US News 2016 Medical School Rankings

[ChemEngMD]

Ok so even if we're generous with the numbers...how does a change of ~ 1000 (what is that, 100,000 at most in extra monay?) justify a million+ spent on gaming ranks?

It's not just that money, but, as someone else stated, the additional money from donors and alumni. A big press notice goes out when you enter the Top 10 and people are attracted to numbers and donate more. Pritzker was #22 in 2004 and #8 in 2014 - someone decided that this was important for a variety of reasons, I'm sure.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[mariambaby3]

Ok so even if we're generous with the numbers...how does a change of ~ 1000 (what is that, 100,000 at most in extra monay?) justify a million+ spent on gaming ranks?



I think it's the other way around, the gap 5 to 15 is much larger than 25 to 35 in terms of differences in the weighted values, and people use Top XX as a phrase to mean the group of most selective schools, not specifically those who made the cut this year

I was under the impression that when most people used the term "Top XX," they were referring to the Research rankings of US News. By selective, do you mean the smallest ratio of accepted/applicants? Is there anywhere where we can find such a list? I don't have a paid subscription to US News.

Selectivity also runs into its own problems. Georgetown and GWU have very high number of applicants and hence, appear very selective. But many individuals would generally not consider them to be "top" schools.

EDIT: I found this link from 2013-2014:
http://www.usnews.com/education/bes...ical-schools-with-the-lowest-acceptance-rates

So it looks like Morehouse School of Medicine is #1 in terms of lowest acceptance rate (is this what you mean by selectivity?).

 

[Psai]

Last year we were #8 and had 5893 apps
Year before that we were #10 and had 5246 apps.
We are #11 for this year and I don't know the exact number, but I believe we may have dropped below 5000 apps.
This coming year we will be back up to #10 so we shall see.

I'm really curious about if the quality of the apps change. My guess is yes slightly but it'd be nice to see some numbers

 

[NickNaylor]

So U Chicago huh? What were they last year and the year before? I'm curious exactly how many more apps were filed from the Top 10 rep bump

See @ChemEngMD's post.

 

[NickNaylor]

I'm really curious about if the quality of the apps change. My guess is yes slightly but it'd be nice to see some numbers

This data might be available in the MSAR? I don't remember if the MSAR reports statistics for applicants vs. matriculants.

 

[efle]

It's not just that money, but, as someone else stated, the additional money from donors and alumni. A big press notice goes out when you enter the Top 10 and people are attracted to numbers and donate more. Pritzker was #22 in 2004 and #8 in 2014 - someone decided that this was important for a variety of reasons, I'm sure.

Makes sense. Now how much of that jump during the past decade is due to changes in the ranking methodology vs targeted admissions policy and PR...

I was under the impression that when most people used the term "Top XX," they were referring to the Research rankings of US News. By selective, do you mean the smallest ratio of accepted/applicants? Is there anywhere where we can find such a list? I don't have a paid subscription to US News.

Selectivity also runs into its own problems. Georgetown and GWU have very high number of applicants and hence, appear very selective. But many individuals would generally not consider them to be "top" schools.

EDIT: I found this link from 2013-2014:
http://www.usnews.com/education/bes...ical-schools-with-the-lowest-acceptance-rates

So it looks like Morehouse School of Medicine is #1 in terms of lowest acceptance rate (is this what you mean by selectivity?).

Top XX does refer to US News, but its a rough group and you've reversed the causality. It isn't that being near the top of the ranks makes a school the best/prestigious/selective, it's that those schools end up near the top of the ranks. SDN uses it a lot for undergrads in the same way - if Berkeley makes Top 20 one year and narrowly misses it the next, there is no sudden change in the student quality or reputation of the school, because the ranks don't provide it with these things, the ranks reflect them

Selectivity = how qualified applicants must be to get accepted. Acceptance rates is one of the worst ways to judge selectivity, because the quality of the applicants isn't visible - eg. the acceptance rate at some well-known schools is probably driven down a bit by many underqualified people putting it on their app list as mega-reach dreamschool, or schools with lower stats may attract many many "match" applicants and not many extremely highly qualified ones. I'd personally go with a combo of where the stats are highest and best RD scores.

This data might be available in the MSAR? I don't remember if the MSAR reports statistics for applicants vs. matriculants.

Stats for accepted applicants only. Damn, I'd LOVE to see the all applicants, accepted applicants and matriculants data side-by-side, it might reveal some interesting things (like if a school with an acceptee MCAT range 33-41 has a matriculant range of 33-38 etc)

 

[mariambaby3]

Top XX does refer to US News, but its a rough group and you've reversed the causality. It isn't that being near the top of the ranks makes a school the best/prestigious/selective, it's that those schools end up near the top of the ranks. SDN uses it a lot for undergrads in the same way - if Berkeley makes Top 20 one year and narrowly misses it the next, there is no sudden change in the student quality or reputation of the school, because the ranks don't provide it with these things, the ranks reflect them

Selectivity = how qualified applicants must be to get accepted. Acceptance rates is one of the worst ways to judge selectivity, because the quality of the applicants isn't visible - eg. the acceptance rate at some well-known schools is probably driven down a bit by many underqualified people putting it on their app list as mega-reach dreamschool, or schools with lower stats may attract many many "match" applicants and not many extremely highly qualified ones. I'd personally go with a combo of where the stats are highest and best RD scores.

When you say "it's that those [best/prestigious/selective] schools end up near the top of the ranks," how do we know which schools are best/prestigious/selective? How would a naive individual know that Harvard Med, for ex, is a good medical school? Do we look at research activity? Selectivity? Match list? If so, then in essence we are creating a ranking.

