- Joined
- Nov 19, 2002
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 0
Is there a ranking of MST Programs? A ranking that considres both the medical and research training.
ranking of MSTP
- Thread starter tekram
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 14,915
- Reaction score
- 8,847
No. The closest thing is the USNews Medical School Research Rankings and the Graduate School Rankings in your field of interest. The NIH rates programs when they do evalutions, but I don't think we can look up the NIH rankings. Duke brags about being #1 according to the NIH. Their shortened medical school cirriculum does bring down graduation time, which is a big criterion for the NIH, but not a criterion for US News.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2001
- Messages
- 3,757
- Reaction score
- 5
Duke is not the #1 MSTP program, there is no #1 program because they arent ranked. I'm sure they are highly regarded by the NIH but there are a lot of programs that fit into that mold (Hopkins, WashU, UCSF, etc).
Did Duke actually state as a fact they think they are the #1 program? Thats blatant false advertising. They can claim to be a top MSTP, to be sure, but to claim they are the absolute #1 is absolute BS.
No school has a claim to that title.
J
jot
duke, does, in fact, claim that it was rated the #1 nih mstp program. one has to be clear on how they define that. the nih goes around every 5 years for a 'site review' and they to the works - interview every single student in the program, look at track records, grad times, alumni, student happiness, % in academic med, other stuff i don't know about ... and for that year, duke came out on top. what does that mean? - it means that duke has a well run mstp program. this is hardly equivelant with saying its the best option for md/phd period, or best for you. you see how multi-factorial and somewhat arbitrary usnews med school rankings are, now imagine throwing in a phd component (with various dept in a school with diff reps) and a program component. one would be hard pressed to come up with a solid general ranking - its hard enough coming up with a personal ranking!
from what i understood, the nih reviews are not available to students. i've glanced through them, and they are pretty detailed, provide areas for strenghs and weaknesses etc... but they are for the program to improve internally.
-jot
from what i understood, the nih reviews are not available to students. i've glanced through them, and they are pretty detailed, provide areas for strenghs and weaknesses etc... but they are for the program to improve internally.
-jot
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2002
- Messages
- 2,155
- Reaction score
- 13
I think Jot is right on.
For me there is literally only one lab in the world that I know of where I would consider doing PhD work (for an MD/PhD) at this point in my life - the lab I'm in.
For me there is literally only one lab in the world that I know of where I would consider doing PhD work (for an MD/PhD) at this point in my life - the lab I'm in.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2002
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 0
I can agree with a lot of what Jot says about finding the school that is right for you, rather than relying on the opinion of unidentified "experts" using limited, and questionable criteria. Duke's claim is as silly as if Penn claimed to be the best because they have the most students, or WashU claiming to be the best because they have the most money, or UCSD claiming to be the best because they have the best weather, or Harvard claiming to be best, well, because they're Harvard. What's up with this obsession with being #1? Defining your self-worth based on the opinion of others is pretty pathetic. Pick the program that is best for you (even if that means saying "No, thanks" to Duke, Penn, etc., and going to UC-Irvine or U. of Cincinnati) rather than being a lemming who follows popular opinion. Nothing great was ever achieved by an individual who accepted popular opinion and followed the crowd.
I really question the endorsement of Duke's claim to be #1. First of all, the review of programs are carried out over a 5-year cycle, which, I assume means that 7 or 8 programs are reviewed each year (there are 39 NIH funded prrograms). This means that you would be comparing a program reviewed in 2003 with one last reviewed in 2000; things can change a great deal in 3 years, so such a comparison would not necessarily be valid. Second, the site review teams change constantly, so the team that visited Duke would probably be different from the team that visited Cornell or Case or Harvard; this variable would cause one to question any claim that a particular program is #1. Third, the results of the NIH review are confidential, and are know only to the particular school, the NIH and the scientific review panel. Therefore, there is no way for Duke's program to know how well the other MD/PhD programs did, unless they obtained the information illegally: that is, someone at Duke who served on a scientific review panel violated the law and gave the information to the Duke program. So, the person(s) that claim that Duke is ranked #1 by the NIH is either not telling the truth or is engaging in unethical behavior.
So Jot buddy, I'm with you on the importance of finding the program thats right for you, but I contend that Duke's claim to be number one is just plain bulls**t. Can you tell us more about the NIH reviews you've glanced through? Where did you get them?
J
jot
shamus1,
i completely agree with what you're saying - duke claim to be the #1 program is like washU claiming to be the biggest therefore best, etc... i haven't seen these nih rankings, just know what duke claims. i'm sure its possible for just about any program to claim its #1 in something.
the reviews are supposed to be completely confidential - at one of my interviews at an unamed school an interviewer showed let me look through it for a few minutes while he left for a little bit - just to see what sort of feedback they get, who evaluates and what the criterea are - because i asked how the nih regulates these programs. the information there, as you said, was only about their particular school, and there was no numerical ranking, only qualitative feedback in diff areas (of what little i saw). there is competition between these schools to be better, but it seems like there is also a lot of discourse on how to improve the programs - directors of programs visit other ones during site visits, as do other nih/nih-related people.
there are other centralized resources for the programs. for example there is a national database of mstp applicants which lists where people are getting interviews (so don't lie!) - though they don't exchange acceptance info as freely till after the season. after that some programs do detailed analysis to see where poeple were going over their program, why, and how to improve it. you see that this is a very dynamic process, even year to year - which only highlights shamus1s point about time between site reviews/comparisons to be dubious. this information is from various mstp admins, directors, and committee members all over the country - i just ask a buncha questions. i think people here aren't foolish enough to goto a school based on some random 'ranking' that validates their choice - 8 (7 or whatever) years is a long time.
