Temple vs. BU?

[chocolateMD]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Hi all,

So I was really thinking that Temple would be the only school I would be considering (as after countless waitlists it was my only acceptance), but I just got a call from BU, and so I wanted to ask for your opinions. (Oh also, I am from the Boston area so I was excited about moving to a new city)

Thanks in advance!

 

[drizzt3117]

I would go with BU by far as long as the cost difference wasn't super prohibitive, which I don't think it probably is in this case.

 

[tdittyx2x3]

Temple: 49k (oos)
Boston: 43k

This price difference is around 40k after four years plus interest. You would have to find a reason to want Temple for 40k more.. is getting out of Boston for four years worth that to you?

Btw, in my very humble opinion, Temple and Boston are about on even keel in terms of competitiveness and quality of education.

 

[PreMD86]

Temple: 49k (oos)
Boston: 43k

This price difference is around 40k after four years plus interest. You would have to find a reason to want Temple for 40k more.. is getting out of Boston for four years worth that to you?

Btw, in my very humble opinion, Temple and Boston are about on even keel in terms of competitiveness and quality of education.

In the humble opinion of US news medical school rankings, BU is a better school (by over 40 spots). Trust me, North Philly is not the kind of city worth getting excited about. NYC, maybe, but not philly. Take the extra 40k, buy yourself a sox season pack, and love that dirty water.

 

[tdittyx2x3]

In the humble opinion of US news medical school rankings, BU is a better school (by over 40 spots)

The rankings are relatively worthless. NIH funding for research does not equal a better education. Rankings tell you absolutely nothing about the quality of the pre-clinical and clinical education, and contrary to typical pre-med belief, they mean almost nothing for a student's chances in the match (according to the analysis by the AAMC, pg 19) - the entire purpose of attending medical school, to match.

It's also interesting that Temple would be so much lower than Boston in these rankings, yet the average gpa and MCAT scores are slightly higher for Temple matriculates. Not that thats an indication of "better education" either, but clearly the quality of the student body is comparable at both schools.

This is a "where do you want to live and for how much" question, not a "which is the better school" question.

 

[Lokhtar]

Temple: 49k (oos)
Boston: 43k

This price difference is around 40k after four years plus interest. You would have to find a reason to want Temple for 40k more.. is getting out of Boston for four years worth that to you?

Boston is also more expensive to live in than Philly, so that difference may not exist when all costs are factored in.

 

[PreMD86]

The rankings are relatively worthless. NIH funding for research does not equal a better education. Rankings tell you absolutely nothing about the quality of the pre-clinical and clinical education, and contrary to typical pre-med belief, they mean almost nothing for a student's chances in the match (according to the analysis by the AAMC, pg 19) - the entire purpose of attending medical school, to match.

It's also interesting that Temple would be so much lower than Boston in these rankings, yet the average gpa and MCAT scores are slightly higher for Temple matriculates. Not that thats an indication of "better education" either, but clearly the quality of the student body is comparable at both schools.

This is a "where do you want to live and for how much" question, not a "which is the better school" question.

"For U.S. seniors who preferred less competitive specialties, being a​

​

graduate of a top 40 NIH research medical school​

was a significant predictor of match success (OR=1.41), and the fourth best predictor overall. Having a​

​

Ph.D. degree​

was a significant and fifth best predictor for U.S. seniors who preferred more competitive specialties (OR=2.88). Being a​

member of AOA​

​

​

was a significant predictor of match success for both groups of U.S. seniors. Having another type of​

graduate degree was not a significant predictor of match success for either group of U.S. seniors."
-AAMC charting outcomes in matching,2007, pg 17.
https://services.aamc.org/Publicati...version95.pdf&prd_id=197&prv_id=238&pdf_id=95

There's a reason that I can say with sweeping authority that Harvard is better than, say, nymc. This difference in quality, perhaps not always perfectly, is reflected in those rankings. For the record, I'm not such a big fan of rankings either, but when there's a difference of 40-50 spots between two schools, you can bet for the most part there's some substantial difference in quality (be it perceived, or actual).

 

[tdittyx2x3]

"For U.S. seniors who preferred less competitive specialties, being a graduate of a top 40 NIH research medical school
​

was a significant predictor of match success (OR=1.41), and the fourth best predictor overall.

Yet for U.S. seniors who preferred more competitive specialties, there was no difference between top 40 NIH schools and all other schools. So why do you think there is an advantage for "top 40 students" in lesser competitive specialties but NOTin more competitive specialties?

It's because the match is about the quality of the student, not the school. Top 40 school does not equal high Step I score. High caliber student equals high Step I score. It just so happens that top 40 schools typically admit higher caliber students (on average) than the rest of the schools. Hence, when a higher quality student chooses a less competitive specialty = advantage.

Most medical students say that you'll get the same step I score whether you go to school X, Y, or Z. The step average at Harvard will always be higher, but its because Harvard admits higher caliber students not because of the quality of a Harvard education.

There's a reason that I can say with sweeping authority that Harvard is better than, say, nymc. This difference in quality, perhaps not always perfectly, is reflected in those rankings. For the record, I'm not such a big fan of rankings either, but when there's a difference of 40-50 spots between two schools, you can bet for the most part there's some substantial difference in quality (be it perceived, or actual).

We need to define "better" and "quality" I think. How would you like to define it? By the number of computers? By how new the facilities are? How many PhD's are on the faculty?

Here's how US News does it:

30% # of NIH research dollars awarded
20% opinion by deans of other medical schools
20% opinion by residency directors
13% MCAT score of matriculates
10% Faculty to student ratio
6% GPA of matriculates
1% acceptance rate (how many accepted / how many apply)

I don't know about you, but I dont think any of these categories are going to help me get my top choice residency. Honestly, the only people that care about these rankings are the actual schools because it translates into how many more applicants (suckers) will apply the next year.

 

[slowbutsteady]

The rankings are relatively worthless. NIH funding for research does not equal a better education. Rankings tell you absolutely nothing about the quality of the pre-clinical and clinical education, and contrary to typical pre-med belief, they mean almost nothing for a student's chances in the match (according to the analysis by the AAMC, pg 19) - the entire purpose of attending medical school, to match.

It's also interesting that Temple would be so much lower than Boston in these rankings, yet the average gpa and MCAT scores are slightly higher for Temple matriculates. Not that thats an indication of "better education" either, but clearly the quality of the student body is comparable at both schools.

This is a "where do you want to live and for how much" question, not a "which is the better school" question.

Agree. BU, for example, dropped 20 ranking spots from 2008 to 2009 because some NIH funding was completed. Same med school as far as I am concerned, but to premeds it is less desirable.

 

[SwtAnana]

tdittyx2x3 and slowbutsteady: I think you guys are right on. Too many people read stats and don't look into how those stats were acquired and they just end up being misled