US News 2016 Medical School Rankings

[Dr. Stalker]

Lol his school is probably in that 'rank not published' category.

$10 says he doesn't even go to medical school and just has says he is a med student

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[meowfish6868]

If you don't care for rankings, then why the hell are you commenting dude?

 

[efle]

Did dr stalker just post five back to back comments what even is this im going to bed

 

[Dr. Stalker]

Did dr stalker just post five back to back comments what even is this im going to bed

phone glitched out my b

 

[Psai]

what is this I don't even

 

[efle]

what is this I don't even

i am so sorry psai can we make l̶o̶v̶e̶ up

 

[Lucca]

I opened up this thread and got a kidney stone there's so much salt.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

To me personally, seeing a top tier (NYU) move even more to the top is amazing because I didn't think that particular school could get better because of how amazing it is, so figuring out the "why" aspect of it is also huge, especially for us pre-medical students who may ultimately end up pursing some of these schools.

You may want to check out the total NIH research $$ it secured in 2014 vs 2013. That alone may account for its rise in the rankings. But keep in mind that more NIH $$ (if that's even the reason for the higher ranking) doesn't necessarily mean that the school got "better."

 

[efle]

You may want to check out the total NIH research $$ it secured in 2014 vs 2013. That alone may account for its rise in the rankings. But keep in mind that more NIH $$ (if that's even the reason for the higher ranking) doesn't necessarily mean that the school got "better."

Well it got better at securing NIH cash monay and being ranked by US News. Obv both of those things directly improve med student education

 

[Dr. Stalker]

You may want to check out the total NIH research $$ it secured in 2014 vs 2013. That alone may account for its rise in the rankings. But keep in mind that more NIH $$ (if that's even the reason for the higher ranking) doesn't necessarily mean that the school got "better."

Absolute logical explanation, and I did check it out before! Thanks for heads up. How accurate is this idea of research funding correlated to medical school ranking anyway...?

 

[efle]

Absolute logical explanation, and I did check it out before! Thanks for heads up. How accurate is this idea of research funding correlated to medical school ranking anyway...?

It makes up 30% of the weight for determining rank, and it's the reason Harvard is going to be #1 forever
"
Total research activity (0.15): This is measured by the total dollar amount of National Institutes of Health research grants awarded to the medical school and its affiliated hospitals, averaged for 2013 and 2014. An asterisk next to this data point indicates that the medical school did not include grants to any affiliated hospitals in its 2014 total.

Average research activity per faculty member (0.15): This is measured by the dollar amount of National Institutes of Health research grants awarded to the medical school and its affiliated hospitals per full-time faculty member, averaged over 2013 and 2014. Both full-time basic sciences and clinical faculty were used in the faculty count. An asterisk next to this data point indicates that the medical school did not include grants to any affiliated hospitals in its 2014 total.
"

Edit: Haha cyberdyne, beat you to it

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Absolute logical explanation, and I did check it out before! Thanks for heads up. How accurate is this idea of research funding correlated to medical school ranking anyway...?

Here's the methodology. And as I mentioned earlier in the thread, the research $$ per faculty member has certainly given Stanford a boost.

Edit: I see that @efle beat me to it. By the way, do you know how much NIH funding NYU secured in 2014? I only have the 2013 data.

 

[efle]

Here's the methodology. And as I mentioned earlier in the thread, the research $$ per faculty member has certainly given Stanford a boost.

Edit: I see that @efle beat me to it. By the way, do you know how much NIH funding NYU secured in 2014? I only have the 2013 data.

$340.7 mil

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

$340.7 mil

And $255.9 mil in 2013. Were the prestige scores still 3.6 and 3.9 for 2014? Regardless, the $$ definitely contributed to its higher ranking.

 

[efle]

And $255.9 mil in 2013. Were the prestige scores still 3.6 and 3.9 for 2014? Regardless, the $$ definitely contributed to its higher ranking.

3.6 peer, 3.8 res directors

 

[WingedOx]

a RNP school with a reputation for training stronger clinicians than a lot of the "top" schools.

