US News 2014 Rankings

[chronicidal]

I've changed my mind about the UCSF URM thing. There are two reasons why I'm wrong.

1) UC schools do not practice race-based affirmative action due to state law. It would be reasonable to see a smaller gap between URM and non-URM scores at UCSF compared to its peer schools. Its high URM percentage could merely be a reflection of in-state demographics.
2) Affirmative action can't explain why UCSF underperforms on Step 1 compared to its peers. If URMs were pulling down the Step 1 average, then they would've pulled down the MCAT average too. But we see UCSF doing poorer than predicted based on their MCAT average.

Alternative hypothesis: UCSF has the PRIME and JMP programs, which are unique and draw students with career goals that might be different from students in the traditional program and students at peer schools. These students might be more interested in service and primary care and less interested in getting a 260 to land a derm residency. So let's say these students needed to get a high MCAT in order to get into UCSF in the first place, but once they're there, they realize that killing themselves over Step 1 is not aligned with their goals and passions.

I do like wangers' hypothesis too, though.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[KnuxNole]

No offense, but underperforming is kinda loosely defined for people who might not know anything about Step 1. Yes, a 233 average is lower than a 236. However, it's not like it's a huge drop that is terrible. It's only 3 points. And besides, a 233 is an excellent score...nothing to ever cry about

Unless they are the pre-med that cries about a 32 on the MCAT haha

 

[Arbor Vitae]

I've changed my mind about the UCSF URM thing. There are two reasons why I'm wrong.

1) UC schools do not practice race-based affirmative action due to state law.

UC schools have a way of working around that state law.

 

[Arbor Vitae]

OK true true I went to Berkeley and never once went surfing in undergrad, but that's all the Stanford Med students were raving about at the interview and I was like facepalm but I guess you need to escape from the books somehow?

Stanford students were probably the chillest students I met on the interview trail, hands down. If not surfing, maybe it's the California vibe that accounts for the scores

Well, I guess UCSF is close to Ocean Beach, so there is a nice sandy beach to lay out at during Summer, but the water is really cold year round. And the surfing is done in the winter with huge winter swells and unfriendly conditions. I guess you could always take a trip to Santa Cruz. I feel like SF is more about all those big grassy parks where all the hipsters/hippies congregate.

 

[dahassa]

I've changed my mind about the UCSF URM thing. There are two reasons why I'm wrong.

2) Affirmative action can't explain why UCSF underperforms on Step 1 compared to its peers. If URMs were pulling down the Step 1 average, then they would've pulled down the MCAT average too. But we see UCSF doing poorer than predicted based on their MCAT average.

I am glad you realized this, because you were extremely wrong. In fact, Ucsf DOES NOT have more URMs compared to its peers. For the most part, the top 10 have the same % of URMs. Arguments should be made using actual facts and numbers not perception. Here is a chart below comparing % URM to average Step 1 score. All of the data is from the latest MSAR and USNews Step 1 report.

School- total # of Urm- %URM- Step 1 Average

UCSF- 8blk + 23his= 31- 31/165=18.7%- 226-

Duke- 22blk + 10his= 32- 32/102=31.3%- 234-

Hopkins- 15blk + 2his= 17- 17/120= 14.1%- 237-

Columbia- 15blk + 19his= 34- 34/166= 20.5%- 237-

Stanford- 4blk + 11his= 15- 15/86= 17.4 - 233-

Penn- 16blk + 22his= 38- 38/166=22.8%- 240-

Harvard- 11blk + 16his= 27- 27/165=16.3%- 239-

Clearly, URMs don't explain why UCSF has a lower step 1 average. Duke has almost 2x as many URMs and and 8 points higher on step 1. UCSF is a great school and any one would be luck to get in. This isn't a post so much about UCSF as it is about using common sense.

 

[Black Mamba24]

I am glad you realized this, because you were extremely wrong. In fact, Ucsf DOES NOT have more URMs compared to its peers. For the most part, the top 10 have the same % of URMs. Arguments should be made using actual facts and numbers not perception. Here is a chart below comparing % URM to average Step 1 score. All of the data is from the latest MSAR and USNews Step 1 report.