Your definition of selectivity is good. However, a selectivity-based criteria puts more emphasis on the quality of the student body rather than the quality of resources/teaching/research that takes place at the school. As well, other factors such as geographic location, can factor into an applicant's decision to apply to and eventually matriculate to a school. Perhaps an applicant prefers the weather in California, which would give Californian schools a higher boost in a ranking based on these criteria. (Does "RD" mean "Research and Development?")

Do you have an alternate suggestion for a published ranking based on the criteria you mentioned?

 

[efle]

When you say "it's that those [best/prestigious/selective] schools end up near the top of the ranks," how do we know which schools are best/prestigious/selective? How would a naive individual know that Harvard Med, for ex, is a good medical school? Do we look at research activity? Selectivity? Match list? If so, then in essence we are creating a ranking.

Your definition of selectivity is good. However, a selectivity-based criteria puts more emphasis on the quality of the student body rather than the quality of resources/teaching/research that takes place at the school. As well, other factors such as geographic location, can factor into an applicant's decision to apply to and eventually matriculate to a school. Perhaps an applicant prefers the weather in California, which would give Californian schools a higher boost in a ranking based on these criteria. (Does "RD" mean "Research and Development?")

Do you have an alternate suggestion for a published ranking based on the criteria you mentioned?

RD = Residency Directors. US News surveys RD's and has them rate the different schools that provide them with residents - that's the closest I know of to a metric for the quality of training a school provides. Having high average stats is also good but a bit trickier because it's both a sign and a cause of high quality, indicating that a school has a very impressive applicant pool and can set the bar exceptionally high (eg Penn and Wustl with 99th percentile median MCATs), and giving applicants who want to learn along side the most brilliant and academically capable peers a reason to desire that school. For those interested in an academic career, research opportunity and funding becomes very important to look at as well. Things like location can also impact a school's desirability, sure, but that's a) not something you can quantify and b) should end up reflected in reputation/ratings and stats if it does help draw better matriculants .

 

[umms2017]

It makes up 30% of the weight for determining rank, and it's the reason Harvard is going to be #1 forever
"
Total research activity (0.15): This is measured by the total dollar amount of National Institutes of Health research grants awarded to the medical school and its affiliated hospitals, averaged for 2013 and 2014. An asterisk next to this data point indicates that the medical school did not include grants to any affiliated hospitals in its 2014 total.

Average research activity per faculty member (0.15): This is measured by the dollar amount of National Institutes of Health research grants awarded to the medical school and its affiliated hospitals per full-time faculty member, averaged over 2013 and 2014. Both full-time basic sciences and clinical faculty were used in the faculty count. An asterisk next to this data point indicates that the medical school did not include grants to any affiliated hospitals in its 2014 total.
"

Edit: Haha cyberdyne, beat you to it

Check out this blog entry, entitled "What would it take for Harvard Med to drop off #1 in USNWR?" -- pretty insightful read and associated simulated calculations, which affirm what's already been posted
https://anastomosed.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/what-would-it-take-to-knock-harvard-med-off-1-in-usnwr/

 

[cookiemonsters]

BU and Tufts teaching hospitals are supposedly going to merge sometime in the next year, I wonder if this means both will get a modest bump in their USNews rank due to effectively doubling the amount of research associated with both universities.

 

[efle]

BU and Tufts teaching hospitals are supposedly going to merge sometime in the next year, I wonder if this means both will get a modest bump in their USNews rank due to effectively doubling the amount of research associated with both universities.

Or they'll rank BU + Tufts as one entity!

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Or they'll rank BU + Tufts as one entity!

I think the UCSF and Stanford hospitals attempted to merge a while back but it didn't work out. The same for Sinai and NYU, although that was more recent.

 

[Lexicon0]

I would be interested in looking into how curriculum correlates with step 1 score. That is, if schools with clinical rotations prior to Step 1 fare better than traditional schools (with the seemingly clinical tilt step 1 is purported to have as of late). Maybe some kind soul with US news grad compass could look into this

Strong correlation at the top. Eight of the top 10 by mean Step 1 score are in the top 10 research rank.

The top 10 by Step 1 are, in order:
Penn (Perelman) (246)
U Chicago (Pritzker)
Baylor
WashU
Duke
Columbia
Stanford
Harvard
Yale
Case Western (239)

FYI, top 10 by Step 2:
Emory (251)
Penn (Perelman)
U Chicago (Pritzker)
WashU
U Michigan
Harvard
Northwestern (Feinberg)
Columbia
Cornell (Weill)
Mount Sinai (Icahn)
UNC-CH (246)

No surprises here if you follow the averages over time to minimize noise.
Schools that are in the top 10 for both USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 scores for each of the last three years:
Penn (Perelman)
WashU
Harvard

Which schools have the highest MCAT scores over the past few years? Those three. Bingo. The best predictor of performance on standardized tests is previous performance on standardized tests.

 

[chronicidal]

I would be interested in looking into how curriculum correlates with step 1 score. That is, if schools with clinical rotations prior to Step 1 fare better than traditional schools (with the seemingly clinical tilt step 1 is purported to have as of late). Maybe some kind soul with US news grad compass could look into this

My subscription just expired. Also someone should make a list of schools that do vs. do not take Step 1 after clinicals. I think the former group is really small, so it'll be hard to draw conclusions.

 

[WingedOx]

I think the UCSF and Stanford hospitals attempted to merge a while back but it didn't work out. The same for Sinai and NYU, although that was more recent.

It's happening all over, but the hospitals themselves are often separate legal entities from the universities and the research $$$ will no doubt be designated as part of the latter. Doubt it would make a difference to how the $$ is seen by USNews.