Is this like how every school that doesn't tell applicants their average Step scores are always "at or above the national average" when you show up on interview day?

 

[ChemEngMD]

In regards to ranks I feel I am suitable about speaking on the differences between tiers, as I interviewed and was accepted at unranked, middle tier, and top 20 schools. I also have friends who have matriculated and are students at each of these "tiers".

First of all: regardless of what range the school falls into - you will be trained to be a great clinician. These schools didn't just magically fall out of the sky, they are all accredited and have been producing solid physicians for a long time now, some for more than 70 years. You can go to these schools and you will be able to become whatever clinician you want. You can theoretically match into whatever specialty and even program (albeit it is easier at some schools than others but it is not impossible) that your heart desires.

So, my take on ranking. I break it down to clinical opportunities, research opportunities, extracurricular opportunities, and future opportunities with peers.

This is 100% my take on the differences schools present to their students - these aren't 100% accurate and obvious aberrations or exceptions may exist.

"Unranked Tier" - These schools provide great clinical opportunities and will allow you to train and become an excellent physician. Research opportunities in the institution are often limited and when found, may not be funded. Thus, competition is heavy for the in-house research that is going on. Extracurricular wise you will find a vast variety of student groups, but they are likely not able to access tons of funding and may be limited in scope. Service trips are likely limited to 1 or 2 a year and are very competitive to join. Your future peers will present opportunities to you in that they may be able to help you network regionally and provide a solid alumni network for looking into other jobs. A few of your peers may eventually become leader's in their fields, thus helping you expand your network.

"Middle Tier" - These schools also provide great clinical opportunities with most having some of the more higher tech things in clinical medical training such as simulation labs. Research opportunities are more abundant due to more grants and faculty with research assignments; however, there likely still aren't enough research opportunities for everybody and funding is sparse. Likely need to apply to institutional or outside funding sources in order to complete your work, but it is definitely doable. Extracurricular groups are are still wide in scope and will play to most student's interests. Some service trips are present but are likely expensive to the student, as funding for student groups is still likely relatively limited. Your future peers will match into a wide variety of specialties and a handful will go on to become well renowned in their fields, teaching at academic institutions, or will make a name for themselves outside of the medical world.

"Top Tier" - Similarly to the first two - these schools provide excellent clinical opportunities with high end equipment, techniques, and integrated programs to ensure that their students become a great clinician. Research opportunities are abundant, likely more than the class is capable of taking on, and funding is not an issue. Summer research programs, or actual designated research time, is built into the curriculum and students are encouraged and pushed to partake, as many will hope to go on to academic medicine or highly competitive residencies. Extracurricular groups cover the gambit of interest, are easy to start, and easy to fund. The administration openly funds students to go to conferences, present research, partake in service trips, etc. Students still fundraise, but there is always some extra money floating around somewhere. Your future colleagues are likely creme de la creme. They are high functioning, well connected, and interested in being more than just a great clinician. These people will enter policy, industry, academics, consulting, NGO, and journalistic work. They will return to your school to tell you about how they were a White House Fellow or helped design the healthcare infrastructure for Taiwan. This is not universal - some will be excellent clinicians and not seek to do all of the extra stuff - but you will have many classmates who will. These people being your future network puts you in a position to have connections anywhere and everywhere.

As I said, this is simply my $0.02 and some people may agree, disagree, or choose to elaborate or fix my statements, but I do feel that after seeing institutions at all levels there are some key differences that do exist. However, they aren't necessarily universal.

 

[bluejay456]

How important is the peer ranking and residency director ranking? I hear about the residence director rankings all the time but have never officially seen them, unless the tab in the USNWR website is what everyone is talking about.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

How important is the peer ranking and residency director ranking? I hear about the residence director rankings all the time but have never officially seen them, unless the tab in the USNWR website is what everyone is talking about.

You need to purchase the Compass in order to see the actual scores.

 

[bluejay456]

^ Thanks for the response. Yeah I got that a little while ago. I guess I'm just wondering how important people feel the peer assessment and residency director rankings are. I definitely don't think NIH funding is the best surrogate for quality of medical education but my intuition tells me the peer assessment/residency director score may actually hold some weight?

