Updated Post II Acceptance Rates 2023

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hey all, I've been working on this community project for the last few weeks while I wait for the cycle to end.

You can see individual schools' updated application numbers, interviews, and acceptances that were in the 2021 sheet but now updated for 2023. This lets you see the application -> interview conversion rate and interview -> acceptance conversion rate. It also breaks stats down by in-state and out-of-state which is neat.

Soon I'll add all the school secondaries for the last 5 years and show cool info like the probability the secondary will show up in a future cycle based on the past trend. This should help with prioritizing pre-writing and make the whole admissions process less about Google searching and playing scavenger hunt for info.

Hope this helps a little with applying. I'll keep working on it out of boredom and see how it goes. If you have any feedback please let me know and I'll try to see what I can improve.

Link

 

[HappyRabbit]

The updated rankings list is wild. What were the metrics used to make a school go up or down?

UAPHX being down at ~140+ is nuts especially with their new match list

Arizona and some other schools were updated to unranked, similar to last year's list - don't have a few data points on them and therefore weren't supposed to be included.

I'll release the methodology in a week or so after I make more progress on the essay manager, but the key factor in the updated rankings is match list strength. Schools are penalized for their inability to send their students to strong non-home programs - i.e. NYU and UCSF have relatively 'weak' match lists and struggle to send applicants out of their home program to competitive specialties/programs. You'll also notice that Dartmouth and Case rose in the rankings because of this same principle (they match above their weight). To make the new rankings, I spent a significant amount of time quantifying the match lists from every school, with most of the time spent controlling for confounding variables (preference for certain specialties at certain schools, home program and location preferences, etc).

 

[surelycalm]

Also Buffalo higher than Downstate and Upstate. Nope.

 

[Mr. Macrophage]

In my opinion, there should be a penalty in the match list component for schools where an abnormally large number of students take over 4 years. Stanford (only about a third of students graduate in 4 years), Penn (over half of students take at least one extra year), and Yale (nearly half of students take an extra year) come to mind. That definitely skews their match data.

 

[TheRealBibFortuna]

Arizona and some other schools were updated to unranked, similar to last year's list - don't have a few data points on them and therefore weren't supposed to be included.

I'll release the methodology in a week or so after I make more progress on the essay manager, but the key factor in the updated rankings is match list strength. Schools are penalized for their inability to send their students to strong non-home programs - i.e. NYU and UCSF have relatively 'weak' match lists and struggle to send applicants out of their home program to competitive specialties/programs. You'll also notice that Dartmouth and Case rose in the rankings because of this same principle (they match above their weight). To make the new rankings, I spent a significant amount of time quantifying the match lists from every school, with most of the time spent controlling for confounding variables (preference for certain specialties at certain schools, home program and location preferences, etc).

I just wanted to add some feedback contrary to the people replying so far: I think accounting for match lists has led to a much better sorting of the T20s, and I think people are underestimating how difficult it can be to sort the lower ranked schools given how opaque their student outcomes and data can be. I've been pretty invested in Admit since you launched and I think you're doing great!

 

[TheRealBibFortuna]

In my opinion, there should be a penalty in the match list component for schools where an abnormally large number of students take over 4 years. Stanford (only about a third of students graduate in 4 years), Penn (over half of students take at least one extra year), and Yale (nearly half of students take an extra year) come to mind. That definitely skews their match data.

Do you happen to know what kind of support or funding those schools have for research years? On one hand, taking a fifth year is an often last resort and an undesirable outcome. On the other, if these schools offer fully funded/no tuition research years to many/most of their students, those student may look at a research year as an easy addition to their ERAS rather than an unfortunate requirement to match competitively.

 

[HappyRabbit]

In my opinion, there should be a penalty in the match list component for schools where an abnormally large number of students take over 4 years. Stanford (only about a third of students graduate in 4 years), Penn (over half of students take at least one extra year), and Yale (nearly half of students take an extra year) come to mind. That definitely skews their match data.

Do you have a place where this data can be sourced reliably? Can probably add for next year.

 

[Mr. Macrophage]

Do you have a place where this data can be sourced reliably? Can probably add for next year.

Here is Stanford:

Medical students unseal their futures on Match Day

Nerves turn to celebration as Stanford School of Medicine students discover where they are headed for the final phase of their medical training.

med.stanford.edu

“In this year's graduating class of 73 students, only 17 enrolled four years ago, in the early, uncertain months of the pandemic”


Here is Penn: IMPaCT Curriculum | MD Admissions | Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

“More than 50 percent of each class remains at Penn beyond four years”

Here is Yale: The Yale System

“Of the 169 students pursuing a Flex Year in the last three years” = 56 students pursuing a research year per class, which is over 50% of the class.

———————————
Compare these numbers to other top schools, and they are substantially higher.

 

[Mr. Macrophage]

Do you happen to know what kind of support or funding those schools have for research years? On one hand, taking a fifth year is an often last resort and an undesirable outcome. On the other, if these schools offer fully funded/no tuition research years to many/most of their students, those student may look at a research year as an easy addition to their ERAS rather than an unfortunate requirement to match competitively.

Requiring a fifth year to match competitively means those students should not be judged on the same level as a student that graduates in 4 years.

A student graduating in 4 years and matching MGH IM is a substantially better match than a student graduating in 5 years and matching MGH IM, for instance.

It isn’t equitable to judge match lists without this added context, as the current system greatly advantages schools like Stanford where pretty much everyone takes a research year.

Having 25% (realistically, 33%) more time means your app should be substantially more competitive, so stronger matches should be expected as a function of the app process.

 

[secondariesftw]

Also Buffalo higher than Downstate and Upstate. Nope.

I'm really curious to see the new methodology. Buffalo is now almost on par with Stony Brook. Rankings are hard to do in a way that is meaningful to everyone, but they are usually directionally accurate. I'm not aware of anything going on at Buffalo that would have caused it to move so far up. On the other hand, Rochester slipped down quite a bit.

