How much do school rankings matter past a certain threshold?

[scienceguy95]

I see this issue come up occasionally on the School X vs. Y threads, but I was hoping to have a more focused discussion on this topic here. How much do medical school rankings (I'm talking about the USNWR research rankings) really matter after a certain threshold?

Obviously going to Harvard over a no-name state school will open more doors, but this is an extreme example that rarely applies to practical decision-making. The type of applicant who gets accepted to Harvard (or other top schools) usually has other excellent choices. This is the case I'm more interested in--and why I bring up the issue of thresholds. Does going to a top 5 medical school open more doors than a top 25 school generally speaking? Or does the top 25 really define a threshold past which decisions should primarily be driven by fit/finances without fear of opportunity cost?

I say generally because certainly each program has specific advantages (i.e., going to Harvard makes it easier to match to MGH/BWH residencies). But let's say we're talking about opportunities in general, even for competitive career tracks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Goro]

The tippy top of the top residency program seem to be as inbred as Alabama trailer parks, as they so like those Ivy league grads.

But opportunities in general, you fine at any MD school. The business of school ranking matters much much more to pre-meds and med school Deans.

 

[MDPedigree]

I was told at one of my med school interviews that with my credentials, had I gone to Princeton instead of a no name state school, I would have crawled into med school. The same works with applying to residency from med school.

 

[Anti-PD1]

We don't really have data on it but anecdotally more prestige always helps, all else being equal. The charting outcomes compare matching by going to a top 40 NIH funded med school vs. not, so the data is not granular.

If you're really curious, just look up the match lists of the schools you're considering. Going to Pitt vs JHU only makes a difference in very rare circumstances... anyone in medicine will tell you Pitt is tight.

 

[mwsapphire]

I was told at one of my med school interviews that with my credentials, had I gone to Princeton instead of a no name state school, I would have crawled into med school. The same works with applying to residency from med school.

I'm sorry...does that mean it would have been easier or harder? Princeton is known for grade deflation and a lot of people there get weeded out when they didn't need to be....

 

[BombsAway]

Could we equate it to X number of points on step 1? Is going to HMS over NYMC worth 5 or 10 points? If not, i don't see what all the fuss is about.

 

[aldol16]

Of course it matters. At every point in your life, working harder to raise yourself above your peers always puts you in a better position to excel. This was true with high school -> college and college -> medical school and it's going to be true for medical school -> residency. Some people cry foul and say it's "unfair" but if you worked hard to get there, you deserve to reap the benefits. In terms of residency, you're more likely to encounter somebody who can put in a call for you to a PD down the line and actually have the sway to influence the decision. If your attending was some PD's golf buddy back in medical school and they're besties, the PD is bound to listen to his or her buddy's opinion. Sure, there is some confounding with the best students going to the best schools but I think match lists speak for themselves.

As for stories of people who went to lower ranked schools and still managed to match into MGH or something, it's not impossible. It's just harder - again, like in every other application process you've gone through before.

 

[mwsapphire]

And what benefits to the tippy-top residencies actually afford you?
Does it really make a difference in helping sick people? You'll still be a doctor, and isn't that really what we all want? I just hate when people care about prestige so much that they can't really see why that matters.

 

[Spectar]

Could we equate it to X number of points on step 1? Is going to HMS over NYMC worth 5 or 10 points? If not, i don't see what all the fuss is about.

No you can't because you don't have proper standardized step 1 scores from each school. You also don't have mcat scores tied to step 1 scores so you can't see if it's "worth it" because you can't correlate anything

 

[Med Ed]

I see this issue come up occasionally on the School X vs. Y threads, but I was hoping to have a more focused discussion on this topic here. How much do medical school rankings (I'm talking about the USNWR research rankings) really matter after a certain threshold?

Obviously going to Harvard over a no-name state school will open more doors, but this is an extreme example that rarely applies to practical decision-making. The type of applicant who gets accepted to Harvard (or other top schools) usually has other excellent choices. This is the case I'm more interested in--and why I bring up the issue of thresholds. Does going to a top 5 medical school open more doors than a top 25 school generally speaking? Or does the top 25 really define a threshold past which decisions should primarily be driven by fit/finances without fear of opportunity cost?

I say generally because certainly each program has specific advantages (i.e., going to Harvard makes it easier to match to MGH/BWH residencies). But let's say we're talking about opportunities in general, even for competitive career tracks.

