Pomona v Tufts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tufts is an R1 research institute with a medical school. Pomona is not. For a serious biology student, the opportunities are going be greater at Tufts. The quality of the basic science research simply isn’t the same as slacs.

And yet Pomona is the fourth biggest per capita producer of biology PhDs, whereas Tufts isn't in the top 50. And how many research opportunities at Tufts are going to grad students instead of undergraduates?

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs#biological-sciences

Presumably they get those at R1 universities where they can do the types of research unavailable to them as undergrads. Look at the research coming out of slacs, little of it is hard core basic science, they don’t even have access to the most expensive equipment.

You understand that the background of Pomona faculty skews towards Ivy League or highly prestigious research institutions right? You think those kinds of people are fully content doing "hard core basic science" for a career. You also can't get NIH or NSF grants for basic science, yet Pomona faculty have no issues receiving that funding. Also, don't have access to what most expensive equipment? The college has so much lab instrumentation that I think you haven't even looked into any of what you are talking about.

I work at a major academic center, and have both NIH and private industry lab funding. Do what you want. With respect to my own kids, I would not send one set on biology to a slac. My guess is you are not a Md/phd.

And that's great, but now with the context of your previous comments, I am now going to have to assume that you don't do much of anything, hardly hard core basic science, since those grants are given to anyone-even those as poor as the faculty at Pomona College.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tufts is an R1 research institute with a medical school. Pomona is not. For a serious biology student, the opportunities are going be greater at Tufts. The quality of the basic science research simply isn’t the same as slacs.

And yet Pomona is the fourth biggest per capita producer of biology PhDs, whereas Tufts isn't in the top 50. And how many research opportunities at Tufts are going to grad students instead of undergraduates?

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs#biological-sciences

Presumably they get those at R1 universities where they can do the types of research unavailable to them as undergrads. Look at the research coming out of slacs, little of it is hard core basic science, they don’t even have access to the most expensive equipment.

It's hard to disagree with unembellished qualitative opinion.

Yet, regardless of your concerns about "hard core basic science" research and access to expensive equipment, these concerns haven't stopped Pomona biology grads from immense success in admissions to PhD programs. Nor has it prevented them from having one of the best pre-med programs in the country: https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/from-pre-med-to-md-understanding-the-pathways-to-medical-school/ (In the feeders to "top" med school rankings, Pomona is #5, between Johns Hopkins and Cal Tech. Tufts is #45, between Hamilton and Bard.)

Nor would I be so sure that Pomona lacks access to "the most expensive equipment." Pomona's endowment is $2.8 billion for its 1,750 undergrads. Tufts's endowment is $3 billion for its 13,200 undergrads and 6,400 grad students. This doesn't include Pomona's access to other 5C resources, such as Harvey Mudd.

For the record, Tufts is a great school and offers a great education. I'm simply using it as an example to refute PP's generalized conclusions.

+1, I do wonder their opinion on Harvey Mudd, as an inability to do science would be the opinion of solely them: major research institutes, STEMe employees, and grad school committees have all expressed deep trust that Harvey Mudd is a premier stem Liberal arts college, but they seem allergic to LACs for whatever ideological reasons.

[Anonymous]

IMO they're comparable overall but Pomona is leagues ahead in terms of biology

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tufts is an R1 research institute with a medical school. Pomona is not. For a serious biology student, the opportunities are going be greater at Tufts. The quality of the basic science research simply isn’t the same as slacs.

And yet Pomona is the fourth biggest per capita producer of biology PhDs, whereas Tufts isn't in the top 50. And how many research opportunities at Tufts are going to grad students instead of undergraduates?

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs#biological-sciences

Presumably they get those at R1 universities where they can do the types of research unavailable to them as undergrads. Look at the research coming out of slacs, little of it is hard core basic science, they don’t even have access to the most expensive equipment.

It's hard to disagree with unembellished qualitative opinion.

Yet, regardless of your concerns about "hard core basic science" research and access to expensive equipment, these concerns haven't stopped Pomona biology grads from immense success in admissions to PhD programs. Nor has it prevented them from having one of the best pre-med programs in the country: https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/from-pre-med-to-md-understanding-the-pathways-to-medical-school/ (In the feeders to "top" med school rankings, Pomona is #5, between Johns Hopkins and Cal Tech. Tufts is #45, between Hamilton and Bard.)

Nor would I be so sure that Pomona lacks access to "the most expensive equipment." Pomona's endowment is $2.8 billion for its 1,750 undergrads. Tufts's endowment is $3 billion for its 13,200 undergrads and 6,400 grad students. This doesn't include Pomona's access to other 5C resources, such as Harvey Mudd.

For the record, Tufts is a great school and offers a great education. I'm simply using it as an example to refute PP's generalized conclusions.

+1, I do wonder their opinion on Harvey Mudd, as an inability to do science would be the opinion of solely them: major research institutes, STEMe employees, and grad school committees have all expressed deep trust that Harvey Mudd is a premier stem Liberal arts college, but they seem allergic to LACs for whatever ideological reasons.

