<p>so im applying to some of the major premed universities (washu, emory, stanford, etc), but ive found out that the top LACs have really good med school placement. i was just wondering if any of you guys could give me some explanation to this. as of now, williams, swarthmore, middlebury, and amherst are the LACs on my list. what sets williams apart in terms of opportunities for helping students get into a good med school? how do williams stats compare to other LACs and universities in terms of med school placement? any information would be much appreciated. also, i really want to know more about the how rigorious the work is. while i am well used to losing many hours of sleep to study, i prefer not to have to study into the early morning hours and to have time on weekends to relax. can anyone shed some light on this for me? thanks!</p>
<p>Med schools judge applicants on 1)how interesting and deep their undergraduate studies were (e.g. superficial bio or psych major=weak, intense english, physics or philosophy major=good); 2)standardized testing (MCATs); 3)research and/or volunteer extracurriculars; 4)+/- "wow" personal recommendations or reactions during interviews. The undergraduate school per se doesn't matter so much, at all.</p>
<p>Of those 4 areas, any of the schools you mention can allow you to excell at 1) and 4). opportunities for 3) are best at Stanford, then Williams/Swarthmore/ Wash U (just slightly behind), then Amherst, then Middlebury, with Emory way behind. The wild card is 2), which is a reflection of a combination of talent, bubble test taking skills, and the quality of the teaching of the science curriculum. Here the ranking would be similar, except swap Amherst for Wash U. </p>
<p>Frankly, having known lots of Ivy undergrads and viewed hundreds of med school folders, most of this is in you own hands: study something interesting and deeply that you like, take the hardest chem/biol/phys intro courses (the versions "for future majors" not the "...for premeds" versions found at almost every school) and try to learn as much as you can, and have fun integrating that into a broader life--that's medicine as a career after all, and that's what admissions committees look for.</p>
<p>oldcrs, how would Carleton fit into that list - abput where Williams is?</p>
<p>I can see how one would have more opportunities for research and/or volunteering at Stanford, Wash U, and Emory, but I'm curious as to your reasoning behind placing Williams in the category that you did. Williams (like Middlebury) is rural and without a medical school nearby. How can opportunites at Williams be greater than those at Emory, and what places Williams ahead of Middlebury in this category?</p>
<p>Yes, Carleton would be very similar to Williams. Very good for research experiences. (So would Haverford) As for Williams/Middlebury v. Emory, I ranked them on a combination of the quality of the research and the experience of the faculty with undergraduates in the lab. For M and W v. Emory, many W/M undergrads spend meaningful, often multiyear projects in labs, and many of these do interesting NIH or NSF funded research. Undergrads at Emory rarely have this experience, and their choice of labs is much more spotty (check NIH funding of Stanford v. Wash U v. Emory faculty. Even better, check NIH funding or citation index rankings per faculty). In fact, if you were interested in this sort of research experience at a large University, after Stanford or Yale I might actually next rank Wisconsin. But I digress...</p>
<p>Why Williams v. Middlebury? The research is stronger. (Same metrics....numbers of majors doing meaningful science in labs, NIH/NSF/HHMI funding).</p>
<p>If you're really interested in these comparisons, LAC web sites are very informative. Including what research they do, student research projects, funding, publications (including with student authors) etc.</p>