Why is Johns Hopkins not mentioned much here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Johns Hopkins is a national treasure not a local school. It is the premier medical school in the entire country. Not for spoiled kids who need coddling(aka wussies).
The only institutions in the country that are irreplaceable are
Harvard
Yale
Princeton
Hopkins
USNA
Stanford.

2 of the schools are in maryland. These schools fulfill a national purposes and needs.

Um, how about West Point?Wellesley? Columbia? Sooo narrow minded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait, u Chicago is not undergraduate focused?

No -- it's a research institution that's more focused on grad students and faculty. Doesn't mean you can't get a great undergrad education there, but that's not its center of gravity.

But that's true of any top "research" university, such as Harvard or Yale as well. Not sure why you'd distinguish Hopkins or Chicago.

Scale and vibe/ethos. At Harvard, undergrad culture is strong (and well-supported by the administration -- this is the donor pool after all) even in the context of a research university.
Also you definitely encounter some faculty who see the undergrads as future movers and shakers and/or the best and the brightest and who therefore take undergrads seriously.

Chicago and Hopkins are much more academically-focused and smaller-scale. Whereas rival cultures exist and are valued at Harvard, Chicago and Hopkins feel much more focused on academia to the exclusion of many other things that undergrads might value. Don't know from Yale. And Princeton, despite being a major research university, is undergrad-centered. I think many of the "public ivies" work on the same model as Harvard -- they may have both a strong undergrad culture and a strong research culture.

why then is Uchicago discussed more on these boards than JHU?

[Anonymous]

I've spent the last 10 years at Uchicago and then JHU. The big difference I see among the students is that UofC students are more classic intellectual (nerds, if you want to go there) and Hopkins students are much more pre-professional in their orientation (grinds, if you will).

On this board, perhaps there is more Chicago talk because it's less well known locally. I assume that if you live around here and have a high school students who is amazing at math/science then JHU is on the list-even if B'more terrifies you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait, u Chicago is not undergraduate focused?

No. Over the past ten years the university has done much to improve the undergrad experience (e.g., new dorms, better career advising program, better athletics program, etc.), but, the faculty are still primarily focused on grad students.

They've changed the motto to "where fun goes to be grievously wounded."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait, u Chicago is not undergraduate focused?

No. Over the past ten years the university has done much to improve the undergrad experience (e.g., new dorms, better career advising program, better athletics program, etc.), but, the faculty are still primarily focused on grad students.

It is interesting to see the impressions that people get. Having been at Hopkins, Harvard and several other places (either as a student, researcher, faculty or more than 1-day visitor for work) and from a little bit of feedback from colleagues, here is my categorization:

Total ignorance of undergrads:
Caltech
Harvard (to some degree)
UCSB

Much but not total ignorance:
Berkeley
U Chicago
JHU
Yale
University of Washington


Attention paid
MIT
Princeton
Penn

At the center:
Harvey Mudd
Reed / other SLACs

Just my two cents, not at all scientific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait, u Chicago is not undergraduate focused?

No. Over the past ten years the university has done much to improve the undergrad experience (e.g., new dorms, better career advising program, better athletics program, etc.), but, the faculty are still primarily focused on grad students.

They've changed the motto to "where fun goes to be grievously wounded."

lol
but do you mean it?

[Anonymous]

I agree with the nerds vs. grinds distinction.

Re why there's more conversation here about Chicago than Hopkins. My sense is that most people posting on DCUM value institutional prestige without having much sense of/interest in its sources. I think, historically, Chicago has been perceived of as a prestigious school that was relatively easy to get into (as an undergraduate) compared to its academic peers. Hopkins, by contrast, has been pigeon-holed as a pre-med school and non-academics aren't aware of how good some of its humanities departments are.

It's probably also a familiarity breeds contempt scenario. If you live in the area, you probably have a sense of which kids from the local HS go to JHU and/or you have some exposure through CTY. And if that's not the cohort you envision your kid wanting (or if your kid wants to use college as a time to see what it's like to live somewhere else), then it's easy to cross Hopkins off the list. By contrast, Chicago's more of an abstraction (or a question mark -- so people ask).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is interesting to see the impressions that people get. Having been at Hopkins, Harvard and several other places (either as a student, researcher, faculty or more than 1-day visitor for work) and from a little bit of feedback from colleagues, here is my categorization:

Total ignorance of undergrads:
Caltech
Harvard (to some degree)
UCSB

Much but not total ignorance:
Berkeley
U Chicago
JHU
Yale
University of Washington


Attention paid
MIT
Princeton
Penn

At the center:
Harvey Mudd
Reed / other SLACs

Just my two cents, not at all scientific.

