baylor vs ucla vs ucsd

[pollster123]

i'm curious about sdn rankings cause usnews says baylors ranked higher than ucla and ucsd and is 13K cheaper

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Jalby]

Because Baylor is a better school than UCLA and a LOT better school than UCSD.

 

[elias514]

Baylor, UCLA, and UCSD are all top medical schools. The differences in educational quality between these schools is negligible. To say that Baylor is "better" than UCLA and considerably better than UCSD is just ridiculous.

 

[Jalby]

Ahem. Baylor has more NIH funding (not that that matters much), has a more progressive curriculum, has more hospitals (including hospitals where you actually get to practice medicine instead of observing medicine), and their students (with relatively the same incoming MCAT and GPA) get higher board scores than UCLA and UCSD. Yes, it is a "better" school than UCLA and a lot "Better" school than UCSD.

 

[Newquagmire]

Ahem. Baylor has more NIH funding (not that that matters much), has a more progressive curriculum, has more hospitals (including hospitals where you actually get to practice medicine instead of observing medicine), and their students (with relatively the same incoming MCAT and GPA) get higher board scores than UCLA and UCSD. Yes, it is a "better" school than UCLA and a lot "Better" school than UCSD.

NIH funding, as we all know, is a little dubious--especially the way that USNews compiles it.

progressive curriculum is in no way an indicator of how "good" a school is: it's all a matter of personal preference.

hospitals: ok, you have a point here that baylor's affiliates are a lot more well-regarded. however, baylor students do a vast majority of dorot in ben taub, a plain ol' teaching hospital just like every other medical school has.

board scores: meh. if you're good, you'll be good no matter where you go. depends on if you care how well the people around you are doing (i.e. how competitive you are).

 

[kwanny]

pollster... what's the occasion to ask this sorta question? did u get off the waitlist at these schools? If so, congrats. If not, you've just wasted my time.

 

[Mr Reddly]

If not, you've just wasted my time.

That sounds like something your avatar would say!

 

[Jalby]

NIH funding, as we all know, is a little dubious--especially the way that USNews compiles it.
Yeah, I just threw that in because it fit.


progressive curriculum is in no way an indicator of how "good" a school is: it's all a matter of personal preference.

Some curriculums have been proven to get higher board scores than others. It definately shows you how well a school allows the students to learn what the NMBE considers to be the most important information. I definately think that should factor into how good a school is.

hospitals: ok, you have a point here that baylor's affiliates are a lot more well-regarded. however, baylor students do a vast majority of dorot in ben taub, a plain ol' teaching hospital just like every other medical school has.

It does make third year a lot more interesting. Although I have no idea what a dorot is.

board scores: meh. if you're good, you'll be good no matter where you go. depends on if you care how well the people around you are doing (i.e. how competitive you are).

Definately NOT true. The incoming MCAT's and GPA's prove this. They had the same students, and came out with different USMLE's, and comparing Baylor to UCSD's it's about a 7-8 point difference. I don't think this is because UCSD students are a lot less ambitous than Baylors. I think it has to do with the fact Baylor gives you a TON more time to study for the boards, and they teach only the most relevant parts of medicine in the compressed curriculum so you don't have to know embryology and biochemistry pathways and stuff like that.

 

[Newquagmire]

Some curriculums have been proven to get higher board scores than others.

can i see a link on this please?

I think it has to do with the fact Baylor gives you a TON more time to study for the boards, and they teach only the most relevant parts of medicine in the compressed curriculum so you don't have to know embryology and biochemistry pathways and stuff like that.

we all study what we want to study. if i study for biochem and not USLME, of course i'm not going to do as well on USLME. the simple answer is to get UCSD students to stop studying biochem 🙂

 

[Jalby]

can i see a link on this please?
It is a Harvard study done in 1985. Not really linkable. But it along with schools experiences is one of the reason that most schools are moving from a traditional (~40 years old) curriculum to an organ or systems based curriculum.


we all study what we want to study. if i study for biochem and not USLME, of course i'm not going to do as well on USLME. the simple answer is to get UCSD students to stop studying biochem 🙂

They probably would, if so much of it wasn't taught and they wern't being graded on it. It's not really that simple a thing and that's one of the reasons that, as the original poster asked, Baylor is a better school than UCSD.

