Baylor College of Medicine Class of 2008

[curlycity]

The way they anatomy professors talk about Houston smog is a bit scary (Dr. Blutt gave a respiratory anatomy lecture on Monday and mentioned that non-smoking cadavers from Houston generally have the same amount of carbon deposits in their lungs as a long-time smoker from anywhere else) but otherwise it is fantastic.

Can I wear a mask and say it's for the SARS?!?!?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[JAMP]

Can I wear a mask and say it's for the SARS?!?!?

That's funny; one of my friends actually said the same thing today as we were walking from Methodist to the medical school. Also, the diversity here is absolutely lovely. I am a 19 year old white male from a small West Texas town, and it is awesome being around so many intelligent friendly people from every ethnic group. Diversity is something Baylor prides itself on and that is quite obvious.

 

[curlycity]

Also, the diversity here is absolutely lovely. I am a 19 year old white male from a small West Texas town, and it is awesome being around so many intelligent friendly people from every ethnic group. Diversity is something Baylor prides itself on and that is quite obvious.

That's one major thing I'm excited about - I grew up in the Bay Area in California, then went to HS in the midwest (!) and I'm looking forward to getting to a more metropolitan area and a diverse school. UT Austin is pretty diverse but cliquish.

Back to packing!!!

 

[Gleevec]

1)I thought Baylor wasn't required to fill a certain percentage of their class with Texas residents, but that they just gave Texans an extra point in admissions (sorta like legacy and affirmative action admissions), and that Texans get a little more preference because those Texans accepted overwhelmingly choose to come to Baylor. And the state support is that the state pays the difference between our tuition and Baylor's private school tuition for the Texas students.

I think theyre required by state law to have 70% (or whatever the actual percentage is) in-state otherwise they lose state funding. I havent heard anything about the "extra point," but it seems that it would be very difficult to get around 70% consistently with that method.

 

[BaylorLion]

Guess I was mistaken about the Baylor-Texas deal. I thought it might work like UCLA, which doesn't favor California residents at all but ends up with a class that is 80-90% Cali because of the higher rate of application and matriculation among California residents. Also, I think last year's incoming class was 65% out-of-state. Could be wrong though...

Looks like the average MCAT's fallen off (from 34.5 according to crazy eyes to 33 now).

 

[Gleevec]

Guess I was mistaken about the Baylor-Texas deal. I thought it might work like UCLA, which doesn't favor California residents at all but ends up with a class that is 80-90% Cali because of the higher rate of application and matriculation among California residents. Also, I think last year's incoming class was 65% out-of-state. Could be wrong though...

Looks like the average MCAT's fallen off (from 34.5 according to crazy eyes to 33 now).

34.5? That seems a bit high regardless?

I didnt know UCLA doesnt favor Cali in-state residents. I was under the impression all UC schools had to get x% in-state?

 

[BaylorLion]

Hey crazy eyes, not thinking that at all. After all, UCSF accepts 80% of its class from within California, and no one's questioning the caliber of its student body. And we all know that Texas beats California any day - would you rather be in the only state to be its own country, or one that's in danger of falling off into the ocean? (Sorry, a little interstate rivalry there)

I'm just mildly curious, because I have nothing better to do, about how all these numbers will turn out. 34.5 isn't unbelivably high - last year, according to the website, the avg. score was an 11.42. Not hard to believe it would go up .08.

Yeah, Gleevec, I was surprised that UCLA had no preference too. A lot of California residents have complained about it - but it was why it was the only UC I applied to. LA was nice - except for the smog.

 

[ms. a]

And we all know that Texas beats California any day - would you rather be in the only state to be its own country, or one that's in danger of falling off into the ocean? (Sorry, a little interstate rivalry there)

Ooooo, do not, I repeat, do NOT go there! As a native Californian (born and raised) who cried the day I had to trade in my beautiful CA driver's license for a dreaded texas one, I will not stand for ANY California bashing. I don't see any texas novelty license plates featuring the many gorgeous landscapes of the state (seeing as there aren't any here!). And where else can you live that is a short drive from San Francisco (one of the best cities on earth), yet you can still make day trips to the mountains for world class skiing? Certainly not in texas.

