- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Messages
- 52
- Reaction score
- 0
Any thoughts?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Pitt vs Tulane
- Thread starter buffy
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2001
- Messages
- 3,797
- Reaction score
- 1
No way UCLA2000,
Pitt has a way better rep. Plus Tulane will cost you an arm and a leg. Pitt is a really good school.
Pitt has a way better rep. Plus Tulane will cost you an arm and a leg. Pitt is a really good school.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2001
- Messages
- 3,760
- Reaction score
- 1
•••quote:•••Originally posted by Scooby Doo:
•
Pitt has a way better rep. Plus Tulane will cost you an arm and a leg. Pitt is a really good school.•••••Scooby, although I agree that Pitt is probably the better school, you keep making these incomprehensible (to me, anyway) remarks about finances. From USNews and the MSAR, it seems that Pitt is maybe $2000 more per year. Do you consider that significant? What am I missing? 😕
Oh, and check your PM's 🙂
•
Pitt has a way better rep. Plus Tulane will cost you an arm and a leg. Pitt is a really good school.•••••Scooby, although I agree that Pitt is probably the better school, you keep making these incomprehensible (to me, anyway) remarks about finances. From USNews and the MSAR, it seems that Pitt is maybe $2000 more per year. Do you consider that significant? What am I missing? 😕
Oh, and check your PM's 🙂
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2001
- Messages
- 3,797
- Reaction score
- 1
HMM...Maybe I am way off..I just thuoght Tulane cost a ton of money and pitt wasn't as bad...maybe I am off 🙁
sorry
sorry
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2001
- Messages
- 502
- Reaction score
- 0
tulane is not ranked because they do not submit their info to usnews... They clearly have a good enough rep to be ranked if they so desired, but don't factor in silly statements like "tulane is not ranked, pitt is ranked 20. pitt has better rep."
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2001
- Messages
- 791
- Reaction score
- 1
i thought that tulane had relented and had submitted its info to USNews for the first time last year and didn't wind up ranked. i heard this somewhere.
tulane is a good school, but pitt is extremely good. i think people don't realize how good of a school it is because it's kind of random (university of pittsburgh?!). but i would agree that tulane seems to be in a better area (in terms of social life). those are my two cents....
tulane is a good school, but pitt is extremely good. i think people don't realize how good of a school it is because it's kind of random (university of pittsburgh?!). but i would agree that tulane seems to be in a better area (in terms of social life). those are my two cents....
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2001
- Messages
- 495
- Reaction score
- 2
go to pitt so that i can get off the waitlist at tulane 🙂
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Messages
- 2,314
- Reaction score
- 4
•••quote:•••Originally posted by choker:
•tulane is not ranked, pitt is ranked 20. pitt has better rep. tulane is in a cooler city.•••••Tulane is ranked 16 on the Gourman rankings(Pitt is lower). Tulane is VERY well respected in the medical field, and as a Pitt student posted on an earlier thread, Pitt has the worse reputation out of all the top 20's. Tulane is a great school.
Scoobs there really isn't a price difference between Tulane and Pitt.
Although Tulane has never taken part in the USNEWS rankings, I heard that Tulane did submit its info for the first time this year. Here's why it wasn't ranked.
1. Tulane funds all of its own research and USNEWS uses the amount of NIH funding as a large part in its ranking. Basically Tulane disqualified itself...
2. USNEWS is very political.
I stand by my original statement. I've been accepted to both schools and I'd choose Tulane hands down.
•tulane is not ranked, pitt is ranked 20. pitt has better rep. tulane is in a cooler city.•••••Tulane is ranked 16 on the Gourman rankings(Pitt is lower). Tulane is VERY well respected in the medical field, and as a Pitt student posted on an earlier thread, Pitt has the worse reputation out of all the top 20's. Tulane is a great school.
Scoobs there really isn't a price difference between Tulane and Pitt.
Although Tulane has never taken part in the USNEWS rankings, I heard that Tulane did submit its info for the first time this year. Here's why it wasn't ranked.
1. Tulane funds all of its own research and USNEWS uses the amount of NIH funding as a large part in its ranking. Basically Tulane disqualified itself...
