Correct me if I'm wrong, but from reading the myriad threads out there, I came to a realization that ranking has nothing whatsoever to do with the school's board scores. Also, what this thread suggests is that no one has access to a school's board scores but for the school itself, meaning that U.S. News cannot use board scores as a method of ranking. Since ranking is largely based on the NIH money garnered by faculty and not students, I would assume that board scores and rankings can vary a great degree. I do understand, however, that people who attend top-notch schools got there by scoring high on standardized tests in the first place. However, you have to keep in mind that the MCAT and USMLE are probably as different as the SAT is from the MCAT, and I know a lot of people who scored low on their SAT, got into low-tier undergrad schools, then rocked their MCAT because they worked hard. I suppose people who get into highly ranked med schools have less motivation to score very high on their boards since the name of their school itself supports their application, whereas those attending lower-ranked schools focus a lot on the boards and possibly attend Kaplan and end up scoring well. And as you have all already noticed, I hope, from your MCAT, getting a high score is really not related to where you went to undergrad as much as it is related to how much practice you got in the MCAT. I suppose the same goes for the board exam. So, bottomline, I would say that rank and board scores are really not as corelated as one may initially think. Comments?