 

[TheDeadrok]

Do you happen to know what kind of support or funding those schools have for research years? On one hand, taking a fifth year is an often last resort and an undesirable outcome. On the other, if these schools offer fully funded/no tuition research years to many/most of their students, those student may look at a research year as an easy addition to their ERAS rather than an unfortunate requirement to match competitively.

Requiring a fifth year to match competitively means those students should not be judged on the same level as a student that graduates in 4 years.

A student graduating in 4 years and matching MGH IM is a substantially better match than a student graduating in 5 years and matching MGH IM, for instance.

It isn’t equitable to judge match lists without this added context, as the current system greatly advantages schools like Stanford where pretty much everyone takes a research year.

Having 25% (realistically, 33%) more time means your app should be substantially more competitive, so stronger matches should be expected as a function of the app process.

Yale pays for the 5th year in full and also offers a master's degree completely free of tuition with a fellowship on top of it. In speaking with students, they all say they love it and it gives them the chance to do things that they love alongside research with the extra time and no tuition to pay.

I think that Yale having this option should not punish them in their match list, seeing as it is inherently part of the school and not an external factor that impacts their match strength. This is merely a function of going to this school and should thus factor in positively to the ranking of these schools.

 

[Mr. Macrophage]

Yale pays for the 5th year in full and also offers a master's degree completely free of tuition with a fellowship on top of it. In speaking with students, they all say they love it and it gives them the chance to do things that they love alongside research with the extra time and no tuition to pay.

I think that Yale having this option should not punish them in their match list, seeing as it is inherently part of the school and not an external factor that impacts their match strength. This is merely a function of going to this school and should thus factor in positively to the ranking of these schools.

The current system is comparing apples to oranges. Whether or not the students like the extra years, the formula is unfairly advantaging Yale as over half the class takes 5 years, meaning they’re getting stronger matches than they otherwise would be. Many schools offer a fully paid fifth year but don’t have over half the class taking it.

From my understanding, the goal of the match list component of the ranking is to identify how much a certain school’s name can boost your matching chances. As it stands, the current system is falsely attributing the added competitiveness of extra years as a boost due to a school’s name. To a lesser extent, this would be like giving a school extra points if it has more MD PhDs, as MD PhDs match better than MDs.

View it as less of a punishment for Yale, and more of a way to adjust the data so it’s apples to apples and not apples to oranges. A fifth year makes you more competitive, way more Yale students take a fifth year than most other schools, therefore an adjustment must be made, since that added competitiveness is due to the fifth year and not Yale’s name.

 

[TheDeadrok]

The current system is comparing apples to oranges. Whether or not the students like the extra years, the formula is unfairly advantaging Yale as over half the class takes 5 years, meaning they’re getting stronger matches than they otherwise would be. Many schools offer a fully paid fifth year but don’t have over half the class taking it.

From my understanding, the goal of the match list component of the ranking is to identify how much a certain school’s name can boost your matching chances. As it stands, the current system is falsely attributing the added competitiveness of extra years as a boost due to a school’s name. To a lesser extent, this would be like giving a school extra points if it has more MD PhDs, as MD PhDs match better than MDs.

View it as less of a punishment for Yale, and more of a way to adjust the data so it’s apples to apples and not apples to oranges. A fifth year makes you more competitive, way more Yale students take a fifth year than most other schools, therefore an adjustment must be made, since that added competitiveness is due to the fifth year and not Yale’s name.

I don't think that HappyRabbit said anything about the match list ranking being based on the name brand of the school unless I'm mistaken. It seems to me like the match list strength piece of data is based solely on how well students from that school match compared to other schools. If a funded, easy access fifth year is inherently a part of the schools' program and helps students from that school to match more competitively, it doesn't make sense to me to extricate that factor from consideration.

I understand that comparing fourth-year to fifth-year students will show that fifth-year students are more prepared for the match. That being said, a school's match list strength is based on a large number of factors, and any help an institution provides to get its students to match more competitively should be considered positively, not as a detriment

 

[Mr. Macrophage]

I don't think that HappyRabbit said anything about the match list ranking being based on the name brand of the school unless I'm mistaken. It seems to me like the match list strength piece of data is based solely on how well students from that school match compared to other schools. If a funded, easy access fifth year is inherently a part of the schools' program and helps students from that school to match more competitively, it doesn't make sense to me to extricate that factor from consideration.

I understand that comparing fourth-year to fifth-year students will show that fifth-year students are more prepared for the match. That being said, a school's match list strength is based on a large number of factors, and any help an institution provides to get its students to match more competitively should be considered positively, not as a detriment

Yale is an incredible program, but in my opinion, ignoring the impact of additional years distorts comparisons between schools. Match list strength must be taken in context. If one school's strong matches are partly due to a significant portion of students taking an extra year, it is not directly comparable to schools where most students match without this advantage. There is a reason CCLCM is excluded from most rankings/comparisons: you can’t readily compare a 5 year program to a 4 year program!

Adjusting for this factor provides a clearer picture of each school's effectiveness in preparing students for the match within a standard timeframe. This isn't about penalizing schools for supporting students but ensuring a fairer comparison of their core programs.

The purpose of admit.org is to provide information to help inform applicants and their choices. If this context is missing, it can mislead those relying on the site.

Edit: Heck, multiple people I know that have been accepted to Stanford/Penn/Yale had no idea there were so many students taking a 5th year, and that significantly informed their ultimate decision.

 

[pdidd3]

Alternatively you can add a bonus for schools that have strong matches for 4 yr students rather than a punishment for taking 5 yrs. Some schools select for people who are more likely to take a 5th year to do research not for application competitiveness but for their own scientific growth.

