UCLA MSTP

[WestArmadon]

I realize that US News Rankings are not the greatest/fairest way to compare schools, but should drastic changes in ranking be taken as a red flag? I'm specifically curious about UCLA's drop from 6th to 21st this year. Is this just a fluke, or is there something behind the scenes that may have caused this drop? Is this in any way indicative of the program's trajectory?
Are there any changes to their NIH MSTP funding?
Any insight is much appreciated!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Dormouse]

Not at all, no medical school changes that much in a year (or even a decade...). It most likely has to do with changes in ranking methodology that USNews uses from year to year (which is another reason why you shouldn't rely on it that much). This year, for example, they decided to include grants and contracts from sources other than NIH when considering school funding. UCLA may simply be more NIH funded.

You can dramatically alter USNews ranking list just by adjusting how you define and rely on specific parameters.

 

[wondervisions]

If a school can fall from #6 to #21 with no obvious reason or justification, do you think it is a reliable ranking system?

 

[mega_]

I realize that US News Rankings are not the greatest/fairest way to compare schools

You said it yourself. Than you might ask what is the good way? I would argue they are none that are super reliable. Probably the best proxy of assessing broadly how friendly is specific medical school environment to MD-PhD education is the number of MSTP funded MD-PhD spots in the program.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research

 

[WestArmadon]

Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research

Is raw NIH funding a common indicator for how "good" a medical school is among professionals? I'm sorry, I'm a bit new to this..

 

[WestArmadon]

If US News is not a fair metric, how should we think about the opposite scenario? The program that comes to mind is NYU, which has really skyrocketed in the past 10 years (~#30 to now #2).

 

[SurfingDoctor]

Is raw NIH funding a common indicator for how "good" a medical school is among professionals? I'm sorry, I'm a bit new to this..

I’m not sure I understand the question. Having lots of NIH is not an indicator of a “bad” medical school usually. Especially if ones goal is to do research.

 

[CheGuevaraMD]

Since NIH funding rates are so low, researchers are increasingly relying on institutional money, other grant funders and contracts to achieve the same output. This means that NIH proposals are even more competitive, because people produce preliminary work with non-NIH sources.

By these metrics, yes, UCLA is in decline.

 

[Dormouse]

Since NIH funding rates are so low, researchers are increasingly relying on institutional money, other grant funders and contracts to achieve the same output. This means that NIH proposals are even more competitive, because people produce preliminary work with non-NIH sources.

By these metrics, yes, UCLA is in decline.

Or, more likely, UCLA always had lower "institutional money" and is only now suddenly ranked lower by USNews because they decided to switch their ranking metrics this year. The institution itself is not "in decline". It hasn't changed. Next year, USNews might decide to switch up their metrics again and some other schools will go up/down, etc.

 

[tr]

If US News is not a fair metric, how should we think about the opposite scenario? The program that comes to mind is NYU, which has really skyrocketed in the past 10 years (~#30 to now #2).

I think the main thing that changed about NYU is that their medical school tuition became $0 for all matriculated students in 2019 or thereabouts. Presumably this has resulted in a huge increase in the caliber/competitiveness of their admitted student body, in terms of quantifiable metrics like GPA and MCAT. Although NYU is a very reasonable research institution, there is no way that their overall research funding, productivity, etc has made that big a jump in just a few years.

If you must have a ranked list, then yes I think NIH funding is probably a better metric for people looking at MSTPs than USNews.
Size of the MSTP program is also a very good proxy as noted above.

Top 50 NIH-Funded Institutions of 2020

The Top 50 NIH-Funded Institutions of 2020 is a list of 50 universities (including medical schools), research institutions, and teaching hospitals ranked by how much in NIH funding they have received during the current 2020 federal fiscal year, through September.

www.genengnews.com

 

[Maebea]

A familiar rant for me: rankings are worthless, in my opinion. I can tell you that some of the best & most innovative MD-PhD programs are at schools that have traditionally not been listed in the top 20. On the other hand, at least MSTP 6 programs currently in that elite group were, at one time or another, placed on probation by the NIH & had their MSTP grant award reduced because there were problems that the study section felt compromised the training students were receiving. Leave rankings to for parents to obsess over and focus on the 3 F's: faculty, form, and fit. Does the program have a robust group of faculty in your area of research? Is the program structured in a way that makes most sense for what your career plans? Do you feel a good fit with the people and culture of the program, the institution, and the location.

 

[dl2dp2]

JHU also dropped a lot. I'm just scrutinizing their criteria and it sounds like what helped NYU a lot is that their research dollar per faculty (which is not a criterion used in the previous iterations) is high, even though the overall grant $ for JHU is high.

