What are the REAL T10 medical schools by reputation/training/research opportunities?

[deleted1065184]

Yale's PD ranking was 23 last year and is 26 this year, while their USNWR ranking has remained around 10 for the last ~20 years. The same difference can be seen for Mt. Sinai as well being 11th in research but 37th for the PD rankings.. I feel like someone more knowledgeable than me might be able to infer something beyond the standard "different metrics equate to different rankings" as we all know that, but at a certain point, differences that great are telling a much more interesting story.

Perhaps this is more evidence for the users are pointing out a shift away from primary care, as USNWR has Yale 68th for primary care but in the top 10 for multiple competitive specialties. Could discrepancies this large point to malignancies for certain residency programs?

I see I have to say this for like the 7 millionth time, but aside from the super low response rate that makes the ratings not very useful, it makes NO sense to average the research ratings with the primary care ratings and then compare it to the research rankings.

Compare research to research and primary care to primary care. And because the ratings aren't ranked, there's not a numerical ranking. There's just a cluster of schools that the handful of PDs who responded feel have similar research prowess.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[NegativeMargin]

I'm just a dude looking at numbers on the internet buddy, I guess I struck a nerve? Sorry. We all understand the difference between a ranking based on research and one based on primary care, and we can also understand how surveys given to any people, including those in medicine, are inherently biased even without the low and unequal sample sizing. In any case, the "wisdom" I've found on PD rankings is that it's better to take them in quartiles to account for at least some of the variance, but even then..

it doesn't seem nearly as myopic as you're making it out to be that a conclusion to make would be that they may be focusing on some aspects over others. That's all my post implied, it has been a common discussion topic among people talking about higher ranked med schools at least since I started scoping SDN out 5 years ago, it's happening in this very thread, and it is backed up by the rankings.

But what's new to me clearly isn't new to you and it's hit an odd combination of sensitive spots for people here.. sorry, I guess, but it is a pretty big delta and I see no reason to believe Yale would have a hard time finding people to fill out the survey.. if anything, they (and every other T10, because I see no reason to pick on Yale) care enough to posture like politicians for every other aspect of their programs, you'd think they wouldn't have trouble getting their program directors to play along? Yet half of the T10s have objectively poorer PD rankings for primary care. Why assume that is only because of problems with data collection? And more importantly, why assume that the largest differences between a schools values in these systems must be because of some logic error or some data gathering limitations?

 

[efle]

There are very legitimate reasons for primary care scores to be poor at research centers. Look at Hopkins. There is no family medicine residency, no family medicine clerkship, never take an FM shelf exam. The ONLY outpatient clinic time is a pass/fail weekly clinic afternoon that you do as a MS1-MS2 before you even know any clinic medicine, and I suspect they only created that BS "clerkship" to get the LCME off their back for having nothing that meets the primary care med ed requirements. And as youd expect, almost nobody matches into FM.

Meanwhile, they're considered to be top notch training for inpatient IM, Peds, and almost everything else and have a ton of clinical research funding and trials.

So you can see why they have a big delta between their research score and their primary score, and why averaging the two can seem like a nonsensical metric.

 

[efle]

There's also more survey data broken down by specialty on US News these days, for 8 specialties total. Looking at who the repeating names are on their list gives a good outline of the best regarded teaching hospitals overall. FM is a complete outlier set of programs not appearing in any other fields like Oregon, UNC, Minnesota, Wisconsin etc.

Number of top 10 positions in the fields of Anesthesia, IM, OBGYN, Peds, Psych, Radiology, and Surgery:

All 7: Harvard, Hopkins, UCSF, Penn, Duke, Stanford
6: Columbia
5: WashU, Michigan
3: Yale
2: UCLA, Pittsburgh
1: Vandy, Northwestern, Cincy, U of WA, Colorado, Baylor, NYU

Unsurprisingly very similar to the way people perceive the med schools. And highlights why NYU is considered such an upstart lately. I really do believe they are building their student body from the same pool as the traditional "t5" competitors now, but NYU just doesn't have the same overall reputation in medical education/training as places like Harvard and Hopkins and UCSF.

 

[deleted1065184]

I'm just a dude looking at numbers on the internet buddy, I guess I struck a nerve? Sorry. We all understand the difference between a ranking based on research and one based on primary care, and we can also understand how surveys given to any people, including those in medicine, are inherently biased even without the low and unequal sample sizing. In any case, the "wisdom" I've found on PD rankings is that it's better to take them in quartiles to account for at least some of the variance, but even then..

it doesn't seem nearly as myopic as you're making it out to be that a conclusion to make would be that they may be focusing on some aspects over others. That's all my post implied, it has been a common discussion topic among people talking about higher ranked med schools at least since I started scoping SDN out 5 years ago, it's happening in this very thread, and it is backed up by the rankings.