Edit: wanted to add that some schools just have poor research support. there is no point bonusing schools which will hinder students for taking a 5th year

 

[HappyRabbit]

Here is Stanford:

Medical students unseal their futures on Match Day

Nerves turn to celebration as Stanford School of Medicine students discover where they are headed for the final phase of their medical training.

med.stanford.edu

“In this year's graduating class of 73 students, only 17 enrolled four years ago, in the early, uncertain months of the pandemic”


Here is Penn: IMPaCT Curriculum | MD Admissions | Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

“More than 50 percent of each class remains at Penn beyond four years”

Here is Yale: The Yale System

“Of the 169 students pursuing a Flex Year in the last three years” = 56 students pursuing a research year per class, which is over 50% of the class.

———————————
Compare these numbers to other top schools, and they are substantially higher.

The data need to be available for all schools to be incorporated - it doesn't make sense to single out a few schools.

 

[Mr. Macrophage]

The data need to be available for all schools to be incorporated - it doesn't make sense to single out a few schools.

You would likely have to do an anecdotal route and outright ask students at each school, like you did to get the MSPE adjectives and internal ranking data where it isn’t publicly available.

It’s definitely a lot of work, and I know admit.org is a small team, so it’s an unreasonable ask. Maybe an alternative would be just adding a disclaimer? A little “i” icon that you can hover over that shows the research year data, or something next to certain schools with this public data.

Does anyone else have any ideas on how to go about reconciling this?

 

[TheRealBibFortuna]

You would likely have to do an anecdotal route and outright ask students at each school, like you did to get the MSPE adjectives and internal ranking data where it isn’t publicly available.

It’s definitely a lot of work, and I know admit.org is a small team, so it’s an unreasonable ask. Maybe an alternative would be just adding a disclaimer? A little “i” icon that you can hover over that shows the research year data, or something next to certain schools with this public data.

Does anyone else have any ideas on how to go about reconciling this?

I don't think taking anecdotal accounts is the right move; I just learned from a SLW that the school's applicant data on Admit is off by almost 4,000 applications, so introducing even more anecdotal data is just going to lead to misinformation. I also agree with @TheDeadrok that school incentives for a research year should not be considered equal to school disincentives to apply on time (schools should be rewarded for providing carrots and punished for providing sticks).

That said, I think the best means of providing info like this, if @HappyRabbit thinks its worth adding, is by providing leave of absence information (funding, length, popularity) on the school curriculum tab. A link would probably be best, but as research years become more and more common, schools might start making that info more accessible.

I will also say that the Stanford statistic you provided is egregious. I 100% agree that they should be penalized for that, especially since I can't find any carrots suggesting the research year was purely elective, and that two year preclinical is one giant stick...

 

[Mr. Macrophage]

This is an interesting discussion. Some thoughts to consider - top tier schools may have many more applicants applying for competitive specialties that have a research year as a hidden requirement (e.g. derm), and so penalizing a research year may not make the most sense in these cases. Additionally, many students are specifically drawn to attend certain institutions which also have top graduate schools, allowing students to easily pursue a prestigious master's degree that would complement their medical education. The ultimate goal of medical school is not only to match but also is to get the medical education one desires, and if these interdisciplinary opportunities exist at certain schools, them I'm not sure if this should be penalized.

I think the point about some research years or master's degrees being fully paid for is also a great point. I've heard from students at some SLWs that they received a scholarship that would fully cover their expenses for an additional master's degree and also partially cover some of their medical education tuition, making the decision to pursue a master's degree also potentially financially-driven as well.

Even in neurosurgery, data from their spreadsheet suggests only half of matched students took a 5th year. I wouldn’t say a research year is a requirement in any specialty quite yet, if you hit the ground running!

I agree that calling it a penalty is harsh, as there are certainly many people who are taking a fifth year to pursue another degree or interdisciplinary options, as you pointed out. I just think it’s a substantial confounding variable. 76% of Stanford’s class takes at least 5 years, versus roughly 25% of Michigan’s. Evaluating their match lists by the same standard seems wild!

 

[zigzag42]

Do you happen to know what kind of support or funding those schools have for research years? On one hand, taking a fifth year is an often last resort and an undesirable outcome. On the other, if these schools offer fully funded/no tuition research years to many/most of their students, those student may look at a research year as an easy addition to their ERAS rather than an unfortunate requirement to match competitively.

Stanford has a program that fully funds students who wish to take a research year or split their second year over two years to do a more longitudinal research project. We also have a handful of students every year who apply to internal MSTP or Berg Scholars, a 6-year program that gives you a free master's and funds your final 2 years. That being said, I know students who took 4 years and matched at their #1 choice.

 

[Jason1211]

I feel like the match list methodology also disproportionately hurts public state medical schools where often many students (more than private) tend to want to stay in the area. Also for schools who have more students who go into primary care/family medicine etc who also might choose proximity to family/location over perceived prestige. I feel like match lists are so subjective to try and quantify and shouldn't be as big of a deal as it seems to be.

 

[TheRealBibFortuna]

I feel like the match list methodology also disproportionately hurts public state medical schools where often many students (more than private) tend to want to stay in the area. Also for schools who have more students who go into primary care/family medicine etc who also might choose proximity to family/location over perceived prestige. I feel like match lists are so subjective to try and quantify and shouldn't be as big of a deal as it seems to be.

To my knowledge, the Admit rankings have always intended to replace the (now defunct) US News research rankings. US News also had a primary care ranking list that accounted for regional preference and primary care preference, but since the banner over Admit's ranking says "See the brand new Admit medical school rankings for 2025, based on match list strength, admissions data, and NIH research funding", I don't think the intention was to account for that. In a research ranking, putting primary care and regional preference state schools below research powerhouses isn't a bug, it's a feature.

 

[Jason1211]

To my knowledge, the Admit rankings have always intended to replace the (now defunct) US News research rankings. US News also had a primary care ranking list that accounted for regional preference and primary care preference, but since the banner over Admit's ranking says "See the brand new Admit medical school rankings for 2025, based on match list strength, admissions data, and NIH research funding", I don't think the intention was to account for that. In a research ranking, putting primary care and regional preference state schools below research powerhouses isn't a bug, it's a feature.

