US News Rankings -- WTF?

[junebuguf]

Is anyone else as perplexed with some of the choices on the top 25 of the latest US News rankings? The top 50 is here: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/med/brief/mdrrank_brief.php

I know they use a cornucopia of metrics when determining these rankings, but the two that I'm most familiar with are the numbers for the incoming class and research. Things like teacher to student ratio are crap and do not mean anything. Similarly, medical students do not see any trickle down effect from NIH grants. It does recruit a better caliber of researchers, but that you are occupying the same physical space as these people provides no anciliary benefit to you medical education. I think these two, at least, should be dropped.

So how does Emory get ranked below Pritzker? U of Chicago's entering class has very pedestrian numbers. How come Wake is in the 40s? I thought they were a good school (at least top 25), but they're skipped by Rochester, Wisconsin-Madison and Oregon Health Sciences.

BU gets into the top 30 because of the the funding for the new bioterrorism lab, when the rest of the school--statistics for new matriculants, faculty, facilities, et are exactly the same. Similarly, Tulane is completely ravaged but still skips U of Florida? If Tulane is a better school, they're a better school. But if BU gets a temporary bump for their new funding, shouldnt Tulane be similarly dropped lower for the facilities they lost?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Will Ferrell]

I don't think those rankings are meant to be taken seriously.

 

[SanDiegoSOD]

Don't put faith in those numbers. But you're an SDN vet, you already know that... you just trying to make a point here?

 

[X5Boi]

Is anyone else as perplexed with some of the choices on the top 25 of the latest US News rankings? The top 50 is here: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/med/brief/mdrrank_brief.php

I know they use a cornucopia of metrics when determining these rankings, but the two that I'm most familiar with are the numbers for the incoming class and research. Things like teacher to student ratio are crap and do not mean anything. Similarly, medical students do not see any trickle down effect from NIH grants. It does recruit a better caliber of researchers, but that you are occupying the same physical space as these people provides no anciliary benefit to you medical education. I think these two, at least, should be dropped.

So how does Emory get ranked below Pritzker? U of Chicago's entering class has very pedestrian numbers. How come Wake is in the 40s? I thought they were a good school (at least top 25), but they're skipped by Rochester, Wisconsin-Madison and Oregon Health Sciences.

BU gets into the top 30 because of the the funding for the new bioterrorism lab, when the rest of the school--statistics for new matriculants, faculty, facilities, et are exactly the same. Similarly, Tulane is completely ravaged but still skips U of Florida? If Tulane is a better school, they're a better school. But if BU gets a temporary bump for their new funding, shouldnt Tulane be similarly dropped lower for the facilities they lost?

Please stop complaining, if you had gotten into a top 50 school, I'm sure you would not be posting this bitching thread

 

[NonTradMed]

The rankings are only a guide, they are not set in stone. If you are interested in academic medicine or competitive residencies, getting into a top ranked research school well help you to get to your goals. Otherwise, you go to the school that you are most comfortable with.

 

[junebuguf]

Are we not supposed to take them seriously? I'm applying this cycle, so I was perusing them to get an idea of where schools are ranked, and I was surprised, to say the least.

Also, I'm not so sure these rankings are completely inconsequential. School perception has to originate somewhere, right? A residency director in California may have no idea how strong or weak an East coast school like BU may be, but if he/she sees it in places like US News, its bound to make an impression.

For instance, why the hell is Alabama-Birmingham tied with Mayo? Even before I saw the rankings, I knew UAB was highly ranked...but I have no freeking clue why. I can think of a lot of reasons for Mayo, but not UAB. I don't think I'm alone. I think there are a lot of drones out there, mindlessly believing that UAB is as good as Mayo. I think US News is to blame.

 

[javert]

Please stop complaining, if you had gotten into a top 50 school, I'm sure you would not be posting this bitching thread

woah buddy, a little harsh...

 

[junebuguf]

Please stop complaining, if you had gotten into a top 50 school, I'm sure you would not be posting this bitching thread

Umm...I havent gotten into any school, so I guess that serves your point. But I have also not *not* gotten into a top 50 school.