There is no singular answer. Someone interested in a research career may benefit from going as far up the food chain as possible. Same goes for someone who wants to be the youngest chair of CT surgery on the eastern seaboard. For someone who is interested in a competitive field but not very concerned about prestige or an academic career, any medical school with decent clinical training opportunities (and associated GME programs) will do.

 

[BombsAway]

No you can't because you don't have proper standardized step 1 scores from each school. You also don't have mcat scores tied to step 1 scores so you can't see if it's "worth it" because you can't correlate anything

Sorry, i don't think we're on the same page. I meant is the HMS vs NYMC (or wherever) advantage so great that we could quantify it in terms of points on step 1 that the NYMC grad would need to reach common footing for matching.

 

[scienceguy95]

There is no singular answer. Someone interested in a research career may benefit from going as far up the food chain as possible. Same goes for someone who wants to be the youngest chair of CT surgery on the eastern seaboard. For someone who is interested in a competitive field but not very concerned about prestige or an academic career, any medical school with decent clinical training opportunities (and associated GME programs) will do.

Right, and I think this is the issue that concerns me especially as someone who will be making a final decision in the next few months. That is, should I choose a top 5-10 medical school over top 20-25 schools that are cheaper (and possibly a better fit)? I don't feel comfortable potentially sacrificing opportunities as an aspiring academic physician.

I see a lot of conflicting opinions about this. Some say that after a certain threshold (say top 20-25), any differences in prestige are marginal at best and you should choose the school that is cheapest and best fit. Others (including in this thread) seem to be saying that the benefits of higher ranked schools go all the way to the tippy top. I wish there were more data to offer insights beyond what speculation can provide.

 

[Med Ed]

Right, and I think this is the issue that concerns me especially as someone who will be making a final decision in the next few months. That is, should I choose a top 5-10 medical school over top 20-25 schools that are cheaper (and possibly a better fit)? I don't feel comfortable potentially sacrificing opportunities as an aspiring academic physician.

I see a lot of conflicting opinions about this. Some say that after a certain threshold (say top 20-25), any differences in prestige are marginal at best and you should choose the school that is cheapest and best fit. Others (including in this thread) seem to be saying that the benefits of higher ranked schools go all the way to the tippy top. I wish there were more data to offer insights beyond what speculation can provide.

At the bottom of it is a fairly simple question: do you think that a top 5-10 versus a top 20-25 will be the deciding factor in your career? For all you know a better fit and less debt will translate into more opportunities down the road, not less.

 

[scienceguy95]

At the bottom of it is a fairly simple question: do you think that a top 5-10 versus a top 20-25 will be the deciding factor in your career? For all you know a better fit and less debt will translate into more opportunities down the road, not less.

Haha, if I knew the answer to that question, I don't think I would have made this thread.

 

[Spectar]

Sorry, i don't think we're on the same page. I meant is the HMS vs NYMC (or wherever) advantage so great that we could quantify it in terms of points on step 1 that the NYMC grad would need to reach common footing for matching.

Ahh I see. Thanks for the explanation.

The HMS vs NYMC advantage is great, but to be able to quantify it in terms of points on step 1 would be impossible. You would need so much data that isn't collected and there are too many confounding factors, the most important being self selection.

Right, and I think this is the issue that concerns me especially as someone who will be making a final decision in the next few months. That is, should I choose a top 5-10 medical school over top 20-25 schools that are cheaper (and possibly a better fit)? I don't feel comfortable potentially sacrificing opportunities as an aspiring academic physician.

I see a lot of conflicting opinions about this. Some say that after a certain threshold (say top 20-25), any differences in prestige are marginal at best and you should choose the school that is cheapest and best fit. Others (including in this thread) seem to be saying that the benefits of higher ranked schools go all the way to the tippy top. I wish there were more data to offer insights beyond what speculation can provide.

If within top 30ish, just go to better fit, c'mon it isn't that hard to realize that the difference in ranking isn't as important as fit.

Also sdn has a search function.... the responses aren't going to change based on when you make a post on the topic.

 

[MDPedigree]

I'm sorry...does that mean it would have been easier or harder? Princeton is known for grade deflation and a lot of people there get weeded out when they didn't need to be....

He was saying that had I had the same exact GPA, MCAT, EC's (I.e the only difference in my app is that my UG says Princeton) I would have had much more success when applying to med school.

