2008 US News Medical School Rankings

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Does anyone with access to the online edition have an answer to this question? I'm curious too.

Those would be good to see. I guess we can wait until tomorrow and access it all online. I think they move more because the Primary Care ratings have students matches factoring in, which can vary widely from year to year.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Does anyone else think that a clinical-care ranking would be more valuable than a primary-care ranking? They already have sub-rankings in family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, OBG and rural medicine; do they really need the additional overarching category of primary care to the exclusion of a more comprehensive category of clinical care? I know that the primary-care rankings act as something of a proxy for the broader notion of general clinical care, but I would like to see different criteria used to make the list. Throughout this interview season, in addition to the differences in research calibre and opportunities I have been most struck by the differences between different schools in clinical focus, clinical opportunities and clinical nurturing broadly construed, not just primary care. Am I missing an obvious caveat here?
 
It's an understandable mistake though. I always thought affiliated med schools were at least somewhat near their colleges (like within walking or short driving distance).

In fact, I've interviewed in some places and still don't know where those med schools are located relative to their undergrads:p

Hmm.. interesting. Let's make a list of schools that are more than a 30 minute drive from their undergrad campuses: In order of distance from UG campus:


Cornell (242 miles)
Baylor (183 miles)
UCONN (37 miles)

Others?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Hmm.. interesting. Let's make a list of schools that are more than a 30 minute drive from their undergrad campuses: In order of distance from UG campus:


Cornell (422 miles)
Baylor (183 miles)
UCONN (37 miles)

Others?

422 miles?! No, Ithaca - > NYC is 232 miles (according to Google).
 
Does anyone else think that a clinical-care ranking would be more valuable than a primary-care ranking?
Yes.
I know that the primary-care rankings act as something of a proxy for the broader notion of general clinical care, but I would like to see different criteria used to make the list.

Yup...."close, but no cigar."
 
Hmm.. interesting. Let's make a list of schools that are more than a 30 minute drive from their undergrad campuses: In order of distance from UG campus:


Cornell (422 miles)
Baylor (183 miles)
UCONN (37 miles)

Others?
Since none of the UT schools are in Austin we can put them all on the list too.
 
There are no bad medical schools - only bad medical students.

Thoughtful insight? Or lame excuse from losers who can't get into a top 10 school? You decide.

ha ha, jk...

(steps on soap box)

But seriously, I was talking with a guy who was in at Cornell, and said now he could say he was accepted to an Ivy League. Gag me. Moreover, how can I respect your supposed future achievements when now you're an insecure pr!ck that whose self-esteem and acceptance rides so heavily on telling other people you went to some school?
IMHO, letting our self worth get wrapped up in one-upping other people based on "prestige" (read: east coast bias and self-absorbed yahoos) -

At the end of the day, who cares where you went - what can you DO?

(steps off soap box)

Ok, let the flaming begin. :love:
 
Hmm.. interesting. Let's make a list of schools that are more than a 30 minute drive from their undergrad campuses: In order of distance from UG campus:


Cornell (422 miles)
Baylor (183 miles)
UCONN (37 miles)

Others?

UMass is more than 50 miles from its main undergrad campus.
 
Cornell (422 miles)
Baylor (183 miles)
UCONN (37 miles)

Penn State-Hershey is 101 miles from State College.
 
There are no bad medical schools - only bad medical students.

Thoughtful insight? Or lame excuse from losers who can't get into a top 10 school? You decide.

ha ha, jk...

(steps on soap box)

But seriously, I was talking with a guy who was in at Cornell, and said now he could say he was accepted to an Ivy League. Gag me. Moreover, how can I respect your supposed future achievements when now you're an insecure pr!ck that whose self-esteem and acceptance rides so heavily on telling other people you went to some school?
IMHO, letting our self worth get wrapped up in one-upping other people based on "prestige" (read: east coast bias and self-absorbed yahoos) -

At the end of the day, who cares where you went - what can you DO?

