USNews Residency Directors Rankings... Help Please...

Discover Your Odds of Getting into Medical School
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
NovemberWhiskey

NovemberWhiskey

Junior Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
331
Reaction score
0
Could someone please tell me what the 2008 residency directors rankings for the following schools are? (My subscription expired, apparently).

UCSF
Columbia
Yale
Mayo
Emory
Duke
Cornell

Thank you!
Members don't see this ad.
 
NovemberWhiskey said:
Could someone please tell me what the 2008 residency directors rankings for the following schools are? (My subscription expired, apparently).

UCSF
Columbia
Yale
Mayo
Emory
Duke
Cornell

Thank you!
Click to expand...
First number is res dir ratings second is peer assessment.
UCSF 4.4, 4.7
Columbia 4.3, 4.3
Yale 4.3, 4.3,
Mayo 3.8, 3.7
Emory 4.0, 3.7
Duke 4.6, 4.6
Cornell 4.3, 4.1

And I can't help but put in a couple of TX schools,

Baylor 3.9, 3.9
UT Southwestern 4.1, 4.1
 
How about U Michigan Ann Arbor?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Can someone just post the whole list ranked by residency director's ratings? I've seen previous years' lists on here before...
 
somemaybedoc said:
First number is res dir ratings second is peer assessment.
UCSF 4.4, 4.7
Columbia 4.3, 4.3
Yale 4.3, 4.3,
Mayo 3.8, 3.7
Emory 4.0, 3.7
Duke 4.6, 4.6
Cornell 4.3, 4.1

And I can't help but put in a couple of TX schools,

Baylor 3.9, 3.9
UT Southwestern 4.1, 4.1
Click to expand...

UTSW > Baylor
 
kazbegi said:
How about U Michigan Ann Arbor?
Click to expand...

UM-Ann Arbor got a 4.4 ranking from residency directors, tied with UCSF and UPenn. 4.4 was the fourth place ranking this year, tied amongst these three schools.
 
Ranking By Residency Director Ratings (out of 5.0 as highest):

1. Harvard - 4.7
1. Hopkins - 4.7
3. Duke - 4.6
3. Stanford - 4.6
5. Wash U St Louis - 4.5
6. UCSF - 4.4
6. University of Michigan - 4.4
6. University of Pennsylvania - 4.4
9. Columbia Univ. - 4.3
9. Cornell Univ - 4.3
9. Yale Univ. -4.3
12. Univ of Washington - 4.2
12. Vanderbilt Univ. - 4.2
14. UTSW-Dallas - 4.1
14. UCLA - 4.1
14. UChicago Pritzker - 4.1
14.UNC-Chape Hill - 4.1
14. UPitt - 4.1
19. Emory - 4.0
19. Northwestern Univ Feinberg- 4.0
19. UC San Diego - 4.0
22. Baylor - 3.9
22. UVA -3.9
24. Case Western - 3.8
24. Dartmouth -3.8
24. Mayo - 3.8
24. Univ. of Alabama Birmingham - 3.8
24. U of Iowa Carver - 3.8
29. Brown - 3.7
29. Mt Sinai - 3.7
29. Tufts - 3.7
29 UColorado-Denver - 3.7
29. UW-Madison - 3.7
33. Georgetown Univ - 3.6
33. New York Univ - 3.6
33. Oregon Health Science Univ. - 3.6
33. Univ Minnesota
37. Boston Univ - 3.5
37. Indiana Univ Indianapolis - 3.5
37. Ohio State - who cares
37. Univ of Rochester NY - 3.5
37. University of Southern Cal Keck - 3.5
37. Univ of Utah - 3.5

I'm sick of typing. if you want to know more, PM me, or buy the online version
 
NovemberWhiskey said:
Could someone please tell me what the 2008 residency directors rankings for the following schools are? (My subscription expired, apparently).

UCSF
Columbia
Yale
Mayo
Emory
Duke
Cornell

Thank you!
Click to expand...

5st....🙂
 
GoBlueMD83 said:
Ranking By Residency Director Ratings (out of 5.0 as highest):

37. Boston Univ - 3.5
37. Indiana Univ Indianapolis - 3.5
37. Ohio State - who cares
37. Univ of Rochester NY - 3.5
37. University of Southern Cal Keck - 3.5
37. Univ of Utah - 3.5
Click to expand...

