tbo said:Ah yes, but one assumption that you're making is that you can get grant money independent of institution. I agree that your individual reputation is linked to creative ideas, publishing and grant dollars. But being able to carry this out and actually get this done is inherently linked to the institution you do it at. One of the key factors in junior faculty grants or starting grants (R01s, K08/K23 awards) is what facilities are available to you to do your research - things like research space, biostatistical support, information technology infrastructure, specialty centers of excellence. If you put in a grant on the pharmacogenomics of cardiovascular drugs at an institution without a genomic center or any established genomic testing facilities, chances are you're not going to see those dollars come in, regardless of creative ideas or publishing lists. Harvard excels at providing this kind of academic infrastructure, both for research and for clinical training. It's not coincidental that they are the highest NIH funded medical center in the country. I propose that it is due to the institution - on both reputation and on facilities. Any of the K awards require that having qualified mentors is critical to receiving the award. An institution with tons of NIH awards/dollars already being granted will likely have more qualified NIH mentors. I have no doubt in my mind that Harvard - by nature of it's reputation and its facilities - gives you a better chance at receiving grant money.
Harvard opens doors. It's cozy and warm to think that Harvard vs other top-tier schools are the same, but I really don't think so.
Well put. The last two sentences sum up the issue here. As for the OP, if you don't want go into academics, this is all a moot point.