Stanford, Columbia, Penn Medical Schools Expand the Exodus From U.S. News Ranking

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is it possible that a big factor for the schools abandoning the rankings could be the impending Supreme Court Affirmative action decision.
That’s the main reason nothing else. First law schools started and now medial schools. They all knew before USNWR methodology has flaws but they all happily played the game!

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Agreed. I saw it there at the bottom of the page and found it interesting. Note that the closing paragraph points out, "...being a good doctor is more complicated that a test score. Softer skills, such as empathy, listening and relationship-building, matter." But it suggests that abandoning intellectual rigor could be deadly.

I don't believe that any school wants to admit students who lack the ability and drive to do the work. It's just that once you've achieved a specific benchmark, there isn't much added value to exceeding it. If I wanted individuals who could jump over a 1 meter wall, among a series of traits, would I be foolish to choose only the highest jumpers and would it be wrong to snub people who have achieved long jumps of 4 meters or more while selecting some who cleared the 1 meter wall but just barely?

Medical Schools are entities with academic setting. So, naturally we have to give respect for the academic achievements the most. This is where we are getting it wrong. Don’t set the bar at 1 meter BUT AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE. When we recruit players for NBA, NFL, varsity teams etc , WE SELECT THE MOST SKILLED PLAYERS. We don’t set the lowest possible bar and select the players based on “series of other traits “. We can filter the medical school applicants as the first step based on those “other series of traits” in an honest and open way, after filtering, PICK THE TOPMOST 22000 applicants based on their MCAT and GPA. We have to be fair to each and every applicant.
 
  • Dislike
  • Haha
  • Hmm
Reactions: 4 users
Medical Schools are entities with academic setting. So, naturally we have to give respect for the academic achievements the most.

Faulty premise.
This is where we are getting it wrong. Don’t set the bar at 1 meter BUT AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE. When we recruit players for NBA, NFL, varsity teams etc , WE SELECT THE MOST SKILLED PLAYERS. We don’t set the lowest possible bar and select the players based on “series of other traits “.

Maybe we do. Varsity teams actually require the players to have met the requirements to be admitted to the university. They require a minimum GPA to remain on the team. They will exclude players who behave badly. Those are the other traits before we get to how fast they can run or how well they throw a ball. You also won't see a school recruit nothing but quarterbacks. They are looking for a variety of skills.
We can filter the medical school applicants as the first step based on those “other series of traits” in an honest and open way, after filtering, PICK THE TOPMOST 22000 applicants based on their MCAT and GPA. We have to be fair to each and every applicant.

Again, if a 4.0/524 and 3.7/519 will have the same likelihood of a very good outcome if admitted (based on historical data having admitted similar applicants in the past), tell me again why we should prefer the former over the latter?
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 6 users
Members don't see this ad :)
@LizzyM

Not sure if you are aware, but colleges have notoriously allowed varsity players to get away with tons of things, especially sexual assault. Not to mention that they have also historically allowed players to take special classes for easy As that the rest of the student body isn’t allowed to take.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Is it possible that a big factor for the schools abandoning the rankings could be the impending Supreme Court Affirmative action decision.

During the Supreme Court Affirmative action hearings, the judges seemed intent on banning Affirmative action.

I do think that, for better or for worse, Affirmative action will be outlawed by the Supreme Court. I think this will have seismic effects on the American education system. I think colleges will greatly change over the next few years
I keep seeing this argument but it’s not like these schools are 60-70% URM. They are barely 20-30% of these classes but these students are also the top and have GPAs and MCAT that show they belong there just as much as their classmates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Medical Schools are entities with academic setting. So, naturally we have to give respect for the academic achievements the most. This is where we are getting it wrong. Don’t set the bar at 1 meter BUT AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE. When we recruit players for NBA, NFL, varsity teams etc , WE SELECT THE MOST SKILLED PLAYERS. We don’t set the lowest possible bar and select the players based on “series of other traits “. We can filter the medical school applicants as the first step based on those “other series of traits” in an honest and open way, after filtering, PICK THE TOPMOST 22000 applicants based on their MCAT and GPA. We have to be fair to each and every applicant.







What's with the yelling?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Sorry, I didn’t mean it yes yelling. Probably I should have used bold letters instead of using upper case. I will watch out.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Medical Schools are entities with academic setting. So, naturally we have to give respect for the academic achievements the most. This is where we are getting it wrong. Don’t set the bar at 1 meter BUT AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE. When we recruit players for NBA, NFL, varsity teams etc , WE SELECT THE MOST SKILLED PLAYERS. We don’t set the lowest possible bar and select the players based on “series of other traits “. We can filter the medical school applicants as the first step based on those “other series of traits” in an honest and open way, after filtering, PICK THE TOPMOST 22000 applicants based on their MCAT and GPA. We have to be fair to each and every applicant.
You keep obsessing about the high stats applicants as being the most qualified. This is not true, as anyone with a 3.3 GPA and a 500+ MCAT can get through medical schools.

We Adcoms aren't looking for people who will only be good medical students, more importantly, we're also looking for people who will be good doctors, and there's little correlation between stats and the latter.

Fairness involves looking at the entire app, not just stats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 11 users
You keep obsessing about the high stats applicants as being the most qualified. This is not true, as anyone with a 3.3 GPA and a 500+ MCAT can get through medical schools.

We Adcoms aren't looking for people who will only be good medical students, more importantly, we're also looking for people who will be good doctors, and there's little correlation between stats and the latter.

