrast, weed out rates at the second tier LACs like Wellesley, Haverford, Bowdoin, Barnard are much lower (near zero).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I guess. But with such extraordinarily selective schools, who really cares?

Williams and Amherst, and many other SLACS, are fantastic schools but they would rank lower than any of the Ivies in a head to head competition due to the lack of comparable science and engineering resources. They aren't really comparable which is why they are separately ranked.

Totally agree. Williams and Amherst can't compare with the ivy league because virtually all of them are much larger research institutions. The academic resources of Princeton/Harvard/Cornell/Penn are light years ahead of Williams and Amherst.

And most of it has nothing to do with undergraduate study.

I'd say having access to massive research institutes and facilities is pretty helpful in undergrad. DS does research at the school of Medicine and hasn't a day taken a course in the med school. Some people just use their resources better than others.

Do R1 research universities have higher medical school acceptance rates than SLACs or higher percentages of students getting advanced degrees in STEM? NO.

Agree.

If you go outside the very very narrow range of HYS or WASP. The second tier lacs (T5-T10) have much much better results than the second tier R1 research Us (Chicago WashU Emory Duke). JHU is an exception in R1 Us, but you know JHU. Your DC has to work 10x harder there.

Medical acceptance rate is one thing. The more problematic issue is the weedout rate, which is invisible.
At liberal arts colleges the weedout rate is extremely low. Same for HYS.

Once you go down to the second tier R1 research Us, the weedout rate is much higher. Half of the incoming class at WashU want to pursue premed. By sophomore, half of the premed kids are weeded out by Orgo.

In contrast, weed out rates at the second tier LACs like Wellesley, Haverford, Bowdoin, Barnard are much lower (near zero).

On top of these, then you have the culture issue.

At R1 Us with huge premed population, the culture tends to be toxic, competitive.
At lacs it's more collaborative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I guess. But with such extraordinarily selective schools, who really cares?

Williams and Amherst, and many other SLACS, are fantastic schools but they would rank lower than any of the Ivies in a head to head competition due to the lack of comparable science and engineering resources. They aren't really comparable which is why they are separately ranked.

Totally agree. Williams and Amherst can't compare with the ivy league because virtually all of them are much larger research institutions. The academic resources of Princeton/Harvard/Cornell/Penn are light years ahead of Williams and Amherst.

And most of it has nothing to do with undergraduate study.

I'd say having access to massive research institutes and facilities is pretty helpful in undergrad. DS does research at the school of Medicine and hasn't a day taken a course in the med school. Some people just use their resources better than others.

Do R1 research universities have higher medical school acceptance rates than SLACs or higher percentages of students getting advanced degrees in STEM? NO.

Agree.

If you go outside the very very narrow range of HYS or WASP. The second tier lacs (T5-T10) have much much better results than the second tier R1 research Us (Chicago WashU Emory Duke). JHU is an exception in R1 Us, but you know JHU. Your DC has to work 10x harder there.

Medical acceptance rate is one thing. The more problematic issue is the weedout rate, which is invisible.
At liberal arts colleges the weedout rate is extremely low. Same for HYS.

Once you go down to the second tier R1 research Us, the weedout rate is much higher. Half of the incoming class at WashU want to pursue premed. By sophomore, half of the premed kids are weeded out by Orgo.

In contrast, weed out rates at the second tier LACs like Wellesley, Haverford, Bowdoin, Barnard are much lower (near zero).

Confident assertions with no source.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I guess. But with such extraordinarily selective schools, who really cares?

Williams and Amherst, and many other SLACS, are fantastic schools but they would rank lower than any of the Ivies in a head to head competition due to the lack of comparable science and engineering resources. They aren't really comparable which is why they are separately ranked.

Totally agree. Williams and Amherst can't compare with the ivy league because virtually all of them are much larger research institutions. The academic resources of Princeton/Harvard/Cornell/Penn are light years ahead of Williams and Amherst.

And most of it has nothing to do with undergraduate study.

I'd say having access to massive research institutes and facilities is pretty helpful in undergrad. DS does research at the school of Medicine and hasn't a day taken a course in the med school. Some people just use their resources better than others.

Do R1 research universities have higher medical school acceptance rates than SLACs or higher percentages of students getting advanced degrees in STEM? NO.

Agree.

If you go outside the very very narrow range of HYS or WASP. The second tier lacs (T5-T10) have much much better results than the second tier R1 research Us (Chicago WashU Emory Duke). JHU is an exception in R1 Us, but you know JHU. Your DC has to work 10x harder there.

Medical acceptance rate is one thing. The more problematic issue is the weedout rate, which is invisible.
At liberal arts colleges the weedout rate is extremely low. Same for HYS.

Once you go down to the second tier R1 research Us, the weedout rate is much higher. Half of the incoming class at WashU want to pursue premed. By sophomore, half of the premed kids are weeded out by Orgo.

