Which are the Most Rigorous Top Institutions

[VaioSson]

I'm curious what SDN thinks about the most rigorous institutions.

I've listed the top 25 undergraduate institutions, as ranked by the US News & World Report.

Which do you think are the 10 most rigorous institutions?

1. Princeton
2. Harvard
3. Yale
4. Columbia
4. Stanford
4. U of Chicago
7. MIT
8. Duke
9. U of Penn
10. CalTech
10. Johns Hopkins
12. Dartmouth
12. Northwestern
14. Brown
15. Cornell
15. Vanderbilt
15. WashU
18. Rice
18. Notre Dame
20. UC Berkeley
21. Emory
21. Georgetown
23. Carnegie Mellon
23. UCLA
23. U of Southern California

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[NotAnotherPreMed]

Well the ones that keep coming up again and again are Princeton, MIT, CalTech, Uchicago, Hopkins, WashU, Berkeley, UCLA from this list. Maybe people can make a case for other schools as well.

 

[GrapesofRath]

x

 

[mimelim]

In all seriousness, what experience and/or data set are you expecting people to use to chime in on this? Or is your expectation that people are just argue over essentially nothing?

 

[Spinach Dip]

In all seriousness, what experience and/or data set are you expecting people to use to chime in on this? Or is your expectation that people are just argue over essentially nothing?

/thread

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Yes, let's talk about academic misery metrics. It'd be such a rigorous discussion!

 

[VaioSson]

In all seriousness, what experience and/or data set are you expecting people to use to chime in on this? Or is your expectation that people are just argue over essentially nothing?

Presumably, this is precisely what goes on when adcoms make decisions! (I.e., little evidence-based decisions and more based on perceptions.)

I suppose I'm asking what people's perceptions are, because after all, adcoms are people too and don't always have any compelling and systematic way to justify their decision making processes!!

 

[Med Ed]

Presumably, this is precisely what goes on when adcoms make decisions! (I.e., little evidence-based decisions and more based on perceptions.)

I suppose I'm asking what people's perceptions are, because after all, adcoms are people too and don't always have any compelling and systematic way to justify their decision making processes!!

Admit all but #8 and see how many come.

 

[piii]

How does this have anything to do with pre-allo? I vote it gets removed and put in the social thread

 

[mimelim]

Presumably, this is precisely what goes on when adcoms make decisions! (I.e., little evidence-based decisions and more based on perceptions.)

I suppose I'm asking what people's perceptions are, because after all, adcoms are people too and don't always have any compelling and systematic way to justify their decision making processes!!

I don't understand anything in your post. Admissions committees are a group of people with a vast collective experience. This is in stark contrast to pre-meds, medical students, residents and attendings of whom very few have experience at more than one institution, much less 10 of them. Further, the premise, "something else isn't evidence based, so evidence based is okay!" is a little silly, as someone else pointed out is better served for the lounge/social thread. Lastly, when we review applications, we have a wealth of evidence of who applicants are from their transcripts and scores to LOR and PS, followed by an interview process. Is it perfect? Not by a long shot. But, frankly, admissions meetings are pretty straight forward and logical. There isn't a ton of hand waving involved. People that claim that it is random should gain some experience in the matter before condemning it.

 

[VaioSson]

I don't understand anything in your post. Admissions committees are a group of people with a vast collective experience. This is in stark contrast to pre-meds, medical students, residents and attendings of whom very few have experience at more than one institution, much less 10 of them. Further, the premise, "something else isn't evidence based, so evidence based is okay!" is a little silly, as someone else pointed out is better served for the lounge/social thread. Lastly, when we review applications, we have a wealth of evidence of who applicants are from their transcripts and scores to LOR and PS, followed by an interview process. Is it perfect? Not by a long shot. But, frankly, admissions meetings are pretty straight forward and logical. There isn't a ton of hand waving involved. People that claim that it is random should gain some experience in the matter before condemning it.

The reason why I asked this question is because I think people's perceptions of rigorous institutions can be helpful in understanding how adcoms view them as well. From what I understand, there are adcoms that compose of medical students, physicians, and even members of the community, all of whom are voting members. I agree though, that the opinions of pre-med are probably of little insight, even if the intention is there.