2. USNEWS is very political.
I stand by my original statement. I've been accepted to both schools and I'd choose Tulane hands down.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2001
- Messages
- 1,722
- Reaction score
- 1
Political? What does that have anything to do with ranking a medical school? Also, the research funding counts 30%. Not miniscule, but not enough to completely drop a good school out of the top-50 if that's what you were insinuating. Frankly, i soured off that place after meeting some students and "participating" in the student host program (ie, i contacted 4 people about 20 times each and no one ever bothered to reply). --Trek
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Messages
- 2,314
- Reaction score
- 4
•••quote:•••Originally posted by Trek:
•Political? What does that have anything to do with ranking a medical school? Also, the research funding counts 30%. Not miniscule, but not enough to completely drop a good school out of the top-50 if that's what you were insinuating. Frankly, i soured off that place after meeting some students and "participating" in the student host program (ie, i contacted 4 people about 20 times each). --Trek•••••Politics have alot to do with everything in life. Who gets jobs...how people interact etc. I was told by someone on the ucla adcom that ucla was considering pulling out of USNEWS rankings because it has gotten too political.
UCLA dropped from 10 to 14 because USNEWS decided not to include funding for AIDS research this year. You say that funding only accounts for 30% and that's not enough to drop a good school out of the top 50?
OK...well how's this. How about you and I run a race but you give me a 30% headstart. Sure if you're a damn good runner you might catch me..but if I'm even a decent runner your in deep ****.
I'll assert that 30% is enough to drop a school out of the top 50 because as many of us have stated in the past even schools ranked 50 are good schools. They'll put the md behind your name and that's all that matters. All US schools are good. How good would Harvard look if you cut 30% of its score? How would your Final in any given class look if they cut 30% of your score? How would your paycheck look...
•Political? What does that have anything to do with ranking a medical school? Also, the research funding counts 30%. Not miniscule, but not enough to completely drop a good school out of the top-50 if that's what you were insinuating. Frankly, i soured off that place after meeting some students and "participating" in the student host program (ie, i contacted 4 people about 20 times each). --Trek•••••Politics have alot to do with everything in life. Who gets jobs...how people interact etc. I was told by someone on the ucla adcom that ucla was considering pulling out of USNEWS rankings because it has gotten too political.
UCLA dropped from 10 to 14 because USNEWS decided not to include funding for AIDS research this year. You say that funding only accounts for 30% and that's not enough to drop a good school out of the top 50?
OK...well how's this. How about you and I run a race but you give me a 30% headstart. Sure if you're a damn good runner you might catch me..but if I'm even a decent runner your in deep ****.
I'll assert that 30% is enough to drop a school out of the top 50 because as many of us have stated in the past even schools ranked 50 are good schools. They'll put the md behind your name and that's all that matters. All US schools are good. How good would Harvard look if you cut 30% of its score? How would your Final in any given class look if they cut 30% of your score? How would your paycheck look...
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2001
- Messages
- 1,722
- Reaction score
- 1
•••quote:•••Originally posted by UCLA2000:
• •••quote:•••Originally posted by Trek:
•Political? What does that have anything to do with ranking a medical school? Also, the research funding counts 30%. Not miniscule, but not enough to completely drop a good school out of the top-50 if that's what you were insinuating. Frankly, i soured off that place after meeting some students and "participating" in the student host program (ie, i contacted 4 people about 20 times each). --Trek•••••Politics have alot to do with everything in life. Who gets jobs...how people interact etc. I was told by someone on the ucla adcom that ucla was considering pulling out of USNEWS rankings because it has gotten too political.
UCLA dropped from 10 to 14 because USNEWS decided not to include funding for AIDS research this year. You say that funding only accounts for 30% and that's not enough to drop a good school out of the top 50?
OK...well how's this. How about you and I run a race but you give me a 30% headstart. Sure if you're a damn good runner you might catch me..but if I'm even a decent runner your in deep ****.
I'll assert that 30% is enough to drop a school out of the top 50 because as many of us have stated in the past even schools ranked 50 are good schools. They'll put the md behind your name and that's all that matters. All US schools are good. How good would Harvard look if you cut 30% of its score? How would your Final in any given class look if they cut 30% of your score? How would your paycheck look...•••••after your anecdotes, i'm still not sure how politics affected the ranking. Well, i see that UCLA got bumped 4 gigantic notches, but what does that have anything to do with anything (apart from UCLA)?
Look- the "total score" goes from 100 to 52 in the top 50 ranking. 30%, even if it was O, which i highly doubt, would mean tulane starts out at 70. They could easily keep in the top 50 even with that start.
