DIfference between Top Med schools and low ranked?? Really matter where you go??

[informme]

I heard from friends that where you go to medical school doesn't really matter.
Now, I'm having a hard time understanding this.

What really is the difference from an average medical school and a top 10 medical school??
What advantages does a top 10 school give, and what incentive would you have to go there other than name drop-ability

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[longhorn09]

They also give you a lot of debt.

 

[veaselhaufen]

Theyre better funded and give you less debt

 

[redsquareblack]

I heard from friends that where you go to medical school doesn't really matter.
Now, I'm having a hard time understanding this.

What really is the difference from an average medical school and a top 10 medical school??
What advantages does a top 10 school give, and what incentive would you have to go there other than name drop-ability

For the most part? Not much, if you're going for a straight MD. However, according to some people, there ARE bad schools out there. It would be inappropriate to name them in this forum, but your premed advisor may be able to steer you from them.

 

[DrYoda]

They also give you a lot of debt.

Theyre better funded and give you less debt

This is highly dependent on individual situations. Some people go to top schools for cheap, some go to lower tier schools on the cheap. There are also people at both types of schools taking on mountains of debt.

Granted some schools give more scholarships than others, but that's a big if to get a major scholarship. And thus the topic of cost really isn't a good one to make blanket statements either way on.

 

[Forthegood]

Big names have big named faculty, big figure grants, and big-name hospitals for clinical years. It can make it easier to get your foot in the door into said grants/internships/residencies/fellowships.

Educationally speaking, you get out what you put in.

 

[BlueElmo]

I guess more opportunities for research. Maybe better residency placements?

 

[Handy388]

For the most part? Not much, if you're going for a straight MD. However, according to some people, there ARE bad schools out there. It would be inappropriate to name them in this forum, but your premed advisor may be able to steer you from them.

why not name them?

 

[informme]

I'm guessing it would be rather insulting to people attending those medical schools

=(


I would like to know though

 

[Slowpoke]

For the most part? Not much, if you're going for a straight MD. However, according to some people, there ARE bad schools out there. It would be inappropriate to name them in this forum, but your premed advisor may be able to steer you from them.

I can't believe there is such a thing as a "bad medical school".

If there was a medical school out there that was known to breed horrible doctors, you'd think something would be done about it. Seriously.

People have trouble getting into 'a' medical school, if there was a bad one that no one wanted to go to, I don't think anybody would have a problem getting in anywhere.

 

[Beta Cell]

why not name them?

I'm fairly certain some MD's look down their noses at DO's, but beyond that I don't know. (Not trying to start a debate between which one is better, but there are definitely MD's who consider DO's to be inferior based solely on their degrees)

 

[Greonis]

This question comes up ad nauseum on these forums, but it seems as if the question is never answered outside of citing some specific, uncommon cases for which prestige does have an effect. Usually, a flame war erupts, with both sides utilizing relatively subjective evidence to support their claims. In the end, nothing is learned, because the likely truth is that no one really knows the full effects of school prestige.

Because of this, I personally believe that the best advice for most medical students (excluding the few with specific plans that clearly do benefit from prestige) should be to ignore prestige entirely and simply try to get into the school that best fits them. Factors such as the school's location and cost are far more important and will have a far more salient effect on the student's day to day life. Moreover, I am very insecure about the validity of the ranking system used to categorize schools (especially when given the methodology used to compile them and the fact that not all schools openly participate), am a believer that the rankings can easily be manipulated by schools and other interested organizations, and feel that too many people place too much importance on rankings at times because it is not always very clear what a "higher" or "lower" ranking even means for one's education and opportunties as a medical student. If anything, it is simply a system that we use to better organize all of the medical schools and inject additional value (whether or not it is even merited) into a decision-making process that can be both difficult and frustrating. The USN&WR has recognized this "human need" and responded accordingly in a way to satisfy said need and make themselves money.