But what's new to me clearly isn't new to you and it's hit an odd combination of sensitive spots for people here.. sorry, I guess, but it is a pretty big delta and I see no reason to believe Yale would have a hard time finding people to fill out the survey.. if anything, they (and every other T10, because I see no reason to pick on Yale) care enough to posture like politicians for every other aspect of their programs, you'd think they wouldn't have trouble getting their program directors to play along? Yet half of the T10s have objectively poorer PD rankings for primary care. Why assume that is only because of problems with data collection? And more importantly, why assume that the largest differences between a schools values in these systems must be because of some logic error or some data gathering limitations?

To be clear, I'm not upset lol. Sorry for coming off a bit snappy. I just have seen folks average the ratings for years now and am in awe that I seem to be the only one willing to point out that it makes absolutely no sense. Folks just see the numbers and roll with it. And I actually don't think the ratings are entirely wrong when separated, but just that they need to be separated and should be viewed in clusters due to low response rate and year-to-year variation.

For example, this year Harvard was rated 4.7 for research but is usually rated 4.5-4.6. And UCSF is usually rated the same or higher than Harvard. Similarly, Penn, WashU, and Michigan are rated 4.5+ each year. So if I were trying to derive some utility from them, I'd personally make a 4.5+ group, a 4.2-4.4 group, and a 4.0-4.1 group. And I'd separately make grouping for primary care, with UCSF, Washington, and UNC being on top.

Wrt survey, who knows the reason for the response rate being so low, but the vast majority of aprograms just do not respond for whatever reason and we don't know which schools do respond.

Wrt primary care, the short answer is that there are some schools that just don't care about it. As the post above mentioned, virtually no FM focus at Hopkins. WashU doesn't even have a FM department and matched nobody in FM this past year. Yale similarly matches few to no students in FM. And for most of these schools, the vast majority of them who go into IM plan to subspecialize instead of becoming internists. Outliers are state schools that also carr a lot about research (UCSF, Michigan, Washington, UNC) and Penn, which actually has a pretty solid FM department.

Unfortunately, it's all about money and prestige. Procedural and surgical specialties bring in more money than primary care specialties due to reimbursement structure, and the procedural/surgical specialties also bring in more outside research funding (like NIH). Research funding means some folks (esp. physician-scientists and PhD-ony researchers at the medical center) can pay their salaries largely or entirely from their own grant money, AND research brings prestige (and donor money) to schools.

I agree that it's a shame that they are neglecting the specialties that are easily the most important for overall human health and wellbeing, but this is what happens when you have a healthcare system that is driven by money instead of health outcomes.

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

There's also more survey data broken down by specialty on US News these days, for 8 specialties total. Looking at who the repeating names are on their list gives a good outline of the best regarded teaching hospitals overall. FM is a complete outlier set of programs not appearing in any other fields like Oregon, UNC, Minnesota, Wisconsin etc.

Number of top 10 positions in the fields of Anesthesia, IM, OBGYN, Peds, Psych, Radiology, and Surgery:

All 7: Harvard, Hopkins, UCSF, Penn, Duke, Stanford
6: Columbia
5: WashU, Michigan
3: Yale
2: UCLA, Pittsburgh
1: Vandy, Northwestern, Cincy, U of WA, Colorado, Baylor, NYU

Unsurprisingly very similar to the way people perceive the med schools. And highlights why NYU is considered such an upstart lately. I really do believe they are building their student body from the same pool as the traditional "t5" competitors now, but NYU just doesn't have the same overall reputation in medical education/training as places like Harvard and Hopkins and UCSF.

FM is not all outliers. UW and UCSF are on the top 10 list of FM as well.

 

[tossaway000999888]

There's also more survey data broken down by specialty on US News these days, for 8 specialties total. Looking at who the repeating names are on their list gives a good outline of the best regarded teaching hospitals overall. FM is a complete outlier set of programs not appearing in any other fields like Oregon, UNC, Minnesota, Wisconsin etc.

Number of top 10 positions in the fields of Anesthesia, IM, OBGYN, Peds, Psych, Radiology, and Surgery:

All 7: Harvard, Hopkins, UCSF, Penn, Duke, Stanford
6: Columbia
5: WashU, Michigan
3: Yale
2: UCLA, Pittsburgh
1: Vandy, Northwestern, Cincy, U of WA, Colorado, Baylor, NYU

Unsurprisingly very similar to the way people perceive the med schools. And highlights why NYU is considered such an upstart lately. I really do believe they are building their student body from the same pool as the traditional "t5" competitors now, but NYU just doesn't have the same overall reputation in medical education/training as places like Harvard and Hopkins and UCSF.

So what you're saying is Colorado is a T20 👀 I can dig it

 

[Browns99]

Yale probably gets a lot of money for its PhD’s on the faculty roster. Their clinical training is really subpar given the whole Yale-New Haven system is made of mostly community hospitals such as Greenwich Hospital and suburban outpatient clinics… my personal experience with the system basically told me it is not nearly on the same level as Harvard or Columbia. Most physicians just want to have a comfortable life away from the hassles of big cities. The catchment area of the system is basically Fairfield county which is considered NYC suburb. Everyone living in the county opts to be seen in the city should they have some serious medical problems.

