<p>I’m sure the OP is quite happy at whichever university he chose, considering this was posted 6 months ago. :p</p>
<p>They’re all great schools, and I hesitant to say anything lest I be attacked for seeming to criticize Hopkins, but I do take issue with a few claims.</p>
<p>
Source? I find that assertion dubious. In 2008, for example, Hopkins produced 223 successful applicants while Berkeley and Duke produced 383 and 238, respectively (those are just two I checked – I’m sure there’s more). </p>
<p>In any case, that number is considerably less impressive when you realize that Hopkins simply has far more pre-meds than its peers. In terms of pre-meds per capita, it’s undoubtedly one of the top 5 schools in the country. </p>
<p>
Eh? Hopkins is a great school, but really the only school that gets shifted around is Harvard (Harvard of the South, Harvard of the Midwest, etc.)</p>
<p>
Hopkins performs more poorly than WUStL and Rice in raw numbers, although it comes out ahead of WUStL per capita. Both WUStL and JHU perform poorly compared to peer schools.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/798325-rhodes-marshall-truman-nsf-fulbright-scholars-private-universities.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/798325-rhodes-marshall-truman-nsf-fulbright-scholars-private-universities.html</a></p>
<p>Interestingly, virtually all of the top privates produce more NSF fellows than Hopkins. So much for not measuring up in the basic sciences. :rolleyes:</p>