how important is your med school's ranking?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
hakksar said:
It is not true that "some med school has to be getting below the national average on step 1" The average for step one is derived from all takers of the exam. First of all since there are many people taking step 1 from foreign medical schools it is actually a lot less likely that an allopathic med school will average below the average on step 1. Second even if only US med school students took step 1 there is no guarantee that any med school would be below the average. All medical schools could have some people below the average and some above the average. They all could be right on the average or even above the average since the national average is based on individual student scores and not the average of schools. It is pretty basic statistics that prove that it is not true that "some med school has to be getting below the national average on step 1".

Actually, you seem to be a little confused about statistics. First off, I'm looking back at my Step 1 score report, and it says "The mean and standard deviation for first-time examinees from U.S. and Canadian medical schools are approximately 216 and 24." So, fmgs have no impact. I'm pretty sure osteopaths also don't have an impact, since they are lumped off in a separate category when the NBME reports the failure rate among first-time takers. Second off, I just gave you the Stanford average for the last four years (232), and so, your statement that basically boils down to "all the med schools might have similar means" is simply not the case.

Also, here is at least one med school that definitely has a below average Step 1 score--

http://www.nmanet.org/JMNA_Journal_Articles/Sept-05_jnma/OC1258.pdf

Apparently, Charles R Drew Medical School/Program (it's a UCLA offshoot for underserved populations) had a 24.8 average incoming student MCAT and a 194 average Step 1 score from 1992-2001 (that's not as bad as it looks, because the Step 1 national average has gone up from about 200 back in the early 90s when it was phased in to 216 today, probably due in large part to First Aid and other resources focusing studying on more high yield stuff).

Members don't see this ad.
 
WatchingWaiting said:
Actually, you seem to be a little confused about statistics. First off, I'm looking back at my Step 1 score report, and it says "The mean and standard deviation for first-time examinees from U.S. and Canadian medical schools are approximately 216 and 24." So, fmgs have no impact. I'm pretty sure osteopaths also don't have an impact, since they are lumped off in a separate category when the NBME reports the failure rate among first-time takers. Second off, I just gave you the Stanford average for the last four years (232), and so, your statement that basically boils down to "all the med schools might have similar means" is simply not the case.

Also, here is at least one med school that definitely has a below average Step 1 score--

http://www.nmanet.org/JMNA_Journal_Articles/Sept-05_jnma/OC1258.pdf

Apparently, Charles R Drew Medical School/Program (it's a UCLA offshoot for underserved populations) had a 24.8 average incoming student MCAT and a 194 average Step 1 score from 1992-2001 (that's not as bad as it looks, because the Step 1 national average has gone up from about 200 back in the early 90s when it was phased in to 216 today, probably due in large part to First Aid and other resources focusing studying on more high yield stuff).

Since I have not taken the USMLE yet I did not realize the averages are for US students only (my mistake). However, there is still no guarantee that there has to be some med schools below the national average (although there are probably some which are . . . but the stats you show are program wide not school wide . . . I am willing to bet UCLA is not below the national avg as a whole proving my point).

edit: I didn't say schools have similar means but I was trying to say that there is no guarantee that any school falls below the mean. Stanford does not have very many student (60 something is what I read in that article) whereas other med schools have a lot more (200 or so at some schools). The national average is taken from all US students and it is not like Thomas Jefferson (with close to 200 in their class) needs to be below the national avg to even out the amount that Stanford is above the avg since so many more students there take the exam.
 
hakksar said:
Since I have not taken the USMLE yet I did not realize the averages are for US students only (my mistake). However, there is still no guarantee that there has to be some med schools below the national average (although there are probably some which are . . . but the stats you show are program wide not school wide . . . I am willing to bet UCLA is not below the national avg as a whole proving my point).

edit: I didn't say schools have similar means but I was trying to say that there is no guarantee that any school falls below the mean. Stanford does not have very many student (60 something is what I read in that article) whereas other med schools have a lot more (200 or so at some schools). The national average is taken from all US students and it is not like Thomas Jefferson (with close to 200 in their class) needs to be below the national avg to even out the amount that Stanford is above the avg since so many more students there take the exam.

Here's a simple question for you-- if there is a .69 correlation between MCAT scores and Step 1 scores, and if Harvard, Stanford, UCSF, et al. have roughly 1 SD above national med student average incoming student MCAT scores and there is a collection of a dozen or so non-competitive state schools with 1 SD below national med student average MCAT scores, how exactly is it possible that there is not large variation between med school Step 1 performance? Here's your definitive summation from the AAMC on the value of Step 1 scores:

http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/research/bibliography/julia001.pdf

And, here's the bibliography on a bunch of compiled Step 1 research:

http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/research/bibliography/start.htm
 
Members don't see this ad :)
WatchingWaiting said:
Here's a simple question for you-- if there is a .69 correlation between MCAT scores and Step 1 scores, and if Harvard, Stanford, UCSF, et al. have roughly 1 SD above national med student average incoming student MCAT scores and there is a collection of a dozen or so non-competitive state schools with 1 SD below national med student average MCAT scores, how exactly is it possible that there is not large variation between med school Step 1 performance? Here's your definitive summation from the AAMC on the value of Step 1 scores:

http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/research/bibliography/julia001.pdf