 

[musicman1991]

wherever you go to med school, get used to the Cali people just non-stop talking about how much California is better than wherever they are. Too bad Cali med school showed them no love...

 

[Gleevec]

Ooooo, do not, I repeat, do NOT go there! As a native Californian (born and raised) who cried the day I had to trade in my beautiful CA driver's license for a dreaded texas one, I will not stand for ANY California bashing. I don't see any texas novelty license plates featuring the many gorgeous landscapes of the state (seeing as there aren't any here!). And where else can you live that is a short drive from San Francisco (one of the best cities on earth), yet you can still make day trips to the mountains for world class skiing? Certainly not in texas.

California sucks a big one. And Texas has a lot of nice landscapes, its just they aren't coastal, they are more in the middle or western Texas (Big Bend national park being the obvious example, as are scenic areas around Austin etc). You dont have skiiing, but that's what Colorado is for. Lots more rivers and watersports in Texas though, and you can actually afford it.

Another good question is where else can you pay New York City prices on housing and overall cost of living yet not be in NYC? The one, the only, San Francisco. There are few places more overrated than living in California-- Ive had to go there to visit relatives repeatedly, and the only cities that were mildly impressive were San Diego and Sacramento (which for some reason are always passed over when people talk about California, though I think Portland is about as nice as Sacramento).

Im glad that out of all my relatives stuck out there that I never had to live in California for longer than three months. There are few places in the world more overrated than California, especially since you're paying an arm and a leg (and oftentimes, if you're a doctor, getting paid a ton less in salary) to live in cities that are not that much nicer than other places in the US that are much more liveable.

 

[BaylorLion]

Don't mess with ms. a - she's bringing us cookies

I actually really like California. LA was awesome when I went out to interview (with my elder cousin - she was interviewing at the Anderson School), and it was tough to turn down. They had a great Argentinian restaurant out at Santa Monica (and I don't care what my cousin says, my appreciation of that provleta and the garlic steak had nothing to do with our model-hot waitress). But the Texas Medical Center won my heart long ago - my heart still skips a beat when I walk through it and realize that those towers of granite and glass house our "playground" for the next few years. Seriously, even the VA and Ben Taub are great...

I think both states are beautiful in their own ways, and Texans and Californians tend to be very provincial when it comes to their states versus the rest of the nation. California's beautiful, New York is fast-paced and exciting, but Texas has my heart. That said, I am hoping my younger cousin applies to and gets into Stanford (assuming he doesn't get into Columbia or Rice), so I have a reason to visit Cal again.

And musicman, you're mistaken here. Baylor was likely at least one of ms. a's top choices, if her top choice, considering she has to stay in Houston for a while.

 

[ms. a]

Don't mess with ms. a - she's bringing us cookies

And musicman, you're mistaken here. Baylor was likely at least one of ms. a's top choices, if her top choice, considering she has to stay in Houston for a while.

Thanks for sticking up for me Baylor Lion! Extra cookies for you!

You're right about my top choice. I didn't even apply to the UC's, since I am no longer a CA resident (sob, sob), and I am definitely committed to Houston for many years to come.

And Gleevec, it just so happens that I am from one of the cities you at least mildly approve of - Sacramento. I could visit beautiful San Francisco without having to pay to live there. I could go skiing for a day without having to take time off work, pay for a plane ticket, lug my skis halfway across the country, pay for a hotel, etc, etc. I could could hook up our boat to our truck and, in 5 minutes, be in a beautiful freshwater lake that isn't as warm as bathwater, doesn't classify as a bayou, and doesn't have the threat of alligators and whatnot, and then water ski all day. Or I could take a short trip down to the redwood forest and hang out under the trees for a day. I grew up thinking redwood forests were something everyone had. I could go biking in the Sierra Nevada foothills for the afternoon and not take hours to cool off, due to the wonderful lack of humidity. Never once have I had to make "rain plans". I had never even heard of rain plans until I came here. I got married in August in the Napa Valley - it was an outdoor reception and not once did we consider "what if it rains." We just knew it wouldn't.