(steps off soap box)

Ok, let the flaming begin. :love:

that was a huge turn-off at cornell's interview day: the one student who told us she went to cornell because it was the only ivy league school to which she had been accepted. oh please . . .
 
Cornell (422 miles)
Baylor (183 miles)
UCONN (37 miles)

Penn State-Hershey is 101 miles from State College.

Almost all of them in Big XII country are 30 minutes to an hour away. Med schools need bigger cities to thrive. College towns are too small to support medical education.

Do we count satellite campuses for M3/4? Texas Tech has an El Paso branch.
 
Hmm.. interesting. Let's make a list of schools that are more than a 30 minute drive from their undergrad campuses: In order of distance from UG campus:


Cornell (422 miles)
Baylor (183 miles)
UCONN (37 miles)

Others?

Baylor College of Medicine is no longer affiliated with Baylor University so the mileage is moot...
 
Wow! What important info. Now that I finally see that Harvard is #1 I am requesting that UCSF return my deposit and I am going to the bestest school ever.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Also, just like in sports this is another example of East Coast bias. :laugh:
 
that was a huge turn-off at cornell's interview day: the one student who told us she went to cornell because it was the only ivy league school to which she had been accepted. oh please . . .

That's hilarious :laugh: . I actually have the opposite problem in that the pressure in my family to renounce any and all forms of pretentiousness with regard to medical schools is next to unbearable. They really wanted to see me at my state university but it's not going to happen as I can't move back across the county right now. As a child you could forget owning name brand anything--my husband makes fun of me (lovingly that is) b/c my mom got me and my brother clothes at Sears. I swear my mom would be so much prouder if I were at Hay Seed Medical School rather than an Ivy. It doesn't make any sense to me either...
 
Also, just like in sports this is another example of East Coast bias. :laugh:

Yeah I definitely thought it was coastal bias that caused UCLA to knock Kansas out of the tournament last weekend, definitely had nothing to do with the KU point guard turning the ball over 9 times :D
 
that was a huge turn-off at cornell's interview day: the one student who told us she went to cornell because it was the only ivy league school to which she had been accepted. oh please . . .

One person is not representative of a class.
 
One person is not representative of a class.

this person was certainly the exception from 15 or so other students i met, but at the same time a person obsessed with ivy league pedigree is logically more likely to be found at an ivy league school.
 
Scenario 1

Malpractice Attorney: And where did you go to medical school?

Jeebus: Kentucky Med

Malpractice Attorney: You realize you're going to get creamed when we go to trial.

Scenario 2

Malpractice Attorney: And where did you go to medical school?

Jeebus: Hopkins

Malpractice Attorney: Hrmmm... I have better things to do with my time.


http://qshc.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/12/5/330


I don't think you (or this article's authors) know attorneys very well. A big name school is the equivalent of a target on your back. It's far more fun to trounce someone who went to a fancy school. (I didn't do medmal, but even in more transactional practice we enjoyed taking folks down a few pegs).
 
I don't think you (or this article's authors) know attorneys very well. A big name school is the equivalent of a target on your back. It's far more fun to trounce someone who went to a fancy school. (I didn't do medmal, but even in more transactional practice we enjoyed taking folks down a few pegs).

Not to mention it might actually be easier. Telling a jury the doctor went to Hopkins can, if you spin it right, set their expectations very high, magnifying the psychological effect of any mistakes made.

Remember, malpractice isn't incompetence. Like it not, low-performing doctors are relatively immune, especially when all the other doctors are incompetent too (i.e. standard-of-care is poor). Malpractice is negligence: when a doctor should have known better. The higher you set your expectations, the easier it is to prove that a failure was neglectful.
 
These are the 2008 U.S. News Rankings - Primary Care

(1) Univ. of Washington
(2) UNC-Chapel Hill
(3) Univ. of Colorado-Denver and HSC
(4) OHSU (Oregon)
(5) Michigan State University COM (Osteopathic)
(6) East Carolina University Brody
(7) Univ. of Vermont
(8) UCSF
(9) Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
(10) BCM (Baylor)
 
Thanks, Jack. You're a peach.
 