 

[gatoradedrinker]

first two years will essentially be the same everywhere (MD/DO/fMD). educational differences maybecome more visible however, in years three and four when students go through clinical rotations.

also, not all "top 10" schools result in heaps of debt. UCSF (in state) and UCLA (in state) are the first two that come to mind - both schools are public and therefore are significantly cheaper than many of their private school counterparts.

 

[runx]

I heard from friends that where you go to medical school doesn't really matter.
Now, I'm having a hard time understanding this.

What really is the difference from an average medical school and a top 10 medical school??
What advantages does a top 10 school give, and what incentive would you have to go there other than name drop-ability

The med school rankings that people generally refer to are based on research. There are rankings based on primary care, surgery, etc... but the ranking that is based on research is what most people inside and outside of the medical communinty are talking about. For example, the school I go to is ranked in the 50-something for research and in the top 10 for primary care. But everyone, even our own faculty, will refer to us being in the top 50... Research is pretty much directly tied to grants ($$$) which I guess is a convenient way to rank med schools without actually examining their quality of care. The only reason I can think to be concerned with this type of ranking is if you are seriously interested in research (MD/PHD) or just want to say that you went to a top 10 school. Also, keep in mind that its totally possible to end up at any school for your residency even if you did not go there for medical school.

 

[flip26]

This question comes up ad nauseum on these forums, but it seems as if the question is never answered outside of citing some specific, uncommon cases for which prestige does have an effect. Usually, a flame war erupts, with both sides utilizing relatively subjective evidence to support their claims. In the end, nothing is learned, because the likely truth is that no one really knows the full effects of school prestige.

Because of this, I personally believe that the best advice for most medical students (excluding the few with specific plans that clearly do benefit from prestige) should be to ignore prestige entirely and simply try to get into the school that best fits them. Factors such as the school's location and cost are far more important and will have a far more salient effect on the student's day to day life. Moreover, I am very insecure about the validity of the ranking system used to categorize schools (especially when given the methodology used to compile them and the fact that not all schools openly participate), am a believer that the rankings can easily be manipulated by schools and other interested organizations, and feel that too many people place too much importance on rankings at times because it is not always very clear what a "higher" or "lower" ranking even means for one's education and opportunties as a medical student. If anything, it is simply a system that we use to better organize all of the medical schools and inject additional value (whether or not it is even merited) into a decision-making process that can be both difficult and frustrating. The USN&WR has recognized this "human need" and responded accordingly in a way to satisfy said need and make themselves money.

I could not have said it better myself.

 

[UVAbme2009]

I agree about fit. A happy student will breed a better student.

 

[ButImLETired]

For the most part? Not much, if you're going for a straight MD. However, according to some people, there ARE bad schools out there. It would be inappropriate to name them in this forum, but your premed advisor may be able to steer you from them.

To those who are wondering what those "bad" schools are:

To say that some schools are universally "bad" is a little ridiculous. The AAMC (or maybe it's another governing body, but you get the idea) has extremely stringent regulations as far as MD schools are concerned. If any school even tries to toe the line, they get dinged, put on probation, and told to fix whatever problem they have. This is the reason why residencies consider schools in the US to be generally equivalent (a higher step score + higher grades will trump a better "name") but not so caribbean schools, which are not held under the same strict standards. However, for some reason SDNers tend to gang up on certain schools and declare them to be "bad". This year, I've noticed that phenomenon with GW and NYMC, mostly. Any "X vs Y" thread that includes one of those two immediately turns into an arena for SDNers who have "friends there" to talk about how much it sucks, and how the OP should go to the OTHER school, no matter what. It's this weird mob effect, but with med schools.

However, don't trust any of that. While some of them bring up decent points about why this or that school is bad, a more objective poster could probably come up with negative points to say about the other school as well. Your best bet, as always, is to figure it out on your own, by talking to students there and visiting it yourself.

