Do you think the students at a "better" known medical school are "smarter"...

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
monkeyMD

monkeyMD

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
510
Reaction score
1
Members don't see this ad.
Do you think the students at a "better" known medical school are "smarter" than those at lesser known schools? For example, do you agree with the statement, "students at Harvard are much smarter than students at Temple?"

I was having a debate about this with my friend and we had some disagreements. Just wanted to find out what SDN population thinks about this.

If you agree or do not agree, state why.

ALSO,
What about this 2nd Q:
Do you feel that the students at the "better" known schools feel SUPERIOR to those at the lesser known school?
 
Last edited:
The question itself is riddled with issues.
1. Research shows there are different forms of intelligence.
2. Even if it were so on average, there would be a lot of exceptions given how tight the pool is to begin with.
 
Tough question. Sure, there are more stringent admission standards at the upper tier schools. Most of the students who got into Harvard could probably get into Temple, but vice-versa is most likely not true (I'm sure there are some that stayed at Temple for family reasons rather than end up at Harvard, however).

If you're basing it off that, then sure. I don't know what the average Step 1 scores are for both schools but I think that might be a more apt way of comparing a medical knowledge base for students from both schools. But that may be influenced by how they are taught the material at both schools.

Basically, I don't know, and what would be the 'objective' way of determining if someone is smarter?
 
My take:
On average, the students at the bigger name schools are probably smarter.

BUT, there is probably at least 1 student at pretty much every medical school who is smarter than some, if not many, of the students at places like Harvard, for example.

My rationale? Smart does not equal acceptance. You'd be surprised how much an interview matters. You can have stellar grades, MCAT, but if you're weird on an interview, you're not getting in. That same student might get into a lower tier medical school that's trying to boost their averages.

Additionally, MCAT/college grades do not equal smart. A lot of this has to do with preparation. Someone whose parents can afford to pay for their MCAT prep classes and doesn't have to work during college is probably going to get better grades and a higher MCAT score than a smarter person who may have a lot more hurdles to overcome (that's not a hard and fast rule, but overall). In my opinion there are a few of those types of people at nearly every med school: people who would be near the top of their class wherever they go but because of background or disadvantages weren't able to make it to that level (yet)
 
qrstuv said:
My take:
On average, the students at the bigger name schools are probably smarter.

BUT, there is probably at least 1 student at pretty much every medical school who is smarter than some, if not many, of the students at places like Harvard, for example.

My rationale? Smart does not equal acceptance. You'd be surprised how much an interview matters. You can have stellar grades, MCAT, but if you're weird on an interview, you're not getting in. That same student might get into a lower tier medical school that's trying to boost their averages.

Additionally, MCAT/college grades do not equal smart. A lot of this has to do with preparation. Someone whose parents can afford to pay for their MCAT prep classes and doesn't have to work during college is probably going to get better grades and a higher MCAT score than a smarter person who may have a lot more hurdles to overcome (that's not a hard and fast rule, but overall). In my opinion there are a few of those types of people at nearly every med school: people who would be near the top of their class wherever they go but because of background or disadvantages weren't able to make it to that level (yet)
Click to expand...

👍

I'd also add that for students who didn't start undergrad knowing they wanted to do medical school and/or weren't well informed about what it takes to get into school it can be an uphill battle to get together the necessary ECs if you're aiming for a top school.

I am fortunate enough to be at one of my top choices, but I didn't really become aware that ECs other than research mattered for med school admissions until almost the end of undergrad. I had to take time off to cobble together enough to be a reasonable candidate but I was still far from what might be considered HMS-material ECs.
 
qrstuv said:
My take:
On average, the students at the bigger name schools are probably smarter.

BUT, there is probably at least 1 student at pretty much every medical school who is smarter than some, if not many, of the students at places like Harvard, for example.

My rationale? Smart does not equal acceptance. You'd be surprised how much an interview matters. You can have stellar grades, MCAT, but if you're weird on an interview, you're not getting in. That same student might get into a lower tier medical school that's trying to boost their averages.

