<p>
</p>
<p>Not at all. Please don’t attribute assumptions to me that I do not hold. Your hectoring tone does not strengthen your arguments. </p>
<p>Hopkins does have a very high level of research spending. Some of that no doubt trickles down to undergraduates. Yes, this is something the OP should consider. </p>
<p>However, if this is a significant benefit that only research universities can provide, and if it has a strong effect on alumni outcomes, I wonder why small liberal arts colleges tend to have such high PhD production rates in so many fields (including life sciences)?
<a href=“Doctoral Degree Productivity - Institutional Research - Reed College”>http://www.reed.edu/ir/phd.html</a>
Note that the highest-performing schools include not only the most selective LACs (like Swarthmore) but also somewhat lower-ranked LACs (Earlham, Wabash). I cannot say that Colgate is among the highest-performing LACs by this metric (it isn’t). This may be in part because Colgate students tend to have a more pre-professional orientation than Carleton or Grinnell students do and are more often choosing professional school or employment after college. That, too, may be something for the OP to consider as a “fit” factor.</p>