WashU reputation trending down?

[jtate303]

Hey guys, I hope this question isn't taken to be "prestige-hunting," but I was wondering if anyone had any insight as to whether or not, and why, WashU might be trending downward in recent years.

Apart from the US News (lol) rankings, a number of my med school friends have been telling me its reputation in the medical world isn't what it once was. I know that prestige is a shallow feature of a school, but I also know that it nonetheless plays a role in the reality of the professional world (e.g. for residency matching).

So for residency matching purposes, are WashU grads seen closer to the Geffen, UWash, etc. level now, or closer to the Penn, Hopkins, etc. level like it used to be? Is the supposed drop caused by less research funding (in which case, who cares?) or a legitimate downgrade in the perceived quality of their graduates?

Thanks for the help guys, really appreciate your insight.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[795722]

So you joined today and this is how you want us to welcome you? There is no such thing as prestige son, work hard to be the best out there.

 

[ToastCrunch]

There is an ebb and flow of all ranks (except harvard lolz) because each year things like nih funding shift drastically. Do you really think NYU became a definitively better Med school in five years!? Of course not! Just a few years back Stanford wasn't even top 5.

 

[Lawpy]

WashU reputation trending down?

Hey guys, I hope this question isn't taken to be "prestige-hunting," but I was wondering if anyone had any insight as to whether or not, and why, WashU might be trending downward in recent years.

Apart from the US News (lol) rankings, a number of my med school friends have been telling me its reputation in the medical world isn't what it once was. I know that prestige is a shallow feature of a school, but I also know that it nonetheless plays a role in the reality of the professional world (e.g. for residency matching).

So for residency matching purposes, are WashU grads seen closer to the Geffen, UWash, etc. level now, or closer to the Penn, Hopkins, etc. level like it used to be? Is the supposed drop caused by less research funding (in which case, who cares?) or a legitimate downgrade in the perceived quality of their graduates?

Thanks for the help guys, really appreciate your insight.

on behalf of @efle and friends:

ಠ_ಠ

 

[Lucca]

I give this thread an SDN/10.

 

[efle]

US News "research rank" has a bunch of variables in it, only one of which is a survey of reputation among residency directors. In that component WashU remains currently tied for 5th with Stanford, just above places like Duke and Columbia.

Put it this way: It remains highly regarded enough that it will never hold you back. Nobody is going to skip an applicant for a residency interview because they only went to somewhere like WashU or Duke instead of one of the coastal powerhouses.

 

[JustAPhD]

You say "USNews rankings (lol)" and then follow it up directly with "a number of my med school friends" like that's any better of a source. Stop worrying.

 

[flapjack3d]

Your (probably 24 y/old) med school friends said that wash u isn't regarded as well as it used to be? How would they even know such a thing?

 

[cactusman]

Possibly your friends just have no idea what they're talking about?

 

[piii]

It's not like you're getting into wash u anyway, so why does it matter?

 

[efle]

It's not like you're getting into wash u anyway, so why does it matter?

 

[libertyyne]

Hey guys, I hope this question isn't taken to be "prestige-hunting," but I was wondering if anyone had any insight as to whether or not, and why, WashU might be trending downward in recent years.

Apart from the US News (lol) rankings, a number of my med school friends have been telling me its reputation in the medical world isn't what it once was. I know that prestige is a shallow feature of a school, but I also know that it nonetheless plays a role in the reality of the professional world (e.g. for residency matching).

So for residency matching purposes, are WashU grads seen closer to the Geffen, UWash, etc. level now, or closer to the Penn, Hopkins, etc. level like it used to be? Is the supposed drop caused by less research funding (in which case, who cares?) or a legitimate downgrade in the perceived quality of their graduates?

Thanks for the help guys, really appreciate your insight.

It's not like you're getting into wash u anyway, so why does it matter?

List of burn centers in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[jtate303]

@TimeTraveller Nah long time lurker, just created this to post this.

Thank you very much for the insight @efle. I figured it may have been research funding, just wanted to make sure there isn't some big red flag, scandal, recent institutional problem, etc. that I missed entirely.

@JustAPhD Yeah US News nitpicking is a joke, but I honestly consider the subjective opinions of those who work and breathe in their field pretty highly. I get that med students aren't at all THAT far into their field, but I feel that an insider opinion still provides a valuable perspective I can't get anywhere else (which is why SDN's an awesome place to supplement those opinions!).

