<p>And boy JHU students must hate it so much that they have a top 10 alumni giving rate, superb 97% freshman retention, and a graduation rate in line with its peers. Oh, and yield in line with its peers too. Surprising given how miserable students must be there according to you.</p>
<p>"^if that were the case, what’s the argument for anyone to attend an elite private research university for undergrad? ALL students distinctly middle class could have gone to a cheaper state school or earned merit scholarships at numerous other private universities for a lower price."</p>
<ol>
<li>Remember, I’m arguing the difference between Colgate and Hopkins. Not Buffalo State College and Hopkins.</li>
<li>My argument is specifically being applied to a discussion of medical school competitiveness. If this were a discussion of optimizing opportunities in IB, consulting, STEM graduate programs, music, education, engineering, etc, etc the discussion would be (should be) very different. In general, these boards tend to attach too deeply and broadly post grad opportunity to US News rankings. While I don’t deny a meaningful correlation, the reality is, of course, much more complex and certainly not linear.</li>
</ol>
<ol>
<li>Really? Because surely middle class students at Hopkins, Duke, Cornell, did not have potentially cheaper quality private or public school options comparable or “better” than Colgate like UMaryland, Rutgers, SUNY, Case Western, Tulane, etc? Your argument makes little sense.</li>
</ol>
<p>The better question is, why are all these adults trolling this board at such an older stage? If you examine my posting history, I’ve taken quite a hiatus only to return when I get a PM from time to time. Do the retirees or older parents on here have no better things to do? Because imparting questionable advice to others or debating pedantic topics like graduate school placement is a waste of time - which has come to my attention ad nauseum after threads like this.</p>
<p>“Really? Because surely middle class students at Hopkins, Duke, Cornell, did not have potentially cheaper quality private or public school options comparable or “better” than Colgate like UMaryland, Rutgers, SUNY, Case Western, Tulane, etc?”</p>
<p>I would argue that what seemed reasonable pre-recession may, in fact, no longer seem so to many of those middle class students or their parents. I have already seen regret play out in many households that paid full/near full freight and now see bank accounts up to $150k the poorer for that decision. </p>
<p>^I will say it’s a calculated risk. You’re hedging that you do well enough to get a high potential job, which usually is the case. But there are definitely some graduates who aren’t as fortunate. Then again, the bottom 25% at Hopkins, Duke, Cornell, etc. are not likely to be top graduates at average state schools either.</p>
<p>Blah2009,</p>
<p>As as engaged alumnus of Colgate I thought I might add something to this thread following your gratuitous remarks about Michael Bloomberg’s generosity towards your university and your doubting views on those post-graduation pay scale surveys which rank Colgate so highly. I thought of suggesting that Mr. Bloomberg himself would not be especially pleased with your views about one of the top LACs of NY state which did, after all, complete 2 years ago the second largest capital campaign among all US LACs at $480 million. Its largest segment was for financial aid and its benefits are being applied to this worthy applicant, among others. </p>
<p>In the meantime you have banged on an on with incredible vigor- ad nauseum in your own words. Yes, this exercise has proven to be exhausting and I am afraid it’s far from done. Maybe the flow relates to your professional life’s habits, unique passions and/or general doggedness. But is tiresome nonetheless with its presumptions, assertions and negativity towards Colgate (and presumably many other top LACs). As you like to say, you did not attend yourself- nor are you faculty engaged there or with Colgate faculty. So what’s with the attitude?</p>
<p>Moving swiftly along, I hope and trust that this thread will encourage the applicant to make a wise choice. She should go to a school where the focus is on the individual and take full advantage of what that type of institution has to offer.</p>
<p>Go 'gate!</p>