 

[seadizzle]

woah buddy, a little harsh...

he was joking, i thought it was funny

 

[jbrice1639]

So how does Emory get ranked below Pritzker?

by being a better school?

 

[Rogue Synapse]

Whatever. I know that US News is objectively wrong because they've neglected to include the research powerhouse that is the University of South Carolina. Why, just last year, we outpaced Yale at least 2 dollars for every dollar of theirs in total NIH funding. Yes, that's why I'm here at this university, because US News is the gold standard for the absolute merit of a medical school, and they ranked South Carolina #3, narrowly edging out UAB, which everyone knows is the school to beat.

 

[fantasty]

For instance, why the hell is Alabama-Birmingham tied with Mayo? Even before I saw the rankings, I knew UAB was highly ranked...but I have no freeking clue why. I can think of a lot of reasons for Mayo, but not UAB. I don't think I'm alone. I think there are a lot of drones out there, mindlessly believing that UAB is as good as Mayo. I think US News is to blame.

UAB has a strong research program, and is generally a decent school as well. Mayo is certainly an excellent school, but it's very small and is probably more highly regarded for its clinical expertise and post-graduate training rather than its medical school.

 

[sara3426]

Are we not supposed to take them seriously? I'm applying this cycle, so I was perusing them to get an idea of where schools are ranked, and I was surprised, to say the least.

Also, I'm not so sure these rankings are completely inconsequential. School perception has to originate somewhere, right? A residency director in California may have no idea how strong or weak an East coast school like BU may be, but if he/she sees it in places like US News, its bound to make an impression.

For instance, why the hell is Alabama-Birmingham tied with Mayo? Even before I saw the rankings, I knew UAB was highly ranked...but I have no freeking clue why. I can think of a lot of reasons for Mayo, but not UAB. I don't think I'm alone. I think there are a lot of drones out there, mindlessly believing that UAB is as good as Mayo. I think US News is to blame.

UAB has crazy amazing research, dude. Crazy amazing.
They present along with Harvard, Yale, etc. at every major research symposium (like the one I went to last week in Boston)...

 

[ND2005]

Also, I'm not so sure these rankings are completely inconsequential. School perception has to originate somewhere, right? A residency director in California may have no idea how strong or weak an East coast school like BU may be, but if he/she sees it in places like US News, its bound to make an impression.

There are only 116 schools. It's not exactly crazy to think that a residency director would be familiar with most if not all schools.

For instance, why the hell is Alabama-Birmingham tied with Mayo? Even before I saw the rankings, I knew UAB was highly ranked...but I have no freeking clue why. I can think of a lot of reasons for Mayo, but not UAB. I don't think I'm alone. I think there are a lot of drones out there, mindlessly believing that UAB is as good as Mayo. I think US News is to blame.

UAB does a helluva lot of research. Thus they're in the top of the RESEARCH rankings. There's nothing wrong with that.

The problem is that people don't seem to have a handle on the fact that the US News rankings mean very little about the medical education you will receive from the school. The rankings aren't meant to say "you should go to school X because it will make you a better doctor than school Y", but that is how they are interpreted. The biggest problem with the US news rankings is how grossly they are misapplied.

 

[junebuguf]

by being a better school?

This is what I mean! How can you decree that Pritzker is better than Emory, by what measure? I've seen Emory inside and out, and I have seen Pritzker because my friend works in the Radiology dept. Pritzker's facilities and hospitals pale in comparison to Emory, and as I've already said, the numbers of their incoming students is average, at best--certainly lower than Emory. So whats left? Research? That should factor in as third most important, but even there, Emory has labs that are at least comparable.

This poster represents the kind of thinking that US News wants to engender--we have to switch the rankings around from year to year or no one would ever buy the magazine, so this year Emory is lower then Pritzker. And thats dangerous because US News is the only publication providing this kind of service.

 

[jbrice1639]

This is what I mean! How can you decree that Pritzker is better than Emory, by what measure? I've seen Emory inside and out, and I have seen Pritzker because my friend works in the Radiology dept. Pritzker's facilities and hospitals pale in comparison to Emory, and as I've already said, the numbers of their incoming students is average, at best--certainly lower than Emory. So whats left? Research? That should factor in as third most important, but even there, Emory has labs that are at least comparable.

