Baylor-- why residency rating so low??

[Entol]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I hope a few Baylor enthusiasts can help answer this question for me:

I'm really interested in attending Baylor as an out of state student, but the one thing that concerns me is the USNews ranking by residency directors--3.8. To me, the actual rank of the school matters very little, because I don't really care if Harvard's hospitals get an extra $600 mil in NIH funding or that Wash U is the most selective. However, I'm scared to attend a school thought of 0.6 points below schools just a few ranks away that I am considering. Of course, 0.6 might not seem like much, but if you look through the ranked schools, the range is approximately 3.0 to 4.7, so 0.6 is actually a huge difference taking this into consideration.

One thought I had was maybe the school is simply well known in Texas and not thought of too highly elsewhere, but my goal is to be able to do my residency in an area that will help my family in the future, not necessarily in the same vicinity as my med school.

Once again, I apologize for asking a question directly related to rankings, but of all the elements listed in ranking schools, this is by far the most important to me. 🙂

-Entol

 

[Gleevec]

First off, residency directors dont look at the rankings and say "oh this school has a lower residency score, we dont take students from there." What they do do is look at the individual applicant and recognize that they went to a competitive school, and go from there. So I think paying too much attention to that aspect of the rankings is futile. Also the response rate on those surveys is extremely low according to US News methdology (about a third respond), and its not even known whether the majority of respondees come from well-regarded residency programs. Also Baylor is at 3.8, true, but its pretty close (two-tenths) to UCLA, Vandy, Yale, Cornell, and Columbia as well. So its not in bad company.

That said, I think if you look at the 2 top Texas schools, Baylor and UTSW, you will notice that their residency ranking scores according to US News are lower than similarly regarded schools. The main reason for this, as far as I can tell, is that if you look at the match lists, Baylor and UTSW grads tend to stick around TX, and especially their respective med schools for residency. It seems as if a much higher % of Baylor and UTSW grads stick around their med school for residency, and who can blame them with the TMC and Parkland so highly regarded in a variety of fields. Also, remember that the schools are 75% and 90% Texan to begin with. So if all these students are staying in TX, residency directors elsewhere wont encounter them, and thus will be forced to give them an avg ranking.

That said, if you look at the match lists (now Im talking about Baylor only) there are matches to UCSF, JHU, WashU, Harvard affiliates, the big NY hospitals, Duke, etc. Baylor's match list is very competitive in terms of specialty, its just that most of the students (and most likely Texans) stick around Baylor for those residencies. Because most of the students stick around, I guess a lot of residency directors dont encounter Baylor grads as much as you would a more "national" medical school.

So I think most of that has to do with the fact that Baylor students stick around TX (which makes sense since 75% of the class is Texan), but there are matches to some really prestigious schools outside TX as well. Also, remember that the board avg is like 235, which is very high in its own right. So if you do well on the boards and in class, I would imagine you could do residency just about anywhere.

 

[Entol]

Those are some really good points! Let me hopefully address some of those to see if I can still explain why I am concerned..

I agree that doing well in medical school is unmatched as far as obtaining a residency goes, but then again that could be said about any medical school. People match into Hopkins from both Harvard as well as Temple, and I'm sure it's not unheard of for a Ross student to have obtained a decent residency as well.

Also, I'm also concerned because I feel another particular school I am looking at (Michigan) also places many students in its own medical center, both in the more "difficult-to-obtain" residencies but even in ones like IM/peds. What makes them more respected in the eyes of the nation's residency directors? I think you might have already said this is because most TX residents stay in TX, but I think that that is true for most schools.

-Entol

Originally posted by Gleevec
First off, residency directors dont look at the rankings and say "oh this school has a lower residency score, we dont take students from there." What they do do is look at the individual applicant and recognize that they went to a competitive school, and go from there. So I think paying too much attention to that aspect of the rankings is futile. Also the response rate on those surveys is extremely low according to US News methdology (about a third respond), and its not even known whether the majority of respondees come from well-regarded residency programs. Also Baylor is at 3.8, true, but its pretty close (two-tenths) to UCLA, Vandy, Yale, Cornell, and Columbia as well. So its not in bad company.