I never did assert that Tulane was bad, or wouldn't give you an md, or all that other stuff you said. And yes, even if you cut all those things by 30%, the fact is, they'd STILL be there. --Trek
• •••quote:•••Originally posted by Trek:
•Political? What does that have anything to do with ranking a medical school? Also, the research funding counts 30%. Not miniscule, but not enough to completely drop a good school out of the top-50 if that's what you were insinuating. Frankly, i soured off that place after meeting some students and "participating" in the student host program (ie, i contacted 4 people about 20 times each). --Trek•••••Politics have alot to do with everything in life. Who gets jobs...how people interact etc. I was told by someone on the ucla adcom that ucla was considering pulling out of USNEWS rankings because it has gotten too political.
UCLA dropped from 10 to 14 because USNEWS decided not to include funding for AIDS research this year. You say that funding only accounts for 30% and that's not enough to drop a good school out of the top 50?
OK...well how's this. How about you and I run a race but you give me a 30% headstart. Sure if you're a damn good runner you might catch me..but if I'm even a decent runner your in deep ****.
I'll assert that 30% is enough to drop a school out of the top 50 because as many of us have stated in the past even schools ranked 50 are good schools. They'll put the md behind your name and that's all that matters. All US schools are good. How good would Harvard look if you cut 30% of its score? How would your Final in any given class look if they cut 30% of your score? How would your paycheck look...•••••after your anecdotes, i'm still not sure how politics affected the ranking. Well, i see that UCLA got bumped 4 gigantic notches, but what does that have anything to do with anything (apart from UCLA)?
Look- the "total score" goes from 100 to 52 in the top 50 ranking. 30%, even if it was O, which i highly doubt, would mean tulane starts out at 70. They could easily keep in the top 50 even with that start.
I never did assert that Tulane was bad, or wouldn't give you an md, or all that other stuff you said. And yes, even if you cut all those things by 30%, the fact is, they'd STILL be there. --Trek
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Messages
- 2,314
- Reaction score
- 4
•••quote:•••Originally posted by Trek:
•••••after your anecdotes, i'm still not sure how politics affected the ranking. Well, i see that UCLA got bumped 4 gigantic notches, but what does that have anything to do with anything (apart from UCLA)?
Look- the "total score" goes from 100 to 52 in the top 50 ranking. 30%, even if it was O, which i highly doubt, would mean tulane starts out at 70. They could easily keep in the top 50 even with that start.
I never did assert that Tulane was bad, or wouldn't give you an md, or all that other stuff you said. And yes, even if you cut all those things by 30%, the fact is, they'd STILL be there. --Trek•[/QUOTE]
Those 4 gigantic notches that UCLA dropped were due to an exclusion of NIH funded AIDS research ALONE! Now imagine Tulane that funds its own research. How far down would it drop due to its lack of NIH funding?
Sorry but I don't know all the details on the politics of USNEWS. It sucks, but I can only parrot the sentiments that my friend on the adcom told me. After all I'm merely an applicant and we're not usually included by adcoms in discussions of that nature.
You missed my point about the top 50 schools. I'm not saying that you said Tulane was bad or anything of that nature. I'm saying that the other top 50 schools should get more credit from the rest of us. They're all good schools. Because of that I don't think that Tulane can make up for the 30% deficit as easily as you would assert. How do you KNOW that Tulane would STILL be there even if 30% of its score is cut? I'm incredulous. Show me a school in the top 50 with no NIH funding...
I view med school rankings kind of like I view a premed class. You have alot of competititive individuals jockeying for position. Alot of the schools are closely matched and because of that you see occasional ties. In any case if any one school gives up 30% of their score..then it would be like handing someone 30% of their final exam.
I have no vested interest in protecting Tulane's image. At this point I've been accepted to UCLA and UCSD. I'm just calling it like I see it.
•••••after your anecdotes, i'm still not sure how politics affected the ranking. Well, i see that UCLA got bumped 4 gigantic notches, but what does that have anything to do with anything (apart from UCLA)?
Look- the "total score" goes from 100 to 52 in the top 50 ranking. 30%, even if it was O, which i highly doubt, would mean tulane starts out at 70. They could easily keep in the top 50 even with that start.
I never did assert that Tulane was bad, or wouldn't give you an md, or all that other stuff you said. And yes, even if you cut all those things by 30%, the fact is, they'd STILL be there. --Trek•[/QUOTE]
Those 4 gigantic notches that UCLA dropped were due to an exclusion of NIH funded AIDS research ALONE! Now imagine Tulane that funds its own research. How far down would it drop due to its lack of NIH funding?