I'm guessing from your list that you're in a STEM field. I'm in the humanities but have had similar types of exposure to a bunch of the same schools. FWIW, my experiences/impressions are pretty closely aligned with yours. Harvard might be the exception -- I'd move it to "much but not total ignorance" and suspect that the difference in our perceptions is field-related.

What prompted your "to some extent" qualifier in that case? Depends on field? individual professor? individual undergrad? (I ask because I think my kid's going to end up a scientist and I wonder whether Harvard's a place where quality/intensity of grad students limits lab/mentorship opportunities available for undergrads.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is interesting to see the impressions that people get. Having been at Hopkins, Harvard and several other places (either as a student, researcher, faculty or more than 1-day visitor for work) and from a little bit of feedback from colleagues, here is my categorization:

Total ignorance of undergrads:
Caltech
Harvard (to some degree)
UCSB

Much but not total ignorance:
Berkeley
U Chicago
JHU
Yale
University of Washington


Attention paid
MIT
Princeton
Penn

At the center:
Harvey Mudd
Reed / other SLACs

Just my two cents, not at all scientific.

I'm guessing from your list that you're in a STEM field. I'm in the humanities but have had similar types of exposure to a bunch of the same schools. FWIW, my experiences/impressions are pretty closely aligned with yours. Harvard might be the exception -- I'd move it to "much but not total ignorance" and suspect that the difference in our perceptions is field-related.

What prompted your "to some extent" qualifier in that case? Depends on field? individual professor? individual undergrad? (I ask because I think my kid's going to end up a scientist and I wonder whether Harvard's a place where quality/intensity of grad students limits lab/mentorship opportunities available for undergrads.)

Yes, STEM field (which probably makes sense given that I listed MIT + Caltech). Anyhow, interesting that humanities for the most part align.

My sense at Harvard is that teaching is not a priority for faculty and I haven't heard ever of any teaching initiatives that originated at Harvard (as opposed to Princeton, for example). Not sure why it's not with Caltech + UCSB except that I think they have enough money that they can sometimes create original programs that many other places can't). It also depends on the major.

Oh, I forgot stanford -- it would be in the "much but not total ignorance section."

With regards to research, you want to look at that different from how much profs care about teaching undergrads in the classroom. When you go to a school you want to ask what percentage of STEM students do research, whether they publish papers and do so in the summer. MIT + Caltech + Hopkins + UW do great with undergrad research. So does Harvey Mudd Princeton has an undergrad thesis program that gets students involved. Harvard, UCSB, Yale and some others I am less sure of. But the thing to be clear on is that the "culture" of the classroom and of research are different. And having good grad students would actually be good for undergrad research -- my grad students are the primary supervisors of the undergrads since I couldn't possibly supervise the 10 or more undergrads currently working in my group with any regularity. I meet with these students once every couple months but the grad students make sure they know what they are doing in the lab.

Also, at some schools doing research in different areas is harder or easier than others. If your kid is interested in medicine, research at MIT or UCSB will be different because there is no med school, than a place where students work at the med school like Penn (whose med school is right on campus). Another question is what to do over the summer. MIT has a fabulous summer research program. Others have nothing and resulting ad hoc approaches if summer research is a goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is interesting to see the impressions that people get. Having been at Hopkins, Harvard and several other places (either as a student, researcher, faculty or more than 1-day visitor for work) and from a little bit of feedback from colleagues, here is my categorization:

Total ignorance of undergrads:
Caltech
Harvard (to some degree)
UCSB

Much but not total ignorance:
Berkeley
U Chicago
JHU
Yale
University of Washington


Attention paid
MIT
Princeton
Penn

At the center:
Harvey Mudd
Reed / other SLACs

Just my two cents, not at all scientific.

I'm guessing from your list that you're in a STEM field. I'm in the humanities but have had similar types of exposure to a bunch of the same schools. FWIW, my experiences/impressions are pretty closely aligned with yours. Harvard might be the exception -- I'd move it to "much but not total ignorance" and suspect that the difference in our perceptions is field-related.

What prompted your "to some extent" qualifier in that case? Depends on field? individual professor? individual undergrad? (I ask because I think my kid's going to end up a scientist and I wonder whether Harvard's a place where quality/intensity of grad students limits lab/mentorship opportunities available for undergrads.)