 

[elias514]

So let me get this straight: Baylor's affiliated hospitals are better than the UCLA medical center? According to whom? If you look at the US News rankings of hospitals, UCLA is pretty darn good. Heck, UCLA medical center ranked in the top ten in 12 different specialties.

Granted, the rankings are partly based on the opinions of approximately 2,000 doctors around the country. But that means that a significant proportion of these doctors consider UCLA to be among the top 5 centers in the country for a wide range of specialties.

So I think it's unreasonable to label Baylor's affiliated hospitals as superior to UCLA medical center overall.

As for the USMLE Step 1 scores, how is this a reflection of the overall quality of training (which is the implication of labeling one medical school as "better" than another)? I've been told by many medical students, residents, and attendings that Step 1 does not correlate with clinical proficiency and how good of a doctor one will become.

I just don't buy into the argument that certain medical schools are better than others. I believe that they all get the job done. This ranking of medical schools is so stupid.

 

[Newquagmire]

It is a Harvard study done in 1985. Not really linkable. But it along with schools experiences is one of the reason that most schools are moving from a traditional (~40 years old) curriculum to an organ or systems based curriculum.

oh, well that would have been before Harvard's super progressive move and subsequent tanking of Board scores, wouldn't it? =)

They probably would, if so much of it wasn't taught and they wern't being graded on it

Bah, they need to get over grades then. When will they learn that grades don't matter? Just learn for your patients and be done with it.

So let me get this straight: Baylor's affiliated hospitals are better than the UCLA medical center? According to whom? If you look at the US News rankings of hospitals, UCLA is pretty darn good. Heck, UCLA medical center ranked in the top ten in 12 different specialties.

I was comparing Baylor to UCSD. But even so, Texas Children's, MD-Anderson, Menninger Clinic, the heart place, etc etc, are "pretty darn good" and at least on par with UCLA's affiliates (which excel at other specialties if I remember the list correctly)...

 

[elias514]

I wish America's obsession with rankings would stop. It's such a poisonous infatuation sometimes. I mean honestly, man, is there that much of a difference between a medical school ranked #64 or whatever on US News and Harvard? The only significant difference between these schools is the student body--Harvard is filled with academically gifted students with extraordinary resumes. Is it any surprise that Harvard grads succeed? Christ, you could send one of those kids to some backwater school in the middle of Central America and they would STILL probably become the chairmen of departments in the US. Extraordinary talent can surmount practically any obstacle.

What the hell difference is there between medical schools from the standpoint of educational quality? There are plenty of examples of people ,who were graduated by currently unranked or middle tier medical schools, that become truly outstanding clinicians or academicians.

We should all abandon this ridiculous obsession with rankings. All medical schools are excellent in the US and anyone admitted to the profession should feel privileged.

 

[IndyZX]

I wish America's obsession with rankings would stop. It's such a poisonous infatuation sometimes. I mean honestly, man, is there that much of a difference between a medical school ranked #64 or whatever on US News and Harvard? The only significant difference between these schools is the student body--Harvard is filled with academically gifted students with extraordinary resumes. Is it any surprise that Harvard grads succeed? Christ, you could send one of those kids to some backwater school in the middle of Central America and they would STILL probably become the chairmen of departments in the US. Extraordinary talent can surmount practically any obstacle.

What the hell difference is there between medical schools from the standpoint of educational quality? There are plenty of examples of people ,who were graduated by currently unranked or middle tier medical schools, that become truly outstanding clinicians or academicians.

We should all abandon this ridiculous obsession with rankings. All medical schools are excellent in the US and anyone admitted to the profession should feel privileged.

There is a middle ground between your views that those of a rankings-slave, and I think that's probably where the true value of prestigous schools is shown.

 

[elias514]

To this day I don't subscribe to the argument that prestige matters in education. I am a staunch advocate of individualism in the arena of education--i.e., that the inborn abilities, tenacity, and drive of the individual are the primary determinant of success. Institutions don't learn the myriad anatomical terms related to the human body along with the mountains of information pertaining to human medicine, individuals do. Institutions do not take licensing exams and other tests, individuals do. Institutions do not take care of patients, teams of individuals do.

Fixation on prestige and the ranking of schools is dumb.

 

[IndyZX]

So, why did you choose to attent UM instead of other schools in your state that are equivalent?