This poster represents the kind of thinking that US News wants to engender--we have to switch the rankings around from year to year or no one would ever buy the magazine, so this year Emory is lower then Pritzker. And thats dangerous because US News is the only publication providing this kind of service.

actually, i was just being an inflammatory jackass because i'm bored. honestly, i've said countless times on here that i think the ratings are a joke. fantastic doctors come out of bottom schools and horrible doctors come out of great schools. the difference between the top and the bottom schools in terms of education quality is so miniscule it's not worth bothering with. so yeah, US News makes rankings to sell magazines, but what's really dangerous is silly pre-meds making life-changing decisions based on a dumb magazine...

 

[tennisnr]

I think you're missing probably the most relevant criteria that U.S News uses. If you should look at anything it should be Residency director scores and then Peer scores.


According to your logic, WashU is suddenly THE best school in the nation because they select students with the highest average MCAT.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Pritzker's facilities and hospitals pale in comparison to Emory, and as I've already said, the numbers of their incoming students is average, at best--certainly lower than Emory. .

from the 07-08 msar:

pritzer mcat: 11 11 12 Q
emory mcat: 11 12 12 Q

hardly a difference

pritzer gpa: 3.81
emory gpa: 3.77

I guess they're "even" when it comes to numbers

Pritzer edges Emory out slightly in terms of percentage of students who performed undergrad research, medically related work, and community service.
These are the only objective criteria to go by, I'm sure both schools have amazing students in any case.

 

[junebuguf]

I think you're missing probably the most relevant criteria that U.S News uses. If you should look at anything it should be Residency director scores and then Peer scores.


According to your logic, WashU is suddenly THE best school in the nation because they select students with the highest average MCAT.

I dont think MCAT scores should be the prime determinant. However, I think MCAT scores, along with GPA should be more important than NIH grants and student/faculty ratio.

How do residency directors determine their evalutations? Is it only from their personal experience with candidates from a particular school? Or is it based, to a lesser but still significant degree, on other factors as well, such as the baseline noise emanating from publications like US News telling them that school X is better than Y? A single residency director cannot possibly have acquired a thorough perception of every single school's graduates. At most, a single director may accrue, through professional and metoring interactions, an idea of 40-50 school's graduates. For instance, I doubt a place like RFU in Chicago gets students from elite schools into its residency programs. So what business do they have comparing Harvard and Hopkins?

A better way to do it, would be to ask any single director to evaluate only 20 or so schools which are based on the applicants that school selects to its programs. Then, cross evaluate schools by comparing scores from directors who have had to evaluate a similar subset of schools.

Somehow, I doubt US News uses this, or any other approach to compensate for unfamiliarity.

 

[Em1]

Why should MCAT scores matter ALL that much? They only tell you what kind of students the school attracts and how hard it is to get in. They say nothing about how well the school educates them, and isn't that what we're trying to get out of the rankings?

The residency director scores are a much more valuable tool. If a director knows school X's graduates make much more competent interns/residents than school Y's, that difference will be reflected in the rankings. As far as the methodology for this, I don't believe directors are asked to rank every school, just those with which they are familiar.

 

[Em1]

For instance, why the hell is Alabama-Birmingham tied with Mayo? Even before I saw the rankings, I knew UAB was highly ranked...but I have no freeking clue why. I can think of a lot of reasons for Mayo, but not UAB. I don't think I'm alone. I think there are a lot of drones out there, mindlessly believing that UAB is as good as Mayo. I think US News is to blame.

What are your reasons for Mayo, simply that you've heard them in the news more often? If you know nothing about UAB, you have no basis to say it's not top-25 worthy. If you ask people who have been in the medical field for many years (residency directors, deans, prominent researchers, etc) I'm sure their view of UAB would be quite different from yours.

 

[MollyMalone]

Just a reminder for everyone to keep it cool in here.

Thanks!

 

[phenylalanine]

Just a reminder for everyone to keep it cool in here.