School- total # of Urm- %URM- Step 1 Average

UCSF- 8blk + 23his= 31- 31/165=18.7%- 226-

Duke- 22blk + 10his= 32- 32/102=31.3%- 234-

Hopkins- 15blk + 2his= 17- 17/120= 14.1%- 237-

Columbia- 15blk + 19his= 34- 34/166= 20.5%- 237-

Stanford- 4blk + 11his= 15- 15/86= 17.4 - 233-

Penn- 16blk + 22his= 38- 38/166=22.8%- 240-

Harvard- 11blk + 16his= 27- 27/165=16.3%- 239-

Clearly, URMs don't explain why UCSF has a lower step 1 average. Duke has almost 2x as many URMs and and 8 points higher on step 1. UCSF is a great school and any one would be luck to get in. This isn't a post so much about UCSF as it is about using common sense.

 

[chronicidal]

I am glad you realized this, because you were extremely wrong. In fact, Ucsf DOES NOT have more URMs compared to its peers. For the most part, the top 10 have the same % of URMs. Arguments should be made using actual facts and numbers not perception. Here is a chart below comparing % URM to average Step 1 score. All of the data is from the latest MSAR and USNews Step 1 report.

School- total # of Urm- %URM- Step 1 Average

UCSF- 8blk + 23his= 31- 31/165=18.7%- 226-

Duke- 22blk + 10his= 32- 32/102=31.3%- 234-

Hopkins- 15blk + 2his= 17- 17/120= 14.1%- 237-

Columbia- 15blk + 19his= 34- 34/166= 20.5%- 237-

Stanford- 4blk + 11his= 15- 15/86= 17.4 - 233-

Penn- 16blk + 22his= 38- 38/166=22.8%- 240-

Harvard- 11blk + 16his= 27- 27/165=16.3%- 239-

Clearly, URMs don't explain why UCSF has a lower step 1 average. Duke has almost 2x as many URMs and and 8 points higher on step 1. UCSF is a great school and any one would be luck to get in. This isn't a post so much about UCSF as it is about using common sense.

USNWR says UCSF has 27.3% URM.
UCSF's website says, similarly, 27%.
Several explanations: you transcribed MSAR wrong, MSAR is wrong, the data are for different years and the URM percentage swung dramatically in consecutive years, or there are a significant number of non-black non-Hispanic URMs at UCSF.

I'm not saying this to revive the URM argument. Just wanted to clarify some data and point out that I may have been wrong but not "extremely" wrong.

 

[Lexdiamondz]

USNWR says UCSF has 27.3% URM.
UCSF's website says, similarly, 27%.
Several explanations: you transcribed MSAR wrong, MSAR is wrong, the data are for different years and the URM percentage swung dramatically in consecutive years, or there are a significant number of non-black non-Hispanic URMs at UCSF.

I'm not saying this to revive the URM argument. Just wanted to clarify some data and point out that I may have been wrong but not "extremely" wrong.

I still don't understand why you even raised the URM argument in the first place. Why assume that we're responsible for the lower Step 1 scores when our presence hasn't affected the median GPA or MCAT scores, and other similarly ranked schools with similar or higher % of URM's have much higher Step 1 scores?

 

[dahassa]

USNWR says UCSF has 27.3% URM.
UCSF's website says, similarly, 27%.
Several explanations: you transcribed MSAR wrong, MSAR is wrong, the data are for different years and the URM percentage swung dramatically in consecutive years, or there are a significant number of non-black non-Hispanic URMs at UCSF.

I'm not saying this to revive the URM argument. Just wanted to clarify some data and point out that I may have been wrong but not "extremely" wrong.

I copied the data correctly and it is from the latest MSAR correctly. The MSAR data is for the class that entered in 2011, and the data on the UCSF website is for the class that entered in 2012. Furthermore, the USNews Step 1 data will not be for the entering class of 2012 (obv cause they haven't taken Step 1) yet. So actually, we have no idea what the ethnic makeup is for the class that USNews is reporting Step 1 scores for (whether it is the class that entered in 2010 or 2009 or whatever), since clearly UCSF's ethnic ratio changes year to year. So, you assumed that it would be 27% without any evidence.

And the reason why you are VERY wrong is because you can't explain Duke's results. Duke has a long history of recruiting minorities to its medical school. Arguably, they are one of the strongest medical schools when it comes to work in the local black/minority communities. And there admissions class shows that by being 30% URM. Why are their Step 1 scores almost 10 points higher than UCSF?

 

[DoctorLacrosse]

i never claimed i wasn't uninformed myself. I was merely defending someone who was going out of his way to keep from being so.