 

[ChantillyLace]

Go to Baylor! that's my vote

 

[TheFlash]

I wish America's obsession with rankings would stop. It's such a poisonous infatuation sometimes. I mean honestly, man, is there that much of a difference between a medical school ranked #64 or whatever on US News and Harvard? The only significant difference between these schools is the student body--Harvard is filled with academically gifted students with extraordinary resumes. Is it any surprise that Harvard grads succeed? Christ, you could send one of those kids to some backwater school in the middle of Central America and they would STILL probably become the chairmen of departments in the US. Extraordinary talent can surmount practically any obstacle.

What the hell difference is there between medical schools from the standpoint of educational quality? There are plenty of examples of people ,who were graduated by currently unranked or middle tier medical schools, that become truly outstanding clinicians or academicians.

We should all abandon this ridiculous obsession with rankings. All medical schools are excellent in the US and anyone admitted to the profession should feel privileged.

Interesting that this is coming from a guy who posted a thread promoting that his school will "penetrate" the USNWR Top 5 in the near future.

If you abhor rankings and USNWR methodology (as I do) then you should have no concern over such matters.

 

[elias514]

My opinion regarding the ranking of medical schools has changed dramatically in the past few months as I've researched the issue myself. I used to subscribe to the whole prestige argument, but now I don't. Academicians think that the US News rankings system is unscientific and misleading. Further, I've found so many examples of individuals who contradict the arguments that prestige matters if one wants to become an academic or get into a hypercompetitive residency. Now I strongly believe that the success of individuals in the Match and in career placement depends almost entirely on the leg work of the individual; institutional affiliation is only a minor factor that can help a person achieve goals but not whitewash lackluster performance and mediocre talent. In other words, medical school is what one makes of it. I am 100% convinced of this assertion.

As for the UM selection, I chose Michigan because I loved Ann Arbor, the school, and the curriculum. When I interviewed there, I just felt like it was the right place for me. I clicked with all my interviewers and the town itself had the atmosphere that I was looking for--a sophisticated college town without all the congestion and pollution of a big city. Ann Arbor seems like a truly great place to spend the next four years (maybe more) of my life; it's a smaller version of where I currently live, Austin, which I love so much (and I will miss dearly when I move in a couple of weeks). So my decision was based largely on a "gestalt feeling" regarding Ann Arbor and UM; certain aspects of the curriculum merely sealed the deal for me. I don't give a crap about the ranking of Michigan. If I don't excel academically there, Michigan's ranking won't do me a bit of good.

Why did I choose UM over my state school (KU)? Because my extremely dysfunctional family lives in Kansas City. I don't want all the freakin drama. Medical school will be stressful enough. So I stayed away from my state school, even though I was accepted there.

Don't try to call me a hypocrite, because I'm not. My opinions regarding prestige have radically changed in the wake of my own research regarding the role of it in academic and professional success. Moreover, the fact that I will be attending a "top tier school" reflects my personal preferences regarding location and curriculum, and my desire to be as happy as possible as a medical student, not the bullsh*t ranking of the school. Many students at Michigan right now (especially 3rd and 4th years) will tell you that the school's ranking only benefits those who excel, which is really difficult at Michigan.

I don't subscribe to the rankings argument and I judge individuals on their own merits and character, not on their institutional affiliations.

 

[Jalby]

I said the hospitals at Baylor is better at training students because you actually get to do stuff in them and learn to actually become a doctor. At UCLA it is more of a watching other doctors doing things and the student isn't really involved. I didn't refer to the level of hospital and how they are ranked at all, and I don't think that matters to much on how good a medical school is.

And Board scores do matter to the student. If you go to Baylor, you probably will get 7-8 better on your board scores, and that's can be the difference between being able to go into Ortho and make 400K a year versus going into ER and making 250K a year. That's a big difference. Granted, your board scores might not correlate into how good a doctor you are (which I actually believe their is somewhat a correlation), it does have a great corelation as to where and what type of doctor you get to be.