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

^ Thanks for the response. Yeah I got that a little while ago. I guess I'm just wondering how important people feel the peer assessment and residency director rankings are. I definitely don't think NIH funding is the best surrogate for quality of medical education but my intuition tells me the peer assessment/residency director score may actually hold some weight?

I'm curious as well. Although, keep in mind that only 30% of those surveyed for the peer assessment score actually responded.

Perhaps @mimelim, @SouthernSurgeon, or another member can enlighten us.

 

[mcloaf]

Well it got better at securing NIH cash monay and being ranked by US News. Obv both of those things directly improve med student education

I can literally feel future me become a better doctor every time a faculty member at my school secures another grant or we get another charitable donation.

 

[breakintheroof]

I'm curious as well. Although, keep in mind that only 30% of those surveyed for the peer assessment score actually responded.

Perhaps @mimelim, @SouthernSurgeon, or another member can enlighten us.

These ratings are strongly correlated with the overall rankings, at least at the top. Quite a bit more strongly, I think, than their actual contribution to the ranking formula. It seems like they may be merely an indication that schools and residency directors are as strongly influenced by the rankings as premeds. Or maybe that USNWR constructs the rankings in such a way as to reverse-engineer the conventional wisdom.

The only place I have ever seen these ratings explicitly referenced is in Michigan's promotional materials.

Michigan is currently in a five-way tie for fifth.

 

[mimelim]

I'm curious as well. Although, keep in mind that only 30% of those surveyed for the peer assessment score actually responded.

Perhaps @mimelim, @SouthernSurgeon, or another member can enlighten us.

Personal opinions....

#1 These rankings matter. A LOT. They are important enough that most places have a 7 figure budget specifically designed to game these things as best they can. Schools, hospitals, everyone plays the game because reputation means a lot to the general public.
#2 Every single one of these rankings are complete and total bull**** and to an applicant should be meaningless.
#3 Every single one of these rankings are complete and total bull**** and to an applicant should be meaningless.
#4 Every single one of these rankings are complete and total bull**** and to an applicant should be meaningless.
#5 Functionally, you go to medical school for two reasons, 1) To get some basic medical education, 2) To get into a residency, neither of which depend heavily on any of the variables that they use to calculate these rankings. Ergo, #6...
#6 Every single one of these rankings are complete and total bull**** and to an applicant should be meaningless.
#7 I can see an argument that program director opinions of a school matter more than NIH funding. But, their opinion of a school should be only a tiny consideration of a school for an applicant. Just as medicine is not the right field for many/most people, not every school is the best place for every student and ranking them makes people think that if a school is higher ranked, it is innately more desirable.
#8 For students who will go into highly competitive specialties or highly competitive programs in non-competitive specialties, there is going to be some utility to being at a brand name school. However, what most students don't realize is that while they were likely in the top 5% of their high school class amd top 5% of their college class, only 1/20 are going to continue to be that way in medical school AND they may not even be interested in those highly competitive residencies. Therefore, it means next to nothing for the vast majority of applicants.

 

[FFH]

Personal opinions....

#1 These rankings matter. A LOT. They are important enough that most places have a 7 figure budget specifically designed to game these things as best they can. Schools, hospitals, everyone plays the game because reputation means a lot to the general public.
#2 Every single one of these rankings are complete and total bull**** and to an applicant should be meaningless.
#3 Every single one of these rankings are complete and total bull**** and to an applicant should be meaningless.
#4 Every single one of these rankings are complete and total bull**** and to an applicant should be meaningless.
#5 Functionally, you go to medical school for two reasons, 1) To get some basic medical education, 2) To get into a residency, neither of which depend heavily on any of the variables that they use to calculate these rankings. Ergo, #6...
#6 Every single one of these rankings are complete and total bull**** and to an applicant should be meaningless.
#7 I can see an argument that program director opinions of a school matter more than NIH funding. But, their opinion of a school should be only a tiny consideration of a school for an applicant. Just as medicine is not the right field for many/most people, not every school is the best place for every student and ranking them makes people think that if a school is higher ranked, it is innately more desirable.
#8 For students who will go into highly competitive specialties or highly competitive programs in non-competitive specialties, there is going to be some utility to being at a brand name school. However, what most students don't realize is that while they were likely in the top 5% of their high school class amd top 5% of their college class, only 1/20 are going to continue to be that way in medical school AND they may not even be interested in those highly competitive residencies. Therefore, it means next to nothing for the vast majority of applicants.