 

[DBC03]

Just came here to post that I have the same question. And when you get into the mid-tiers, it seems to be even more confusing. If two schools are, say, 30 spots apart in ranking, it seems that might be considered a large enough difference to be taken into account. But what if they are less than 15 spots apart? There seems to be some arbitrary point where a lot of schools within a certain rank are similar enough.

Then there is the issue of fit - will going to a lower-ranked school with better "fit" help you thrive more so that you do better in school, possibly graduate at a higher rank, etc.? Or is there enough benefit to a higher-ranked school that graduating at a lower rank within your class is still a better position than higher in rank at a lower-tier school?

 

[scienceguy95]

Just came here to post that I have the same question. And when you get into the mid-tiers, it seems to be even more confusing. If two schools are, say, 30 spots apart in ranking, it seems that might be considered a large enough difference to be taken into account. But what if they are less than 15 spots apart? There seems to be some arbitrary point where a lot of schools within a certain rank are similar enough.

Then there is the issue of fit - will going to a lower-ranked school with better "fit" help you thrive more so that you do better in school, possibly graduate at a higher rank, etc.? Or is there enough benefit to a higher-ranked school that graduating at a lower rank within your class is still a better position than higher in rank at a lower-tier school?

I think arbitrary is the perfect description after a certain stage. I mean can we really say Wash U is a much better school than Cornell because of USNWR?

 

[Lawpy]

And what benefits to the tippy-top residencies actually afford you?
Does it really make a difference in helping sick people? You'll still be a doctor, and isn't that really what we all want? I just hate when people care about prestige so much that they can't really see why that matters.

Top residencies and top fellowships result in better job opportunities. Many job recruiters like to hire physicians with strong academic pedigree. This is true in private practice and academic settings.

 

[Microbug]

And what benefits to the tippy-top residencies actually afford you?
Does it really make a difference in helping sick people? You'll still be a doctor, and isn't that really what we all want? I just hate when people care about prestige so much that they can't really see why that matters.

So if you had option between Harvard and NYMC and you like students at NYMC better, you would choose....?
Ofc it matters.

 

[BombsAway]

Just came here to post that I have the same question. And when you get into the mid-tiers, it seems to be even more confusing. If two schools are, say, 30 spots apart in ranking, it seems that might be considered a large enough difference to be taken into account. But what if they are less than 15 spots apart? There seems to be some arbitrary point where a lot of schools within a certain rank are similar enough.

Then there is the issue of fit - will going to a lower-ranked school with better "fit" help you thrive more so that you do better in school, possibly graduate at a higher rank, etc.? Or is there enough benefit to a higher-ranked school that graduating at a lower rank within your class is still a better position than higher in rank at a lower-tier school?

same. im trying to decide between schools ranked ~10 vs ~30 vs ~50, and i dunno how much weight i should give to the "prestige" factor for later on in my career. Like, I don't know what i don't know. you know?

 

[Microbug]

same. im trying to decide between schools ranked ~10 vs ~30 vs ~50, and i dunno how much weight i should give to the "prestige" factor for later on in my career. Like, I don't know what i don't know. you know?

I say drop the ~50, and go to ~30 if you truly love the school and students more or if family/SO. All else equal, go to ~10.

 

[tryingtobeanasiandoc]

What about if a school is ranked in the low 80's vs a school in the mid 30's? OOS tuition would also be 3x more expensive in the mid 30's school - what would y'all pick?

 

[MDhopeful324]

I'll throw another factor into the mix that I currently wondering about: matching into particular state for residency. From what I've seen on match lists and heard from friends, mentors, and other physicians, attending a CA med school typically results in matching into a CA residency program. Of course, not saying that other programs will close any doors either.
That being said, UCLA and UCSF aside, lower ranked UC (40s) versus other higher midtiers (20-30s): What would your choice be?

 

[onyxbell]

Sorry to complicate things, but what if the top 25 throws a full ride scholarship at you vs zilch from the top 5?

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

The people for who a top 5 over a top 25 matter are the people who don’t need to ask questions about it. The top 5 will have very specific opportunities available that those applicants will know about when they make their decision. I’m talking about stuff like pursuing research with Dr. X who is renowned in their field, doing residency at X hospital (MGH we’ll say), or pursuing a very specific career track that the top 5 will make easier (like the example of being the youngest CT Chair on the eastern seaboard).