As for Harvards board scores tanking, I don't believe that is because of curriculum. I think other schools have just gotten a lot better. What are their avgs?? I think it's like 228-230ish. But thier MCAT's and GPA's arn't the highest. Plenty of schools have smarter people going to their schools rather than Harvard. The difference is that Harvard tends to get the people who went on missions to africa and stuff like that. So I'm not to surprised that Harvard doesn't have the top scores. But as for the shift, my school shifted to system based, and our board scores went up 5 points even though there was a lot of problems with the switch that was fixed.

 

[Gleevec]

Im biased for Baylor, but it depends.

If youre a resident of TX or of Cali, the decision on which school is better is pretty much made for you. And if you want to practice in Cali, the decision is DEFINITELY made for you (go to UCLA, UCSD).

Elias, you have really flipped from before when rankings seemed to be the most important thing to you, so you should understand why the OP might be curious about them as well. And I doubt the countless posts talking about how rank is unimportant changed your mind, so it might be something people just have to come to themselves. Also its a lot easier to argue that prestige and rank dont matter when you go to a top 20 school. We're all just providing info anyway, so its all good.

I think if you look at medical curriculum, you pretty much have to give Baylor the nod for 1.5 years preclinical, early exposure, and leeway in curriculum tracks and electives. Baylor also has the better board scores by far. While there has been a lot of talk about Baylor vs. UCLA in terms of hospitals, as far as med schools are concerned, they are both good enough that any difference doesnt matter. You will get a lot of urban patients with a variety of different case types either way.

But ultimately, it pretty much depends on where you want to practice. In all honesty, you are probably better off going to a school like UCI than Baylor if you want to practice in Cali based on what Ive read on SDN. So I think region plays a big role in choice. But based on curriculum, you would be hard pressed to argue against Baylor/Penn/Duke being fantastic.

 

[Gleevec]

So let me get this straight: Baylor's affiliated hospitals are better than the UCLA medical center? According to whom? If you look at the US News rankings of hospitals, UCLA is pretty darn good. Heck, UCLA medical center ranked in the top ten in 12 different specialties.

Granted, the rankings are partly based on the opinions of approximately 2,000 doctors around the country. But that means that a significant proportion of these doctors consider UCLA to be among the top 5 centers in the country for a wide range of specialties.

I wish America's obsession with rankings would stop. It's such a poisonous infatuation sometimes. I mean honestly, man, is there that much of a difference between a medical school ranked #64 or whatever on US News and Harvard? The only significant difference between these schools is the student body--Harvard is filled with academically gifted students with extraordinary resumes. Is it any surprise that Harvard grads succeed? Christ, you could send one of those kids to some backwater school in the middle of Central America and they would STILL probably become the chairmen of departments in the US. Extraordinary talent can surmount practically any obstacle.

What the hell difference is there between medical schools from the standpoint of educational quality? There are plenty of examples of people ,who were graduated by currently unranked or middle tier medical schools, that become truly outstanding clinicians or academicians.

We should all abandon this ridiculous obsession with rankings. All medical schools are excellent in the US and anyone admitted to the profession should feel privileged.

 

[IndyZX]

excellent work.

 

[elias514]

I had to use SOME kind of evidence to support my argument that Baylor's affiliated hospitals are not "better" than UCLA medical center. What other evidence could I cite--more anecdotal garbage or rumors about how students at prestigious school X only get to watch or whatever? C'mon, man.

One cannot deny that UCLA medical center is an outstanding institution. As for Baylor hospitals being a better place to train. Who the hell knows the answer to that question? I've been told that clinical experiences during 3rd and 4th year are largely team-dependent--meaning that the quality and nature of a student's experience on the wards depends on who the supervising attendings and residents are. So honestly I don't know how anyone could answer this question.

And I'm so sick of having to defend myself on these boards. People can be such dinguses here. Is it that hard to believe that I think rankings of medical schools are a pile of crap and that success depends on the individual?

As for rankings of residency programs, my opinion is still in works--I don't know if it matters that much or not. I have a lot to learn about residency. But for medical schools, I wholeheartedly believe that the US News rankings system is ******ed--too many great medical schools get screwed over by it.

 

[Jalby]

One cannot deny that UCLA medical center is an outstanding institution. As for Baylor hospitals being a better place to train. Who the hell knows the answer to that question?

Jalby raises hand.

I lived with UCLA med students for two years. Almost any place is better to train to become a doctor. UCLA is better than almost any place to train to become an academic. Big difference.

