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

[randomb]

---

Members do not see this ad.

No, no it's not. The difference is, there is a huge difference in law school "tiers". There are some lower level schools will take literally anyone who applies, yet even the "worst" medical school still has relatively similar admissions stats to the "top-10" medical schools. You're comparing apples and oranges here. At the end of the day, there really isn't any academic difference between medical schools.

I don't know about "any." UCSF and Hopkins have some seriously legit professors that you just don't find at most med schools. And their student bodies are of a higher academic caliber than most med schools too (lulz wut? no wayz).

 

[Keem]

I don't know about "any." UCSF and Hopkins have some seriously legit professors that you just don't find at most med schools. And their student bodies are of a higher academic caliber than most med schools too (lulz wut? no wayz).

IMO thats more a part of the "student experience" than "academics". To me "academics" means that the same biochem you learn at A will be the same as B. And I do think that much is true.

 

[Slack3r]

And their student bodies are of a higher academic caliber than most med schools too (lulz wut? no wayz).

Yes, because having higher academically capable students has everything to do with the academics taught by the institution. I forgot they teach a different biochem at Hopkins than they do at State U. 🙄

 

[pizzastories]

No, no it's not. The difference is, there is a huge difference in law school "tiers". There are some lower level schools will take literally anyone who applies, yet even the "worst" medical school still has relatively similar admissions stats to the "top-10" medical schools. You're comparing apples and oranges here. At the end of the day, there really isn't any academic difference between medical schools.

This is almost a nonsensical response. I said in my post, "Granted, medical school is not law school," to which you responded "No, no it's not." The first 'no' means you think I'm wrong, and then the second statement merely restates what I wrote.

It is absolutely not true that 'even the worst medical school still has relatively similar admissions stats to the top-10 medical schools'. According to the last MSAR, Harvard's median GPA and MCAT were 3.9 and 36 respectively. There are some state schools where the medians were 3.7 and 30. This is hardly 'relatively similar'.

With regards to the article I mentioned, between 2005 and 2010 there were 104 supreme court clerks from Harvard or Yale. There were 75 from UVA, Stanford, Chicago, Columbia, NYU, Michigan, Georgetown, and Northwestern. None of the schools in the that second group 'take literally anyone who applies'. The point was that where you go to school does make a difference to future employers.

I don't think 'rank' of a school should necessarily be the number one factor for people choosing medical schools, though I think it is naive for people who have their hearts set on super-competitive fields and fantastic research opportunities to think that any school will give them as much of a foot in the door as any other.

Everyone is free to make their own decisions about this matter, and there is probably no one-size fits all answer.

 

[Slack3r]

With regards to the article I mentioned, between 2005 and 2010 there were 104 supreme court clerks from Harvard or Yale. There were 75 from UVA, Stanford, Chicago, Columbia, NYU, Michigan, Georgetown, and Northwestern. None of the schools in the that second group 'take literally anyone who applies'. The point was that where you go to school does make a difference to future employers.

Ruh roh, reading comprehension FTL. You're comparing Harvard/Yale to other schools within the top 14 (T14) of law schools. Those are all within the same tier. I was referring to lower tier law schools, like Bumble**** U. Making a comparison between medical schools at the top and bottom is NOTHING like comparing law schools at the top and bottom.

 

[pizzastories]

Ruh roh, reading comprehension FTL. You're comparing Harvard/Yale to other schools within the top 14 (T14) of law schools. Those are all within the same tier. I was referring to lower tier law schools, like Bumble**** U. Making a comparison between medical schools at the top and bottom is NOTHING like comparing law schools at the top and bottom.

Your premise was that the comparison to law schools was irrelevant because of the huge difference in caliber of law schools in the top (T14) and at the bottom ("schools [that] will literally take anyone who applies"), in comparison to medical schools, where "even the worst medical school still has relatively similar admissions stats to the top-10 medical schools," (a point which I've already stated I don't believe to be true). Thus, I was showing that even for the law schools that are within the same tier, a situation you seem to think exists with regards to all medical schools, there seems to be a huge difference in perceived prestige in terms of landing a Supreme Court clerkship. You even wrote, "Making a comparison between medical schools at the top and bottom is NOTHING like comparing law schools at the top and bottom," which in fact I was not doing, but rather I was comparing law schools with the top tier to medical schools with higher and lower admission stats.

