NIH RANKINGS for MED SCHOOLS...Check out your schools...below

[OneStrongBro]

As you know, US NEWS and WORLD report's methodology is heavily based on surveys and questions i.e subjective.

The NIH MED SCHOOL ranking is based on research funding to specific MED SCHOOLS. The assumption is that NIH funding of specific med schools is correlated to academic prestige. Granted, this does not take into consideration actual teaching at each instiution. However, this would be impossible to compare across different schools.

Enjoy.

1. MED SCHOOL RANKINGS
http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/award/rank/medschrank00.txt

2. DEPARTMENTAL RANKINGS i.e Cardiology of UCSF vs UCLA etc..
[url]http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/award/rank/medschdptrank00.txt[/url]

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[UCSBPre-Med]

Hey Bro, those aren't NIH rankings. Those are just the amount of "Research dollars" given to a particular school.

Just because a school prides itself on Primary care and not research, does not mean its not a good school. The NIH "rankings" as you call them, are just a rank of how much cash they give to different schools.

 

[DW]

plus....private funding is not mentioned here (i.e. think Mayo).......

 

[OneStrongBro]

Two interesting notes.

Actually, this list looks very similar to USNEWS and World Reports.

No wonder Rush charges so much for Tuition. They receive virtually nil from NIH. The professors at RUSH BETTER teach good classes because they are doing little or nothing in BENCH SCIENCE.

Also, why in the world is University of Colorado charging $65,000 plus for out of state tuition when they are in the top twenty for NIH funding? I bet the professors have a second house in the ski slopes of ASPEN and Vail.

 

[OneStrongBro]

GREAT point UCSB, your argument was already addressed. Actual teaching is impossible to compare unless we had percentage that pass USMLE board I and II. As for Board II, I think virtually all med schools are at or near 100%(thus it is statistically useless). Thus, I think Board I is a better way to compare scores.

Also, I must remind you that NIH will not alienate anyone by making an official ranking of med schools. However, I think it is fair to say that NIH prefers institutions with quality research. The best way to quantify this is by research dollars. Ask any scientist, NIH funding is the BEST.

DW, you are absolutely right on private funding. However, NIH is the gold standard that is used by all research institutions. I think the private funding is a good argument. However, NIH funding is the currency that SCIENTISTs use to compare STRENGTH of research.

As an aside, I think MAYO has a wonderful residency program in most medical specialties. However, I am not convinced about the medical school though(i.e Top Twenty).


One last thing, I think the TOP TEN is very congruent with what most of us believe are TOP TEN MED SCHOOLS.

 

[UCSBPre-Med]

Originally posted by OneStrongBro

However, I must remind you that NIH will not alienate anyone by making an official ranking of med schools. However, I think it is fair to say that NIH prefers institutions with quality research. The best way to quantify this is by research dollars. Ask any scientist, NIH funding is the BEST.

The NIH might prefer institutions with quality research, but not everyone else does. Sure, research gives schools name recognition, but its not for everyone.

I want to be a primary care physician, helping out the people of Northern California. Not some big researcher working in a lab all day. There's nothing wrong with that of course, but I think there are a significant number of Pre-Meds who care more about the quality of their clinical education versus how much research their school does.

Take UC Davis for example. Not even in the Top 50 in research programs. But they are in the top 50 in terms of Primary Care. For someone who wants to make a difference one life at a time, thats all that matters.

 

[OneStrongBro]

Hey man, whatever floats your boat.

 

[ccCrazie]

Duke 11? Harvard 18? Cornell 33? Doesn't sound like my rankings...

 

[SolidGold]

No private or state research funding listed, only federal NIH $$$, not truly accurate measure of research funding.

I think all rankings are a little bogus because each one has its own inaccuracies and biases.

One person's top choice might be someone elses last choice.

 

[Vader]

This also represents fiscal year 2000. The data change from year to year.

By the way, many scientists do not receive research funding from NIH grants, especially those not at medical schools. There are many other available sources, i.e. National Academy of Sciences, Howard Hughes, etc. NIH grants typically are designed for medically-relevant research (basic, clinical, translational, etc).

Even for the NIH grants, there is more to the story than simply the "quality of research". Funding is broken down by department and the number of faculty is another factor. It is possible to have small departments with excellent faculty researchers.