I had an interesting conversation with an adcom member lately, who recognized some of the rigorous institutions on the list provided above and even mentioned some institutions not on that list being known to be rigorous. Her comments surprised me because the institutions she mentioned are not any of the ones that are always brought up in this forum. This made me realize how differently adcoms see things compared to what members of the SDN community conventionally believe. Obviously, this is just the opinion of one adcom member

I don't disagree with you that it's not an easy task to speculate on what adcoms might perceive of different institutions, but I think it could still be helpful for pre-meds.

For example, geography is probably important. Med schools located in certain regions of the country will have a good understanding of which schools are rigorous in their region, even if they may not be nationally recognized. I also think that some of them may even be aware of certain majors from certain universities to be rigorous.

I apologize if it sounded like I was condemning the admissions process, but it wasn't my intention. I think many people would agree that it doesn't seem to be especially logical and it's probably impossible to predict whether a candidate would be admitted or not before the adcom meets to vote, etc.

 

[Goro]

I'd put Rice in the top 10. Excellent school with a lousy football team to prove it.

I'm curious what SDN thinks about the most rigorous institutions.

I've listed the top 25 undergraduate institutions, as ranked by the US News & World Report.

Which do you think are the 10 most rigorous institutions?

1. Princeton
2. Harvard
3. Yale
4. Columbia
4. Stanford
4. U of Chicago
7. MIT
8. Duke
9. U of Penn
10. CalTech
10. Johns Hopkins
12. Dartmouth
12. Northwestern
14. Brown
15. Cornell
15. Vanderbilt
15. WashU
18. Rice
18. Notre Dame
20. UC Berkeley
21. Emory
21. Georgetown
23. Carnegie Mellon
23. UCLA
23. U of Southern California

 

[7331poas]

What you find to be logical has no bearing because you do not hold all the information.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Where's Harvey Mudd?

It's not in the the US News top 25, so it's clearly not a "rigorous top" institution.

Edit: sorry it's a "top" LAC

 

[JPA178]

Some undergraduate schools practice grade inflation (particularly the ivies, where I've heard it's rampant); conversely, other schools practice grade deflation (UChicago, Johns Hopkins, and Carnegie Mellon are notorious). Many top public schools like Cal, UCLA, UVA, and UMich are grade deflators as well - large class sizes and big weeder classes. I would argue the schools that give out fewer As are much more rigorous. Not saying the others aren't, but at schools that have harsher grading curves, you will have to work a lot harder to pull off a competitive GPA.

 

[AirplaneFruit]

In all seriousness, what experience and/or data set are you expecting people to use to chime in on this? Or is your expectation that people are just argue over essentially nothing?

Median GPAs of all undergrads. Median GPAs of med-school matriculants from the undergrad. Selectivity + Yield-Performance+ Median high-school GPA / SAT / APs for strength of student body.

 

[bananafish94]

I'd like to hear adcom opinions on this...at the schools that I have interviewed with (n=3), the other applicants were almost exclusively from "elite" schools. Either really well-known public schools (like state flagship universities) or private schools like those listed above. Very, very few people from smaller or lesser known colleges. Other pre-med friends of mine noticed the same thing. Do admissions committees take the prestige of the school into account or is it more of a self-selection type thing where the people who are motivated enough to apply to med school tend to be at these schools in the first place?

 

[efle]

Do admissions committees take the prestige of the school into account or is it more of a self-selection type thing where the people who are motivated enough to apply to med school tend to be at these schools in the first place?

Private medical schools rate selectivity of undergraduate institution as an academic factor of "highest importance". Public med schools in contrast rate this as a factor of lowest importance.

https://aamc-orange.global.ssl.fast...5b5844a/mcatstudentselectionguide.pdf#page=12

a very handy survey!

 

[tartandtangy]

I'd put Rice in the top 10. Excellent school with a lousy football team to prove it.

Nice to hear my university getting a shoutout! Although lousy may be an understatement...

 

[bananafish94]

Private medical schools rate selectivity of undergraduate institution as an academic factor of "highest importance". Public med schools in contrast rate this as a factor of lowest importance.

https://aamc-orange.global.ssl.fast...5b5844a/mcatstudentselectionguide.pdf#page=12

a very handy survey!

Very interesting! I'm not sure exactly what their criteria is for that, but interesting nonetheless.

