<p>I am interested in studying and conducting research in the biological sciences, and be on a pre-med track. Which school, Stanford or Haverford, do you feel is strongest in Biology and will offer me the best preparation and chances for getting accepted to medical school?</p>
<p>Good options. Haverford has a 90% plus acceptance rate to medical school, but I would still select Stanford because it has a med school and grade inflation.</p>
<p>Doubt there’ll be any real difference in probability of med school acceptance.</p>
<p>But research opportunities at a high level can’t compare at Haverford - despite the high academic quality of the school, even by LAC standards this is a very small place, 1,198 kids.</p>
<p>And if you decide against med school, it’s hard to argue with the doors a Stanford degree can open.</p>
<p>It’s Stanford…
If those are the two schools you are torn between, no matter WHAT your major is, Stanford is a safe choice.</p>
<p>Thanks for the feedback - which school do you think would have harsher grading/grading curves? I heard Haverford’s Bio Dept grades pretty generously with an average GPA of ~3.5</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not my field, but biology at Haverford has some pretty extraordinary research opportunities. Don’t be taken in by uninformed assumptions that a limited number of students necessarily means a limited number of opportunities. Sometimes it’s just the opposite: fewer students + many opportunities = more opportunities/student.</p>
<p>[Department</a> of Biology - Student Resources - Haverford College](<a href=“http://www.haverford.edu/biology/resources/student.php]Department”>http://www.haverford.edu/biology/resources/student.php)</p>
<p>bclintonk, this is Stanford we’re talking about. It has the best biology program in the world and is probably the 2nd most prestigious school in the country. Unless one is only comfortable in a LAC environment and can’t stand a few large intro science classes, there’s a clear choice here.</p>
<p>If you haven’t already, definitely poke around the [biology</a> site](<a href=“http://biology.stanford.edu/]biology”>http://biology.stanford.edu/) at Stanford, as there’s a lot of great info there. Stanford also perennially comes in the top 5 for biology, usually #1.</p>
<p>Remember that a large portion of the premeds at Stanford choose to major in [url=<a href=“https://humbio.stanford.edu/]human”>https://humbio.stanford.edu/]human</a> biology<a href=“humbio”>/url</a>, which is an interdisciplinary program (and the most popular major on campus), and it has a strong track record in med school admissions. My understanding is that humbio is easier on your GPA than the biology major, which is known to be very rigorous.</p>
<p>Net cost of each option?</p>
<p>Remember that medical school is expensive, and biology majors who do not get into medical school do not have the best job and career prospects at the bachelor’s degree level. See <a href=“http://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/cdc/jobs/salary-grads[/url]”>http://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/cdc/jobs/salary-grads</a> .</p>
<p>^ that survey is not statistically significant for any major. Only 12 bio students responded, and the bio major is huge. It also suggests that humbio students make $11k more on average, which makes no sense at all (humbio is a watered-down version of bio).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suspect it is little more than an urban legend than some schools enable med school admission better than others due to grade inflation. If a poster on College Confidential is aware that School X has grade inflation, isn’t it likely that a med school admission committee would also be aware of that and react accordingly?</p>
<p>What’s the evidence? How do we quantify grade inflation and translate an N-point inflation rate into an M-percent likelier chance of med school admission? What schools with apparent grade deflation also have clearly depressed med school admission rates, and how do we know there’s a causal relationship?</p>
<p>
“Top 5” for what? Volume of research publications? Peer assessments of graduate department quality? </p>
<p>[nsf.gov</a> - NCSES Baccalaureate Origins of S&E Doctorate Recipients - US National Science Foundation (NSF)](<a href=“404 Page Not Found | NCSES | NSF”>404 Page Not Found | NCSES | NSF)</p>
<p>According to this NSF study, Swarthmore, Bryn Mawr and Haverford all produced more science & engineering doctorates over the period of study than Stanford did.</p>
<p>Average class sizes:</p>
<p>Stanford
70% <20
17% 20-49
13% > 49</p>
<p>Haverford
77% <20
23% 20-49
< 1% > 49</p>
<p>Source: USNWR</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One would think so. That’s a topic that comes up a lot in debates of Princeton’s ‘grade deflation’ policy. But as often noted in those, employers and grad schools still prefer to see the A’s on a transcript, even if they know about the grade inflation/deflation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For a variety of measures - volume and quality of research, faculty awards, facilities, funding, resources, alumni networking. That’s what the NRC, SJT, QS, THE, etc. attempt to measure. Peer assessments, from the NRC and US News, corroborate that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s false. Stanford produced far more. Now, those LACs produced a higher proportion, but that’s because they’re tiny. It’s not hard to have a higher proportion of such when you have so few students. In larger schools’ case, you could write off their numbers and say, “it’s because they’re so large, of course they produce more.” And that’s true as well. The point is that neither proportions nor raw numbers tell the whole picture. Both are important, and it doesn’t make sense to write off either LACs or larger universities because of that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, when you include introductory seminars in Stanford’s numbers (which are classes administered through the VPUE and not through the registrar, which is the basis of the CDS), Stanford has 75% classes <15, and only 2% are over 120.</p>
<p>To supplement these class stats, look at the # courses that you get to choose from in a given term:</p>
<p>Stanford: 1,568
Haverford: 333</p>
