Penn or Williams for pre-med?

[Anonymous]

There is a greater than 50% chance the kid drops pre-med and does something else. So consider that heavily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The per capita obsession is boring and the only thing people use for LACs. They never can present anything actually unique for the LAC experience. Most classes at top universities these days are small. You aren’t unique for taking a seminar class. There’s nothing interesting out of being able to do research with a professor- if anything, larger universities provide more access to research, because the classes aren’t that large and there’s a lot of research institutes and medical centers to be a part of the action.

I don’t dislike LACs. They’re great for the student who likes them. I just think the benefits are mostly overstated propaganda

They aren’t you just can’t handle the truth.

The truth you present with no facts. Yeah, I’m good on not listening to that propaganda.

Math obviously isn’t a strong suit for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'll never understand how parents here believe that research is hard to get at Research universities. There's this mythos of LACs that is incessant.

I was a grad student at a top R1. R1s are set up for grad students, not undergraduates. I know that you don’t like hearing it but we’re not lying to you. It’s not the same everywhere but in the lab I worked in nobody wanted undergraduates around. They just get in the way of work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll never understand how parents here believe that research is hard to get at Research universities. There's this mythos of LACs that is incessant.

I was a grad student at a top R1. R1s are set up for grad students, not undergraduates. I know that you don’t like hearing it but we’re not lying to you. It’s not the same everywhere but in the lab I worked in nobody wanted undergraduates around. They just get in the way of work.

There’s a pretty big difference between getting research at say Clemson and research at Yale. Most R1s talked about on dcum are not centered around grad students solely and many are easier to get research than LACs. I went to Pomona. My DS at Stanford has access to so much more research than any of the current crop of kids at Pomona. Just because there was a very real era where top R1s didn’t give a crap about undergrads and retention, it doesn’t mean it’s actually still true today. People who perpetuate this lie are I think mostly misleading and lying to posters here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll never understand how parents here believe that research is hard to get at Research universities. There's this mythos of LACs that is incessant.

I was a grad student at a top R1. R1s are set up for grad students, not undergraduates. I know that you don’t like hearing it but we’re not lying to you. It’s not the same everywhere but in the lab I worked in nobody wanted undergraduates around. They just get in the way of work.

I’ll also add there are many lac profs who don’t work with undergrads either. I actually know 2 at Pomona in a department who haven’t published once with undergrads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The per capita obsession is boring and the only thing people use for LACs. They never can present anything actually unique for the LAC experience. Most classes at top universities these days are small. You aren’t unique for taking a seminar class. There’s nothing interesting out of being able to do research with a professor- if anything, larger universities provide more access to research, because the classes aren’t that large and there’s a lot of research institutes and medical centers to be a part of the action.

I don’t dislike LACs. They’re great for the student who likes them. I just think the benefits are mostly overstated propaganda

They aren’t you just can’t handle the truth.

The truth you present with no facts. Yeah, I’m good on not listening to that propaganda.

Math obviously isn’t a strong suit for you.

Still factless, how surprising!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^also Penn is not more prestigious, not at all. They are equivalent in prestige.

Haha this made me laugh. Not at all. Penn is miles ahead of Williams.

At graduating criminals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Penn seems to offer more pre-med research and internship opportunities, stronger science, higher prestige, and more viable plan B into other career options if the pre-med doesn’t work out. On the other hand, this DC’s learning style is more aligned with deep-discussion, close-mentorship style learning at Williams, if what they advertise is the reality.

Both locations excite this DC in different ways. Not an athlete, is not motivated by getting rich (Reddit says both schools have big finance/Wall Street big money culture which is not DC’s thing). Not excited about a hyper competitive campus culture, don’t know if that’s only Wharton/finance kids that are like that on the Penn campus, or if you get some of that on the Williams campus too with so many kids from elite privates and boarding schools. This kid just genuinely loves learning. Cost is not a deciding factor.

"Penn seems to offer more pre-med research and internship opportunities" - What is your basis for this opinion? What exactly is "pre-med" research? From and undergraduate perspective this is very debatable. Being in a large city will provide many options which may or may not help but the competition for spots will also be higher. By this standard Northeastern should be superior to Williams because their kids can and do intern at Brigham Women's but we both know that isn't at all the case.

"stronger science" - again, what is your basis for this opinion, that it is an R1? From and undergraduate perspective this is very debatable with very high academics 100% taught by professors and excellent lab opportunities at top SLACs. It is well known that top SLACs send greater proportions of kids into top Phd programs than R1s including for the sciences.