Are you serious, SMH.

 

[Browns99]

fine. clearly you work for the YNH system.

C'mon dude, why do you throw digs, just because someone sets you straight?

 

[proudofmykids]

There's also more survey data broken down by specialty on US News these days, for 8 specialties total. Looking at who the repeating names are on their list gives a good outline of the best regarded teaching hospitals overall. FM is a complete outlier set of programs not appearing in any other fields like Oregon, UNC, Minnesota, Wisconsin etc.

Number of top 10 positions in the fields of Anesthesia, IM, OBGYN, Peds, Psych, Radiology, and Surgery:

All 7: Harvard, Hopkins, UCSF, Penn, Duke, Stanford
6: Columbia
5: WashU, Michigan
3: Yale
2: UCLA, Pittsburgh
1: Vandy, Northwestern, Cincy, U of WA, Colorado, Baylor, NYU

Unsurprisingly very similar to the way people perceive the med schools. And highlights why NYU is considered such an upstart lately. I really do believe they are building their student body from the same pool as the traditional "t5" competitors now, but NYU just doesn't have the same overall reputation in medical education/training as places like Harvard and Hopkins and UCSF.

You indicate 8 specialties in the survey yet list only 7?
How were these 8 chosen over other specialties? The “count” of top 10 positions does cha be depending on specialties. The top 5 or 6 you show will remain the same, but the next 10-15 count will change order of the specialites we’re expanded beyond 8.

I typically reference his type of lookup from Doximity Residency Navigator, but haven’t found a more recent ranking summary version.

Doximity Residency Navigator 2018 - 2019 - Tea with MD

The Doximity Residency Navigator 2018-2019 have been released! I have compiled the top 10 in each specialty by reputation and research for your interest.

www.teawithmd.com

 

[efle]

You indicate 8 specialties in the survey yet list only 7?
How were these 8 chosen over other specialties? The “count” of top 10 positions does cha be depending on specialties. The top 5 or 6 you show will remain the same, but the next 10-15 count will change order of the specialites we’re expanded beyond 8.

I typically reference his type of lookup from Doximity Residency Navigator, but haven’t found a more recent ranking summary version.

Doximity Residency Navigator 2018 - 2019 - Tea with MD

The Doximity Residency Navigator 2018-2019 have been released! I have compiled the top 10 in each specialty by reputation and research for your interest.

www.teawithmd.com

Took out FM because the program set is so distinctly different. And those are sort of the main 8 specialties. The additional ones on doximity (which is a public poll of Facebook for doctors instead of surveying med ed faculty) are generally small surgical subspecialties that I don't think have the same weight on overall teaching hospital rep.

If you did the same thing using doximity I'd bet the same hospitals pop out, except I'd predict the ones in SF, NYC and LA to all move higher because they're more popular, plus some new names listed once for especially strong outliers like Miami ophtho, Rush ortho etc

 

[Banco]

This thread is so painfully hilarious. Stop thinking like this, my goodness.

To any pre-med/med student reading this - make your decisions based on what you value. There are like 10 people on this website who care about such nonsense as evidenced in this thread and you shouldn't care what they think about "true" top schools.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

This thread is so painfully hilarious. Stop thinking like this, my goodness.

To any pre-med/med student reading this - make your decisions based on what you value. There are like 10 people on this website who care about such nonsense as evidenced in this thread and you shouldn't care what they think about "true" top schools.

Just curious—how do you honestly look at the match lists of “top schools” vs mid tier schools vs low tier schools and think that ranking/prestige doesn’t matter.

As a low tier student, your ceiling is the HMS/JHU/UCSF student’s floor.

 

[KnightDoc]

Just curious—how do you honestly look at the match lists of “top schools” vs mid tier schools vs low tier schools and think that ranking/prestige doesn’t matter.

As a low tier student, your ceiling is the HMS/JHU/UCSF student’s floor.

I obviously cannot speak for anyone else, but I honestly look at it by telling myself that the ability of a single person at a so-called "low tier" school to match at a prestigious residency in a competitive specialty means that it is the student, not the school, that determines outcomes.

HMS/JHU/UCSF attract a overwhelming percentage of superstars, so they have uniformly impressive match lists. But it is a fact that the very same people who are admitted there but choose less prestigious schools have the very same outcomes.

In fact, they are often the people at the lower tier schools having the outlier outcomes. It's not an accident, and it's not a magical illusion. It is the student, not the school. At least you better hope it is!

 

[Lawpy]

Why is this thread 3 pages already?

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

I obviously cannot speak for anyone else, but I honestly look at it by telling myself that the ability of a single person at a so-called "low tier" school to match at a prestigious residency in a competitive specialty means that it is the student, not the school, that determines outcomes.