And, here's the bibliography on a bunch of compiled Step 1 research:

http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/research/bibliography/start.htm

I understand what you are saying . . . the MCAT score is correlated with the USMLE score (I agree that several studies have shown this). It is also widely accepted that if schools teach to a test they do better on the USMLE regardless of the MCAT scores of the students when they come in. Rosalind Franklin has a MCAT average below the national average but USMLE scores above the national average so it is clear that MCAT scores alone cannot be used to determine a schools USMLE avg. There is no single resource that provides data on all schools avg USMLE scores so any statement like "there has to be schools with USMLE scores below the national avg" is unsupportable. The way you have been attempting to support it is by showing that MCAT scores are correlated with USMLE scores. However, while this correlation is certainly true you cannot assume that just because a school has an avg MCAT below the national avg that there USMLE avg is below the national avg (the same goes for above the national avg which is why there are rumors that Harvard has a very low USMLE score). An avg takes into account outliers which can bring an average way up or way down. Thus a school with most of the students scoring below the national average could be brought up with a few students scoring 250 plus. Also, a school with most students scoring above the national average could be brought way down by a few students scoring 185. There is no need for any school to be below the national average because even if the school had a low MCAT avg they could have an average or higher score if they teach to the USMLE especially if they had a few outliers on the USMLE which brings the USMLE score way up.

Ultimately you may be right but none of your statistics prove it . . . I don't disagree with the correlation with the MCAT . . . I disagree with the statement that "some schools have to be averaging below the national average" since the national average is not an average of all schools but rather of all test takers (so Stanford's 64 students doesn't effect the national average equally with Jefferson's 200 or Colorado's 132 as would have to be the case if "some schools have to be below the national average").
 
Hmm, well I have from a reliable source that Drexel's Step I average from last year was about 230. Take from that what you will. Their MCAT average has been between 29-31 for the past few years. (Okay, so I'm not SURE that this is the correct score. I heard it directly from a friend who is a 2nd year student who heard it directly from the dean, but theoretically one of us could have misheard the original information.)

I do think prestige matters. I'm not quite sure myself, yet, how much I think it matters. I do agree with TheProwler that we will probably never know. But if I get multiple acceptances, I'm going to have a hard time choosing between a school I might be happier at but has a lousy reputation, and a school with a great reputation that I probably won't be as happy at. These are hard decisions, and I'm sure the "right" answer is different for everybody and takes a lot of factors into account.

And truthfully, I'm not sure how much info can be gleaned from a match list, but Drexel's looks damn good to me. Funny, Jefferson's didn't look as good, but I also don't know the details of what programs are good for what specialties, or what those students' goals were in the first place (nor does anybody have all that info). So personally I'm still struggling with this issue of prestige.
 
WatchingWaiting said:
the first class entering the New Curriculum scored spectacularly on the USLME Step 1. Indeed, of the 64 students who took the exam, the pass rate was 100%, with a mean score of 237 and a median of 241. This is likely the highest score in the nation.

Just like to mention that when I interviewed at Penn, they also claimed to have the highest board scores in the nation for the last 4-5 years.
 
TheMightyAngus said:
Just like to mention that when I interviewed at Penn, they also claimed to have the highest board scores in the nation for the last 4-5 years.

Like I said, Stanford has been polling ~230 for the three years prior, which isn't the highest national average in the country. A 241 median/237 mean for the 2005 takers; however, could very well be. So, both points could be true. Also, there are 86 give or take a few students in each admitted class, so they don't have the scores from 20 or so students, which could still conceivably drag the mean/median back down to the low 230s average of years prior.

In any case, we're talking about very high average scores. It is kind of rough getting back a 240 and actually, technically, being in the bottom half of your class based on Step 1.
 
All this talk about the 5 point boost you're going to get on your USMLE's from going to Harvard rather than Yale is well and good, but let me remind you that factor which is going to make the most impact upon the rest of your life is your debt burden. If you have a trust fund or a wealthy uncle who's going to pay for your education then skip to the next post, but for the rest of us, it's a huge deal! If you go to one of the more expensive private med schools, you can easy wind up borrowing $165,000 before you factor in your cost of living versus less than $40,000 depending on the state school you attend. $120,000 is a lot of money for a name.
 
Hmmm... well, i would just like to counter that last post by saying that for a lot of people, the difference between public and private school debt is not so great. For me, my state school costs would have been around $24 per year, while my private school debt will be around $39-32K/year (for tuition). Now, even $8k per year is a lot, admittedly, but it's not the $120,000 difference you mentioned. It's actually important to rememeber when choosing schools that (a) not all state schools are dirt-cheap and (b) private schools often have better financial aid.

Also, I will disagree with you that debt (especially a difference of $30-40K) should be such a major consideration. It will all get paid off over the years, but the choice of a top school may open doors for you or provide you with an education you just wouldn't get at a state school. Personally, I went to my state school for college, and I have friends that went to some pretty elite private schools. We're all working/in grad school now, etc., but there was definetely some difference in their experience and in mine.

Anyway, just a thought that money shouldn't be all you consider, though of course if the difference is in the 6 digit range, it should be a stronger consideration.

Q
 
Top