Alas, i'm premed, but only for fewer than 6 months (until i start at either hms/hopkins/stanford/ucsf... Need to decide so i appreciate his research that is saving me a bit of time). Then when the status under my name changes from "pre-med" to "med-student," suddenly, and inexplicably, i'll known more than everyone else in this forum and can say things like "coming from a premed."

Sent from my droid razr using tapatalk 2

+10000000000000

 

[music2doc]

"Uninformed" coming from a premed
We have better things to do than analyze numbers that aren't even verifiable. And yes, we're working off conventional wisdom passed on from previous generations and our own experience. It's the same reason for why most premeds think it's a good idea to pre-study, even though most medical students say it's a waste of time.

This. The truth is that these Step 1 scores are unverifiable AND EVEN if they were verifiable, they'd still be essentially worthless in terms of picking schools.

I never claimed I wasn't uninformed myself. I was merely defending someone who was going out of his way to keep from being so.

Alas, I'm premed, but only for fewer than 6 months (until I start at either HMS/Hopkins/Stanford/UCSF... need to decide so I appreciate his research that is saving me a bit of time). Then when the status under my name changes from "pre-med" to "med-student," suddenly, and inexplicably, I'll known more than everyone else in this forum and can say things like "coming from a premed."

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I think you'll be surprised how your attitudes change as you enter medical school. At least I know I began to realize better why things did/did not matter once I started hearing from upperclassmen and seeing how things work. I'm still not that knowledgeable about lots of things, but I can tell you that I for sure understand things like Admissions better as an M1 than I ever did as pre-med and I was better-informed than most pre-meds because I worked closely with a couple of admissions committees.

 

[chronicidal]

I still don't understand why you even raised the URM argument in the first place. Why assume that we're responsible for the lower Step 1 scores when our presence hasn't affected the median GPA or MCAT scores, and other similarly ranked schools with similar or higher % of URM's have much higher Step 1 scores?

idk I didn't raise it. I just took an argument someone else proposed and tried to see if there were data for or against it.

Re: affecting Step 1 but not MCAT/GPA. I can't assume this is the case at a school like UCSF, but in a pool of all US MD-granting schools, URMs somewhat underperform from what is predicted by their MCAT score compared to whites at the same school. See table 3 in this recent paper.

Re: similarly ranked schools with similar or higher % of URMs. There were no such schools by 2012 USNWR data, but hey, I get that the 27% may be a one-year aberration based on what dahassa says. Another complication is that USNWR may be using school-reported data, and individual schools may categorize URMs differently from AAMC/MSAR. For instance, for a person who identifies with multiple races/ethnicities, what if UCSF decides to categorize all of them as URMs to boost their apparent diversity? This report on page 405 suggests that UCSF-reported data have consistently higher URM percentages than the AAMC reports by 4-5% points between 2006 and 2008. so it's possible that, averaged over time, and with more consistent categorization methods, UCSF does not have more URMs than other schools.

But its long-standing historical reputation is to the contrary.

Drake 2005: "At UCSF, we tend to have a higher representation of underrepresented minority groups than at many other research-based schools."

From that report, Eugene Washington: "1971-1972 was actually in many ways, the height of trying to recruit minorities and UCSF had a reputation of being a school that had a climate, an environment, that was nurturing for minority students, along with its reputation of excellence... At that point UCSF, when you look at the numbers, it had more minorities and more African Americans than any other school except for Howard…and so it was doing very well."

Fascinating read.

"When I was admissions dean in 1999, we had successfully tuned our admissions program so we made as many offers to minority students as we did in 1994...within one or two. So we had, in the wake of SP-1 and SP-2 (in 1995) and in the wake of Proposition 209 (in 1996), we had tuned our process so that without affirmative action we were making the same number of offers we made before." - Drake

In 2006 (coinciding with new dean of admission at UCSF):
UCSF: Applicants vs acceptances (and difference)
White 49% 39% (-10)
Asian 32% 25% (-7)
Black 3% 9% (+6)
Hispanic 9% 19% (+10)

to Stanford
White 50% 44% (-6)
Asian 29% 28% (-1)
Black 4% 6% (+2)
Hispanic 8% 12% (+4)

URM% (based on AAMC data I think)
UCSF vs Stanford
2008: 23% 17.4%
2007: 29.9% 14%
2006: 24.1% 19.8%
(p=0.03)