 

[Gleevec]

I had to use SOME kind of evidence to support my argument that Baylor's affiliated hospitals are not "better" than UCLA medical center. What other evidence could I cite--more anecdotal garbage or rumors about how students at prestigious school X only get to watch or whatever? C'mon, man.

One cannot deny that UCLA medical center is an outstanding institution. As for Baylor hospitals being a better place to train. Who the hell knows the answer to that question? I've been told that clinical experiences during 3rd and 4th year are largely team-dependent--meaning that the quality and nature of a student's experience on the wards depends on who the supervising attendings and residents are. So honestly I don't know how anyone could answer this question.

And I'm so sick of having to defend myself on these boards. People can be such dinguses here. Is it that hard to believe that I think rankings of medical schools are a pile of crap and that success depends on the individual?

As for rankings of residency programs, my opinion is still in works--I don't know if it matters that much or not. I have a lot to learn about residency. But for medical schools, I wholeheartedly believe that the US News rankings system is ******ed--too many great medical schools get screwed over by it.

You just made my point though. All Im saying is that USNWR rankings are a tool students can use. You just used the Hospital rankings to back your point, so who is to say that other med students shouldnt use the Research rankings to help them decide on where to apply?

And honestly, you shouldnt take any of this personally. But to say we should stop obsessing about rankings and then use a ranking from that same publication to support your point, well, its not very convincing. In the same token though, you ask "What other evidence could I cite--more anecdotal garbage or rumors about how students at prestigious school X only get to watch or whatever?" Well, that is kind of problem that USNWR resolves at least partially.

No one is saying that USNWR are the end all be all for choosing a school, and everyone knows I disagree with the placement of some schools, but I think you just stated the problem that would occur if the rankings didnt exist either.

Dont throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Newquagmire]

I lived with UCLA med students for two years. Almost any place is better to train to become a doctor. UCLA is better than almost any place to train to become an academic. Big difference.

Have you ever lived with Baylor med students?

 

[romed81]

I read this somewhere here on SDN, and I totally agree with it:
" There is no such thing as bad medical schools; what you have is bad medical students".
And don't fall into the fallacy of believing that good board scores necessarily mean good doctors.

 

[size_tens]

I read this somewhere here on SDN, and I totally agree with it:
" There is no such thing as bad medical schools; what you have is bad medical students".
And don't fall into the fallacy of believing that good board scores necessarily mean good doctors.

There may not be any bad US med schools, but some definitely provide their students with better educations than others, especially during the clinical years. It may not be easy to quantify but I believe that Hopkins students receive better clinical training than say, DO students. I don't have any personal experience to back up my assertions, but I still believe it.

 

[Jalby]

Have you ever lived with Baylor med students?

Seriously. Stuff like this is so annoying. I don't think anything I say would prove to you my point. Have you ever lived with Baylor medical students??? How does that help your point?? It's one of those distration arguements that I can't stand. Can't argue the facts so they give a distraction.

Have you lived with a Baylor student?? Or a UCLA student?? Or are you even in medical school??? Been to a medical school??? But hey, I havn't lived with a Baylor student, so therefor I can't have enough knowledge about UCLA and Baylor to say that Baylor has better clinical training than UCLA.

 

[Newquagmire]

Seriously. Stuff like this is so annoying.

I don't understand why you mention living with UCLA students then.

 

[Jalby]

I don't understand why you mention living with UCLA students then.

think about it.

 

[Newquagmire]

How does that help your point?

think about it 🙄

 

[IndyZX]

I think the next step here is to declare a Duel. Pistols.

 

[Jalby]

jalby whips it out and gets a ruler

 

[IndyZX]

Or penii.

 

[Newquagmire]

jalby whips it out and gets a ruler

*looking for yardstick*

oh im sorry little guy 😛

 

[Gleevec]

I don't understand why you mention living with UCLA students then.

This is ridiculous now. For someone to respond to this thread by that criteria, they would have to SIMULTANEOUSLY be and live with baylor, ucla, and ucsd students. We might as well not even talk about med schools at all then.