 

[Officer Farva]

I'm curious what SDN thinks about the most rigorous institutions.

I've listed the top 25 undergraduate institutions, as ranked by the US News & World Report.

Which do you think are the 10 most rigorous institutions?

1. Princeton
2. Harvard
3. Yale
4. Columbia
4. Stanford
4. U of Chicago
7. MIT
8. Duke
9. U of Penn
10. CalTech
10. Johns Hopkins
12. Dartmouth
12. Northwestern
14. Brown
15. Cornell
15. Vanderbilt
15. WashU
18. Rice
18. Notre Dame
20. UC Berkeley
21. Emory
21. Georgetown
23. Carnegie Mellon
23. UCLA
23. U of Southern California

Rigorous =/= top schools.

But I would say Princeton, Columbia, Stanford, Chicago, MIT, Caltech, JHU, Cornell, WashU, and basically all the UCs. Also include Carnegie Mellon.

 

[Med Ed]

Private medical schools rate selectivity of undergraduate institution as an academic factor of "highest importance". Public med schools in contrast rate this as a factor of lowest importance.

https://aamc-orange.global.ssl.fast...5b5844a/mcatstudentselectionguide.pdf#page=12

a very handy survey!

Indeed, although I do wonder about the distribution of public medical schools in relation to this particular question. The survey approach lumps UCSF with Mississippi, two institutions that are different in many ways. I wonder what else might be hiding in the data.

 

[GrapesofRath]

Indeed, although I do wonder about the distribution of public medical schools in relation to this particular question. The survey approach lumps UCSF with Mississippi, two institutions that are different in many ways. I wonder what else might be hiding in the data.

Another thing to note is the survey indicates "Selectivity of UG institution" not rigor of UG institution. There's a difference and people often lump the two together without realizing it.

There also many different meanings of this. Alot of private schools might not "give significantly more leeway" per se to people from top schools for a lower UG GPA, but rather certain top schools are "feeders" to certain private schools. So in a complete hypothetical made up example a school like Yale might not really look at UGs from Duke and ECU that much differently, but if they see a Yale or Harvard grad applying, suddenly they look at them very differently from other schools and are willing to overlook more of their flaws. Yet on that AAMC survey, that would still mean they account for undergrad significantly, just not in the way many might think

Likewise, I dont buy that say a SUNY looks at all UG institutions the same which is what some might imply by looking at that chart. Schools like SUNYs get a ton of applications from people in New York who go to top private schools, particularly those in New York like Cornell and Columbia. They have a good idea of what they are getting from those top UG schools. If they know that those with lower GPAs from Cornell tend to do just fine in their school, there's a good chance they'll be more willing to overlook lower GPAs than they would from generic State U even though technically they place "minimal importance in UG selectivity".

Interestingly, Miami releases the way they "give points" to applicants. UG prestige is given 30 points out of 300. MCAT and GPA 45 each. LORs and Essays 45. Patient contact experience 60. They also list where the people from their class came from; interestingly there isnt much representation from top schools(although almost every top school individually is represented) suggesting those "30 points" awarded for UG dont amount to that much. Note Miami really doesnt get much if any funding from the state anymore so they largely function as a "private school" for purposes of that AAMC survey.

http://admissions.med.miami.edu/md-programs/general-md/class-profile

 

[raiderette]

I would add Duke, Rice, Harvey Mudd, engineering schools Olin and Rose Hulman, and top LACs like Swarthmore and Reed.

 

[Med Ed]

Key caveat here is "Selectivity of UG institution" not rigor of UG institution. There's a difference and people tend to lump the two together without realizing it.

True, I presume they are just aping the terminology used by undergraduate college guides (like Peterson's).

 

[GrapesofRath]

True, I presume they are just aping the terminology used by undergraduate college guides (like Peterson's).

My first thought is the wording might suggests schools might favor the big names, even the ones known for grade inflation(ie brown) and not so much the names without the flair but known for grade deflation(ie Reed).

To some extent I believe it might be more about certain private schools being attracted to big UG names and not caring as much about the idea of grade deflation or tougher competition. So I think the notion of "schools will account for all the grade deflation at our school and care a lot about it" might sometimes be a bit flawed

 

[efle]

Indeed, although I do wonder about the distribution of public medical schools in relation to this particular question. The survey approach lumps UCSF with Mississippi, two institutions that are different in many ways. I wonder what else might be hiding in the data.