Ultimately, a school's value is a totally individual thing. There are about 2 or 3 schools that I would never go to, and they're all top schools. I wouldn't go to them because of personal reasons- essentially, I think their mission is total bs, and having known doctors and students who went there, I wouldn't want to be one of them. However, it is a PERSONAL opinion. I have a couple of friends who are going to those schools, and while I think they won't become the kinds of doctors I aim to be, I kept my mouth shut when they told me. They're not "bad schools". They're just not my cup of tea. On the other hand, my boyfriend goes to a "low-tier" school and loves it. They have some big grants, and some of his professors are world-renowned, the teaching is great and the hospital is modern, but their mission simply isn't tied to research the way a lot of top 10 schools' are. He has no doubt that he'll become a great doctor there, and he'll get the residency he wants. And isn't that all that matters?

 

[Playa]

To those who are wondering what those "bad" schools are:

To say that some schools are universally "bad" is a little ridiculous. The AAMC (or maybe it's another governing body, but you get the idea) has extremely stringent regulations as far as MD schools are concerned. If any school even tries to toe the line, they get dinged, put on probation, and told to fix whatever problem they have. This is the reason why residencies consider schools in the US to be generally equivalent (a higher step score + higher grades will trump a better "name") but not so caribbean schools, which are not held under the same strict standards. However, for some reason SDNers tend to gang up on certain schools and declare them to be "bad". This year, I've noticed that phenomenon with GW and NYMC, mostly. Any "X vs Y" thread that includes one of those two immediately turns into an arena for SDNers who have "friends there" to talk about how much it sucks, and how the OP should go to the OTHER school, no matter what. It's this weird mob effect, but with med schools.

However, don't trust any of that. While some of them bring up decent points about why this or that school is bad, a more objective poster could probably come up with negative points to say about the other school as well. Your best bet, as always, is to figure it out on your own, by talking to students there and visiting it yourself.

Ultimately, a school's value is a totally individual thing. There are about 2 or 3 schools that I would never go to, and they're all top schools. I wouldn't go to them because of personal reasons- essentially, I think their mission is total bs, and having known doctors and students who went there, I wouldn't want to be one of them. However, it is a PERSONAL opinion. I have a couple of friends who are going to those schools, and while I think they won't become the kinds of doctors I aim to be, I kept my mouth shut when they told me. They're not "bad schools". They're just not my cup of tea. On the other hand, my boyfriend goes to a "low-tier" school and loves it. They have some big grants, and some of his professors are world-renowned, the teaching is great and the hospital is modern, but their mission simply isn't tied to research the way a lot of top 10 schools' are. He has no doubt that he'll become a great doctor there, and he'll get the residency he wants. And isn't that all that matters?

Well looks like im not so desperate for love as I thought, well not more than him at least.

This is true. I dug this thread up because im just sick of listening to people putting HMS grads on pedestals and treating them like God. Yea I want to go to Columbia and yea I did a lot of b#$ching about it all, but at the end of the day people just don't seem to get that being a doctor is what matters in the end. That's why we're all here.

 

[Reaction]

Honestly it doesn't matter. There is no such thing as a bad med school in the US. However, at least I know this is true with some of the so called "top tier" med schools like Mayo, Hopkins, etc., they tend to have better training equipment/strategies than other med schools. But that aside, getting into any med school is impressive enough

 

[randomb]

Med school reputation is about as important as AOA and more important than grades in preclinical courses when it comes to residency selection factors. So yes, it's somewhat important, but not going to matter if you have a 250 Step 1 score, publications, good clinical grades, and strong LORs.

http://journals.lww.com/academicmed...sults_of_a.24.aspx?WT.mc_id=HPxADx20100319xMP

Although for some residencies, such as rad/onc, it seems to be really important..