:laugh:

Who were you rooting for? I'm turning down UNC SOM just because they couldn't make it to the final four.
 
Chulito said:
:laugh:

Who were you rooting for? I'm turning down UNC SOM just because they couldn't make it to the final four.
Click to expand...

I'm a fellow wolverine and I missed it. Good call GoBlue...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Can I ask what these rakings signify?
 
anyone understand why Tufts is given a pretty high residency rating despite being ranked close to 50 by US news? Even last year's ranking had a similar inconsistency.
 
AIRMJ4 said:
anyone understand why Tufts is given a pretty high residency rating despite being ranked close to 50 by US news? Even last year's ranking had a similar inconsistency.
Click to expand...

Because it's only one out of a bunch of factors that determine the overall "ranking". NIH dollars, peer assessment, student:faculty ratio, etc all play in as well.
 
Can someone put up the peer assessment scores as well please?
Thanks 😀
 
Hednej said:
Sounds about right. Baylor had 9 scrambling this year. 9!😱
Click to expand...

Sorry to sound like a n00b but is that really bad? Also doesnt BCM have one of the highest step 1 averages and arent those what gets the graduate into good residencies?

thanks
 
munnabhai said:
Sorry to sound like a n00b but is that really bad? Also doesnt BCM have one of the highest step 1 averages and arent those what gets the graduate into good residencies?

thanks
Click to expand...

Well, although what you say is true, what's also true is that all top 30-40 schools have the "one of the highest" step 1 averages😛

As for having 9 scrambling... that's kinda bad. All the other top 10 schools seldom have more than 1 person scramble, if that. Heck, all the other top 20 schools seldom have more than a few people caught in the scramble.

That being said, Baylor is a pretty big school, so maybe 9 isn't as bad as it sounds.
 
pyrois said:
That being said, Baylor is a pretty big school, so maybe 9 isn't as bad as it sounds.
Click to expand...

Yeah Baylor is a great med school, but 9 sounds downright scary. Believe me, the scramble is something that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. I know this because I was there when my mom was scrambling and it wasn't a pretty sight. I'm still puzzled as to why Baylor would have 9 not match. Any current students have an input?
 
Hednej said:
Yeah Baylor is a great med school, but 9 sounds downright scary. Believe me, the scramble is something that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. I know this because I was there when my mom was scrambling and it wasn't a pretty sight. I'm still puzzled as to why Baylor would have 9 not match. Any current students have an input?
Click to expand...

Well, Baylor does have a student body composed of greater than or equal to 70% in-state kids. Nothing against Texas, but I would argue that no single state carries more than 70% of the nation's greatest minds.

Perhaps that admissions bias has an effect on the lower end of their matriculants.

Just a note, I heard the year before they had 16 in the scramble, so they're doing better this time around.
 
pyrois said:
Well, Baylor does have a student body composed of greater than or equal to 70% in-state kids. Nothing against Texas, but I would argue that no single state carries more than 70% of the nation's greatest minds.

Perhaps that admissions bias has an effect on the lower end of their matriculants.

Just a note, I heard the year before they had 16 in the scramble, so they're doing better this time around.
Click to expand...

Umm...wouldn't that mean almost all of the state schools would be screwed?
 
Bubblehead-to-MD said:
Umm...wouldn't that mean almost all of the state schools would be screwed?
Click to expand...

It might, if you consider Baylor students "screwed"😛 But I personally think they do quite well. Any other competing hypotheses?
 
pyrois said:
Just a note, I heard the year before they had 16 in the scramble, so they're doing better this time around.
Click to expand...

Rechecked my source and I was mistaken. I still recall hearing "scramble" "16" and "Baylor" all in one sentence, but it wasn't last year.
 
pyrois said:
Well, Baylor does have a student body composed of greater than or equal to 70% in-state kids. Nothing against Texas, but I would argue that no single state carries more than 70% of the nation's greatest minds.

Perhaps that admissions bias has an effect on the lower end of their matriculants.

Just a note, I heard the year before they had 16 in the scramble, so they're doing better this time around.
Click to expand...

Yeah but it doesn't mean that all the students at Baylor went to UT schools and Rice. It means that a lot of them went out of state for undergrad to high places like the ivies and then came back to the motherland for medical school.
Based on your argument, UCSF should suck even worse because they have a lower percentage of OOSers.
 