Well, I hope you catch my drift. Houston's bearable, but it's no California. I'm just glad I'll be making one last visit home this summer before we start (although I'm not particularly looking forward to a 4-hour plane ride alone with a toddler).

 

[BaylorLion]

4 hour plane ride with a toddler? Ouch. Sounds almost as bad as a 16 hour plane ride with my 3 giggly cousins and sister.

Sacramento, eh? We gonna have a Mavs-Kings rivalry going, ms. a?

 

[Gleevec]

wherever you go to med school, get used to the Cali people just non-stop talking about how much California is better than wherever they are. Too bad Cali med school showed them no love...

Ive noticed this a lot, not only on SDN, but on interviews as well.

 

[md_hopeful21]

hey i've been accepted to a cali medschool but would love to goto baylor, baylors showing me no love though =(

 

[Gleevec]

hey i've been accepted to a cali medschool and would love to goto baylor, baylors showing me no love though =(

Apparently the waitlist is still moving, so don't give up hope! Best of luck.

 

[Newquagmire]

And we all know that Texas beats California any day - would you rather be in the only state to be its own country, or one that's in danger of falling off into the ocean? (Sorry, a little interstate rivalry there)

[...]

Yeah, Gleevec, I was surprised that UCLA had no preference too. A lot of California residents have complained about it - but it was why it was the only UC I applied to. LA was nice - except for the smog.

Say what? I'd take Cali any day. What about the smog in Houston??

 

[Gleevec]

Say what? I'd take Cali any day. What about the smog in Houston??

LA has much worse smog than Houston. Houston is bad, but only a little worse than Sacramento. Notice that a majority of those cities are from California btw. The particle pollution, as listed in the article, is really really bad for Californians.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/28/air.pollution/

Worst Smog in US 2004:

1. Los Angeles, California

2. Visalia-Porterville, California

3. Bakersfield, California

4. Fresno, California

5. Houston, Texas

6. Merced, California

7. Sacramento, California

8. Hanford, California

9. Knoxville, Tennessee

10. Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas



Worst Particle Pollution in the US 2004:

1. Los Angeles, California

2. Visalia-Porterville, California

3. Bakersfield, California

4. Fresno, California

5. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

6. Detroit, Michigan

7. Atlanta, Georgia

8. Cleveland, Ohio

9. Hanford, California

10. Birmingham, Alabama; and Cincinnati, Ohio.

 

[md_hopeful21]

just out of curiosity, from now on are more out of staters gonna be taken off the waitlist, since the june1st date has pretty much arrived (considering memmorial day weekend)?

PS: i'm out of state

 

[BaylorLion]

Sorry ms. a and quags, I'm with Gleevec on this one. The smog in LA was disgusting. Now, when the smot cleared up, it was beautiful. But I've never seen anything like that in Texas. I do understand why people love California so much - but it'll be a cold day in hell before you get a diehard Texan to say that another state is better than his own. I think we've come to appreciate the cool things about our state. Seriously, I was joking in the first post, and I didn't mean to set off the California-Texas war.

md_hopeful21, I wish you the best of luck. Where were you accepted in California? No idea on how many out-of-staters are going to be taken off the waitlist, but I would guess that they will replace the out-of-state declines with out-of-state waitlisted applicants. And since the yield rate is usually lower for out-of-state compared to in-state for medical schools - I don't think it'd be any different for Baylor. You probably stand a fair chance, though i don't know historically how many people are taken off the waitlist. I know Baylor's is strictly ranked - I'm assuming you've sent them the LOI and done all that business? But this is, again, a question for crazy eyes.