"higher prestige" - absolutely not true

"more viable plan B into other career options if the pre-med doesn’t work out" - again absolutely not true unless the pivot is engineering.

Overall you have some unfounded biases with nothing to back them up so I would say step back, take a deep breathe and pick the school that best fits your child. Two great choices.

Physician. Penn is the better choice. There is much more research and clinical hours available at Penn. Students can research at Williams but there are many more stem lab spots for undergrads per capita at penn than williams.
The clinical experience is much easier to be able to do at the college in the semester. Penn provides that. The main hospital and CHOP are in university city on penn’s campus. Going into philly is not needed. Not that it is far, but it is a bus ride or a 2 mile walk.
Penn classes are small for the most part. Premed courses anywhere are not “deep discussion” courses but penn certainly has plenty of small discussion based courses on a wide variety of topics.

Are you a physician that attended an R1 or an LAC?

[Anonymous]

I think parents think research is more impactful than it is. It won't tell you if you want to become an MD. It won't lead to other jobs, unless you want to go into research professionally

also, it's pretty easy to get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Penn for sure. No one seriously thinks you have more opportunity at Williams unless they’re a lousy student

obviously there are far more opportunities at UPenn, but it's not about quantity, it's about quality. Williams has more opportunities than anyone attending could possibly utilize within four years, so that Williams offers 700 courses and UPenn offers 2500 isn't particularly meaningful unless you want to do cutting edge graduate level coursework (which most students at either school do not).

Williams, as a school with a 6:1 student to faculty ratio (vs. Penn's 8:1), a distinctive Oxford style tutorial program offering 2:1 student to faculty classes, and an honors program with a known track record of producing more academics per capita than UPenn (12th nationally vs. 90th), offers potentially the strongest quality of undergraduate education you can get in any college in America. 58% of UPenn classes are under 20 students, compared to 75% of Williams classes. Williams professors' top priority is their undergraduates; the academic advising and individualized mentorship is unbeatable. 80-90% of Williams students applying get into med school in a given year, whereas UPenn has historically ranged from 71-83%. In fact, Williams is a stronger feeder than UPenn for students enrolling at top medical schools per capita (though UPenn still ranks top 20 nationally).

Williams does all this while still doing comparably for feeding into Wall Street and top business schools at comparable rates to UPenn, in case you want to make an argument that Wharton has more professionally oriented students.

Let’s cut the fat.

It has a study abroad program in Oxford- doesn’t matter, you can do that from many other schools.

Tutorial is a course you only take once or a few times if you’re in the humanities. The tutorial options in STEM are skim and may not even be relevant for what you want to do. Also, other colleges discovered Independent Study decades ago.

Honors is just a thesis, nothing special.

Most of Penn and Williams courses are small. Penn has more students so there’s more range. It’s actually more impressive such a high percentage of people go to med school from a school as large as Penn- they’re clearly challenging students and getting them opportunities.

What does UPenn have? Multiple massive medical centers- some of the most important ones in their state. Many more research, advising, and shadowing opportunities. More funding for clubs related to healthcare. More talks, more visiting scholars, more everything. If you have any ambition at all, it makes more sense to go to Penn.

Apparently UPenn's advantages in having more access for medical opportunities do not matter if Williams has a comparable medical school acceptance rate and placement to top medical programs on a student adjusted basis. That's the whole point. UPenn is NOT superior to Williams in terms of outcomes, even if their undergrads have direct access to opportunities from a top ranked medical school. Williams students have enough distinctive aspects on their profile to be competitive. That's the argument you somehow fail to get, that it's not about the quantity, it's about the quality.

UPenn boosters think that career preparation is the end all be all. Williams students go to Williams because it is a once in a lifetime opportunity to be on first hand terms with virtually all of your professors, unlike the vast majority of schools. It is an opportunity to explore widely and openly without any judgement, knowing you'll get a top notch education no matter what department you choose. The point is that Williams has a tutorial system for coursework that is easy to participate in and heavily advertised; at least 50% of their grads participate. How many UPenn students even take an independent study? Do they care about building deep relations with their peers and professors, or is it just all for the rat race? Williams students WANT a well-rounded, holistic liberal arts education; many STEM majors there will eagerly take non-STEM humanities simply for the intellectual fulfillment. The average UPenn STEM student sees humanities and social science requirements as an obstacle to be completed with the least resistance as possible.