#1-6 are self evidential. Especially #2,3,4,6. For #7 your math checks out.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

These ratings are strongly correlated with the overall rankings, at least at the top. Quite a bit more strongly, I think, than their actual contribution to the ranking formula. It seems like they may be merely an indication that schools and residency directors are as strongly influenced by the rankings as premeds. Or maybe that USNWR constructs the rankings in such a way as to reverse-engineer the conventional wisdom.

The only place I have ever seen these ratings explicitly referenced is in Michigan's promotional materials.

Michigan is currently in a five-way tie for fifth.

I'm guessing that most of the assessment score respondents are at the top 30 programs.

Edit: Also, it's unlikely that a program director from Hopkins will give a 5 to a mid-tier state school, even if that school has continually provided Hopkins (and other top programs) with stellar residents. The more prestigious schools will always strive to distinguish themselves.

 

[Microglia]

I'm guessing that most of the assessment score respondents are at the top 30 programs.

Edit: Also, it's unlikely that a program director from Hopkins will give a 5 to a mid-tier state school, even if that school has continually provided Hopkins (and other top programs) with stellar residents. The more prestigious schools will always strive to distinguish themselves.

The rankings do say something interesting about the school's history. For a while, Yale was apparently supplying subpar residents. Since then they changed their curriculum to include tests and they increased hospital capacity substantially, among a bunch of other changes, but their residency director score is still lower than would be expected by their rank because the feeling lingers among a few RD's.

 

[Dr. Stalker]

Personal opinions....

#1 These rankings matter. A LOT. They are important enough that most places have a 7 figure budget specifically designed to game these things as best they can. Schools, hospitals, everyone plays the game because reputation means a lot to the general public.
#2 Every single one of these rankings are complete and total bull**** and to an applicant should be meaningless.
#3 Every single one of these rankings are complete and total bull**** and to an applicant should be meaningless.
#4 Every single one of these rankings are complete and total bull**** and to an applicant should be meaningless.
#5 Functionally, you go to medical school for two reasons, 1) To get some basic medical education, 2) To get into a residency, neither of which depend heavily on any of the variables that they use to calculate these rankings. Ergo, #6...
#6 Every single one of these rankings are complete and total bull**** and to an applicant should be meaningless.
#7 I can see an argument that program director opinions of a school matter more than NIH funding. But, their opinion of a school should be only a tiny consideration of a school for an applicant. Just as medicine is not the right field for many/most people, not every school is the best place for every student and ranking them makes people think that if a school is higher ranked, it is innately more desirable.
#8 For students who will go into highly competitive specialties or highly competitive programs in non-competitive specialties, there is going to be some utility to being at a brand name school. However, what most students don't realize is that while they were likely in the top 5% of their high school class amd top 5% of their college class, only 1/20 are going to continue to be that way in medical school AND they may not even be interested in those highly competitive residencies. Therefore, it means next to nothing for the vast majority of applicants.

Think you got rule #1 wrong: The first rule of Fight Club is: You do not talk about Fight Club.

 

[efle]

Personal opinions....