 

[md_hopeful21]

Sorry ms. a and quags, I'm with Gleevec on this one. The smog in LA was disgusting. Now, when the smot cleared up, it was beautiful. But I've never seen anything like that in Texas. I do understand why people love California so much - but it'll be a cold day in hell before you get a diehard Texan to say that another state is better than his own. I think we've come to appreciate the cool things about our state. Seriously, I was joking in the first post, and I didn't mean to set off the California-Texas war.

md_hopeful21, I wish you the best of luck. Where were you accepted in California? No idea on how many out-of-staters are going to be taken off the waitlist, but I would guess that they will replace the out-of-state declines with out-of-state waitlisted applicants. And since the yield rate is usually lower for out-of-state compared to in-state for medical schools - I don't think it'd be any different for Baylor. You probably stand a fair chance, though i don't know historically how many people are taken off the waitlist. I know Baylor's is strictly ranked - I'm assuming you've sent them the LOI and done all that business? But this is, again, a question for crazy eyes.

thanks for the help, but from what i've heard after june1st no texas school can accept another student that holds a texas acceptance, correct me if i'm wrong, thus making it practically impossible for a texas resident to gain admission after june1st (unless they are in the unlikely scenario of not having any texas acceptances, but gaining an acceptance to baylor)

 

[Algunn]

Straight from the source (Dr. Hill), I was told that he will not give admission to anyone after June 1 who holds a spot at another TX medical school. Doesn't matter if the person is a TX resident or not. On the same note, if someone's been accepted to a TX med school but has declined before June 1, then they can still hold a spot on Baylor's waitlist.

 

[CalBeE]

Straight from the source (Dr. Hill), I was told that he will not give admission to anyone after June 1 who holds a spot at another TX medical school. Doesn't matter if the person is a TX resident or not. On the same note, if someone's been accepted to a TX med school but has declined before June 1, then they can still hold a spot on Baylor's waitlist.

That type of policy is unfair, don't you think? People who are in at another TX school may wanna goto Baylor b/c of many different reasons.

 

[Algunn]

That type of policy is unfair, don't you think? People who are in at another TX school may wanna goto Baylor b/c of many different reasons.

I hear you. He said it was to prevent the TX med schools from picking off each others' incoming students so late in the process when it becomes increasingly difficult to fill seats.

 

[Newquagmire]

The policy makes some sense to me, but I'd gladly fill in more than a couple of seats past June 1st =)

So is it true that out of state applicants are not eligible for in-state tuition after M1?

 

[BaylorLion]

That doesn't sound right - I thought the reason a lot of out-of-state people bought was so they could apply for Texas residency after M1.

Just wanted to update it. I think this means you can change your residency status at the start of each academic year:

http://www.bcm.tmc.edu/osa/handbook/texas_residency.html

 

[Murdawg]

Don't you think that any applicant who would be considered competitive enough for a Baylor slot would already have been accepted to at least one of the Texas schools? It seems to me that if Baylor is no longer allowed to choose from this pool of applicants, the admissions committee is forced to select some less competitive candidates. That seems to be detrimental to each of the highly competitive schools in TX. All the candidates who are still eligible for Baylor after June 1st were theoretically passed on by all of the other Texas med schools. I doubt that Baylor would encourage applicants to withdraw from a secured seat at another school, but this is the decision that the "Baylor Hopefuls" are faced with...especially if these applicants are ranked very highly on Baylor's alternate list.

 

[BaylorLion]

Murdawg, I agree that is unfair to applicants, but I think crazy eyes is probably right in that Baylor just goes to its fairly large (and theoretically well-qualified) out-of-state applicant pool. But I think this is to prevent chain reactions among the Texas schools (thanks to the Match). Let's say Baylor accepts someone who was going to UTSW. Then, UTSW accepts someone who was going to UTH. And down the line... and then finally UNT-TCOM accepts someone who was shut out altogether. That's a ton of waitlist movement to be set off everytime someone is accepted off the waitlist at one school.