 

[fahimaz7]

first two years will essentially be the same everywhere (MD/DO/fMD). educational differences maybecome more visible however, in years three and four when students go through clinical rotations.

also, not all "top 10" schools result in heaps of debt. UCSF (in state) and UCLA (in state) are the first two that come to mind - both schools are public and therefore are significantly cheaper than many of their private school counterparts.

Emory and MCG. We had a few of Rhodes here at MCG.

 

[DrMagic]

Really at the end of the day, in my opinion getting an MD is what it's all about. But beyond that, if you go to a top ranked medical school you get better funding opportunities. There is a better chance you get a scholarship to recognize your achievements which makes the cost of school lower. I won't go ahead and assume you will be in debt in case you are going into the military or you have money. Not only that, you will get taught by world class faculty which can make you a more qualified professional. Your residency choice may also be better, with respect to the name of the institution, the competiveness of the specialty, and the amount of offers you get. Not that this is the same thing, but a friend of mine who went to Johns Hopkins for undergrad had a horrific pre-medical profile (except for MCAT) and managed to get several acceptances to MD schools as well as interviews at the best medical schools. So the name of the school seems to affect a lot of folks out there in control of admissions. Extending that to attending the medical program at a top university, that same kind of clout is going to follow you.

 

[trailking]

It doesn't except for bragging rights for your parents. All U.S. Med schools gear
the preclinical years as a virtual cram course to pass the Boards. The curriculum
are essentially the same. All the lectures covers the same material although some
Instructors induce sleep and others may encourage you to stand-up and cheer. Everybody takes the same exam at the end of the second year. The rotations in the
third year cover the same specialties and the patients have the same medical
problems whether they're in Cambridge or Galveston. So no difference for the majority of students who want to practice medicine as clinicians. The difference
occurs for those who want to discover a cure for cancer or who hope to be a tenured
medical professor at John Hopkins. Students at foreign school including the Caribbean do face additional challenges.

 

[ILikeDrugs]

The top medical schools have better architecture and shinier windows and floors. The grass may also appear to be a richer shade of green. The local morning birds serenade you as you walk to class. You'll have a cool brand name on your CV.

 

[IrishMD15]

The top medical schools have better architecture and shinier windows and floors. The grass may also appear to be a richer shade of green. The local morning birds serenade you as you walk to class. You'll have a cool brand name on your CV.

 

[mvenus929]

In terms of education, it really doesn't matter... you will get out what you put in. There are some schools who have a reputation of better preparing their students for the wards (especially if a school matches residents into a certain program year after year), but for just about everything else, it comes down to opinion.

There are some schools that I would not want to go to, but that's because I don't feel like I'd fit in there, for whatever reason. Would it matter? Maybe, maybe not. But I love the school I'm at now, and I'm in general happy. I don't feel like I'm about ready to pull out my hair in frustration and wonder why the heck I ever chose medicine, even on my worst day. Then again, I'm only 2 months into medical school.

 

[pizzastories]

“By and large,” he said, “I’m going to be picking from the law schools that basically are the hardest to get into. They admit the best and the brightest, and they may not teach very well, but you can’t make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse. If they come in the best and the brightest, they’re probably going to leave the best and the brightest, O.K.?” ~Antonin Scalia, with regards to how he selects his clerks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/us/politics/07clerkside.html

Granted, medical school is not law school. Nevertheless, it is naive to think that the 'top' medical schools do not confer some type of advantage, but it is important to consider what that advantage is for. If you want to be in academic medicine, do lots of research, land the most competitive residencies, and other stuff like that, it is to your benefit to go to the 'best' school you can gain acceptance. But if that is not your goal, which it isn't for me nor 95% of the people who enter medical school, not gaining acceptance to a 'top' school doesn't kill your dreams.

Heck, I passed up a top-10 for a non-top 25. Better 'fit' for me. But if I had my heart set on being a neurosurgeon doing groundbreaking research, I wouldn't have made the choice. I picked based on where I thought I would be happiest in four years.