@piii I feel like it's a decent discussion to have. Hasn't been discussed before and might be others wondering the same thing. Even those who don't care about US News might be likely to choose a name like Hopkins over another top school for professional/matching reasons stemming from its reputation. Was curious whether WashU still fell in that category like it did a while back.

 

[cactusman]

@TimeTraveller Nah long time lurker, just created this to post this.

That makes it sadder.

 

[cactusman]

Twist: OP is Dean of Penn.

 

[libertyyne]

 

[aldol16]

Two points a trend does not make.

 

[Astra]

F

 

[efle]

Two points a trend does not make.

In the very long view, the US News rank over the past ~25 years has actually gone from 2nd-3rd down to current 7th. I think that's likely due to ranking algorithm tweaks and research funds though, rather than changes to the generally static reputations

 

[efle]

F

Quality meme, though a little esoteric for SDN. I appreciate you.

 

[Astra]

Quality meme, though a little esoteric for SDN. I appreciate you.

Perhaps this is better.

To OP

 

[aldol16]

In the very long view, the US News rank over the past ~25 years has actually gone from 2nd-3rd down to current 7th. I think that's likely due to ranking algorithm tweaks and research funds though, rather than changes to the generally static reputations

Really? Then I retract my statement from before. A trend does exist!

 

[efle]

Really? Then I retract my statement from before. A trend does exist!

Enjoy this and this

And it looks like I was a little off, it's actually a big inverted U going ~5th to 2-3 back to ~6th. Penn looks to have also gone ~7th to 2-3 back to ~5th. Must have been some algorithm tweaks after all.

Just goes to show that we shouldn't read into small year by year shifts in this stuff that much.

 

[SValley]

It's not like you're getting into wash u anyway, so why does it matter?

Young savage why you trappin so hard

 

[cactusman]

Enjoy this and this

And it looks like I was a little off, it's actually a big inverted U going ~5th to 2-3 back to ~6th.

Just goes to show that we shouldn't read into small year by year shifts in this stuff that much.

UCSF did a regular U! And Duke has done sort of a W?

 

[aldol16]

Enjoy this and this

And it looks like I was a little off, it's actually a big inverted U going ~5th to 2-3 back to ~6th. Penn looks to have also gone ~7th to 2-3 back to ~5th. Must have been some algorithm tweaks after all.

Just goes to show that we shouldn't read into small year by year shifts in this stuff that much.

It's all frame of reference. We run into this all the time when publishing. You can zoom out on the data and say "Oh, there's not really a trend" since when you zoom out, WashU is probably solidly in the top 10 all the time and when you have 100+ med schools, the line doesn't change that much. But if you zoom in on the top 10, you'll see a lot of fluctuation with the exception of Harvard. It's how you present your data.

 

[Astra]

Enjoy this and this

And it looks like I was a little off, it's actually a big inverted U going ~5th to 2-3 back to ~6th. Penn looks to have also gone ~7th to 2-3 back to ~5th. Must have been some algorithm tweaks after all.

Just goes to show that we shouldn't read into small year by year shifts in this stuff that much.

that first table should be banned from SDN. so freaking small

 

[efle]

It's all frame of reference. We run into this all the time when publishing. You can zoom out on the data and say "Oh, there's not really a trend" since when you zoom out, WashU is probably solidly in the top 10 all the time and when you have 100+ med schools, the line doesn't change that much. But if you zoom in on the top 10, you'll see a lot of fluctuation with the exception of Harvard. It's how you present your data.

Tell you what, I'll log the reputation scores and then in a decade we can see the real trends! Since I'll obvs still be on SDN until I die

 

[gyngyn]

Tell you what, I'll log the reputation scores and then in a decade we can see the real trends! Since I'll obvs still be on SDN until I die

More likely, you will all move on and I'll be stuck here...
Like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day.

 

[efle]

More likely, you will all move on

I've seen a few people on the premed boards even at the residency/fellow stage! There must be a little spare time to browse forums

 

[Lucca]

tbh the top few ranks are probably shuffled around just to keep things interesting and sell magazines.

As long as Harvard is number 1. Can't disrespect the cartel boss.

