damn bro, just come out throwing hand grenades and firing the rockets. he is going all in.
You can start here:
Wow, that was stressful. I'm stressed now. Reading this thread while listening to classical music was a roller coaster.
Care to sum up what happened?
Wow. That is everything that is wrong with medical school admissions.
It is a point system used to "objectively" rank them. If that isn't what you mean by arguments then I apologize
No, I can see that. I just don't nitpick like that. All the top 10's are equal in my eyes, and the next 10 are all on par too. I don't see a need to argue why one school should be #5 over #7, for example.It is a point system used to "objectively" rank them. If that isn't what you mean by arguments then I apologize
For the record, "running a few days behind" is a gross understatement of the many problems that occurred.
Also, I'm not interested in debating this, but to get the whole picture of the ridiculous nonsense that happened surrounding Duke's decisions this year, you have to read the Duke app thread starting way back at page 21. If you (or anyone else) read the whole thing from there (~25 pages) and still disagree then I respect your right to hold that opinion, but I echo many other applicants in voicing my disappointment and frustration.
Wait you mean "reputation" doesn't strongly correlate with quality medical education?
(Link to methodology: http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/medical-schools-methodology)
Stanford's ranking went up when US News began to factor in NIH grant funding per faculty member.
+1, I'm curious as to whether the research ranking is at all correlated with a school's average step 1 score.Any of you guys have the full access? Could you PM me I want to ask you about a stat real quick.
Thanks
It's not. Here's the methodology.
Published rankings are worthless because they focus mostly on research funding and not on most of the other things that prospective students should take into account when choosing a school- location, curriculum, extra curriculars besides research, location, atmosphere/personality, location a third time, etc. The ranking of every school depends on each applicant. Like for me, I have lots of family in Florida and would much rather spend four years in Miami because of the warm weather and proximity to support system than to be in Pittsburgh or New York for medical school. Every person has their own criteria for how to rank schools so they mostly shouldn't use a published, arbitrary ranking system like USNews to determine where they should go. In my opinion USNews is only helpful for evaluating research opportunity but only to a small extant. There are a million factors that should be taken into consideration, not just research.
thats the answer i was looking for.
Oh I understand that it's not utilized in calculating the rankings, but I was wondering if there is any correlation between research rank and average step 1 score.
Probably to a small extent. My understanding of pre-clinical learning is that it's mostly self-study, so if a school has a great average STEP 1 score, it's likely due to the students' inherent test-taking abilities (abilities which were likely reflected in their incoming MCAT scores).
. I think it's a ridiculous metric, especially considering how much weight it's given.
I think people tend to use "top whatever" as a way to reference a group of schools to save themselves the trouble of naming the actual schools while discussing them. For example, when someone says "what are my chances at a top 5," we know that they are most likely referring to Stanford, UCSF, Penn, Harvard, and Hopkins.
But how will we know which schools have the highest step 1 scores if this data is not available?
I mean all of these schools have 35+ MCAT averages, it shouldn't be a shock that these schools have the highest step score averages