#1 These rankings matter. A LOT. They are important enough that most places have a 7 figure budget specifically designed to game these things as best they can. Schools, hospitals, everyone plays the game because reputation means a lot to the general public.
#2 Every single one of these rankings are complete and total bull**** and to an applicant should be meaningless.
#3 Every single one of these rankings are complete and total bull**** and to an applicant should be meaningless.
#4 Every single one of these rankings are complete and total bull**** and to an applicant should be meaningless.
#5 Functionally, you go to medical school for two reasons, 1) To get some basic medical education, 2) To get into a residency, neither of which depend heavily on any of the variables that they use to calculate these rankings. Ergo, #6...
#6 Every single one of these rankings are complete and total bull**** and to an applicant should be meaningless.
#7 I can see an argument that program director opinions of a school matter more than NIH funding. But, their opinion of a school should be only a tiny consideration of a school for an applicant. Just as medicine is not the right field for many/most people, not every school is the best place for every student and ranking them makes people think that if a school is higher ranked, it is innately more desirable.
#8 For students who will go into highly competitive specialties or highly competitive programs in non-competitive specialties, there is going to be some utility to being at a brand name school. However, what most students don't realize is that while they were likely in the top 5% of their high school class amd top 5% of their college class, only 1/20 are going to continue to be that way in medical school AND they may not even be interested in those highly competitive residencies. Therefore, it means next to nothing for the vast majority of applicants.

1) Why does a medical school care whether they're well known to the public? I see the benefit for a hospital. But unless schools expect USNews Top X title to attract stronger premed applicants, a population I'd assume is too informed to care much, it seems like a huge waste to drop a mil+ on gaming ranks.

2) Do residencies care that much about your percentile among your class? That seems like it would reflect the quality of your peers at that school more than your own abilities, vs things like standardized exams or recommendations that actually look at you against the full population or at you alone.

 

[mimelim]

1) Why does a medical school care whether they're well known to the public? I see the benefit for a hospital. But unless schools expect USNews Top X title to attract stronger premed applicants, a population I'd assume is too informed to care much, it seems like a huge waste to drop a mil+ on gaming ranks.

2) Do residencies care that much about your percentile among your class? That seems like it would reflect the quality of your peers at that school more than your own abilities, vs things like standardized exams or recommendations that actually look at you against the full population or at you alone.

Everyone cares what the public think of them. For starters and indisputable, it helps enormously with fundraising. Second, it absolutely influences pre-meds, exemplified by this thread here or any thread that talks about "top tier" or "top 10". Pre-meds are largely just as uninformed as the rest of the population.

I don't think most PDs care about your percentile in your class.

 

[efle]

For starters and indisputable, it helps enormously with fundraising.

Fundraising from whom?

Second, it absolutely influences pre-meds, exemplified by this thread here or any thread that talks about "top tier" or "top 10". Pre-meds are largely just as uninformed as the rest of the population.

I was under the impression people were using it as a quick way to refer to the most competitive schools in terms of stats and resumes, not actually factoring it in to matriculation decisions. Damn I'd love to see some data on how % of acceptees matriculating changes with rises or falls in rank! Maybe we premeds really are that stupid

 

[ChemEngMD]

Everyone cares what the public think of them. For starters and indisputable, it helps enormously with fundraising. Second, it absolutely influences pre-meds, exemplified by this thread here or any thread that talks about "top tier" or "top 10". Pre-meds are largely just as uninformed as the rest of the population.

I don't think most PDs care about your percentile in your class.

Entering the USNWR Top 10 vs. being #11 or #12 can mean a difference of THOUSANDS of applications. Enter the top 10 and you may get an additional 2,000-3,000 apps. At $100 a pop for a secondary you're looking at an additional $200,000 - $300,000 in revenue for the admissions office.

There are pre-meds each year that apply to all Top 10 schools then throw on a bunch of others. Not the wisest move, but it happens.

 

[mimelim]

Fundraising from whom?



I was under the impression people were using it as a quick way to refer to the most competitive schools in terms of stats and resumes, not actually factoring it in to matriculation decisions. Damn I'd love to see some data on how % of acceptees matriculating changes with rises or falls in rank! Maybe we premeds really are that stupid

Fundraising from the community, corporations, alumni, everyone loves to support "good work" or "good schools". They also love numbers. It is a lot better to be able to say, "Oh ya, they are number 2 in the country" rather than "oh ya, it is a good school." It is human nature, we like to organize things by rank and tend to think of things that way.

People pick schools for the dumbest reasons. They apply to schools for the dumbest reasons. US News rank doesn't even crack my top 10 for stupid stuff people have told me for reasons to apply to schools I've been at.