That said, I think if you look at the 2 top Texas schools, Baylor and UTSW, you will notice that their residency ranking scores according to US News are lower than similarly regarded schools. The main reason for this, as far as I can tell, is that if you look at the match lists, Baylor and UTSW grads tend to stick around TX, and especially their respective med schools for residency. It seems as if a much higher % of Baylor and UTSW grads stick around their med school for residency, and who can blame them with the TMC and Parkland so highly regarded in a variety of fields. Also, remember that the schools are 75% and 90% Texan to begin with. So if all these students are staying in TX, residency directors elsewhere wont encounter them, and thus will be forced to give them an avg ranking.

That said, if you look at the match lists (now Im talking about Baylor only) there are matches to UCSF, JHU, WashU, Harvard affiliates, the big NY hospitals, Duke, etc. Baylor's match list is very competitive in terms of specialty, its just that most of the students (and most likely Texans) stick around Baylor for those residencies. Because most of the students stick around, I guess a lot of residency directors dont encounter Baylor grads as much as you would a more "national" medical school.

So I think most of that has to do with the fact that Baylor students stick around TX (which makes sense since 75% of the class is Texan), but there are matches to some really prestigious schools outside TX as well. Also, remember that the board avg is like 235, which is very high in its own right. So if you do well on the boards and in class, I would imagine you could do residency just about anywhere.

 

[RoccoWJ]

That a good rank.

 

[RoccoWJ]

Thats a good rank.

 

[Gleevec]

I have seen the UM match list. One year they had a really crappy match where the best matches were their own school, but the other year (the "normal" year I was told) had a lot more national matches.

I think if you compare maybe 2 years worth of match lists for any given school and Baylor, you would see that a significant number of Baylor students stay in the TMC or in TX, moreso than most schools. Also, while its true random people match into Harvard from ANY school, a vast majority of Baylor's matches were to top programs (and a majority of those were TCH programs)

If youre so obsessed about this one ranking, such that it will single-handedly affect your choice of medical school, then I think you should go the school with the higher residency ranking. If the location, tuition, students, faculty, facilities, abbreviated curriculum, and one of the highest board score averages in the nation isnt going to mitigate your feelings about the residency ranking, then nothing will. No reason to go to someplace you wouldnt be happy because its rank was too low.

Originally posted by Entol
Those are some really good points! Let me hopefully address some of those to see if I can still explain why I am concerned..

I agree that doing well in medical school is unmatched as far as obtaining a residency goes, but then again that could be said about any medical school. People match into Hopkins from both Harvard as well as Temple, and I'm sure it's not unheard of for a Ross student to have obtained a decent residency as well.

Also, I'm also concerned because I feel another particular school I am looking at (Michigan) also places many students in its own medical center, both in the more "difficult-to-obtain" residencies but even in ones like IM/peds. What makes them more respected in the eyes of the nation's residency directors? I think you might have already said this is because most TX residents stay in TX, but I think that that is true for most schools.

-Entol

 

[ice_23]

Wait, I'm slightly confused. TMC is the largest medical center in the U.S. (I think?). Wouldn't directors at this medical center say that baylor students are great (because a lot of baylor students match there), and hence boost the residency rankings of baylor? I am confused as to why, regardless of where the students end up, other residency directors rank Baylor relatively lower than other schools if these students wind up at a world class institution like TMC anyway (wouldn't they be good enough for the programs that are ranking them low and hence not be ranked low in the first place)?

I guess I am a little confused on how this residency ranking is determined....do schools get ranked "lower" by other programs just because those programs know that they can't get these students (i.e. due to the location of the school to a specific program)?

Btw, to the OP, I was wondering about this issue myself, so I'm glad you brought it up.