<p>Great articulation Mark, even if it’s laden with a tinge of insecurity.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, much to your displeasure, I have no vendetta against the top LACs as is supported by my earlier statement in this thread:</p>
<p>“Colgate is not on the level of Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Hopkins, etc. Williams’s faculty members have gone to Harvard, Yale, etc. for Ph.Ds - so no surprise their graduates place well.”</p>
<p>I’m sure Colgate provides a great education, but we’re arguing graduate school placement here - which cannot be finalized within the vacuum of discourse that is this thread. In the end, the OP can’t go wrong here</p>
<p>here is some <em>potentially</em> apples to apples data for the OP:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.jhu.edu/careers/students/explore/pgsmajors/2005-2009%20major%20break%20out/All%20Majors/Cellular%20&%20Molecular%20Biology%202005-2009.pdf”>http://www.jhu.edu/careers/students/explore/pgsmajors/2005-2009%20major%20break%20out/All%20Majors/Cellular%20&%20Molecular%20Biology%202005-2009.pdf</a></p>
<p>Compare that to here (not that reliable as the data spans numerous class years):</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.colgate.edu/distinctly-colgate/success-after-colgate/success-after-colgate-results?major=ENBI”>http://www.colgate.edu/distinctly-colgate/success-after-colgate/success-after-colgate-results?major=ENBI</a>
<a href=“http://www.colgate.edu/distinctly-colgate/success-after-colgate/success-after-colgate-results?major=BIOL”>http://www.colgate.edu/distinctly-colgate/success-after-colgate/success-after-colgate-results?major=BIOL</a></p>
<p>With this data, we don’t know where applicants applied to, however - or which schools are med schools by the JHU’s applicants. So interpret it as you will.</p>
<p>Some departments are particularly impressive. As one exhibit point, check out JHU’s Mech E Grad school Placement…=)…:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.jhu.edu/careers/students/explore/pgsmajors/Mechanical%20Engineering%202005-2007.pdf”>http://www.jhu.edu/careers/students/explore/pgsmajors/Mechanical%20Engineering%202005-2007.pdf</a></p>
<p>And also this (another bio-related major with more recent data)::</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.jhu.edu/careers/students/explore/pgsmajors/2007-2011/Biophysics%202007-2011.pdf”>http://www.jhu.edu/careers/students/explore/pgsmajors/2007-2011/Biophysics%202007-2011.pdf</a></p>
<p>^^ Here’s another “outcomes” link for Colgate (for biochemistry, not environmental bio):
<a href=“http://www.colgate.edu/distinctly-colgate/success-after-colgate/success-after-colgate-results?major=BIOC”>http://www.colgate.edu/distinctly-colgate/success-after-colgate/success-after-colgate-results?major=BIOC</a>
I see Colgate “placements” to Harvard, Yale, Hopkins, Cornell, Bristol-Myers Squibb. On the Hopkins side, I see (among the rest) placements to Baylor, Arizona State, and the Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine. </p>
<p>Of course, a college does not really “place” its students into graduate programs. College prestige may have some sway over admission committees for some graduate programs … but we don’t really have very good public data to assess those effects. When the impact of college selectivity/prestige on another major outcome, career earnings, has been examined carefully by social science researchers (Dale & Krueger 2002, 2011), it turns out that there really is no clear impact. It appears to be the selection effects of cherry-picking top students that leads to higher average earnings by alumni of elite colleges, not treatment effects of the educational program at those schools. <a href=“http://pragmatic.nationalinterest.in/2009/08/19/selection-effect-or-treatment-effect/”>http://pragmatic.nationalinterest.in/2009/08/19/selection-effect-or-treatment-effect/</a></p>
