Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I think NYU was also top 5 last time they switched away from NIH funding, maybe two years ago?
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
D
deleted555445
i think it was top 5 last year
I'll trust what you're saying, since I don't have access to a recent MSAR to actually check on the yield - I'm surprised it's that low. "damn near 100%" was hyperbole based on what I assume it to be - 65% is still sky-high as you said - and Harvard based on my math from their own website is around ~70%, so it's pretty damn close.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Yup! Your points are still spot on. By the way, the yield info, ironically, comes from USNWR, not MSAR, because MSAR hides admission information from us and only provides matriculation! 🙂 It's widely reported, though, that NYU admits 150, including calls off the WL, to seat a class of 100.
Still spectacular, and right there with the best. To your point, full tuition is irresistible to all but the most affluent among us. Ironically though, as they entered the very tippy top tier, they now compete with peer schools for talent, so the free tuition isn't quite the lure it was designed to be, since the students they are now targeting tend to have plenty of equally lucrative opportunities (which explains the 1/3 attrition).
betablocker7
Full Member
Obviously if you grab the top students, that tends to help your medical school lol. NYU is doing it right
Jokes aside I think if NYU is stealing away cross admits to hopkins and penn, and I think they are, then this is where they belong
This is false. If you look at the data, most schools accept around 2x (or 2.5x) more students than the # that ultimately matriculate. NYU is no exception
For reference, here is Harvard:
To continue this trend here is Wake Forest:
If that's not evidenced enough by the above examples, here are a few more - Stanford, Miami, Michigan
Your point about most schools is well taken, but some of the tippy top schools are exceptions. Harvard's yield, as noted above, is 72%. NYU's, before free tuition, was 33%. My USNWR Compass subscription has lapsed and I have not yet renewed, so I can't see where your numbers are coming from, but I was taking my numbers from statements widely attributed to its dean of admissions, who has consistently said for the past two cycles that they admit between 100-110 initially, and then pull an additional 45-50 off the WL to fill vacated seats.
NYU, as a T5 with free tuition, is certainly an exception to the general rule, as is Harvard and Penn (64%).
This is by my math, can't speak to its validity
Dean Rivera said he expected a 60% yield and planned on placing approximately 1/3 of the interview group on the WL. With 92 MD slots, for a 60% yield, approximately 150 acceptances are handed out. 1/3 of the interview group is approximately 300-350 people. So there are an additional 50 slots (100 total sent out already) for 300-350 people, for a post WL acceptance rate of 14%
I'm not reading a bunch of quotes that you randomly threw in without context. My numbers are coming from the data that was released today.
NYU: 102/205 = 49.76% yield
Harvard: 168/234 = 72% yield
Stanford: 90/155 = 58% yield
Columbia: 140/300 = 46.67% yield
Cornell: 106/293 = 36% yield (interesting because they meet 100% of need-based aid..)
Yale: 100/291 = 34.4% yield
UPenn: 155/275 = 56% yield
for some non t20s... the idea is still similar...
Arizona-Tucson: 117/216 = 54% yield
Iowa: 152/284 = 53.5% yield
Jefferson: 272/414 = 66% yield
Miami: 204/360 = 56.7% yield
Wake Forest: 145/288 = 50% yield
West Virginia: 112/165 = 68% yield
I know @TheDataKing is, after all, The Data King!! 🙂
That doesn't mean the data is correct. I know that US News is the Bible, and they NEVER would make a mistake, but I'm going by what the NYU Dean of Admissions has been telling interviewees for the past 2 years.
I guess it's possible he has been sharing bad info with the candidates, but a 66% yield (which is really not THAT far off from 50%) for a free tuition T5 school doesn't seem crazy to me, so I'm going with it. I'd be SHOCKED if NYU's yield was not significantly above the typical yield for the typical school.
I would bet the USNWR data is bad. Totally not @TheDataKing's fault, and, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm going with the dean rather than the rag.
Last edited:
I wholeheartedly disagree with everything you just said and it goes to show the naivety of some posters and how rumors can get spread. In order for schools to be ranked, they have to provide accurate and up-to-date information. What USNWR posts is accurate. Word of mouth less so. Don't disseminate incorrect information.
D
deleted555445
i'm pretty sure USNWR gets their data from schools that respond to their survey... so you're going to believe second hand info that some applicants half-remembered from a zoom meeting over data that likely had to go through multiple departments of the university (including, generally, some sort of quality department) and is consistent with most other schools?
Fair enough. The context is searching "Rivera" and "150" and seeing what hits you get from the NYU threads the past few years. I know you go way above and beyond creating these spreadsheets for us, so I have no doubt USNWR published the numbers you posted if you checked them.
I just don't think multiple people are hearing the same incorrect information at their NYU information sessions, so, either the dean doesn't know what he is talking about, he is intentionally spreading misinformation for two years in a row, OR, USNWR got it wrong. I'm going with the latter. Everyone else is free to make their own decisions.