Fairness involves looking at the entire app, not just stats.

But then how do you compare applicants to one another without the whole thing becoming the oppression olympics?
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: 1 user
But then how do you compare applicants to one another without the whole thing becoming the oppression olympics?
Because most applicants and Adcoms don't do that. Rather, it's an accomplishment Olympics. It's not like the applicant pool is filled with disadvantaged and URM applicants. That's why they're URM.

Something else to keep in mind; it's not about what the applicants want...it's about what med schools want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Because most applicants and Adcoms don't do that. Rather, it's an accomplishment Olympics. It's not like the applicant pool is filled with disadvantaged and URM applicants. That's why they're URM.

Something else to keep in mind; it's not about what the applicants want...it's about what med schools want.

You can’t fairly take into account accomplishment without barriers to accomplishment. A rich kid could spend 3 years abroad doing international peace corps and it would look good on his application whereas someone else can’t do the same because they have to stay home and take care of family. Is that fair??

Even if you take into account barriers, the problem is that you only get around 20 minutes to judge someone’s ENTIRE application and life story, so then it just comes down to how much someone can afford to pay an application service to embellish their application. You might as well just make AMCAS into a lottery system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
You can’t fairly take into account accomplishment without barriers to accomplishment. A rich kid could spend 3 years abroad doing international peace corps and it would look good on his application whereas someone else can’t do the same because they have to stay home and take care of family. Is that fair??
Life's not fair.
We still expect people to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. If they this bad enough, they'll find a way. And, we also consider the path traveled. That can be an EC in and of itself. We like come-from-behind stories; it's in our American DNA

And like it or not, not everybody who wants to be a doctor can get to be a doctor.
Even if you take into account barriers, the problem is that you only get around 20 minutes to judge someone’s ENTIRE application and life story, so then it just comes down to how much someone can afford to pay an application service to embellish their application. You might as well just make AMCAS into a lottery system.
My my, so much paranoia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I wish the NBA and NFL can be more diverse and apply holistic to recruitments. Lots of UR Players out there can play the game well and can certaintly entertain the audience. THery are not top players, but they can certaintly compete well on the field and are good athletes.
 
  • Dislike
  • Okay...
Reactions: 3 users
Members don't see this ad :)
I wish the NBA and NFL can be more diverse and apply holistic to recruitments. Lots of UR Players out there can play the game well and can certaintly entertain the audience. THery are not top players, but they can certaintly compete well on the field and are good athletes.
If I'm not mistaken, you are comparing URMs to athletes who can still "entertain the audience." Do I have this right?
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 3 users
I wish the NBA and NFL can be more diverse and apply holistic to recruitments. Lots of UR Players out there can play the game well and can certaintly entertain the audience. THery are not top players, but they can certaintly compete well on the field and are good athletes.

When you say “holistic recruitment “, do you mean the following? 1. Writing an essay on why they want to become NBA , NFL players and what they like about the game. 2. What life experiences led them to basketball and football. 3. Write team specific secondary essays on why they want to play for that team. 4. How they contribute to the diversity of the team. and their perspectives, viewpoints and opinions about the game. 5. How many years they volunteered at the games, carrying drinks for the players, cleaning floors etc. 6. Get recommendation letters from the coaches. 7. Did they do any research on how to play basketball and football. 8. Did they overcome any adversity like lack of height , obesity etc . 9. Did they serve the underrepresented communities in NBA/NFL like Asian Americans and Hispanic?

If yes, I agree that it will enrich the watching experience of all the spectators. There is also a study showing that the spectators enjoy the game the most when they see players who look like them, play the game.

Just kidding guys …
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 3 users
I wish the NBA and NFL can be more diverse and apply holistic to recruitments. Lots of UR Players out there can play the game well and can certaintly entertain the audience. THery are not top players, but they can certaintly compete well on the field and are good athletes.

Medical practice is not a game. There are no rules. You can make the perfect jump shot because of your 520 MCAT and 3.96 GPA and still lose because your patient didn't feel heard and doesn't understand why they should take their medication. Medical schools are looking for good doctors not standardized test takers. Some skill in the latter is needed, of course, but it's not a one to one correlation.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 10 users
I wish the NBA and NFL can be more diverse and apply holistic to recruitments. Lots of UR Players out there can play the game well and can certaintly entertain the audience. THery are not top players, but they can certaintly compete well on the field and are good athletes.
If you're trying to be sarcastic, Mech, then remember that humor doesn't travel well over the electrons.

If not, I don't know what to do with an SDNer who doesn't understand that Medicine is not professional sports.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Medical Schools are entities with academic setting. So, naturally we have to give respect for the academic achievements the most. This is where we are getting it wrong. Don’t set the bar at 1 meter BUT AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE. When we recruit players for NBA, NFL, varsity teams etc , WE SELECT THE MOST SKILLED PLAYERS. We don’t set the lowest possible bar and select the players based on “series of other traits “. We can filter the medical school applicants as the first step based on those “other series of traits” in an honest and open way, after filtering, PICK THE TOPMOST 22000 applicants based on their MCAT and GPA. We have to be fair to each and every applicant.
You are assuming that the applicants with the highest stats are the most desirable. Sorry, but that’s not true. (It’s like making the assumption that the handsomest men make the best husbands).
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 6 users
I keep seeing this argument but it’s not like these schools are 60-70% URM. They are barely 20-30% of these classes but these students are also the top and have GPAs and MCAT that show they belong there just as much as their classmates.

