<p>I want to become a stem cell researcher. Which is better choice, to go to competitive undergrad school without famous stem cell research institution or relatively less competitive undergrad school with one of the best stem cell research institutions? An example of the former should be Cornell University, and one of the letter should be University of Wisconsin, Madison. The reason why I listed Cornell is that I thought it has strong biological science department, which unfortunately isn't famous for its stem cell research.</p>
<p>Either of those schools will be a good choice. You will get the kind of undergraduate background you will need to have to set you up for grad school. Look into the extent that undergraduate research of any kind is available to you at each. Do REU’s for any kind of research as an undergrad, doing stem cell or related topics if you can. Apply to grad school to specialize. However, if you were able to get involved a UW that would be pretty nice.</p>
<p>Thanks for your advice. I will try to get involved with research in undergrad as soon as possible. I already checked about REU available for me, but I don’t know well about how much undergrad research in universities of my choice is available for me. I will try to check it, anyway.</p>
<p>Well they both have undergrad research opportunities, but I don’t know how widely available. Look at the website first, and inquire in the individual forums here. </p>
<p>[Institute</a> for Biology Education - Resources for Undergraduates](<a href=“http://biology.wisc.edu/research.htm]Institute”>Types of Undergraduate Research | BioCommons)
[Research</a> - Office of Undergraduate Biology](<a href=“Biological Sciences | CALS”>Biological Sciences | CALS)</p>
<p>At U Wisconsin, undergraduate research is likely to be more readily available to students in the honors college.</p>
<p>You might be looking at the endpoint without looking at establishing a good foundation first. To do stem cell research, you’re undoubtedly talking about getting a Ph.D. To do that, you’ll need to get the strongest possible biology background with access to good quality research, which might not happen at a large institution as an undergrad nearly as easily as you desire.</p>
<p>Look to get the best quality undergrad education you can, even if it’s not in stem cells. A strong cell biology program would be a good start. And take a look at LACs as well as national research universities when you’re deciding which school to go to. A LAC with a strong cell biology program with professors willing to work with undergrads from day one might be your best bet. And the honors program at UW is also a good suggesion, just check and see how much access undergrads get.</p>
<p>^I second looking at LACs with a strong cell bio program and where research is a given.
At large universities, graduate students get first pick (well, are picked first, it’s not really a matter of “choosing” on which project you’ll work, but to which prof you proved you mettle and who will want to have you in their lab). Then, Honors students (often, juniors and seniors but it can be earlier than that depending on the university).
One of the question you’ll want to ask the Dept’s Chair is what percentage students participate in research, present at undergrad conferences, are cited authors on published papers (or number of students / total number of majors - raw numbers mean little, if it’s 40 out of 600 your odds are lower than if it’s 30 out of 38. :p)</p>
<p>Thanks for interesting information. Since I have been always taught that large unis are better than small ones in diversity of their research, I have never considered LACs. I will look for them as hard as possible, noting the mentioned ratio. Choosing universities is such a complicated task!</p>
<p>I have a very different opinion than others. LAC is not what you should look for. LACs have lesser course offerings (esp lab courses), poor core facilities, fewer research opportunities and fewer connections between profs at the major research universities (for grad school). The problem is that even if you find a LAC with a strong cell biology program, it is highly unlikely a small dept at a LAC can offer strong molecular biology, biochem or genomics too. These small septs/colleges just don’t have the number of faculty to support excellence across the board. You should be looking for a university with a decent genomics presence. This is something that every CDB student/researcher will need to use.
Back to the original Q- you are better off getting very well trained in cell bio, molec bio, biochem, genomics than pursuing a specific research area. Here’s another question: how would you feel if you go to that stem cell university and can’t get into a lab there?</p>
<p>Then, I think it’s the best to major biology in UW or some nice school with widely known, big biology department. My choices of university made so far are UCB, UW, UCLA, UCB, U of Toronto, and some British universities with renowned biology department. I cannot go to more competitive university than these, but I think they have the best institutions of molecular/cell biology or genetics in the nation.</p>
<p>Luvthej is very, very wrong about LACs. They can and do produce large numbers of students who go on to PhD programs. I believe the usual CC contingent will come in with the numbers, but on a per capita basis, LACs are some of the top producers of undergrad PhD candidates.</p>
<p>key difference: who gets a PhD versus who actually runs a research group (industry and academia). Always look to the step after the next when making career plans.</p>
<p>Running a research group is so far down the line that it’s practically useless to try to plan for that when we’re talking about someone who is currently in high school. And I’m sure you’ll find exceptions to any rule all over the place, so much so that there is no rule.</p>
<p>Take a look at the chart contained in the following link, it provides the list of baccalaureate origin institute of those who received a PhD is science or engineering on a per capita basis from 1997-2006. The list is dominated by LACs, which is all the more amazing when you consider the fact that LACs enroll such a small portion of the college population.</p>
<p>[nsf.gov</a> - NCSES Baccalaureate Origins of S&E Doctorate Recipients - US National Science Foundation (NSF)](<a href=“http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08311/?govDel=USNSF_178http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08311/?govDel=USNSF_178]nsf.gov”>http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08311/?govDel=USNSF_178http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08311/?govDel=USNSF_178)</p>
<p>If someone has access to more current info or a list of biology related PhDs only, then please post it. Also note that UW is not on the list, although given that it’s a public school, it undoubtedly doesn’t fare well in per capita comparisons - checking it’s absolute numbers, it’s ranked #8. I think per capita numbers are probably more useful for an individual situation.</p>