For the average joe (if you can even call someone who gets into a top 25 medical school average) who doesn’t necessarily have any specific career track in mind, and just wants a great medical education and all the opportunities that come with that there really isn’t a difference between going to UCSF over Northwestern. Saving some money and going where you fit best could actually end up opening more doors down the road. Doors definitely won’t be closed.

Could we equate it to X number of points on step 1? Is going to HMS over NYMC worth 5 or 10 points? If not, i don't see what all the fuss is about.

I’d take a 230 at HMS over a 260 at NYMC any day of the week.

 

[Lawpy]

Sorry to complicate things, but what if the top 25 throws a full ride scholarship at you vs zilch from the top 5?

There are several people each year who drop the full ride from Top 25 and go into debt at Top 5 schools. This has to do with very specific career goals that they want to pursue. Top 5 schools have the best of the best researchers and leaders in medicine, and working with them throughout school and gathering powerful connections can be a huge attraction for a lot of people.

Sure a few people drop a full ride at Penn to go to Harvard/Stanford/Hopkins at full price but that could be because their favorite researchers and clinicians are working in those places. It's hard to say and becomes really specific to personal goals.

For someone thinking only generally, a full ride at top 25 is probably a better choice. But it's not like going to Top 5 will result in massive debt that can't be paid off. A lot of schools give generous need based aid but even if you're stuck in debt, the long term rewards will make debt repayment a lot faster and smoother.

 

[scienceguy95]

But I think this implies that top 25 schools don’t have leaders in medicine and the best researchers. The USNWR rankings aren’t an objective metric about which schools are better. It is a weighted formula that gives significant advantages to schools for some reasons that aren’t entirely relevant for career advancement (e.g., selectivity).

Personally, if I had a full ride to a to 20-25, it would take a lot of convincing to have me choose a top 5 school for full cost. Unless of course that top 5 school was a better fit or had very specific opportunities I was interested in. But I really don’t think choosing the cheaper option in this scenario would be an opportunity cost.

 

[mwsapphire]

So if you had option between Harvard and NYMC and you like students at NYMC better, you would choose....?
Ofc it matters.

To a point.
Like, comparing Pitt and Harvard seems kind of moot.
Not to mention, if you couldn't make it to Pitt or Harvard but made it to Albany, would you feel like you didn't "make it" and that you won't have the opportunities you want in life? Is it holding you back ? What's the difference between the best residency and a more mid tier residency? ( outside of Academic medicine, I mean just in private practice).

 

[Microbug]

To a point.
Like, comparing Pitt and Harvard seems kind of moot.
Not to mention, if you couldn't make it to Pitt or Harvard but made it to Albany, would you feel like you didn't "make it" and that you won't have the opportunities you want in life? Is it holding you back ? What's the difference between the best residency and a more mid tier residency? ( outside of Academic medicine, I mean just in private practice).

It is about the exposure. The exposure you get to top-notched science and resources at these top places is invalueable. Even as a physician who will go into private practice, it is also part of your job to stay on top of current research in your field. How can you tell what’s good research and what’s bad if you haven’t had the proper exposure to them. In a way, you can be doing your patients a disservice by not keeping on top of things.
I would agree that if it’s Pitt vs Harvard, then just go to the one you would’ve happier at but if it’s something ridiculous like Top20 vs 50 out, then that’s a no brained.

 

[Med Ed]

So if you had option between Harvard and NYMC and you like students at NYMC better, you would choose....?

Trick question, nobody likes Valhalla.

 

[WingedOx]

The people for who a top 5 over a top 25 matter are the people who don’t need to ask questions about it. The top 5 will have very specific opportunities available that those applicants will know about when they make their decision. I’m talking about stuff like pursuing research with Dr. X who is renowned in their field, doing residency at X hospital (MGH we’ll say), or pursuing a very specific career track that the top 5 will make easier (like the example of being the youngest CT Chair on the eastern seaboard).

For the average joe (if you can even call someone who gets into a top 25 medical school average) who doesn’t necessarily have any specific career track in mind, and just wants a great medical education and all the opportunities that come with that there really isn’t a difference between going to UCSF over Northwestern. Saving some money and going where you fit best could actually end up opening more doors down the road. Doors definitely won’t be closed.



I’d take a 230 at HMS over a 260 at NYMC any day of the week.

Of course your typical pre-matriculant has poor grasp of what their career goals will ultimately be a decade later, regardless of their abilities.

 

[Lawpy]

Of course your typical pre-matriculant has poor grasp of what their career goals will ultimately be a decade later, regardless of their abilities.