I disagree because I don't think the admit rankings are "research rankings", they are framed to be whole and take into account multiple factors. The US News had a primary care ranking list and called it a primary care ranking list. These rankings are not called "Matching into prestigious schools" - it is framed as much of an objective ranking as it can be. The match list "strength" of a school depends on SO many factors including location/family/other factors and saying that a school should be ranked "better" by having students who match away from home as opposed to students that likely wanted to go into primary care to serve their rural hometown communities is something I disagree with.

Case + Dartmouth I think shot up in these rankings because it may not be as ideal to settle down in these locations versus NYU and UCSF which are located in big metropolitan areas. Thus students more likely wanted to leave the area and placed other locations in their vicinity higher up. As opposed to students in Texas/Florida/Colorado that may have wanted to be closer to home that already have these places nearby. (These are schools previously mentioned that moved up and down solely because of match list "strength".

 

[surelycalm]

The match list "strength" of a school depends on SO many factors including location/family/other factors and saying that a school should be ranked "better" by having students who match away from home as opposed to students that likely wanted to go into primary care to serve their rural hometown communities is something I disagree with.

I agree, and this is the problem with most rankings. How much of the accomplishments at the school are because of the school itself and not because of the applicants? Take any T5, they have an average MCAT score in the 520s. As a whole, one would expect those students to have a much better step 1 pass rate and step 2 average score. Likewise, it's also reasonable to assume they are ambitious and will as a whole be pursuing more competitive specialties.

What if we flipped the script and put all those students at the T5 in a 100+ ranked school, and put the students at the 100+ ranked school at the T5?

 

[bankedsynapse]

Just my two cents, but I don't feel that students aiming to go into non-'elite' specialties or those focused on specific geographic regions should really be putting too much stock in rank lists anyway. If you already know where you want to end up or are focused on a specific specialty, a rank list seems like the wrong tool for the job.

I'd argue it's impossible to account for all factors that go into a match list and at the end of the day a student often just wants a quick and dirty answer to which schools afford them the best possibilities for residency, which I think Admit.org does very well. I agree that it's unfortunate that it often boils down to "where can I match ortho at a prestigious hospital system", but if that's the question most often asked, it makes sense to give that answer. Everyone has a different set of things they value above or below others. Questions like geography, specific specialty, debt burden, general vibes, require digging deeper into match lists and additional research. I think if someone comes away from a rank list believing that a #100 school is garbage and that they should ONLY settle for #1-10, they are misusing the tool.

 

[TheRealBibFortuna]

I think @HappyRabbit could clear this up. Is your ranking list supposed to be research rankings a la the US News research rankings, a combination of the primary care and research rankings, or something else?

 

[Jason1211]

I think @HappyRabbit could clear this up. Is your ranking list supposed to be research rankings a la the US News research rankings, a combination of the primary care and research rankings, or something else?

I'm gonna be honest, I personally don't think it matters if its "supposed" to be primary care or research rankings. I think by calling it "Medical School Rankings" on a website used to apply to medical schools - it makes it seem like a wholly objective list of qualities when in actuality its mainly based off a subjective term in a school's match list.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

I would like to factor in average student indebtedness and number of HPSP or NHSC, but that's not always public. But I disgress... 🙂

 

[hermionegranger1]

Yale is an incredible program, but in my opinion, ignoring the impact of additional years distorts comparisons between schools. Match list strength must be taken in context. If one school's strong matches are partly due to a significant portion of students taking an extra year, it is not directly comparable to schools where most students match without this advantage. There is a reason CCLCM is excluded from most rankings/comparisons: you can’t readily compare a 5 year program to a 4 year program!

Adjusting for this factor provides a clearer picture of each school's effectiveness in preparing students for the match within a standard timeframe. This isn't about penalizing schools for supporting students but ensuring a fairer comparison of their core programs.

The purpose of admit.org is to provide information to help inform applicants and their choices. If this context is missing, it can mislead those relying on the site.

Edit: Heck, multiple people I know that have been accepted to Stanford/Penn/Yale had no idea there were so many students taking a 5th year, and that significantly informed their ultimate decision.

Imagine saying having a free additional 5th year provided by the medical school is a weakness rather than a strength of the medical school. Only schools with great funding, resources for students, flexibility of curriculum, and multiple dual degree options have 5th or 6th year. From my understanding, all the three schools you listed above integrate the "5th year" essentially free for all students. All three schools have incredible students and great results. Admitted students in Stanford in particular has the most unique and competitive application I have ever seen after visiting several T10 second looks.

 

[etxmedstudent36]

bro's trying so hard to boost his own school's ranking. Imagine saying having a free additional 5th year provided by the medical school is a weakness rather than a strength of the medical school. Only schools with great funding, resources for students, flexibility of curriculum, and multiple dual degree options have 5th or 6th year. From my understanding, all the three schools you listed above integrate the "5th year" essentially free for all students. All three schools have incredible students and great results. Admitted students in Stanford in particular has the most unique and competitive application I have ever seen after visiting several T10 second looks.

What I believe @Mr. Macrophage is trying to argue here is that having a large part of a medical school class take a 5th year can be, at worst, a confounding variable in the results of a match list. That 5th year is dedicated to activities that serve solely to boost a residency application which results in more competitive matches. By itself this is not a bad thing - it is great that these schools offer a way to help their students match more competitively.

It can be misleading, however. These schools are compared often based on their match lists. School A may be a strictly traditional 4-year program that matches well. Would you consider school B to be an equal to school A if the match list were nearly identical but ~50% of their students took a 5th year to build their application more?

Even though these programs do often cover that 5th year, the one thing they cannot give you is that time back. The funding and resources that allow for this are indeed impressive but it comes at a cost to the students.

I am not someone that will be going for top residency programs but I do worry that it will become more common for med students to be taking 5th/6th years to be more competitive for academic programs. In my eyes they all just end up doing the same thing and whether or not someone goes to a top program comes down to playing chicken with your own time. Gap years are becoming more common before applying to med school to get your foot in the door and now we're introducing research years for residency applications. The road to becoming an attending is already long enough, you know?

