Please explain: Primary Care vs. Research Rankings

[curiouslygeorge]

I am not wanting to stir a debate over the value of the US News rankings. I understand that research is based on $$$ for the most part. But I just want to know why it is that the research ranking is weighted more heavily in defining the stereotypical "tiers" of medical school rankings. It is not like most med students are going into research so there must be more to it than that. Can someone clear this up for me?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[YFR]

$$$

... or because if people used the primary care rankings, then the Ivies wouldn't be at the top. And that just wouldn't do.

 

[Archimedes]

NIH gives bigger grants to the better institutions - the ones that are more organized, churning out better science, and that can be an indication as to which medical schools are better on the scientific side.

After all, doctors aren't artists. They're part scientist too.

 

[kenmc3]

Yes, NIH tends to give more grants to more prestigious institutions. But remember to take these numbers with a grain of salt. For example, Boston University was ranked in the 40’s last year (I think 43). Then they got some large grant (I think to build a Biosafety Laboratory) and now they are ranked 28. That goes to show you that $$ plays a really large role in these rankings. I am not saying Boston is a bad school, in fact I consider them a great school. But I am POSITIVE the quality of their med school program did not change so much in a single year to move them 15 points – that’s a rather large move.

 

[YFR]

better institutions - the ones that are more organized, churning out better science, and that can be an indication as to which medical schools are better on the scientific side.

I think the OP was questioning this definition of "better."

 

[Sanctuary]

I am not wanting to stir a debate over the value of the US News rankings. I understand that research is based on $$$ for the most part. But I just want to know why it is that the research ranking is weighted more heavily in defining the stereotypical "tiers" of medical school rankings. It is not like most med students are going into research so there must be more to it than that. Can someone clear this up for me?

One of the main reasons is that research schools are geared more towards a medical degree with an emphasis in research. This doesn't mean that you have to do research, but they strongly encourage it, for the most part. A school like my homeschool, OHSU, is ranked #2 on the primary care list because it's VERY dedicated to educating primary care physicians. They have programs that send you out into rural parts of the state to work along side rural family practitioners and other sorts of things. I guess it just really depends on what your end goal is.

 

[Law2Doc]

NIH gives bigger grants to the better institutions - the ones that are more organized, churning out better science, and that can be an indication as to which medical schools are better on the scientific side.

Also, the schools with the better access to grant money tend to be able to attract the top names in medicine to come work there, many of whom make better faculty, but also which means students there will have more prestigious names signing their LORs (and as last name PI on any research publications) which may help in getting better residency matches, which in turn looks good in recruiting of future matriculants. It's a vicious spiral which I believe is part of the reason that those on top tend to be able to stay there.

 

[LizzyM]

Also, the schools with the better access to grant money tend to be able to attract the top names in medicine to come work there, many of whom make better faculty, but also which means students there will have more prestigious names signing their LORs (and as last name PI on any research publications) which may help in getting better residency matches, which in turn looks good in recruiting of future matriculants. It's a vicious spiral which I believe is part of the reason that those on top tend to be able to stay there.

All the schools have equal access to NIH grant money -- the ranking look at who actually is awarded the grants. Most of the grants, particularly the big money grants, are in basic science or in experiemental treatment of disease. The investiators who are doing this work don't contribute much to the teaching of medical students -- they are busy doing their research, writing papers, traveling the world to present their findings, and applying for their next grant.

The name signing your LOR is the dean of students (aka "the Dean's letter"). The portion of the US News rankings that is based on the rankings according to residency directors is based not so much on who is signing the letter as the reputation of the students that preceed you. Schools known for turning out residents who can do the work with humility, honesty, industriousness, initiative, and who show growing competence over time are going to have a good reputation among residency directors. The directors say "Bring me more Harvard & Hopkins grads" it isnt' because those schools have hot shot research faculty.

 

[YFR]

Is it safe to assume that most people who go ape**** over US News' research rankings aren't interested in primary care? If not, are they just buying into 'hype'?