That's why this situation doesn't apply to a typical applicant. It's only a select few who have these goals.

But I think this implies that top 25 schools don’t have leaders in medicine and the best researchers. The USNWR rankings aren’t an objective metric about which schools are better. It is a weighted formula that gives significant advantages to schools for some reasons that aren’t entirely relevant for career advancement (e.g., selectivity).

Personally, if I had a full ride to a to 20-25, it would take a lot of convincing to have me choose a top 5 school for full cost. Unless of course that top 5 school was a better fit or had very specific opportunities I was interested in. But I really don’t think choosing the cheaper option in this scenario would be an opportunity cost.

Every school has good researchers and leaders in medicine but the Top 5 distinguished themselves in very unique ways. For those few accepted applicants whose very specific goals matter, going to a Top 5 is a better deal.

For most applicants, it's probably better to go for a cheaper option that's a good fit.

 

[scienceguy95]

That's why this situation doesn't apply to a typical applicant. It's only a select few who have these goals.



Every school has good researchers and leaders in medicine but the Top 5 distinguished themselves in very unique ways. For those few accepted applicants whose very specific goals matter, going to a Top 5 is a better deal.

For most applicants, it's probably better to go for a cheaper option that's a good fit.

I'm not disagreeing with the general notion that higher ranked schools have concrete advantages, but I still find your opinion a little puzzling. You say the "top 5" have distinguished themselves in a special way. But why the top 5? Why not the top 3? Why not the top 7? Under your criteria, Penn has distinguished themselves more so than Columbia. Is it because 5 is a nice number?

This is why my feeling is it that rankings become arbitrary after a certain threshold. This is particularly evident when you consider the fact that these rankings can change slightly from year-to-year. Michigan wasn't in the top 10 one or two years ago. Does their slight boost in the rankings to the top 10 reflect some fundamental advantage the school now confers over a top 10-20 program? I don't think so.

This is also why I wanted to focus this discussion around thresholds. When do differences in ranking become somewhat arbitrary, or at the very least an insignificant factor in comparison to finances and fit? You seem to be saying the top 5, but that seems to be far too high to me.

 

[Microbug]

I'm not disagreeing with the general notion that higher ranked schools have concrete advantages, but I still find your opinion a little puzzling. You say the "top 5" have distinguished themselves in a special way. But why the top 5? Why not the top 3? Why not the top 7? Under your criteria, Penn has distinguished themselves more so than Columbia. Is it because 5 is a nice number?

This is why my feeling is it that rankings become arbitrary after a certain threshold. This is particularly evident when you consider the fact that these rankings can change slightly from year-to-year. Michigan wasn't in the top 10 one or two years ago. Does their slight boost in the rankings to the top 10 reflect some fundamental advantage the school now confers over a top 10-20 program? I don't think so.

This is also why I wanted to focus this discussion around thresholds. When do differences in ranking become somewhat arbitrary, or at the very least an insignificant factor in comparison to finances and fit? You seem to be saying the top 5, but that seems to be far too high to me.

dude, you're thinking way to hard about this. There is also no way to draw the line you want. Just pick the school you'll be most happy at while taking into consideration of support system/cost/family/future career goals and etc.

 

[Lawpy]

I'm not disagreeing with the general notion that higher ranked schools have concrete advantages, but I still find your opinion a little puzzling. You say the "top 5" have distinguished themselves in a special way. But why the top 5? Why not the top 3? Why not the top 7? Under your criteria, Penn has distinguished themselves more so than Columbia. Is it because 5 is a nice number?

This is why my feeling is it that rankings become arbitrary after a certain threshold. This is particularly evident when you consider the fact that these rankings can change slightly from year-to-year. Michigan wasn't in the top 10 one or two years ago. Does their slight boost in the rankings to the top 10 reflect some fundamental advantage the school now confers over a top 10-20 program? I don't think so.

This is also why I wanted to focus this discussion around thresholds. When do differences in ranking become somewhat arbitrary, or at the very least an insignificant factor in comparison to finances and fit? You seem to be saying the top 5, but that seems to be far too high to me.

Top 5 = Harvard, Stanford, Hopkins, UCSF and Penn. But of these 5, only Penn gives merit aid which some people turn down to attend the other 4. You're right, Penn isn't any better than Columbia, WashU, Duke or Michigan, so probably a more accurate term is Top 4 for only Harvard/Stanford/Hopkins/UCSF which in fact are truly the best in the US. And these schools have no reason to give merit aid that other top schools love to give since they know the best students will come to them paying full price (although they still give generous need based aid).