There is published research on this that despite R1 graduates slightly outperforming baccalaureate colleges in terms of average MCAT score, the latter have higher medical school acceptance rates. And the reason is because the participation on high impact practices (HIPS)- things like study abroad, thesis, research, connections to faculty members- is considerably higher at those undergraduate focused schools. Take that analogy to UPenn vs. Williams and you get a similar account. UPenn students may be slightly stronger on average than Williams students, UPenn's science programs may be more competitive in preparing their grads for the MCAT than those at Williams, yet the level of individual advising and the average participation on HIPS helps their grads stand out.

College Transitions has a ranking of undergraduate schools as feeders to top medical schools (adjusted for undergraduate enrollment) and Williams ranks 14 vs Penn at 20. https://www.collegetransitions.com/dataverse/top-feeders-medical-school/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think parents think research is more impactful than it is. It won't tell you if you want to become an MD. It won't lead to other jobs, unless you want to go into research professionally

also, it's pretty easy to get.

You can do their own faculty-mentored research at an LAC and get a good reference out of it. Most people are thinking research can only be involvement in an externally-funded project. Priority involvement in that typically goes to graduate students.

[Anonymous]

People who claim SLACs are great for getting research opportunities due to their low student-faculty ratio, overlook the fact that professors there are typically *not* leading researchers in their areas. After all, if they are doing anything cutting-edge, why are they not at an R1 pulling in millions of research fundings and churning out papers like a well-oiled machine? I mean, professors at lowly directional schools also do research, but their topics in general aren't worthy of support from NSF/NIH/DOE/DOD. If they submit research proposals to these funding agencies, the proposals would be killed right away. So how are professors at SLACs any different? And why do kids want to do research on topics that aren't significant/timely, under the supervision of professors who aren't well-known/respected in their research communities?

[Anonymous]

Williams. Penn is more competitive and harder to get good GPA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The per capita obsession is boring and the only thing people use for LACs. They never can present anything actually unique for the LAC experience. Most classes at top universities these days are small. You aren’t unique for taking a seminar class. There’s nothing interesting out of being able to do research with a professor- if anything, larger universities provide more access to research, because the classes aren’t that large and there’s a lot of research institutes and medical centers to be a part of the action.

I don’t dislike LACs. They’re great for the student who likes them. I just think the benefits are mostly overstated propaganda

for mathy people, per capita is the only way to get a read on outcomes. saying Penn places more students in med school is not at all meaningful.

in this case, looks they both have strong placement. and sure, williams a little stronger. 15th in the country instead of 20 is possibly splitting hairs

That’s my big issue though. It’s always a split hair situation when per capita is brought up. It’s only used because they want to get some “edge” when comparing an elite university to an elite college. There’s no actual value to it other than making useless points.

Per capita is absolutely the correct way to look at it if you are trying to calculate personal odds, which is what someone interested in evaluating schools for pre-med quality is interested in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who claim SLACs are great for getting research opportunities due to their low student-faculty ratio, overlook the fact that professors there are typically *not* leading researchers in their areas. After all, if they are doing anything cutting-edge, why are they not at an R1 pulling in millions of research fundings and churning out papers like a well-oiled machine? I mean, professors at lowly directional schools also do research, but their topics in general aren't worthy of support from NSF/NIH/DOE/DOD. If they submit research proposals to these funding agencies, the proposals would be killed right away. So how are professors at SLACs any different? And why do kids want to do research on topics that aren't significant/timely, under the supervision of professors who aren't well-known/respected in their research communities?

Because most kids have no idea how research works. They don't even have proper lab skills. They need faculty who can help them start from the ground up to be able to do the hands-on work and to be able to implement, troubleshoot, and assess. They also need to be taught how to critically read scientific literature, which is a huge jump up from a textbook.

The cutting edge professors are too busy to be doing that basic level of teaching. They only take in exceptional undergrads that don't need any foundational work. The LAC professors have to do it as part of their job- they oversee required labs, not TAs (though there may be student assistants present to provide additional guidance). They give detailed feedback on lab reports and papers, and will even allow opportunities for students to design their own experiments, potentially leading to presentations and publications.

If you have an experienced student who is interested in a niche topic, great- send them to a university. If you have a student whose only exposure to science lab and research is the joke they call AP coursework, it does help to have the level of mentorship available at a LAC.