This is congruent with my intuition which is that NYU spent a ton of their endowment to attract individual stars in the last decade. Also stars just prefer living in trendy places like Greenwich Village, which is also a draw. JHU/JHH has always been more of a "team science" kind of place. NYU has had a meteoritic rise in their ranking in all sorts of departments using this method...

If this methodology persists, it'll be another nail in this coffin of worsening malignant competition and inequitable distribution in academic medicine...all clinical faculty will be moved into an "adjunct" position where it's not counted toward USNWR ratio.

 

[Maebea]

Agree with sluox. Rankings can definitely be gamed. I remember when one of the criteria for undergrad institutions was the number of books and journal subscriptions held by the library. My undergrad school rented space in a dank, vermin-infested warehouse to keep books that no one had read in decades. To be sure, recruiting star faculty is different than storing moldy books (at least in most cases), but it can be a fool's errand. My institution has pursued that strategy, making huge investments to draw big names. Not infrequently, the stars will bolt to another institution when another sugar daddy comes along waving a big check and architect's renderings of new lab space.

 

[CheGuevaraMD]

Or, more likely, UCLA always had lower "institutional money" and is only now suddenly ranked lower by USNews because they decided to switch their ranking metrics this year. The institution itself is not "in decline". It hasn't changed. Next year, USNews might decide to switch up their metrics again and some other schools will go up/down, etc.

But institutional money does matter to be competitive in this grant environment. Most applicants (at all levels) need significant preliminary work to successfully win NIH grants at this point. Preliminary work is largely funded by institutional money, which can be used in many ways -- non-MSTP PhDs, postdoctoral fellowships, startup funds for new faculty, etc. Private schools and well-funded public schools really lead the pack in this area, and it shows, at least in my field.

In truth, all of the UCs (except maybe UCSF) have been in decline since 2008. The state has drastically cut support for these schools, and they've had to make it up with tuition hikes and patient care dollars. Research is usually a money loser, so institutional funding for it gets cut first. Also, as others have noted, this is usually a self-fulfilling decline -- less institutional support for faculty means that good faculty leave, which means lower rankings and lower institutional support, etc. It's very hard for an institution to pull itself out of such a downward spiral, and the UCs are even worse off than most public schools, because state support is split among so many institutions. UCSF has fewer money-losing educational expenditures as it's not attached to an undergraduate college (and its patient care revenues offset its research dollar losses), so it seems to be okay.

Going forward, I would expect that private schools and public schools in states with one major research institution will lead the pack. The money-losing features of education and research don't favor the revenue models of smaller or less favorite institutions.

 

[Dormouse]

In truth, all of the UCs (except maybe UCSF) have been in decline since 2008. The state has drastically cut support for these schools, and they've had to make it up with tuition hikes and patient care dollars.

I don't disagree with your points about the UC system and the funding climate at all. As you have said though, this has been going on at the UCs since 2008, but it clearly has not been reflected in USNews assessment until a sudden change this year, twelve years later. Hence the USNews ranking has so far not been the most accurate in portraying the developmental trajectory of universities. The ongoing issues with the UC system is definitely worth noting, thanks for pointing that out.

 

[CheGuevaraMD]

I don't disagree with your points about the UC system and the funding climate at all. As you have said though, this has been going on at the UCs since 2008, but it clearly has not been reflected in USNews assessment until a sudden change this year, twelve years later. Hence the USNews ranking has so far not been the most accurate in portraying the developmental trajectory of universities. The ongoing issues with the UC system is definitely worth noting, thanks for pointing that out.

No problem! I now see UCSF, Stanford, and UW leading the pack on the West Coast. USC made a play in recent years to become a rising star, but it’s administration seems corrupt beyond belief and they’ve suffered a number of reputational (sexual abuse cases, admissions scandal) and financial ($1B settlement for sexual abuse) losses. The Southwest may just not have any standout/Top 20 programs now.

 

[moggat]

Agreed that NIH funding is a better metric than USNWR--only caveat being that it won't fully capture funding for institutions that have large cancer centers or are heavily cancer focused, as IME there are a lot more non-NIH, private funding orgs for cancer research. This methodology also may not include partner institutes for purposes of MSTPs? Casting no aspersions on the Blue Ridge folks, but does Cornell include MSK/Rockefeller or WU include the Hutch for example? If you're interested in cancer research (or some other disease-focused research with lots of non-NIH support like MS or Alzheimer's, etc) that might just be something to consider.

And given that USNWR *is* mostly based off of funding, that might give an indication of the meteoric rise or fall of certain Universities (did they start or lose a huge institute? did they just straight up buy two other hospitals? (NYU))