Are All Medical Schools Really Equal?

[2011MS1]

So for residency match both Step score and class ranks are considered. Class ranks seems to be heavily influence by the caliber of your peer. From what I read on this forum most would say that it is just as hard to get top x% at a top school as a lower ranked school.

Is that really true? If you look at the matriculent statistic a high ranking school's average MCAT can be over 5 points higher than a lower ranked school and a few tenth of GPA. I mean the difference is pretty huge. A average student from one of those top school will literally be in the top 10% of the lower ranked school. I just dont see how that makes no difference in term of difficulty.

It also seems like most people would say that which medical school you go to does not affect you when matching for residency. But is that true considering the previous point? Does residency compensate the school's prestige? (kinda like how they may add .2 to gpa if you went to top 10 school during medical school admission).

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[rctriplefresh5]

as long as you go to an md school regardless of the caliber youll have a good chance of matching US medical schools have top priority over us DO schools, and over ****TY CARRIBEAN SCHOOLS.

 

[cardinal2010]

So for residency match both Step score and class ranks are considered. Class ranks seems to be heavily influence by the caliber of your peer. From what I read on this forum most would say that it is just as hard to get top x% at a top school as a lower ranked school.

Is that really true? If you look at the matriculent statistic a high ranking school's average MCAT can be over 5 points higher than a lower ranked school and a few tenth of GPA. I mean the difference is pretty huge. A average student from one of those top school will literally be in the top 10% of the lower ranked school. I just dont see how that makes no difference in term of difficulty.

It also seems like most people would say that which medical school you go to does not affect you when matching for residency. But is that true considering the previous point? Does residency compensate the school's prestige? (kinda like how they may add .2 to gpa if you went to top 10 school during medical school admission).

Disclaimer: as a pre-med this is just my (possibly misinformed) opinion

No they are not all equal, but its hard to pinpoint the exact effect.

For example, top schools generally have much better match lists than lower ranked schools. Of course, this could be correlative and not causal, as top schools admit "better" students who will likely be more competitive for top residencies. My feeling is that its a combination of that correlative effect as well as a causal effect, where school reputation and the networking connections made in high tier programs offer a leg up in the process.

Top schools generally also have more money for research/international health/public health etc. projects that will give you a leg up in the app process.

None of this is binding, you can land a top residency from any US medical school, you can do research at any US medical school etc., it just might be a bit easier coming from a top school.

 

[J ROD]

there is some difference but overall you can get where you want to get coming from any US MD school. You just have to get the Step scores and clinical grades.

 

[NickNaylor]

Most people seem to say that the general quality of education is the same across the board for MD schools. I think the difference probably comes in when you consider things like research, away rotations, etc.

 

[2011MS1]

None of this is binding, you can land a top residency from any US medical school, you can do research at any US medical school etc., it just might be a bit easier coming from a top school.

Do you think it is actually easier? I mean take undergrad for example I got to a state school. Got a 4.0 I dont think it is that hard. However I know there are schools that I know that are hard as hell and I would need to work twice as hard to get something like a 3.7. However medical school doesnt know this (there are just too many school) so I defiantly get the upper hand.

If you apply same logic. You might as well go to a middle ranked medical school and get top 10% (most likely get AOA too) which could be easier than getting top 30% (No AOA) in one of the top schools. And if residency does not discriminate somewhat then the one from lower ranked by actually be higher on the list. And since competitive residency loves AOA it seems the people that go to harder school get double slammed.

Remember even half of people in harvard is bottom 50%

 

[2011MS1]

there is some difference but overall you can get where you want to get coming from any US MD school. You just have to get the Step scores and clinical grades.

Wont it be harder to get a honor for clinical grade at a higher ranked medical school. Or do they not compare you to your peer (not curved) ?

 

[TheMightySmiter]

This post is brought to you by an uneducated pre-med's perspective. 😉

They are equal in that they will all give you the same education, that qualifies you to be a doctor. The differences lie in terms of class structure, emphasis on research/primary care/public health/rural medicine, name (yes, this does make a difference to some extent), location obviously. They are different enough that there is often a good reason for an individual to choose one school or another outside of cost. But they are not so different that you will somehow be more qualified to be a doctor or get a certain residency at one school over another. Going to a certain school may help you get a competitive residency all other things being equal, but I don't think it will help at all if you do "poorly" (poorly being a relative term here).

 

[typhoonegator]

Wont it be harder to get a honor for clinical grade at a higher ranked medical school. Or do they not compare you to your peer (not curved) ?

Not necessarily. Grade inflation is so rampant at some 'top tier' schools that half the class gets honors on their clinical rotations. As I've said before, PDs know this, and are aware of the issue. This is why this data is published on your MSPE/Dean's Letter when you apply for residency.

While previous posters are correct that you will get essentially the same core education at the majority of medical schools, the quality of MS3-4 clinical training and independent responsibility varies significantly from program to program, and can be a function of the environment at the hospital affiliated with the medical school, the style of training, and the philosophy of the school.

Fresh-meat interns start with a highly variable skill-set and confidence level, some of which is dictated by their medical school training. Sure, they all know the stuff on Step I, but some are so used to being coddled by higher-ups that they aren't used to thinking and functioning independently, and they have to catch up (which of course they do). Being a good resident depends on soooooo much more than your knowledge base.

 

[ChiDO]

1. All schools (MD/DO) on the US Mainland teach the same thing to prepare you for Step 1. The only difference would be the teaching style and/or the professor who teaches you. One school may have an awesome Micro teacher, but suck at pharm. Another school might have the leading researcher in biochem, who subsequently rants about his research in lecture that helps you not one bit for your boards.

2. Obviously location is different and this is one thing you should consider heavily. Do you want to live near family/friends, near a SO, or get away from everyone. Also, you should think about where do you want to go for residency. It's a lot harder to convince East coast programs that you will go there if you lived in, went to UG, and went to Med school in California.

3. Another slight difference is that at "better known" schools, you may have the ability to make connections that may help you in the long run. How many people make these connections, or if they truly exist and are beneficial, we will never know for sure. This is purely an individualized effort and probably some luck.

4. If you are a research driven student, it is probably in your best benefit to attend a "top 40" NIH funded school as there may be more research to get involved in, however, ALL schools offer research. You probably are better off going to a "top 40" NIH school if you want to do research the rest of your life (but, once again, it's not neccessary).

5. Going to a "top 40" school WILL NOT get you a higher board score, get you into a better residency, get you published 10 times, or give you a better education then any other US school. All this is accomplished INDIVIDUALLY.

