UTSW v Baylor 2015

[safe]

just curious, what's the point of saying it is pass/fail but then secretly internally ranking?

I don't know their official stance but from personal experience I can see the benefits of the system we have.

A little more background first. Baylor's pass/fail system isn't just a facade, although I can see how it comes across that way. Most people hear pass/fail and think of it in absolute terms -- that you're either 100% pass/fail (no pressure) or you're graded (full pressure). But either system has its benefits and a blend of the two can be useful. That's what Baylor has done by employing aspects of both systems.

By and large, the basic sciences curriculum is pass/fail. Only a "P" or an "F" will go on your transcript. But, invisibly in the background, your tests also count as a small fraction towards determining your rank. This contribution to rankings creates an incentive to take those classes seriously and it discourages students from lowering their standards down to the minimum of passing. But because these grades have only a small effect on ranks, the message sent is only a soft one.

This system might still sound like it could induce stress/competition, but with our high test averages and small standard deviations, there's not much room at the top to pull away from everyone else. This effectively encourages us more to "stay with the pack" than try to "beat" others. Basically, the system is set up so that meaningful separation from the class only happens when a student performs consistently poorly. Otherwise, most of the class enters into clinical rotations as a tight pack in terms of grades.

This is a pretty comfortable and non-competitive setup, a pass/fail system with a small asterisk on it.

So to your question, I think they don't talk about ranks because they don't want to emphasize it. And as a happy result, students don't focus on it either. This allows us to operate in the relaxing atmosphere of a pass/fail system, while the small effect on our rank keeps us honest.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[redandwhitesox]

I don't know their official stance but I can see the benefits of the system we have.

A little more background first. Baylor's pass/fail system isn't just a facade, although I can see how it comes across that way. Most people hear pass/fail and think of it in absolute terms -- that you're either 100% pass/fail (no pressure) or you're graded (max pressure). But either system has its benefits and the right blend can be useful. By and large, the basic sciences curriculum at Baylor is pass/fail. Only a "P" or and "F" will go on your transcript. But, invisibly in the background, your tests also count as a small fraction for determining rank. The contribution of basic sciences to rankings gives some incentive to take those classes seriously and it softly discourage students from lowering their standards to minimally passing. This system might sound like it could also induce stress/competition, but with our high test averages and small standard deviations, there's not much room at the top to pull away from everyone else. This effectively encourages us more to "stay with the pack" than try to "beat" others. Basically, the system is set up so that the only way to meaningfully separate yourself from the class is by performing consistently poorly. Otherwise, most of the class enters into clinical rotations as a tight pack in terms of grades.

This is a pretty comfortable and non-competitive mentality, a pass/fail system with a small asterisk on it.

So to your question. I think they don't talk about ranks because they don't want to emphasize it. And as a happy result, students don't focus on it either. We reap the relaxing benefits of a pass/fail system and the background effect on our rank is just there to keep us honest.

that sounds very reasonable. thanks for the great response

 

[pd2695]

Both are excellent institutions, clinical facilities should be a very important consideration for anyone choosing between these school. Both schools have a large county hospital ( Ben Taub and Parkland), the shifting sands of private institutions affiliated with Baylor should be a consideration, as well as the probationary status. Both schools have stellar research opportunities. The transition to a new curriculum should not be an issue for the level of students UTSW attracts. I graduated from UTSW, residency at Baylor. Both schools produce good doctors, I think UTSW has an edge with hands on clinical experience. I felt superbly trained when I started residency. Just one opinion.

 

[Earl Simmons]

My vote is for Baylor!

 

[mmmcdowe]

Moving to SSD

 

[accueil]

Come to dallas dude.

Houston is a swamp town lol (jk, but that humidity though..)

I'm going to UTSW so I'm a little biased, but the new curriculum shouldn't be scary to those that are considering UTSW.
(I realize I'm posting this very late and probably not going to be of use to OP)

The new curriculum allows students to start clinical rotations sooner. If your goal is to be a doctor and see patients, why would you second guess that?
If your goal in medical school is to maximize your Step 1 score, maybe neither UTSW nor Baylor are good choices (I would recommend UTHSCSA or UTMB instead).
Personally, I'd like to be in the hospital as soon as possible and learn some real-world lessons and skills.

Also, Baylor isn't LCME accredited (on probation)

UTSW is a great school, and this is a question I struggled with and one many applicants will in the future.

Just to correct some information for future applicants who might visit this thread through the search function:

Baylor starts clinical rotations in the spring of second year. Same time as UTSW with its new curriculum.

Baylor is fully accredited by the LCME. It is indeed on probation right now but that does not affect it being fully accredited.

Baylor has the highest Step 1 average of all medical schools in TX. (Not sure why this was brought up; I don't think that should be a main factor in deciding where to go to med school).