Sorry this was a pretty incoherent and unstructured post....🙂

-Ice

 

[CalBeE]

It's probably better if you look at both the residency director score AND also the Peer Score. The Peer score is by directors of admissions and the like at med schools. I think looking at both will give you a better picture.

So for Baylor, it's 4.0 for Peer, 3.8 for Residency Director, so it's around the 4.0 range. That's actually not bad at all. And if you have the $$$, wait for the 2005 ranking to come out in April. The scores may change a bit if different people respond to the survey.

 

[jlee9531]

Originally posted by Entol
Those are some really good points! Let me hopefully address some of those to see if I can still explain why I am concerned..

I agree that doing well in medical school is unmatched as far as obtaining a residency goes, but then again that could be said about any medical school. People match into Hopkins from both Harvard as well as Temple, and I'm sure it's not unheard of for a Ross student to have obtained a decent residency as well.

Also, I'm also concerned because I feel another particular school I am looking at (Michigan) also places many students in its own medical center, both in the more "difficult-to-obtain" residencies but even in ones like IM/peds. What makes them more respected in the eyes of the nation's residency directors? I think you might have already said this is because most TX residents stay in TX, but I think that that is true for most schools.

-Entol

like gleevec said...baylor kids usually stay around tx and residency directors around the nation dont have a chance to get to see a lot of them.

however at UM, unlike MSU...they are not required to have a large majority of their students be from Michigan. A good number of UM kids are from out of state, and so when they do their residencies I would assume they would like to go out of Michigan back to either their home state or other well known places around the nation, giving them more exposure to residency directors everywhere...

 

[elias514]

Baylor is an excellent medical school by any measure. Don't pay attention to the residency director score. I interviewed at Baylor last fall and I was very impressed by what the school has to offer--the preclinical and clinical facilities are awesome; the curriculum is entirely organ system-based and compressed, which means that the material is integrated for the students and you get more time on the wards; the students seemed very happy; and the overall quality to cost ratio for Baylor is unparalleled ($6500/yr for a prestigious med school--give me a freakin break).

It's true that most Baylor grads stay in Texas for their residency, and why wouldn't they? I live in Texas (Austin) and I love it here. 300 days of sunshine every year. The winters are almost nonexistent here. The people are hospitable and friendly. It's a great state. I plan to practice medicine in Austin after I finish all my medical training.

So don't sweat the residency director score--Baylor rocks. Although, I don't like Houston that much (much too urban and humid for me).

 

[Fermata]

Bingo. Most Baylor people tend to stay in Texas.

Baylor is a great school.

(Sometimes I wish I were a Texas resident....sigh....)

 

[Megalofyia]

Originally posted by Fermata
Bingo. Most Baylor people tend to stay in Texas.

Baylor is a great school.

(Sometimes I wish I were a Texas resident....sigh....)

North Carolina has some good schools too 🙂 and a MUCH better coast line. 🙂

 

[Fermata]

Yea, yea. I'm just saying....

I think Texas is in the running for second best state in the country...

(You know who #1 is.)

 

[Megalofyia]

Originally posted by Fermata
Yea, yea. I'm just saying....

I think Texas is in the running for second best state in the country...

(You know who #1 is.)

Lets not get out of hand here 🙂

 

[Fermata]

You're right...Texas is the best damn COUNTRY in the world. 😉

 

[Megalofyia]

Originally posted by Fermata
You're right...Texas is the best damn COUNTRY in the world. 😉

Not quite what I was thinking.. but ok.

 

[medman12677]

The only state flag that can fly at the same height as the US flag due to being a republic for a brief period in time.

 

[spumoni620]

Okay. My thoughts on this one. Long post ahead.