 

[Mr. Macrophage]

What I believe @Mr. Macrophage is trying to argue here is that having a large part of a medical school class take a 5th year can be, at worst, a confounding variable in the results of a match list. That 5th year is dedicated to activities that serve solely to boost a residency application which results in more competitive matches. By itself this is not a bad thing - it is great that these schools offer a way to help their students match more competitively.

It can be misleading, however. These schools are compared often based on their match lists. School A may be a strictly traditional 4-year program that matches well. Would you consider school B to be an equal to school A if the match list were nearly identical but ~50% of their students took a 5th year to build their application more?

Even though these programs do often cover that 5th year, the one thing they cannot give you is that time back. The funding and resources that allow for this are indeed impressive but it comes at a cost to the students.

I am not someone that will be going for top residency programs but I do worry that it will become more common for med students to be taking 5th/6th years to be more competitive for academic programs. In my eyes they all just end up doing the same thing and whether or not someone goes to a top program comes down to playing chicken with your own time. Gap years are becoming more common before applying to med school to get your foot in the door and now we're introducing research years for residency applications. The road to becoming an attending is already long enough, you know?

This is precisely my intended point! Thank you.

 

[lukadoncic]

What I believe @Mr. Macrophage is trying to argue here is that having a large part of a medical school class take a 5th year can be, at worst, a confounding variable in the results of a match list. That 5th year is dedicated to activities that serve solely to boost a residency application which results in more competitive matches. By itself this is not a bad thing - it is great that these schools offer a way to help their students match more competitively.

It can be misleading, however. These schools are compared often based on their match lists. School A may be a strictly traditional 4-year program that matches well. Would you consider school B to be an equal to school A if the match list were nearly identical but ~50% of their students took a 5th year to build their application more?

Even though these programs do often cover that 5th year, the one thing they cannot give you is that time back. The funding and resources that allow for this are indeed impressive but it comes at a cost to the students.

I am not someone that will be going for top residency programs but I do worry that it will become more common for med students to be taking 5th/6th years to be more competitive for academic programs. In my eyes they all just end up doing the same thing and whether or not someone goes to a top program comes down to playing chicken with your own time. Gap years are becoming more common before applying to med school to get your foot in the door and now we're introducing research years for residency applications. The road to becoming an attending is already long enough, you know?

I agree with the trend you are describing. However, I think you miss the point of the discussion. If it is indeed the case that people are choosing to take a 5th year to do research or pursue a dual degree to be competitive in matching, then schools that provide more opportunities, funding, and the option of an extra year in the curriculum should not only not being punished by the 5th year they provide but also should be praised for having that option. In competitive specialties (derm, ortho, plastic, and neurosurg), more and more people are taking an extra year. So if that is your goal, when you are choosing schools, would you rather attend a school that has a 5th year option to make you more competitive, or a school that is more rigid/traditional that does not have a free 5th year option? The purpose of any ranking is essentially to guide people choose a school based on its strength and weaknesses. If a school offers 5th year option and as a result has better match result, then it should not be punished. In the end, during residency matches, you are being compared with other applicants during that year whether they are traditional or having a 5th year. So if someone has a 5th year and is more prepared for residency than you are, they will match. Same thing with medical school application right? Someone apply to med school traditionally while others take gap years. And nowadays having gap years are more favored than not having them. And saying things like "immaturity" to refute someone's argument doesn't really serve the purpose of making your argument more sound.

 

[Mangoenthusiast]

I’m not going to comment on the ranking methodology, but something interesting I see on this thread is that people are acting like schools are forcing folks to take extra years…like other posters have said, taking research years is becoming extremely prevalent in competitive specialities. The average applicant in plastics and NSGY have around 40 research items (pubs, presentations, etc). That’s extremely hard to accomplish as a med student. I’ve heard of PDs of programs refusing to sign LORs unless people take research years. It’s becoming a national thing, and having support for a 5th year is better than not having it because at least then you have an option. I’ve seen research fellowships pay their fellows crumbs, and students have to pay out of their own savings to afford a research year.

Also speaking as a Stanford admitted student, these types of schools select people who have varied interests, both inside and outside of medicine and are committed to doing more than just matching… most people come in wanting to pursue masters degrees or planning to take advantage of the curriculum and do research. The school accepts those types of people and it is people who fit that culture who decide to matriculate. It does not make sense to attribute that as a defect of the school. Stanford exists to train “physician plus” people, and is set up to do so. I don’t think it’s something a school should be punished for, and I do think that you could graduate in 4 years if you want to.

Additionally, does your thinking mean we should penalize schools with strong MSTP cultures like WashU? They have a large MSTP class so their match lists are bound to be skewed by your reasoning as well

 

[Mr. Macrophage]

I agree with the trend you are describing. However, I think you miss the point of the discussion. If it is indeed the case that people are choosing to take a 5th year to do research or pursue a dual degree to be competitive in matching, then schools that provide more opportunities, funding, and the option of an extra year in the curriculum should not only not being punished by the 5th year they provide but also should be praised for having that option. In competitive specialties (derm, ortho, plastic, and neurosurg), more and more people are taking an extra year. So if that is your goal, when you are choosing schools, would you rather attend a school that has a 5th year option to make you more competitive, or a school that is more rigid/traditional that does not have a free 5th year option? The purpose of any ranking is essentially to guide people choose a school based on its strength and weaknesses. If a school offers 5th year option and as a result has better match result, then it should not be punished. In the end, during residency matches, you are being compared with other applicants during that year whether they are traditional or having a 5th year. So if someone has a 5th year and is more prepared for residency than you are, they will match. Same thing with medical school application right? Someone apply to med school traditionally while others take gap years. And nowadays having gap years are more favored than not having them. And saying things like "immaturity" to refute someone's argument doesn't really serve the purpose of making your argument more sound.