-jot
i completely agree with what you're saying - duke claim to be the #1 program is like washU claiming to be the biggest therefore best, etc... i haven't seen these nih rankings, just know what duke claims. i'm sure its possible for just about any program to claim its #1 in something.
the reviews are supposed to be completely confidential - at one of my interviews at an unamed school an interviewer showed let me look through it for a few minutes while he left for a little bit - just to see what sort of feedback they get, who evaluates and what the criterea are - because i asked how the nih regulates these programs. the information there, as you said, was only about their particular school, and there was no numerical ranking, only qualitative feedback in diff areas (of what little i saw). there is competition between these schools to be better, but it seems like there is also a lot of discourse on how to improve the programs - directors of programs visit other ones during site visits, as do other nih/nih-related people.
there are other centralized resources for the programs. for example there is a national database of mstp applicants which lists where people are getting interviews (so don't lie!) - though they don't exchange acceptance info as freely till after the season. after that some programs do detailed analysis to see where poeple were going over their program, why, and how to improve it. you see that this is a very dynamic process, even year to year - which only highlights shamus1s point about time between site reviews/comparisons to be dubious. this information is from various mstp admins, directors, and committee members all over the country - i just ask a buncha questions. i think people here aren't foolish enough to goto a school based on some random 'ranking' that validates their choice - 8 (7 or whatever) years is a long time.
-jot
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 14,915
- Reaction score
- 8,847
I will say this for the NIH rankings: they determine which schools are going to get the most money when the NIH makes funding decisions. For this reason, most schools really care what the NIH thinks of them. However, the NIH's criterion for what makes a good program does not always seem to be the same as the program director's... But, that's a different issue I guess.
I believe that grants are ranked like all NIH grants. The site teams are fairly consistent, because they are primarily composed of big shots at NIH and the directors of MSTPs. The fact that Duke got the #1 NIH ranking was verified by another program director. This will probably allow them (or has allowed them) to expand their next incoming class by a couple slots. Regardless, anyone who considers Duke is quick to point out their crappy location. That sort of thing is not taken into account by the ranking.
I believe that grants are ranked like all NIH grants. The site teams are fairly consistent, because they are primarily composed of big shots at NIH and the directors of MSTPs. The fact that Duke got the #1 NIH ranking was verified by another program director. This will probably allow them (or has allowed them) to expand their next incoming class by a couple slots. Regardless, anyone who considers Duke is quick to point out their crappy location. That sort of thing is not taken into account by the ranking.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 209
- Reaction score
- 0
Question: Am I right in thinking that Duke claims to be #1 in relation to other MSTP programs? In other words, it's only compared to the other MSTP's, and not all MD/PhD programs? I've seen programs that aren't MSTP, but that I would choose over some MSTPs.
And besides, maybe the program is #1, but why should that matter? Say you're going for biomedical engineering. UT Southwestern has an awesome program (IMO), but I don't think it's at all strong in biomedical engineering, so it would be a poor choice. An overall ranking becomes meaningless when factors unique to the individual are looked at.
-Naphtali
And besides, maybe the program is #1, but why should that matter? Say you're going for biomedical engineering. UT Southwestern has an awesome program (IMO), but I don't think it's at all strong in biomedical engineering, so it would be a poor choice. An overall ranking becomes meaningless when factors unique to the individual are looked at.
-Naphtali
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 14,915
- Reaction score
- 8,847
You're right on Naphtali, which is why I think it is important to take into account the US News rankings on the strength of the particular graduate program of study. If you look at that, you will see that the top 5 programs in Neuroscience are:
1. UCSF
2. Harvard
3. Stanford
4. Columbia
5. Hopkins
These programs, at least in my mind, are probably the hardest to get into (especially since there are so many Neuroscience people running around). UCSF, Stanford, and Columbia are not in the top 5 US News medical school research rankings, and note that Duke is not on the neuroscience list.
So it's just more factors to take into account. The NIH is taking into account all those factors that jot mentioned before. When it comes down to making a personal decision, you have to choose based on all the factors you have. I will say this for Harvard, Hopkins, Stanford, and UCSF, they seem to be notorious for long graduation times, which the NIH would penalize heavily in their review (while Duke has the lowest ave. graduation time in the nation).
1. UCSF
2. Harvard
3. Stanford
4. Columbia
5. Hopkins
These programs, at least in my mind, are probably the hardest to get into (especially since there are so many Neuroscience people running around). UCSF, Stanford, and Columbia are not in the top 5 US News medical school research rankings, and note that Duke is not on the neuroscience list.
So it's just more factors to take into account. The NIH is taking into account all those factors that jot mentioned before. When it comes down to making a personal decision, you have to choose based on all the factors you have. I will say this for Harvard, Hopkins, Stanford, and UCSF, they seem to be notorious for long graduation times, which the NIH would penalize heavily in their review (while Duke has the lowest ave. graduation time in the nation).
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2002
- Messages
- 4,477
- Reaction score
- 31
*************
"while Duke has the lowest ave. graduation time in the nation."
*************
Its a bit unfair to say that other programs are able to get their students graduated faster because of a policy the medical school has [Both Duke and Baylor have accelerated basic sciences programs].
Yours,
"while Duke has the lowest ave. graduation time in the nation."
*************
Its a bit unfair to say that other programs are able to get their students graduated faster because of a policy the medical school has [Both Duke and Baylor have accelerated basic sciences programs].
Yours,