 

[Goro]

The only people who seem to be taken in by USN&WR's ranking are pre-meds and medical school Deans.

I place WashU in the Harvard/Stanford class. It's LizzyM score is among the highest in the US.

Hey guys, I hope this question isn't taken to be "prestige-hunting," but I was wondering if anyone had any insight as to whether or not, and why, WashU might be trending downward in recent years.

Apart from the US News (lol) rankings, a number of my med school friends have been telling me its reputation in the medical world isn't what it once was. I know that prestige is a shallow feature of a school, but I also know that it nonetheless plays a role in the reality of the professional world (e.g. for residency matching).

So for residency matching purposes, are WashU grads seen closer to the Geffen, UWash, etc. level now, or closer to the Penn, Hopkins, etc. level like it used to be? Is the supposed drop caused by less research funding (in which case, who cares?) or a legitimate downgrade in the perceived quality of their graduates?

Thanks for the help guys, really appreciate your insight.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

More likely, you will all move on and I'll be stuck here...
Like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day.

And you will still be answering questions about if WashU is "prestigious."

 

[Eurus_Holmes]

I'm a bit curious..What happened at Stanford between 2010 and 2011? Did Stanford lobby for a spot in the top 3?

 

[cactusman]

I'm a bit curious..What happened at Stanford between 2010 and 2011? Did Stanford lobby for a spot in the top 3?

They went 6 --> 11 --> 5, so I'm guessing it was just US News changing methodology to sell more magazines.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Stanford claimed the #2 spot when US News began to incorporate research $ per faculty member into its methodology. IIRC, the Stanford dean at the time actually advocated for this change.

Oh, and this thread is ridiculous...

 

[efle]

Stanford claimed the #2 spot when US News began to incorporate research $ per faculty member into its methodology.

I vaguely remember reading something about this now, or noticing it in the US News table - Stanford's absolute funding amount isn't crazy high but their faculty numbers are very low, so per capita they are absurd.

 

[Freudian Schlep]

When I saw the header of this thread I assumed it was about the WUSTL Curling Team. Had a rough season on the ice. Other than that, they're doing fine.

 

[aldol16]

I vaguely remember reading something about this now, or noticing it in the US News table - Stanford's absolute funding amount isn't crazy high but their faculty numbers are very low, so per capita they are absurd.

Since most grants are to PIs and not to the institution itself, what's revealing with these per capita numbers is that Stanford has a high proportion of top-notch faculty.

 

[efle]

what's revealing with these per capita numbers is that Stanford has a high proportion of top-notch faculty

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!

Is it possible to game this metric I wonder? Give most of your people some non-faculty title and only name as faculty your people getting giant grants?

 

[libertyyne]

Since most grants are to PIs and not to the institution itself, what's revealing with these per capita numbers is that Stanford has a high proportion of top-notch faculty.

Plus does more grant money= better instruction for med students?

 

[aldol16]

Is it possible to game this metric I wonder? Give most of your people some non-faculty title and only name as faculty your people getting giant grants?

There are, of course, ethics issues but those aren't very effective in academia anymore. But departments don't get to select who they list as faculty or non-faculty. When they hire, they have to make a listing for either a faculty or non-faculty position and the people who interview interview for those specific jobs. There's a huge difference because faculty positions are generally tenure-track and non-faculty positions are not. A university could, of course, game the system by hiring only people getting big grants for faculty positions, but if you take a step back and look at it, that's what research universities do anyway. The best people get the most money so you want those people. What makes Stanford unique, I think, is that it has the ability to attract those people. Good faculty candidates will get offers from multiple universities - Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Caltech, etc. - and there is a limited supply of them just like there is a limited supply of research funding. I think Stanford does a very good job of getting those candidates to Stanford once offers are made.

 

[Lucca]

There are, of course, ethics issues but those aren't very effective in academia anymore. But departments don't get to select who they list as faculty or non-faculty. When they hire, they have to make a listing for either a faculty or non-faculty position and the people who interview interview for those specific jobs. There's a huge difference because faculty positions are generally tenure-track and non-faculty positions are not. A university could, of course, game the system by hiring only people getting big grants for faculty positions, but if you take a step back and look at it, that's what research universities do anyway. The best people get the most money so you want those people. What makes Stanford unique, I think, is that it has the ability to attract those people. Good faculty candidates will get offers from multiple universities - Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Caltech, etc. - and there is a limited supply of them just like there is a limited supply of research funding. I think Stanford does a very good job of getting those candidates to Stanford once offers are made.

