Importance of small differences in institutional reputation?

[klokov]

---

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?

 

[Fencer]

A 10 point difference in your step 1 would be more important. There is great quality of potential neuroscience mentors in both institutions, with greater quantity at UCLA. It will depend on who is your mentor and how productive you are in your research.