Official word from USNews about the new rankings release date!

[exmike]

They spammed me with this

Dear xxxxxx,

In the past year, you purchased access to the 2004 Premium Online Edition
of America's Best Graduate Schools on usnews.com. This e-mail is to inform you that
your access to this product will expire on April 1, 2004. We are launching
a new and updated 2005 edition of America's Best Graduate Schools on April 2.

WOOO HOOO Let the countdown to the mayhem begin!!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TheFlash]

The sdn gunners are probably having a hoe-down right about now.

 

[kingcer0x]

Sweet, now we get to rank the quality of education of america's graduate and professional schools by endowment and NIH funding!!! Woo-Hoo! I wonder if Harvard got $350 or $360 million from NIH in 2003 to complement the 8 gazillion dollars they made off of interest on their endowment.

Oh, the average MCAT score at Wash U probably went up by .2 points to 15.2 per section. I wonder how hard it would be to go up .6 points, id better start studying.

I never understood the peer assessment score. Why don't the deans just vote for their own school to be number 1? I would. I am #1.

In 10 years, be sure to point out that your med school outranked mine by some number that is divided by zero.

 

[CalBeE]

so...I wonder what's new this year?

Harvard drops out of Top 10? WashU now ranks higher than Hopkins?

 

[juddson]

I predict that Case will fall to #31 and Rochester will rise to #24.

God will not permit the school I'm attending to maintain its spot on the list.

Judd

 

[Jalby]

I predict Keck will reach it's goal of being a top ten school 6 years early and end up number 9.

 

[exmike]

Originally posted by Jalby
I predict Keck will reach it's goal of being a top ten school 6 years early and end up number 9.

How does keck intend to raise their peer/residency rep scores? those are the hardest to move, and count for the most. Selectivity in terms of GPA/MCAT doesnt help much. Look at NYU's #16 ranking for selectivity, but its rep rankings keep it at 28. I think that raising the profile of County+USC med center would do the most for the rankings.

 

[juddson]

For those of without a subscription, exmike, set out for us the relative weights given to each catagory if you don't mind. Should be in the methodology section.

Judd

 

[exmike]

Damn im fast

Quality assessment (weighted by .40): Peer assessment surveys were conducted in the fall of 2002, asking medical and osteopathic school deans, deans of academic affairs, and heads of internal medicine or the directors of admissions to rate program quality on a scale of "marginal" (1) to "outstanding" (5). Survey populations were asked to separately rate program quality for both research and primary-care programs on a single survey instrument. The response rate was 53 percent. A research school's average score is weighted .20; the average score in the primary-care model is weighted .25. Residency program directors were also asked to rate programs using the same 5-point scale. The residency program directors surveyed were a geographically balanced selection from the American Medical Association's Graduate Medical Education Library 2002-2003 and a list of primary-care residency program directors from the American Osteopathic Association. The response rate for those sent the research survey was 32 percent. The response rate for those sent the primary-care survey was 25 percent. Residency directors' opinions are weighted .20 in the research model and .15 in primary-care.

Research activity (.30 in research model only): measured as the total dollar amount of National Institutes of Health research grants awarded to the medical school and its affiliated hospitals, averaged for 2001 and 2002. An asterisk indicates schools that reported grants only to their medical school.

Student selectivity (.20 in research model, .15 in primary-care model):three components, which describe the class entering in fall 2002: mean composite Medical College Admission Test score (65 percent), mean undergraduate grade-point average (30 percent), and pro- portion of applicants accepted (5 percent).

Faculty resources (.10 in research model, .15 in primary-care model):The ratio of full-time science and clinical faculty to full-time students in 2002.

 

[leavesam]

cool. Thanks Mike!

 

[juddson]

nevermind, exmike, I found it on the web.

Basically 40% is for peer assessment (deans and residency directors)

30% is NIH funding ("research activity")

20% is selectivity (65% of that is MCAT, 30% is GPA and 5% is percent accepted)

10% is faculty to student ratio.

Huge weight is given to peer assessment and NIH funding. I agree with you that you can't expect to move much based on MCAT and GPA scores. Too little weight is given to them.