E'erbody should apply to schools that are in places they would want to live for four years. You'll get a sense of all the schools on interview. The stuff you read on these boards and on school's website doesn't compare to the feeling you get about a place on interview day. Everybody is different and has different goals, one size doesn't fit all. Just think about what your goals are and find a school that helps you get there.

 

[gettheleadout]

Med school reputation is about as important as AOA and more important than grades in preclinical courses when it comes to residency selection factors. So yes, it's somewhat important, but not going to matter if you have a 250 Step 1 score, publications, good clinical grades, and strong LORs.

http://journals.lww.com/academicmed...sults_of_a.24.aspx?WT.mc_id=HPxADx20100319xMP

Although for some residencies, such as rad/onc, it seems to be really important..

I don't buy that; the general consensus is that reputation has very little if any significance, whereas grades are fairly important and AOA is a big deal.

 

[mjscal]

Everything is important if you are trying to get into a competitive residency spot.

 

[gettheleadout]

Everything is important if you are trying to get into a competitive residency spot.

Okay? Just gonna leave it at that or would you like to be more specific?

 

[randomb]

I don't buy that; the general consensus is that reputation has very little if any significance, whereas grades are fairly important and AOA is a big deal.

Tell that to the 1300 program directors that responded to the survey in the study I cited...

 

[mjscal]

Trying to get a resident class for a competitive residency where you have hundreds of applications for a few spots is a difficult process. As an example one department I know well gets 400+ applicants each year for 4 spaces. 50-60 are interviewed and 30 to 40 are ranked. Applicants are usually self selecting so those who apply are usually among the best students in their medical school.
Trying to weed out 350 of these applicants is therefore not so easy. Cutting out those perceived as weaker candidates such as D.O.'s, American foreign medical graduates and those in the bottom half of their medical school ranking does not help much.
Generally the most important criteria to consider are clinical course grades in your third and fourth years, recommendation letters, (especially from people within the specialty who you know) and performance on a clinical rotation in one's own department. Board scores, research, AOA status, medical school attended are probably next in importance. These factors were also cited by a recent journal article on the subject. Other criteria looked at are Dean's letter, preclinical grades, extracurricular activities, College attended and GPA, career goal, personal statement etc. Basically all these factors and more are evaluated to select residents.
It is especially difficult when you get to the last 40 to 80 applicants. Generally everyone is pretty happy with the top 30 or so but selecting the last few to interview is very hard. One PD at another program remarked over dinner last week that they choose one applicant over another to interview because one went to Stanford undergraduate and the other applicant went to an unknown midwestern state college. It gets really picky towards the end.
Now I am sure that every program looks for some different things in their applicants but the basics are roughly the same from what I hear. Other specialties that are competitive also seem to go through a very similar process.
You can get somewhat of a feel for how competitive a specialty is by looking at the average number of applications each applicant files. If the number is high you can bet that many factors can come into play to select the residents.

 

[gettheleadout]

Trying to get a resident class for a competitive residency where you have hundreds of applications for a few spots is a difficult process. As an example one department I know well gets 400+ applicants each year for 4 spaces. 50-60 are interviewed and 30 to 40 are ranked. Applicants are usually self selecting so those who apply are usually among the best students in their medical school.
Trying to weed out 350 of these applicants is therefore not so easy. Cutting out those perceived as weaker candidates such as D.O.'s, American foreign medical graduates and those in the bottom half of their medical school ranking does not help much.
Generally the most important criteria to consider are clinical course grades in your third and fourth years, recommendation letters, (especially from people within the specialty who you know) and performance on a clinical rotation in one's own department. Board scores, research, AOA status, medical school attended are probably next in importance. These factors were also cited by a recent journal article on the subject. Other criteria looked at are Dean's letter, preclinical grades, extracurricular activities, College attended and GPA, career goal, personal statement etc. Basically all these factors and more are evaluated to select residents.
It is especially difficult when you get to the last 40 to 80 applicants. Generally everyone is pretty happy with the top 30 or so but selecting the last few to interview is very hard. One PD at another program remarked over dinner last week that they choose one applicant over another to interview because one went to Stanford undergraduate and the other applicant went to an unknown midwestern state college. It gets really picky towards the end.
Now I am sure that every program looks for some different things in their applicants but the basics are roughly the same from what I hear. Other specialties that are competitive also seem to go through a very similar process.
You can get somewhat of a feel for how competitive a specialty is by looking at the average number of applications each applicant files. If the number is high you can bet that many factors can come into play to select the residents.