<p>Does the US News #12 national university exercise significantly stronger academic treatment effects than the #20 LAC with respect to graduate school outcomes? The NSF data on PhD production in the biological sciences does not show a significant difference in the rate of earned doctorates by JHU v. Colgate alumni. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument, however, that more JHU alumni are earning doctorates from “top” programs. To what academic treatment effects could we attribute that pattern? Do you think engagement with distinguished researchers at national universities like JHU makes a significant difference in grad school outcomes? The absence of that does not seem to be holding Oberlin or Reed students back from earning doctorates in high numbers from top programs. Now, maybe the opportunity for that engagement is more important in the biological sciences than it is for other fields, or greater at JHU than at other universities. If you believe that, then look carefully not at PR literature but at the enrollment numbers and instructors for undergraduate biology classes. In the JHU ISIS listings for 2013-14, I see courses with some very large enrollment limits (General Biology with 215 students, Biochem with 470, Genetics with 320, Cell Biology with 320, Human Brain with 300, Developmental Biology with 300, Stem Cells with 140). The named instructors include quite a few (McCarty, Pearlman, Roberson, Shingles, Fisher, Tifft, Horner, Zirkin, Norris, Perry, Wall, Bader, Zeller) who don’t show up on the list of Tenured & Tenure Track Faculty. They may be grad students, young post-docs, or lecturers who aren’t on a tenure track. They may be excellent teachers (or not), but they presumably don’t have more influence with graduate admission committees than a random PhD-holding biology professor at Colgate.</p>
<p>So if Hopkins alumni are earning significantly more doctorates from top biology programs than Colgate alumni - not that the data we’ve seen even shows that - it may be because Hopkins is attracting more talented, highly motivated students in this field, not because those students are working closely in small classes and projects with famous biologists. In that case, a talented, highly motivated student may do just as well to save $50K and choose Colgate. That is exactly the kind of conclusion Krueger & Dale reached about earnings differences.</p>
<p>Virtually all the Colgate biology instructors (other than a couple of supporting staff members) already have doctorates. They earned their doctorates (or did postdoc work) at perfectly reputable universities including: Simon Fraser, Michigan State, Duke, UConn, Indiana, Toronto, Stanford, Georgia (2), Emory, Harvard (4, Holm, Hoopes, Ingram, Watkins), UCSC, UVa, Washington State, Arizona State, Wisconsin, Florida, Clemson. Be aware that undergraduate school prestige is not necessarily a good indicator of specific graduate program quality. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the Colgate course listings I’ve found (<a href=“Course Offerings | Colgate University”>http://www.colgate.edu/academics/courseofferings</a>) don’t show enrollment sizes. According to US News/CDS data, 2.2% of Colgate classes have 50 or more students.
At Williams (which has a higher percentage of classes >= 50 than Colgate), the largest biology/biochemistry class had an average class/section size of 84 students in Spring 2014. At Oberlin (which has approximately the same percentage of classes >= 50 as Colgate), the largest biology course enrollment limit was 46 students in Spring 2014. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In 2013-14, the Colgate Chair taught both the lecture and lab sections of “Molecules, Cells, Genes”, a 200-level course. The Hopkins Chair taught a 500-level “Research Problems” course (permission required and restricted to juniors/seniors only). If you are an exceptional Hopkins student and can get into that course, your interaction with the Chair in “Research Problems” may well be deeper and more meaningful than the Colgate student’s interaction with the Chair in his 200-level course. Otherwise, how likely do you think a random biology major would be to interact meaningfully with the Hopkins Chair compared to the Colgate Chair? This is the kind of question that a campus visit might help address. </p>
<p>Anyhow … welcome to the world of adult decision-making, where the hardest choices very often rest on imperfect information and conflicting advice. </p>