I think my school (Case) ought to do well in the NIH funding if the CCLCM money is counted this year (immediate jump by 60 million overnight), and the peer assessment should be favorable too because they have had a LOT of deans from other schools in to evaluate the new program - which have been favorable as far as I know. Besides, I think expsoure alone is enough to help in this area. Also, factor in the LCME accredidation scoring (which consists of mostly peer assessment by other deans) and things should go OK.

On the other hand, there is always the "judd can't be fully happy" rule, which I'm guessing will trump. My original predictions stand.

Judd

 

[juddson]

You are fast exMike.

Judd

 

[CalBeE]

I wonder if Mount Sinai and U of Chicago will drop further more?

How about UC San Diego...it's now at a position that's much harder to climb even higher...will it drop back a bit?

 

[Jalby]

Originally posted by exmike
How does keck intend to raise their peer/residency rep scores? those are the hardest to move, and count for the most. Selectivity in terms of GPA/MCAT doesnt help much. Look at NYU's #16 ranking for selectivity, but its rep rankings keep it at 28. I think that raising the profile of County+USC med center would do the most for the rankings.

They actually want to be top 10 in NIH funding. Those peer/residency reps are pretty stable over time.

 

[Yogi Bear]

(nih rankings 1-100)
http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/award/trends/rnk02all1to100.htm

man...if usnews didn't add up the affiliated hospitals, harvard woulnd't be so dominant on the rankings...hehe

isn't scripps somewhat affiliated w/ uc san diego? if usnews added those two, ucsd would probably jump higher than ucla.

 

[exmike]

Originally posted by Yogi Bear
(nih rankings 1-100)
http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/award/trends/rnk02all1to100.htm

man...if usnews didn't add up the affiliated hospitals, harvard woulnd't be so dominant on the rankings...hehe

isn't scripps somewhat affiliated w/ uc san diego? if usnews added those two, ucsd would probably jump higher than ucla.

Wow, interesting data.

Looks like USC will have to about double their NIH grants to reach the top 10. Feasible with the new expansions?

Im constantly taken aback by hopkins NIH grants as a free standing institution. Half a billion in one year. Amazing.

 

[Johnisit1234]

What about Emory? Do you think the school will move up or down?

 

[felipe5]

Originally posted by TheFlash
The sdn gunners are probably having a hoe-down right about now.

LMAO i can picture them dancing around a bon-fire praising the usnews gods

 

[Yogi Bear]

i've actually analyzed usnews' methodology before it very conceivable for hopkins to overtake harvard sometime down the road. it could happen simply by hopkins getting #2 ranking in nih fundingand increasing by 1 position in another of the othr criterias (they're currently #5 in nih funding according to usnews).

usnews has normalized all the values to a relative percentage based on a hundred as the total score w/ harvard being 100. However, if you considered a raw score based on the main categories, with lowest score being best (i.e. the lowest cummulative rank), then harvard comes out to something like 3, hopkins 4, yale 10, usc being 30, and wayne state being about 65. basically, it's pretty difficult for schools over 20 in rank to move up...there's too much gap. what would happen if usc became the 2nd ranked school in nih funding and no other factors changed (unlikely), then they'd increase in rank to around 25.

the ability of the top 10 school's ability to change positions is innate in usnews' methodology...that's where the source of controversy is. how can it move? a few subjective evaluations by a dean here, a dean there to change peer reputation, an increase in nih rankiing, etc.

 

[CalBeE]

Originally posted by Johnisit1234
What about Emory? Do you think the school will move up or down?

My honest belief is that it'll stay pretty steadily around 15-20. It's a school with much potential to increase its reputation though (Their medical school is the highest ranked out of all their professional schools)

 

[Jalby]

Originally posted by exmike
Wow, interesting data.

Looks like USC will have to about double their NIH grants to reach the top 10. Feasible with the new expansions?

Im constantly taken aback by hopkins NIH grants as a free standing institution. Half a billion in one year. Amazing.

We went from 78 Million 4 years ago to our current 151 Million. I think we will end up somewhere in the 15-20 range by the time we are done.

 

[Yogi Bear]

6 more days baby....