Anecdotal evidence =

Tell that to the 1300 program directors that responded to the survey in the study I cited...

Reading your source, it doesn't actually say that. In fact, nowhere does it mention medical school reputation as a factor. From the article, "Given the strong academic performance of individuals who apply to the most competitive specialties, characteristics that distinguish individuals among this highly accomplished group are difficult to discern. The higher emphasis on class rank, AOA membership, and published medical school research may represent accomplishments that allow program directors to select one student over another." I will concede that AOA is apparently not a big deal, at least until the major factors are considered equal and it becomes a tiebreaker of sorts.

 

[morning]

Med school reputation is about as important as AOA and more important than grades in preclinical courses when it comes to residency selection factors. So yes, it's somewhat important, but not going to matter if you have a 250 Step 1 score, publications, good clinical grades, and strong LORs.

http://journals.lww.com/academicmed...sults_of_a.24.aspx?WT.mc_id=HPxADx20100319xMP

Although for some residencies, such as rad/onc, it seems to be really important..

Except those things aren't very important for most residencies, so you're just talking out of your arse. A lot of schools don't even HAVE grades in preclinical courses!

 

[ElChamaco]

Anecdotal evidence =

Someone with much more experience than you is trying to share their particular insight into a process you are at least 4 years away from. No need to be rude.

Reading your source, it doesn't actually say that. In fact, nowhere does it mention medical school reputation as a factor. From the article, "Given the strong academic performance of individuals who apply to the most competitive specialties, characteristics that distinguish individuals among this highly accomplished group are difficult to discern. The higher emphasis on class rank, AOA membership, and published medical school research may represent accomplishments that allow program directors to select one student over another." I will concede that AOA is apparently not a big deal, at least until the major factors are considered equal and it becomes a tiebreaker of sorts.

See item 9:

 

[Longshanks]

Tell that to the 1300 program directors that responded to the survey in the study I cited...

At the same time if you look at the survey study the AAMC did last year and is on their website, school of undergraduate medical education was the 5th-7th most important factor out of about 10 for the residency directors they surveyed, depending upon the specialty.

As people have who have gone through the process have told us before, and from what I've heard from others, its your board scores, rotation grades, references/LORs, and out-rotations that matter more so than the school.

School name becomes more of a factor for research-oriented position, only because of the better research opportunities and funding at those institutions (basing this off of conversations with my PI who is involved with fellowship applications). But, if you didn't take advantage of those opportunities, you're not going to have a good shot anyway at a position that is requiring that. Its about taking advantage of the opportunities at your school and excelling. The name of your school isn't going to make up for the lacking areas of your application to anything.

 

[randomb]

Anecdotal evidence =

Reading your source, it doesn't actually say that. In fact, nowhere does it mention medical school reputation as a factor. From the article, "Given the strong academic performance of individuals who apply to the most competitive specialties, characteristics that distinguish individuals among this highly accomplished group are difficult to discern. The higher emphasis on class rank, AOA membership, and published medical school research may represent accomplishments that allow program directors to select one student over another." I will concede that AOA is apparently not a big deal, at least until the major factors are considered equal and it becomes a tiebreaker of sorts.

See Table 2. I did not just make up a random fact and cite a random paper lol.