I also considered the residency rankings important until I read the fine print on the U.S. News report:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/about/04med_meth_brief.php

Residency program directors were also asked to rate programs using the same 5-point scale. The residency program directors surveyed were a geographically balanced selection from the American Medical Association's Graduate Medical Education Library 2002-2003 and a list of primary-care residency program directors from the American Osteopathic Association. The response rate for those sent the research survey was 32 percent. The response rate for those sent the primary-care survey was 25 percent. Residency directors' opinions are weighted .20 in the research model and .15 in primary-care. (emphasis added)

As anyone who has taken economics or statistics (or anyone else, for that matter) knows, methodology is crucial in arriving at conclusions. here, even though a wide range of directors were "surveyed", there was only a response rate of 32%. usnews does not say whether those directors who "responded" constituted a geographically balanced selection. likely, they did not. a 32% response rate is pretty dismal by any statistician's standards.

okay, that point aside: you say baylor still did not fare well comparatively in the rankings. Keep a perspective here: Its absolute rank by residency directors (i'm not doing the "if-two-schools-tie-move-the-ranking" thing here) is still #9 in the nation. that is still damn impressive. impressive enough that if you have your heart set on a ucsf peds residency (or, for that matter, a Texas Childrens Hospital residency, next door to Baylor, which is viewed as among the best in the nation).

why did baylor not fare as well, as, say Cornell or U Michigan? Honestly, I've thought about it, analyzed it, tried to figure things out. it could be a regional bias. it could be "low name recognition" - many ppl think baylor is affiliated w/baylor university in waco, a third-tier university. whatever. It doesn't make sense to me, especially since 3 objective criteria combine to make Baylor's clinical education arguably one of the best in the nation: 1) the amazing Texas Med Center (the largest in the world, yadda yadda yadda - an AMAZING place which must be seen to be believed) 2) the condensed preclinical curriculum allowing for an extra 1/2 year of clinics. ( the other 2 schools who do this, upenn and duke, are ranked 4.5 and 4.3 respectively. yet, baylor's curriculum is in their league) 3) kick-ass board scores that soar above the nation's mean - 235 or something thereabouts?

If we want to argue us news ranking weirdness, there are so many questions that could be debated. why is mayo ranked so freaking low - with only a 3.6 peer assessment rating compared to, say, baylor's 4.0? why is harvard above jhu, the mecca of medicine in the u.s. (ok, ok, i know that has to do w/funding but still)?

btw, i do not agree with the point that b/c most baylor grads stay in tx, that's why the rankings are so low. ice is right, the TMC is well-recognized throughout the nation (my friend at UCSF tells me that his lecturers talk about MD Anderson, TCH, etc. all the time - it sets the standard in several fields). to match there for a residency would be impressive. however, perhaps b/c of the lack of a nationwide match, fewer residency directors from places outside the south are familiar with the quality of baylor grads, and thus gave inaccurate ratings. who knows?

and i agree wholeheartedly w/elias. i feel quite lucky to live in tx - the weather is beautiful for most of the year, like the 70 degree sunny day last week, cost of living is low, medicine is sorely needed in many areas here, and there is (yes, there is) plenty to do. it's a great place to do a residency, and imo one of the best (if not the best) state to have residency in when applying to med school. shoot me! 😀

bottom line: definitely do yourself a favor and do not gravitate toward a school purely for the rankings. go with where your heart lies, where you think you will have a better fit. for me, baylor's winning points far outweigh 0.2 points in residency directors ranking.

 

[ms. a]

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Even though I am very thankful for the cheap tuition that I will be getting as a Texas resident, and even though I would give one of my arms to attend Baylor, California is sooooooooooooooo much better than Texas. I honestly don't see what is so wonderful about this state. And before anyone says, oh it's just 'cause you live in Houston, know that I have traveled all over the state and still have yet to be at all impressed. California is the be all and end all. I almost cried the day I had to turn in my CA license for a TX one.

(edit: I'm not disagreeing with spumoni! I was disagreeing with the posts about Texas. I think that spumoni is right on the money!)