As for your point, I would agree in a vacuum. However, the majority of T20s offer a substantial number of fully-paid research years. Take Johns Hopkins, for instance. Anyone wants a fully funded fifth year can take one. Why then, is their % of students taking a 5th year so substantially lower than Stanford’s, or even Yale and Penn?

Based on the number of schools that actually offer this perk, it is clear that the sheer existence of this perk is not sufficient to explain the stark contrast in # of students taking a research year.

 

[Mr. Macrophage]

I don’t think it’s something a school should be punished for, and I do think that you could graduate in 4 years if you want to.

This would not be a punishment! Rather a modification to the match list comparison to better compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges.

You argue that Neurosurgery and Plastics are reasons for why students should take a fifth year, which is very fair! But I do not believe that Yale has, on average, a substantially larger number of people interested in pursuing Neurosurgery than Hopkins. And yet that difference in the number of students taking a research year still exists. Why should Hopkins’s match list be evaluated by the same standard as Yale’s, when their students accomplished similar matches in less time? Hopkins is just an example here, as you could replace it with many other top schools in this discussion.

For medical school admissions, traditional applicants are judged by different standards than applicants with gap years (i.e. having 200 clinical hours as a trad applicant is fine, but if you had that many hours with two gap years, that would not be fine). Why should judging match lists be any different? Context matters!

 

[Jason1211]

As for your point, I would agree in a vacuum. However, the majority of T20s offer a substantial number of fully-paid research years. Take Johns Hopkins, for instance. Anyone wants a fully funded fifth year can take one. Why then, is their % of students taking a 5th year so substantially lower than Stanford’s, or even Yale and Penn?

Based on the number of schools that actually offer this perk, it is clear that the sheer existence of this perk is not sufficient to explain the stark contrast in # of students taking a research year.

Fully agreed. I don't think the argument is to punish schools that have students take a 5th year vs not - I think the argument is that the CHOICE to take a fifth year should not have any real correlation or impact to strength of education or ranking of a school. But yet, by ranking schools based on match list we are inadvertently ranking schools based on students just choosing to take a research year vs students who do not. Why should a school rank higher on the list if someone wants to take another year to match neurosurgery versus schools that send people straight through four years? And on top of that - why punish schools who again, have match lists that serve their immediate communities (whether through rural/primary care/staying with the institution)?

 

[Mangoenthusiast]

This would not be a punishment! Rather a modification to the match list comparison to better compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges.

You argue that Neurosurgery and Plastics are reasons for why students should take a fifth year, which is very fair! But I do not believe that Yale has, on average, a substantially larger number of people interested in pursuing Neurosurgery than Hopkins. And yet that difference in the number of students taking a research year still exists. Why should Hopkins’s match list be evaluated by the same standard as Yale’s, when their students accomplished similar matches in less time? Hopkins is just an example here, as you could replace it with many other top schools in this discussion.

For medical school admissions, traditional applicants are judged by different standards than applicants with gap years (i.e. having 200 clinical hours as a trad applicant is fine, but if you had that many hours with two gap years, that would not be fine). Why should judging match lists be any different? Context matters!

Would this modification also apply to places with large MSTP programs like WashU (around 25 new MSTP students per year)? By your reasoning, those students shouldn’t be compared to the 4-years MD students because they’ve had 4 extra years to do research. So should we ding their match list too and that of similar schools?

 

[Mr. Macrophage]

Would this modification also apply to places with large MSTP programs like WashU (around 25 new MSTP students per year)? By your reasoning, those students shouldn’t be compared to the 4-years MD students because they’ve had 4 extra years to do research. So should we ding their match list too and that of similar schools?

From my understanding, MSTP matches are often not included in regular match lists!

If you go and count WashU’s match list, you’ll see it’s actually smaller than the MD class size!

Edit: Ignore that first statement!

 

[lukadoncic]

As for your point, I would agree in a vacuum. However, the majority of T20s offer a substantial number of fully-paid research years. Take Johns Hopkins, for instance. Anyone wants a fully funded fifth year can take one. Why then, is their % of students taking a 5th year so substantially lower than Stanford’s, or even Yale and Penn?

Based on the number of schools that actually offer this perk, it is clear that the sheer existence of this perk is not sufficient to explain the stark contrast in # of students taking a research year.

I think @Mangoenthusiast answered your question already. It is the school's culture essentially. Penn has its "one university principle" which encourages students to explore interdisciplinary collaboration and interests. Penn also has many top programs (MBA Wharton, MS in engineering, MPH, etc.) Stanford is really looking for next-generational leaders that fosters interdisciplinary thinking as reflected by their secondary questions, and all the Stanford admits i talked to are not only good at medicine but also an expert in another niche field that serves them as better physicians. In terms of your claim about Hopkins, I am confident to say (I went to Hopkins for undergrad) that it is also rooted in their culture and the strength of adjacent programs. They do have a very top MPH program, and also offers MS programs, but their curriculum design doesn't really integrate these components as well as the other schools mentioned previously. Their MBA program is a JOKE, but it is heavily advertised on the dual degree option website. And I would also tell you that I worked with several Hopkins students in competitive specialties (in Neurosurg and ortho), and they told me that almost all of them are either on or will take a research year. They have told me that not taking a 5th year could potentially hurt you if you do not have the pubs and experiences you need. And I hope having these first-handed information can help clarify. Otherwise making bold claims can be misleading.

 

[Mangoenthusiast]

From my understanding, the majority of the time, MSTP matches are not included in regular match lists and are a separate document for this exact reason!

I am unfamiliar with other schools, but at least for WashU I know that their MSTPs are included in their normal match list. I believe this to be the case for other schools too. I think MSTPs are included in the normal match list, and that the MSTP website advertises their outcomes separately as well for future applicants’ benefits.
I also think that the discrepancy in students taking 5th years at places like Hopkins vs Stanford might be because of school culture and the types of students they recruit/who choose to matriculate. At some point it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy where students who want to go through in 4 years might shy away from a place like Stanford because of its reputation. I don’t think it has much to do with the strength of the institution or its students.