 

[2011MS1]

2. Obviously location is different and this is one thing you should consider heavily. Do you want to live near family/friends, near a SO, or get away from everyone. Also, you should think about where do you want to go for residency. It's a lot harder to convince East coast programs that you will go there if you lived in, went to UG, and went to Med school in California.

So if I want to eventually work in certain states (TX or OK) I would be better served by going to a local no rank school than a high ranked East Coast school? I mean do I really have to convince them?

 

[fahimaz7]

Is Morehouse as good as Hopkins? Prob. not.. But, both can match really well if they both have a 4.0/245 student.

 

[Law2Doc]

...
Is that really true? If you look at the matriculent statistic a high ranking school's average MCAT can be over 5 points higher than a lower ranked school and a few tenth of GPA. I mean the difference is pretty huge. A average student from one of those top school will literally be in the top 10% of the lower ranked school. I just dont see how that makes no difference in term of difficulty. ...

There are some problems with your notions. First, you are assuming arguendo that what it takes to score a few points higher on the MCAT is the difference between being at the top or bottom of the med school class. I think you give too much credit to the MCAT for separating out students. Adcoms use it because it's the only standardized test they have, but few would give it the kind of credence you do. In fact, you will see that the people with the top MCATs and college GPA end up all over the ranks of the typical med school. Most people who get into med school got "mostly A's" in college. So everyone is selected because they are likely to succeed. But half of them are going to be the bottom half of their class. And it is rarely the half you would select based on college grades/MCAT score. There is no basis for presuming this. Most of the study skills that work in college have to be massively revamped in med school. How people do with the different volume and subject matter varies, and not based on past success as much as you seem to suggest. It's simply a different ballgame.

Also untrue is the notion that average at one school is equivalent to top 10% at another. In fact, the top 10% at any US allo med school is probably equivalent. The averages looked at across schools may be slightly different (but again not tied to MCAT as much as you seem to credit). But the small number of folks who really click in terms of studying medicine will not be school specific. Adcoms are pretty good at picking which individuals will succeed in med school. But they are absolutely not able to determine who will be best and worst in the class from that group. In general though the best at any school will rival the best anywhere. It's pretty safe to say that if you aren't going to be the best student at Harvard, you will not be the best allo student at any US allo school. That's just the way it works.

The range is actually pretty small -- everybody who gets into med school got mostly A's and has the ability to succeed at med school. Whether you are competing with folks who got all A's or averaged at a B+, the range is still pretty tight. All of those folks who got the gentlemen's C's and made you look so good in undergrad are gone, and so the competition is not like anything you ever saw prior to med school. Everyone has the ability to be the top student, and it's really impossible to predict who its going to be. Inevitably the top and bottom students will be quite different than what one might predict based on entry stats. Reason, the MCAT is not that good a test for predicting med school GPA. Sorry but it's not. Those folks who score well as premeds would love it to be determinative of future success, but it actually means squat. You haven't gotten to the top of the mountain, only base camp once you've gotten competitive MCAT scores. the mountain that is med school looms ahead, and any lead you think you have by doing well in college is largely gone one you start at the next level.

I know folks would like to think that getting into a good med school sets them up for life and that the race is done. But it's barely started. You have to hit the ground running in med school and the competition is much faster than you ran against in college. You aren't going to pick and choose a med school and be set for getting a residency. You have to earn it. Similarly you aren't going to be able to pick an "easy" med school where you can coast into a residency as the top student. It doesn't work that way either. You are putting too much credit toward your undergrad stats and not enough credit toward the adcoms being able to select people (from both objective AND SUBJECTIVE criteria) who are going to succeed in med school. MCAT is important for admissions, but not so important in how the class gets parsed out. I promise you the top 10% at most med schools includes people who were not in the top half of MCAT scores for that school, and so too the bottom 10% of the class is going to include some folks with very solid numbers. The game is so different, that knowing how to play in undergrad doesn't always translate to equivalent med school success. It's sort of like being a very good Pop warner football player being drafted into the NFL. The players are bigger and faster and many people wash out despite their past pedigree. Why? Because it doesn't translate. The game is different, the players are better, and being the best of a college crowd doesn't mean you will ever be competitive at the next level.

The happy corollary for some is that you start with a clean slate in med school, and that all US allo med schools will be very good launching pads for residency. You just have to be prepared to work hard, and to be flexible in your study approach.

 

[J ROD]

The schools cant put the knowledge in your head....so it is up to you to learn the material and do.....

 

[2011MS1]

There are some problems with your notions. First, you are assuming arguendo that what it takes to score a few points higher on the MCAT is the difference between being at the top or bottom of the med school class. I think you give too much credit to the MCAT for separating out students. Adcoms use it because it's the only standardized test they have, but few would give it the kind of credence you do. In fact, you will see that the people with the top MCATs and college GPA end up all over the ranks of the typical med school. Most people who get into med school got "mostly A's" in college. So everyone is selected because they are likely to succeed. But half of them are going to be the bottom half of their class. And it is rarely the half you would select based on college grades/MCAT score. There is no basis for presuming this. Most of the study skills that work in college have to be massively revamped in med school. How people do with the different volume and subject matter varies, and not based on past success as much as you seem to suggest. It's simply a different ballgame.

Here you are essentially suggesting that the caliber of student who goes to top medical school are essentially the same as those who goes to lower ranked medical school. While it is hard to say that someone with a 36 on MCAT and 3.9 is better student than some one with 30 and 3.7. I dont think it is too far fetched to suggest that as collective a group of 200 people with average of 3.9 and 36 are better student than a group of 200 with 3.7 and 30. Now are top x% of those two school really equal? I dont think it is as equal as you suggested.

And I am not saying best. There are people at my state medical school that were accepted at harvard/hopkin..they just want to stay in state so those are just extremes which I am not trying to discuss. I am talking about lets say top 10% 30% or even 50%.

 

[avksx]

Good post, but you should really consider a greater deal of brevity.


Less is more.


🙂

 

[JJMrK]

IMO:

All US MD schools can get you where you want to be if you work hard. The difference is that at some schools, you might not have to work quite as hard, or the school makes it easier to work hard. This is where things like facilities, faculty, and reputation come into play.

 

[nabeel76]

Here you are essentially suggesting that the caliber of student who goes to top medical school are essentially the same as those who goes to lower ranked medical school. While it is hard to say that someone with a 36 on MCAT and 3.9 is better student than some one with 30 and 3.7. I dont think it is too far fetched to suggest that as collective a group of 200 people with average of 3.9 and 36 are better student than a group of 200 with 3.7 and 30. Now is are top x% of those two school really equal? I dont think it is as equal as you suggested.