Makes sense. I'd guess conversely there are private schools that aren't concerned much with alma maters

 

[efle]

Another thing to note is the survey indicates "Selectivity of UG institution" not rigor of UG institution. There's a difference and people often lump the two together without realizing it.

There also many different meanings of this. Alot of private schools might not "give significantly more leeway" per se to people from top schools for a lower UG GPA, but rather certain top schools are "feeders" to certain private schools. So in a complete hypothetical made up example a school like Yale might not really look at UGs from Duke and ECU that much differently, but if they see a Yale or Harvard grad applying, suddenly they look at them very differently from other schools and are willing to overlook more of their flaws. Yet on that AAMC survey, that would still mean they account for undergrad significantly, just not in the way many might think

Likewise, I dont buy that say a SUNY looks at all UG institutions the same which is what some might imply by looking at that chart. Schools like SUNYs get a ton of applications from people in New York who go to top private schools, particularly those in New York like Cornell and Columbia. They have a good idea of what they are getting from those top UG schools. If they know that those with lower GPAs from Cornell tend to do just fine in their school, there's a good chance they'll be more willing to overlook lower GPAs than they would from generic State U even though technically they place "minimal importance in UG selectivity".

Interestingly, Miami releases the way they "give points" to applicants. UG prestige is given 30 points out of 300. MCAT and GPA 45 each. LORs and Essays 45. Patient contact experience 60. They also list where the people from their class came from; interestingly there isnt much representation from top schools(although almost every top school individually is represented) suggesting those "30 points" awarded for UG dont amount to that much. Note Miami really doesnt get much if any funding from the state anymore so they largely function as a "private school" for purposes of that AAMC survey.

http://admissions.med.miami.edu/md-programs/general-md/class-profile

You'd need to know the numbers of top school apps coming in to say anything about its effect! That's more than I'd expect though in their algorithn - between your GPA and where you earned it, I wouldn't have predicted a 3/5ths former 2/5ths latter weighting

 

[GrapesofRath]

You'd need to know the numbers of top school apps coming in to say anything about its effect! That's more than I'd expect though in their algorithn - between your GPA and where you earned it, I wouldn't have predicted a 3/5ths former 2/5ths latter weighting

The algorithm is a rough guide nothing more. If someone's gpa and mcat are trash they aren't getting in no matter what even if the non academic parts of their app are flawless and they nail the 240 points from that. Likewise someone with great stats but meh non academic factors could still get a II even though there point total would be under 240. In fact Miami is known to use the OOS part of their class to beef up their stats and grab some big stat OOS applicants for that purpose

 

[Dr. Death]

Any list without Dixie State University, California of Pennsylvania, Modesto Junior College and the College of the Sequoias is obviously flawed. Your list sucks

 

[CoomassieBlue57]

Rigorous? What does that even mean? Are you talking about the university in general? Premed courses? Business courses? (because a small private liberal arts college such as Amherst College is as difficult as they come).

 

[The Knife & Gun Club]

I think either @efle or @Lawper put together a list of the "most pre-medical" UGs. I would imagine those would be the most rigorous for premeds, given the intense competition. I want to say top five were JHU, Uchicago, rice, emory, and WashU, but could be wrong.

^I favor this list since my alma mater is among them

 

[efle]

I think either @efle or @Lawper put together a list of the "most pre-medical" UGs. I would imagine those would be the most rigorous for premeds, given the intense competition. I want to say top five were JHU, Uchicago, rice, emory, and WashU, but could be wrong.

^I favor this list since my alma mater is among them

Duke in place of Chicago but very close!

 

[justadream]

In no particular order:

MIT
UChicago
Caltech
Cornell
Hopkins
WashU

But this also depends on your major. I can assure you that majoring in humanities is a lot different from triple majoring in EE, CS, pure mathematics.

 

[Law2Doc]

...
I can assure you that majoring in humanities is a lot different from triple majoring in EE, CS, pure mathematics.

If your goal is getting into med school the latter is *****ic. If the goal is rigor, sure. But then you are interpreting OPs question to really be "how can I F$&@ myself the most in term of getting into med school." I'm not clear on whether that's what he's asking. If that's his goal though maybe it's better he not even apply.

