Stanford versus Cornell

[splash]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I was wondering if anyone has any input regarding this dilemma. I love both programs. I also love NYC and dislike Palo Alto. I was wondering if anyone who attends one of these schools (or knows a lot about them) can tell me about why they like/dislike their school, differences in reputation, etc. I would really appreciate it! I am having a very hard time with this decision (although I know I am very lucky to be in the position to make this decision). Thanks!

 

[MD2b20004]

Definitely Stanford:

1. better reputation
2. better weather
3. better clinicals (so i hear)

 

[HollyJ]

I'd say that you can't really go wrong. Go to the school that feels right. Where did it feel more like "home"?

 

[jed2023]

Definitely Cornell

1. Great reputation, and certainly not less than that of Stanford, despite what the last poster said. Cornell is one of the Ivies. And, if you give any credence to the US News yearly rankings, they are both in the top 20 and neck and neck, if I remember correctly.
2. Located in Manhattan on the upper east side (as pointed out by absolutezero). Palo Alto hardly compares in this regard, especially if you already love NYC. Also, the students get heavy subsidies for housing, since living in that location is ridiculously expensive otherwise.
3. Cornell med students are a fun group to be around.

But seriously, in the end, you have to make the decision based on a cost-benefit analysis of sorts.

 

[absolutezero]

post deleted

 

[remedy]

Strictly regarding reputation, I wouldn't look at the numerical rankings that US News gives you. Most important here are the Residency Director and Peer Assessment scores ( = reputation!). Looking at it that way we can i.d. several tiers of schools:

Tier 1: Harvard, Hopkins
Tier 2: Stanford, WashU, Duke, Penn, UCSF, Michigan
Tier 3: Cornell, Columbia, Yale, UWash
Tier 4: UCLA, Baylor, Others

Within each tier it seems nearly impossible to say that one school has a higher rep than another, but if we're comparing schools between two tiers makes it easier.

That's not to say that Cornell is not a great school, because it clearly is, but it may be a step behind Stanford regarding rep.

2003
School, res. assess. score (5 max), peer assess. score (5 max):

Tier 1
Harvard, 4.7, 4.9
Hopkins, 4.7, 4.9

Tier 2
WashU, 4.5, 4.6
Duke, 4.5, 4.6
UCSF, 4.4, 4.6
Stanford, 4.4, 4.6
Penn, 4.3, 4.6
Michigan, 4.4, 4.4

Tier 3
UWash, 4.2, 4.4
Columbia, 4.2, 4.3
Yale, 4.1, 4.4
Cornell, 4.1, 4.2

 

[DW]

Originally posted by splash
I was wondering if anyone has any input regarding this dilemma. I love both programs. I also love NYC and dislike Palo Alto. I was wondering if anyone who attends one of these schools (or knows a lot about them) can tell me about why they like/dislike their school, differences in reputation, etc. I would really appreciate it! I am having a very hard time with this decision (although I know I am very lucky to be in the position to
make this decision). Thanks!

i've along with other people at my school have written ad nauseam about why we like our school, do some searches in this forum and pre allo. also, you can come to our brand new student forums.....
http://phpbb.med.cornell.edu/phpBB2
....and ask questions.

😍 cornell 😍

 

[Auricae]

Sorry for the sidetrack, but do you think you could tell me the residency director/peer assessment scores for Case Western, NU, and Ohio State?

Originally posted by remedy
Strictly regarding reputation, I wouldn't look at the numerical rankings that US News gives you. Most important here are the Residency Director and Peer Assessment scores ( = reputation!). Looking at it that way we can i.d. several tiers of schools:

Tier 1: Harvard, Hopkins
Tier 2: Stanford, WashU, Duke, Penn, UCSF, Michigan
Tier 3: Cornell, Columbia, Yale, UWash
Tier 4: UCLA, Baylor, Others

Within each tier it seems nearly impossible to say that one school has a higher rep than another, but if we're comparing schools between two tiers makes it easier.

That's not to say that Cornell is not a great school, because it clearly is, but it may be a step behind Stanford regarding rep.

2003
School, res. assess. score (5 max), peer assess. score (5 max):

Tier 1
Harvard, 4.7, 4.9
Hopkins, 4.7, 4.9

Tier 2
WashU, 4.5, 4.6
Duke, 4.5, 4.6
UCSF, 4.4, 4.6
Stanford, 4.4, 4.6
Penn, 4.3, 4.6
Michigan, 4.4, 4.4

Tier 3
UWash, 4.2, 4.4
Columbia, 4.2, 4.3
Yale, 4.1, 4.4
Cornell, 4.1, 4.2

 

[remedy]

Case Western = 3.7, 3.8
NU (Northwestern?) = 3.9, 3.7
Ohio State = 3.3, 3.2

 

[holden73]

clearly michigan does not deserve to be in the second tier. all the other schools have a rating of 4.6, michigan has 4.4. by this methodology, michigan is without a doubt a third tier toilet.

 

[Auricae]

Originally posted by remedy
Case Western = 3.7, 3.8
NU (Northwestern?) = 3.9, 3.7
Ohio State = 3.3, 3.2

Thanks!

 

[Kalel]

I'm surprised that you are having difficulty making this decision because both schools are so dramatically different schools. Stanford is a very *non-traditional* school, most students take 5 yrs to graduate and do things like teach and research during their extra year. Stanford also selects very non-traditional students as well. I read an article last year that Stanford was going to have their med students start picking "majors" too, in order to help them focus their studies and become further specialized earlier. Cornell/Weill on the other-hand, is PBL, but after the first two years, it's your run-of-the mill NYC med school. Some students rave about it's curriculum, while I've also heard other students complain about their grading system, particularly in the first two years. Anyways, something else to factor into your decision making process is that my understanding that Stanford was having a lot of financial difficulty a few years ago and a lot of it's facilities were out-dated. I think that both schools are probably equivalent in terms of reputation, with each one probably having a stronger rep in it's local area (calif vs NYC). I wouldn't put too much stock into those US news rankings since their PD rankings come from a small sample size.

 

[Sociologist2Doc]

Bumping an old thread.

Any new thoughts on the two?