And I am not saying best. There are people at my state medical school that were accepted at harvard/hopkin..they just want to stay in state so those are just extremes which I am not trying to discuss. I am talking about lets say top 10% 30% or even 50%.

I agree with you. While I also agree with the general consensus that you can get just as far from any medical school, I do not agree with the contention that all schools are equally competitive as Law2Doc seems to be implying.

A school with an average GPA of 3.8 and an average MCAT of 35+ like Harvard or Hopkins is bound to have a greater proportion of people that a) are truly gifted and/ or b) actually care to be at the top of the class. As such these students are more likely to sacrifice balance or other activities in their lives to remain at the top. A class full of students with this mentality is bound to make it harder on any one student to achieve scores in the honors or top 10% range. There has got to be a difference in terms of competitiveness when comparing the highest ranked to the lowest ranked of schools.

 

[Nasrudin]

There are some problems with your notions. First, you are assuming arguendo that what it takes to score a few points higher on the MCAT is the difference between being at the top or bottom of the med school class. I think you give too much credit to the MCAT for separating out students. Adcoms use it because it's the only standardized test they have, but few would give it the kind of credence you do. In fact, you will see that the people with the top MCATs and college GPA end up all over the ranks of the typical med school. Most people who get into med school got "mostly A's" in college. So everyone is selected because they are likely to succeed. But half of them are going to be the bottom half of their class. And it is rarely the half you would select based on college grades/MCAT score. There is no basis for presuming this. Most of the study skills that work in college have to be massively revamped in med school. How people do with the different volume and subject matter varies, and not based on past success as much as you seem to suggest. It's simply a different ballgame.

Also untrue is the notion that average at one school is equivalent to top 10% at another. In fact, the top 10% at any US allo med school is probably equivalent. The averages looked at across schools may be slightly different (but again not tied to MCAT as much as you seem to credit). But the small number of folks who really click in terms of studying medicine will not be school specific. Adcoms are pretty good at picking which individuals will succeed in med school. But they are absolutely not able to determine who will be best and worst in the class from that group. In general though the best at any school will rival the best anywhere. It's pretty safe to say that if you aren't going to be the best student at Harvard, you will not be the best allo student at any US allo school. That's just the way it works.

The range is actually pretty small -- everybody who gets into med school got mostly A's and has the ability to succeed at med school. Whether you are competing with folks who got all A's or averaged at a B+, the range is still pretty tight. All of those folks who got the gentlemen's C's and made you look so good in undergrad are gone, and so the competition is not like anything you ever saw prior to med school. Everyone has the ability to be the top student, and it's really impossible to predict who its going to be. Inevitably the top and bottom students will be quite different than what one might predict based on entry stats. Reason, the MCAT is not that good a test for predicting med school GPA. Sorry but it's not. Those folks who score well as premeds would love it to be determinative of future success, but it actually means squat. You haven't gotten to the top of the mountain, only base camp once you've gotten competitive MCAT scores. the mountain that is med school looms ahead, and any lead you think you have by doing well in college is largely gone one you start at the next level.

I know folks would like to think that getting into a good med school sets them up for life and that the race is done. But it's barely started. You have to hit the ground running in med school and the competition is much faster than you ran against in college. You aren't going to pick and choose a med school and be set for getting a residency. You have to earn it. Similarly you aren't going to be able to pick an "easy" med school where you can coast into a residency as the top student. It doesn't work that way either. You are putting too much credit toward your undergrad stats and not enough credit toward the adcoms being able to select people (from both objective AND SUBJECTIVE criteria) who are going to succeed in med school. MCAT is important for admissions, but not so important in how the class gets parsed out. I promise you the top 10% at most med schools includes people who were not in the top half of MCAT scores for that school, and so too the bottom 10% of the class is going to include some folks with very solid numbers. The game is so different, that knowing how to play in undergrad doesn't always translate to equivalent med school success. It's sort of like being a very good Pop warner football player being drafted into the NFL. The players are bigger and faster and many people wash out despite their past pedigree. Why? Because it doesn't translate. The game is different, the players are better, and being the best of a college crowd doesn't mean you will ever be competitive at the next level.

The happy corollary for some is that you start with a clean slate in med school, and that all US allo med schools will be very good launching pads for residency. You just have to be prepared to work hard, and to be flexible in your study approach.

Thanks. That's helpful in getting us geared up for what's ahead. Here's to clean slates! Let's get it on premeds.

 

[imer]

...

 

[45408]

really, such nattering nabobs of negativity - l2d you have such longwinded posts - I hope you get to the point a bit faster and less condescendingly than with any patient you run across.

Med schools are not the flat earth you'd suggest they are. Since you haven't attended a top med school (however that is defined), you should at least acknowledge that maybe you don't know what goes on there - OR what the student abilities are at such places.

l2d your posts are 10% informative clouded by 90% hubris. And your bottom line is always how _______ is just not understandable. Blah, Blah, Blah.

BURP

Nor is a student at a "top school" qualified to talk about what it's like at other top schools or at "bottom tier" schools.

 

[2011MS1]

Nor is a student at a "top school" qualified to talk about what it's like at other top schools or at "bottom tier" schools.

He didnt talk about what is going on at bottom tier school at all lol.

 

[TheMightySmiter]

Here you are essentially suggesting that the caliber of student who goes to top medical school are essentially the same as those who goes to lower ranked medical school. While it is hard to say that someone with a 36 on MCAT and 3.9 is better student than some one with 30 and 3.7. I dont think it is too far fetched to suggest that as collective a group of 200 people with average of 3.9 and 36 are better student than a group of 200 with 3.7 and 30. Now are top x% of those two school really equal? I dont think it is as equal as you suggested.

And I am not saying best. There are people at my state medical school that were accepted at harvard/hopkin..they just want to stay in state so those are just extremes which I am not trying to discuss. I am talking about lets say top 10% 30% or even 50%.

Well, you can't always directly compare success in undergrad with success in med school, even in terms of averages. The amount of material in med school, and the way it's presented, is so different from undergrad (at least, from everything I have heard/read) that someone who studied very hard for their 3.9/36 in undergrad may not adapt as well as someone with a 3.7/30. Even when you consider averages rather than individuals, I imagine that you'll probably find a pretty level playing field across all med schools. On average, most people who get into med school are intelligent, hard-working, and want to succeed. There are so many different factors that determine whether someone goes into Hopkins/Harvard or a state school, and many of them don't have that much to do with large differences in ability to succeed.