US News Rankings isn't the best resource, so a lot of this is based on subjective perceptions on what schools are actually the best. I'm not sure whether there are objective data that quantify these perceptions, but general trends show that Harvard/Stanford/Hopkins/UCSF separate themselves from the rest in a unique way. Harvard of course will always be #1 and it's unlikely any school will be able to oust them

Again, I think we're discussing semantics on something that doesn't apply to most people. Only few applicants of thousands who get accepted each year find themselves in this lucky position of deciding between top schools option but they have very specific and very certain goals in mind that sway them to pick Harvard/Stanford/Hopkins/UCSF over rest of the schools, even if it means they turn down full rides and take on debt.

 

[DokterMom]

I think arbitrary is the perfect description after a certain stage. I mean can we really say Wash U is a much better school than Cornell because of USNWR?

Cornell's reputation is much more widely known outside of medical elite circles than Wash U's, and Cornell has an Ivy League patina that Wash U's midwestern roots can't quite touch. Rightly or wrongly.

Top residencies and top fellowships result in better job opportunities. Many job recruiters like to hire physicians with strong academic pedigree. This is true in private practice and academic settings.

I live in a large city and have visited a large number and variety of medical facilities in different parts of the city. Some are truly world class, some cater to Medicaid and the uninsured, some in working-class suburbs and some in very exclusive enclaves. By and large, the diplomas on the wall reflect the prestige of the particular locale or affluence of the neighborhood. Take from that what you will...

So are there differences? Of course. How important are those differences? Well, that's a personal judgement. I'd ask separate questions and rate the differences on a scale of 'insignificant, small, medium or large. What is the difference in:

• prestige
  
• perceived fit
• cost of attendance (after grants)
• proximity to family/loved ones/preferred geography
• specific opportunities (research, training)

 

[pioneer22]

I'm sorry...does that mean it would have been easier or harder? Princeton is known for grade deflation and a lot of people there get weeded out when they didn't need to be....

This is a lie. Princeton got rid of deflation years ago. Grading at Princeton | Office of the Dean of the College

 

[PhilzCoffeeAddict]

This is from my personal experience... coming from a big name school matters. Not because of the education but because of peoples' views of big name schools. They hear the name and they assume you're a strong candidate. Saying you're from University of Montana doesn't help strike up a conversation as saying you're from Harvard. That's my opinion. I'm sure other people have other opinions. I would kill to go to an ivy league but I'm not a strong enough candidate therefore I'm going to a mid tier school.

 

[scienceguy95]

Top 5 = Harvard, Stanford, Hopkins, UCSF and Penn. But of these 5, only Penn gives merit aid which some people turn down to attend the other 4. You're right, Penn isn't any better than Columbia, WashU, Duke or Michigan, so probably a more accurate term is Top 4 for only Harvard/Stanford/Hopkins/UCSF which in fact are truly the best in the US. And these schools have no reason to give merit aid that other top schools love to give since they know the best students will come to them paying full price (although they still give generous need based aid).

US News Rankings isn't the best resource, so a lot of this is based on subjective perceptions on what schools are actually the best. I'm not sure whether there are objective data that quantify these perceptions, but general trends show that Harvard/Stanford/Hopkins/UCSF separate themselves from the rest in a unique way. Harvard of course will always be #1 and it's unlikely any school will be able to oust them

Again, I think we're discussing semantics on something that doesn't apply to most people. Only few applicants of thousands who get accepted each year find themselves in this lucky position of deciding between top schools option but they have very specific and very certain goals in mind that sway them to pick Harvard/Stanford/Hopkins/UCSF over rest of the schools, even if it means they turn down full rides and take on debt.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. There was a time when Penn was in the top 4 (and I'm sure they could return to those ranks again in the next few years). Also, how highly ranked a school is and whether they give merit aid isn't directly correlated. Penn is quite generous, but lower ranked schools like Yale and Pittsburgh don't have merit aid either. It seems like you are saying the top 4 schools are the best because they are ranked as such by USNWR, rather than the top 4 USNWR schools are ranked that way because they are the best.

