<p>I would suggest you re-read my post. Despite its clarity, it appears you have misunderstood it and now misrepresent it. Contrary to your claim, I specifically state that FIT should be far and away the most critical aspect of decision-making when deciding on a school, NOT some mistaken notion that a particular college will more successfully promote your medical school candidacy. Fit will obviously involve consideration of multiple factors as varied as location, weather, college size, class size, characteristics of the student body, open vs. highly structured curriculum, access to unusual courses of study, etc, etc. The relative importance of each of these factors will obviously weigh out quite differently for different students. Each candidate needs to individualize these varied factors in a way no college rating guide can. </p>
<p>Post #7 by world changer is simple but to the point and you may want to read it as well. Your own lengthy posts about Cornells life science building and your ranking of schools based on %age of graduates majoring in biology do little more than obfuscate (or do you really mean to suggest that because 6% of Princeton grads vs 11% at Cornell have majored in biology and a significant percentage of Hopkins life science majors, unlike Cornells, are in their nursing program, that somehow the poster would be better served going to Cornell than Princeton or Hopkins???).</p>
<p>Bala-
The thing that was unclear about your post was what you meant by "fit". The word "fit" is sometimes used to mean everything besides the quality of the program and the selectivity of the school and I was making the point that fit includes these things as well as other things. In fact, quality of the program and selectivity of the school are the most important aspects of fit.</p>
<p>SAT scores are a good indicator of selectivity. Selectivity is an important aspect of fit.</p>
<p>Program size, relative to the size of the school, can say something about the popularity of the major at the school, the priority given that major, the availability of advanced courses, the number of fellow majors, number of faculty, and so on.</p>
<p>The list I posted in #38 was not a ranking but a comparison. I don't think 11% versus 6% bio grads is significant but a difference of 150 SAT points is significant. And, a school with almost 1000 Life Sciences graduates (Cornell, Wisconsin) is likely to have greater resources/opportunities/course selection than a school with 100 bio grads (Princeton). </p>
<p>I mentioned the large number of nursing school grads at Johns Hopkins because it explains the difference between the high percentage of Life Sciences grads and lower percentage of biology grads. The Cornell Life Sciences number, by the same token, includes Ag School grads (and 400 bio grads).</p>
<p>The details about the Cornell bio bldg and the new bio education thrust were hopefully interesting to someone considering Cornell. </p>
<p>I'd like to add that accessibilty to a nearby hospital for volunteerism and the presence of a medical school might have opportunities and advantages for pre-meds.</p>
<p>True, I do not think all schools are created equal in their ability to prepare bio and pre-med students. And, I think "fit" first involves program quality and selectivity.</p>
<p>I agree with Bala wholeheartedly. I just don't think it matters that much how much "resources" a school has in life sciences, because really, you can major in just about anything and still get into a great medical school. It depends much more on your performance rather than the school's programs. </p>
<p>My point about Cornell is that they might be pumping a ridiculous amount of money into their life sciences, but its not unique, a lot of other schools are doing the exact same thing. Whats the point of all that money if it doesn't really make a difference for undergraduates. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that just because a school has invested a lot of capital into a program, that it will immediately benefit your personal academic needs.</p>