Did anyone notice that Hopkins has a higher peer assessment, and equal assessment by residency directors, than Harvard?
 
Did anyone notice that Hopkins has a higher peer assessment, and equal assessment by residency directors, than Harvard?

Yeap. Don't know what to make of that. I truly think Hopkins=Harvard in terms of peer esteem.
 
Kind of a random tangent, and I get that there isn't a ton of mobility on this list, but has anyone followed the list for the last ~5 yrs.? That would really interest me... are there any schools that are strongly on the upswing/strongly on the downswing?
Re: trends, I keep a large collection of data that examine things like NIH funding and US news stuff over time, in addition to other indicators.

The long-term trends are really interesting if you take the time to examine them. Looking at the data, you can often pinpoint exactly when a school decided to adopt a more academic philosophy, often due to a change in leadership. Typically, the schools that successfully manage to climb up the academic ladder either: A) have monopolies in large markets, B) are clearly distinguished over their peers in very large markets, or C) benefit from outside industrial influences.

The typical school that consistently trends downward is the one that suffers at the hands of a more reputed neighbor in a saturated market. The down-trending schools usually don't have much room to expand and are typically located in the northeast.

The most notable shooting star that continues to be on the upswing, however, is Pittsburgh. It went from merely an above-average academic institution to elite class in a period of about 20 years, thanks in part to sound economic management, a lack of real local competition, and a seismic shift in philosophy. This is a school that will continue to rise -- you can bank on that. Other prominent med schools that are steadily rising and have yet to hit their peaks include Emory and OHSU.

The most under-the-radar rankings-climber this year inhabits the OC. In terms of research dollars, UC Irvine has taken off in an extremely short period of time. Expect a sizeable jump in next year's issue of US news, which will rely heavily on FY 06 and FY 07 awards from the NIH.

Of the schools trending downward, the most prominent is NYU. It went from top 10 in research funding to top 40 (and soon to be top ~45) in a period of about 30 years, and it continues to nosedive in this category at an alarming rate. This is likely a consequence of its location in a saturated market and its inability to expand much more. Other schools that have also fallen hard include Einstein, SUNY Downstate, SUNY Buffalo, Upstate, Albany Med, NYMC, Temple, and UMiss (don't ask me how that one got in there). Pritzker had also been gradually falling until about 10 years ago, when it reversed course and picked up again. It is still, however, a far cry from its previous top ten status.

Finally, despite what's going on in NY, MSSM has steadily risen back to prominence over the past ~10-15 years, and it's climbing even faster today. I don't know much about their location or how they're pulling it off, but it definitely looks like a strong trend.
 
Re: trends, I keep a large collection of data that examine things like NIH funding and US news stuff over time, in addition to other indicators.
...

:thumbup: Good calls, especially on Pitt, Emory, and OHSU. Another school that has made large strides right into the top 10 is Baylor. It is definitely interesting to not the downswings over time though; for someone to rise, another must clearly fall...
 
I don't think you (or this article's authors) know attorneys very well. A big name school is the equivalent of a target on your back. It's far more fun to trounce someone who went to a fancy school. (I didn't do medmal, but even in more transactional practice we enjoyed taking folks down a few pegs).

This is not about my opinion (or your opinion). It's about numbers. Causation is another ball of wax, but there is clearly an association between the medical school a physician graduates and malpractice.

Does this have something to do with the publics uninformed opinion of the school you graduate from? I don't know, but it's certainly a plausible explanation.

L2d, I suggest you step back and seriously reexamine your blanket rejection of any kind of hierarchy among US medical schools. I don't know you, but I would guess that you'll be a fine doctor. I wish you could be comfortable enough with yourself to look at this issue with a little more objectivity.
 