Hednej said:
Yeah but it doesn't mean that all the students at Baylor went to UT schools and Rice. It means that a lot of them went out of state for undergrad to high places like the ivies and then came back to the motherland for medical school.
Based on your argument, UCSF should suck even worse because they have a lower percentage of OOSers.
Click to expand...


I have a different theory for UCSF. Still waiting for opposing theories on Baylor though😛
 
Unfortunately there is not just one reason that those folks didn't match initially.
Some of the reasons I've heard cited for this years group:
couples match didn't work out, applicants shot too high and didn't rank lower tier programs, students got into a pgy2 year but did not get a pgy1 spot that they wanted, etc... So there are a host of reasons. I certainly would not let that deter you from going to BCM. As for the residency/peer directors ratings, one of the more interesting explanations I've heard is the following:

devilishlyblue Quote:
why are baylor's peer assessment and residency director's rankings much lower than the schools' around it on that list?
Bear in mind that these scores are what economists call "lagging indicators" -- that is, they change long after other things have changed. The best example is unemployment. The economy gets better, consumers start spending, corporations start making profits, and only after all that has happened do corporations decide to hire more people. In other words, if you use unemployment to measure how good the economy is, it's going to change long after than other indicators (such as GDP, worker productivity, the stock market, corporate profits, etc.) and in fact can usually be predicted (more or less) by those other indicators first.

Residency director scores are going to be the same way. For example, say hypothetically that Baylor suddenly started admitting much stronger classes of students.

--> You would see that impact on MCAT score and GPA right away. Those would be "leading" indicators.
--> Residency directors won't notice that until they start getting those Baylor kids as interns four years later. Of course, you have to have the kids for a while (say a year) before you realize they're any good. Maybe it's a fluke class. So you admit a couple extra Baylor kids the next year and it takes you an extra year to realize this is a real trend. You report that on USN's survey the following year, and voila. All of a sudden Baylor's residency director score is a 4.4 and it's the fourth best school in the country -- seven years after it made the actual change.

Now, obviously, this is hideously too complicated to really predict things well and I've just made a whole lot of extrapolations. But the key point is intact: that residency scores might be disproportionately low for a rising school and disproportionately high for a falling one. You would expect reputations to follow the other indicators more than you would expect the other way around.
 
latinfridley said:
Bear in mind that these scores are what economists call "lagging indicators"
Click to expand...

Very true, but for something like residency director ratings, the lag will be much longer than "7 years." After all, once the beginning of the "strong years" begin, it's not as if baylor kids will immediately fill the ranks of every hospital in the world. There's only so many of them.

As a result, it will take many years following for residency directors to start truly seeing a high number of well-qualified Baylor kids (assuming that the ones from before weren't well-qualified, which is unlikely to be the case).

Additionally, it's not as if Baylor has been traditionally a bad school. It's been in the top 20 for years (ever since they started ranking schools) and before that, still very good. There has to be another reason for the low residency director ratings other than "lagging indicators."
 
pyrois said:
Very true, but for something like residency director ratings, the lag will be much longer than "7 years." After all, once the beginning of the "strong years" begin, it's not as if baylor kids will immediately fill the ranks of every hospital in the world. There's only so many of them.

As a result, it will take many years following for residency directors to start truly seeing a high number of well-qualified Baylor kids (assuming that the ones from before weren't well-qualified, which is unlikely to be the case).

Additionally, it's not as if Baylor has been traditionally a bad school. It's been in the top 20 for years (ever since they started ranking schools) and before that, still very good. There has to be another reason for the low residency director ratings other than "lagging indicators."
Click to expand...

Don't worry bout it. Just check out the match list from year to year. Its great every year.
Its not worth losing sleep over.
 
latinfridley said:
Don't worry bout it. Just check out the match list from year to year. Its great every year.
Its not worth losing sleep over.
Click to expand...

Seriously, the match lists are great. I don't see why people are coming up with things like "lagging indicators" to explain anything😛
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
TX/CA residency question. Please help, urgent!!
Replies
6
Views
378
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
D
State Residency, help please
Replies
1
Views
475
eigen
eigen
B
WWYD? Please help!
Replies
4
Views
828
bruhwhat
B
findingdory
Volunteering hours discrepancy help please!
Replies
5
Views
737
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
chickenloverr5
Please help!! AMCAS sGPA Question!
Replies
16
Views
2K
chickenloverr5
chickenloverr5
Top