In general, I am sure nobody really cares about our little debate, and I just threw that article in as some food for thought when people think about prestige, rankings, fit, and all that other good stuff that enters your mind when you are choosing where to go to medical school. You should feel free to disagree with me, but just so you know, somebody who disagrees with you doesn't necessarily have poor reading comprehension skills or some type of other flaw, they might just be looking at the issue differently than you. Isn't different viewpoints the reason people use online forums?

I've got nothing more to contribute to this thread.

 

[Sid Farkus]

Just my two cents.. Every physician I've shadowed has told me the school [ranking, reputation] doesn't matter. As sure as the sun rises, it gets brought up every time. Then, they reference some guy they did their residency with who went to Grenada and is now a world-class surgeon...

Maybe I need to ****ing apply to Grenada lol

 

[randomb]

Yes, because having higher academically capable students has everything to do with the academics taught by the institution. I forgot they teach a different biochem at Hopkins than they do at State U. 🙄

And how do you know they don't? Undergrads have courses that vary dramatically in difficulty across institutions, so I don't see why biochem at Hopkins (where the average BS and PS scores are 12/12) wouldn't be harder and more in depth than at State U (where the avg BS and PS scores are 10/10). In fact, I'd be surprised if the State U were challenging its students much more than Hopkins does (which would be the case if their biochem courses were identical since in general Hopkins students can learn it much more easily than State U students). Feeling inferior yet? I'm assuming you're some state school kid trying to not be overwhelmed by an inferiority complex since your responses are so defensive and butt hurt.

 

[Slack3r]

And how do you know they don't? Undergrads have courses that vary dramatically in difficulty across institutions, so I don't see why biochem at Hopkins (where the average BS and PS scores are 12/12) wouldn't be harder and more in depth than at State U (where the avg BS and PS scores are 10/10). In fact, I'd be surprised if the State U were challenging its students much more than Hopkins does (which would be the case if their biochem courses were identical since in general Hopkins students can learn it much more easily than State U students). Feeling inferior yet? I'm assuming you're some state school kid trying to not be overwhelmed by an inferiority complex since your responses are so defensive and butt hurt.

How do you know that they do? Again you're citing the fact that students at Hopkins are generally smarter than students at State U, yet you've failed to acknowledge that the topics taught are still the same. Does gross anatomy change for someone that spends 10 hours learning the material vs. someone that can learn it in 10 minutes?

I simply don't understand your logic: having smarter students somehow changes the course material. Yes, maybe the test questions are harder or more esoteric, but that still doesn't change the fact that you will learn Kreb's cycle, biochem pathways, etc. These are constants across ALL institutions. We're not talking undergraduate, we're talking about medical school. Every school teaches relatively the same material, and everyone is tested with the same licensing exams. Since all allopathic schools boast a 90%+ pass rate on the USMLE, I'd say it's safe to assume they're all teaching relatively the same material to an appropriate level (as established by the ACGME). How this translates to my perceived inferiority complex is beyond me... 🙄

 

[ProtossCarrier]

How do you know that they do? Again you're citing the fact that students at Hopkins are generally smarter than students at State U, yet you've failed to acknowledge that the topics taught are still the same. Does gross anatomy change for someone that spends 10 hours learning the material vs. someone that can learn it in 10 minutes?

I simply don't understand your logic: having smarter students somehow changes the course material. Yes, maybe the test questions are harder or more esoteric, but that still doesn't change the fact that you will learn Kreb's cycle, biochem pathways, etc. These are constants across ALL institutions. We're not talking undergraduate, we're talking about medical school. Every school teaches relatively the same material, and everyone is tested with the same licensing exams. Since all allopathic schools boast a 90%+ pass rate on the USMLE, I'd say it's safe to assume they're all teaching relatively the same material to an appropriate level (as established by the ACGME). How this translates to my perceived inferiority complex is beyond me... 🙄

USMLE is a minimal competency test. MDs, DOs and carribean MDs all take the USMLE, but there are arguable difference in the clinical prowess between each school depends on how clinical rotations are structured.

