<p>
</p>
<p>Given that the referenced graduates appear to be in near-executive-level jobs, that may mean that they graduated years or decades earlier. CTCL was published in 1996, 2000, and 2006, so we could be looking at graduates from the 1970s or even 1960s; it is entirely possible that Guilford had a much stronger geology department then that has shrunk down to today’s 2 faculty + 1 visiting faculty.</p>
<p>@princess202 I can tell from your humility and eloquence alone that you are a shoo-in for CalTech, Dartmouth, Northwestern, Brown, WashU, and all those other lowly 10-30 ranked colleges.</p>
<p><<<
You used words such as “irrelevant” and “no noticeable benefit.”
<<<</p>
<p>And I stand by that. Can you provide stats that show that students attending undergrads with med schools have an overall greater med school acceptance rate than those who attend peer undergrads that don’t? </p>
<p>Do you think that UCLA grads have a higher med school acceptance rate than those from Cal? Do you think H’s premeds have a higher acceptance rate than P’s? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree, that’s entirely possible. </p>
<p>If earth sciences are your thing, and you are looking for a small college with a relatively high admission rate, look into some of the lower-ranked schools in the Keck Geology Consortium:
Beloit (67% admit rate; claims to cover 88% of demonstrated need)
College of Wooster (58% admit rate; claims to cover 94% of demonstrated need)
Trinity University (64% admit rate; claims to cover 88% of demonstrated need)
Union College (38% admit rate; claims to cover 98% of demonstrated need)</p>
<p>
@mom2collegekids:I think we disagree on your use of the terms “irrelevant” and “no noticeable benefit.” You are now qualifying those terms in the context of “med school acceptance rate” – something you didn’t do before.</p>
<p>You are asking for a quantifiable benefit. I’m sorry that I don’t have one for you – but that doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t exist. I just don’t have the time or inclination to locate/crunch the numbers.</p>
<p>And that being said, who ever said that the only difference people care about is med school acceptance rate (which might not even consider the “quality” of med school where a student is accepted)? How do you put a “number” on mentoring by someone who has successfully walked the career path that an undergrad is considering? How do you quantify the benefit of an undergrad conducting a medically-related summer research project that he/she can pursue during the following school year, next summer, following school year, etc.? Does an undergrad have to attend a college that has an attached med school to get these opportunities? Not necessarily…but it increases the chances considerably. For this reason, even if med school acceptance rates are comparable between an undergrad that lacks an attached med school and a college that has one, all other things being equal, I would think that a motivated pre-med student would prefer to matriculate at the school with an attached med school.</p>
<p>All I can share with you are the opportunities that I had as an undergrad and a medical student. I contend that having an attached med school provides additional opportunities to pre-med undergrads – opportunities which you are greatly discounting.</p>
<p>I’m calling the BS police on this one. Harvard has a med school, MIT does not, but there are probably the same per capita participation in medically related/life sciences/pharma type research for undergrads at MIT as for Harvard, if not more. Why? undergrad research is woven into the fabric of MIT, there is a huge database of research opportunities (many of which go begging) at MIT, the number of collaborations of MIT faculty and all the biotech start ups and established companies in Boston and Cambridge (many started by MIT alums) is huge.</p>
<p>Dartmouth has a med school, Princeton does not, but I would wager without even looking that the opportunities for research and medically relevant mentoring opportunities is significantly greater at Princeton than at Dartmouth. Why? Princeton sits among a very high concentration of pharma related companies and research facilities, and its location alone (in addition to the quality of its academics) makes it prime hunting territory for the life sciences industries.</p>
<p>BS on the claim that having a med school should even be a factor for a kid picking an undergrad college. And I bet we can all point to dozens of disappointed grads of undergrad-with-med school colleges who got not a microscopic boost out of the med school. There are SO many other relevant factors- this one is barely a rounding error.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Beloit has 3 geology faculty.
Wooster has 4 geology faculty (1 current on leave).
Trinity has 6 geosciences faculty and 1 visiting faculty.
Union apparently has 2 geology “faculty experts” and 3 geology “emeritus and research professors” (the web site does not seem to have any other faculty rosters for some reason).</p>
<p>In contrast, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (which has about 1,600 undergraduates) has 20 earth and environmental science faculty, 1 lecturer, and 29 adjunct faculty (many of whom are associated with the New Mexico Bureau of Geology & Mineral Resources).</p>