Thanks!

hahah molly, being a fellow pritzkerer, tho i want to say something, but I guess I won't

 

[riceman04]

Please stop complaining, if you had gotten into a top 50 school, I'm sure you would not be posting this bitching thread

huh! That makes no sense...he's applying right now!

 

[kcernak]

BU gets into the top 30 because of the the funding for the new bioterrorism lab, when the rest of the school--statistics for new matriculants, faculty, facilities, et are exactly the same. Similarly, Tulane is completely ravaged but still skips U of Florida? If Tulane is a better school, they're a better school. But if BU gets a temporary bump for their new funding, shouldnt Tulane be similarly dropped lower for the facilities they lost?

I've been told that Tulane's rankings are frozen for the next year due to Hurricane Katrina. I've found this to be untrue in cases of other schools within the university having different rankings than last year. Regardless, Tulane medical school still had a full year of classes, quite successfully, albeit in Houston, and received a large number of applicants. Tulane did not lose any non-clinical facilities. In fact, the only buildng that I can even think of as being gone is Charity Hospital, which, while a huge loss, is only one part of the school and, I think, is pretty good due to the strength of the hurricanes.

 

[Doctor&Geek]

The OP demonstrates his or her ignorance. He or she criticizes the rankings as inaccurate, yet fails to give any reason why his or her system is any better or avoids inaccuracies.

 

[45408]

How come Wake is in the 40s? I thought they were a good school (at least top 25), but they're skipped by Rochester, Wisconsin-Madison and Oregon Health Sciences.

And how do you figure that? You're just guessing here, based on which schools you've heard mentioned more, it sounds like.

 

[Rafa]

I love how we argue about these rankings as if we're discussing basketball teams in the playoffs....or soccer teams in the WORLD CUP (which is coming this summer!)

 

[trpng0bily]

I dont think MCAT scores should be the prime determinant. However, I think MCAT scores, along with GPA should be more important than NIH grants and student/faculty ratio.

How do residency directors determine their evalutations? Is it only from their personal experience with candidates from a particular school? Or is it based, to a lesser but still significant degree, on other factors as well, such as the baseline noise emanating from publications like US News telling them that school X is better than Y? A single residency director cannot possibly have acquired a thorough perception of every single school's graduates. At most, a single director may accrue, through professional and metoring interactions, an idea of 40-50 school's graduates. For instance, I doubt a place like RFU in Chicago gets students from elite schools into its residency programs. So what business do they have comparing Harvard and Hopkins?

A better way to do it, would be to ask any single director to evaluate only 20 or so schools which are based on the applicants that school selects to its programs. Then, cross evaluate schools by comparing scores from directors who have had to evaluate a similar subset of schools.

Somehow, I doubt US News uses this, or any other approach to compensate for unfamiliarity.

MCAT and GPA should be made as insignificant to the rankings as possible. The more heavily they are weighed in the rankings, the more likely schools are to accept student based purely on numbers, and we all know that ridiculous MCAT scores do not necessarily make a good doctor.

This is what has happened in law schools, with schools accepting students who will raise their average LSAT and GPA and consequently their ranking at the expense of candidates perhaps better suited to the practice of law and the ideals of the school (yes, the schools at least have ideals). It would be terrible if this spread to medical school.

 

[45408]

I love how we argue about these rankings as if we're discussing basketball teams in the playoffs....or soccer teams in the WORLD CUP (which is coming this summer!)

that's a pretty good analogy.

"No way, man, Duke is going to walk all over Stanford this year."
"Psssh, they just hired a new dean of admissions, I can really see Stanford blowing the competition out of the water."
"Fair enough, but you gotta admit that with Columbia's new research facility, the other guys are gonna have trouble competing with the depth of play they have now."
"I still think that Rush or Loyola will be this year's Cinderella story for sure. Sweet Sixteen at the least."

 

[drmota]

these rankings are blasphemous. tulane should be top 10. don't read into them
-mota

 

[SanDiegoSOD]

Tulane medical school still had a full year of classes, quite successfully, albeit in Houston, and received a large number of applicants. Tulane did not lose any non-clinical facilities. In fact, the only buildng that I can even think of as being gone is Charity Hospital, which, while a huge loss, is only one part of the school and, I think, is pretty good due to the strength of the hurricanes.