Just to be clear. I disagree with overturning Affirmative Action.

The Supreme Court wants to overturn Affirmative Action because they think that racial disparities have been solved. However, objective evidence does not show this to be true

During the Supreme Court hearing, the University of Michigan and University of California provided their experience after their states ended Affirmative Action.

From Affirmative Action Was Banned at Two Top Universities. They Say They Need It. :
It has been more than 15 years since two of the country’s top public university systems, the University of Michigan and the University of California, were forced to stop using affirmative action in admissions.
Since then, both systems have tried to build racially diverse student bodies through extensive outreach and major financial investment, well into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Those efforts have fallen abysmally short, the universities admitted in two amicus briefs filed this month at the Supreme Court, which is set to consider the future of affirmative action in college admissions this fall.
Among the data points: In 2021, the entering freshman class at the University of California, Berkeley, included 258 Black students and 27 Native American students out of a class of 6,931. That same year, Black enrollment at Michigan’s flagship campus in Ann Arbor was 4 percent, even as the university maintained a special admissions office in Detroit to recruit Black students.
The outreach programs are extremely costly. The University of California system says it has spent more than a half-billion dollars since 2004 to increase diversity among its students.
In the briefs, lawyers for the universities argue that, without affirmative action, achieving racial diversity is virtually impossible at highly selective universities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Just to be clear. I disagree with overturning Affirmative Action.

The Supreme Court wants to overturn Affirmative Action because they think that racial disparities have been solved. However, objective evidence does not show this to be true

During the Supreme Court hearing, the University of Michigan and University of California provided their experience after their states ended Affirmative Action.

From Affirmative Action Was Banned at Two Top Universities. They Say They Need It. :
UC Davis SoM developed a “socioeconomic disadvantage score.” They matriculate classes that reflect CA’s diversity without AA.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
It's surprising to me that, even following the exodus of schools and articles explaining their reasoning for the curtailed association with US News, that the online discussion on this site consistently centers on a single piece of the larger picture.

While the correlation between student admission scores and SES are an important component of our consideration of the societal impact of magnifying academic benchmarks in medical school admissions, and while there may be an association between a medical school's desire for score inflation and placing higher in a ranking system, it is at most one indirect outcome of our adoption of this ranking system. There are much more direct reasons, which have been known for years, for why the ranking system is not only flawed, but at its core an abject failure of its intended purpose.

I can't help but think that the emphasis on scores are a reflection of the people reading it: anxious pre-meds, outside reactionary and sensational news/political pundits, and admissions officers whose work center around student applications, and for whom issues with statistical methodology, mischaracterization of the research enterprise, and graduate outcomes - rather than student input to a school - are beyond their focus.
------

Here is a shift in the Overtone window - from an objective standpoint, the US News Ranking methodology is terrible by every indication. They refuse to change it, so schools refused to continue working with them.

This has been known for years by one of the most scientifically-inclined professions on this earth, yet we have adopted and retained this system as a nagging, background component of our field for the last couple decades because of cultural momentum and the fallibility of the human ego. These are base psychological drives, not scientific ones.

i have gone into depth for all of the reasons why this is so in many previous posts. I've provided some resources below for any who want to read more. In brief (i.e., very brief, because this list and its expansion could go on for quite some time):

1. US News polls data from medical school deans, and department chairs/PD directors for a "reputation" score with horrifically abysmal response rates. Not only this, but they pool from only 3 specialities (likely, again, because they get horrifically abysmal response rates. They likely prefer it - it is much less data to sort through). This leads to almost no confidence that the opinions of your sample group actually depicts the population you are attempting to represent - and for a measure that is inherently subjective to begin with (McGhahie et al., 2001; 2019).

2. Federal research dollars is the largest component of the ranking system (the "research" category). They flip-flop between considering federal NIH vs. affiliate/private organization funding in their estimate per year to vary the list, despite nothing at all changing about programs to increase or reduce the merits of their program. The NYU debacle is only symptomatic of a much larger issue.

3. There is little data to suggest that the strength of the research enterprise correlates with clinical outcomes. In fact, US News ranking has no correlation with clinical competency measured in residents post-graduation (Tsugawa et al., 2018).

4. Regarding research competency, there is no data provided on student outcomes for a school as a factor in their methodology. These data are not only readily available, but a group of physicians decided to show that this can be done in their off-time by publishing a paper compiling 60+ years of graduate outcomes from over 120 medical schools to assemble an alternate, research-specific ranking methodology (Goldstein et al., 2015).

The US News system fails, from its very design, to effectively measure "the best medical schools" clinically, or in research. Yes, there are better alternatives. No, they do not want to adopt them.

Sources:
1. Deans: Dump that USNWR 'best medical school' survey
2. Association between physician US News & World Report medical school ranking and patient outcomes and costs of care: observational study
3. America's Best Medical Schools: A Critique of the: U.S.... : Academic Medicine
4. America’s Best Medical Schools: A Renewed Critique of the... : Academic Medicine
5. What Makes a Top Research Medical School? A Call for a New... : Academic Medicine
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
  • Wow
Reactions: 5 users
“While the correlation between student admission scores and SES are an important component of our consideration”

Correlation is not causation.Most of the high scorers in standardized tests like SAT, MCAT etc are from poor and middle class background, they use only cheap materials, free Khan Academy, YouTube channels etc. Still the entire country is repeating the same lie that the family SES determines the standardized test scores. If you spend just one hour in r/sat and r/mcat, anyone can understand it. Looks like no one is interested in facts. It is a very simple fundamental thing, I don’t know why Americans have such a difficulty in understanding it. Most of the MCAT topics are covered in high school AP courses except probably biochemistry and organic chemistry. On top of it, students spend two to three years learning those topics again and taking advanced classes. With all of it, if you have the basic aptitude and work ethics, I don’t understand why your SES should matter. I feel like banging my head against the wall.
 