 

[Entol]

I was hoping this wouldn't turn into an argument about following rankings too strongly, because it's not what I intended it to be. I want to say that I really enjoyed visiting Baylor, I think it's one of my top choices (even above higher ranked universities). My only concern was that if I am interested in three or four schools for their great attributes and one has a red flag up like Baylor's residency ranking, I would like to at least get it cleared up before making a final decision. Don't believe that everyone who looks at USNews is a slave to the numbers or bases their decision off what the editors of USNews tell him or her to. Those rankings are simply a tool, and even though people who responded said they are inaccurate, are still important to choosing a medical school.

I wish there was a similarly ranked publically funded school out there to compare Baylor to (ok, except Cali schools), but Baylor seems to be in a league of its own. I definitely agree with the argument that TX is where people simply end up settling, so it is where residency rankings are highest for Baylor.

Thanks for all the input!

-Entol

 

[CalBeE]

Actually 32% response rate for a survey is pretty good, right? However, US News didn't mention if the 32% is a valid representation of the 100% that receive the survey. You can do a great job hiring a statistician that specialize in random selection of resident directors to receive the survey, but if the people who respond are not representative of those who get survey, then a bias results.

 

[spumoni620]

Originally posted by CalBeE
Actually 32% response rate for a survey is pretty good, right? However, US News didn't mention if the 32% is a valid representation of the 100% that receive the survey. You can do a great job hiring a statistician that specialize in random selection of resident directors to receive the survey, but if the people who respond are not representative of those who get survey, then a bias results.

um yeah...that's what i was referring to in my post. 🙂

 

[ice_23]

Oh yea, I thought Baylor was cool too, so that was not my motivation for asking about its low score! I was just a little confused as to how the residency ranking worked 🙂

Good responses, though. 🙂

-Ice

 

[Megalofyia]

Originally posted by medman12677
The only state flag that can fly at the same height as the US flag due to being a republic for a brief period in time.

That's actually not true. Any state can fly it's fly at the same height as the American flag.

 

[Gleevec]

Originally posted by Megalofyia
That's actually not true. Any state can fly it's fly at the same height as the American flag.

Actually that's not true, only Texas can LEGALLY fly its flag at the same height as the US flag (though some other states might do it, for them it would be illegal). This is especially noticeable if you look at the state capitol buildings (like in Raleigh the NC flag is slighly below the US flat, not so in Austin.

 

[Gleevec]

The thing is, there is no way to "clear" this flag. We can try to explain the ranking all we want, but the fact is the peer and residency rankings ARE slightly lower than similarly ranked schools. There is no way around that. So if its that big a deal, and you value US News that much, then there is nothing anyone can say. Youve already heard some possible explanations for it (regionality of residences, lack of big name undergrad, low response rate) but the fact is, it is about 0.2 lower than schools ranked similarly overall. If those 0.2 points are enough to affect your decision, well, that's your decision. There is really nothing else that can be said. You have the match list, you know about the school and the curriculum, so you have enough evidence to make your own judgement regarding those 0.2 points and whether it is accurate or an aberration.

Originally posted by Entol
I was hoping this wouldn't turn into an argument about following rankings too strongly, because it's not what I intended it to be. I want to say that I really enjoyed visiting Baylor, I think it's one of my top choices (even above higher ranked universities). My only concern was that if I am interested in three or four schools for their great attributes and one has a red flag up like Baylor's residency ranking, I would like to at least get it cleared up before making a final decision. Don't believe that everyone who looks at USNews is a slave to the numbers or bases their decision off what the editors of USNews tell him or her to. Those rankings are simply a tool, and even though people who responded said they are inaccurate, are still important to choosing a medical school.

I wish there was a similarly ranked publically funded school out there to compare Baylor to (ok, except Cali schools), but Baylor seems to be in a league of its own. I definitely agree with the argument that TX is where people simply end up settling, so it is where residency rankings are highest for Baylor.

Thanks for all the input!

-Entol

 

[RETTER]

since this seems to be the baylor people's thread...

here is a very important question:

Has anyone heard anything recently about baylor's partnership with the methodist hospital?
Have they made up and signed a new agreement or is baylor still threatening to cut ties with methodist?