<p>Colgate will give you a great education and preparation for med school. It’s also a very different location and culture than JHU. It’s rural and isolated (and quite beautiful) and it has a significant Greek presence that affects the campus culture. But you need not partake in Greek life and you certainly can come out of there well-positioned for the rest of your life and career.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that, to me, is your over estimation. To teen agers, debt is just an abstract number. Moreover, no one goes into college assuming that they will be in the bottom half of the graduating class, yet 49.9% are guaranteed to be just that. Assuming that any matriculating Frosh will “do well enough” is a fool’s-errand. At best, the OP should assume that s/he will be mid-point, and with debt. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Source (that students at midpoint are successful), please?</p>
<p>what a long winded and frankly misguided ramble tk. Tons of erroneous assumptions per usual. You have not and will not find the smoking gun data to support your claims. Let me break down your arguments one by one again.</p>
<p>“^^ Here’s another “outcomes” link for Colgate (for biochemistry, not environmental bio):
<a href=“http://www.colgate.edu/distinctly-colgate/success-after-colgate/success-after-colgate-results?major=BIOC”>http://www.colgate.edu/distinctly-colgate/success-after-colgate/success-after-colgate-results?major=BIOC</a>
I see Colgate “placements” to Harvard, Yale, Hopkins, Cornell, Bristol-Myers Squibb. On the Hopkins side, I see (among the rest) placements to Baylor, Arizona State, and the Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine.”"</p>
<p>I see Colgate had a RESEARCH ASSOCIATE to Harvard, please tell me that’s a Ph.D. student position at Harvard? That sounds like a lab technician.</p>
<p>Again,Colgate had a ASSISTANT SCIENTIST to BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, how is that a Ph.D. student?</p>
<p>.Colgate had a “Ph.D Associate?!?” to Yale. Is that a Ph.D. student as well or is it a post doc?</p>
<p>At least the JHU placement had MD “CANDIDATE” in the title which we can confirm is a JHU Med student.</p>
<p>JHU’'s placement to Yale and Harvard : <a href=“http://www.jhu.edu/careers/students/explore/pgsmajors/2007-2011/Biophysics%202007-2011.pdf”>http://www.jhu.edu/careers/students/explore/pgsmajors/2007-2011/Biophysics%202007-2011.pdf</a></p>
<p>More than the ENTIRETY of Colgate’s alumni through the past umpteen years in ONE department alone as compared to the link you sent. </p>
<p>“Do you think engagement with distinguished researchers at national universities like JHU makes a significant difference in grad school outcomes? The absence of that does not seem to be holding Oberlin or Reed students back from earning doctorates in high numbers from top programs”</p>
<p>The data you’ve supplied does not support this. The link for Middlebury (an excellent LAC) supports my stance as they have TERRIBLE placement to STEM Ph.D. programs and only good placement to humanities/education fields not as reliant on research. How do we know placements at Reed and Oberlin are not just as bad? </p>
<p>“the JHU ISIS listings for 2013-14, I see courses with some very large enrollment limits (General Biology with 215 students, Biochem with 470, Genetics with 320, Cell Biology with 320, Human Brain with 300, Developmental Biology with 300, Stem Cells with 140). The named instructors include quite a few (McCarty, Pearlman, Roberson, Shingles, Fisher, Tifft, Horner, Zirkin, Norris, Perry, Wall, Bader, Zeller) who don’t show up on the list of Tenured & Tenure Track Faculty. They may be grad students, young post-docs, or lecturers who aren’t on a tenure track. They may be excellent teachers (or not), but they presumably don’t have more influence with graduate admission committees than a random PhD-holding biology professor at Colgate.”</p>
<p>Further misguided ramble and egregious assumptons. See McCarthy here - <a href=“http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Faculty/McCarty/”>http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Faculty/McCarty/</a></p>
<p>Must be a non-tenured professor given he was former a former Dean…hmmmmm.</p>
<p>He obviously had a long and distinguished research career who is well known through the academic community. </p>
<p>You’re really grasping at straws here. Let’s leave the OP to receive advice from those on the admissions committee. He/She can easily drop an e-mail to a JHU professor to get confirmation of this as JHU has a very selective top 5 bio Ph.D. department. Their response is far more tangible than any “insight” you can provide.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just what do you think my “claims” are?
I’ve tried not to overstep the limits of what the evidence supports.