 

[elias514]

Gleevec, you've taken my statements out of context, which isn't a nice thing to do. My first response was to newquagmire, who claimed that Baylor's hospitals were more "well-respected." The US News rankings of HOSPITALS rests partly on the opinions of approximately 2500 doctors around the country. Obviously these physicians think very highly of UCLA medical center. My point was just that it's unreasonable to say that Baylor's hospitals are more well-respected than UCLA med center. Quagmire countered that he was talking about the TRAINING at these hospitals. Notice that I didn't respond. Why? Because I don't know if the rankings of hospitals correlate with the quality of training. But I do believe that these rankings are fairly decent indicators of the quality of patient care.

Even so, this belief doesn't contradict my overall disdain for rankings, which is that they engender stupid mudslinging contests where people try to argue that one institution is BETTER than another rather than state that they are both excellent. Rankings often cause people to praise one institution at the expense of another--that's my fundamental problem with rankings in general.

My second comment focused on the ranking of MEDICAL SCHOOLS in particular. US News rankings system for medical schools is ridiculously flawed and very misleading. No one should draw any conclusions regarding the quality of education--clinical or preclinical--from US News rankings of medical schools. Now the rankings are great indicators of research opportunities, but does outstanding research opportunities mean that a medical student will become a better physician?

What you, Gleevec, did kinda bothers me, man. I mean your juxtaposition of my comments and some of your statements on this thread basically imply that either I'm a hypocrite or a liar. How can I not take that personally? The truth is that I'm neither. I think rankings in general create poisonous atmospheres, not that all rankings are complete bullsh*t and completely misleading. However, I'm 100% convinced that the US News ranking of MEDICAL schools is a crock of crap for anyone trying to assess quality of education.

Be nice, Gleevec, and offer your opinions without attacking someone else's character.

 

[Jalby]

This is ridiculous now. For someone to respond to this thread by that criteria, they would have to SIMULTANEOUSLY be and live with baylor, ucla, and ucsd students. We might as well not even talk about med schools at all then.

That's what I said. I thought people who are going to med school might be more mature.

 

[Newquagmire]

That's what I said. I thought people who are going to med school might be more mature.

🙄

...

isn't it more mature to pick your fights? i'm done.

 

[Gleevec]

Wow elias514, you really need to learn not to take things personally. I at no point made an argument against you as a person, but rather against your arguments. So understand that before you accuse someone of calling you a hypocrite or liar.

There's a huge difference between countering someone's point and to be calling them a hypocrite. And I most definitely did the former, and I never even mentioned the latter, so for you to try to make this into some kind of personal argument is completely bogus and won't be successful in distracting people from the argument at hand.

In any case, if you read my post, you will notice you did in fact use a ranking in one post, then say the ranking by the same magazine is an unjustified obsession. You say "these [Hospital] rankings are fairly decent indicators of the quality of patient care." And since most people consider the Hospital rankings methodology to be more BS than even the research rankings, well, that isnt any good. Actually, I have almost never encountered a post in residency forums about people choosing a residency based on how good the Hospital ranking is. If anything, theyll look to the USNWR specialty ranking (IM, peds, etc) and even that is just a piece of the much larger puzzle.

I never said I think the rankings should be used for mudslinging. But rankings dont cause people to mudsling about schools. You dont think that if the internet existed pre-USNWR that people wouldnt be mudslinging about schools on messageboards? I would imagine things would be ever worse, since at least the rankings provide SOME organization to all the schools. You said earlier that you didnt have any other evidence to cite but "anecdotal garbage." But lets face it, without USNWR (which you invoked to make your point on hospitals) that is all anyone would be doing-- they would just be mudslinging with anecdotal junk.

Its unfortunate you have become so emotionally attached to your argument that you view any counterpoint as an ad hominem attack. What is more unfortunate is that you throw around phrases like " People can be such dinguses here" yet still think that you're the victim here? Please.

The fact is, these kinds of questions have always been asked on SDN. You yourself used to post on these kinds of topics all the time with your opinions. If you want to say "all medical schools are great, etc" then do so and leave it at that. But that political correctedness doesnt help the poster at all. Dont you think most people know that all medical schools are great? But they are still asking for differences, and that is what these threads are all about.

And finally, don't act to surprised that just about everyone on this thread is shocked to see that you have suddenly decided to ignore rankings. I know you've found it convenient to single me out on this, but for someone who seemed to care more about rankings than anyone else (save MacGuyver) it is kind of weird to hear you talk down to people about this. It would be like Andrew Doan advocating that optometrists fix retinal detachments, ryo ohki advocating affirmative action, ankitovich saying Bush isnt Jesus, etc and then calling out the people who used to agree with them. Oh yeah, and quite honestly, none of this is personal as much as you might think it to be. Heck, I dont even know you so I dont know how you could think that.