 

[Gleevec]

Don't you think that any applicant who would be considered competitive enough for a Baylor slot would already have been accepted to at least one of the Texas schools? It seems to me that if Baylor is no longer allowed to choose from this pool of applicants, the admissions committee is forced to select some less competitive candidates. That seems to be detrimental to each of the highly competitive schools in TX. All the candidates who are still eligible for Baylor after June 1st were theoretically passed on by all of the other Texas med schools. I doubt that Baylor would encourage applicants to withdraw from a secured seat at another school, but this is the decision that the "Baylor Hopefuls" are faced with...especially if these applicants are ranked very highly on Baylor's alternate list.

I would tend to agree with your sentiment, but the problem is that the match system would be "unraveled" late in the process if Baylor starting taking away waitlist applicants from other schools. It would set off the chain reaction BaylorLion described and would just make things really hard on everyone.

If Texas did not use a match system, then I would think this system would be unfair. But the way the match system is set up, accepting applicants off of the waitlist after June 1st would cause other schools to have to fill their slots, perhaps causing another school to have to do the same (if they get an applicant planning on attending another school).

 

[curlycity]

Don't you think that any applicant who would be considered competitive enough for a Baylor slot would already have been accepted to at least one of the Texas schools?

I know someone who got into Baylor but didn't match at any TX schools - but that *could* be because this person sent in their deposit really early, like in October or November, and maybe word got out ... but no one knows for sure.

 

[BaylorLion]

So the NIH tables came out today - Baylor dropped from #5 last year:

http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/award/rank/medttl02.htm

to #10 this year:

http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/award/rank/medttl03.htm

This wouldn't surprise me so much if we just didn't rise at as fast a rate as other med schools. That happens and is the name of the game. What does suprise me is that Baylor's money fell significantly while almost every other medical school ranked around it had a significant (Duke went up nearly 25%, BU more than doubled, even ol' Southwestern up North went up about $12 mil) rate of increase. Can't just be the loss of Allison money - why is Baylor special enough to "lose" money this year? Has it just slowed down after 5 years of having the largest rate of increase among the top med schools?

That is weird. What gives?

 

[Newquagmire]

genome(s) all sequenced. i think the "five-year plan" for HGP ran out in 2003...

and in the past five years, a lot of the major homerun hitters have left baylor too.

 

[Gleevec]

and in the past five years, a lot of the major homerun hitters have left baylor too.

 

[Newquagmire]

allan bradley, steven elledge, david roth just to name a few

 

[Gleevec]

allan bradley, steven elledge, david roth just to name a few

as long as none of them were frog researchers im cool.

 

[BaylorLion]

That alone doesn't explain a 10% drop when other schools are experiencing huge increases. Anyone want to explain how BU more than doubled their grant money this year? That one boggled my mind - they knocked my alma mater out, and nearly knocked off Stanford and UMich as well.

Genome money going could have explained a slight drop - but Baylor is still #2 in Genetics money (behind WashU), with a significant lead over #3 Stanford.

http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/award/rank/genetics03.htm

Now, it is true, there is a $21 million dropoff from last year, when Baylor was a sizable #1:

http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/award/rank/genetics02.htm

But my question is - why aren't their other research ventures growing to make up for the loss of that money? Even if the genome project had continued this year, their money would have been stagnant, and my question there is why, when most schools had pretty sharp increases (we'll ignore Duke's jump - UCSF, WashU, UCLA, Yale, every other school in the top 12 went up strongly). They've had the highest rate of growth for the last 5 years (I read this in the Baylor2000 report, I believe). How do you go from that to 0% growth (and really negative)? Is an Internet stock analogy in order, where, after years and years of hypergrowth (in revenues and profits, not just stock prices), they had to settle down for a while and "digest" that growth?

I'm probably making a mountain out of a molehill here - but stuff like this makes you go wonder. That and I'm bored and counting down the days until my trip.

 

[BaylorLion]

as long as none of them were frog researchers im cool.

No, Dr. Traber knows all-to-well that the loss of frog researchers means instant death for any medical school's reputation.