But, but, but . . . they are an MD/PhD! Are we even allowed to disagree with such esteemed authorities?

[Anonymous]

I am not going to weigh in on which is better for bio (I am a social scientist!). But Tufts undergrad population is not 13,000. That is ihe total student population combined. They have about an even split of undergrads and grad students. Still much larger than Pomona, but not nearly as large as the PP posted above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not going to weigh in on which is better for bio (I am a social scientist!). But Tufts undergrad population is not 13,000. That is ihe total student population combined. They have about an even split of undergrads and grad students. Still much larger than Pomona, but not nearly as large as the PP posted above.

The student population between the 5cs and Tufts are roughly equal for undergrad

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tufts is an R1 research institute with a medical school. Pomona is not. For a serious biology student, the opportunities are going be greater at Tufts. The quality of the basic science research simply isn’t the same as slacs.

And yet Pomona is the fourth biggest per capita producer of biology PhDs, whereas Tufts isn't in the top 50. And how many research opportunities at Tufts are going to grad students instead of undergraduates?

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs#biological-sciences

Presumably they get those at R1 universities where they can do the types of research unavailable to them as undergrads. Look at the research coming out of slacs, little of it is hard core basic science, they don’t even have access to the most expensive equipment.

It's hard to disagree with unembellished qualitative opinion.

Yet, regardless of your concerns about "hard core basic science" research and access to expensive equipment, these concerns haven't stopped Pomona biology grads from immense success in admissions to PhD programs. Nor has it prevented them from having one of the best pre-med programs in the country: https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/from-pre-med-to-md-understanding-the-pathways-to-medical-school/ (In the feeders to "top" med school rankings, Pomona is #5, between Johns Hopkins and Cal Tech. Tufts is #45, between Hamilton and Bard.)

Nor would I be so sure that Pomona lacks access to "the most expensive equipment." Pomona's endowment is $2.8 billion for its 1,750 undergrads. Tufts's endowment is $3 billion for its 13,200 undergrads and 6,400 grad students. This doesn't include Pomona's access to other 5C resources, such as Harvey Mudd.

For the record, Tufts is a great school and offers a great education. I'm simply using it as an example to refute PP's generalized conclusions.

+1, I do wonder their opinion on Harvey Mudd, as an inability to do science would be the opinion of solely them: major research institutes, STEMe employees, and grad school committees have all expressed deep trust that Harvey Mudd is a premier stem Liberal arts college, but they seem allergic to LACs for whatever ideological reasons.

But, but, but . . . they are an MD/PhD! Are we even allowed to disagree with such esteemed authorities?

You are arguing using a bunch of meaningless stats from a college blog. Would you send your kid to Hampshire college because it has the second highest concentration of undergrad to biology phds? I assume not. I am going by my own experience in the exact field that op said her kid is interested in. She can decide the appropriate weight to give it. There are real differences between R1 institutions and slacs. There is a difference between having an affiliated med school on campus and not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tufts is an R1 research institute with a medical school. Pomona is not. For a serious biology student, the opportunities are going be greater at Tufts. The quality of the basic science research simply isn’t the same as slacs.

And yet Pomona is the fourth biggest per capita producer of biology PhDs, whereas Tufts isn't in the top 50. And how many research opportunities at Tufts are going to grad students instead of undergraduates?

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs#biological-sciences

Presumably they get those at R1 universities where they can do the types of research unavailable to them as undergrads. Look at the research coming out of slacs, little of it is hard core basic science, they don’t even have access to the most expensive equipment.

You understand that the background of Pomona faculty skews towards Ivy League or highly prestigious research institutions right? You think those kinds of people are fully content doing "hard core basic science" for a career. You also can't get NIH or NSF grants for basic science, yet Pomona faculty have no issues receiving that funding. Also, don't have access to what most expensive equipment? The college has so much lab instrumentation that I think you haven't even looked into any of what you are talking about.

I work at a major academic center, and have both NIH and private industry lab funding. Do what you want. With respect to my own kids, I would not send one set on biology to a slac. My guess is you are not a Md/phd.

And that's great, but now with the context of your previous comments, I am now going to have to assume that you don't do much of anything, hardly hard core basic science, since those grants are given to anyone-even those as poor as the faculty at Pomona College.

Am I suppose to find it compelling that you can’t tolerate disagreement with your opinion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not going to weigh in on which is better for bio (I am a social scientist!). But Tufts undergrad population is not 13,000. That is ihe total student population combined. They have about an even split of undergrads and grad students. Still much larger than Pomona, but not nearly as large as the PP posted above.

My bad. It was a quick google search for undergraduate population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tufts is an R1 research institute with a medical school. Pomona is not. For a serious biology student, the opportunities are going be greater at Tufts. The quality of the basic science research simply isn’t the same as slacs.

And yet Pomona is the fourth biggest per capita producer of biology PhDs, whereas Tufts isn't in the top 50. And how many research opportunities at Tufts are going to grad students instead of undergraduates?