The most sweeping claim presented so far in this discussion was this one:
“Hopkins would far and away be the better choice if she chooses something else like bio grad school”.</p>
<p>So please, let me be clear: I’m not claiming that Colgate is more likely to assure a satisfactory graduate school outcome. I think that would depend largely on the OP’s talents and efforts. The one certainty is that Hopkins will cost $50,000 more. I agree that Hopkins is more prestigious than Colgate, especially in the life sciences. That prestige may bring some tangible benefits (as well as personal satisfaction). However, I am skeptical that it will translate to a typical classroom experience that is $50K better than what Colgate delivers. Look at class sizes. Look at the credentials not of all the faculty but of the instructors who actually teach undergrads. </p>
<p>From a list of 13 undergraduate instructor names I selected from the course listings, none of whom are included in the Tenured & Tenure Track Faculty listings, we now know that one (Professor McCarthy) is in fact a part time emeritus professor. Great! Maybe some of the other 12 should have been included in JHU’s faculty listings:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Faculty/Pearlman/”>http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Faculty/Pearlman/</a> (a Senior Lecturer with a PhD from Wisconsin)
<a href=“http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Faculty/Roberson/Default.html”>http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Faculty/Roberson/Default.html</a> (a Lecturer, apparently without a doctorate)
<a href=“http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Faculty/Shingles”>http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Faculty/Shingles</a> (a Lecturer with a PhD from the University of Guelph; JHU postdoc)
<a href=“http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Faculty/Fisher/”>http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Faculty/Fisher/</a> (a Lecturer with a PhD from UNC)
<a href=“http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Faculty/Tifft/Default.html”>http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Faculty/Tifft/Default.html</a> (a Lecturer, apparently without a doctorate)
<a href=“http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Faculty/Horner/”>http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Faculty/Horner/</a> (a Sr. Lecturer with a PhD from JHU)
<a href=“http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Faculty/Norris/”>http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Faculty/Norris/</a> (a Sr. Lecturer with a PhD from Wisconsin)
<a href=“http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Directory/Listing.aspx?Students”>http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Directory/Listing.aspx?Students</a> (C. Wall, a graduate student teaching Model Systems)
<a href=“http://www.jhu.edu/immbi/faculty/bader.html”>http://www.jhu.edu/immbi/faculty/bader.html</a> (an assistant professor, PhD from Berkeley)
<a href=“The Globe Newsletter | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health”>The Globe Newsletter | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; (K. Zeller, apparently a graduate student in the School of Pub Health, teaching/assisting Build-a-Genome)</p>
<p>I bet most of these instructors are quite good. Hopkins isn’t going to let a complete hack teach undergraduates. However, I wouldn’t assume they are $50K better than the faculty at Colgate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By all means, the OP should ask questions of the unbiased JHU admission committee members. Maybe they can provide a list of where JHU grad students (<a href=“http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Directory/Listing.aspx?Students”>http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Directory/Listing.aspx?Students</a>) got their college degrees. See if there aren’t a few who got them from schools no more selective and prestigious than Colgate.</p>
<p>Some programs post profiles that include this kind of information. For example, the Yale SOM MD-PhD program enrolls about 10 new students each year. In the past 10 years, one has come from Hopkins. Nobody has come from Colgate, but others have come from Davidson, Trinity (Hartford), Brandeis, UMd Baltimore County, Ripon College, Augustana College, Providence College, Barnard, and Macalester. </p>
<p>Unfortunately tk, you assume education ends in the classroom. For Johns Hopkins, a hall mark of their undergraduate education is the research component! - (<a href=“http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Undergrad/Research.aspx”>A Biology Lab in the Palm of Your Hands | Department of Biology | Johns Hopkins University). That’s why you’ll see undergraduate students involved in labs. But of course, you probably assumed that didn’t happen along with your numerous other inaccuracies.</p>
