TX schools ranking for match-TAMHSC vs UTHSCSA

Moving to the school-specific discussions forum.

bluewater4 said:

Hi, someone else posted a similar question in a recent thread, but thought I'd start a new thread for current TAMHSC and UTHSCSA students to respond if possible:

I prematched to TCOM and TTUHSC-Lubbock, but currently live in Austin and would like to stay close to my SO who lives here. I'm not sure whether to rank TAMHSC or UTHSCSA #1 in my match ranking, so was hoping that current students at both schools might be able to help out. Up until UTHSCSA was put on LCME probation it was my top choice, but now I'm a little wary about it (I don't know how it'll affect its future and current students when it comes to residency interviews, etc.). On the other hand, TAMHSC's 2+2 Temple/Round Rock track seems appealing because I'd be able to live in Austin for the second two years; at the same time, I don't know how it ranks against UTHSCSA academically. Also, I don't really like the idea of video lectures for about half the classes, and the split-campus idea..

Additionally, UTHSCSA's new curriculum might be good or bad, but the entering class of 2012 will be its guinea pigs, so I'm a little wary about that as well..

Anyway, if any current students have any thoughts, I would really appreciate your input! Thanks so much.

Click to expand...

UTHSCSA has the most NIH funding, interpret that how you will. General consensus on these boards seem to have Tech, A&M, and San Antonio on similar footing behind UTSW, UTH, and UTMB (although this one goes either way, depending on who you ask).

Others might differ on your perception. As a faculty member who has lectured at each of these Texas medical schools, this is my perception. I can also use public data to support my assertion. This is my personal rank of institutions:
UTSW
BCM - lost faculty and programs with financial crisis
UTH, UTHSCSA, - Equal footing for Clinical and Research Training; competitive vs cooperative
UTMB - less inpatient experience, still a fantastic school
A&M - clinical and basic separated geographically
TTL
TTEP, UNT - MD or DO, new vs established

Here is some data to back my opinion.

Clinical Comparisons:
.................... OP .......... IP .......... Claims ....... Faculty
UTSWMC .....1,860,735... 482,942 .. $3,001,704 ... 2,126
UTMB ........... 552,096 ..... 78,171 .. $1,610,883 ... 1,198
UTHSC-H ...... 853,704 ... 294,688 .. $3,359,903 ... 1,561
UTHSCSA ..... 823,134 ... 319,472 .... $841,902 .... 1,676

OP= outpatient visits 2009
IP = inpatient days 2009
Claims = UT is self insured paid claims 2008-2010
This gives you an idea of relative strengths and weaknesses, and ratios of claims by /OP, /IP or /Faculty will support Clinical Excellence. Better indicators of Clinical Quality are not openly available for comparisons.

Source: Data from UT system (board meeting 8/25/11)

Research Comparisons:
................. Fed Res ... Tot Res ... T Fac . Res Fac ... Fed/ResFac ... Tot/ResFac
UTSW ....... $ 232 M .. $ 395 M ... 2,126 ... 683 ....... $ 340 K ....... $ 579 K
UTMB ....... $ 129 M .. $ 157 M ... 1,198 ... 410 ....... $ 314 K ....... $ 382 K
UTHSC-H .. $ 150 M .. $ 241 M ... 1,561 ... 330 ....... $ 455 K ....... $ 730 K
UTHSCSA . $ 122 M .. $ 185 M ... 1,676 ... 279 ....... $ 436 K ....... $ 664 K
BCM* ........ $ 241 M .. $ 302 M ... 1,685 ... 775 ........ $ 317 K ....... $ 390 K

Fed Res = Federal Research 2009 - UT Facts
Tot Res = Total Research 2009 - UT Facts
T Fac = Total Faculty 2009 - UT Facts
Res Fac = Research Faculty - AAMC 2008 number of MD/PhD and PhD faculty
Fed/ResFac = Federal Research per Research Faculty member
Tot/ResFac = Total Research per Research Faculty member

If anything higher dollars only mean higher number of Research Faculty. The issue is critical mass and the per Research Faculty indicates that Excellence and productivity are fairly high AND equally distributed among these research institutions.

There are valid critiques to these data. Some MDs do NIH research but also some PhDs do only education and some MD/PhD faculty might only do clinical work.

Unfortunately, I could not find similar data for the other medical schools in Texas. Here are the 2008 numbers of Research Faculty from AAMC (MD institutions only):
Institution - PhD -- MD/PhD faculty
Baylor -------- 611 ---- 164
UTSW ------- 540 ----- 143
UTMB -------- 325 ------ 85
UTHSC-H --- 263 ------ 67
UTHSCSA -- 221 ----- 58
Tx A&M ----- 163 ------ 48
TT-L ------------ 90 ------ 22

The bottom line out the data shown above is that the quality of clinical and research education is outstanding for Texas institutions (at least for UT and BCM). It is more about where you felt most comfortable

3rd year at UTHSCSA here. New curriculum will be electronic based and better. Anything revamped and not a 20 year old lecture is Better.

School is on probation because we've had a very very old lecture style format for a long time. We the students complained a lot during the LCME and the administration had been warned before about their outdated curriculum. As far as I'm concerned, LCME probation was a good thing, got the kick in the pants needed for change. As far as interviews go, I've been told it hasn't had much effect. We'll see with the match results this week.

As far as using Research Funding to gauge the merit of an institution, I really don't see the usefulness for a medical student. Pick the school you feel most comfortable at. How happy are the med students? How many have had issues or a break down? Which schools have the extra-curriculars you're interested in, foreign medical trips, local student run clinics, border clinics. UTHSCSA has weakend on the international trips with the new UT system wide policies but I don't know how this compares with other schools.

UTHSCSA is still a very good school, with some interesting opportunities, I'm currenlty completing my 3rd year in Harlingen on the Border.