HMS/JHU/UCSF attract a overwhelming percentage of superstars, so they have uniformly impressive match lists. But it is a fact that the very same people who are admitted there but choose less prestigious schools have the very same outcomes.

In fact, they are often the people at the lower tier schools having the outlier outcomes. It's not an accident, and it's not a magical illusion. It is the student, not the school. At least you better hope it is!

That’s what I have been saying all along. Lol. Low tier schools just don’t help you that much and you are on your own if you want to succeed. Whereas at the top places, they give you so much help and it’s hard to not succeed…

Caring about ranking doesn’t mean you are superficial or whatever, it’s like you are buying a piece of property and you want the value out of it. So @Banco is giving out really bad advice to premeds. They should definitely care about what schools can offer. And ranking is a proxy of resources. Most people at top places don’t feel that going to a top medical school gives them the right to brag. We just keep working hard. Trust me, very very few of us would look down on people who go to lower tier schools. But I highly recommend that anyone who has an option to go to one of the very top places even incurring more substantial debt should consider the option seriously. The biggest BS here is go where you will be happy. Go where you think you will get trained the best.

 

[Lawpy]

That’s what I have been saying all along. Lol. Low tier schools just don’t help you that much and you are on your own if you want to succeed. Whereas at the top places, they give you so much help and it’s hard to not succeed…

I thought this is common sense. Top schools want their students to succeed and match at great places because that strengthens their alumni network and gives more credit and praise to their schools. Someone going to Harvard will be actively pushed into being a world leader, but someone going to a low tier school will be met with a relatively disengaged response if they want to match somewhere strong

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

I obviously cannot speak for anyone else, but I honestly look at it by telling myself that the ability of a single person at a so-called "low tier" school to match at a prestigious residency in a competitive specialty means that it is the student, not the school, that determines outcomes.

HMS/JHU/UCSF attract a overwhelming percentage of superstars, so they have uniformly impressive match lists. But it is a fact that the very same people who are admitted there but choose less prestigious schools have the very same outcomes.

In fact, they are often the people at the lower tier schools having the outlier outcomes. It's not an accident, and it's not a magical illusion. It is the student, not the school. At least you better hope it is!

I think it’s more of, one can be a bad student at Hopkins and still match Hopkins IM.

Even the year in which Hopkins had a step 1 of like 230 something, most IM matches were at the big 4 and T10 to a lesser extent.

I don’t necessarily buy the fact that everybody who scored low on their step 1 had oustanding ECs, research and such.

If one goes to Harvard, the floor for IM is basically BIDMC. To get BIDMC from a low tier school, one needs high steps, AOA, research etc.

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

I thought this is common sense. Top schools want their students to succeed and match at great places because that strengthens their alumni network and gives more credit and praise to their schools. Someone going to Harvard will be actively pushed into being a world leader, but someone going to a low tier school will be met with a relatively disengaged response if they want to match somewhere strong

Clearly common sense to you and me, but not to @Banco

 

[KnightDoc]

I think it’s more of, one can be a bad student at Hopkins and still match Hopkins IM.

Even the year in which Hopkins had a step 1 of like 230 something, most IM matches were at the big 4 and T10 to a lesser extent.

I don’t necessarily buy the fact that everybody who scored low on their step 1 had oustanding ECs, research and such.

Can they, though?

I hear stories every year from people who can't believe that people at those schools SOAP, or don't match at all and are forced into unplanned research years.

I think what you think about that is more myth than reality. The vast majority of people at those schools are rock stars who work their a$$es off and do great things. A few of them, not so much. They believe their own press clippings and the SDN mythology you are repeating, and then receive rude wake-up calls on Match Day.

The floor at Hopkins is not Hopkins IM. It's unmatched, just like at any other school.

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

Can they, though?

I hear stories every year from people who can't believe that people at those schools SOAP, or don't match at all and are forced into unplanned research years.

I think what you think about that is more myth than reality. The vast majority of people at those schools are rock stars who work their a$$es off and do great things. A few of them, not so much. They believe their own press clippings and the SDN mythology you are repeating, and then receive rude wake-up calls on Match Day.

Yes they can. I can confirm that. You can totally coast along at Hopkins/HMS/UCSF to match in the home IM programs. IM residencies at the top are so obsessed with prestige, they would rather take a Hopkins grad with 230 than a low tier grad with 250. To them, it’s where you go to school that matters the most. People who had to SOAP are the ones wanting super competitive specialties and a bit too unrealistic with their list.