This is an important factor since methodist is a really good hospital for baylor's students... and cutting ties with methodist would really hurt baylor's clinical education

 

[Gleevec]

Originally posted by RETTER
since this seems to be the baylor people's thread...

here is a very important question:

Has anyone heard anything recently about baylor's partnership with the methodist hospital?
Have they made up and signed a new agreement or is baylor still threatening to cut ties with methodist?

This is an important factor since methodist is a really good hospital for baylor's students... and cutting ties with methodist would really hurt baylor's clinical education

The main reason Methodist is such a good hospital is because of the Baylor faculty there. Methodist needs Baylor more than Baylor needs Methodist.

Baylor still has ties to Methodist, but St Luke's is becoming Baylor's prinicipal partner (and supposedly, St Luke's is the better hospital in terms of being progressive and being a good place to work). Either way, it won't make much of a difference at all. Plus, Baylor is better off in the long-run with its own ambulatory care facility.

 

[johnd]

Originally posted by RETTER
since this seems to be the baylor people's thread...

here is a very important question:

Has anyone heard anything recently about baylor's partnership with the methodist hospital?
Have they made up and signed a new agreement or is baylor still threatening to cut ties with methodist?

This is an important factor since methodist is a really good hospital for baylor's students... and cutting ties with methodist would really hurt baylor's clinical education

Most people around Baylor don't think that the split will actually happen. It's just a pissing contest between the higher ups.

If it does happen, it won't hurt the clinical education because Baylor will just expand more into St. Luke's. The private hospitals are the least important for medical student's clinical training at Baylor.

 

[bongsen]

Yeah, I'm the same same position -- Baylor vs. the rest of the top 10 schools that have all the prestige. The only difference I see is the prestige vs. the cost. Let's see how it plays out!

 

[RETTER]

Well what i was thinking was...

methodist is a really good hospital in many fields like urology, ENT, opth, etc... and it's beneficial for students who want to go into those fields to do rotations at methodist so that residency programs will know that the student has had good training...

st. lukes is well know for heart surgery but i dunno if their other departments are as strong as ones at methodist so that could hurt the students...

 

[Harps]

Originally posted by jlee9531
like gleevec said...baylor kids usually stay around tx and residency directors around the nation dont have a chance to get to see a lot of them.

however at UM, unlike MSU...they are not required to have a large majority of their students be from Michigan. A good number of UM kids are from out of state, and so when they do their residencies I would assume they would like to go out of Michigan back to either their home state or other well known places around the nation, giving them more exposure to residency directors everywhere...

Is this how US News derives the residency ranking? Meaning, whether residency directors must have had actual contact with medical students from particular schools and have developed a system to rank their preparation. So, directors actually keep records of evaluations for residents from each school and submit these to US News 😕 Never knew that! Gleevec, atleast from you posts, seems to know the internal mechanism of how residenc directors rate schools. So what say you, man? I am just curious.

-Harps

 

[johnd]

Originally posted by RETTER
Well what i was thinking was...

methodist is a really good hospital in many fields like urology, ENT, opth, etc... and it's beneficial for students who want to go into those fields to do rotations at methodist so that residency programs will know that the student has had good training...

st. lukes is well know for heart surgery but i dunno if their other departments are as strong as ones at methodist so that could hurt the students...

all of the faculty members in these surgical subspecialties are baylor faculty members and will likely continue to be baylor faculty members regardless of affiliation with methodist

 

[RETTER]

Originally posted by johnd
all of the faculty members in these surgical subspecialties are baylor faculty members and will likely continue to be baylor faculty members regardless of affiliation with methodist

what does that mean?
that students will still be able to do rotations under them at methodist even if baylor cuts ties?

 

[HollyJ]

Originally posted by Gleevec
Actually that's not true, only Texas can LEGALLY fly its flag at the same height as the US flag (though some other states might do it, for them it would be illegal). This is especially noticeable if you look at the state capitol buildings (like in Raleigh the NC flag is slighly below the US flat, not so in Austin.