 

[Newquagmire]

That alone doesn't explain a 10% drop when other schools are experiencing huge increases. Anyone want to explain how BU more than doubled their grant money this year? That one boggled my mind - they knocked my alma mater out, and nearly knocked off Stanford and UMich as well.

Genome money going could have explained a slight drop - but Baylor is still #2 in Genetics money (behind WashU), with a significant lead over #3 Stanford.

http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/award/rank/genetics03.htm

Now, it is true, there is a $21 million dropoff from last year, when Baylor was a sizable #1:

http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/award/rank/genetics02.htm

But my question is - why aren't their other research ventures growing to make up for the loss of that money? Even if the genome project had continued this year, their money would have been stagnant, and my question there is why, when most schools had pretty sharp increases (we'll ignore Duke's jump - UCSF, WashU, UCLA, Yale, every other school in the top 12 went up strongly). They've had the highest rate of growth for the last 5 years (I read this in the Baylor2000 report, I believe). How do you go from that to 0% growth (and really negative)? Is an Internet stock analogy in order, where, after years and years of hypergrowth (in revenues and profits, not just stock prices), they had to settle down for a while and "digest" that growth?

I'm probably making a mountain out of a molehill here - but stuff like this makes you go wonder. That and I'm bored and counting down the days until my trip.

i don't know of any frog research at baylor, although i suppose there probably is some in the developmental "bayou" program

BU? no idea. something to take into account is that many grants aren't an annually-renewed enterprise. therefore, how many new/renewal grants an institution is submitting will affect the annual nih funding. frankly speaking, i'm surprised baylor was *ever* more funded than washu (but it's nice to know). as for "other research ventures," imho there aren't that many at baylor besides genetics and HGP. even the neuroscience dept is anchored in genetics approaches.

in any case, unless you're planning on making research a big part of your training, it probably won't matter a smidgeon in one's medical education...

 

[Gleevec]

i don't know of any frog research at baylor, although i suppose there probably is some in the developmental "bayou" program

inside joke on SDN

 

[Newquagmire]

no, i understood. just trying to alleve the concerns of any potential frog researchers who are worried about baylor's USNWR ranking...

 

[BaylorLion]

Plenty of other research ventures to pick up the slack. Baylor's #1 in pediatrics, urology, micro/immuno... I know there was one or two more. Can't remember off the top of my head. They're top 5, top 10, top 25 in other areas (biochem and neurosci and ENT come to mind off the top of my head) as well.

One thing that really surprises me is that they (apparently) haven't exploited Menninger yet. They have one of the top psychiatric hospitals - this from my dad the shrink and his partners - perhaps Menninger isn't into research?

The reason this NIH stuff worries me is twofold:

1)Research ranking begets reputation. If Baylor starts falling, its reputation will fall. If Baylor maintains its top 5-top 10 NIH tables position, its reputation will be stable or possibly rise.

2)Dr. Traber is making a lot of changes. They've reduced the strength of a 50 year partnership, strengthened an affiliation with another hospital that is still affiliated with another medical school, and made plans to build a Baylor clinic. That's a lot of upheaval in the conservative, relatively stable world of medicine; if the Baylor Clinic turns out to be huge, great, it's always great to have the medical school's name on the institution. But it also exposes the school to more financial risk. The affiliation game is a more financially protected position to work from, which is probably why you'll never see Harvard University Hospital get built (even though they could afford it many times over). As for Methodist and St. Luke's - you have to wonder why they couldn't work out some kind of dual primary adult training center thing out. St. Luke's has strengths, Methodist has strengths, and except for heart, they don't really overlap (and even there, THI >> Methodist).

This just makes me wonder if this is a blip that, as you wisely pointed out, is just reflective of one year's data and could be influenced by a whole bunch of factors, such as renewals et al., or if this is a sign that Baylor is focusing too much on TMC politics and not enough on what should really be occupying their interest, namely increasing their research funding (and, obviously, our education - but I think a medical school's curriculum usually does well under salutary neglect). That said, that Dr. Traber was part of turning the Hosp. of UPenn around DOES give me a lot of confidence that he'll make the clinic work.