Except those things aren't very important for most residencies, so you're just talking out of your arse. A lot of schools don't even HAVE grades in preclinical courses!

Um, no I'm basically just telling you the results of a study in which 1300/2500 program directors responded to a survey. See Table 2 in the study I cited. None of what I said came out of my arse.

At the same time if you look at the survey study the AAMC did last year and is on their website, school of undergraduate medical education was the 5th-7th most important factor out of about 10 for the residency directors they surveyed, depending upon the specialty.

As people have who have gone through the process have told us before, and from what I've heard from others, its your board scores, rotation grades, references/LORs, and out-rotations that matter more so than the school.

School name becomes more of a factor for research-oriented position, only because of the better research opportunities and funding at those institutions (basing this off of conversations with my PI who is involved with fellowship applications). But, if you didn't take advantage of those opportunities, you're not going to have a good shot anyway at a position that is requiring that. Its about taking advantage of the opportunities at your school and excelling. The name of your school isn't going to make up for the lacking areas of your application to anything.

Undergraduate medical education? What's that?

 

[gravitywave]

Anecdotal evidence =

are you kidding me? the poster identifies as an attending and tells you something that could easily have come from real-life experience with this subject - and you blow it off like this? As a pre-med? come on, man.

once you actually get to medical school, you'll find that virtually all of the good information to be had about how to make a residency choice and regarding specific programs is by its very nature anecdotal.

Reading your source, it doesn't actually say that. In fact, nowhere does it mention medical school reputation as a factor.

actually it did, if you'd looked at the pretty pictures. yes, the article has a problem with selection bias, but there's other stuff about this topic out there in the literature, and it all says the same thing.

Except those things aren't very important for most residencies, so you're just talking out of your arse. A lot of schools don't even HAVE grades in preclinical courses!

granted, they are not very important for most residencies. but don't fool yourself: class rankings are calculated using pre-clinical grades at all but a handful of US med schools. very very few schools have true P/F. usually your numerical scores are considered in assigning you to a cohort (quartile/quintile/whatever) reportable in the Dean's Letter, and for AOA. the upshot is that everyone passes, but some of us pass "better than others."

That 3rd/4th yr grades, Step scores and recommendations are paramount for any residency is not in dispute. But many on SDN take it as a matter of faith that things like preclinical grades and school reputation don't matter at all - when in fact they can, in exactly the circumstances mjscal described. if you want to do something competitive and/or at a competitive program, do you really think that they won't be looking and comparing applicants on everything? the derm residency here gets hundreds of applications every year for one position, how would you start making choices?

the next time someone complains about these forums being a echo-chamber, and that "gosh, i wish we could get some attendings in here to tell us how it really is!" I will direct them to this thread. jeez looweez

 

[gravitywave]

Undergraduate medical education? What's that?

your medical school

 

[randomb]

your medical school

Ohh I see.

 

[ElChamaco]

are you kidding me? the poster identifies as an attending and tells you something that could easily have come from real-life experience with this subject - and you blow it off like this? As a pre-med? come on, man.
...

Something about SDN and the internet in general encourages insolent behavior in a particular subset of posters, who, I imagine would much more respectful and appreciative in real life, especially to helpful superiors. It is some sort of low-grade sociopathy, I guess.

 

[randomb]

Something about SDN and the internet in general encourages insolent behavior in a particular subset of posters, who, I imagine would much more respectful and appreciative in real life, especially to helpful superiors. It is some sort of low-grade sociopathy, I guess.

That, and also there are a lot of idiots on these forums.

 

[gettheleadout]

See Table 2. I did not just make up a random fact and cite a random paper lol.