I hear what you are saying, and I'm saying I don't believe NYU's yield is no better than most other schools when they given free tuition to all.
I understand, but the info USNWR is publishing comes from the same person multiple people are quoting. Yes, it's possible they are all wrong. It's also possible a free T5 does no better than anyone else closing the deal with their accepted candidates.
All I'm saying is that I think it's possible, not that NYU provided inaccurate, outdated information, but that USNWR corrupted it before publishing. It just doesn't sound right to me. Granted, I'm no expert, and YMMV. At the end of the day, I don't work for NYU, I doubt I'll ever have the opportunity to attend, so I honestly have no skin in the game. I was expressing an opinion. If I'm wrong, so be it, but, if I had to guess I'd say that the 205 includes the MD-PhDs (where the yield will be far lower because NYU's free tuition isn't special there), and the 102 doesn't, and USNWR dropped the ball.
NYU is directly giving that information to USNWR (they want to be ranked high - that is evident). Were it clear they were messing with the data, they would get in trouble. World of mouth via what is spread "over the years" on SDN is less reliable than data reported directly from the schools to USNWR.
And if it's all about $, why pray tell is Weill Cornell's yield 36% when they meet 100% of need-based aid so that their students graduate debt-free? Or WashU who gives half of their class full rides - (104/297 = 35% yield)?
Again, please stop spreading falsehoods.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
D
deleted555445
i also wouldn't be surprised if there were errors in USNWR data, but i think they're right on this. NYU announced free tuition in august 2018. the entering class of 2019 would have known about it throughout the whole cycle. and yet, according to last year's data, they had the same yield (103/219). NYU never corrected them. is it more likely they made the same mistake two years in a row for the same school and they never got corrected, or that your assumptions are off?
Claremont McKenna test scores
I'm leaning towards agreeing with you and as we learn in elementary school - what happens when one assumes, @KnightDoc?
Yes, yes, yes!!! The issue here is you are taking the data as gospel, and I think USNWR made a mistake. NYU would not give them bad info. Cornell's no-debt policy is a far cry from free tuition for all. Do you know anyone, other than people coming from the least affluent families, who think their EFC accurately reflects their ability to pay? Cornell's policy is more generous than many, but still does nothing for a large part of their admitted applicant pool.
Honestly, is there a way to find out how many MD-PhDs are admitted? If it's around 50, I am pretty sure we have our answer. If not, everyone on the NYU thread has been laboring under a misconception for the past two years, and NYU is actually 33% easier to get into than anyone realized.
By the way, I 1,000,000% agree with you about random SDN data. But, I give some weight to posts coming directly from adcoms who identify themselves (not even the well known, highly respected anonymous ones), as well as multiple people quoting the exact same information as coming directly from an identified person in a position to know.
I’m not exactly sure where you’re getting your information from. The US news rankings are by far the most accurate ranking published by any news source and, to be frank, a reliable measure of the quality of the school - that’s obvious at this point.
Last edited by a moderator:
With all due respect, I am not spreading falsehoods. I am expressing an opinion, and clearly identifying it as such.
When did data become an opinion?
Preach brotha 👑👑❤️😍
this is like saying, "well the NY Times is reporting that COVID is on the rise but I've heard from my ~contacts~ that it is in fact not. Maybe they got their information wrong or corrupted their data" "I'm expressing my opinion and mine is that COVID is overblown and they're perpetuating that"
Get that bag with your contacts girl 😋🤑🔫🙏
The only assumption I'm making is that several people, two years in a row, and not all mishearing what they are being told directly by the dean. Yes, maybe it is wrong. I'm just surprised that so many people think USNWR is infallible here, given how just about everyone has issues with their methodology.
Just because their methodology RANKING schools is controversial does not make their data GIVEN BY SCHOOLS inaccurate. One ≠ the other, at all.
D
deleted555445
there's a difference between methodology and simply reporting data. USNWR can be wrong in one instance, sure, but i dont think you have any evidence that they're wrong here that would stand up to scrutiny. maybe you can get the dean on record saying those numbers are wrong and they're filing a complaint with USNWR
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
If you say so. But it's not like the Times doesn't have a box where they print corrections every single day. I'm believing what multiple people post on SDN, so either the USNWR data has a mistake in it, or the dean has been giving bad info to the interviewees. If Dr. Fauci told a bunch of people on SDN that COVID was dropping but the Times reported it was increasing, I'd say there was a disconnect, and I wouldn't reflexively think the doctor got it wrong because the Times never makes mistakes.
D
deleted555445
it sounds like you have found the source of your error. the dean wasn't talking about MD-PhDs. if i'm not mistaken (and i may be), MD-PhD/MSTP acceptances and matriculations are included in both USNWR and MSAR data
edit: two typos!