Sorry but I don't know all the details on the politics of USNEWS. It sucks, but I can only parrot the sentiments that my friend on the adcom told me. After all I'm merely an applicant and we're not usually included by adcoms in discussions of that nature.
You missed my point about the top 50 schools. I'm not saying that you said Tulane was bad or anything of that nature. I'm saying that the other top 50 schools should get more credit from the rest of us. They're all good schools. Because of that I don't think that Tulane can make up for the 30% deficit as easily as you would assert. How do you KNOW that Tulane would STILL be there even if 30% of its score is cut? I'm incredulous. Show me a school in the top 50 with no NIH funding...
I view med school rankings kind of like I view a premed class. You have alot of competititive individuals jockeying for position. Alot of the schools are closely matched and because of that you see occasional ties. In any case if any one school gives up 30% of their score..then it would be like handing someone 30% of their final exam.
I have no vested interest in protecting Tulane's image. At this point I've been accepted to UCLA and UCSD. I'm just calling it like I see it.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2001
- Messages
- 3,797
- Reaction score
- 1
Yes, but UCLA2000, only one school gets 100% of that 30% for NIH funding - and that's harvard. Every school below that is a fraction of that 30%. So Tulane would not be fighting EVERYONE with a 30% advantage. There are only 120 schools in the US.
I doubt UCLA dropped four spaces based on the AIDS research not being counted ALONE! ONLY BASED on that... maybe some other things in addition...
I doubt UCLA dropped four spaces based on the AIDS research not being counted ALONE! ONLY BASED on that... maybe some other things in addition...
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2001
- Messages
- 740
- Reaction score
- 3
this thread is SOOOOOOoo stupid.
ucla2000: my dick is bigger
trek: no way, MY dick is bigger
ucla2000: the only reason your dick is bigger is because the ruler is messed up. in fact, that isn't even my real dick_ i got into ucla_ my real dick is bigger than all these dicks combined. im just standing up for the little dick over here cause im such a great guy.
scooby: i've seen a lot of dick, and i must say that trek's dick is, in fact, bigger and the ruler is accurate.
you guys, for the love of god, shut up.
pitt is great; tulane is great. they'll both get you want and they'll send you to similar residencies. so find out which one is better for you and go.
but flawed methodology or not, pitt is ranked 20, tulane is not ranked at all. take that as you will.
ucla2000: my dick is bigger
trek: no way, MY dick is bigger
ucla2000: the only reason your dick is bigger is because the ruler is messed up. in fact, that isn't even my real dick_ i got into ucla_ my real dick is bigger than all these dicks combined. im just standing up for the little dick over here cause im such a great guy.
scooby: i've seen a lot of dick, and i must say that trek's dick is, in fact, bigger and the ruler is accurate.
you guys, for the love of god, shut up.
pitt is great; tulane is great. they'll both get you want and they'll send you to similar residencies. so find out which one is better for you and go.
but flawed methodology or not, pitt is ranked 20, tulane is not ranked at all. take that as you will.
Milhouse Van Houten
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2000
- Messages
- 242
- Reaction score
- 101
strangely arousing......
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2001
- Messages
- 740
- Reaction score
- 3
lol, you got me there trek.
btw trek, somewhat off topic, or back to original topic, are you considering pitt next year? where are you debating between? will i meet you at the pitt 2nd look weekend?
btw trek, somewhat off topic, or back to original topic, are you considering pitt next year? where are you debating between? will i meet you at the pitt 2nd look weekend?
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Messages
- 2,314
- Reaction score
- 4
•••quote:•••Originally posted by choker:
•this thread is SOOOOOOoo stupid.
ucla2000: my dick is bigger
trek: no way, MY dick is bigger
ucla2000: the only reason your dick is bigger is because the ruler is messed up. in fact, that isn't even my real dick_ i got into ucla_ my real dick is bigger than all these dicks combined. im just standing up for the little dick over here cause im such a great guy.
scooby: i've seen a lot of dick, and i must say that trek's dick is, in fact, bigger and the ruler is accurate.
you guys, for the love of god, shut up.
pitt is great; tulane is great. they'll both get you want and they'll send you to similar residencies. so find out which one is better for you and go.
but flawed methodology or not, pitt is ranked 20, tulane is not ranked at all. take that as you will.•••••Yep this comment from my earlier post sounds like one coming from a guy in a pissing contest "I'm saying that the other top 50 schools should get more credit from the rest of us. They're all good schools."