 

[2011MS1]

Well, you can't always directly compare success in undergrad with success in med school, even in terms of averages. The amount of material in med school, and the way it's presented, is so different from undergrad (at least, from everything I have heard/read) that someone who studied very hard for their 3.9/36 in undergrad may not adapt as well as someone with a 3.7/30. Even when you consider averages rather than individuals, I imagine that you'll probably find a pretty level playing field across all med schools. On average, most people who get into med school are intelligent, hard-working, and want to succeed. There are so many different factors that determine whether someone goes into Hopkins/Harvard or a state school, and many of them don't have that much to do with large differences in ability to succeed.

I understanding that medical school is different and that there is alot of variability between college performance and Medical school performance but I think it would be foolish to say that there is no correlation at all.

With same Step score and similar research experience, would some one from low ranked school who is top 10% with AOA be ranked higher than someone from top school ranked at 20% with No AOA (kinda dictated by class rank)? By your and L2D's logic the first person would win every time (Which I think would be unjust). But is that really true for competitive residencies? Can some one give me a insight to this? Does program director "adjust" people's rank depend on the school? typhoonegator suggested that they do adjust.

 

[thesauce]

Some residency programs won't even look at you if you aren't from a top medical school.

 

[fahimaz7]

Some residency programs won't even look at you if you aren't from a top medical school.

For a lot of programs, it's safe to say that if you don't meet their Step 1 minimum, you won't get looked at.

We've had several attendings come to our interest groups, and restate the importance of that test. Not only does it matter for residency match, but it sticks around for fellowships.

So, the 245 at Morehouse gets a look, while the 225 at Harvard gets the shaft.

 

[2011MS1]

For a lot of programs, it's safe to say that if you don't meet their Step 1 minimum, you won't get looked at.

We've had several attendings come to our interest groups, and restate the importance of that test. Not only does it matter for residency match, but it sticks around for fellowships.

So, the 245 at Morehouse gets a look, while the 225 at Harvard gets the shaft.

What if they have about similar Step Score. But the guy from Morehouse is top 10% with AOA and the guy from Harvard is top 30% with no AOA(because of class rank). Who gets the shaft? From my understanding AOA is quiet a huge factor in regarding to super competitive residency like some program dont even interview you if you dont have it.

So if I take both your post and thesauce post at face value both would be shafted?

 

[dokein]

What if they have about similar Step Score. But the guy from Morehouse is top 10% with AOA and the guy from Harvard is top 30% with no AOA(because of class rank). Who gets the shaft? From my understanding AOA is quiet a huge factor in regarding to super competitive residency like some program dont even interview you if you dont have it.

So if I take both your post and thesauce post at face value both would be shafted?

I think AOA wise, if you're from Harvard, JHU, Washington in St. Louis, and UPenn, and a few others you get some leeway. Maybe not 30th percentile but if your deans letter says you're 15th percentile I think it'll be ok.

But really I'm just talking out my @$$

 

[sassilysweet]

I just want to chime in that if you want a residency at a specific hospital, then your greatest chances of getting said residency would be to go to the school that it was attached to and do your clerkships there. Nothing like a months-long interview process to show you fit in.

This point is moot if you have no idea what you want to go into or have no idea what residencies are available where, but I think the point is still true to some extent regardless.

 

[FloatOn]

There are some problems with your notions. First, you are assuming arguendo that what it takes to score a few points higher on the MCAT is the difference between being at the top or bottom of the med school class. I think you give too much credit to the MCAT for separating out students. Adcoms use it because it's the only standardized test they have, but few would give it the kind of credence you do. In fact, you will see that the people with the top MCATs and college GPA end up all over the ranks of the typical med school. Most people who get into med school got "mostly A's" in college. So everyone is selected because they are likely to succeed. But half of them are going to be the bottom half of their class. And it is rarely the half you would select based on college grades/MCAT score. There is no basis for presuming this. Most of the study skills that work in college have to be massively revamped in med school. How people do with the different volume and subject matter varies, and not based on past success as much as you seem to suggest. It's simply a different ballgame.

Also untrue is the notion that average at one school is equivalent to top 10% at another. In fact, the top 10% at any US allo med school is probably equivalent. The averages looked at across schools may be slightly different (but again not tied to MCAT as much as you seem to credit). But the small number of folks who really click in terms of studying medicine will not be school specific. Adcoms are pretty good at picking which individuals will succeed in med school. But they are absolutely not able to determine who will be best and worst in the class from that group. In general though the best at any school will rival the best anywhere. It's pretty safe to say that if you aren't going to be the best student at Harvard, you will not be the best allo student at any US allo school. That's just the way it works.

The range is actually pretty small -- everybody who gets into med school got mostly A's and has the ability to succeed at med school. Whether you are competing with folks who got all A's or averaged at a B+, the range is still pretty tight. All of those folks who got the gentlemen's C's and made you look so good in undergrad are gone, and so the competition is not like anything you ever saw prior to med school. Everyone has the ability to be the top student, and it's really impossible to predict who its going to be. Inevitably the top and bottom students will be quite different than what one might predict based on entry stats. Reason, the MCAT is not that good a test for predicting med school GPA. Sorry but it's not. Those folks who score well as premeds would love it to be determinative of future success, but it actually means squat. You haven't gotten to the top of the mountain, only base camp once you've gotten competitive MCAT scores. the mountain that is med school looms ahead, and any lead you think you have by doing well in college is largely gone one you start at the next level.

I know folks would like to think that getting into a good med school sets them up for life and that the race is done. But it's barely started. You have to hit the ground running in med school and the competition is much faster than you ran against in college. You aren't going to pick and choose a med school and be set for getting a residency. You have to earn it. Similarly you aren't going to be able to pick an "easy" med school where you can coast into a residency as the top student. It doesn't work that way either. You are putting too much credit toward your undergrad stats and not enough credit toward the adcoms being able to select people (from both objective AND SUBJECTIVE criteria) who are going to succeed in med school. MCAT is important for admissions, but not so important in how the class gets parsed out. I promise you the top 10% at most med schools includes people who were not in the top half of MCAT scores for that school, and so too the bottom 10% of the class is going to include some folks with very solid numbers. The game is so different, that knowing how to play in undergrad doesn't always translate to equivalent med school success. It's sort of like being a very good Pop warner football player being drafted into the NFL. The players are bigger and faster and many people wash out despite their past pedigree. Why? Because it doesn't translate. The game is different, the players are better, and being the best of a college crowd doesn't mean you will ever be competitive at the next level.