I definitely think an exception to all of this (and where you are correct) is Harvard. For better or worse, Harvard's name recognition and institutional influence have penetrated far beyond academia, so de-throning them will be next to impossible. Harvard will always be #1 because they are Harvard, full stop. What's more, attending HMS will probably open more doors for you than any other medical school in the country. But beyond Harvard? I don't buy Hopkins or certainly UCSF open any doors that another top 20 school can't also open for you just as easily.

 

[Lawpy]

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. There was a time when Penn was in the top 4 (and I'm sure they could return to those ranks again in the next few years). Also, how highly ranked a school is and whether they give merit aid isn't directly correlated. Penn is quite generous, but lower ranked schools like Yale and Pittsburgh don't have merit aid either. It seems like you are saying the top 4 schools are the best because they are ranked as such by USNWR, rather than the top 4 USNWR schools are ranked that way because they are the best.

I definitely think an exception to all of this (and where you are correct) is Harvard. For better or worse, Harvard's name recognition and institutional influence has penetrated far beyond academia, so de-throning them will be next to impossible. Harvard will always be #1 because they are Harvard, full stop. What's more, attending HMS will probably open more doors for you than any other medical school in the country. But beyond Harvard? I don't buy Hopkins or certainly UCSF open any doors that another top 20 school can't also open for you just as easily.

I can agree with this

 

[Dr.Sticks]

My hypothesis is that as long as you went to a medical school with solid clinical at a reputable(statewide) academic center that sees a variety of diverse and complex cases, it doesn't matter past that. Rather what matters is your ability to excel. Naturally the students at top schools often have top percentile MCAT scores, so it shouldn't be surprising they have higher STEP scores which allows them to match more prestigiously.

So I am willing to wager that a student that got accepted to say Harvard and instead went to whatever is the most barrel med school(nothing foreign), that student would match just as well as a Harvard grad.


Anyways; Personally I don't care about ranks..
I want to be the only doctor within a 100 mile radius, and the town sheriff too...
Those are my goals

 

[WingedOx]

So I am willing to wager that a student that got accepted to say Harvard and instead went to whatever is the most barrel med school(nothing foreign), that student would match just as well as a Harvard grad.

I mean, probably not, that Harvard name carries a lot of weight. The chair of my residency would have ranked first an applicant who spent the whole interview day talking about how much he hates people and medicine if it meant having another HMS grad on the "current residents" page.

...but I don't think that's the important comparison.

If you were to ask where the similar applicants are 10 years into their careers, that's where you start to lose the difference. The climb to the top of the academic tree is a harsh one, and it takes a certain type of masochist to want to climb it. I'm not exactly jealous of the people I know who work at Mass General.

 

[aldol16]

So I am willing to wager that a student that got accepted to say Harvard and instead went to whatever is the most barrel med school(nothing foreign), that student would match just as well as a Harvard grad.

That is most likely not true for a multitude of different reasons. The first is that Harvard residencies, which happen to be of the best sort in almost all specialties, tend to like Harvard students. I think the stat was that around half of the end up staying at Harvard for residency. Even somebody from Stanford or UCSF or Penn is going to have a harder time matching at Harvard. The second reason is that you have to assume that wherever this student goes, he or she will be presented with the kind of opportunities that he or she would be presented with at Harvard that allows him or her to match well down the road. And this is almost certainly not true. I don't now if anybody has looked at research output for students at top med schools compared to students at lower-ranked schools but highly-ranked research schools are highly ranked for a reason. If given a similar set of opportunities as a Harvard student, a student going to any medical school can match well - I agree. But opportunities are not the same. Nor is the teaching/learning experience.

 

[aldol16]

This is a lie. Princeton got rid of deflation years ago. Grading at Princeton | Office of the Dean of the College

I believe Princeton got rid of that in 2014 so the effects of that are just now leveling out. That is, the last cohort of freshmen to be affected was the cohort to enter in fall of 2013 and many of those are on gap years/taking time off prior to applying to med school. Remember that most pre-meds take the pre-med required courses early on in the undergraduate curriculum so grade deflation was still a thing when they took those classes.

Further, if you look at the actual data, you'll see that the official grade deflation policy actually didn't affect most of the science departments - the departments that are most relevant to pre-meds. Princeton already deflated grades in the sciences as an unwritten rule relative to its peer institutions (with the exception of MIT) prior to and after the grade deflation policy. An official policy isn't needed for grade deflation to be occurring.