Additionally, MCAT/college grades do not equal smart. A lot of this has to do with preparation. Someone whose parents can afford to pay for their MCAT prep classes and doesn't have to work during college is probably going to get better grades and a higher MCAT score than a smarter person who may have a lot more hurdles to overcome (that's not a hard and fast rule, but overall). In my opinion there are a few of those types of people at nearly every med school: people who would be near the top of their class wherever they go but because of background or disadvantages weren't able to make it to that level (yet)
Click to expand...

i agree
i think that the average level is definitely higher at a top school. but even at a low tier school, there will be many people who can go head to head with any of those students. they're the ones that end up in a competitive field or at a competitive program if they want to.
if you have someone who was next in line on the waitlist at johns hopkins and didn't make it, does that make them worse than all the people at johns hopkins? what if a guy with a spot gets offered a full scholarship to rutgers decides to go there instead? if that lets the guy on the waitlist get into johns hopkins, does that make him smarter?
so i don't think it necessarily reflects on individuals because your success in medical school depends on your work ethic as well as your intelligence. pedigree is very nice to have though
 
Last edited:
No, people just end up where they end up. One could argue that they worked harder possibly, but even that is a bit iffy.

You could pose the same questions for students attending the best universities vs. small no-name colleges. However, you'll see people from Harvard and other prestigious universities ending up at some US schools without much accolades or a Caribbean school. Likewise, you'll see people that went to an extremely small college or somewhere that isn't very respected end up at some of the major medical programs.

I think getting into medical school has a pretty straightforward formula. So IMO it's just a matter of how early we as pre-meds found out about it in or before college and how much we adhered to that path on the way here.
 
Basically what everyone else said...

Grossly generalizing, the students at "top" schools are "smarter".

...but the formula gets mucked up once you start actually plugging in more and more variables.

Smart folk that don't care much about GPA -> not going to top schools.
Smart folk that had a random bad day on the MCAT -> not going to top schools.
Smart folk that didn't do anything for EC's -> not going to top schools.
Smart folk that admit to hating research -> not going to top schools.

Normal folk that get randomly lucky on MCAT -> going to top school.
Normal folk that manipulate their college courses to max GPA -> going to top school.

However, essentially, if you take a group of 100 students where the mcat average is a ~36 and compare them as a whole to a group of 100 students where the mcat average is a ~28...yeah there is something happening there.

None of these things really matter in becoming a decent doc -- if you get into any US MD school, you are more than adequate.

From my personal experience, I can roughly compare the "quality" of student body at a single T20 v. a single bottom-ranked MD (my undergrad alma mater):

The T20 is packed with people that you can tell are very smart and very hardworking. There are plenty of people in the class that are "extremely smart". No one really stands out at being "notably less smart" than the average. They have a lot of interesting and incredible experiences/accomplishments... I guess this makes sense because it is what the application process at these schools screen for. There is not a single student in my class that I can say with confidence "yeah, I'm smarter than him/her".

The bottom-ranked MD has some very smart people, too -- and maybe a couple "extremely smart" people in their class on par with the extremely smart people at any top school or even way smarter. However, on the whole, the students are smart enough to be there and are hardworking. There are some that are "notably less smart" than at T20 school. There are a decent selection of students that I can say with confidence "yeah, I'm smarter than him/her".

I have a pretty good sample for forming this conclusion -- based off of my undergrad peers + people I tutored in undergrad + current classmates.

That said, again I stress it doesn't really matter. If you are smart enough to get in you are smart enough to be a competent physician.
 
Last edited:
IMO, every school is +/- 0.5 standard deviations of each other. Med school is just full of stupid smart people.
 
probably....does it matter? no. It's a pretty silly comparison...for (almost)every person in the world in every profession, there is likely someone smarter and better at the said profession.

don't forget that med school application is a big game, and some people A. play the game better, or B. care more about whether or not they finish the game at the top as opposed to just finishing. I don't think overall intelligence is much of a factor in these two scenarios.
 
Geebeejay said:
probably....does it matter? no. It's a pretty silly comparison...for (almost)every person in the world in every profession, there is likely someone smarter and better at the said profession.

don't forget that med school application is a big game, and some people A. play the game better, or B. care more about whether or not they finish the game at the top as opposed to just finishing. I don't think overall intelligence is much of a factor in these two scenarios.
Click to expand...

And some people know the rules of the game in advance, whereas others don't get that list of rules 🙁
 
Geebeejay said:
probably....does it matter? no. It's a pretty silly comparison...for (almost)every person in the world in every profession, there is likely someone smarter and better at the said profession.

don't forget that med school application is a big game, and some people A. play the game better, or B. care more about whether or not they finish the game at the top as opposed to just finishing. I don't think overall intelligence is much of a factor in these two scenarios.
Click to expand...