Oh and like I said before TULANE IS RANKED. It is ranked 16 in the Gourman report. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it! (err..that is if there's any room left in your mouth)!
Damn! Now I know why they call you choker! <img border="0" alt="[Laughy]" title="" src="graemlins/laughy.gif" />
•this thread is SOOOOOOoo stupid.
ucla2000: my dick is bigger
trek: no way, MY dick is bigger
ucla2000: the only reason your dick is bigger is because the ruler is messed up. in fact, that isn't even my real dick_ i got into ucla_ my real dick is bigger than all these dicks combined. im just standing up for the little dick over here cause im such a great guy.
scooby: i've seen a lot of dick, and i must say that trek's dick is, in fact, bigger and the ruler is accurate.
you guys, for the love of god, shut up.
pitt is great; tulane is great. they'll both get you want and they'll send you to similar residencies. so find out which one is better for you and go.
but flawed methodology or not, pitt is ranked 20, tulane is not ranked at all. take that as you will.•••••Yep this comment from my earlier post sounds like one coming from a guy in a pissing contest "I'm saying that the other top 50 schools should get more credit from the rest of us. They're all good schools."
Oh and like I said before TULANE IS RANKED. It is ranked 16 in the Gourman report. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it! (err..that is if there's any room left in your mouth)!
Damn! Now I know why they call you choker! <img border="0" alt="[Laughy]" title="" src="graemlins/laughy.gif" />
D
deleted4401
As far as I know, as a Tulane student, we did do the USNews thing, and we didn't make it on the list. Frankly, most people don't give two s--ts either way. We're here, and we're not leaving, and most of us like it here, anyway.
And Pitt is an awesome school, too!
But, I just looked up the methodology, and it is annoying. 40% of it is based on 'reputation'. Half of that is based on 60 deans of medical schools jerking themselves and each other off. The other half is sent to residency directors, and a measly 34% responded. And, instead of rating schools, they were asked to submit a list of 25. Geez, if I was a 50 year old residency director with the time to fill the stupid thing out, I'd just run off the ivies, some cali schools, and the 10 schools in vicinity and call it a day. 30% is based on research (I've never done and never will do that stuff). 20% is based on selectivity, which just self-selects ... I'm sure even lowly Tulane could start only accepting the 3.9/35 MCAT studs, but what's the point? Finally, the last 10% is faculty resources. What do they base that on? Ratio of faculty to students. Sweet, if a school just has lots (not necessarily good ...) faculty, they get a bonus here. These rankings are bunk, and everyone knows it. Pitt doesn't need 'em, they are a great school without 'em. Tulane doesn't need 'em, I know it's a great school.
Trek: I'm very sorry you had a poor experience here. I think it's b.s. that you couldn't get a host. I'm not making an excuse, but sometimes when it is nearing exams, people get very selfish about their time and space, and you may have caught one of those times. Anyhow, I'll be sure to let the people in charge of it know that you got the short end, b/c that is just embarrassing.
Simul
And Pitt is an awesome school, too!
But, I just looked up the methodology, and it is annoying. 40% of it is based on 'reputation'. Half of that is based on 60 deans of medical schools jerking themselves and each other off. The other half is sent to residency directors, and a measly 34% responded. And, instead of rating schools, they were asked to submit a list of 25. Geez, if I was a 50 year old residency director with the time to fill the stupid thing out, I'd just run off the ivies, some cali schools, and the 10 schools in vicinity and call it a day. 30% is based on research (I've never done and never will do that stuff). 20% is based on selectivity, which just self-selects ... I'm sure even lowly Tulane could start only accepting the 3.9/35 MCAT studs, but what's the point? Finally, the last 10% is faculty resources. What do they base that on? Ratio of faculty to students. Sweet, if a school just has lots (not necessarily good ...) faculty, they get a bonus here. These rankings are bunk, and everyone knows it. Pitt doesn't need 'em, they are a great school without 'em. Tulane doesn't need 'em, I know it's a great school.
Trek: I'm very sorry you had a poor experience here. I think it's b.s. that you couldn't get a host. I'm not making an excuse, but sometimes when it is nearing exams, people get very selfish about their time and space, and you may have caught one of those times. Anyhow, I'll be sure to let the people in charge of it know that you got the short end, b/c that is just embarrassing.