I wouldn't minimize the loss that Tulane suffered due to Hurricane Katrina. The truth is that is suffered institutional damage that will take many, many years to recoup from. Its quite small consolation that Tulane lost no non-clinical facilities - non-clinical teaching in med school can be done in a bus down by the river. It's the clinical training that counts, and Tulane lost its crown jewel, along with much of the faculty that staffed Charity.
Now it's not Tulane's fault that this happened - Katrina was truly an act of God (I mean that in the non-religious sense). And the university has done admirably and has held its head up high throughout the past year. But it has suffered, greatly, and let's not forget that.

 

[Taurus]

With all the faculty layoffs in the medical school at Tulane after Katrina, I'm shocked that they are in the top 50.

 

[Doctor&Geek]

They took last years results for Tulane, because they were unable to get this years statistics for obvious reasons.

 

[velo]

Yeah I'd like to see average USMLE scores added to their metric...that would give us a nice bump...

I think NIH money is in there because that's the "research" list. If you're interested in going into academics and want to find a good mentor to work with during medical school, its good to have a lot of well funded labs about.

 

[star22]

Yeah I'd like to see average USMLE scores added to their metric...that would give us a nice bump...

I think NIH money is in there because that's the "research" list. If you're interested in going into academics and want to find a good mentor to work with during medical school, its good to have a lot of well funded labs about.

No kidding, plus I don't see how NIH money at a school really affects the average medical student unless they are doing a lot research. Even then # of pubs the average student graduates with would be a better indicator of how NIH money trickles down to a student's education, or at the very least give average USMLE step 1 scores (assuming more NIH $$ = better basic science faculty = better basic science education, but somehow I doubt this correlation exists).

 

[worriedwell]

For the record, the fellowship director at one of the handful of world class oncology training facilities in the world personally told my good friend (who was going into medicine) that the 5 best medicine residencies to give somebody a leg up to get into a fellowship like the one he had were...

MGH
Brigham
UCSF
Hopkins
and

UCHICAGO.

I know this is not perfectly analagous to medical schools and this is only one man's opinion but it goes to show you what company Uchicago as a medical institution keeps in terms of the academic millieu at least in the eyes of an extremely influential and well connected fellowship director.

This may be a reason that despite your objections, the rankings reflect that Uchicago has a "reputation" among academic research medical schools which will put one in a place where they can work with big time academics.

To me, that is more reflective of what a "research ranking" for a medical school should encompass rather than what the numbers of the acceptees are.

Also for the record, my director of the surgical clerkship in medical school told me that USNews rankings offer a decent "general" reflection of the caliber of students each school offers (with outliers of course) but it is by no means something to be scrutinized.

No flames please, but just passing along more senior word of mouth about these things.

Best,
worriedwell

 

[ND2005]

And how do you figure that? You're just guessing here, based on which schools you've heard mentioned more, it sounds like.

Seriously. The methodology of the OP seems to be "I heard this school was good, so it's not ranked high enough" (Wake, Emory) and "I haven't heard about this school, so it shouldn't be ranked that high" (UAB, UChicago)

 

[DrHuang]

Seriously. The methodology of the OP seems to be "I heard this school was good, so it's not ranked high enough" (Wake, Emory) and "I haven't heard about this school, so it shouldn't be ranked that high" (UAB, UChicago)

haha seriously!

 

[Ambs]

Is anyone else as perplexed with some of the choices on the top 25 of the latest US News rankings? The top 50 is here: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/med/brief/mdrrank_brief.php

I know they use a cornucopia of metrics when determining these rankings, but the two that I'm most familiar with are the numbers for the incoming class and research. Things like teacher to student ratio are crap and do not mean anything. Similarly, medical students do not see any trickle down effect from NIH grants. It does recruit a better caliber of researchers, but that you are occupying the same physical space as these people provides no anciliary benefit to you medical education. I think these two, at least, should be dropped.

So how does Emory get ranked below Pritzker? U of Chicago's entering class has very pedestrian numbers. How come Wake is in the 40s? I thought they were a good school (at least top 25), but they're skipped by Rochester, Wisconsin-Madison and Oregon Health Sciences.