 

[justadream]

If your goal is getting into med school the latter is *****ic. If the goal is rigor, sure. But then you are interpreting OPs question to really be "how can I F$&@ myself the most in term of getting into med school." I'm not clear on whether that's what he's asking. If that's his goal though maybe it's better he not even apply.

Valid point but I'm just pointing out that if you want to compare rigor, you need to look beyond just the school name.

Plus, you know how everyone tells you to major in what you are interested in - the reality is that if getting into med school is all you care about, you should major in the easiest thing possible (even if its something like nutrition and you have 0 interest in nutrition).

 

[justdoit1234]

your list lacks liberal arts colleges, many of which should be on that list

 

[efle]

your list lacks liberal arts colleges, many of which should be on that list

Engi ones like Harvey Mudd sure, but which typical LACs?

 

[justdoit1234]

williams, amherst, wesleyan, etc. can list a couple more that have been powerhouses

 

[Citygirl44]

swarthmore, pomona

 

[Law2Doc]

Valid point but I'm just pointing out that if you want to compare rigor, you need to look beyond just the school name.

Plus, you know how everyone tells you to major in what you are interested in - the reality is that if getting into med school is all you care about, you should major in the easiest thing possible (even if its something like nutrition and you have 0 interest in nutrition).

The theory is that if you major in what you are interested in you will put in the time and do well. I've seen tons of people take psych, communications, and other supposed "guts" and have to withdraw or fail because they weren't engaged enough to actually study the material. But in short, yes, if you know you want to go to med school, acing a major you find easies and taking only the prereqs is an extremely high yield approach.

 

[efle]

Being a powerhouse doesn't make a place particularly difficult though - eg Brown. I'm from SoCal and heard a fair bit about the Claremont colleges but only HM was supposedly crazy tough.

 

[Goro]

Please restrain your ignorance of the admissions process.

Presumably, this is precisely what goes on when adcoms make decisions! (I.e., little evidence-based decisions and more based on perceptions.)

I suppose I'm asking what people's perceptions are, because after all, adcoms are people too and don't always have any compelling and systematic way to justify their decision making processes!!

 

[justadream]

Being a powerhouse doesn't make a place particularly difficult though - eg Brown. I'm from SoCal and heard a fair bit about the Claremont colleges but only HM was supposedly crazy tough.

Just curious: What are your thoughts on Pomona?

Btw: I love your "not an elf" tagline. The first 5 times I tried to tag you in a post, I couldn't do it because I kept thinking you were "elfe" lol

 

[efle]

Awesome school that several people from my high school matriculated to, I personally wasn't a fan of their extensive gen ed requirements though. I think LACs sound great for premeds because the classes are much smaller. My understanding is that most of the super hard science people go to HM and business to CmK so it truly gets a lot of liberal arts flavor

Everyone reads it elfe and then usually assume I'm female

 

[efle]

The theory is that if you major in what you are interested in you will put in the time and do well. I've seen tons of people take psych, communications, and other supposed "guts" and have to withdraw or fail because they weren't engaged enough to actually study the material.

This seems like a dangerous theory if true in med admissions. If I'm only willing to study and work hard on the particular subject I love, doesn't that mean I'm going to be a garbage student when I'm forced to study a wide variety of topics in med school? Eg if I'm a Neuro major and would have failed out as a Biochem major for lack of interest, I'm going to have some problems when forced to study biochem in med school.

 

[Lucca]

Being a powerhouse doesn't make a place particularly difficult though - eg Brown. I'm from SoCal and heard a fair bit about the Claremont colleges but only HM was supposedly crazy tough.

Swarthmore is supposed to be deflationary. Again, another place where this kind of discussion is confused is with rigor v deflation. Usually people mean deflationary and not rigorous when talking about going to a "tough" undergrad. For example, I'm sure any reputable school has many rigorous courses but it won't be labeled as such on SDN unless 50% of the class is getting a C or lower.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Again, another place where this kind of discussion is confused is with rigor v deflation.

Really doe.

A class could be rigorous, but if it's populated with excellent students, then ideally, quite a few should earn at least an A-. There's no need to punish hard working students for attending a top school. Last I checked, no one has complained about the academic preparedness of Duke and Brown grads.