If all you want is IM out of those three schools, you literally will have an amazing time and don’t have to care about a thing. It’s yours to lose literally. To put everything in perspective, where I am, the average number of pubs among students who participate in match every year is ONE, that is of any authorship position. Most IM matches don’t have any pub… try that at a t50 see if you have any luck at big 4…

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

SOAP stories from these schools are probably more like somebody with a 220 and no pubs trying to match neurosurgery/plastics. or maybe only ranking top programs

 

[KnightDoc]

That’s what I have been saying all along. Lol. Low tier schools just don’t help you that much and you are on your own if you want to succeed. Whereas at the top places, they give you so much help and it’s hard to not succeed…

Caring about ranking doesn’t mean you are superficial or whatever, it’s like you are buying a piece of property and you want the value out of it. So @Banco is giving out really bad advice to premeds. They should definitely care about what schools can offer. And ranking is a proxy of resources. Most people at top places don’t feel that going to a top medical school gives them the right to brag. We just keep working hard. Trust me, very very few of us would look down on people who go to lower tier schools. But I highly recommend that anyone who has an option to go to one of the very top places even incurring more substantial debt should consider the option seriously. The biggest BS here is go where you will be happy. Go where you think you will get trained the best.

I actually agree with you. The decision then just comes down to how much one is willing to bus their own tray, or serve themselves at the buffet, versus how much they are willing to pay for a 5-star full service experience. All thing equal, who wouldn't want everything a Harvard or Hopkins have to offer?

OTOH, as impressive as the Case Western match list is, if obtaining the same matches is possible with more self service at a place like Hackensack, why borrow an extra $300K and have to pay it back, plus interest, if you are going to wind up in the same place anyway?

I guess, at the end of the day, some people draw comfort from the match list and think it provides an assurance that in reality it does not. Others would rather not have the burden of having to do the extra work. And, although some on SDN go to great lengths to deny it, still others do actually place a six-figure value on a name on a piece of paper.

To each their own. We all get to make our own choices with our lives, career and money. Some want to be happy. Others don't value that as much.

 

[KnightDoc]

Yes they can. I can confirm that. You can totally coast along at Hopkins/HMS/UCSF to match in the home IM programs. IM residencies at the top are so obsessed with prestige, they would rather take a Hopkins grad with 230 than a low tier grad with 250. To them, it’s where you go to school that matters the most. People who had to SOAP are the ones wanting super competitive specialties and a bit too unrealistic with their list.

If all you want is IM out of those three schools, you literally will have an amazing time and don’t have to care about a thing. It’s yours to lose literally. To put everything in perspective, where I am, the average number of pubs among students who participate in match every year is ONE, that is of any authorship position. Most IM matches don’t have any pub… try that at a t50 see if you have any luck at big 4…

Sounds good. So now you coasted into a Big 4 IM residency with no pubs.

Where do you go from there, and what difference does it make to your career over doing IM anywhere in the country? After enjoying yourself at Hopkins, you're all of a sudden going to turn it on in residency and enter some amazing fellowship when you are done, just because you have Hopkins/Hopkins on your CV?

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

I actually agree with you. The decision then just comes down to how much one is willing to bus their own tray, or serve themselves at the buffet, versus how much they are willing to pay for a 5-star full service experience. All thing equal, who wouldn't want everything a Harvard or Hopkins have to offer?

OTOH, as impressive as the Case Western match list is, if obtaining the same matches is possible with more self service at a place like Hackensack, why borrow an extra $300K and have to pay it back, plus interest, if you are going to wind up in the same place anyway?

I guess, at the end of the day, some people draw comfort from the match list and think it provides an assurance that in reality it does not. Others would rather not have the burden of having to do the extra work. And, although some on SDN go to great lengths to deny it, still others do actually place a six-figure value on a name on a piece of paper.

To each their own. We all get to make our own choices with our lives, career and money. Some want to be happy. Others don't value that as much.

Agree with your analogy. But so many people here ridicule others when they want a five star full-service..

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

Sounds good. So now you coasted into a Big 4 IM residency with no pubs.

Where do you go from there, and what difference does it make to your career over doing IM anywhere in the country? After enjoying yourself at Hopkins, you're all of a sudden going to turn it on in residency and enter some amazing fellowship when you are done, just because you have Hopkins/Hopkins on your CV?

Well, once you are in residency, it’s a lot easier to publish. You find a mentor in the specialty you want to go into for fellowship, and don’t be a dumb a’ss, and be likeable, your name will appear in every pub that mentor is gonna put out. Pubs are a joke when you are at a right place. Even as a med student at those three places, if you want to publish, it’s not that hard. You just have to network a bit with high output faculty members(a lot of them here) and tell them you want to publish and they will clue you in as long as you put in some decent amount of work. My classmates pursuing competitive specialties have new pubs every month since the department head just puts all med students on all the papers published lol. A lot of bs though lol, but they get published. The only thing that’s a bit difficult is getting first authorships, which require some luck. But if you want a competitive specialty, you at most need two first authorship papers of any kind.

 

[KnightDoc]

Agree with your analogy. But so many people here ridicule others when they want a five star full-service..

Agreed. We all have to perform a cost/benefit analysis, and it's going to be different for each of us. No one can honestly say there is no value to the top programs. All of us would choose them if all else were equal, ability to be accepted being the most important!

Of course, cost and location are also very important factors that go into the mix for everyone. When money is important to someone and they cannot justify the cost, they naturally feel a need for validation by selling that conclusion to others. I get it!