Sorry about that, I only read through the text.

are you kidding me? the poster identifies as an attending and tells you something that could easily have come from real-life experience with this subject - and you blow it off like this? As a pre-med? come on, man.

once you actually get to medical school, you'll find that virtually all of the good information to be had about how to make a residency choice and regarding specific programs is by its very nature anecdotal.

the next time someone complains about these forums being a echo-chamber, and that "gosh, i wish we could get some attendings in here to tell us how it really is!" I will direct them to this thread. jeez looweez

Why should someone who comes on here and sets their status to Attending get any more credibility than someone who didn't? Especially without established reliability (seeing how he has 11 posts). If it was a more reputable attending on here I'd buy it, but otherwise what's stopping anyone from making a new account and posing as someone who knows what they're talking about just to troll people? This thread was using actual data to support claims, and he did the exact opposite with nothing to back it up.

Something about SDN and the internet in general encourages insolent behavior in a particular subset of posters, who, I imagine would much more respectful and appreciative in real life, especially to helpful superiors. It is some sort of low-grade sociopathy, I guess.

Except once again, without any way of confirming who you're talking to, there's no reason to assume they're your superiors. See above.

That, and also there are a lot of idiots on these forums.

Speak for yourself.

 

[gettheleadout]

In any case, I apologize. I didn't intend to be rude to mjscal, I was simply trying to focus more on hard data, and yes I misinterpreted the survey results (I seriously didn't even notice the tables when I read through it.)

 

[gravitywave]

Why should someone who comes on here and sets their status to Attending get any more credibility than someone who didn't? Especially without established reliability (seeing how he has 11 posts). If it was a more reputable attending on here I'd buy it, but otherwise what's stopping anyone from making a new account and posing as someone who knows what they're talking about just to troll people? This thread was using actual data to support claims, and he did the exact opposite with nothing to back it up.

there's no reason to think mjscal is lying about the anecdote when the rest of the post is straight truth.

what is an attending expected to do to become involved with this community, pretend to post as a pre-med for four years, then as a student for seven, then finally as a respected attending?

Again: how people decide where and what to apply for in the Match has more to do with the advice they get from mentors in the field than anything else. a lot of that advice is word of mouth, and yeah who knows? the advice you get might be skewed by your mentor's bias. so it's good to have several people higher up in your field than you, letting you know how you're doing. but it's not like you're going to have lots of solid peer-reviewed literature with p<.001 on how to rank your programs

if you look at the study designs for any of the literature on this topic, they're quite weak compared to most of the hard science stuff. voluntary surveys of PDs and the like. so when that's the best you've got in terms of "data," then yeah, other sources of information come into play.

 

[ElChamaco]

In any case, I apologize. I didn't intend to be rude to mjscal, I was simply trying to focus more on hard data, and yes I misinterpreted the survey results (I seriously didn't even notice the tables when I read through it.)

Every now and again my faith in SDN is restored when an argument/disagreement is resolved respectfully.

 

[trailking]

I think a straight-forward answer is:
If you plan to practice medicine as a clinician in a speciality that's not particularly
competitive then any accredited school is fine. Remember, all med students take
the same exams and essentially all schools follow a similar curriculum with some
bells and whistles added. If you want to pursue a very competitive specialty
then it's GPA, Board Scores, recommendations etc. etc. If you plan to teach at
Harvard or find a cure for cancer then name matters.

Some of the posters should take a course in civility or run for political office
on the tea-bagger ticket.

 

[gettheleadout]

there's no reason to think mjscal is lying about the anecdote when the rest of the post is straight truth.

what is an attending expected to do to become involved with this community, pretend to post as a pre-med for four years, then as a student for seven, then finally as a respected attending?

True, I'll admit I'm pretty cynical and there's no greater reason to doubt rather than believe a poster's position. I guess what he said just struck a bad chord with me at the time.

Every now and again my faith in SDN is restored when an argument/disagreement is resolved respectfully.

I like to think I'm not (too much of) a dick either in person or on here...

 

[flip26]

Go to a pass/fail school - this is what matters most.

Best decision ever.

 

[libraryismyhome]

Go to a pass/fail school - this is what matters most.

Best decision ever.

the most useful info in this thread