 

[DBC03]

I believe Princeton got rid of that in 2014 so the effects of that are just now leveling out. That is, the last cohort of freshmen to be affected was the cohort to enter in fall of 2013 and many of those are on gap years/taking time off prior to applying to med school. Remember that most pre-meds take the pre-med required courses early on in the undergraduate curriculum so grade deflation was still a thing when they took those classes.

Further, if you look at the actual data, you'll see that the official grade deflation policy actually didn't affect most of the science departments - the departments that are most relevant to pre-meds. Princeton already deflated grades in the sciences as an unwritten rule relative to its peer institutions (with the exception of MIT) prior to and after the grade deflation policy. An official policy isn't needed for grade deflation to be occurring.

I can confirm that Princeton was grade deflating in the science and engineering departments before the official policy began, and will continue after the policy ended.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[mcathelpomg]

I think that overall it's very clear that US News rankings are not very useful except in very broad strokes. Mayo is the standout example, but there are many other examples of overrated schools and underrated schools.

I think a lot of people forget that within the cohort of "top" schools, there is tremendous variation in their individual unique emphases, strengths, and weaknesses. If I were to make a general system that took into account these broad categories, I would put something like this, a general classification system based on the top 20 USNWR schools given their unique emphases and strengths. I have put some schools in multiple categories as they clearly fit more than one. Harvard fits almost all of these except rural powerhouses in at least some fashion. All are listed in my own personal gestalt order.

I personally disagree that Stanford, UCSF, and Hopkins stand out uniquely above Penn, Columbia, Duke, and WashU at least-- US News just happens to capture what those schools are good at pretty well (look at Stanford's meteoric US News rankings rise due to lobbying of US news to use grant funding per faculty member-- shows that the rankings can be gamed). There is an argument to be made that it's really Harvard/Hopkins, Stanford/UCSF, Penn/Columbia/Duke, WashU/Mich imo but honestly the marginal differences are so small as to be insignificant other than Harvard imo.

1. Harvard. We've discussed why Harvard is number one and I think no matter what Harvard will top the list, unless you are an MD/PhD candidate who wants to do research specifically with one faculty member at another one of the institutions below, or if you are super interested in inner-city underserved health, in which case the below schools in the "inner-city" category could reasonably be justified as better. Harvard basically fits all of these, even inner-city, to some extent, except for rural powerhouses though.

2. Basic and Translational research powerhouses. These schools are particularly apt at basic and translational research and successful at integrating them into their curricula. These schools also tend to produce a large number of clinician scientists and academics, and tend to match an overwhelming number of their class to top academic residencies:

1. Stanford 2. Duke, 2. WashU, 2.Hopkins, 5. UCSF, 6. Yale 7. Pitt, 8. Cornell

3. Schools with phenomenal inner-city clinical experience and focus on urban underserved. These schools have a reputation for producing students with very strong independent clinical skills, and send a decent number less to academic residencies and careers. Some of these schools produce a lot of students who pursue procedural specialties.

1. Columbia, 1. Penn, 1. Hopkins, 4. Pritzker 5. Northwestern

4. Schools with a reputation for attracting amazing clinical faculty who perform strong clinical (as opposed to translational or basic) research.

1. Mayo 1. UCSF 2. Hopkins 3. Penn 4. Michigan 5. Stanford 6. UCLA

5. Schools with a strong rural health emphasis

1. UWash 2. Duke 2. Mayo 4. Vandy 5. UCSD 6. WashU

 

[WingedOx]

3. Schools with phenomenal inner-city clinical experience and focus on urban underserved.

4. Pritzker 5. Northwestern

As a Chicagoan, I rolled my eyes a bit at these, particularly the latter.

 

[enchantediris]

As a Chicagoan, I rolled my eyes a bit at these, particularly the latter.

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion about U Chicago’s involvement with underserved communities? I was under the impression that service was important to them when I interviewed, which is one of the reasons I liked the school so much. Is that not the case in practice?

 

[WingedOx]

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion about U Chicago’s involvement with underserved communities? I was under the impression that service was important to them when I interviewed, which is one of the reasons I liked the school so much. Is that not the case in practice?

I mean, once you get beyond the Hyde Park/Kenwood areas, the local patient base for UC is a lot of low SES patients, so you'll certainly not have any shortage of experience working with them, but as an institution they aren't exactly jumping out of their seats to treat the greater South Side. (hardly a situation unique to UC though).

Nortwestern Memorial is one of the ritziest hospitals I've ever set foot in.