 

[mangowolf]

I think it’s more of, one can be a bad student at Hopkins and still match Hopkins IM.

If one goes to Harvard, the floor for IM is basically BIDMC. To get BIDMC from a low tier school, one needs high steps, AOA, research etc.

Yes they can. I can confirm that. You can totally coast along at Hopkins/HMS/UCSF to match in the home IM programs. IM residencies at the top are so obsessed with prestige, they would rather take a Hopkins grad with 230 than a low tier grad with 250. To them, it’s where you go to school that matters the most. People who had to SOAP are the ones wanting super competitive specialties and a bit too unrealistic with their list.

If all you want is IM out of those three schools, you literally will have an amazing time and don’t have to care about a thing. It’s yours to lose literally. To put everything in perspective, where I am, the average number of pubs among students who participate in match every year is ONE, that is of any authorship position. Most IM matches don’t have any pub… try that at a t50 see if you have any luck at big 4…

Is this true? Because I heard of HMS students who failed to match their T3 in IM/EM and ended up at still decent but not amazing academic institutions. Or had to take research years for non competitive specialties.

I do see your point about the floor generally being much higher than other low/mid tier schools, but I don’t think you can just walk into a UCSF or HMS IM residency.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Considering that the lowest IM match this year was Colorado and that is still “upper mid tier” according to most posters on here, I have my doubts.

I mean, I guess they might have fallen out of their top 3 if they ranked MGH, Hopkins, UCSF.

But at a low tier MD school, one would have to be well above average to even match Colorado.

 

[mangowolf]

I mean you have to be average competent. You will be surprised how bad some people are when they are on the wards lol.

idk, I talked to a current HMS student who said roughly half his class didn’t match their top 3 and the other half did. He felt like it correlated w who took a research year(s) or not. And they weren’t gunning ortho derm etc either. Harvard’s IM list is amazing but there are a significant number of non MGH, non UCSF class programs. Sure, many of those may be personal preference (like wanting to be close to family in LA, Michigan etc.) but probably a lot of those aren’t personal preference and was just what the student managed to snag. Not that being at UCLA or Michigan is a terrible fate LMAO it’s clearly amazing, but I feel like you’re underestimating the number of HMS/UCSF med students who wanted to match at MGH/UCSF but couldn’t.

 

[mangowolf]

Considering that the lowest IM match this year was Colorado and that is still “upper mid tier” according to most posters on here, I have my doubts.

I mean, I guess they might have fallen out of their top 3 if they ranked MGH, Hopkins, UCSF.

But at a low tier MD school, one would have to be well above average to even match Colorado.

yes agreed, obviously the floor is VERY high but I just don’t think that you necessarily have your first pick of residencies if you do a non competitive specialty

 

[efle]

Imho it completely depends on department. I've seen multiple straight Honors 250+ candidates with pubs failing to match specific surgical subspecialties. But for fields like IM people match exceptionally well with an average app. The biggest advantage by far is having a foot in the door at the home hospital system, places like HMS/UCSF/Hopkins match a huge number into their own spots like 1/3 to 1/2 depending on the year.

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

Imho it completely depends on department. I've seen multiple straight Honors 250+ candidates with pubs failing to match specific surgical subspecialties. But for fields like IM people match exceptionally well with an average app. The biggest advantage by far is having a foot in the door at the home hospital system, places like HMS/UCSF/Hopkins match a huge number into their own spots like 1/3 to 1/2 depending on the year.

ortho from Hopkins?? lack of departmental support?

 

[Banco]

Just curious—how do you honestly look at the match lists of “top schools” vs mid tier schools vs low tier schools and think that ranking/prestige doesn’t matter.

As a low tier student, your ceiling is the HMS/JHU/UCSF student’s floor.

I'm laughing at the concept of a "true top 10" as determined by regulars on a pre-med forum using lists and rankings that have been based and modified using arbitrary metrics over the past couple decades; now that the lists look a bit different, let's come up with the "real list" based on...what exactly? The entire concept of the thread is stupid. Who cares what @srirachamayonnaise or I think are the "true top 10."

What you are saying is clustering schools into certain tiers - that's definitely a thing and it's hard to deny that name matters in medicine. I never said prestige doesn't matter. Match lists are only a limited view, and even then, you can't separate what proportion of that success is from the school or from the student or a combination of the two.

Look, I've been on this forum long enough to see the obsession this place has with prestige - this is basically a pastime here. Being a resident now, I just don't want some impressionable pre-med to shape their entire view of medicine and future decision making on arbitrary lists of ranked schools by posters on a forum that represents less than 0.1% of the medicine community.

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

I'm laughing at the concept of a "true top 10" as determined by regulars on a pre-med forum using lists and rankings that have been based and modified using arbitrary metrics over the past couple decades; now that the lists look a bit different, let's come up with the "real list" based on...what exactly? The entire concept of the thread is stupid. Who cares what @srirachamayonnaise or I think are the "true top 10."