In contrast, weed out rates at the second tier LACs like Wellesley, Haverford, Bowdoin, Barnard are much lower (near zero).

Confident assertions with no source.

that’s classic dunning kruger for you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I guess. But with such extraordinarily selective schools, who really cares?

Williams and Amherst, and many other SLACS, are fantastic schools but they would rank lower than any of the Ivies in a head to head competition due to the lack of comparable science and engineering resources. They aren't really comparable which is why they are separately ranked.

Totally agree. Williams and Amherst can't compare with the ivy league because virtually all of them are much larger research institutions. The academic resources of Princeton/Harvard/Cornell/Penn are light years ahead of Williams and Amherst.

And most of it has nothing to do with undergraduate study.

I'd say having access to massive research institutes and facilities is pretty helpful in undergrad. DS does research at the school of Medicine and hasn't a day taken a course in the med school. Some people just use their resources better than others.

Do R1 research universities have higher medical school acceptance rates than SLACs or higher percentages of students getting advanced degrees in STEM? NO.

Agree.

If you go outside the very very narrow range of HYS or WASP. The second tier lacs (T5-T10) have much much better results than the second tier R1 research Us (Chicago WashU Emory Duke). JHU is an exception in R1 Us, but you know JHU. Your DC has to work 10x harder there.

Medical acceptance rate is one thing. The more problematic issue is the weedout rate, which is invisible.
At liberal arts colleges the weedout rate is extremely low. Same for HYS.

Once you go down to the second tier R1 research Us, the weedout rate is much higher. Half of the incoming class at WashU want to pursue premed. By sophomore, half of the premed kids are weeded out by Orgo.

In contrast, weed out rates at the second tier LACs like Wellesley, Haverford, Bowdoin, Barnard are much lower (near zero).

On top of these, then you have the culture issue.

At R1 Us with huge premed population, the culture tends to be toxic, competitive.
At lacs it's more collaborative.

Premed should be viewed as an investment, a huge one.
Risk management comes in play when you are investing a large amount of capital.

What are they going to do at a R1 U when they are weeded out? With a biology degree (most premed weedouts), you will be thinking research, perhaps a Ph.D down the road. That's a rather poor investment for your 99K per year tuition. That should be done in your in-state flagship then goes on to MIT for Ph.D., not at a private college.

Prestige matters very very little for premed. Sure no one heard about "Haverford" and every one knows Harvard. It doesn't matter once you have the M.D.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I guess. But with such extraordinarily selective schools, who really cares?

Williams and Amherst, and many other SLACS, are fantastic schools but they would rank lower than any of the Ivies in a head to head competition due to the lack of comparable science and engineering resources. They aren't really comparable which is why they are separately ranked.

Totally agree. Williams and Amherst can't compare with the ivy league because virtually all of them are much larger research institutions. The academic resources of Princeton/Harvard/Cornell/Penn are light years ahead of Williams and Amherst.

And most of it has nothing to do with undergraduate study.

I'd say having access to massive research institutes and facilities is pretty helpful in undergrad. DS does research at the school of Medicine and hasn't a day taken a course in the med school. Some people just use their resources better than others.

Do R1 research universities have higher medical school acceptance rates than SLACs or higher percentages of students getting advanced degrees in STEM? NO.

A few things to this response.
My kid has no interest in medical school. It just happens to be extremely useful resource for him to explore his research interests. Medical schools provide a lot of interested computational, biophysical, and statistical research projects that an LAC wouldn't be able to replicate.

Now to your second question, per capita, it depends on the cohort of students. Students with higher incoming stats are going to be more likely to end up getting into medical school. Only 1 Lac is in the top 10 for feeding students into medical school per capita and it's Amherst. 1/2 the Ivy League is in the top 10. Comparing school acceptance rates is meaningless when some schools really gatekeep and delay students from applying to medical school to keep their high acceptance rate publicity. I'd say the data is pretty clear that if you have to choose between Harvard or Yale versus Williams or Amherst for medical school, the former is the wiser decision if it's a true tossup. I especially wouldn't underrate going to a college in Boston, the hub for biotech and medical research in the country.

+1, our kid got their current gig, because they went to Harvard and had access to a lot of biotech research that lead to an internship at Moderna and a full time position. They originally wanted to go to med school, but they realized how much they would enjoy their career in biotech and now make a healthy sum. I wouldn't knock on an LACs ability to get a kid into med school, but I think having more options than graduate training is underrated by this forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I guess. But with such extraordinarily selective schools, who really cares?

Williams and Amherst, and many other SLACS, are fantastic schools but they would rank lower than any of the Ivies in a head to head competition due to the lack of comparable science and engineering resources. They aren't really comparable which is why they are separately ranked.