:thumbup: Good calls, especially on Pitt, Emory, and OHSU. Another school that has made large strides right into the top 10 is Baylor. It is definitely interesting to not the downswings over time though; for someone to rise, another must clearly fall...
Yeah, Baylor is definitely right up there.

Just staying in the top 15 means you're growing awfully quick; Baylor has actually managed to make very significant gains over the past 10 years.
 
Why is it that TEN schools are equally rated at #18 for Primary Care? That seems a little much to me... there has to be SOME level of difference between them. I just think it defeats the purpose of ranking when you have that large of a chunk as equal... but i digress
 
why are baylor's peer assessment and residency director's rankings much lower than the schools' around it on that list? in fact, none of the numbers in the other categories associated with baylor are significantly better than the similarly-ranked schools to compensate for the lower peer assessment and directors ratings, so why is it ranked in the top 10? US News' methodology of ranking schools is so confusing...
 
I didnt know U Chicago-Pritzker was in the top 10 years ago...really? When one said it had been falling it looks like it "fell" to the lowest 22 spot but has consitantly been in the top 20 forever pretty much
 
Causation is another ball of wax, but there is clearly an association between the medical school a physician graduates and malpractice.
Source? I'd be curious to actually see this. You have data that shows trends in which physicians from lower ranked schools are sued more frequently than higher ranked schools? I'd find this suprising.
 
So if MCAT scores have more weight on "selectivity" rankings than GPA (65% vs. 30%, I believe?), why are there still arguments over which stat is more important? Is this a standard that only the USNews apply to the schools, or are the adcoms conscience of the fact that admitting a student with a higher
MCAT will have a higher bearing on their rank? I'm sure each school has a different approach to hard statistics, but the rankings definitely put a different spin on the "MCAT vs. GPA" debate.
 
I didnt know U Chicago-Pritzker was in the top 10 years ago...really? When one said it had been falling it looks like it "fell" to the lowest 22 spot but has consitantly been in the top 20 forever pretty much
By NIH ranking, not US News. US News' rankings weren't around during Pritzker's heydey.

In the 70s, it was in the top 10 by NIH funding (as high as 6/7 a few times, actually). It gradually declined and hasn't cracked the top 20 since 2000, though it's edging back up again.
 
This is not about my opinion (or your opinion). It's about numbers. Causation is another ball of wax, but there is clearly an association between the medical school a physician graduates and malpractice.

Does this have something to do with the publics uninformed opinion of the school you graduate from? I don't know, but it's certainly a plausible explanation.

L2d, I suggest you step back and seriously reexamine your blanket rejection of any kind of hierarchy among US medical schools. I don't know you, but I would guess that you'll be a fine doctor. I wish you could be comfortable enough with yourself to look at this issue with a little more objectivity.

I am clueless as to where you got that I gave a blanket rejection of any kind of hierarchy among US med schools. What I think I said was that lawyers would (and do) get more joy destroying a Hopkins grad's career than a Kentucky one. Such is the nature of being a hired gun -- you always want to take down the bigger mark. (Actually in this respect I think I am probably validating a hierarchy, not disputing one, just saying that in the world of litigation, a better school may put you in a worse place on the food chain -- a tastier morsel for voracious litigators).

See devilishlyblue's post a few posts back for a better (but less colorful) explanation than I gave re why this is so.
 
By NIH ranking, not US News. US News' rankings weren't around during Pritzker's heydey.

In the 70s, it was in the top 10 by NIH funding (as high as 6/7 a few times, actually). It gradually declined and hasn't cracked the top 20 since 2000, though it's edging back up again.

ahh got it i c..cool
 
By NIH ranking, not US News. US News' rankings weren't around during Pritzker's heydey.

In the 70s, it was in the top 10 by NIH funding (as high as 6/7 a few times, actually). It gradually declined and hasn't cracked the top 20 since 2000, though it's edging back up again.

ahh got it i c..cool

the reason is pritzker is a smaller school and has less faculty...if you look at the grants per faculty memeber pritzker ranks 5th...
 
there is clearly an association between the medical school a physician graduates and malpractice.