 

[S.c. Cdc28p]

Originally posted by ccCrazie
Duke 11? Harvard 18? Cornell 33? Doesn't sound like my rankings...

NIH grants to affliated hospitals are not counted; hence, 18th place for HMS. I do think that the strength of the affliated institutions should be taken into account because those institutions are considered part of the medical school, and students do take advantage of those extra resources. My lab is at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, and I know that many of my classmates conduct research at Children's, MGH, Beth Israel, etc...

 

[TroutBum]

Originally posted by OneStrongBro

Also, why in the world is University of Colorado charging $65,000 plus for out of state tuition when they are in the top twenty for NIH funding? I bet the professors have a second house in the ski slopes of ASPEN and Vail.

This is a ridiculously unfair comment. Colorado does charge a lot for out of state tuition, which, like at all other state schools, drops down to in-state after the first year, so the cost of attending Colorado as an out-of-stater is roughly the same as the cost of attending any private medical school.

University of Colorado also has a strong committment to train physicians who will remain in Colorado, particulary those who are willing to serve in primary care fields in rural areas. It makes perfect sense for a school with that as one of its main priorities to make every attempt to reserve as many spots as possible for in-state students, and if that means discouraging out-of-staters from applying by making them look at that whopping first year price tag, then more power to them.

Also, I'll be willing to bet that ANY academic physician makes far less than a doc in private practice. The people who own houses in Aspen and Vail are the plastic surgeons from Beverly Hills and the businessmen from Texas and the investment bankers from New York. And yes, these big expensive homes actually ARE used for maybe one month out of the year (maybe) and then sit empty all year, because they're all owned by out-of-staters. Meanwhile, towns just down the road such as Eagle and Gypsum have most of their families living in poverty in tiny mobile homes because the only work around is bussing tables and mopping up after these rich folks who jet in to hit the slopes during the holidays.

 

[CU_buffalo]

The University of Colorado pays Assistant professors (MDs or MD/PhDs) 42k/yr. Full professors only make roughly 65k/yr. Of course they can supplement this salary with research and patient care, but their overall salary is far less than physicians working in private practice. Also, if you're a recent MD/PhD grad, you can work there as a research assistant and earn a whopping 30k/yr.

 

[UCLA2000]

...*shrugs* I guess whatever way you slice it...Penn Med is STILL at the top (unlike some schools! )

 

[OneStrongBro]

One of things that I most enjoy about SDN is that we are all allowed to voice dissenting opinions. I appreciate the fact that we may have contrasting viewpoints, yet we have held this string to a strictly intellectual manner.

As for the Colorado comment, I rescind the comment. It was a poor attempt at humor. I guess I will have to give up my day job as a comedian and fall back on Medicine as a career.

Lastly, I don't really hold one ranking system superior than another. I just thought it would be interesting to see where teh schools would be ranked based on NIH.

 

[Angeliqua]

Thanks troutbum and CU_buffalo for sticking up for Colorado

I was going to throw my own .02 up here but you guys covered it

 

[MacGyver]

The US news places WAY too much emphasis on NIH funding.

Take Harvard for example... if you look at the NIH funding strictly to the med schools, they are not that impressive. But if you look at Harvard's 17 or so affiliated hospitals, they get a big jump on all the other schools because US news factors in NIH funding to all of those hospitals, even though there may be only 1 or 2 med students working at some of those places.

While techically speaking, NIH funding to affiliated hospitals does enhance the med school itself, this connection is very indirect, and US news places too much weight on it, enough so that Harvard jumps out to a big lead over every other school when in fact the med school itself is not THAT much better than the others.

The weight that US news places NIH funding to affiliated institutions should be limited. They should still include it, but reduce the weighting factor down to maybe half of what it is right now. Also, US news should use a 2 tier weighting system for NIH funding.

Total NIH funding score = 0.8*(NIH med school funding rank) + 0.2*(affiliated hospital aggregate NIH funding)

Using this formula gives a better picture. There should be more points given for NIH funding to the med school itself and less weight given to NIH funding of affiliates, many of which are spread out over many miles and have no real connection to the med school, other than a shared name.