 

[efle]

Fundraising from the community, corporations, alumni, everyone loves to support "good work" or "good schools". They also love numbers. It is a lot better to be able to say, "Oh ya, they are number 2 in the country" rather than "oh ya, it is a good school." It is human nature, we like to organize things by rank and tend to think of things that way.

People pick schools for the dumbest reasons. They apply to schools for the dumbest reasons.

I guess thread TL;DR is dumb people are dumb, especially premeds, and US News does a great job of profiting from it.

US News rank doesn't even crack my top 10 for stupid stuff people have told me for reasons to apply to schools I've been at

Do tell

 

[efle]

Entering the USNWR Top 10 vs. being #11 or #12 can mean a difference of THOUSANDS of applications. Enter the top 10 and you may get an additional 2,000-3,000 apps. At $100 a pop for a secondary you're looking at an additional $200,000 - $300,000 in revenue for the admissions office.

How do we know this, has it been seen between two years when a school crossed the threshold?

 

[ChemEngMD]

How do we know this, has it been seen between two years when a school crossed the threshold?

Do they give you applications received info on usnwr?

 

[efle]

Do they give you applications received info on usnwr?

They do on MSAR

In fact, since the MSAR lists both the 2013 and 2014 data, if any schools moved in or out of the top ten last year we can check for a big change in app #s

 

[C@lidoc]

Outside top 20-25 I can't see prestige really mattering much.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Outside top 20-25 I can't see prestige really mattering much.

What about Mayo?

 

[C@lidoc]

What about Mayo?

Mayo is one school that was ranking in the 20-30s last year I think. Honestly their class is so small that it's not really much of a factor. Mayo is probably an exception. In my mind I see top 10 as having a wow-ish factor. Top 20, great school impression and everything else doesn't matter that much.

 

[C@lidoc]

Also notice how Harvard never changes and the top 10 never really change. They kinda shuffle around, except Michigan/Priztker and UW that are always near the end of that list.

 

[Shams al Deen]

Mayo is one school that was ranking in the 20-30s last year I think. Honestly their class is so small that it's not really much of a factor. Mayo is probably an exception. In my mind I see top 10 as having a wow-ish factor. Top 20, great school impression and everything else doesn't matter that much.

Yeah that's about right I guess. But schools like Baylor, UTSW, Emory and a few others in the 20s also give off that 'great school' impression--not that different from a Pitt or Northwestern. Definitely different from the top 5 though. And once you get to the 40s, nobody really knows the difference.

 

[NickNaylor]

How do we know this, has it been seen between two years when a school crossed the threshold?

It has been seen at our institution. Being in the top 10 makes a huge difference. Unsurprisingly, there are many people who put a lot of credence into rankings, and a school getting into the top 10 can be the difference between hundreds if not more than a thousand applications. People will typically apply to their state schools and then a few schools they're personally interested in, but after that it often is no more than a grab at the "best schools." The top 10 is an arbitrary but popular cut point for making that decision.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

It has been seen at our institution. Being in the top 10 makes a huge difference. Unsurprisingly, there are many people who put a lot of credence into rankings, and a school getting into the top 10 can be the difference between hundreds if not more than a thousand applications. People will typically apply to their state schools and then a few schools they're personally interested in, but after that it often is no more than a grab at the "best schools." The top 10 is an arbitrary but popular cut point for making that decision.

That's ridiculous. But you're right, it's not surprising at all.

 

[breakintheroof]

It has been seen at our institution. Being in the top 10 makes a huge difference. Unsurprisingly, there are many people who put a lot of credence into rankings, and a school getting into the top 10 can be the difference between hundreds if not more than a thousand applications. People will typically apply to their state schools and then a few schools they're personally interested in, but after that it often is no more than a grab at the "best schools." The top 10 is an arbitrary but popular cut point for making that decision.

I would love it if USNWR decided to make the "Top 10" designation even more arbitrary by taking way its literal meaning, kind of like how the acronym "SAT" doesn't officially stand for anything anymore and there are like 20 schools in the Big Ten Conference.