Quags, you're right, it won't influence me too much, even though I do want to do some research in medical school. I'm quibbling over nothing - anything over $200 mil is an impressive level of funding. But I'm bored, and these tables have given me new stats to analyze. Just bear with me, y'all.

I'll respond to your PM soon, but in the mean time, I wanted to put this question out to the board, since there are a lot of people out here more qualified to answer it. I think your best bet for appreciation actually is Condoland, unless you have rich parents or a rich uncle/aunt/grandparent. The Hermann area is nice, but the two buildings (high-rises) I saw there were a)more expensive and b)had ridiculous HOA fees. You'll probably get more bang for your buck out in condoland, and thanks to the ridiculous growth of the medical center and med/grad school admissions in the med ctr, there are and will always be new buyers. Anything with an attached garage will be easier to sell for a higher price; my realtor actually told me that high-rises usually take longer to sell in Houston, because most people are not used to that kind of living. Go figure.

The Rice Village and West U areas are nice. My cousin lives in River Oaks right now, which is a wealthy area of town. The places there will be real expensive, but will probably hold their value pretty well. Far from the medical center though. Montrose was... err... interesting... never going back there again after the Porn Palace incident. No light rail there either though.

I know ms. a and I think Gleevec are residents of Houston - so they could probably give you a better idea.

 

[BaylorLion]

Geez, I need to quit with the stream-of-consciousness posts. Or at least edit more.

Baylor needs to beef up its frog research - maybe they can steal that guy who went from Berkeley to Duke. Aw geez, I just had a horrible thought - I wonder if BerkeleyPremed has crapped his pants with excitement over the fact that Duke's NIH money shot up 25% right after they got the frog researcher. Hmm, on second thought, maybe he IS onto something

 

[BaylorLion]

Where has everyone disappeared off to? It seems like there are really only 2 or 3 people posting regularly here - are the rest of you out there and lurking? Where's HollyJ, No Egrets, the guy who was asking about a Dell-Baylor deal a while back... don't tell me all of you got in somewhere else off the waitlist AND decided to go there instead! I was reading the first posts on this board and noticed there were a LOT more people - y'all still comin' to Baylor?

 

[musicman1991]

Where has everyone disappeared off to? It seems like there are really only 2 or 3 people posting regularly here - are the rest of you out there and lurking? Where's HollyJ, No Egrets, the guy who was asking about a Dell-Baylor deal a while back... don't tell me all of you got in somewhere else off the waitlist AND decided to go there instead! I was reading the first posts on this board and noticed there were a LOT more people - y'all still comin' to Baylor?

Dude, maybe they are out enjoying their summer vacation before starting hell?

 

[TexasRose]

Dude, maybe they are out enjoying their summer vacation before starting hell?

I'm out of town visiting family before our big move the week of the 16th. Spending time with people I won't be seeing nearly as much of in the next 18 months!

 

[curlycity]

I'm cleaning my stove

 

[HollyJ]

grumble grumble stupid house selling grumble grumble grumble

 

[BaylorLion]

Dude, maybe they are out enjoying their summer vacation before starting hell?

Dude I'm already in hell - form hell specifically.

HollyJ, I can sympathize. House buying is ALMOST as bad. Have you got an offer yet, or still waiting?

 

[Gleevec]

Playing Unreal Tournament 2004

 

[elias514]

How important is NIH funding in the grand scheme of medical education? Does it significantly affect the overall quality of medical education? What do you guys think?

Since NIH funding is peer reviewed and, therefore, high caliber scientific funding, I suppose that NIH funding is one measure of an institution's commitment to scientific excellence. But I wonder if this commitment translates into higher standards of performance for medical students. I'm sure it does for MD/PhD candidates and students on research tracks, but what about the average medical student with no inclination towards a research stint?