So in any type of ranking of medical schools (US News), one factor in the rankings is how the school's graduates are viewed by the residency programs. Another popular way of ranking schools as evidenced by the insane number of threads on match results is the number of students going to the top residency programs in the country. These stats are useful for people applying to medical school, because it gives you a good idea of the likely outcome depending on what med school you attend. However, these data still beg the question, "*what* is it about these schools that makes them so good that a significant number of them go on to the best residencies?" I don't think anyone would say that a graduate of Johns Hopkins knows more about medicine than a graduate of, say, USC for example. Both are "good" med schools, but clearly Hopkins wins in terms of residency placement. What residency placement is to med school rankings, employment rates are to law school rankings. Is it a BAD law school if only 30% of its grads are employed after graduation (answer: yes)? Well clearly the employers don't want to hire grads from that school, but *why*? Do they learn less? I think the answer in both of these cases is that the "best" schools end up with the "best" students, that reputation invites selectivity which results in the most eligible candidates sorting out to the most highly ranked schools. What residency directors are acting on, then, is the understanding that med schools have already done the basic screening in accepting the best candidates they could who would attend their schools... In the rankings of undergraduate colleges, the "quality" of graduate programs attended by a school's graduates isn't taken into account, nor is their average income after graduation. I think this reflects the idea that the undergraduate programs vary so much by so many factors (core requirements/departmental strengths/extracurricular involvements/residential systems/etc) that these grad school/salary comparisons wouldn't have much meaning. By the same token, then, one could argue that the fact that people do rank grad schools based on these future outcomes (residency/employment) reflects the general similarity of the programs themselves. Just some things on my mind! Any thoughts?