<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree with this. I have heard medical schools referred to as “cash cows,” and here’s why: the students pay to attend them and the patients pay to get treated in them. Meanwhile, the profs at medical schools who are involved in research pay their own salaries (and those of their assistants) by bringing in grants. I would be very surprised if medical schools don’t run a profit, just as many hospitals do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the sense that med schools are “cash cows,” having a med school does guarantee that a school has some degree of wealth. But why do you think that having a med school guarantees that the school is not third-tier? There are third and fourth tier medical schools, just as there are third and fourth tier graduate programs. Tiers aren’t defined by the school’s endowment (“wealth”) or RU/VH Carnegie status (amount of outside research funding), but by the quality of the education students receive (grad placement, % completion, % publishing, peer reputation, etc.).</p>
<p>Ask anyone at Harvard whether interest on that colossal endowment, or med/business/law school profits for that matter, are being channeled into research in basic science. The answer will be an emphatic “no.” PIs are required to bring in their own funding, so the institution’s wealth per se has no impact on the quality of research being done there. Having a medical school or a large endowment does not predict which tier the physics, economics, or even biology departments will fall into - can you explain to me why it would?</p>