Tulane vs Rochester

[gmr0589]

Hello everyone, thank you in advance for your help and input!
Until yesterday, I was all set to attend Tulane, but unexpectedly got an offer from Rochester this morning. I am thrilled to have this option, but I'm having trouble deciding what to do.

Some background: Graduated in 2011, been working and doing a Master's since then. Born and raised in Puerto Rico, but I've been living in the northeast for the past 7 years (college+grad school). I think I'm leaning towards primary care (peds), but this is not set in stone. I am interested in community service opportunities and working with underserved/diverse populations.

Here's what I've been thinking so far:

Cost - Rochester is cheaper than Tulane, but Tulane offered me a 20k a year scholarship. Don't have the financial aid package from Rochester yet.

Curriculum - I REALLY don't like that Rochester doesn't record their lectures, and I believe the class schedule for MS1 is something like 8-4 or something like that (please correct me if I'm wrong). I do love the psychosocial model of teaching in Rochester (it's what made me apply)

Location - New Orleans is a way better city, hands down. Both are far from family/support system, but Rochester is closer. Although getting to Rochester is a bit of a pain no matter what.

Ranking (not sure how important this is) - Rochester is ranked higher, but I'm not sure if it's significant.

I am really not sure what would be the best option. I think my gut tells me I'll be happier at Tulane, but I do like many things about Rochester. any thoughts? Thank you!!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Serous Demilune]

Rochester does have a significantly better reputation than Tulane, but if you want to match peds it really won't matter (no offense). Tulane wins by a mile with location, weather, curriculum, and even community service (its hospital system serves a very poor population). Based on what you've told us, I'm thinking Tulane is the better fit.

 

[el_duderino]

Rochester (the city) sucks. New Orleans is awesome. Tulane is great for primary care as I understand.

 

[gmr0589]

Rochester does have a significantly better reputation than Tulane, but if you want to match peds it really won't matter (no offense). Tulane wins by a mile with location, weather, curriculum, and even community service (its hospital system serves a very poor population). Based on what you've told us, I'm thinking Tulane is the better fit.

If I were to decide not to pursue peds (probably won't happen), how big of an advantage would Rochester give me over Tulane? I'm just trying to get how significant is the difference in reputation between the schools. Thanks for your input!

 

[Serous Demilune]

If I were to decide not to pursue peds (probably won't happen), how big of an advantage would Rochester give me over Tulane? I'm just trying to get how significant is the difference in reputation between the schools. Thanks for your input!

Honestly I'm not totally sure. I know that Rochester is very strong in research, especially neurosciences, so it's a popular choice for MD/PhD students. Idk what residency programs think about Tulane.

 

[ace12345]

Rochester is a really good school. Location is sort of a pain and yes no recorded lectures is rough, but I think you would be really, really remiss to pick Tulane over their program. All respect to Tulane, I just do not see them establishing the same degree of connections and placing you in as competitive a spot as attending Rochester.

 

[GBODumich2012]

Rochester is a really good school. Location is sort of a pain and yes no recorded lectures is rough, but I think you would be really, really remiss to pick Tulane over their program. All respect to Tulane, I just do not see them establishing the same degree of connections and placing you in as competitive a spot as attending Rochester.

This.

 

[Selladore235]

I don't know anything about Tulane, but I'll be an MS1 this coming fall at Rochester. Rochester is P/F, as you know, with nonmandatory lectures in first year and second year. For every course, slides and lecture materials are posted online, and syllabi, according to a student I spoke with, are more often than not comprehensive enough that self-studying is totally doable. Personally, I like attending lecture and can't imagine wanting to spend time by myself on a computer watching recorded lectures for every lecture, especially since I'll already be spending so much time by myself studying. But I like that it is possible to miss class if needed to study on my own time and at my own pace. Below are quotes from others on this topic from a different thread.

From what I gathered lectures are still not recorded but not mandatory. Only small group sessions in ICM, PBLs, and anatomy labs are mandatory. Lectures are generally from 8-12 with small group sessions in the afternoon but sometimes PBL can be in the mornings too. M, W, F are the longer days. The M4 at my lunch group and other M1s stated that they were happy with the diversity in how the material is taught (i.e what is taught in lecture gets reinforced in PBL, lab, and small group sessions).

Hey--
So I was similarly concerned about the unrecorded classes. I basically assumed that meant that classes were, while not explicitly, mandatory. My host immediately dispelled that myth by letting me know that he frequently misses 2-3 classes a week, and that by the winter time of M1, only about half the class shows up anyway (which seemed true regardless of medical school). It seems the notes are thorough and complete enough that classes can be missed every now and again.

Zenosticks answered about the amount of time dedicated to each part of the curriculum, but I would add that very quickly in your medical school career you start on the primary care clerkship which is taught over the second half of M1 and all of M2, basically leading to M-F being fairly full days of class and/or clinic. The impression that I got was that, while it is a lot of work, it is not by any means overwhelming/untenable and the benefits are noticeable when M3 comes around.

