What's the difference in the US News Research and Primary Care rankings?

[DoctorWannaBe]

I'm trying to sort out my list of schools by reach, average, and safety so I can pick a few from each section. However, the US News Rankings vary greatly for some schools depending on if it is the research or primary care ranking. For example, Rochester is #9 on primary care but #31 on research. Which ranking should I follow if I am more interested in clinical medicine? Or should I just look at the average GPA/MCAT to determine if a school is a reach, average, or safety school?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MacGyver]

Research rankings = God

Primary care rankings = Sucks

Seriously though, both sets of rankings are semi-flawed, but the primary care is just absolute hogwash. They base those rankings on the percentage of grads that enter primary care. Thats completely worthless as a metric, because numbers of people going into primary care means NOTHING about quality of school.

Take a look at some of the schools on that list and you'll see what I mean--med schools that nobody has ever heard of are on there.

If primary care was a desired, sought after group of specialties that were hard to get into, then maybe the primary care rankings might have some merit. But since these are the EASIEST specialties to get into, the primary care rankings are totally worthless.

The research rankings has its own set of flaws, but overall its a MUCH better metric than the primary care crap

 

[WatchingWaiting]

The research is definitely considered more important. Just realize that they rejigger the percentages attached to the different categories every few years, and this leads to shifts. In other words, #3 versus #7 is basically no difference, while #3 versus #30 is. It's a lot more like "tiers" of top 10, top 20, top 50, etc., than a precise hierarchy.

 

[Dr. Xavier]

Research appears to be mainly about research $, not how good they can train you to be a clinician. I personally could care less about research, and want to train to be a good clinician, but research dollars helps get good staff and facilities. The primary care rankings is a joke.

 

[Gleevec]

Originally posted by Dr. Xavier
Research appears to be mainly about research $, not how good they can train you to be a clinician. I personally could care less about research, and want to train to be a good clinician, but research dollars helps get good staff and facilities. The primary care rankings is a joke.

No one uses primary care rankings because of the faulty methodology as explained above (in regards to how % primary care is a chief criterion).

Even if you are interested in primary care, the research rankings are the ones to consider.