Where can I see the tiers of schools?

[just-another-MD-applicant]

title

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

USNWR but probably repost this on general premed forum not school specific

 

[LizzyM]

Your best bet, IMHO, is the school selectivity metrics included in the WedgeDawg's Applicant Rating System (WARS)

School Categories and Applicant Profiles

Schools are similarly grouped into 7 broad categories by basis of selectivity. The categories are as follows:

Category 1 (TOP): Harvard, Stanford, Hopkins, UCSF, Penn, WashU, Yale, Columbia, Duke, Chicago

Category 2 (HIGH): Michigan, UCLA*, NYU, Vanderbilt, Pitt, UCSD*, Cornell, Northwestern, Mt Sinai, Baylor*, Mayo, Case Western, Emory

Category 3 (MID): UTSW*, UVA, Ohio State, USC-Keck, Rochester, Dartmouth, Einstein, Hofstra, UNC*

Category 4 (LOW): USF-Morsani, Wayne State, Creighton, Oakland, SLU, Cincinnati, Indiana, Miami, Iowa, MC Wisconsin, Toledo, SUNY Downstate, Stony Brook, VCU, Western MI, EVMS, Vermont, WVU, Wisconsin, Quinnipiac, Wake Forest, Maryland

Category 5 (STATE): Your state schools if they do not appear elsewhere on this list - You should always apply to all of these if applying MD

Category 6 (LOW YIELD): Jefferson, Tulane, Tufts, Georgetown, Brown, BU, Loyola, Rosalind Franklin, Drexel, Commonwealth, Temple, GWU, NYMC, Penn State, Albany, Rush

Category 7 (DO): DO Schools

WedgeDawg's Applicant Rating System (Updated Jan 2017)

Link to online WARS Calculator Latest version is 1.3 (Released January 2017) Collaborator credit: @To be MD Introduction As some of you may have seen, I've recently been pioneering a new system that helps applicants figure out where they stand with respect to medical school admissions as...

forums.studentdoctor.net

 

[deleted1025488]

That list prob needs some heavy tweaking if it really reflects selectity, since post-2017 schools have gotten more "holistic" (obviously )

 

[Goro]

BTW, the only people who care about the rankings of USNWR are prestige-addled pre-meds and med school Deans.

 

[LizzyM]

That list prob needs some heavy tweaking if it really reflects selectity, since post-2017 schools have gotten more "holistic" (obviously )

who would you move up, and who would you move down and on what basis?

To start, I suppose NYU moves to "TOP". What else?

 

[KnightDoc]

who would you move up, and who would you move down and on what basis?

To start, I suppose NYU moves to "TOP". What else?

I dunno -- but, for starters, given how tiny their classes are, are Mayo and Vandy really any easier to get into than Yale or WashU?

I'll be honest -- I used Tiers 1 and 2 interchangeably when making my list, so, while it's an interesting discussion, I'm not sure that whether a school in is Tier 1 or 2 actually matters when using the system. You really could collapse those two tiers and combine the recommended allocation to each tier, and end up in pretty much the exact same place, given the number of schools in each tier and the number of schools most of us apply to nowadays.

 

[deleted1025488]

who would you move up, and who would you move down and on what basis?

To start, I suppose NYU moves to "TOP". What else?

Wisconsin caught my eye in low, should probably be mid or high (it's also been like 25-35 ranked for the past 5 years so dunno how that is low). UTSW is high imo. Honestly at this point, most of the high and top tiers can be mixed together since they all have insanely high MCAT medians and it's not like a 519 vs. 521 median is anything to hinge on; the point is that these 'holistic' schools have 99% medians...all of the schools above low are pretty much 90th percentile+ rn. But nonetheless, splitting schools like Northwestern and Columbia is pretty worthless imo.

 

[jadfaweradfasd]

I don't see a noticeable difference between mid, low, and low yield. Iowa in low but Hofstra in mid?

 

[Zorax]

I don't see a noticeable difference between mid, low, and low yield. Iowa in low but Hofstra in mid?

I don't understand what low yield means. What's the difference between low and low yield schools?

Also, Hofstra seems to be as selective as Mt. Sinai. Feel like it should be in high...

 

[doomer_md]

I don't understand what low yield means. What's the difference between low and low yield schools?

Also, Hofstra seems to be as selective as Mt. Sinai. Feel like it should be in high...

Low yield = generally private schools (therefor no state bias) that don’t have really high MCAT/GPA averages so they receive a ton of apps from all around the country, making your chances of acceptance a little lower.

 

[KnightDoc]

I don't understand what low yield means. What's the difference between low and low yield schools?

Also, Hofstra seems to be as selective as Mt. Sinai. Feel like it should be in high...

"Low" refers to rank or tier. "Low Yield" refers to the school being disproportionately popular, and that an application to it is consequently a low yield endeavor. Basically, the system advises those with relatively high WARS scores not to waste their time with them, since they are at least as likely to be accepted to objectively better schools.

 

[KnightDoc]

Low yield = generally private schools (therefor no state bias) that don’t have really high MCAT/GPA averages so they receive a ton of apps from all around the country, making your chances of acceptance a little lower.

Check this again -- several of the school are not private, and many of them have at least some in-state bias. Low yield has nothing to do with either of those factors, and everything to do with the other things you mentioned.