Having ties this year that led to there being 12 schools in the top 10 is a step in the right direction. They could just say that any school that passes some arbitrary threshold on their arbitrary scoring system gets the "Top 10" designation. Then they can gradually inflate the scores so there are more and more "Top 10" schools. Eventually every school would be "Top 10" and everybody would be happy!

 

[C@lidoc]

Yeah that's about right I guess. But schools like Baylor, UTSW, Emory and a few others in the 20s also give off that 'great school' impression--not that different from a Pitt or Northwestern. Definitely different from the top 5 though. And once you get to the 40s, nobody really knows the difference.

It's really minimal difference. That's why I added 20-25, Emory, UTSW, and Baylor are around there. Top 5 definitely has the most wow factor....not that any of this matters all too much honestly.

 

[efle]

It has been seen at our institution. Being in the top 10 makes a huge difference. Unsurprisingly, there are many people who put a lot of credence into rankings, and a school getting into the top 10 can be the difference between hundreds if not more than a thousand applications. People will typically apply to their state schools and then a few schools they're personally interested in, but after that it often is no more than a grab at the "best schools." The top 10 is an arbitrary but popular cut point for making that decision.

So U Chicago huh? What were they last year and the year before? I'm curious exactly how many more apps were filed from the Top 10 rep bump

 

[ChemEngMD]

So U Chicago huh? What were they last year and the year before? I'm curious exactly how many more apps were filed from the Top 10 rep bump

Last year we were #8 and had 5893 apps
Year before that we were #10 and had 5246 apps.
We are #11 for this year and I don't know the exact number, but I believe we may have dropped below 5000 apps.
This coming year we will be back up to #10 so we shall see.

 

[mariambaby3]

It's really minimal difference. That's why I added 20-25, Emory, UTSW, and Baylor are around there. Top 5 definitely has the most wow factor....not that any of this matters all too much honestly.

I agree with you and this is sort of the point I was trying to make earlier.

When we say "Top 20-25," we are using US New's current ranking of the top 20-25 schools in the Research category. So to this end, the US News ranking does matter, because if it didn't exist, how would anyone know what schools are in this Top 20-25 category?

I absolutely agree that the difference between the #5 and #15th ranked school on the list is minimal. However, the difference between the #25 and #35th ranked school is a much bigger deal because the #35 school is now out of the "top" category that we have designed using US New's current rankings.

So in essence, it's a big deal for a variety of reasons for a school to enter the Top 25 on the US News ranking. Once they're in the top 25, it's not that big of a deal anymore where they stand exactly. Similarly, it's not a big deal for a #50th ranked school to move to a #45 rank, but once they are approaching the Top 25, then it's a much bigger incentive for them to try to enter this category.

 

[efle]

Last year we were #8 and had 5893 apps
Year before that we were #10 and had 5246 apps.
We are #11 for this year and I don't know the exact number, but I believe we may have dropped below 5000 apps.
This coming year we will be back up to #10 so we shall see.

Ok so even if we're generous with the numbers...how does a change of ~ 1000 (what is that, 100,000 at most in extra monay?) justify a million+ spent on gaming ranks?

I agree with you and this is sort of the point I was trying to make earlier.

When we say "Top 20-25," we are using US New's current ranking of the top 20-25 schools in the Research category. So to this end, the US News ranking does matter, because if it didn't exist, how would anyone know what schools are in this Top 20-25 category?

I absolutely agree that the difference between the #5 and #15th ranked school on the list is minimal. However, the difference between the #25 and #35th ranked school is a much bigger deal because the #35 school is now out of the "top" category that we have designed using US New's current rankings.

So in essence, it's a big deal for a variety of reasons for a school to enter the Top 25 on the US News ranking. Once they're in the top 25, it's not that big of a deal anymore where they stand exactly. Similarly, it's not a big deal for a #50th ranked school to move to a #45 rank, but once they are approaching the Top 25, then it's a much bigger incentive for them to try to enter this category.

I think it's the other way around, the gap 5 to 15 is much larger than 25 to 35 in terms of differences in the weighted values, and people use Top XX as a phrase to mean the group of most selective schools, not specifically those who made the cut this year