BU gets into the top 30 because of the the funding for the new bioterrorism lab, when the rest of the school--statistics for new matriculants, faculty, facilities, et are exactly the same. Similarly, Tulane is completely ravaged but still skips U of Florida? If Tulane is a better school, they're a better school. But if BU gets a temporary bump for their new funding, shouldnt Tulane be similarly dropped lower for the facilities they lost?

Like the others said, who knows about these rankings... but on another note, do your research.

UWisc-Madison is an insanely good school. Very powerful research there. Heard of coumadin? I personally don't believe Wake comes close. I applied last year and got into both and liked both... but UWisc's facilities (awesome new basic science building), curriculum, faculty, research, etc were far more impressive. OHSU (Oregon Health & Science is also an awesome school, but that's because I go here...

 

[crazy_cavalier]

Acad Med. 2001; 76:985-992

 

[josh999123]

Seriously. The methodology of the OP seems to be "I heard this school was good, so it's not ranked high enough" (Wake, Emory) and "I haven't heard about this school, so it shouldn't be ranked that high" (UAB, UChicago)

Exactamundo

 

[tennisnr]

Exactamundo

I think we can all agree to that well except for the OP...

 

[ubermu]

I think we can all agree to that well except for the OP...

How do you find USMLE rankings for med schools?

 

[jjmack]

How do you find USMLE rankings for med schools?

get it from the school themselves.

 

[velo]

No kidding, plus I don't see how NIH money at a school really affects the average medical student unless they are doing a lot research. Even then # of pubs the average student graduates with would be a better indicator of how NIH money trickles down to a student's education, or at the very least give average USMLE step 1 scores (assuming more NIH $$ = better basic science faculty = better basic science education, but somehow I doubt this correlation exists).

Well, no. Like I said the list you're looking at is the "research" list, and for a medical school to be a good research institution it needs a lot of funding. Does that make a difference for someone who's 100% sure they're going straight to private practice after residency? Not really.

I don't think they're assuming that NIH money translates to better medical school classes.....maybe better academic physicians, hence better attendings, hence better clinical training? but that's QUITE a stretch

 

[velo]

For the record, the fellowship director at one of the handful of world class oncology training facilities in the world personally told my good friend (who was going into medicine) that the 5 best medicine residencies to give somebody a leg up to get into a fellowship like the one he had were...

I think UChicago is a fantastic school, but you have to be careful using information like that. As opposed to medical school, in residency there are definately certain programs that are much better than others for helping you fulfill a very specific goal down the line (i.e. Score that oncology fellowship). And all residency programs at any given institution are not equal. Harvard is a great school, but there are plenty of areas in which a harvard residency is not top of the heap. Whatsmore, some really small institutions might have one "claim to fame' program where you would never suspect that they have the top XYZ program in the country.

Sooo, you can't really use the strength of UChicago's residency program and its ability to get your an oncology fellowship to prove the strength of the medical school....but that said I think UChicago is a great school and Hyde Park kicks ass.

 

[star22]

Well, no. Like I said the list you're looking at is the "research" list, and for a medical school to be a good research institution it needs a lot of funding. Does that make a difference for someone who's 100% sure they're going straight to private practice after residency? Not really.

I don't think they're assuming that NIH money translates to better medical school classes.....maybe better academic physicians, hence better attendings, hence better clinical training? but that's QUITE a stretch

I am willing to bet that the majority of NIH money goes to people that are full-time researchers (mainly PhDs) so why would anyone expect better clinical training?

 

[velo]

I am willing to bet that the majority of NIH money goes to people that are full-time researchers (mainly PhDs) so why would anyone expect better clinical training?

I said it was "quite a stretch."

But still at my school your bet would be wrong. We have a HUGE number of physician-scientists, and there's no one on staff who's not doing research.

 

[slmsmith]

UAB has a strong research program, and is generally a decent school as well. Mayo is certainly an excellent school, but it's very small and is probably more highly regarded for its clinical expertise and post-graduate training rather than its medical school.

post-topic aside (i'm not even sure what this thread is about, i just clicked on it randomly), your avatar is sooo funny. thanks for that.