Gleevec, you've taken my statements out of context, which isn't a nice thing to do. My first response was to newquagmire, who claimed that Baylor's hospitals were more "well-respected." The US News rankings of HOSPITALS rests partly on the opinions of approximately 2500 doctors around the country. Obviously these physicians think very highly of UCLA medical center. My point was just that it's unreasonable to say that Baylor's hospitals are more well-respected than UCLA med center. Quagmire countered that he was talking about the TRAINING at these hospitals. Notice that I didn't respond. Why? Because I don't know if the rankings of hospitals correlate with the quality of training. But I do believe that these rankings are fairly decent indicators of the quality of patient care.

Even so, this belief doesn't contradict my overall disdain for rankings, which is that they engender stupid mudslinging contests where people try to argue that one institution is BETTER than another rather than state that they are both excellent. Rankings often cause people to praise one institution at the expense of another--that's my fundamental problem with rankings in general.

My second comment focused on the ranking of MEDICAL SCHOOLS in particular. US News rankings system for medical schools is ridiculously flawed and very misleading. No one should draw any conclusions regarding the quality of education--clinical or preclinical--from US News rankings of medical schools. Now the rankings are great indicators of research opportunities, but does outstanding research opportunities mean that a medical student will become a better physician?

What you, Gleevec, did kinda bothers me, man. I mean your juxtaposition of my comments and some of your statements on this thread basically imply that either I'm a hypocrite or a liar. How can I not take that personally? The truth is that I'm neither. I think rankings in general create poisonous atmospheres, not that all rankings are complete bullsh*t and completely misleading. However, I'm 100% convinced that the US News ranking of MEDICAL schools is a crock of crap for anyone trying to assess quality of education.

Be nice, Gleevec, and offer your opinions without attacking someone else's character.

 

[SoCalRULES!!!!!]

i'm curious about sdn rankings cause usnews says baylors ranked higher than ucla and ucsd and is 13K cheaper

Whatever. Go to UCLA if you have a chance.

 

[Gleevec]

OK, so Ive thought about this thread a bit and hope I can clear some things up:

1. First off, I really dont think anyone is trying to insult anyone else. And I think if people are implying a possible contradiction in arguments they by no means are implying someone is being a hypocrite or such.

2. I think we can all agree that USNWR is a tool, its not perfect. Also mudslinging about schools sucks. But it would happen anyway without rankings, it would just be completely anecdotal then.

3. I also think that everyone believes that all MD schools are good and that it is indeed the individual that matters.

4. That said, we have to ask ourselves why is the OP asking the question. Maybe its just me, but if I asked for the differences between a couple schools, and someone replies "oh you will get a good education anywhere", well, that really doesnt answer my question.

5. No one is saying that they know the absolute truth here, everyone is just stating an opinion and I think anyone reading this understands that. However, by attempting to answer the question, at least we provide some info to the OP.

6. Also, generally when people post questions like these, they are for two similarly regarded schools, or an expensive private school and a good cheap state school. So the OP already knows that the decision is a close one, and that they would get a good education regardless.

So if you really think all schools are pretty equal, well, you are most likely right. However, I think the OP already knew that and was going for the nitpicky details. You dont see any serious Harvard vs. Ross threads for that very reason. All Im saying is that you could at least USNWR as a tool, which the OP did, and then supplement that with anecdotes. We're not at the interview stage of the season yet, so I cant blame someone for using USNWR and SDN to find out info on schools, because until the interview, its almost impossible to tell which schools you will like, etc.

 

[Newquagmire]

fair enough, gleevec. if the OP wants more info, s/he should ask more specific questions. game over.

 

[elias514]

Good post, Gleevec. I agree with you.

I can't hold grudges against people and, believe it or not, I'm a very patient and nice guy in reality. If I offended you, I apologize. At this point, this whole argument doesn't really matter to me. If I'm right, cool, if not then life goes on. I'm sure the OP will make the right choice for himself.