<p>Somehow, the JHU Bio chair has time for undergraduates?!?!:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Faculty/Wendland/Default.html#LabMembers”>http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Faculty/Wendland/Default.html#LabMembers</a></p>
<p>Or how about these other full time professors:
<a href=“http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Faculty/Schildbach/Default.html#LabMembers”>http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Faculty/Schildbach/Default.html#LabMembers</a>
<a href=“http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Faculty/Chen/Default.html#LabMembers”>http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Faculty/Chen/Default.html#LabMembers</a>
<a href=“http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Faculty/Hattar/Default.html#LabMembers”>http://www.bio.jhu.edu/Faculty/Hattar/Default.html#LabMembers</a></p>
<p>Indeed, JHU even offers outreach programs to schools with limited research. (<a href=“http://www.bio.jhu.edu/BioRE”>A Biology Lab in the Palm of Your Hands | Department of Biology | Johns Hopkins University) - I wouldn’t be surprised to find a number of non-research LAC students on that list. This is access to faculty and resources JHU students have available to them at all times.</p>
<p>There’s more! Each bio student at JHU is even paired with a full time faculty member as well ! (<a href=“http://www.advising.jhu.edu/freshman_spring.php”>http://www.advising.jhu.edu/freshman_spring.php</a>) - darn those lecturers getting in the way.</p>
<p>Keep trying though. Hopefully, OP was smart enough to avoid your input and seek better sources.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not at all. Please don’t attribute assumptions to me that I do not hold. Your hectoring tone does not strengthen your arguments. </p>
<p>Hopkins does have a very high level of research spending. Some of that no doubt trickles down to undergraduates. Yes, this is something the OP should consider. </p>
<p>However, if this is a significant benefit that only research universities can provide, and if it has a strong effect on alumni outcomes, I wonder why small liberal arts colleges tend to have such high PhD production rates in so many fields (including life sciences)?
<a href=“Doctoral Degree Productivity - Institutional Research - Reed College”>http://www.reed.edu/ir/phd.html</a>
Note that the highest-performing schools include not only the most selective LACs (like Swarthmore) but also somewhat lower-ranked LACs (Earlham, Wabash). I cannot say that Colgate is among the highest-performing LACs by this metric (it isn’t). This may be in part because Colgate students tend to have a more pre-professional orientation than Carleton or Grinnell students do and are more often choosing professional school or employment after college. That, too, may be something for the OP to consider as a “fit” factor.</p>
<p>“Note that the highest-performing schools include not only the most selective LACs (like Swarthmore) but also somewhat lower-ranked LACs (Earlham, Wabash). I cannot say that Colgate is among the highest-performing LACs by this metric (it isn’t). This may be in part because Colgate students tend to have a more pre-professional orientation than Carleton or Grinnell students do and are more often choosing professional school or employment after college. That, too, may be something for the OP to consider as a “fit” factor.”</p>
<p>Wonderful. More conjecture. The argument at hand is which degree is more beneficial to get into a top graduate school with all else being equal. We’re not discussing Williams or Amherst or Reed or Oberlin vs Hopkins here - which you’ve repeatedly brought into this discussion for no apparent reason. You want me to start randomly interjecting Chicago into this discussion too? Nothing statistical you’ve provided has substantiated the claim that a Colgate diploma is equal - in fact it’s quite the opposite. </p>
<p>Nothing you’ve said or will say is of any merit - it’s a case study in causation versus correlation. </p>
<p>The only people the OP should query are those making the decisions. Not outsiders without any of the following to support their repeated conjectures: a stem Ph.D., stem graduate school admissions or fellowship experience, teaching experiences spanning between Ph.D. and non-research institutions, interdisciplinary research collaborations bridging life sciences and engineering. That’s what I bring to the table. </p>
<p>Please, enlighten us on your background tk, so you can give more credence to your propositions.</p>
<p>Blah2009 is attempting a rhetorical ploy called “poisoning the well”.
<a href=“Poisoning the well - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well</a>
My background is irrelevant. His evidence and mine should speak for itself.
If the only people qualified and entitled to discuss these issues were adcoms and faculty at the target schools, this forum hardly would have a reason to exist. </p>