 

[randomb]

How do you know that they do? Again you're citing the fact that students at Hopkins are generally smarter than students at State U, yet you've failed to acknowledge that the topics taught are still the same. Does gross anatomy change for someone that spends 10 hours learning the material vs. someone that can learn it in 10 minutes?

I simply don't understand your logic: having smarter students somehow changes the course material. Yes, maybe the test questions are harder or more esoteric, but that still doesn't change the fact that you will learn Kreb's cycle, biochem pathways, etc. These are constants across ALL institutions. We're not talking undergraduate, we're talking about medical school. Every school teaches relatively the same material, and everyone is tested with the same licensing exams. Since all allopathic schools boast a 90%+ pass rate on the USMLE, I'd say it's safe to assume they're all teaching relatively the same material to an appropriate level (as established by the ACGME). How this translates to my perceived inferiority complex is beyond me... 🙄

Yes, having smarter students changes the course material. They can learn faster and more easily, so why not teach them more and in more depth?

Both schools may teach Kreb's cycle, but one may choose to teach the organic chemical reasoning and mechanism behind each step, different diseases involved with abnormalities of each step, and different drugs targeting each step of the Kreb's cycle while another school chooses to cover only the superficial intermediates and the products of each step. How's that so hard to believe? You really think that those at Hopkins learn the same material in the same level of depth as those from any other place in the country?

I inferred an inferiority complex because you choose to act like a know-it-all douche. 😉

I don't know that they do any more than you know that they don't. Except my reasoning seems a hell of a lot more sound than "human knowledge does not change from location to location so therefore each school must teach the same fraction and proportion of human knowledge as any other school."

 

[mjscal]

I should probably bring up a few other points about medical schools which can be important in residency applications. First, nobody looks at applicants as being better because they came from a medical school ranked USNR 5 vs 12 as an example. I do not know the currant rankings but no will say that U Penn is better than say Michigan or Yale etc. I think we tend to think of medical schools in groups like "top", excellent, very good, good and average. This is just personal opinion of course but you might be surprised that there is little controversy with this topic. We sorta know "who the usual suspects" are. It is not the most important issue by far when applicants are discussed but it does sometimes come into play.
The other point I want to make is that the strength of your medical school department in your future specialty is quite important. Your evaluation/grades in your rotation in this department coupled with any research and LOR's is one of the most important criteria in selecting residents. Helps if your LOR person is well known and knows you well.
The competitive residencies tend to be rather small and populated mostly by doc's who subspecialize. The number of such subspecialists tends to be rather small with numbers in the hundreds, not thousands. We tend to know each other or know of each other if you have been around for awhile.
The better ranked medical schools tend to have better departments across the board which is of help in getting a competitive residency. One exception to this is that some "lower ranked" medical schools can have a top notch department in the field you want to train in and this can be quite helpful if you do a lot of work in your home department and they like you a lot.
So in summary, it can make a difference where you go to medical school if you want a competitive residency.

 

[whoknows2012]

Yes, having smarter students changes the course material. They can learn faster and more easily, so why not teach them more and in more depth?

Both schools may teach Kreb's cycle, but one may choose to teach the organic chemical reasoning and mechanism behind each step, different diseases involved with abnormalities of each step, and different drugs targeting each step of the Kreb's cycle while another school chooses to cover only the superficial intermediates and the products of each step. How's that so hard to believe? You really think that those at Hopkins learn the same material in the same level of depth as those from any other place in the country?

I inferred an inferiority complex because you choose to act like a know-it-all douche. 😉

I don't know that they do any more than you know that they don't. Except my reasoning seems a hell of a lot more sound than "human knowledge does not change from location to location so therefore each school must teach the same fraction and proportion of human knowledge as any other school."