<p>And Stanford’s number is understated. That doesn’t include the thousands of graduate courses that undergrads are free to take and that are overwhelmingly small. It also ignores the fact that because Stanford’s on the quarter system, it has 3 sets of classes each year, while Haverford has 2.</p>
<p>In biology, Haverford has about 50 classes to choose from. Stanford has 218 to choose from in bio alone, not even counting those in related departments (biophysics, human biology, bioengineering, biomechanical engineering, biochemistry, microbio, neuro, not to mention the departments in the med school, which have many classes for undergrads).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right. As I should have stated, Swarthmore, Bryn Mawr and Haverford all produced more science & engineering doctorates per capita over the period of study than Stanford did. </p>
<p>LACs as a class perform very well in per capita PhD production ([COLLEGE</a> PHD PRODUCTIVITY](<a href=“http://www.reed.edu/ir/phd.html]COLLEGE”>Doctoral Degree Productivity - Institutional Research - Reed College)) Is that because they are “tiny”, per se? Or is it because they tend to have smaller classes and a stronger undergraduate focus? Or, are self-selection factors at work? Is it the case that engineering and other pre-professional programs at comprehensive universities depress their per capita PhD rates? I don’t think any of us know for sure how these factors interplay. But I think the PhD production rates do at least suggest that selective LACs are not holding students back from ultimate success in science research, and that Stanford’s presumed far greater research opportunities aren’t necessarily translating to clearly stronger undergraduate research outcomes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most of those measures and rankings are most relevant to graduate programs and scholarly production. It’s an open question how strongly research volume & quality, NRC graduate department rankings, etc., translate to undergraduate academic program quality or student outcomes. I don’t know exactly what “alumni networking” is, how it’s measured, or what the supposed pay-off is to a future medical doctor or life science researcher. </p>
<p>Look, I don’t think there is any question Stanford is an excellent university and would be a great choice if what you want is a major research university. On the other hand, if a small LAC is a better fit, then IMHO none of the above arguments about research production, etc., should necessarily deter you from that choice.</p>
<p>Biology at Haverford is taught somewhat in conjunction with Bryn Mawr. Haverford focuses on the molecular side of things, and Bryn Mawr offers a more well-rounded program. Nearby Penn, of course, is strong in most areas of biology. The three colleges, along with Swarthmore, form a consortium.</p>
<p>Biology is something that most top colleges do well. A university offers more courses, but they are often quite a bit larger; research opportunities are similarly more plentiful, but the degree to which undergraduates take advantage of them varies. A LAC offers fewer courses and research opportunities but smaller courses and more undergraduate focus.</p>
<p>Either school would prepare you perfectly well for medical school.</p>
<p>Consider other factors - the sex ratio, for instance. Haverford and Bryn Mawr have a male population hopelessly outnumbered by a female one, which could be good for a guy and less so for a female. </p>
<p>The academic system is more different than you’d think. Quarter systems often lead to rushed or abbreviated courses, and having midterms and assignments and a final packed in such a short span of time can be stressful. On the other hand, you get to take more courses. Semester systems lead to longer courses that go more in depth, but you take fewer of them. For courses that are generally taught over the course of a year regardless (e.g. the introductory level of a language), the difference between the two systems is negligible. </p>
<p>Haverford has a beautiful suburban campus with schist/slate buildings and leafy trees, a duck pond, etc. (in other words, a very traditional east coast campus). Stanford has a carefully manicured campus primarily in the Mission style but also with a variety of other buildings. </p>
<p>Haverford has a focus on its honor code, which lends itself to things like self-proctored exams, the absence of RAs, etc. Stanford, on the other hand, has D1 sports teams that set it apart from Haverford.</p>
<p>Location varies - Haverford is outside Philly, a city some would consider less nice than SF but better on a student’s budget; NYC and DC are a reasonable train ride away. Stanford is outside SF and has access to the ocean, mountains, and a wide range of natural areas. SF is more inconvenient to get to than some realize, however; at least, that was my opinion. The weather at Stanford is obviously nicer year-round, and those sick of dealing with ice or humidity will find it lovely; conversely, many people from California and other warm places find the northeastern change of seasons very appealing.</p>
<p>If you like Haverford’s LAC atmosphere, take a look at Structured Liberal Education (SLE) at Stanford. You get the LAC ‘community feel’ in freshman year, but with Stanford campus’s depth and breadth available to you. D loved it (and was also a STEM major, by the way - this isn’t just for humanities-oriented kids).</p>
<p>If a Bio PhD is the goal, it may help to choose a school that requires a masters-level thesis of all undergrads. You get the benefit of peer influence, you can’t drop it if it’s optional, and it shows grad schools that you already know how to research.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the other hand, other schools’ career surveys show similar trends with respect to the not very good job and career prospects of biology graduates (with much larger numbers of graduates and survey respondents).</p>
<p>So the FA offers came in for both Stanford and Haverford. </p>
<p>Stanford: ~6k left to pay
Haverford: ~15k left to pay</p>
<p>Does this change anything? </p>
<p>SECONDLY, I have a big question about pre-med advising at both schools:
I’ve heard Stanford doesn’t have the best advising, is this true?
Additionally, Dr. Wheeler is a very well known and very well connected pre-med advisor at Haverford, who really knows about the med school admissions “secrets.” </p>
<p>What are your thoughts? Thanks for all the feedback…it has been really helpful!!!</p>