What you are saying is clustering schools into certain tiers - that's definitely a thing and it's hard to deny that name matters in medicine. I never said prestige doesn't matter. Match lists are only a limited view, and even then, you can't separate what proportion of that success is from the school or from the student or a combination of the two.

Look, I've been on this forum long enough to see the obsession this place has with prestige - this is basically a pastime here. Being a resident now, I just don't want some impressionable pre-med to shape their entire view of medicine and future decision making on arbitrary lists of ranked schools by posters on a forum that represents less than 0.1% of the medicine community.

I agree that the notion of "true" top 10 is laughable. I however think when deciding where to attend, the strength of the institution should be considered really heavily. Your idea that people should go where they will feel happy is kind of non-advice. It's only 4 or 5 years of your life and yet those years can set you up for a long career.

 

[Banco]

I agree that the notion of "true" top 10 is laughable. I however think when deciding where to attend, the strength of the institution should be considered really heavily. Your idea that people should go where they will feel happy is kind of non-advice. It's only 4 or 5 years of your life and yet those years can set you up for a long career.

Well yeah I do think people should go where they feel happy lol - why would one want to be miserable for 5 years? - but that's not what I'm trying to say here. I'm more saying decisions should be based on one's own value system (which for most involves a combination of prestige, location, money, family, personal circumstances etc.) Posters here often make it seem sacrilegious if one would dare choose a top 50 over a "true top 10." That just isn't how life works outside of this bubble.

Threads like these sometimes dangerously make it seem there is only one way or the highway. You constantly see threads of pre-meds in existential crisis because of it.

 

[deleted1065184]

Being a resident now, I just don't want some impressionable pre-med to shape their entire view of medicine and future decision making on arbitrary lists of ranked schools by posters on a forum that represents less than 0.1% of the medicine community.

This is real af

 

[fogo]

I’d like to offer a different angle wrt reputation: check out the Singapore accepted foreign medical degrees. The US medical schools that were the earliest to be approved were: UCSF, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Harvard, Hopkins, UMich, Penn, Stanford, WashU, and Yale. That’s 11 schools, and obviously we can take out Harvard so that’s T10 for you.

 

[efle]

ortho from Hopkins?? lack of departmental support?

Not just ortho I've also seen repeated failed matches in Ophtho, ENT and know of multiple close calls who luckily home matched with only a couple other interviews in similar fields. Then there are other departments like neurosurg who consistently slam dunk every matchlist. Once you're talking about small hyper-competitive fields I think med school branding is fully out the window and what matters is your aways and whether a couple names in the department will go to bat for you.

 

[Browns99]

Not just ortho I've also seen repeated failed matches in Ophtho, ENT and know of multiple close calls who luckily home matched with only a couple other interviews in similar fields. Then there are other departments lke neurosurg who consistently slam dunk every matchlist. Once you're talking about small hyper-competitive fields I think med school branding is fully out the window and what matters is your aways and whether a couple names in the department will go to bat for you.

I agree with the fact that when it comes to the completive specialities.... "what matters is your aways and whether a couple names in the department will go to bat for you", however, I still think school branding helps though.

 

[efle]

I agree with the fact that when it comes to the completive specialities.... "what matters is your aways and whether a couple names in the department will go to bat for you", however, I still think school branding helps though.

You'd be surprised at the data. Ortho as example -

Percent of matched residency apps who applied from top 40 schools by NIH funding (all specialties): 31.0%
Percent for only the apps who matched to Ortho: 33.6%
As another point of reference, IM was also exactly 33.6%

If that's even real, it'd be the "statistically but not clinically" kind of significant. Certainly not worth turning down a big scholarship over, moving somewhere you'd be unhappy, or whatever else is apparently going on in the premed forums these days

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

You'd be surprised at the data. Ortho as example -

Percent of matched residency apps who applied from top 40 schools by NIH funding (all specialties): 31.0%
Percent for only the apps who matched to Ortho: 33.6%
As another point of reference, IM was also exactly 33.6%

If that's even real, it'd be the "statistically but not clinically" kind of significant. Certainly not worth turning down a big scholarship over, moving somewhere you'd be unhappy, or whatever else is apparently going on in the premed forums these days

Are this many people using IM as a backup?

 

[bonedoc5576]

It seems that the underlying question might be whether the delta in opportunity afforded by attending a traditional top program is worth forgoing merit aid from any other institution. Obviously the answer depends on the goals of the individual. If the goal is to go into private practice, my opinion is that there is no benefit to paying for a name. If one has a burning desire to go into a particular field, then there may be some value in considering the strength of the home program in that particular field. Of course, most premeds will change their mind.

It really bothers me that the top programs all have sufficient endowment to make tuition affordable for everyone, but so long as students chasing prestige continue to take out massive loans for a fancy diploma, then the ivory towers will continue to get away with it.