Speaking as an economics major with a concentration in health care decisionmaking, I can tell you that study after study has attempted to figure out what kind of doctors are more likely to get sued, and most have failed dramatically. It does not seem to be correlated with damage done, any clinical outcome, general patient satisfaction, lawyers per square mile, lawyer advertising, or -- to refute your claim -- medical school degree, including DO's and overseas degrees.

Studies have found two links. The first is that while physicians who are rated poorly by their patients for communication tend to get sued more often. The second and vastly more important one is that once you get sued the first time, it's a domino effect: the lawyers tend to jump on you afterwards.
 
I'm sure each school has a different approach to hard statistics, but the rankings definitely put a different spin on the "MCAT vs. GPA" debate.

If you look at the MSAR data -- I haven't done a regression, but I'm quite confident that this is how it would turn out -- I believe you'll find that the median GPA varies much less than MCAT score does from school to school. (You would need standard deviation data to know this for sure.) As the first example I looked up (Missouri's in the middle of my MSAR), WUSTL has a 38, 3.9. Mizzou has a 29, 3.7. That strikes me as a much larger MCAT spread (9) than GPA (.2).

In other words, the US News rankings have it exactly right: research-heavy schools tend to care much more about MCAT scores, while other schools care much more about GPA's.



*EDIT: Correction: you wouldn't necessarily need standard deviation from the individual schools, though that would probably be optimal. You could do this as a t-test or a chi-square, I suppose, and just use those to calculate the standard deviations within your sample rather than within a school.
 
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.
 
If you look at the MSAR data -- I haven't done a regression, but I'm quite confident that this is how it would turn out -- I believe you'll find that the median GPA varies much less than MCAT score does from school to school. (You would need standard deviation data to know this for sure.) As the first example I looked up (Missouri's in the middle of my MSAR), WUSTL has a 38, 3.9. Mizzou has a 29, 3.7. That strikes me as a much larger MCAT spread (9) than GPA (.2).

In other words, the US News rankings have it exactly right: research-heavy schools tend to care much more about MCAT scores, while other schools care much more about GPA's.

I would not argue that a school that has a median GPA of 3.9 cares more about the MCAT than grades. Just a thought.

I would also not argue that the GPAs are equivalent, as is the MCAT. Are Mizzou's 3.7s and Wash U's 3.9s coming from the same places?
 
2008 Top Ten Medical Schools - Research:

Regarding the that populist magazine's undergraduate rankings...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_and_university_rankings#U.S._News_.26_World_Report_College_and_University_rankings
It's easy to guess who's going to end up on top: Harvard, Yale and Princeton round out the first three essentially every year. In fact, when asked how he knew his system was sound, Mel Elfin, the rankings' founder, often answered that he knew it because those three schools always landed on top. When a new lead statistician, Amy Graham, changed the formula in 1999 to what she considered more statistically valid, the California Institute of Technology jumped to first place. Ms. Graham soon left, and a slightly modified system pushed Princeton back to No. 1 the next year.
 
I would not argue that a school that has a median GPA of 3.9 cares more about the MCAT than grades. Just a thought.

I would also not argue that the GPA's are equivalent, as is the MCAT. Are Mizzou's 3.7s and Wash U's 3.9s coming from the same places?

Wuh oh. Weight of academic institutions versus their GPA's is a can or worms I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.
 
Wuh oh. Weight of academic institutions versus their GPA's is a can or worms I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.

On the contrary, I don't think weight has anything to do with it. I would probably argue that the 3.7s may have been harder earned... I went to both Stanford (private) and Cal (not-so-private). I had a 4.0 at one and a 3.3 at the other. Want to take a stab at which was which?

I just don't think the GPA is compared as is the MCAT. Do I think a Stanford student that had a 3.8 majoring in visual arts and doing pre-med is more competitive than a UVA student doing biochem with a 3.6? No way in hell.
 
Top