 

[penguindoc2]

I may be completely wrong about this so please feel free to refute this, but in my mind I think it's not just research years but also master's degrees! No school is forcing a student to do a master's degree and that really is up to the student to decide if they want to pursue it. I'm not even sure if a master's degree even affects the match as much as it truly is for the students' advancement of their professional goals and interests. If a med school has extremely strong graduate programs outside of their med school, such as a top-tier MBA program, that is a pro that would draw students to their university to help diversify their education and get an additional degree in a top grad school of their interest. Though not applicable to all the other T20 schools, there are likely several others (like hopkins as you mentioned or mayo clinic) that may not have these other strong graduate programs to offer their students an interdisciplinary education.

 

[lukadoncic]

I am unfamiliar with other schools, but at least for WashU I know that their MSTPs are included in their normal match list. I believe this to be the case for other schools too. I think MSTPs are included in the normal match list, and that the MSTP website advertises their outcomes separately as well for future applicants’ benefits.
I also think that the discrepancy in students taking 5th years at places like Hopkins vs Stanford might be because of school culture and the types of students they recruit/who choose to matriculate. At some point it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy where students who want to go through in 4 years might shy away from a place like Stanford because of its reputation. I don’t think it has much to do with the strength of the institution or its students.

@Mr. Macrophage I would suggest you really delve into those stats. Otherwise making some bold claims could be misleading to others. But obviously I understand where your concern is coming from and believe you meant well.

 

[Mr. Macrophage]

I think @Mangoenthusiast answered your question already. It is the school's culture essentially. Penn has its "one university principle" which encourages students to explore interdisciplinary collaboration and interests. Penn also has many top programs (MBA Wharton, MS in engineering, MPH, etc.) Stanford is really looking for next-generational leaders that fosters interdisciplinary thinking as reflected by their secondary questions, and all the Stanford admits i talked to are not only good at medicine but also an expert in another niche field that serves them as better physicians. In terms of your claim about Hopkins, I am confident to say (I went to Hopkins for undergrad) that it is also rooted in their culture and the strength of adjacent programs. They do have a very top MPH program, and also offers MS programs, but their curriculum design doesn't really integrate these components as well as the other schools mentioned previously. Their MBA program is a JOKE, but it is heavily advertised on the dual degree option website. And I would also tell you that I worked with several Hopkins students in competitive specialties (in Neurosurg and ortho), and they told me that almost all of them are either on or will take a research year. They have told me that not taking a 5th year could potentially hurt you if you do not have the pubs and experiences you need. And I hope having these first-handed information can help clarify. Otherwise making bold claims can be misleading.

And yet, as discussed earlier in this thread, only about half of Neurosurgery matched students take more than 4 years.

Regardless of the reasoning behind more students taking 5th and 6th years, the argument remains the same. It is a confounding variable that should be accounted for!

I may be completely wrong about this so please feel free to refute this, but in my mind I think it's not just research years but also master's degrees! No school is forcing a student to do a master's degree and that really is up to the student to decide if they want to pursue it. I'm not even sure if a master's degree even affects the match as much as it truly is for the students' advancement of their professional goals and interests. If a med school has extremely strong graduate programs outside of their med school, such as a top-tier MBA program, that is a pro that would draw students to their university to help diversify their education and get an additional degree in a top grad school of their interest. Though not applicable to all the other T20 schools, there are likely several others (like hopkins as you mentioned or mayo clinic) that may not have these other strong graduate programs to offer their students an interdisciplinary education.

And interdisciplinary education is great! But that’s still more time for research and extracurriculars, and thus more time for a stronger application, and is thus a confounding variable in equitably comparing match lists.

 

[Jason1211]

@Mr. Macrophage I would suggest you really delve into those stats. Otherwise making some bold claims could be misleading to others. But obviously I understand where your concern is coming from and believe you meant well.

I think we're starting to miss the point of the discussion lol.

At the end of the day, should a student's choice to pursue a competitive speciality affect their Medical School's ranking? I think that is what this argument boils down to a little bit. I personally think it shouldn't - because of so many factors including one's lifestyle preference and interests. Just like a undergraduate student's major shouldn't affect a school's ranking.

But if you think it should, then yes we can rank schools based on how many students match into neurosurgery in a competitive specialty as well as those who have more students pursue dual degrees. We can take that into account and rank them over schools that have students who want to serve rural communities. I think that is a dangerous way of thinking and puts perceived prestige while ignoring so many confounding variables in a match list. I also think people use the admit.org Ranking for a LOT of different reasons - so making it as objective as possible is important. Using match lists is incredibly subjective and unhelpful. Why not use Step 2 scores or other metrics?

 

[Mr. Macrophage]

@Mr. Macrophage I would suggest you really delve into those stats. Otherwise making some bold claims could be misleading to others. But obviously I understand where your concern is coming from and believe you meant well.

I’m not sure what bold claims you’re talking about.

Admit.org’s match list for WashU counts 104 students. Their MD class is 124 students, and 22 for MD/PhD.

A substantial number of students are missing from admit.org’s list.

Other schools are similarly missing a large number of matches, which almost always includes a large chunk of MSTP.

Edit: fixed the class size!

 

[Mangoenthusiast]

I’m not sure what bold claims you’re talking about.

Admit.org’s match list for WashU counts 104 students. Their MD class is 124 students, plus another 22 for MD/PhD.

A substantial number of students are missing from admit.org’s list.

Other schools are similarly missing a large number of matches, which the majority of time, includes missing MSTP.

I think the 124 students includes the MSTP class. I also have it on good authority that their match list includes MSTPs (from talking to current students lol). Of course, I don’t know about other schools. I’d say the number of missing matches is either from students not choosing to disclose, or from students taking research years and therefore pushing back their match.