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs#biological-sciences

Presumably they get those at R1 universities where they can do the types of research unavailable to them as undergrads. Look at the research coming out of slacs, little of it is hard core basic science, they don’t even have access to the most expensive equipment.

You understand that the background of Pomona faculty skews towards Ivy League or highly prestigious research institutions right? You think those kinds of people are fully content doing "hard core basic science" for a career. You also can't get NIH or NSF grants for basic science, yet Pomona faculty have no issues receiving that funding. Also, don't have access to what most expensive equipment? The college has so much lab instrumentation that I think you haven't even looked into any of what you are talking about.

I work at a major academic center, and have both NIH and private industry lab funding. Do what you want. With respect to my own kids, I would not send one set on biology to a slac. My guess is you are not a Md/phd.

And that's great, but now with the context of your previous comments, I am now going to have to assume that you don't do much of anything, hardly hard core basic science, since those grants are given to anyone-even those as poor as the faculty at Pomona College.

Am I suppose to find it compelling that you can’t tolerate disagreement with your opinion?

Dude I’m just using your argument. It’s kind of concerning the cognitive gymnastics you had to perform to get to that conclusion seeing your own reasoning and intentions in front of you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tufts is an R1 research institute with a medical school. Pomona is not. For a serious biology student, the opportunities are going be greater at Tufts. The quality of the basic science research simply isn’t the same as slacs.

And yet Pomona is the fourth biggest per capita producer of biology PhDs, whereas Tufts isn't in the top 50. And how many research opportunities at Tufts are going to grad students instead of undergraduates?

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs#biological-sciences

Presumably they get those at R1 universities where they can do the types of research unavailable to them as undergrads. Look at the research coming out of slacs, little of it is hard core basic science, they don’t even have access to the most expensive equipment.

You understand that the background of Pomona faculty skews towards Ivy League or highly prestigious research institutions right? You think those kinds of people are fully content doing "hard core basic science" for a career. You also can't get NIH or NSF grants for basic science, yet Pomona faculty have no issues receiving that funding. Also, don't have access to what most expensive equipment? The college has so much lab instrumentation that I think you haven't even looked into any of what you are talking about.

I work at a major academic center, and have both NIH and private industry lab funding. Do what you want. With respect to my own kids, I would not send one set on biology to a slac. My guess is you are not a Md/phd.

And that's great, but now with the context of your previous comments, I am now going to have to assume that you don't do much of anything, hardly hard core basic science, since those grants are given to anyone-even those as poor as the faculty at Pomona College.

Am I suppose to find it compelling that you can’t tolerate disagreement with your opinion?

Dude I’m just using your argument. It’s kind of concerning the cognitive gymnastics you had to perform to get to that conclusion seeing your own reasoning and intentions in front of you.

My argument is my own lived experience so clearly you aren't. And it isn't an "argument" so much as what I would recommend (and have recommended) to my own kid.

[Anonymous]

The advantages of tufts are its size and location. SLACs are great if you find your people relatively quickly but can be isolating if you don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tufts is an R1 research institute with a medical school. Pomona is not. For a serious biology student, the opportunities are going be greater at Tufts. The quality of the basic science research simply isn’t the same as slacs.

And yet Pomona is the fourth biggest per capita producer of biology PhDs, whereas Tufts isn't in the top 50. And how many research opportunities at Tufts are going to grad students instead of undergraduates?

https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-phd-programs#biological-sciences

Presumably they get those at R1 universities where they can do the types of research unavailable to them as undergrads. Look at the research coming out of slacs, little of it is hard core basic science, they don’t even have access to the most expensive equipment.

You understand that the background of Pomona faculty skews towards Ivy League or highly prestigious research institutions right? You think those kinds of people are fully content doing "hard core basic science" for a career. You also can't get NIH or NSF grants for basic science, yet Pomona faculty have no issues receiving that funding. Also, don't have access to what most expensive equipment? The college has so much lab instrumentation that I think you haven't even looked into any of what you are talking about.

I work at a major academic center, and have both NIH and private industry lab funding. Do what you want. With respect to my own kids, I would not send one set on biology to a slac. My guess is you are not a Md/phd.

And that's great, but now with the context of your previous comments, I am now going to have to assume that you don't do much of anything, hardly hard core basic science, since those grants are given to anyone-even those as poor as the faculty at Pomona College.

Am I suppose to find it compelling that you can’t tolerate disagreement with your opinion?

Dude I’m just using your argument. It’s kind of concerning the cognitive gymnastics you had to perform to get to that conclusion seeing your own reasoning and intentions in front of you.

My argument is my own lived experience so clearly you aren't. And it isn't an "argument" so much as what I would recommend (and have recommended) to my own kid.

You are dangerous if you are actually a scientist. Completely unhinged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The advantages of tufts are its size and location. SLACs are great if you find your people relatively quickly but can be isolating if you don’t.

They're the same size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The advantages of tufts are its size and location. SLACs are great if you find your people relatively quickly but can be isolating if you don’t.

They're the same size.

Tufts is 6800, Pomona 1700.