Depends what game you are playing.

I'd say finishing at the top of 'the game' is getting the end career/specialty you want for the least effort. I doubt these include any Harvard grads.
 
monkeyMD said:
Do you think the students at a "better" known medical school are "smarter" than those at lesser known schools? For example, do you agree with the statement, "students at Harvard are much smarter than students at Temple?"

I was having a debate about this with my friend and we had some disagreements. Just wanted to find out what SDN population thinks about this.

If you agree or do not agree, state why.

ALSO,
What about this 2nd Q:
Do you feel that the students at the "better" known schools feel SUPERIOR to those at the lesser known school?
Click to expand...

Well, like Anastomoses said, there are likely multiple intelligences. By "better known" I assume you mean more competitive/highly ranked, etc. I would agree that on average, the academic intelligence of students who attend better known medical schools is greater than those who go to less known medical schools (as measured by GPA, MCAT scores, etc.). As for whether they feel superior, some people with numbers like that may have had substantial support being from a wealthy family background and thus are snootier, but it would be difficult to judge whether someone feels he or she is superior to someone else (basically you would get the same problem you get with surveys for research, i.e. people aren't entirely honest about their thoughts or feelings, or perhaps aren't even aware of them).
 
Bancrofti said:
You could pose the same questions for students attending the best universities vs. small no-name colleges. However, you'll see people from Harvard and other prestigious universities ending up at some US schools without much accolades or a Caribbean school. Likewise, you'll see people that went to an extremely small college or somewhere that isn't very respected end up at some of the major medical programs.

I think getting into medical school has a pretty straightforward formula. So IMO it's just a matter of how early we as pre-meds found out about it in or before college and how much we adhered to that path on the way here.
Click to expand...

I think you'd see a much bigger distinction for undergrad. Ivy undergrads as a rule are way more cultured, conceptual, analytical, coherent than your average state school attendee. From what I've seen the rift is much smaller for med students because of the culling process.
 
Anastomoses said:
I think you'd see a much bigger distinction for undergrad. Ivy undergrads as a rule are way more cultured, conceptual, analytical, coherent than your average state school attendee. From what I've seen the rift is much smaller for med students because of the culling process.
Click to expand...

I agree with this point. I see a more prominent difference btwn schools in regards to undergrads but not so much for the med students. 👍
 
notbobtrustme said:
IMO, every school is +/- 0.5 standard deviations of each other. Med school is just full of stupid smart people.
Click to expand...

Case in point: Step 1 averages:
Harvard 239
Temple 228

(typical SD is 15-25 points)

So, roughly, the bottom third at Harvard would be below average at Temple in terms of Step 1 score. Conversely, the top third at Temple would be above average at Harvard.

This is why residency programs care about class rank and AOA more than the name of your school.
 
To the OP:

I doubt it. I really think it all boils down to your work ethic. I went to college at a top university, and most of my friends and I had similar GPAs and ACT/SAT scores. Almost without exception, those who worked their asses off all the time got into the best med schools, and those who partied/chilled more ended up settling for a lesser school or missed the boat altogether. One of the smartest people I knew in high school (high school science fair winner, 3.9-ish HS GPA, 35 ACT) is currently at SGU, while my other buddy with similar high school stats worked hard and is now at Mayo.

As has been said before, there is no substitute for good grades. But you can't get good grades without a really great work ethic. All the intelligence in the world can give you an edge in high school maybe, but it won't help you at all in college if you've never learned the material.

Just my opinion.
 
I have had multiple interns/residents say repeatedly that they have been extremely impressed with the quality of the students as a whole at my school. There have also been multiple times when a resident will be impressed with what a classmate says and respond with "there's no way I would've known those things as a med student." And these are usually things that I would consider fairly basic.

Does that mean you'll be a better physician? I don't think so - there's still plenty of time to learn all this stuff, and I don't think that having a smaller knowledge base now means you're doomed to be a terrible doctor. Does that mean that the quality of training varies across institutions? Anecdotally, I'd have to say yes just based on discussions with trainees that went to a wide variety of different med schools.

Sent from my SGH-M919
 
If medical school admission was based on the smartness of the candidates, yes. But since they're not, there's really no hard and fast rule for this one. I think I would admit, as some other posters have said, you may have some not so smart students at some of the lower ranked schools, whilst at top tier schools, everyone is probably quite capable. But some of those lowers ranked schools might have top students that are miles above the rest of majority of the class at the top tier schools. Either way, it gets muddled.