I think you're completely wrong on this statement

 

[bookfreak89]

Yes, having smarter students changes the course material. They can learn faster and more easily, so why not teach them more and in more depth?

Both schools may teach Kreb's cycle, but one may choose to teach the organic chemical reasoning and mechanism behind each step, different diseases involved with abnormalities of each step, and different drugs targeting each step of the Kreb's cycle while another school chooses to cover only the superficial intermediates and the products of each step. How's that so hard to believe? You really think that those at Hopkins learn the same material in the same level of depth as those from any other place in the country?

I inferred an inferiority complex because you choose to act like a know-it-all douche. 😉

I don't know that they do any more than you know that they don't. Except my reasoning seems a hell of a lot more sound than "human knowledge does not change from location to location so therefore each school must teach the same fraction and proportion of human knowledge as any other school."

1. No, it doesn't. Every course has a standard amount of material that they need to cover. I am not seeing how being 'smarter' will change this fact especially considering the current pace at which classes are taught.

2. Because they probably don't have time to do so just like every other med school.

3. That's called the difference between M1 and M2.

4. Yes, I do. Some professors may choose to add esoteric information, but it depends on the professor not on the school nor on the student body.

5. 🙄

 

[randomb]

1. No, it doesn't. Every course has a standard amount of material that they need to cover. I am not seeing how being 'smarter' will change this fact especially considering the current pace at which classes are taught.

2. Because they probably don't have time to do so just like every other med school.

3. That's called the difference between M1 and M2.

4. Yes, I do. Some professors may choose to add esoteric information, but it depends on the professor not on the school nor on the student body.

5. 🙄

Course material is definitely dependent on academic quality of students in middle school, high school, and college, so I don't see why the two variables become completely independent in medical school. At each level, there were "standards" that were supposed to be taught.

Here's the thing about time: the smarter you are, the less time you need to learn something. Therefore, the smarter a class is, the more they are able to cover within a given amount of time. For my proof: just look at how long it's taking you (and Slacker) to understand this concept.

Professors are more likely to teach harder material if they believe their students are more able to handle it.

But yeah, since you did the sarcastic roll-eyes, you definitely know what you're talking about 🙄.

 

[randomb]

I think you're completely wrong on this statement

So if you were a professor who taught a medical course at a random med school, and someone told you that you were chosen to teach at some experimental "elite" medical school where every student was given some sort of super intelligence boosting drug that allowed them to learn material 10 times faster, you would go to that school and teach the exact same course with no additional material?

 

[Parts Unknown]

So if you were a professor who taught a medical course at a random med school, and someone told you that you were chosen to teach at some experimental "elite" medical school where every student was given some sort of super intelligence boosting drug that allowed them to learn material 10 times faster, you would go to that school and teach the exact same course with no additional material?

I, for one, would welcome our new 10x medical student overlords.

If you want to see a condensed version of what every single medical student in the country learns, pick up a copy of First Aid for Step 1. The material is the material is the material. The only thing that changes is the test.

 

[45408]

Yes, having smarter students changes the course material. They can learn faster and more easily, so why not teach them more and in more depth?

Both schools may teach Kreb's cycle, but one may choose to teach the organic chemical reasoning and mechanism behind each step, different diseases involved with abnormalities of each step, and different drugs targeting each step of the Kreb's cycle while another school chooses to cover only the superficial intermediates and the products of each step. How's that so hard to believe? You really think that those at Hopkins learn the same material in the same level of depth as those from any other place in the country?

I inferred an inferiority complex because you choose to act like a know-it-all douche. 😉

I don't know that they do any more than you know that they don't. Except my reasoning seems a hell of a lot more sound than "human knowledge does not change from location to location so therefore each school must teach the same fraction and proportion of human knowledge as any other school."

Do you have any proof of this, or is this just like every other thread where people assume that certain schools teach more than other schools?

 

[45408]

Like this thread - http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=764607