Simul
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 1
Trek...if you think politics don't factor into rankings, you're mad. The rankings from USNews are based on criteria they establish and evaluate. Ever heard the term "liberal media?" There's always an argument to any presentation of "facts." Bill Buckley's organization also provides a ranking system (for undergrad). Take a guess how it's slanted. Think Harvard or Yale are at the top? Think again. Because USNews is considered mass media, it's the only ranking system most people are exposed to. These rankings are very low-yield. They're at best NEAT. They're fun to read while you sit in a waiting room, but prospective students basing their future education on them are only exposing themselves to one group's OPINION.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2000
- Messages
- 2,774
- Reaction score
- 4
choker -- that was one of the funniest things I've ever read on SDN. People around me are wondering why I'm laughing hysterically at my computer.
I think Simul did a really good job of explaining why the rankings are kind of BS and can be very "political" for lack of a better term. There are lots of schools, both for undergrad and grad school, that are constantly considering no longer submitting info. to USNews because they realize it's BS.
To the original poster -- both are good schools, and I don't think either one will really hinder you when it comes time for residency. I would go with where you think you will be happiest -- which school did you get a better vibe at, which city do you like best, etc. Don't get too caught up in rankings talk -- a lot of people choose unranked schools over ranked schools every year because of intangibles like quality of life issues.
I think Simul did a really good job of explaining why the rankings are kind of BS and can be very "political" for lack of a better term. There are lots of schools, both for undergrad and grad school, that are constantly considering no longer submitting info. to USNews because they realize it's BS.
To the original poster -- both are good schools, and I don't think either one will really hinder you when it comes time for residency. I would go with where you think you will be happiest -- which school did you get a better vibe at, which city do you like best, etc. Don't get too caught up in rankings talk -- a lot of people choose unranked schools over ranked schools every year because of intangibles like quality of life issues.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Messages
- 52
- Reaction score
- 0
Choker--Thanks for getting us back on track!
I'm not concerned about "ranking". Most doctors I've talked to feel that students from either school do well getting residency placements and are well-trained when they begin. I don't really think there's a difference between how people perceive the two schools, and maybe that's why we've gotten nowhere with that line of thought.
There were a lot of differences I noticed when I visited the two schools, and that's what I'm having a hard time reconciling. First of all, I felt like students at both places were really interesting, motivated, and happy with their programs. At Tulane, I was impressed with how many students were doing significant work in the community. I didn't see this so much at Pitt, but maybe I didn't meet the right people. I think the patient population students see in New Orleans would be great--very diverse, in cultural and economic ways. I also felt like Tulane had such a hands-on approach to learning, that students must feel pretty comfortable when they start doing clinical work. At Pitt, I was so impressed with the curriculum. I felt like someone had gotten a PhD in curriculum design and had gone directly to Pitt to set it up. That's a big pull for me, since the first 2 years are a pretty important time and can make you miserable if you're in the wrong place. Another plus for Tulane is the MPH program. You can get that degree within the 4 years, and you don't have to sacrifice too many other electives.
Overall, I keep going back and forth on these issues, and will probably continue to do so for the next 2 months, unless I get into my state school or get an offer for a lot of grant $$ or something.
I'm not concerned about "ranking". Most doctors I've talked to feel that students from either school do well getting residency placements and are well-trained when they begin. I don't really think there's a difference between how people perceive the two schools, and maybe that's why we've gotten nowhere with that line of thought.
There were a lot of differences I noticed when I visited the two schools, and that's what I'm having a hard time reconciling. First of all, I felt like students at both places were really interesting, motivated, and happy with their programs. At Tulane, I was impressed with how many students were doing significant work in the community. I didn't see this so much at Pitt, but maybe I didn't meet the right people. I think the patient population students see in New Orleans would be great--very diverse, in cultural and economic ways. I also felt like Tulane had such a hands-on approach to learning, that students must feel pretty comfortable when they start doing clinical work. At Pitt, I was so impressed with the curriculum. I felt like someone had gotten a PhD in curriculum design and had gone directly to Pitt to set it up. That's a big pull for me, since the first 2 years are a pretty important time and can make you miserable if you're in the wrong place. Another plus for Tulane is the MPH program. You can get that degree within the 4 years, and you don't have to sacrifice too many other electives.
Overall, I keep going back and forth on these issues, and will probably continue to do so for the next 2 months, unless I get into my state school or get an offer for a lot of grant $$ or something.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 2,151
- Reaction score
- 5
I think that Tulane is better because they offered me an interview and Pitt didn't. :wink:
Similar threads
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 2K