Now, I guess if you want to compare individual scores or something, maybe that's different.
 
On average? Absolutely; I have no doubts in my mind that students at the top-20 schools consistently score higher on scientific aptitude exams. Does that mean that assumptions can be made about any particular individual at a top-20 school? No.
 
Etorphine said:
On average? Absolutely; I have no doubts in my mind that students at the top-20 schools consistently score higher on scientific aptitude exams. Does that mean that assumptions can be made about any particular individual at a top-20 school? No.
Click to expand...

But does that make them "smarter"? I think that's the real question, and I think the jury is out.
 
Geebeejay said:
But does that make them "smarter"? I think that's the real question, and I think the jury is out.
Click to expand...

yes it does

you might say "but wait! there are different kinds of intelligence blah blah blah"

we have tests for a reason. people who do better on tests can store more facts in their heads and are better at knowing/understanding concepts. this means they're smarter and the people who challenge that concept are the ones that don't like the implication that their poor performance on examinations is due to their lesser intelligence
 
yehhhboiii said:
yes it does

you might say "but wait! there are different kinds of intelligence blah blah blah"

we have tests for a reason. people who do better on tests can store more facts in their heads and are better at knowing/understanding concepts. this means they're smarter and the people who challenge that concept are the ones that don't like the implication that their poor performance on examinations is due to their lesser intelligence
Click to expand...

Yeahhhhhhh... I'm not convinced that doing well on any kind of standardized test (particularly step 1) is indicative of much. It says that you're good at doing that test, and that's all you can absolutely infer from it.
 
well yeah that's what i would expect to hear if, for example, someone spent all their time studying for a test and then didn't do as well as they thought they would
 
Based on my experience with residents and interns during 3rd year, I'd say that resident quality probably correlates well with medical school rank. So, I'd extrapolate that students at top schools are probably just more trainable and easier to work with on average. "Smarter" is tough to say, but generally they make "better" trainees.

But there are plenty of exceptions. Probably the most impressive resident I've worked with during 3rd year went to USF. Another was a DO. So these generalizations are ultimately not that useful.
 
KinasePro said:
Based on my experience with residents and interns during 3rd year, I'd say that resident quality probably correlates well with medical school rank. So, I'd extrapolate that students at top schools are probably just more trainable and easier to work with on average. "Smarter" is tough to say, but generally they make "better" trainees.

But there are plenty of exceptions. Probably the most impressive resident I've worked with during 3rd year went to USF. Another was a DO. So these generalizations are ultimately not that useful.
Click to expand...

Hi. What made the resident impressive?
 
Anastomoses said:
Hi. What made the resident impressive?
Click to expand...

Great with patients, seemed to know everything, talented teacher, trusted students with responsibility, enjoyable to be around, was very efficient w/ day-to-day work. Most residents have a few of those qualities but this one seemed to have them all.
 
yehhhboiii said:
well yeah that's what i would expect to hear if, for example, someone spent all their time studying for a test and then didn't do as well as they thought they would
Click to expand...

😎

And what if I did extremely well on a test and held the same opinion? This isn't limited to a particular exam - all standardized testing is just variable degrees of bull****. I agree that standardized testing demonstrates something, and I don't think it's completely useless, but arguing that someone is "smarter" (as you say) than someone else because they did better or worse on an exam is naive for a variety of reasons.

Edit: in the event you're interested in actually reading about some of the arguments against standardized testing check out the executive summary of this report: http://www.nacacnet.org/research/Pu...ce/Documents/TestingComission_FinalReport.pdf. That report discusses the SAT/ACT specifically, but many of the principles are, in my opinion, equally applicable to standardized testing as a general practice.
 
Last edited:
i'm not saying that they are a great measure but that there's a definite correlation with intelligence. not everyone who does well on the mcat will ace step 1. but these standardized tests are the best way to quickly compare people from very different backgrounds. how else are you going to do it? looking at how much hospital volunteering they did? the study you posted suggests that testing things that students learned in school would be a better measure of future success than the sat which tests math/english/writing. that's pretty much what step 1 does and you see that people at prestigious schools perform better
 
yehhhboiii said:
i'm not saying that they are a great measure but that there's a definite correlation with intelligence. not everyone who does well on the mcat will ace step 1. but these standardized tests are the best way to quickly compare people from very different backgrounds. how else are you going to do it? looking at how much hospital volunteering they did? the study you posted suggests that testing things that students learned in school would be a better measure of future success than the sat which tests math/english/writing. that's pretty much what step 1 does and you see that people at prestigious schools perform better
Click to expand...