Last edited:
  • Dislike
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 8 users
“While the correlation between student admission scores and SES are an important component of our consideration”

Correlation is not causation.Most of the high scorers in standardized tests like SAT, MCAT etc are from poor and middle class background, they use only cheap materials, free Khan Academy, YouTube channels etc. Still the entire country is repeating the same lie that the family SES determines the standardized test scores. If you spend just one hour in r/sat and r/mcat, anyone can understand it. Looks like no one is interested in facts. It is a very simple fundamental thing, I don’t know why Americans have such a difficulty in understanding it. Most of the MCAT topics are covered in high school AP courses except probably biochemistry and organic chemistry. On top of it, students spend two to three years learning those topics again and taking advanced classes. With all of it, if you have the basic aptitude and work ethics, I don’t understand why your SES should matter. I feel like banging my head against the wall.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but wealth matters. Here actual data.

As might be expected, our results showed significantly higher MCAT scores from students who attended high-quality versus low-quality high schools.

High school GPA and class rank each have weakly positive correlations with household income, falling between 0.06 and 0.07, whereas SAT scores, especially on the math section, have correlations with household income roughly 3 times as large. Thus, selecting on national measures will bias more towards wealthier students than selection solely on school-specific measures.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 6 users
“While the correlation between student admission scores and SES are an important component of our consideration”

Correlation is not causation.Most of the high scorers in standardized tests like SAT, MCAT etc are from poor and middle class background, they use only cheap materials, free Khan Academy, YouTube channels etc. Still the entire country is repeating the same lie that the family SES determines the standardized test scores. If you spend just one hour in r/sat and r/mcat, anyone can understand it. Looks like no one is interested in facts. It is a very simple fundamental thing, I don’t know why Americans have such a difficulty in understanding it. Most of the MCAT topics are covered in high school AP courses except probably biochemistry and organic chemistry. On top of it, students spend two to three years learning those topics again and taking advanced classes. With all of it, if you have the basic aptitude and work ethics, I don’t understand why your SES should matter. I feel like banging my head against the wall.
I think this thread has fulfilled its purpose, but I will just leave a comment that ... well, you're going to learn a lot about social determinants in medical school to carry on this debate.
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Care
Reactions: 3 users
Sorry to burst your bubble, but wealth matters. Here actual data.

As might be expected, our results showed significantly higher MCAT scores from students who attended high-quality versus low-quality high schools.

High school GPA and class rank each have weakly positive correlations with household income, falling between 0.06 and 0.07, whereas SAT scores, especially on the math section, have correlations with household income roughly 3 times as large. Thus, selecting on national measures will bias more towards wealthier students than selection solely on school-specific measures.

Unless someone inherited their wealth or won a lottery, they must be having a high paying job or own a successful business which in turn mean they are most likely intelligent, educated , disciplined and hard working. They must have passed on those characteristics to their children through genes and imparting those values. Naturally their children will have better outcome.

We can’t just scratch the surface by looking at the average income and average test scores and conclude that person A scored high because he is from high SES family. There are plenty of poor and lower middle class kids who score very high on tests and plenty of rich kids score very low as well.

It’s all boils down to individual student’s intelligence, determination , focus and hard work that determines his score, not the family income.
 
  • Dislike
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Unless someone inherited their wealth or won a lottery, they must be having a high paying job or own a successful business which in turn mean they are most likely intelligent, educated , disciplined and hard working. They must have passed on those characteristics to their children through genes and imparting those values. Naturally their children will have better outcome.

We can’t just scratch the surface by looking at the average income and average test scores and conclude that person A scored high because he is from high SES family. There are plenty of poor and lower middle class kids who score very high on tests and plenty of rich kids score very low as well.

It’s all boils down to individual student’s intelligence, determination , focus and hard work that determines his score, not the family income.
why are you arguing with literal studies on the topic?

some of what you mentioned is true but it seems clear you just hate the American medical admissions process and the fact that the rich have obvious advantages in this process, like most others in life

don't throw this thread more off topic than you already have
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 4 users
why are you arguing with literal studies on the topic?

some of what you mentioned is true but it seems clear you just hate the American medical admissions process and the fact that the rich have obvious advantages in this process, like most others in life

don't throw this thread more off topic than you already have


Why am I arguing with literal studies? Please be serious. These are not studies, just some garbage that were created by people with preconceived results/ideas to suit their agenda and propaganda, that is to attack and delegitimize the standardized tests and higher achievers. They don’t deserve your time or respect.

I can also come up with a study , comparing average height of the students and their SAT/MCAT scores and say, students who are 5’8” tall have the best score, so the tests are favoring those but biased against those are 5’10”. It is similar to studies focusing on skin color and scores. These so called studies have no intrinsic value but created as weapons to discredit the intelligence, sacrifice and the hard work of higher achievers.