*good reputation*
*is in NoCal*

Case Closed, good faculty go there.

 

[efle]

I looked it up, Stanford currently #10 by total NIH funding (followed by WashU and Duke) but #1 per capita (followed by Mayo and NYU).

Interestingly, the drop off in per capita is massive right after Stanford and Mayo. By per capita, Mayo is at 97% of Stanford but NYU next in line is only 73% of Stanford.

Btw, per capita Harvard is 40% of Stanford, coming in at #24 next to Baylor. @aldol16 does this change your read at all? Or are Mayo and to a lesser extent NYU also doing a better job attracting superstars than the rest, and Harvard does a really mediocre job of it?

 

[aldol16]

Btw, per capita Harvard is 40% of Stanford, coming in at #24 next to Baylor. @aldol16 does this change your read at all? Or are Mayo and to a lesser extent NYU also doing a better job attracting superstars than the rest, and Harvard does a really mediocre job of it?

I do think that Mayo does a good job at attracting the clinical researchers. Since Mayo is the place to go for tough medical cases, cutting-edge procedures, etc., the researchers at Mayo get to do a lot of interesting research that can't be done elsewhere. So for instance, whereas a study of outcomes from procedure X to treat disease X might be a case study somewhere else with n = 1 since disease X is relatively rare, the same study at Mayo could probably be an actual paper with n = 10 or 20. Stanford, on the other hand, does an excellent job of attracting basic science researchers. So the chemistry department there is phenomenal and brings in a lot of NIH funding. I'm sure its molecular biology departments do as well.

I'm not sure how to interpret NYU's high per capita NIH funding but as you say, it is a substantial dropoff from Stanford and Mayo.

 

[mcloaf]

Plus does more grant money= better instruction for med students?

The correlation between average faculty h-index and USMLE scores is monstrous, I know because p values.

 

[efle]

I do think that Mayo does a good job at attracting the clinical researchers. Since Mayo is the place to go for tough medical cases, cutting-edge procedures, etc., the researchers at Mayo get to do a lot of interesting research that can't be done elsewhere. So for instance, whereas a study of outcomes from procedure X to treat disease X might be a case study somewhere else with n = 1 since disease X is relatively rare, the same study at Mayo could probably be an actual paper with n = 10 or 20. Stanford, on the other hand, does an excellent job of attracting basic science researchers. So the chemistry department there is phenomenal and brings in a lot of NIH funding. I'm sure its molecular biology departments do as well.

I'm not sure how to interpret NYU's high per capita NIH funding but as you say, it is a substantial dropoff from Stanford and Mayo.

Makes sense. I find it pretty surprising that the avg Harvard med faculty is funded at the same levels as U Wisconsin, Baylor and U of Hawaii, but maybe it is just because their system is so vast - their net is about 4x Stanford.

 

[efle]

Plus does more grant money= better instruction for med students?

You've been on SDN long enough to know that clinical instruction quality is determined entirely by layperson prestige and US News.

 

[aldol16]

Makes sense. I find it pretty surprising that the avg Harvard med faculty is funded at the same levels as U Wisconsin, Baylor and U of Hawaii, but maybe it is just because their system is so vast - their net is about 4x Stanford.

Yes, there are several possible culprits for this. You and I both know that Harvard is a top-notch research program - anybody who tells you otherwise is delusional. But they might employ more junior investigators who are promising but don't have the large grants yet. If they have a large proportion of these, then their per capita research funding would decrease. Similarly, Stanford might be hiring many investigators who have already made it big and bring with them lots of research funding. I think the prospect of being in California could draw many a senior PI who spent years cutting his or her teeth in Boston.

Another possibility (though I think it's less likely) is that a lot of Harvard's research funding might come from the NSF or other non-NIH funding schemes. So if US News look at all the Harvard Medical School-affiliated faculty and a large proportion of them have huge NSF grants but no NIH money, then the NIH funding per capita will obviously be lower. I think this is less likely because Stanford is more known for its basic science research so if anything, this would lower Stanford's NIH per capita funding more.

 

[zerox117]

Knew from the moment I read this title that this thread was going from 0 to 100, real quick.