These forums are so weird sometimes. The anonymity can be a great thing, in the sense that it promotes candor. On the other hand, the nature of the medium makes it prone to ambiguity, misinterpretation, and occasionally unwarranted hostility. It's strange how anonymity and remoteness can break down normal manners and politeness. I'm guilty of it, and I'm sure just about every SDNer is guilty of some kind of unwarranted aggression.

At any rate, good luck to you all (including you, Gleevec). I'm sure you all will do really well in your medical studies and your professional careers. This is my last post on SDN. I've gotten everything I need from this website, which has been enormously helpful over the past 7 months or so.

Adios folks and I hope to meet some of you in the future as colleagues!

 

[rajloungani]

Interesting that this is coming from a guy who posted a thread promoting that his school will "penetrate" the USNWR Top 5 in the near future.

If you abhor rankings and USNWR methodology (as I do) then you should have no concern over such matters.

talk about callin someone out on a "walton" moment!!! i luv it!

 

[rajloungani]

My opinion regarding the ranking of medical schools has changed dramatically in the past few months as I've researched the issue myself. I used to subscribe to the whole prestige argument, but now I don't. Academicians think that the US News rankings system is unscientific and misleading. Further, I've found so many examples of individuals who contradict the arguments that prestige matters if one wants to become an academic or get into a hypercompetitive residency. Now I strongly believe that the success of individuals in the Match and in career placement depends almost entirely on the leg work of the individual; institutional affiliation is only a minor factor that can help a person achieve goals but not whitewash lackluster performance and mediocre talent. In other words, medical school is what one makes of it. I am 100% convinced of this assertion.

As for the UM selection, I chose Michigan because I loved Ann Arbor, the school, and the curriculum. When I interviewed there, I just felt like it was the right place for me. I clicked with all my interviewers and the town itself had the atmosphere that I was looking for--a sophisticated college town without all the congestion and pollution of a big city. Ann Arbor seems like a truly great place to spend the next four years (maybe more) of my life; it's a smaller version of where I currently live, Austin, which I love so much (and I will miss dearly when I move in a couple of weeks). So my decision was based largely on a "gestalt feeling" regarding Ann Arbor and UM; certain aspects of the curriculum merely sealed the deal for me. I don't give a crap about the ranking of Michigan. If I don't excel academically there, Michigan's ranking won't do me a bit of good.

Why did I choose UM over my state school (KU)? Because my extremely dysfunctional family lives in Kansas City. I don't want all the freakin drama. Medical school will be stressful enough. So I stayed away from my state school, even though I was accepted there.

Don't try to call me a hypocrite, because I'm not. My opinions regarding prestige have radically changed in the wake of my own research regarding the role of it in academic and professional success. Moreover, the fact that I will be attending a "top tier school" reflects my personal preferences regarding location and curriculum, and my desire to be as happy as possible as a medical student, not the bullsh*t ranking of the school. Many students at Michigan right now (especially 3rd and 4th years) will tell you that the school's ranking only benefits those who excel, which is really difficult at Michigan.

I don't subscribe to the rankings argument and I judge individuals on their own merits and character, not on their institutional affiliations.

hey elias, u make some good classic points about it ultimately being bout the individual NOT the institution, med school being what u make of it, etc., but u gotta admit that a major reason u chose to apply to umich in the 1st place is its high ranking and i know u're proud about this even after the epiphany u had after the harvard study...thus, it's not only somewhat hypocritical of u but just plain wrong for u to tell the op that baylor isn't better than ucsd when u know it's a better AND higher-ranked school...seems to me like your on some sort of crusade now to get everyone to forget the rankings- good luck with that impossible task!

 

[Fed Meat]

I wish America's obsession with rankings would stop.

America's? Interesting the way you phrased that.

No, I don't wish for America's obsession with rankings would stop. America has thrived to this point because it is competitive and because it does encourage competition. You're advocating a system whereby your only aim is to slide through the door, and that's not a healthy attitude, either.

I may not attend a Harvard or a Yale or what have you, and I'm very happy to get into the medical school of my choice. But quite frankly, I'm glad to see the rankings.

Much like with our economy, I'm glad to see those with talent and drive succeed. I'm not interested in developping a ho-hum, just happy to be here outlook on life. Save that for your personal life.

 

[MadameLULU]

this thread is almost a year old