A proper study would focus on the IQ of the students, their academic track record,work ethics , how much time they studied, materials they used, how many practice tests they used, how they analyzed their mistakes, strategies they used when their scores stagnated etc. Not the skin color, family income, height, weight, zip code etc. That is just naive, dumb and childish. The other propaganda against the standardized tests is saying , “SAT or MCAT do not predict success “. Of course any child would know that , they just test what you are supposed to know, not predict your future. The future success is determined by your future efforts and intelligence.

I would rather respect if those people who conduct these studies go and talk to those kids from poor backgrounds but still scored 1550+ or 520+ and find out what materials they used, their methodologies , study habits and publish them to encourage future test takers . That is too much to ask for, in America.

Standardized tests are not some conspiracy against students from some groups (based on race, income, zip code etc). Everyone knows what those test on , if someone becomes good at them by paying attention in the class and absorbing the concepts , they will score well. If you are good at algebra 1.2 and geometry, basic grammar and reading comprehension, you will score high on the SAT. It is as simple as that. You don’t need elaborate multimillion dollar studies to figure it out. Thousands of students have scored 1550+ just by using khan Academy and YouTube, many have scored even 1600. Even those poor international students from third world countries easily score 1550+, English is not even their first language.

Thank you for acknowledging that I was right in some aspects. I will stop. Bye.
 
  • Dislike
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Sorry to burst your bubble, but wealth matters. Here actual data.

As might be expected, our results showed significantly higher MCAT scores from students who attended high-quality versus low-quality high schools.

High school GPA and class rank each have weakly positive correlations with household income, falling between 0.06 and 0.07, whereas SAT scores, especially on the math section, have correlations with household income roughly 3 times as large. Thus, selecting on national measures will bias more towards wealthier students than selection solely on school-specific measures.

So solution is quotas in admissions vs improving education system or income disparities?
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: 1 user
Why am I arguing with literal studies? Please be serious. These are not studies, just some garbage that were created by people with preconceived results/ideas to suit their agenda and propaganda, that is to attack and delegitimize the standardized tests and higher achievers. They don’t deserve your time or respect.

I can also come up with a study , comparing average height of the students and their SAT/MCAT scores and say, students who are 5’8” tall have the best score, so the tests are favoring those but biased against those are 5’10”. It is similar to studies focusing on skin color and scores. These so called studies have no intrinsic value but created as weapons to discredit the intelligence, sacrifice and the hard work of higher achievers.

A proper study would focus on the IQ of the students, their academic track record,work ethics , how much time they studied, materials they used, how many practice tests they used, how they analyzed their mistakes, strategies they used when their scores stagnated etc. Not the skin color, family income, height, weight, zip code etc. That is just naive, dumb and childish. The other propaganda against the standardized tests is saying , “SAT or MCAT do not predict success “. Of course any child would know that , they just test what you are supposed to know, not predict your future. The future success is determined by your future efforts and intelligence.

I would rather respect if those people who conduct these studies go and talk to those kids from poor backgrounds but still scored 1550+ or 520+ and find out what materials they used, their methodologies , study habits and publish them to encourage future test takers . That is too much to ask for, in America.

Standardized tests are not some conspiracy against students from some groups (based on race, income, zip code etc). Everyone knows what those test on , if someone becomes good at them by paying attention in the class and absorbing the concepts , they will score well. If you are good at algebra 1.2 and geometry, basic grammar and reading comprehension, you will score high on the SAT. It is as simple as that. You don’t need elaborate multimillion dollar studies to figure it out. Thousands of students have scored 1550+ just by using khan Academy and YouTube, many have scored even 1600. Even those poor international students from third world countries easily score 1550+, English is not even their first language.

Thank you for acknowledging that I was right in some aspects. I will stop. Bye.

You’re so lost bruh. All of you’ve done is refute actual studies while spewing a bunch of your own opinions.
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Haha
Reactions: 4 users
Why am I arguing with literal studies? Please be serious. These are not studies, just some garbage that were created by people with preconceived results/ideas to suit their agenda and propaganda, that is to attack and delegitimize the standardized tests and higher achievers. They don’t deserve your time or respect.

I can also come up with a study , comparing average height of the students and their SAT/MCAT scores and say, students who are 5’8” tall have the best score, so the tests are favoring those but biased against those are 5’10”. It is similar to studies focusing on skin color and scores. These so called studies have no intrinsic value but created as weapons to discredit the intelligence, sacrifice and the hard work of higher achievers.

A proper study would focus on the IQ of the students, their academic track record,work ethics , how much time they studied, materials they used, how many practice tests they used, how they analyzed their mistakes, strategies they used when their scores stagnated etc. Not the skin color, family income, height, weight, zip code etc. That is just naive, dumb and childish. The other propaganda against the standardized tests is saying , “SAT or MCAT do not predict success “. Of course any child would know that , they just test what you are supposed to know, not predict your future. The future success is determined by your future efforts and intelligence.

I would rather respect if those people who conduct these studies go and talk to those kids from poor backgrounds but still scored 1550+ or 520+ and find out what materials they used, their methodologies , study habits and publish them to encourage future test takers . That is too much to ask for, in America.

Standardized tests are not some conspiracy against students from some groups (based on race, income, zip code etc). Everyone knows what those test on , if someone becomes good at them by paying attention in the class and absorbing the concepts , they will score well. If you are good at algebra 1.2 and geometry, basic grammar and reading comprehension, you will score high on the SAT. It is as simple as that. You don’t need elaborate multimillion dollar studies to figure it out. Thousands of students have scored 1550+ just by using khan Academy and YouTube, many have scored even 1600. Even those poor international students from third world countries easily score 1550+, English is not even their first language.