The happy corollary for some is that you start with a clean slate in med school, and that all US allo med schools will be very good launching pads for residency. You just have to be prepared to work hard, and to be flexible in your study approach.

really, such nattering nabobs of negativity - l2d you have such longwinded posts - I hope you get to the point a bit faster and less condescendingly than with any patient you run across.

Med schools are not the flat earth you'd suggest they are. Since you haven't attended a top med school (however that is defined), you should at least acknowledge that maybe you don't know what goes on there - OR what the student abilities are at such places.

l2d your posts are 10% informative clouded by 90% hubris. And your bottom line is always how _______ is just not understandable. Blah, Blah, Blah.

BURP

That's ok law2doc, I enjoyed what you had to say.

 

[thesauce]

What if they have about similar Step Score. But the guy from Morehouse is top 10% with AOA and the guy from Harvard is top 30% with no AOA(because of class rank). Who gets the shaft? From my understanding AOA is quiet a huge factor in regarding to super competitive residency like some program dont even interview you if you dont have it.

So if I take both your post and thesauce post at face value both would be shafted?

Completely depends on the specific program and the specific PD. Each program has their own emphasis. Some will only take AOA (from any school). Some will only take Harvard.

 

[MSSM2013]

There are some problems with your notions. First, you are assuming arguendo that what it takes to score a few points higher on the MCAT is the difference between being at the top or bottom of the med school class. I think you give too much credit to the MCAT for separating out students. Adcoms use it because it's the only standardized test they have, but few would give it the kind of credence you do. In fact, you will see that the people with the top MCATs and college GPA end up all over the ranks of the typical med school. Most people who get into med school got "mostly A's" in college. So everyone is selected because they are likely to succeed. But half of them are going to be the bottom half of their class. And it is rarely the half you would select based on college grades/MCAT score. There is no basis for presuming this. Most of the study skills that work in college have to be massively revamped in med school. How people do with the different volume and subject matter varies, and not based on past success as much as you seem to suggest. It's simply a different ballgame.

Also untrue is the notion that average at one school is equivalent to top 10% at another. In fact, the top 10% at any US allo med school is probably equivalent. The averages looked at across schools may be slightly different (but again not tied to MCAT as much as you seem to credit). But the small number of folks who really click in terms of studying medicine will not be school specific. Adcoms are pretty good at picking which individuals will succeed in med school. But they are absolutely not able to determine who will be best and worst in the class from that group. In general though the best at any school will rival the best anywhere. It's pretty safe to say that if you aren't going to be the best student at Harvard, you will not be the best allo student at any US allo school. That's just the way it works.

The range is actually pretty small -- everybody who gets into med school got mostly A's and has the ability to succeed at med school. Whether you are competing with folks who got all A's or averaged at a B+, the range is still pretty tight. All of those folks who got the gentlemen's C's and made you look so good in undergrad are gone, and so the competition is not like anything you ever saw prior to med school. Everyone has the ability to be the top student, and it's really impossible to predict who its going to be. Inevitably the top and bottom students will be quite different than what one might predict based on entry stats. Reason, the MCAT is not that good a test for predicting med school GPA. Sorry but it's not. Those folks who score well as premeds would love it to be determinative of future success, but it actually means squat. You haven't gotten to the top of the mountain, only base camp once you've gotten competitive MCAT scores. the mountain that is med school looms ahead, and any lead you think you have by doing well in college is largely gone one you start at the next level.

I know folks would like to think that getting into a good med school sets them up for life and that the race is done. But it's barely started. You have to hit the ground running in med school and the competition is much faster than you ran against in college. You aren't going to pick and choose a med school and be set for getting a residency. You have to earn it. Similarly you aren't going to be able to pick an "easy" med school where you can coast into a residency as the top student. It doesn't work that way either. You are putting too much credit toward your undergrad stats and not enough credit toward the adcoms being able to select people (from both objective AND SUBJECTIVE criteria) who are going to succeed in med school. MCAT is important for admissions, but not so important in how the class gets parsed out. I promise you the top 10% at most med schools includes people who were not in the top half of MCAT scores for that school, and so too the bottom 10% of the class is going to include some folks with very solid numbers. The game is so different, that knowing how to play in undergrad doesn't always translate to equivalent med school success. It's sort of like being a very good Pop warner football player being drafted into the NFL. The players are bigger and faster and many people wash out despite their past pedigree. Why? Because it doesn't translate. The game is different, the players are better, and being the best of a college crowd doesn't mean you will ever be competitive at the next level.

The happy corollary for some is that you start with a clean slate in med school, and that all US allo med schools will be very good launching pads for residency. You just have to be prepared to work hard, and to be flexible in your study approach.

all med schools are not created equal.

 

[mirrorpair]

A big factor is where you get into residency. The following is a quote from the uncle harvey forums (neurosurgery); I think for competitive residencies your school's rep plays a bigger role.

I matched at an "ivy" program coming from a state school--so it is possible. HOWEVER, it was an uphill battle. My grades, scores, recs are stellar--but you are treated differently and even questioned in many interviews "you seem like a great applicant, why did you go to ______ (ugh!) for med school?!" So go to the best school you can--I wish I had. In fact, I think that if I came from one of those schools with the stats I had, many more doors would have been open to me. One more caveat: take a good state school over a second tier private school any time, however. They are not worth the $80-100 K more in debt--just the top 20 schools are (not #20-50 or whatever US World and BS report says). And it's INCREDIBLY important to go to a school with a neurosurg dept. It's a small, small, nepotistic field. Networking is key.

 

[Narmerguy]

Eh, I think some people aren't being real. The simple truth is that schools like Harvard and JHU can pretty much pick an entire class from the best applicants. There are plenty of other schools that can't fill their classes with students that are as driven and motivated as those schools can. That drive definitely translates in the classroom if you're competing for rank.

 

[scrambizle]

A few thoughts
First, Harvard doesn't do AOA
Second, many things (grades, step scores, research) matter more than your med school, but it is factored into the decision. It won't keep you out of most programs, but if your goal is to go to a place like MGH or Penn for residency, then it does help to go to a top program (but with AOA, research, and an away rotation you may get an interview). So if you have the decision between Harvard and a lesser-known school, go to Harvard.

 

[Law2Doc]

I understanding that medical school is different and that there is alot of variability between college performance and Medical school performance but I think it would be foolish to say that there is no correlation at all....