But other than the assertion itself, what are you basing the bolded on? Your feelings? That's kind of my point. I don't disagree that standardized testing is a necessary evil and that it has it's utility - you're misstating what I'm saying in an attempt to make my point more ridiculous than what it is. What I am saying is that correlating performance on a single test composed of a set of randomized questions which cannot possibly evaluate the extent of your knowledge base or understanding - only the extent of your knowledge base and understanding of what was specifically asked on the particular exam you took - with general intelligence is misusing the data provided by the evaluation. This does not mean that testing is useless. This does not mean that we shouldn't use testing. What it does mean is that testing should be viewed in its proper context - as simply one way of evaluating certain competencies and, due to limitations in resources, only that - rather than inappropriately extrapolating data/trends/conclusions which the evaluation does not attempt nor claim to evaluate. You can interpret things however you want, but that does not mean that your interpretation is valid. And in this case, the issues I've brought above are known limitations of testing generally and standardized testing particularly. I'm not reinventing the wheel or saying anything profound here. The correlation between "intelligence" and testing performance is muddled by a huge variety of confounders, and even then the correlation is not 1. In the case of step 1, there is a very specific type of intelligence that is being measured (your ability to memorize and regurgitate a list of facts in addition to your ability to read). Whether you think that makes someone "smarter" is up to you I suppose.

Trying to make this personal and minimizing my argument by claiming these issues with testing are based on my anecdotal experience is not only somewhat pathetic but disagrees with basic tenets of educational research.
 
Last edited:
chronicidal said:
Case in point: Step 1 averages:
Harvard 239
Temple 228

(typical SD is 15-25 points)

So, roughly, the bottom third at Harvard would be below average at Temple in terms of Step 1 score. Conversely, the top third at Temple would be above average at Harvard.

This is why residency programs care about class rank and AOA more than the name of your school.
Click to expand...

Wildly untrue for several specialties, FYI. Program directors have out and out said that they add points and "Tier" schools. Not that school name will make up for crappy scores, but lower tier school candidates are at a disadvantage. Period.

NickNaylor said:
Yeahhhhhhh... I'm not convinced that doing well on any kind of standardized test (particularly step 1) is indicative of much. It says that you're good at doing that test, and that's all you can absolutely infer from it.
Click to expand...

You have a point that doing well on standardized tests is probably not 100% correlated to intelligence, although I'd say that seeing as everyone knows that we will be taking standardized tests for most of our medical school careers, not taking steps to improve one's standardized test taking skills is.....not intelligent. Unless the argument is being made that test taking is an intrinsic immutable skill.
 
Wordead said:
You have a point that doing well on standardized tests is probably not 100% correlated to intelligence, although I'd say that seeing as everyone knows that we will be taking standardized tests for most of our medical school careers, not taking steps to improve one's standardized test taking skills is.....not intelligent. Unless the argument is being made that test taking is an intrinsic immutable skill.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. And, again, I'm not saying that testing is useless: the MCAT is a mediocre predictor of step 1 performance, which is a mediocre predictor of step 2 performance, which is a mediocre predictor of step 3 performance - all of which are required to become a licensed physician. There have been studies which demonstrate that step 1 score is correlated with success in future training, but that shouldn't be surprising. I mean, if you're going to do well on standardized testing you're likely going to succeed in training, as you mentioned.

My issue is with the assertion the other guy above made, which flies in the face of what most experts in education agree with. Among those people the best you can usually get is a vague agreement with the idea that testing is weakly correlated with some very, very general notion of intelligence but often with huge caveats (namely, that while a correlation might exist, putting much stock in that correlation is foolish). The guy above seems to know something the experts don't. I'm curious to know what that is.
 
For colleges, this is mostly true. However the admissions process for medical school is so stringent that the gap between student bodies shouldn't be that much, although I am sure the average medical student at Hopkins is smarter than the average student at an unranked, low-tier medical school.
 
Wordead said:
Wildly untrue for several specialties, FYI. Program directors have out and out said that they add points and "Tier" schools. Not that school name will make up for crappy scores, but lower tier school candidates are at a disadvantage. Period.