Thank you for acknowledging that I was right in some aspects. I will stop. Bye.
Bump on @Mr.Smile12 's comment about social determinants of health. I also don't believe these studies are trying to argue that SES predicts standardized test scores. Rather, among all of the privileges enjoyed by the wealthy, these advantages carry over in some way to standardized testing.

For example, let's say you take two students who are identical with respect to their intelligence, focus, determination and work ethic (the characteristics that you say determine test scores), and they both spend the exact same time studying for the test. One student is able to devote their whole days to studying. They can also afford expensive tutoring services to help prepare for the test. The other student has to juggle studying with the other aspects of life. They have to work part or full-time to afford rent, and they can only afford some of the test prep resources such as practice tests, question banks, etc. In this scenario, the first student would most likely perform better on the test.

I also tried to keep the example strictly financial, but there are a host of different factors which could positively or negatively affect the test results of two otherwise identical students. These include but are not limited to familial caretaking/responsibilities, access to a strong support network, quality of foundational education, etc.

That's also why test scores are only one piece of the larger admissions puzzle, because people are much more complex than the results of one 7-hour multiple choice test.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
So solution is quotas in admissions vs improving education system or income disparities?
No med school works with quotas. What they do is figure out who they want in their class. It's all about what the med schools want, not what the applicants want.

Why am I arguing with literal studies? Please be serious. These are not studies, just some garbage that were created by people with preconceived results/ideas to suit their agenda and propaganda, that is to attack and delegitimize the standardized tests and higher achievers. They don’t deserve your time or respect.

Irony, much? You know, people get kicked out of residency for being unteachable. I can see that there's no hope for you, so I'll just model good SDN behavior and use the Ignore function for you.

Let's get back on track, OK?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Sorry to burst your bubble, but wealth matters. Here actual data.

As might be expected, our results showed significantly higher MCAT scores from students who attended high-quality versus low-quality high schools.

High school GPA and class rank each have weakly positive correlations with household income, falling between 0.06 and 0.07, whereas SAT scores, especially on the math section, have correlations with household income roughly 3 times as large. Thus, selecting on national measures will bias more towards wealthier students than selection solely on school-specific measures.

So, I read through these articles because I agree, actual data matters. The first paper you reference is certainly a valuable piece of information in this discussion. The second article, Impact of High School Quality on Academic Performance Throughout Medical School, though seems to be of limited utility. For starters, it only has data from one school and one state which may limit its application beyond Nevada. It would be great to see studies at a national level that would more adequately describe med school admissions as a whole. Most importantly though, their data is non-significant across 4 of the 5 groups they analyzed. The only statistically significant difference between “high-quality high school” and “low-quality high school” groups was on the MCAT, and it was a difference of 1 point with a standard deviation of 4.7. So yes, the result is “statistically significant”, but I think there could be a reasonable discussion about whether or not that difference is meaningful. They did not find any significant difference in the groups on preclinical exams, step 1, clinical exams, or step 2. (Table 1). Nonetheless, regardless of their lack of statistical significance, the authors plot the data for exam performance, MCAT, Step1, and Step 2 in scatter plots that have no error bars (Fig 2,3,4,5). This omission of error allows the plots to show a “difference” in the data when the data being represented are actually within error and not measurably significant by their own admission. I found this to be quite misleading.

So, while I appreciate data being injected into the conversation, I would encourage diving into the data and figures to be sure of what a paper is saying. This paper does show a statistically significant difference of 1 point (SD 4.7) on the MCAT related to high school quality as measured by reading proficiency.
It was also quite humorous to me that high school quality data were sourced from US News and World. “This reading proficiency ranking was provided by the US News website (https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities), which ranked high school rankings regionally and nationally…” A little on the nose considering the topic of this thread.

Additionally, the Forbes article referenced a paper with a link that was no longer functional, so I was unable to look at any of the data associated with that claim. Not sure if anyone else had this problem as I would be interested to see what further insight that data offers.

I would be curious to know if anyone has come across research on this topic that has collated data from many schools to get a better picture of the US as a whole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
So, I read through these articles because I agree, actual data matters. The first paper you reference is certainly a valuable piece of information in this discussion. The second article, Impact of High School Quality on Academic Performance Throughout Medical School, though seems to be of limited utility. For starters, it only has data from one school and one state which may limit its application beyond Nevada. It would be great to see studies at a national level that would more adequately describe med school admissions as a whole. Most importantly though, their data is non-significant across 4 of the 5 groups they analyzed. The only statistically significant difference between “high-quality high school” and “low-quality high school” groups was on the MCAT, and it was a difference of 1 point with a standard deviation of 4.7. So yes, the result is “statistically significant”, but I think there could be a reasonable discussion about whether or not that difference is meaningful. They did not find any significant difference in the groups on preclinical exams, step 1, clinical exams, or step 2. (Table 1).
To be fair, this paper is about matriculants. An analysis of the applicant pool would have been more useful to this discussion.

I also thought the lack of significant difference in 4 of the 5 variables was sort of the point: matriculants from lower performing high schools come in with somewhat lower MCAT scores, but this doesn't seem to have any noticeable impact on future performance.