<p>Here’s a little more info on the origin of life sciences PhDs, which is what the OP is interested in. Top schools on a per capita basis are:</p>
<ol>
<li>CalTech</li>
<li>Reed</li>
<li>Swarthmore</li>
<li>Harvey Mudd</li>
<li>U. Chicago</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Kalamazoo</li>
<li>Carleton</li>
<li>Haverford</li>
<li>Grinnell</li>
</ol>
<p>More useful would be number of PhDs relative to students in that major at the undergraduate school.</p>
<p>There are plenty of confounding factors in the data shown in Table 2 of the linked paper. For example, it is no surprise that the number of S&E PhDs per 100 bachelor’s degrees 9 years earlier is topped by Caltech, Harvey Mudd, and MIT, with 99%, 96%, and 80% of bachelor’s degrees in S&E.</p>
<p>It is also not surprising that the highest ranked public school by this measure is New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (86% of bachelor’s degrees in S&E).</p>
<p>Yes, that is an admitted bias that has cropped up in other threads. Has anyone found a way to correct for that yet?</p>
<p>Found this paper, which is long, but worth reading for anyone contemplating going to a LAC to start a science career.</p>
<p>[Science</a> at Liberal Arts Colleges: A Better Education?](<a href=“http://www.thecollegesolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/cech_article2.pdf]Science”>http://www.thecollegesolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/cech_article2.pdf)</p>
<p>Pulled from this page, which is also interesting:</p>
<p>[The</a> Colleges Where PhD’s Get Their Start | The College Solution](<a href=“http://www.thecollegesolution.com/the-colleges-where-phds-get-their-start/]The”>The Colleges Where PhD's Get Their Start)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It may be laborious, but you can use each school’s common data set, section J, to estimate the number of students in each group of majors (biological sciences, physics sciences, math and statistics, engineering, and computer science) at the school in order to recalculate an estimate of PhD production based on the in-major population at the undergraduate school. However, that has limitations in terms of specific majors within the major groups (e.g. marine biology, geophysics, or materials engineering).</p>
<p>In any case, a student with focused interests (like the OP) should look carefully at any school to determine whether the school has suitable offerings for his/her focused interests. Yes, many students do change major or focus within a major, so it is a good idea to also consider the offerings in other subjects that the student may change into.</p>
<p>
This is extremely dependent on the university versus the LAC. At an AAU school (ex: Cornell and Wisconsin), it’s very easy for students to get involved in research starting from their freshman year. At a large school with a limited research budget, your statement is somewhat more accurate. There are some LACs that are great for starting research as a freshman. Just look at Pomona or Carleton. There are other LACs that are not great for doing any type of research. But just going off your statement that large schools will be worse for research than smaller LACs could lead one to conclude that freshmen at schools like Columbia and UCLA have no opportunities to work with professors, something that could not be further from the truth.</p>
<p>Being admitted to a top graduate program is a scaled down version of a holistic process. The two major criteria are grades/GREs and research experience. If you speak of elite LACs, the grads will do well getting into excellent graduate programs because of their high test scores (remember GREs are a modified version of SATs, which played a role in the students being admitted into the elite schools) and a bump for the competiveness of the classes. The reduced exposure to top research and course offerings at elite LACs is off set by their high test scores. We consider these factors when evaluating applicants for our own grad program (a molecular biology program). We overlook the poorer research environment because of their high admission stats. However, recall that the OP implied he/she does not have those type of stats. If he/she did, Yale, Penn, Harvard, which are real stem cell/cell bio powerhouses, would have been on the list.
Now, I happen to know of a few labs a small LACs that are doing some good research, but even in these cases, they are limited in the systems and techniques they can use. </p>
<p>A pathway for a student to set themselves up for admission into the top programs, and subsequently, to be competitive for both graduate and postdoctoral fellowships is to be an author on a paper. This requires the lab they join to publish regularly (large university). Labs at LACs typically don’t publish that much (1 paper every 3-4 years, if that). Even if students don’t publish, the advantages of being exposed to a competitive research environment cannot be overlooked. In addition to facilities and breadth of research areas, another advantage is that labs at larger universities contain a mixture of personnel- Postdocs, graduate students, undergrads and technicians. There are advantages to this, both in mentoring and networking. </p>
<p>While I understand the dissenting view that planning to run a research lab is a bit far off, I disagree that success can be measured by gaining admission to a PhD program or even obtaining that PhD. If you read the writings/opinions from organizations like ASBMB, they conclude that obtaining a PhD is not a good indicator of success. It’s what happens afterwards. I concede that large universities aren’t for everyone. Being at a large university when it is not a good fit is not good.</p>
<p>Re: [nsf.gov</a> - NCSES Baccalaureate Origins of S&E Doctorate Recipients - US National Science Foundation (NSF)](<a href=“http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08311/?govDel=USNSF_178http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08311/?govDel=USNSF_178]nsf.gov”>http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08311/?govDel=USNSF_178http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08311/?govDel=USNSF_178)</p>
<p>Looks like the stats get murkier because of the way they define S&E (science and engineering):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The inclusion of social and behavioral sciences (psychology, economics, sociology, political science) makes the comparison murkier for someone trying to look for stats based on what most people consider “science”. These are very popular majors at many schools. It appears that the only majors not considered “science and engineering” for this purpose are visual and performing arts, humanities, and non-engineering pre-professional majors.</p>