Yes, STEM field (which probably makes sense given that I listed MIT + Caltech). Anyhow, interesting that humanities for the most part align.

My sense at Harvard is that teaching is not a priority for faculty and I haven't heard ever of any teaching initiatives that originated at Harvard (as opposed to Princeton, for example). Not sure why it's not with Caltech + UCSB except that I think they have enough money that they can sometimes create original programs that many other places can't). It also depends on the major.

Oh, I forgot stanford -- it would be in the "much but not total ignorance section."

With regards to research, you want to look at that different from how much profs care about teaching undergrads in the classroom. When you go to a school you want to ask what percentage of STEM students do research, whether they publish papers and do so in the summer. MIT + Caltech + Hopkins + UW do great with undergrad research. So does Harvey Mudd Princeton has an undergrad thesis program that gets students involved. Harvard, UCSB, Yale and some others I am less sure of. But the thing to be clear on is that the "culture" of the classroom and of research are different. And having good grad students would actually be good for undergrad research -- my grad students are the primary supervisors of the undergrads since I couldn't possibly supervise the 10 or more undergrads currently working in my group with any regularity. I meet with these students once every couple months but the grad students make sure they know what they are doing in the lab.

Also, at some schools doing research in different areas is harder or easier than others. If your kid is interested in medicine, research at MIT or UCSB will be different because there is no med school, than a place where students work at the med school like Penn (whose med school is right on campus). Another question is what to do over the summer. MIT has a fabulous summer research program. Others have nothing and resulting ad hoc approaches if summer research is a goal.

great info from both PPs! If you could were advising a 17 yo who is STEM oriented but not necessarily headed for an academic/research career, which of these undergrads would you recommend for strongest undergraduate teaching?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is interesting to see the impressions that people get. Having been at Hopkins, Harvard and several other places (either as a student, researcher, faculty or more than 1-day visitor for work) and from a little bit of feedback from colleagues, here is my categorization:

Total ignorance of undergrads:
Caltech
Harvard (to some degree)
UCSB

Much but not total ignorance:
Berkeley
U Chicago
JHU
Yale
University of Washington


Attention paid
MIT
Princeton
Penn

At the center:
Harvey Mudd
Reed / other SLACs

Just my two cents, not at all scientific.

I'm guessing from your list that you're in a STEM field. I'm in the humanities but have had similar types of exposure to a bunch of the same schools. FWIW, my experiences/impressions are pretty closely aligned with yours. Harvard might be the exception -- I'd move it to "much but not total ignorance" and suspect that the difference in our perceptions is field-related.

What prompted your "to some extent" qualifier in that case? Depends on field? individual professor? individual undergrad? (I ask because I think my kid's going to end up a scientist and I wonder whether Harvard's a place where quality/intensity of grad students limits lab/mentorship opportunities available for undergrads.)

Yes, STEM field (which probably makes sense given that I listed MIT + Caltech). Anyhow, interesting that humanities for the most part align.

My sense at Harvard is that teaching is not a priority for faculty and I haven't heard ever of any teaching initiatives that originated at Harvard (as opposed to Princeton, for example). Not sure why it's not with Caltech + UCSB except that I think they have enough money that they can sometimes create original programs that many other places can't). It also depends on the major.

Oh, I forgot stanford -- it would be in the "much but not total ignorance section."

With regards to research, you want to look at that different from how much profs care about teaching undergrads in the classroom. When you go to a school you want to ask what percentage of STEM students do research, whether they publish papers and do so in the summer. MIT + Caltech + Hopkins + UW do great with undergrad research. So does Harvey Mudd Princeton has an undergrad thesis program that gets students involved. Harvard, UCSB, Yale and some others I am less sure of. But the thing to be clear on is that the "culture" of the classroom and of research are different. And having good grad students would actually be good for undergrad research -- my grad students are the primary supervisors of the undergrads since I couldn't possibly supervise the 10 or more undergrads currently working in my group with any regularity. I meet with these students once every couple months but the grad students make sure they know what they are doing in the lab.

Also, at some schools doing research in different areas is harder or easier than others. If your kid is interested in medicine, research at MIT or UCSB will be different because there is no med school, than a place where students work at the med school like Penn (whose med school is right on campus). Another question is what to do over the summer. MIT has a fabulous summer research program. Others have nothing and resulting ad hoc approaches if summer research is a goal.

great info from both PPs! If you could were advising a 17 yo who is STEM oriented but not necessarily headed for an academic/research career, which of these undergrads would you recommend for strongest undergraduate teaching?