You have a point that doing well on standardized tests is probably not 100% correlated to intelligence, although I'd say that seeing as everyone knows that we will be taking standardized tests for most of our medical school careers, not taking steps to improve one's standardized test taking skills is.....not intelligent. Unless the argument is being made that test taking is an intrinsic immutable skill.
Click to expand...

I actually strongly believe that being able to take standardized exams is not a skill everyone can "learn". There are bad test-taking habits, sure, but I think to some degree you have to have a good gut instinct for knowing the "most right" answer.

Either way, my residency program has a good mix of residents who were students from all manner of tiers of schools from low tier to top tier. We're all slightly different, have our own strengths and weaknesses, but nobody is particularly better than anyone else because they came from Hopkins or Harvard over a mid-tier state school.

Also as an aside you are 100% right that many residency programs do take into account where you went to school. It has little IMO to do with the quality of the students from there and more to do with having statistics on where your residents come from. I think it's a stupid system, but it is what it is.
 
Has anyone watched that Hopkins show? Sadly, I think you'll have your answer.
 
monkeyMD said:
Do you think the students at a "better" known medical school are "smarter" than those at lesser known schools?

Do you feel that the students at the "better" known schools feel SUPERIOR to those at the lesser known school?
Click to expand...

Ok, it really depends on whether you're asking a person from a top-ranked school (in which case the answer would be variations of "yes") or if you're asking a person from a lower-tier school (in which case the answer would be something to the effect of "no").

:laugh:
 
NickNaylor said:
Absolutely agree. And, again, I'm not saying that testing is useless: the MCAT is a mediocre predictor of step 1 performance, which is a mediocre predictor of step 2 performance, which is a mediocre predictor of step 3 performance - all of which are required to become a licensed physician. There have been studies which demonstrate that step 1 score is correlated with success in future training, but that shouldn't be surprising. I mean, if you're going to do well on standardized testing you're likely going to succeed in training, as you mentioned.

My issue is with the assertion the other guy above made, which flies in the face of what most experts in education agree with. Among those people the best you can usually get is a vague agreement with the idea that testing is weakly correlated with some very, very general notion of intelligence but often with huge caveats (namely, that while a correlation might exist, putting much stock in that correlation is foolish). The guy above seems to know something the experts don't. I'm curious to know what that is.
Click to expand...

Where are these studies?
 
monkeyMD said:
What about this 2nd Q:
Do you feel that the students at the "better" known schools feel SUPERIOR to those at the lesser known school?
Click to expand...

Some, obviously. Others just feel accomplished without looking down on others. Just like some people feel they are superior because they are doctors instead of nurses. Or someone with a 260 step 1 might feel superior to those under 240?

Does it matter? Superiority complexes are almost as much a headache to have as an inferiority complex. Almost.
 
I agree with some of the other post. I think there is more "consistency" in the quality of students at top schools. But, great students can come from any school.

I've found students from top schools tend to have more impressive resumes, i.e. more research, more interest in "non-grade based" achievements, which is important among top circles in medicine (i.e. someone who is going to make a broader impact in medicine, not just be a great clinician). There are pluses/minuses to fostering environments that promote that in medicine though, and it probably does impact your training experience in medicine.
 
NontradCA said:
Where are these studies?
Click to expand...

Yes. What are these studies? I think it would be very difficult to measure "success in medicine" given the definition of that is likely different for everyone.
 
mdeast said:
Yes. What are these studies? I think it would be very difficult to measure "success in medicine" given the definition of that is likely different for everyone.
Click to expand...

Well, that's also a problem with the whole discussion, including the studies that I alluded to. As far as I can tell, "success" usually consists of successfully completing residency and attaining board certification in whatever field the residency is in. Given that most people succeed in doing that regardless of their board score or any other factor once they start residency, it strikes me as an absolutely terrible measure of "success." Nonetheless, that's what we have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mr.Smile12
MD & DO New AAMC resource supports students along their medical school journey
Replies
1
Views
590
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
aricena318
What to do After Medical School
Replies
10
Views
2K
abc123412
A
PeterParker616
How do I excel in medical school?
Replies
1
Views
733
Goro
Goro
P
Current students at Colorado and Stony Brook?
Replies
0
Views
306
premedgirl888
P
V
Are med students at most schools allowed to put in orders?
Replies
25
Views
3K
DarkBluMage
D
Top