As I've said in many other posts, in pre-allo the word "correlation" is horribly misused. People confuse it with causation, and look at it as if there is some direct effect. It's not. It's basically the same correlation between saying smart people continue to be smart. But if you are looking to say that individual X in pool A is smarter than individual Y in pool B, then no, it doesn't hold water. Nor does it hold water to say that within each pool the grouping will play out in the same rank order as their MCAT/GPA. It doesn't work that way.

The problem you seem to have missed from my prior lengthy post is that the MCAT and college GPA are not great indicators for how you will do in med school. You'd like it to be, but it's not. Adcoms use it because it's what they have, along with lots of subjective things. But nobody in their right mind would suggest that a 4.0/40 college student is going to necessarilly do better in med school than a 3.5/35 in med school. Correlation doesn't work that way, except on the pre-allo board. All you can really assume at the adcom level is that the folks selected meet the objective and subjective criteria such that these folks ought to succeed in med school. To try and parse out the group on a rank order basis at this level is impossible. And it doesn't matter whether you are doing it over one school or 120. The absurd assumptions on this board that someone who gets into a top ranked (based on US News criteria) school is somehow going to be better than the best students at the med school ranked further down US News' list is perhaps a nice view of the world for someone who thinks they have accomplished something by scoring well, but it's a false analysis.

There will be absurdly smart and solid med students at every school and mediocre med students at every school. The quality and abilities don't really change much from school to school for the simple reason that the criteria used to select folks to med school do not have a strong link to what it takes to be a great med student. MCAT and GPA are what the adcoms have to use, but it's by no means a good indicator of med school success. There may be minimal correlation, but it's going to be pretty insignificant. On SDN folks seem to want to use the term correlation to mean -- you got one point higher on the MCAT so you will be that much of a better med student. But in fact that's simply an absurd way to misuse the term correlation. In comparing two large groups, you may be able to say that using those stats means that the mean is going to be a few points higher -- that's how correlation really works. MCAT and college GPA simply don't translate that well to what you will be doing in med school to suggest that having done well on those will translate to being a better med student. They just provide a certain threshold of smartness that adcoms want to see before they admit you. But the volume and pace of med school is very different, and the interpersonal skills in the later years are not at all tested on the objective tests. Folks who come to med school need to have certain study skills, certain motivation, and certain willingness to be flexible in adjusting their study routines to what works. This last one is what results in some of the top MCAT/GPA folks getting into the bottom half of the class most often. If you have a system that worked well in undergrad, sometimes you are slow to give it up even when it doesn't pan out in med school. So you always see some formerly academic superstars making crying phone calls to parents after the first couple of rounds of tests complaining that they are doing what used to work and not able to make the grade. It happens and will always happen so long as folks like the OP put so much stock in the objective part of their apps and think it means something at the next level. hope this clarifies.

 

[Law2Doc]

Eh, I think some people aren't being real. The simple truth is that schools like Harvard and JHU can pretty much pick an entire class from the best applicants. There are plenty of other schools that can't fill their classes with students that are as driven and motivated as those schools can. That drive definitely translates in the classroom if you're competing for rank.

Sure, but the range of applicants from best to, say, the 50th school down the list isn't really that significant. And you are assuming that the data the adcoms have allows them to actually pick "best applicants". It is what they have to work with and they're ok with it. But the folks who rise to the top at the various med schools down the list in fact were probably better choices than those who sink to the bottom half of the class at the top schools. Problem is you are taking data that doesn't translate all that well into med school success (MCAT, college GPA) and putting a lot of weight on it in making selections. So the end result is that the folks who get in did well on something that may not be a particularly good barometer to how they will do thereafter. Which in turn means that the dude with the 3.8/38 might struggle in med school where suddenly things don't come as easy, and none of his study methods still work with the added workload. Adcoms try to get around this issue by putting great weight on the subjective parts of the apps as well, as they have conceded that a lot of what it takes to succeed in med school isn't simply undergrad level testing. But at the end of the road, they are really just good at picking folks as a group who they think will thrive at their program, not really gleaning who in the applicant pool is "best". I think at the end of 4 years of med school if you could do admissions over again, you would probably significantly reshuffle the individuals amongst med schools -- and that's pretty much what happens for residency.

 

[MegaProjectile]

It also seems like most people would say that which medical school you go to does not affect you when matching for residency. But is that true considering the previous point? Does residency compensate the school's prestige? (kinda like how they may add .2 to gpa if you went to top 10 school during medical school admission).

A school's prestige alone can have some minimal effect when matching(some PDs at community hospitals like to show off how many ivies they attract) but it is the opportunities that comes from such a prestigious school that really open doors. A lot of faculties at these schools are well-known leaders in their field. Doing research with them or getting a great letter from them will help immensely when it comes to matching. Also the PDs are these schools are influential and can make some calls for you or help you network with the right people. Although all these perks mean nothing if you go to a top school, got a Step 1 of 200 and want to match ortho at Cornell(HSS).

 

[Law2Doc]

A school's prestige alone can have some minimal effect when matching(some PDs at community hospitals like to show off how many ivies they attract) but it is the opportunities that comes from such a prestigious school that really open doors. A lot of faculties at these schools are well-known leaders in their field. Doing research with them or getting a great letter from them will help immensely when it comes to matching. Also the PDs are these schools are influential and can make some calls for you or help you network with the right people. Although all these perks mean nothing if you go to a top school, got a Step 1 of 200 and want to match ortho at Cornell(HSS).

Some of the big state schools actually are very fruitful sources of research. You may not work with the Nobel prize winner, but you probably will have much better access to your PI than you might if your PI was a Nobel prize winner. To be honest, a LOR or phone call from someone who actually knows you and your work is going to beat a LOR or phone call from a big name who has no idea who you are, every time. So it's not really about big names, as much as access. To be honest, if you want someone to pick up the phone on your behalf, you are probably more likely to get the access to faculty needed to make this happen at a place other than one of the top ranked programs. And while research is important, it's the faculty who worked with you in a rotation setting that are going to make more of a difference, because the job you are applying for when applying to residency isn't a research job, it's working in the wards. They want to know you can do the job of resident, and the closest thing to that is how you do in a sub-I or other residency-like setting. So your evals and having core faculty pick up the phone on your behalf matters a lot more than research faculty at the residency app level. And I'm suggesting access to these faculties and their willingness to pull strings probably happens more at the places which don't have the unapproachable, big name types. The places that do the best job of working the phones often aren't going to be at the top of the US News lists. But again, this is more about you than them -- you have to get yourself known to whomever might be useful, as a mentor, a recommender, as someone who will pull strings. And you can do this at both your home school, and at places you do away rotations.