D
deleted1065184
Their methodology sucks, BUT they are still receiving their data from schools. If there's a discrepancy, it'd be far more likely that it occurred on NYU's end than theirs. And from what we've seen from the times there have been incorrect data, it has always been due to the school giving incorrect info (whether intentionally or not).
this is unfortunately a long-standing issue. When those who are not on an adcom (nonetheless haven't even applied to medical school but garner information from SDN here and there) speak with authority about subjects they are in fact not knowledgeable about, issues arise.
You're right. Maybe someone on the NYU thread will see this thread and throw in a question to NYU, and maybe it will be cleared up or corrected.
Fair enough, but how would being a current or former applicant give me (or anyone) greater insight into whether Dean Rivera is being misquoted on the NYU thread or if USNWR is publishing bad data? I haven't heard from anyone, including you or me, who is on the NYU adcom, so why attack me?
Last edited:
You know, it is possible for Deans to misquote things right? And I do not mean to be attacking or anything, but personally I find USNWR data more reputable than the word of mouth a single Dean.
D
deleted555445
no one is attacking you, but when you claim some published data is wrong, you should have something more than hearsay to back it up. the burden of proof in a criminal case is on the prosecution, not the defendant. its the same with something like this
D
deleted1065184
Wanna second this...was gonna say it earlier, human memory is fallible and it's quite likely that the dean told multiple sets of students this but was simply wrong. It would not surprise me at all if that's the case.
Alright, all. As much as we all love instigating things. Let's try to keep it professional. Unless there's valid proof that a reliable source is spreading falsehoods, let's not perpetuate that belief and stay on topic as much as possible 
joshuamarcus
Full Member
MD program: 100 initial acceptances + 50 off the waitlist = 150
MSTP: class size of 10 * (~20% yield) = 50
Total: 200
I don't think there's a discrepancy in the numbers
MSTP: class size of 10 * (~20% yield) = 50
Total: 200
I don't think there's a discrepancy in the numbers
@TheDataKing @KnightDoc
I think both of y'all have stating facts aren't incongruent with each other. I trust the US News Reports data and I also heard Dean Rivera say in my interview this cycle that nyu pulls off 100ish the initial round and then 50 off the waitlist. I think he was being intentionally vague about whether it's 50 people who were given offers off the waitlist or 50 people who ultimately accepted the offer off the waitlist. I think the us news data suggests that it's latter. Also, mstp data complicates things somewhat.
Also, @KnightDoc I wouldn't be so quick to trust everything a med school dean (or any higher-up in medicine) says lol. If it's someone's job to paint their school in the best light possible to recruit students, they are going to talk about their school to make it seem as selective as possible.
I think both of y'all have stating facts aren't incongruent with each other. I trust the US News Reports data and I also heard Dean Rivera say in my interview this cycle that nyu pulls off 100ish the initial round and then 50 off the waitlist. I think he was being intentionally vague about whether it's 50 people who were given offers off the waitlist or 50 people who ultimately accepted the offer off the waitlist. I think the us news data suggests that it's latter. Also, mstp data complicates things somewhat.
Also, @KnightDoc I wouldn't be so quick to trust everything a med school dean (or any higher-up in medicine) says lol. If it's someone's job to paint their school in the best light possible to recruit students, they are going to talk about their school to make it seem as selective as possible.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!!!! Does anyone know whether all schools include MD-PhD in their reported numbers?????
I totally understand and agree! The bottom line is that everyone seems to now agree that 150 is the MD number, and the balance is MSTP, as I guessed above. Do you know if all schools include MD-PhD in their reported numbers? That was definitely the source of the disconnect here, and it is significant because of the huge divergence in the yield between the two population sets.
Yup, and I recognized that as a possibility below. Another issue is that the 102 doesn't include the MSTPs, or does it? I thought their MD class size was 100, not 90!
Edit: I just checked MSAR, and the 102 DOES NOT INCLUDE 10 MD-PhD, so the data USNWR is reporting is not accurate if they are reporting MSTP As in with MD only, since it's a separate data set, with a wildly different yield. In addition, they are properly excluding the MSTPs from the enrollment number.
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
When someone thinks it's inaccurate?
joshuamarcus
Full Member
The MD class size is 92 and the MSTP class size is 10. This adds up to 102. Just shush 🙂 - there is no discrepancy in the numbers on USNews, what Dean Rivera told us, and the MSAR data.
MSAR says 102+10.
D
deleted555445
i think you're misreading MSAR. that 102 includes that 10. its a poorly designed chart for sure, but you're just reading what you want to read.
take vanderbilt for example. MSAR says 15 MD/PhD and 94 total students. their class profile breaks it down for clarity. those MD/PhD are included in the total. i used vandy because i couldn't find NYU stats in the 2 seconds i tried googling it and i remembered Vandy having a good class profile page.
i think you just need to take a chill pill. we figured out why you were wrong, you don't need to win this one.
I have a question that may seem a bit naive, but why are research ranking so much more talked about than primary care rankings?