All lecture courses are P/F the first two years, while PCC (primary care clerkship) is H/P/F I believe. I also was told that Rochester uses a pure P/F system. That is, every students' first two years are summed up in one sentence on every residency application recommendation letter: "DressageDoc passed all of her/his preclinical courses at Rochester Medical School" or something to that effect.

Rochester set itself apart from other schools in the community of its students. As opposed to schools in NYC or other cities, I felt Rochester's dynamic was very focused on getting to know each other and building relationships within a class. I got that feeling from the M4 panel and from the M1s I stayed with and from everyone else I interacted with that weekend. Maybe it is because they draw heavily from liberal arts schools or because they are kind of isolated out there or because they all go to class first semester (so know each other very well), all I know is that I really felt comfortable there.

**Disclaimer here that I may have recollected some things incorrectly. Hope it helps!

Regarding your interest in pediatrics, Rochester is a nationally reputed environment for primary care training. Their emphasis on the doctor-patient relationship, their biopsychosocial model of medical education, and its primary care clerkship (PCC) are major draws for me, and I imagine that the PCC appeals to you too. In addition to its primary care training and repute, Rochester is nationally reputed for its academics in many fields. So there's that if you decide primary care isn't what you want to practice.

Lastly, according to the MSAR, Tulane's cost of attendance is roughly $13k more than Rochester's. So even without any scholarships from Rochester you'd only be looking at a $7k difference per year between the schools. Not a big factor there if that's the case.

Anyway. I hope that was helpful! And maybe I'll see you in August in Rochester 🙂🙂

 

[sazerac]

So, Tulane is cheaper; Tulane makes it easy to not attend lecture; Tulane is in NEW ORLEANS. Your gut is telling you to go to Tulane. What more needs to be discussed here?

There is little point mentioning which school is more nationally known for this medical discipline or that. Let's face it, neither of these schools is a Yale or a Stanford. Both schools have been pumping out fully qualified doctors for a century or so. This school decision is going to come down to softer factors like fit.

People either love or hate New Orleans. If the city amuses you, this is a golden opportunity to not only become a doctor, but also spend four years in one of the most unique cities in the US. When you are 80 years old, are you going to regret passing this opportunity by? This is a personal question only you can answer.

If you are truly interested in serving the diverse underserved, the environment around Tulane with its lack of city and state services and a population traditionally (and rightfully) distrustful of both government and medicine is going to provide diverse people with major needs by the bucketful. We have prisoners (Louisiana is #1), minorities (whites aren't even a plurality here), and exotic diseases like tertiary syphilis that you'd normally only associate with countries like Haiti and Sierra Leone. You can experience all this and more during your required community service hours during years M1, M2, and now M4 as well. Rochester may have a similar setup. I wouldn't know. But I'm sure you got the impression during your interview that Tulane treats serving the underserved the way the top 20 medical schools treat research. Service is front and center here.

You're gonna be a doctor either way. Follow your gut.

 

[ace12345]

So, Tulane is cheaper; Tulane makes it easy to not attend lecture; Tulane is in NEW ORLEANS. Your gut is telling you to go to Tulane. What more needs to be discussed here?

There is little point mentioning which school is more nationally known for this medical discipline or that. Let's face it, neither of these schools is a Yale or a Stanford. Both schools have been pumping out fully qualified doctors for a century or so. This school decision is going to come down to softer factors like fit.

People either love or hate New Orleans. If the city amuses you, this is a golden opportunity to not only become a doctor, but also spend four years in one of the most unique cities in the US. When you are 80 years old, are you going to regret passing this opportunity by? This is a personal question only you can answer.

If you are truly interested in serving the diverse underserved, the environment around Tulane with its lack of city and state services and a population traditionally (and rightfully) distrustful of both government and medicine is going to provide diverse people with major needs by the bucketful. We have prisoners (Louisiana is #1), minorities (whites aren't even a plurality here), and exotic diseases like tertiary syphilis that you'd normally only associate with countries like Haiti and Sierra Leone. You can experience all this and more during your required community service hours during years M1, M2, and now M4 as well. Rochester may have a similar setup. I wouldn't know. But I'm sure you got the impression during your interview that Tulane treats serving the underserved the way the top 20 medical schools treat research. Service is front and center here.

You're gonna be a doctor either way. Follow your gut.

With all due respect, this is very misleading. Yes, you're going to be a physician either way, but where you go to school does matter. Go look outside the SDN pre-med forums and you can see that immediately. The IM forum is particularly helpful in highlighting this point. Also, your comparison between service at Tulane and research at Top 20's is very incorrect, particularly if we're talking about a school like Rochester.

 

[NervousNerd]

Rochester