 

[fahimaz7]

What if they have about similar Step Score. But the guy from Morehouse is top 10% with AOA and the guy from Harvard is top 30% with no AOA(because of class rank). Who gets the shaft? From my understanding AOA is quiet a huge factor in regarding to super competitive residency like some program dont even interview you if you dont have it.

So if I take both your post and thesauce post at face value both would be shafted?

With the same GPA and step scores, of course the ivy league guy has a slight bump. But, the Morehouse guy is going to be just fine as well...

What the pre-meds don't realize is that it's all an individual effort in medical school. In order to get a >3.75 and a >240... you have to be an independent learner and a great mind. It doesn't matter if you're at the 100th ranked school or the 5th ranked school. This isn't Yale vs. Padukah Illinois Community College.

 

[Law2Doc]

With the same GPA and step scores, of course the ivy league guy has a slight bump. But, the Morehouse guy is going to be just fine as well...

Agree that if all else was equal, there might be an advantage. But more than that, it never comes down to two people being otherwise equal. There are too many subjective factors involved. How you do on away rotations, where they meet you first hand, is huge, as is how you do in your interview. These play a much bigger role than school name, once you make the interview cut-off for the board scores and the like. If you spent a month at a program (an away, or "audition" rotation) and the residents there couldn't care less whether they end up working with you or some other dude, then guess what -- neither of you guys are getting the job. It simply never comes down to "all other things being equal" because as between two people you hang out with for a month, there is always going to be a preference, however slight, for one over the other. If you can't distinguish yourself, then you already lost the slot, and where you went to school will never enter into it. So yeah, to the extent people keep saying that "just because it's the 10th most important factor" in residency decisions doesn't mean it never plays a role, they miss the point that it never gets down to that factor -- you never have to go that deep because you never need a tie-breaker. Applicants are like snowflakes -- no two are identical, and so "all else being equal" never makes it into the equation.

(FWIW, "ivy league" is a bad phrase to use for med schools because only a couple of the ivies aren't top ranked med schools per US News, and Princeton doesn't even have a med school.)

 

[VPDcurt]

Another important factor when applying to residencies is the fact that LORs actually mean a lot more than they did while applying to med schools. At residency interviews, you meet with physicians that are potential colleagues for the next 3-7 years and they are well aware of that. It is not so much a decision of whether or not this person is capable of sitting in a classroom and passing classes (as it is for med school admissions), but more of whether or not this is a person that you would be willing to work with very closely for many years to come.

 

[fahimaz7]

Agree that if all else was equal, there might be an advantage. But more than that, it never comes down to two people being otherwise equal. There are too many subjective factors involved. How you do on away rotations, where they meet you first hand, is huge, as is how you do in your interview. These play a much bigger role than school name, once you make the interview cut-off for the board scores and the like. If you spent a month at a program (an away, or "audition" rotation) and the residents there couldn't care less whether they end up working with you or some other dude, then guess what -- neither of you guys are getting the job. It simply never comes down to "all other things being equal" because as between two people you hang out with for a month, there is always going to be a preference, however slight, for one over the other. If you can't distinguish yourself, then you already lost the slot, and where you went to school will never enter into it. So yeah, to the extent people keep saying that "just because it's the 10th most important factor" in residency decisions doesn't mean it never plays a role, they miss the point that it never gets down to that factor -- you never have to go that deep because you never need a tie-breaker. Applicants are like snowflakes -- no two are identical, and so "all else being equal" never makes it into the equation.

(FWIW, "ivy league" is a bad phrase to use for med schools because only a couple of the ivies aren't top ranked med schools per US News, and Princeton doesn't even have a med school.)

You realize that this isn't a law school forum, right? Every post doesn't have to be so technical. I wasn't referring to the "Ivy" schools.. but to the top ranking schools (don't get me started on the ranking formula).

 

[Spiker]

I would like to point out that your posts are incredibly biased against the students of higher ranked school's student body by not giving them any credit.

And since you like to write super long winded post I will break it down.

It's basically the same correlation between saying smart people continue to be smart....

That is exactly the point. Smart people stay smart. Smarter people are usually still smarter people. He did not misuse it at all. People who were extremely successful college is more likely (correlation) to be successful in medical school

But nobody in their right mind would suggest that a 4.0/40 college student is going to necessarilly do better in med school than a 3.5/35 in med school.

No and that is not what he suggested. What about 100*4.0/40 against 100*3.5/35. You are out of your mind if you suggest that both group will be equally likely to succeed in medical school (no coorelation).

The absurd assumptions on this board that someone who gets into a top ranked (based on US News criteria) school is somehow going to be better than the best students at the med school ranked further down US News' list is perhaps a nice view of the world for someone who thinks they have accomplished something by scoring well, but it's a false analysis.

That is also not what he suggest. We are not talking about the rare exceptions. We are talking about the study body as a whole. Is the person from Penn who is ranked at 50% better than the person who is ranked at 50% from Ponce School of Medicine? Hum I would put my money on it and say yes.

There will be absurdly smart and solid med students at every school and mediocre med students at every school.

Again those are the exceptions. Of course this happens. I know people who goes to my state school with a 40 MCAT and 3.9 GPA. Or some had to work during undergrad so they had low gpa (which is your last point). But again those are the exceptions! Not everybody in a school of 150 is going to turn out to be a diamond in the rough

MCAT and GPA are what the adcoms have to use, but it's by no means a good indicator of med school success. There may be minimal correlation, but it's going to be pretty insignificant.

Where did you get the minimal correlation from? It is a strong indicator. A group of students with 2.0 is highly unlikely to succeed in medical school. Just because most people with gpa of 3.5+ can succeed in medial school doesnt not mean people with 3.5 is going to succeed in the same level as people with 4.0. Why do you think they track science gpa separately? because it is a better indicator than regular gpa.

In comparing two large groups, you may be able to say that using those stats means that the mean is going to be a few points higher -- that's how correlation really works. MCAT and college GPA simply don't translate that well to what you will be doing in med school to suggest that having done well on those will translate to being a better med student.

Ok? So now you are agreeing with him wtf...

But the volume and pace of med school is very different, and the interpersonal skills in the later years are not at all tested on the objective tests.

Ok, I am so tired of hearing this. While to be sure medical school is different. It is not like out of this world, holy ****, different dimension. Most people agree that it is just tons more material. It is still learning you are giving medical school way more credit than it deserve.