Totally agree. Williams and Amherst can't compare with the ivy league because virtually all of them are much larger research institutions. The academic resources of Princeton/Harvard/Cornell/Penn are light years ahead of Williams and Amherst.

And most of it has nothing to do with undergraduate study.

I'd say having access to massive research institutes and facilities is pretty helpful in undergrad. DS does research at the school of Medicine and hasn't a day taken a course in the med school. Some people just use their resources better than others.

Do R1 research universities have higher medical school acceptance rates than SLACs or higher percentages of students getting advanced degrees in STEM? NO.

Agree.

If you go outside the very very narrow range of HYS or WASP. The second tier lacs (T5-T10) have much much better results than the second tier R1 research Us (Chicago WashU Emory Duke). JHU is an exception in R1 Us, but you know JHU. Your DC has to work 10x harder there.

Medical acceptance rate is one thing. The more problematic issue is the weedout rate, which is invisible.
At liberal arts colleges the weedout rate is extremely low. Same for HYS.

Once you go down to the second tier R1 research Us, the weedout rate is much higher. Half of the incoming class at WashU want to pursue premed. By sophomore, half of the premed kids are weeded out by Orgo.

In contrast, weed out rates at the second tier LACs like Wellesley, Haverford, Bowdoin, Barnard are much lower (near zero).

On top of these, then you have the culture issue.

At R1 Us with huge premed population, the culture tends to be toxic, competitive.
At lacs it's more collaborative.

Premed should be viewed as an investment, a huge one.
Risk management comes in play when you are investing a large amount of capital.

What are they going to do at a R1 U when they are weeded out? With a biology degree (most premed weedouts), you will be thinking research, perhaps a Ph.D down the road. That's a rather poor investment for your 99K per year tuition. That should be done in your in-state flagship then goes on to MIT for Ph.D., not at a private college.

Prestige matters very very little for premed. Sure no one heard about "Haverford" and every one knows Harvard. It doesn't matter once you have the M.D.

As I just posted, the world doesn't end for biology grads at the top colleges. There's more to the world than graduate training.

[Anonymous]

LAC grads go to worse grad schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I guess. But with such extraordinarily selective schools, who really cares?

Williams and Amherst, and many other SLACS, are fantastic schools but they would rank lower than any of the Ivies in a head to head competition due to the lack of comparable science and engineering resources. They aren't really comparable which is why they are separately ranked.

Totally agree. Williams and Amherst can't compare with the ivy league because virtually all of them are much larger research institutions. The academic resources of Princeton/Harvard/Cornell/Penn are light years ahead of Williams and Amherst.

And most of it has nothing to do with undergraduate study.

I'd say having access to massive research institutes and facilities is pretty helpful in undergrad. DS does research at the school of Medicine and hasn't a day taken a course in the med school. Some people just use their resources better than others.

Do R1 research universities have higher medical school acceptance rates than SLACs or higher percentages of students getting advanced degrees in STEM? NO.

Agree.

If you go outside the very very narrow range of HYS or WASP. The second tier lacs (T5-T10) have much much better results than the second tier R1 research Us (Chicago WashU Emory Duke). JHU is an exception in R1 Us, but you know JHU. Your DC has to work 10x harder there.

Medical acceptance rate is one thing. The more problematic issue is the weedout rate, which is invisible.
At liberal arts colleges the weedout rate is extremely low. Same for HYS.

Once you go down to the second tier R1 research Us, the weedout rate is much higher. Half of the incoming class at WashU want to pursue premed. By sophomore, half of the premed kids are weeded out by Orgo.

In contrast, weed out rates at the second tier LACs like Wellesley, Haverford, Bowdoin, Barnard are much lower (near zero).

On top of these, then you have the culture issue.

At R1 Us with huge premed population, the culture tends to be toxic, competitive.
At lacs it's more collaborative.

Premed should be viewed as an investment, a huge one.
Risk management comes in play when you are investing a large amount of capital.

What are they going to do at a R1 U when they are weeded out? With a biology degree (most premed weedouts), you will be thinking research, perhaps a Ph.D down the road. That's a rather poor investment for your 99K per year tuition. That should be done in your in-state flagship then goes on to MIT for Ph.D., not at a private college.

Prestige matters very very little for premed. Sure no one heard about "Haverford" and every one knows Harvard. It doesn't matter once you have the M.D.

As I just posted, the world doesn't end for biology grads at the top colleges. There's more to the world than graduate training.

If you are CA resident in-state, UCB has comparable graduate training opportunities should your DC be interested in research. A large number of nobel laureates there, a national lab nearby.

Harvard is at the very top, good for everything. No dispute, go there if you can get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LAC grads go to worse grad schools.

Simply not true, but thank you for the weak effort.

[Anonymous]

please - the former CEO of Eli Lilly attended Williams and the former CEO of Amgen attended Bowdoin. SLACs punch well above their weight with biotech outcomes