<p>Sparkeye pulls rank? I have a PhD in Neuroscience and am quite familiar with undergraduate programs and research opportunities in the sciences at several institutions of various strength from small liberal arts the whole way up to Ivy level, where I’ve actually taught. There is a difference in the experience you’ll get at some schools vs others. If the experience you alluded to at OSU is that undergraduate participation in research is “kept very minimal”, then I’d seriously take that as an indication that it may not be the best place to gain that experience. I’ve been at several places that encourage undergraduates to come into the labs to gain experiences, and have been both on both sides of that equation as both an undergraduate and a mentor, including a mentor for several pre-med students. Personally, the experience I gained as an undergrad conducting research in two separate labs, one of which was an HIV lab, was invaluable. In the second lab I was also published as a first author in a major journal by the time I graduated. </p>
<p>I don’t want to dwell on everything in your statements that I view as a very flawed understanding of how things work, but do you even know how most of the time an individual lab’s space within a particular facility is allocated and paid for? Grant indirects. Entire facilities are themselves are often funded by the “rent” obtained from the indirects. The number of active grants that a particular PI has often directly correlates to the amount of space he receives from his/her department. If you have 4 post-docs and 3 grad-students in a tiny lab space, which I have seen, you physically may not be able to take an undergrad. The amount of space to conduct research can depend on the school, college, the number of grants a PI has, and even departmental politics. It certainly isn’t fixed. Generally, more money=more space on multiple levels.</p>
<p>That said, the willingness of any one lab to take on an undergrad will typically depend on many things, including funding, space (physical and personnel), and simply the culture or desire to take on and train someone with no experience. But the more labs there are, the more likely a student will find a good fit. As far as Case not have Cleveland Clinic labs obligated to take undergrads, that’s mostly irrelevant, and Case has its own research medical center anyway. Research labs that I am talking about determine on their own whether to take students or not. Most labs are willing to take on students because it is free or cheap labor, if nothing else, and the relationship with that student starts there and grows if they prove to be reliable and do a good job. A lab doesn’t even necessarily need to be part of the same university, but it of course helps especially if you want to pay the student as a work study or some similar discounted student employee program, or if the student wants credit for the work as an independent study course. But heck, it seems more high schoolers than ever are volunteering in labs, and they certainly aren’t affiliated. The overall size and scope of biomedical research at an institution is directly reflected in NIH funding levels, and even though almost all of that money has nothing to do with undergrad research, it does reflect the size, scope and variety of undergrad research and lab training opportunities at a particular institution, unless it is a place like UCSF that doesn’t have an undergrad component. But even at UCSF, neighboring non “affiliated” colleges send students there for research experience.</p>
<p>The real fact of the matter is there are no rankings or surveys out there determining undergrad research opportunities or pre-med experiences for things like this, and while NIH funding lists or med school ranks are admittedly flawed, it is one of the only non-biased raw data comparisons to be had as compared to anonymous anecdotal claims that one is better than another. Honestly, for people reading this, the best advice is to not base any decisions on the words of anonymous message board posters, including my own, go out and explore things for yourself. Bottom line: Case, Pitt, and OSU are all good choices. Go where you’ll be the most comfortable and happiest over the next four years.</p>
She was Ohio State’s Academic Provost prior to the Case departure back in '07 and even she would agree that Ohio State’s undergrad education is solid for pre-professional on par with Case and Pitt. In fact, USNWR rates overall academic reputation (PA Score) of tOSU > Case. This is not to say that Case and Pitt are not great institution for Pre-professional or Pre-med in particular by any stretch or in any way. In fact, I believe they are just as good and better in terms of medical research (UPMC & Cleveland Clinic > OSUMC). But when it comes to Pre-med, I do not notice a difference between the three and as I’ve alluded above that it’s more of a individual preferences than which’d give you a better chance at getting into the med school. </p>