Agree about the error bars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Most of the high scorers in standardized tests like SAT, MCAT etc are from poor and middle class background, they use only cheap materials, free Khan Academy, YouTube channels etc. Still the entire country is repeating the same lie that the family SES determines the standardized test scores.
The free Khan Academy materials almost got pulled a couple of years ago due to lack of utilization.

If you do a Google image search for "MCAT score fee assistance program status" you'll find a screenshot of a AAMC publication that someone posted in Reddit. It shows average MCAT scores from 2015-2017 by selected subgroups. Here are some relevant ones:

Overall average 500.5
Did not receive FAP: 500.7
Received FAP: 496.4
Parent with Bachelors or higher: 501.8
Parent without Bachelors: 496.3
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Unless someone inherited their wealth or won a lottery, they must be having a high paying job or own a successful business which in turn mean they are most likely intelligent, educated , disciplined and hard working.
Most likely based on what data? Please share it. And are you saying that our society is meritocratic? Please say yes, so I can bombard you with numerous, very-well structured studies that clearly prove it is not.

You're assuming that the bulk of people with wealth competed on an even playing field with those who do not have wealthy and just outcompeted them, and I cannot even begin to stress how many studies have determined that is as far from the truth as possible.
 
  • Like
  • Dislike
  • Love
Reactions: 5 users
The free Khan Academy materials almost got pulled a couple of years ago due to lack of utilization.

If you do a Google image search for "MCAT score fee assistance program status" you'll find a screenshot of a AAMC publication that someone posted in Reddit. It shows average MCAT scores from 2015-2017 by selected subgroups. Here are some relevant ones:

Overall average 500.5
Did not receive FAP: 500.7
Received FAP: 496.4
Parent with Bachelors or higher: 501.8
Parent without Bachelors: 496.3
Khan Academy materials almost got pulled because of funding issues, not because of lack of utilization. Assuming it was, students shouldn’t cry for lack of resources if they don’t make use of free resources. It’s their fault.

Let me put it openly. I do not care if anyone does any studies on standardized test scores based on race, income, height , weight etc because they are meaningless , worthless and waste of time. No one can change my mind on it. Because , you don’t go to test centers, fill in your race, income, height, weight and the scoring machine awards you a score. It is not. You have to read the problem/questions, understand the problem, solve the problem and earn your score. If you had prepared or learned how to do, you get a very score, if not you get a low score. Your race, income, zip code etc are not used by the scoring machine. Why is it so hard to understand?
 
  • Inappropriate
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
Most likely based on what data? Please share it. And are you saying that our society is meritocratic? Please say yes, so I can bombard you with numerous, very-well structured studies that clearly prove it is not.

You're assuming that the bulk of people with wealth competed on an even playing field with those who do not have wealthy and just outcompeted them, and I cannot even begin to stress how many studies have determined that is as far from the truth as possible.
What kind of data you want man? It is as simple as 2+3=5. Either you inherit wealth, win a lottery, hold a high paying job or own a successful business. What else to it? I am not saying our society is meritocratic, especially the college admissions. My point is that we have to make it meritocratic.

Standardized tests and GPAs are earned on a level playing field. You don’t need any wealth to get a great GPA or a MCAT score. Please visit r/sat, r/mcat etc, you will get plenty of proof. As I mentioned, even students from poor , third world countries with English being their second language outscore American students easily. These are all facts. Don’t ask for studies, no one would do such studies because it doesn’t suit their agenda. I am from a very very poor family, I didn’t have any coaching but I scored very high on the standardized tests. I had only two pants and three shirts to wear for the entire four years of college, just to give you a context .
 
  • Inappropriate
  • Dislike
Reactions: 1 users
It's all about what the med schools want, not what the applicants want.
This sums up beautifully why our college admission process is screwed up. Colleges are here to serve the students, students are not here to serve colleges. At least, it is the case in the rest of the world. That’s why their process is simple and seamless.
 
As I mentioned, even students from poor , third world countries with English being their second language outscore American students easily. These are all facts. Don’t ask for studies, no one would do such studies because it doesn’t suit their agenda.
Your tendency to completely ignore proven facts, even after they've been blatantly shown to you, is concerning. @Goro provided numerous studies that directly refute this, and yet somehow you have chosen to ignore them.

Performance on standardized tests is very strongly correlated to wealth. Why in the world would I rely on unreliable anecdotes from redditors when there are actual, peer-reviewed studies addressing this topic in great detail?
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: 1 user
Let me put it openly. I do not care if anyone does any studies on standardized test scores based on race, income, height , weight etc because they are meaningless , worthless and waste of time. No one can change my mind on it.
This is not something I have ever said on here before because I haven't yet felt it warranted, but this statement right here terrifies me, and I'm incredibly concerned about your future patients should you make it into and through medical school & residency. Being this unmoveable, even in the face of evidence, is directly opposed to how physicians should practice medicine.
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Dislike
Reactions: 10 users
This is not something I have ever said on here before because I haven't yet felt it warranted, but this statement right here terrifies me, and I'm incredibly concerned about your future patients should you make it into and through medical school & residency. Being this unmoveable, even in the face of evidence, is directly opposed to how physicians should practice medicine.
Don't worry about it too much. The applicant pool has a certain number of people who only excel at standardized testing, and they're fairly easy to spot.

Even if he makes it in somewhere, the road will be a long one, and bewildering.
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Wow
Reactions: 4 users
Khan Academy materials almost got pulled because of funding issues, not because of lack of utilization. Assuming it was, students shouldn’t cry for lack of resources if they don’t make use of free resources. It’s their fault.