I think the claims they’re speaking about is that it can seem like you’re saying a school like Stanford’s education is subpar because so many students take extra years to match similarly to places like Hopkins. I know that’s not what you’re trying to say, and that your point is more about judging the strength of match lists. My two cents: this will always be an imperfect science. You never see how many people go unmatched, how many people choose not to disclose, how many chose a smaller no name program cuz it was the city their family’s in. If you’re picking between schools in the top 10 like Harvard v Stanford v Hopkins, at that point it’s down to fit and other factors rather than ranking. Like I personally wouldn’t want to go to Harvard (even though I didn’t get in LOL) because they have mandatory class. I’m strongly considering Stanford over my other options because of their interdisciplinary training. At that point it becomes subjective.

 

[Mr. Macrophage]

I think the 124 students includes the MSTP class. I also have it on good authority that their match list includes MSTPs (from talking to current students lol). Of course, I don’t know about other schools. I’d say the number of missing matches is either from students not choosing to disclose, or from students taking research years and therefore pushing back their match.

I think the claims they’re speaking about is that it can seem like you’re saying a school like Stanford’s education is subpar because so many students take extra years to match similarly to places like Hopkins. I know that’s not what you’re trying to say, and that your point is more about judging the strength of match lists. My two cents: this will always be an imperfect science. You never see how many people go unmatched, how many people choose not to disclose, how many chose a smaller no name program cuz it was the city their family’s in. If you’re picking between schools in the top 10 like Harvard v Stanford v Hopkins, at that point it’s down to fit and other factors rather than ranking. Like I personally wouldn’t want to go to Harvard (even though I didn’t get in LOL) because they have mandatory class. I’m strongly considering Stanford over my other options because of their interdisciplinary training. At that point it becomes subjective.

Yes the 124 includes MD/PhD! And their published match list on their website does include many MSTP matches, but the admit.org version is missing a large quantity of those matches, and thus they aren’t factored into the current system.

The education at Stanford is most certainly not subpar. But its students, on average, should not be judged by the same standards as a Hopkins or Harvard student.

I wholly agree that judging match lists will never be a perfect science, but if a medical school ranking has to exist (quite frankly, I’m not a fan of one existing in the first place) then it should try to be as equitable as possible. Not being perfect doesn’t mean we can’t strive for it to be better!

 

[Jason1211]

I wholly agree that judging match lists will never be a perfect science, but if a medical school ranking has to exist (quite frankly, I’m not a fan of one existing in the first place) then it should try to be as equitable as possible. Not being perfect doesn’t mean we can’t strive for it to be better!

^^ This last sentence exactly!! Apply this to life and patient care in the future my friends and future colleagues!

 

[Jason1211]

I think the 124 students includes the MSTP class. I also have it on good authority that their match list includes MSTPs (from talking to current students lol). Of course, I don’t know about other schools. I’d say the number of missing matches is either from students not choosing to disclose, or from students taking research years and therefore pushing back their match.

I think the claims they’re speaking about is that it can seem like you’re saying a school like Stanford’s education is subpar because so many students take extra years to match similarly to places like Hopkins. I know that’s not what you’re trying to say, and that your point is more about judging the strength of match lists. My two cents: this will always be an imperfect science. You never see how many people go unmatched, how many people choose not to disclose, how many chose a smaller no name program cuz it was the city their family’s in. If you’re picking between schools in the top 10 like Harvard v Stanford v Hopkins, at that point it’s down to fit and other factors rather than ranking. Like I personally wouldn’t want to go to Harvard (even though I didn’t get in LOL) because they have mandatory class. I’m strongly considering Stanford over my other options because of their interdisciplinary training. At that point it becomes subjective.

Also heavy on the choose not to disclose part!! Dartmouth's match list, for example, is ONLY people who chose to disclose their locations. Why are we comparing that list to those that are fully and wholly public?

 

[surelycalm]

I agree with the trend you are describing. However, I think you miss the point of the discussion. If it is indeed the case that people are choosing to take a 5th year to do research or pursue a dual degree to be competitive in matching, then schools that provide more opportunities, funding, and the option of an extra year in the curriculum should not only not being punished by the 5th year they provide but also should be praised for having that option. In competitive specialties (derm, ortho, plastic, and neurosurg), more and more people are taking an extra year. So if that is your goal, when you are choosing schools, would you rather attend a school that has a 5th year option to make you more competitive, or a school that is more rigid/traditional that does not have a free 5th year option? The purpose of any ranking is essentially to guide people choose a school based on its strength and weaknesses. If a school offers 5th year option and as a result has better match result, then it should not be punished. In the end, during residency matches, you are being compared with other applicants during that year whether they are traditional or having a 5th year. So if someone has a 5th year and is more prepared for residency than you are, they will match. Same thing with medical school application right? Someone apply to med school traditionally while others take gap years. And nowadays having gap years are more favored than not having them. And saying things like "immaturity" to refute someone's argument doesn't really serve the purpose of making your argument more sound.

I have to disagree with your points. Your comparing apples to oranges. The option to do a free 5th year if you want or need it, sure that's nice.
The Impact to the match list needs to be considered as it's inflated. Most people with 200K+ in loans, many of which are accumulating interest, should not be driven into taking a 5th year.

We have a shortage of doctors, and medical school is expensive. Taking a 5th year should not be encouraged, nor should it be the norm.

 

[Mr. Macrophage]

Honestly, I think there have been a lot of great points in favor of and against the idea of adjusting match lists based on the % of students graduating in 4 years.

However, as @HappyRabbit pointed out, such a feat isn’t even currently possible, regardless of whether such a change would be popular.

Thus, to prevent this thread continuing forever on this topic and hijacking the original purpose (highlighting HappyRabbit’s great work) I propose we just table the discussion until (if ever) the means to actually compare the percentage of students taking research years comes to fruition. HappyRabbit has a great point that modifying the ranking for only 3 schools would be pointless and inequitable.