In addition, we are only talking about ranking, interpersonal skill is different subject matter. School ranking and AOA are both contributors to residency acceptance, and we are discussing how school ranking play a row in that.

Folks who come to med school need to have certain study skills, certain motivation, and certain willingness to be flexible in adjusting their study routines to what works.

I agree with this one. I know people that had to work in college with undermined their gpa. And now that they wont work in medical school they are going to do much better. However this will only dampen the correlation between GPA/MCAT and Medical school performance but will not completely wipe it out.

This last one is what results in some of the top MCAT/GPA folks getting into the bottom half of the class most often.

Yes this happens to some people with top MCAT/GPA but it happens more to people who didnt have good MCAT and GPA to start with.

In the end while I dont have solid number, common sense can be easily applied here. And while this may not be definitive enough to stand in court. I bet it does stand in PD's head, which is all it matters.

 

[dang025]

I love when pre-meds chime in about something they have no personal experience. Especially when its so clear that they are just seeking to justify their own preconceived notions.

I have a family friend that is a PD, and he says that in nearly every single case where the person went to medical school has no impact on who gets the position. While that is only one data point, based on what he has told me it seemed like this was the case for most programs that he was familiar with.

So in this case, I choose to listen to people who have been through the process and/or deciding on what factors applicants are to be judged

 

[MegaProjectile]

Some of the big state schools actually are very fruitful sources of research. You may not work with the Nobel prize winner, but you probably will have much better access to your PI than you might if your PI was a Nobel prize winner. To be honest, a LOR or phone call from someone who actually knows you and your work is going to beat a LOR or phone call from a big name who has no idea who you are, every time. So it's not really about big names, as much as access. To be honest, if you want someone to pick up the phone on your behalf, you are probably more likely to get the access to faculty needed to make this happen at a place other than one of the top ranked programs. And while research is important, it's the faculty who worked with you in a rotation setting that are going to make more of a difference, because the job you are applying for when applying to residency isn't a research job, it's working in the wards. They want to know you can do the job of resident, and the closest thing to that is how you do in a sub-I or other residency-like setting. So your evals and having core faculty pick up the phone on your behalf matters a lot more than research faculty at the residency app level. And I'm suggesting access to these faculties and their willingness to pull strings probably happens more at the places which don't have the unapproachable, big name types. The places that do the best job of working the phones often aren't going to be at the top of the US News lists. But again, this is more about you than them -- you have to get yourself known to whomever might be useful, as a mentor, a recommender, as someone who will pull strings. And you can do this at both your home school, and at places you do away rotations.

Law2doc, I've agreed with some of your posts in the past but I want you clear something up with this post.

1) Why are you assuming that PIs from top schools are less accessible than those from PIs? This is a common stereotype, in my opinion, that is based on the average joes perception of ivies(aka top schools). When I interviewed at Case, the student body was divided into groups each with their own advisory Deans. The Dean in each group is available on a regular basis to guide, provide counseling, coordinate research opportunities and help them with residencies. Harvard and some other top schools have similar arrangements. My friends are low-tiers schools are left to fend for themselves, hunt down projects and do all the legwork. I will argue that students from these top schools(however you define it) have a lot more access than you are giving them credit for.

2) You are also assuming that top academic hospitals are mainly looking for residents with good wards skills. These hospitals are academic first and foremost so your research experience is a great asset to your matching there in addition to your 3rd grade or sub-I rotation. In fact, most of these places are looking to train academic doctors and not those interested in bread-and-butter community medicine.

3) Away rotations are useful but they are very limited since you are rotating for 2-4 weeks. I'm not sure much how contact or impression can make in 2 weeks versus students from the home program that have been there months on end.

Finally, I agree with you that individual responsibility is paramount to success but I also know that there are a lot of hard-working people that are not successful because they didn't have the right connection or resources to bring their work to fruition.

 

[NickNaylor]

I love when pre-meds chime in about something they have no personal experience. Especially when its so clear that they are just seeking to justify their own preconceived notions.

I have a family friend that is a PD, and he says that in nearly every single case where the person went to medical school has no impact on who gets the position. While that is only one data point, based on what he has told me it seemed like this was the case for most programs that he was familiar with.

So in this case, I choose to listen to people who have been through the process and/or deciding on what factors applicants are to be judged

I love when people chime in about something they've only talked to one person about.

Directly, the name of your institution may not have any impact on your chances, but if you're trying to argue that two graduates from Morehouse and Harvard have exactly the same chances of matching at highly competitive programs... no. The resources available at lower tier schools are not the same as those available at higher tier schools. It's still incumbent upon the individual student to take advantage of those resources, but there's a discrepancy nonetheless.

 

[Spiker]

I love when pre-meds chime in about something they have no personal experience. Especially when its so clear that they are just seeking to justify their own preconceived notions.

I have a family friend that is a PD, and he says that in nearly every single case where the person went to medical school has no impact on who gets the position. While that is only one data point, based on what he has told me it seemed like this was the case for most programs that he was familiar with.

So in this case, I choose to listen to people who have been through the process and/or deciding on what factors applicants are to be judged

I love how premed become enslaved to the opinion of anyone who is some what further. While I am not in medical school I know over 50 people who are in my state medical school many of them are my close friends and their opinion are not so different from my.

"So in this case, I choose to listen to people who have been through the process and/or deciding on what factors applicants are to be judged"

Then you should obviously not listen to him since he has not been matched yet. Check out the link below, with in a the opinion of some dermatology residents AND medical students. And their opinion does not invalidated my at all, so you should probably ignore L2D by your logic.

"One thing I'd add is that one problem with coming out of a top program is that there are often many others in your class applying in derm. Because programs don't want to interview tons of people from the same school, they often will compare you head-to-head with the other applicants from your school. If there are ten stellar applicants applying from Columbia in a year, this can make it difficult for any given applicant to get a lot of interviews. That said, LORs (and phone calls) from well known derm faculty are crucial in this process, and you'll have more opportunities to get to know such faculty if you go to a school with a great derm program. Also, coming from a top-name school does tend to earn you some bonus points in and of itself."

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=687559

 

[bamtuba]

Completely depends on the specific program and the specific PD. Each program has their own emphasis. Some will only take AOA (from any school). Some will only take Harvard.

Just curious, but what about places like Mayo that have no AOA?

 

[dang025]

So i should also ignore the PD that i know as well? his opinion of matching is less important than the 50 people in your state that you know?
Again i don't care what some post on SDN says, I'll listen to one of the people who actually makes these decisions, and the criteria he says that most programs make their decisions on