Same PP again. I know that you think you are paying $50k/year for teaching but you are not. There is a reason that Harvard or MIT are still the top in their fields without being tops at teaching. Students learn by interacting with other students and get jobs by forming a strong network with leaders in the areas they decide to pursue. Good teaching is good but good curriculum and program is also important. As are good fellow students: I learned as much from my peers (doing homework or just talking or doing crazy projects or hearing about their research) in college as I did in class.


All that said, if it is teaching alone, Olin College in Boston is awesome and by far the best for STEM education. Harvey Mudd also is amazing. Princeton is solid enough, although its reputation for teaching is more for the humanities to be honest unless you are a math or physics genius who *is* interested in an academic career. MIT has good teaching in some fields, less in others, but if teaching is a major concern, you shouldn't be looking at a school as big as MIT. Berkeley or UCSB (along with many state schools,) are going to be toward the bottom since classes are big and labs are hard to organize: for teaching, better student: faculty ratio is important. SLACs are going to be stronger at teaching because their faculty go there to teach and get rewarded for good teaching. Universities are going to have their share of brilliant researchers who are not great teachers.

But again, you really want to go beyond teaching when considering a school and look at all the ways a school offers for the student to become the person they would like to be. Teaching is only one dimension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Johns Hopkins is a national treasure not a local school. It is the premier medical school in the entire country. Not for spoiled kids who need coddling(aka wussies).
The only institutions in the country that are irreplaceable are
Harvard
Yale
Princeton
Hopkins
USNA
Stanford.

2 of the schools are in maryland. These schools fulfill a national purposes and needs.

Lol... So true. All the parents dissing the neighborhood change their tune when precious DD gets an undiagnosed or complicated illness. Then they march their butts up to Hopkins at light speed.

+1000

The parents are all for socioeconomic diversity...for everyone but Snowflake.

Yes, I'm sure all those shady neighborhood characters contribute greatly to the Hopkins medical school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With regards to research, you want to look at that different from how much profs care about teaching undergrads in the classroom. When you go to a school you want to ask what percentage of STEM students do research, whether they publish papers and do so in the summer. MIT + Caltech + Hopkins + UW do great with undergrad research. So does Harvey Mudd Princeton has an undergrad thesis program that gets students involved. Harvard, UCSB, Yale and some others I am less sure of. But the thing to be clear on is that the "culture" of the classroom and of research are different. And having good grad students would actually be good for undergrad research -- my grad students are the primary supervisors of the undergrads since I couldn't possibly supervise the 10 or more undergrads currently working in my group with any regularity. I meet with these students once every couple months but the grad students make sure they know what they are doing in the lab.

Also, at some schools doing research in different areas is harder or easier than others. If your kid is interested in medicine, research at MIT or UCSB will be different because there is no med school, than a place where students work at the med school like Penn (whose med school is right on campus). Another question is what to do over the summer. MIT has a fabulous summer research program. Others have nothing and resulting ad hoc approaches if summer research is a goal.

I'm the PP whose question you were answering and this is really helpful. I'd figured out parts of this (importance of access to med school and that JHU/MIT/Harvey Mudd were excellent places to go for undergrad research), but certainly not all of it (grad students as mentors, institutional investments in summer programs). Funny thing is I inadvertently went to a grad-oriented school for undergrad (which is probably why I ended up an academic rather than a lawyer or an MBA) and an undergrad-oriented school for my PhD. While it worked out fine for me, I'm now aware of the issue in a way I wasn't when I did my own applications.

Thanks for taking the time to respond in such detail!

[Anonymous]

Hopkins alum that hasn't written in this thread yet but posted something about hopikins maybe a year ago on here.

essentially student life blows and its not a great city (I like Baltimore btw) and it doesn't get the same recruiting as duke or penn (or even cornell) does for the types of jobs the private school set love as 'first jobs' out of UG: IB, Trading, Strategy Consulting i.e. McKinsey, Bain, BCG.

It does have very good academics across the board.

Carnegie Mellon suffers from this...I've noticed you RARELY if ever see Carnegie mellon threads on this board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Johns Hopkins is a national treasure not a local school. It is the premier medical school in the entire country. Not for spoiled kids who need coddling(aka wussies).
The only institutions in the country that are irreplaceable are
Harvard
Yale
Princeton
Hopkins
USNA
Stanford.

2 of the schools are in maryland. These schools fulfill a national purposes and needs.

Um, how about West Point?Wellesley? Columbia? Sooo narrow minded.

Those are not as good.

MIT belongs as unreplacable.