 

[proudofmykids]

You'd be surprised at the data. Ortho as example -

Percent of matched residency apps who applied from top 40 schools by NIH funding (all specialties): 31.0%
Percent for only the apps who matched to Ortho: 33.6%
As another point of reference, IM was also exactly 33.6%

If that's even real, it'd be the "statistically but not clinically" kind of significant. Certainly not worth turning down a big scholarship over, moving somewhere you'd be unhappy, or whatever else is apparently going on in the premed forums these days

The 33.6% was for Med School Seniors, which was still over representative for the top 40 for the total of 79% of seniors matching ortho.

I think the thread was more based on T10/20 success versus T40. I would think the over representation of success would be noticeably larger.

 

[carbonylcarbon]

I obviously cannot speak for anyone else, but I honestly look at it by telling myself that the ability of a single person at a so-called "low tier" school to match at a prestigious residency in a competitive specialty means that it is the student, not the school, that determines outcomes.

HMS/JHU/UCSF attract a overwhelming percentage of superstars, so they have uniformly impressive match lists. But it is a fact that the very same people who are admitted there but choose less prestigious schools have the very same outcomes.

In fact, they are often the people at the lower tier schools having the outlier outcomes. It's not an accident, and it's not a magical illusion. It is the student, not the school. At least you better hope it is!

Definitely agree that attending a top school is not necessary for matching well as evidenced by plenty of people that do well in the match from lower ranked schools. But I'm not really seeing how your bolded claim is borne out by the available data, unless there's much more out there beyond match lists? We're not seeing how many people with comparable apps fared worse, and whether that proportion is much different among students who opted for more competitive schools.

It's easy to imagine that there are enough factors within one's control that with enough preparation and foresight, you can predictably achieve good results coming from any school. But there is undeniably an element of chance at play, and for most students, having done the best they can to put together a strong application, there will still be a considerable margin of uncertainty in their outcomes. Maybe it takes a good deal more luck to match equally well from one school compared to another. I don't think that's something that many med students, risk averse as they are, would be quick to dismiss.

That's not to mention plenty of other factors outside of most students' reach/control that can have an outsized impact on outcomes (family/other such connections to programs). So I think it's hard to see a few names matching well and make confident inferences about the nature of the application process and its implications for students choosing schools.

 

[KnightDoc]

Definitely agree that attending a top school is not necessary for matching well as evidenced by plenty of people that do well in the match from lower ranked schools. But I'm not really seeing how your bolded claim is borne out by the available data, unless there's much more out there beyond match lists? We're not seeing how many people with comparable apps fared worse, and whether that proportion is much different among students who opted for more competitive schools.

It's easy to imagine that there are enough factors within one's control that with enough preparation and foresight, you can predictably achieve good results coming from any school. But there is undeniably an element of chance at play, and for most students, having done the best they can to put together a strong application, there will still be a considerable margin of uncertainty in their outcomes. Maybe it takes a good deal more luck to match equally well from one school compared to another. I don't think that's something that many med students, risk averse as they are, would be quick to dismiss.

That's not to mention plenty of other factors outside of most students' reach/control that can have an outsized impact on outcomes (family/other such connections to programs). So I think it's hard to see a few names matching well and make confident inferences about the nature of the application process and its implications for students choosing schools.

Everything you are saying is true, and there is no publicly available data mapping people who turn down T10 to attend T150, showing where and what they match to 4 years later.

I was just thinking that it stands to reason that, in addition to the late bloomers, that people who turned down T10s are among the people matching well from lower tier schools. To the extent they aren't, I would speculate that they would be among the exceptions to the rule, and would be the very people not matching well from T10s.

No proof, but these are logical conclusions, given that some people do turn down top schools to attend far lower ranked ones, at least a few people each year from lower ranked schools have spectacular matches, and at least a few people each year from tippy top schools have not so spectacular matches, or no matches at all. YMMV.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

This was before step 1 was pass/fail.

Students at lower tier schools could hold their own with a high step 1 score. Likewise, students from Harvard weren’t applying derm, ortho, ent with a 215.

Now that there is less self selection (ie the person who gets a 215 but wants ortho now has no negative feedback), way more people will be applying to competitive specialties and places.

Bottom line, I think that if you’re at a lower tier school and step 1 isn’t scores, you should be okay with going into primary care (or at least IM—>fellowship)

Will it still be possible for students at low tier schools to match competitive specialties and places? Of course. Will it be less likely? Of course.

 

[KnightDoc]

This was before step 1 was pass/fail.

Will it still be possible for students at low tier schools to match competitive specialties and places? Of course. Will it be less likely? Of course.

Of course. Because we as pre-meds know better than all of the insiders, who, to a person, have unequivocally stated that Step 2 will replace Step 1 for these purposes.

So let's all just slave to a list compiled by a magazine, because we need something and it's all we have, since we cannot think for ourselves.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Step 2 has less variance than step 1. By its very nature, it will be a much less powerful tool to stratify applicants

 

[carbonylcarbon]

🍿