Let me put it openly. I do not care if anyone does any studies on standardized test scores based on race, income, height , weight etc because they are meaningless , worthless and waste of time. No one can change my mind on it. Because , you don’t go to test centers, fill in your race, income, height, weight and the scoring machine awards you a score. It is not. You have to read the problem/questions, understand the problem, solve the problem and earn your score. If you had prepared or learned how to do, you get a very score, if not you get a low score. Your race, income, zip code etc are not used by the scoring machine. Why is it so hard to understand?
somebody does not understand that this conversation is about systemic issues. You keep bringing up anecdotes about how people with little resources on r/mcat do well anyways. That's like a researcher getting a result they don't like when looking at an experiment with n=100, and instead cherry picking two mice who behaved in the way that supports what they think. You don't like studies, and instead base your opinion on extremely limited personal data. You have to see how that's flawed.
If people with low ses systemically score worse than people with high ses, than it has to be A) the system benefits those with more resources or B) poor people are inherently worse at these tests.
It seems absurd that you don't recognize that not having to work full time would obviously make it easier to do well on a test, without reflecting someone's inherent ability to be a good doctor.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 4 users
@goro No med school works with quotas. What they do is figure out who they want in their class. It's all about what the med schools want, not what the applicants want.
Isn’t that the definition of quota? You want diverse class with certain numbers from different groups.
 
Isn’t that the definition of quota? You want diverse class with certain numbers from different groups.
Not quite. A true quota system would generate a pre-determined class composition without much thought. Want 10% of your class to be Black students? Then hold 10% of your seats for Black applicants. The only way it doesn't work is if you don't have enough Black applicants to fill those seats.

The LCME has taken a different approach, where "each medical school is required to (1) identify diversity categories that motivate its mission and reflect its environment and (2) use those categories to implement programs to promote diverse representation of students and faculty."

What you really have to show is that you've got active recruitment efforts that target your chosen diversity categories. The ultimate success of those efforts cannot be overlooked, but given the idiosyncrasies if each school's mission, applicant pool, and admissions committee, it becomes somewhat secondary. So you can want at least 10% of your seats occupied by Black students, and you can go on a campaign to recruit Black applicants, and you can be happy of you hit at last 10%, but no one is going to penalize you if you don't, as long as you're trying.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 2 users
Most of the high scorers in standardized tests like SAT, MCAT etc are from poor and middle class background, they use only cheap materials, free Khan Academy, YouTube channels etc. Still the entire country is repeating the same lie that the family SES determines the standardized test scores.
Not directly relevant to the MCAT, but I'm just gonna drop this here, directly from the AAMC How to Get Into Med School book.

Fully half of matriculants have parents making over $150k.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2023-02-16_at_1.24.22_AM.png
    Screenshot_2023-02-16_at_1.24.22_AM.png
    115.9 KB · Views: 79
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 5 users
Not quite. A true quota system would generate a pre-determined class composition without much thought. Want 10% of your class to be Black students? Then hold 10% of your seats for Black applicants. The only way it doesn't work is if you don't have enough Black applicants to fill those seats.

The LCME has taken a different approach, where "each medical school is required to (1) identify diversity categories that motivate its mission and reflect its environment and (2) use those categories to implement programs to promote diverse representation of students and faculty."

What you really have to show is that you've got active recruitment efforts that target your chosen diversity categories. The ultimate success of those efforts cannot be overlooked, but given the idiosyncrasies if each school's mission, applicant pool, and admissions committee, it becomes somewhat secondary. So you can want at least 10% of your seats occupied by Black students, and you can go on a campaign to recruit Black applicants, and you can be happy of you hit at last 10%, but no one is going to penalize you if you don't, as long as you're trying.
So LCME is mandating diversity?
 
To qualify as an accredited medical school, LCME requires schools to show that they have made an effort to recruit a diverse student body and faculty. It isn't the outcome that is prescribed but that there be an intentional effort and that be documented in a self-study that the school prepares in advance of a site visit by representatives of LCME.

Intentional efforts could include sending recruiters to HBCUs and other schools that routinely have a large number of URM alumni matriculating to medical school. It can mean attending pre-med events sponsored by organizations such as the National Medical Student Association to encourage potential applicants to consider applying. This increases the size of the pool of applicants. It can mean hosting summer programs for undergrads and even HS students who have not had research opportunities at their home institutions. That can increase the strength of the applicants and perhaps make them more inclined to accept an offer if they have several to choose from.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
To qualify as an accredited medical school, LCME requires schools to show that they have made an effort to recruit a diverse student body and faculty. It isn't the outcome that is prescribed but that there be an intentional effort and that be documented in a self-study that the school prepares in advance of a site visit by representatives of LCME.

Intentional efforts could include sending recruiters to HBCUs and other schools that routinely have a large number of URM alumni matriculating to medical school. It can mean attending pre-med events sponsored by organizations such as the National Medical Student Association to encourage potential applicants to consider applying. This increases the size of the pool of applicants. It can mean hosting summer programs for undergrads and even HS students who have not had research opportunities at their home institutions. That can increase the strength of the applicants and perhaps make them more inclined to accept an offer if they have several to choose from.
Those are good efforts but i see more upper class URMs getting advantage over poor URMs since schools May go for optics than actual diversity.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 2 users
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top