Importance of small differences in institutional reputation?

Started by klokov
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

klokov

New Member
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Hi all,

Currently deciding between UCLA/Vanderbilt for normal MD admissions; however, I've been considering attempting to transfer in to the respective MSTP programs. Even if I don't, I'm interested in a research career and will probably take a research year at least.

I know that UCLA and Vanderbilt have similar residency director reputation scores and are probably on a similar tier in general. However, for my interests at least (neuroscience, neuroimaging) it seems that UCLA offers advantages for research reputation, number of relevant faculty, and achievement level/pull of those faculty.

My question is: how important are these smaller differences in reputation? Is it adequate to train at a reasonably strong institution with reasonably strong faculty, with a focus on developing a broadly applicable understanding of how to be an independent investigator? Or is it worth it to try to gain every possible advantage and find someone with slightly more connections/suction, who can train you in slightly more innovative methods and get your papers into slightly higher impact journals?