Sorry, Gleevec buddy, but you're wrong on this one. I worked at the Fed, and I had to do a bunch of protocol stuff. This came up all the time. All state flags are treated the same. Also, see here.

 

[Megalofyia]

Originally posted by Gleevec
Actually that's not true, only Texas can LEGALLY fly its flag at the same height as the US flag (though some other states might do it, for them it would be illegal). This is especially noticeable if you look at the state capitol buildings (like in Raleigh the NC flag is slighly below the US flat, not so in Austin.

Urban Legend

 

[johnd]

Originally posted by RETTER
what does that mean?
that students will still be able to do rotations under them at methodist even if baylor cuts ties?

What I meant was that if Baylor severs its ties with The Methodist, they are not going to lose all of their big name faculty members that currently practice at the Methodist.

When you are applying for a residency, program directors are not going to say "Wow, this medical student did an ENT rotation at The Methodist". They are going to say "Wow, this is a Baylor medical student and he got a great evaluation from DR. XXX, who is very well known in ENT."

Like a previous poster mentioned, there is nothing intrinsically great about training at Methodist. The great thing about Methodist are the Baylor faculty and residents there.

 

[spumoni620]

Originally posted by johnd
What I meant was that if Baylor severs its ties with The Methodist, they are not going to lose all of their big name faculty members that currently practice at the Methodist.

When you are applying for a residency, program directors are not going to say "Wow, this medical student did an ENT rotation at The Methodist". They are going to say "Wow, this is a Baylor medical student and he got a great evaluation from DR. XXX, who is very well known in ENT."

Like a previous poster mentioned, there is nothing intrinsically great about training at Methodist. The great thing about Methodist are the Baylor faculty and residents there.

i agree w/this to a large extent.

 

[Gleevec]

Originally posted by RETTER
Well what i was thinking was...

methodist is a really good hospital in many fields like urology, ENT, opth, etc... and it's beneficial for students who want to go into those fields to do rotations at methodist so that residency programs will know that the student has had good training...

st. lukes is well know for heart surgery but i dunno if their other departments are as strong as ones at methodist so that could hurt the students...

The only reason Methodist is ranked so highly in those fields is because of the Baylor faculty there. Also, its not as if Baylor is cutting off all training at Methodist, it just more training with happen at St Lukes.

So basically it doesnt matter, because the faculty that make Methodist so strong in those fields are Baylor. Also you seem to think that residency training at Methodist will be cut off entirely. If Methodist were to do this, all the Baylor faculty would probably just move to St Lukes, suddenly making St Lukes one of the top hospitals in those fields.

In either case, the whole thing Ive been told has been blown way out of proportion. Baylor is still using Methodist as its training ground, as well as St Lukes, it just seems as if in the long-run Baylor wants to go with St Lukes because it allows Baylor an ambulatory care facility.

 

[Gleevec]

Originally posted by Harps
Is this how US News derives the residency ranking? Meaning, whether residency directors must have had actual contact with medical students from particular schools and have developed a system to rank their preparation. So, directors actually keep records of evaluations for residents from each school and submit these to US News 😕 Never knew that! Gleevec, atleast from you posts, seems to know the internal mechanism of how residenc directors rate schools. So what say you, man? I am just curious.

-Harps

I dont know the ranking mechanism, Im just guessing like everyone else... I dont mean to pretend I know the methodology either, Im just making a theory based on what it says on the US News site.

It would seem logical that residency directors would only rank highly those schools that they have students from for residency. To do it simply based on the reputation of the school would mean they were doing a "peer reputation" score. So I believe the wording of the reputation survey is such that it only refers to residents they have, otherwise it would be simply a peer reputation score.

Then again, this makes sense to me, but I have no evidence for this whatsoever.

 

[joker]

would someone be so kind as to copy and paste the usnews residency director's ratings of all the schools here?