 

[Lifeblood_20]

Your best bet, IMHO, is the school selectivity metrics included in the WedgeDawg's Applicant Rating System (WARS)

School Categories and Applicant Profiles

Schools are similarly grouped into 7 broad categories by basis of selectivity. The categories are as follows:

Category 1 (TOP): Harvard, Stanford, Hopkins, UCSF, Penn, WashU, Yale, Columbia, Duke, Chicago

Category 2 (HIGH): Michigan, UCLA*, NYU, Vanderbilt, Pitt, UCSD*, Cornell, Northwestern, Mt Sinai, Baylor*, Mayo, Case Western, Emory

Category 3 (MID): UTSW*, UVA, Ohio State, USC-Keck, Rochester, Dartmouth, Einstein, Hofstra, UNC*

Category 4 (LOW): USF-Morsani, Wayne State, Creighton, Oakland, SLU, Cincinnati, Indiana, Miami, Iowa, MC Wisconsin, Toledo, SUNY Downstate, Stony Brook, VCU, Western MI, EVMS, Vermont, WVU, Wisconsin, Quinnipiac, Wake Forest, Maryland

Category 5 (STATE): Your state schools if they do not appear elsewhere on this list - You should always apply to all of these if applying MD

Category 6 (LOW YIELD): Jefferson, Tulane, Tufts, Georgetown, Brown, BU, Loyola, Rosalind Franklin, Drexel, Commonwealth, Temple, GWU, NYMC, Penn State, Albany, Rush

Category 7 (DO): DO Schools

WedgeDawg's Applicant Rating System (Updated Jan 2017)

Link to online WARS Calculator Latest version is 1.3 (Released January 2017) Collaborator credit: @To be MD Introduction As some of you may have seen, I've recently been pioneering a new system that helps applicants figure out where they stand with respect to medical school admissions as...

forums.studentdoctor.net

Just based on my personal experience from the last application cycle, I feel this is mostly accurate. I would maybe move Chicago and WashU down to "high" and move Michigan and NYU up to "top."

What makes the tier 1 schools very hard to get into is not just the visible metrics like MCAT and GPA and ECs. It is that they place heavy emphasis on the "uniqueness" factor, so much more so than the tier 2 schools. I have gotten multiple interviews from both tier 1 and 2, but only acceptances from tier 2, and I felt that was the limit of success to my traditional/ORM/not-so-interesting personal profile.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

That list prob needs some heavy tweaking if it really reflects selectity, since post-2017 schools have gotten more "holistic" (obviously

But can you figure out which holistic metrics (service, research, diversity ) became more important ? To me sounds like more schools are giving higher importance to diversity and service over research.

 

[deleted1025488]

But can you figure out which holistic metrics (service, research, diversity ) became more important ? To me sounds like more schools are giving higher importance to diversity and service over research.

Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it. Not when my (mostly high stat) upperclassmen friends almost all get II's last cycle (and half get A's) at WashU despite half of them having almost zero clinical hours and barely any service "due to covid" lmao

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it. Not when my (mostly high stat) upperclassmen friends almost all get II's last cycle (and half get A's) at WashU despite half of them having almost zero clinical hours and barely any service "due to covid" lmao

And none of them meet diversity criteria? I am not sure about WashU but Michigan seems to value gap years and a UChicago is big on service.

 

[Fano]

BTW, the only people who care about the rankings of USNWR are prestige-addled pre-meds and med school Deans.

I think USNWR's business model suggests a much larger target market. But what do I know? I'm just a prestige-addled parent of a pre-med.

 

[deleted1025488]

And none of them meet diversity criteria? I am not sure about WashU but Michigan seems to value gap years and a UChicago is big on service.

Yeah no, definitely as ORM and trad as can be with lots of research and 524+ MCATs, pretty much zero service or clinical experience apart from shadowing I think and some obligatory remote "volunteering." From T5 undergrad though. Not sure about Michigan or UChicago but I know JHU, NYU, WashU, Vanderbilt, etc. were mentioned a lot, I think if most of them who got an II at one of those got II's at all of them. Also n = 5 here so not like huge, but then again they were all pretty much the same lol.

 

[LizzyM]

Some schools will take almost anyone with a 524 because the MCAT contributes a little bit to the USNooze rankings and for some Deans it is all about the ratings.

 

[KnightDoc]

Some schools will take almost anyone with a 524 because the MCAT contributes a little bit to the USNooze rankings and for some Deans it is all about the ratings.

Really? I'm truly shocked to hear you say this, because you are one of the most knowledgeable, respected, revered, etc., of all the adcoms who post here, and this runs counter to everything that I thought I learned here over the past 2+ years. While nobody has ever questioned the importance of stats, I thought the whole thing nowadays was "holistic review."

Whatever you do, DO NOT say anything about Santa.

 

[deleted1025488]

Some schools will take almost anyone with a 524 because the MCAT contributes a little bit to the USNooze rankings and for some Deans it is all about the ratings.

Do you know if it's median accepted mcat or matriculated mcat that contribute to these rankings?

I only ask because most schools out of top10ish still seem to be accepting these 524+ students yet no one ever matriculates. If you look at schools like Sinai, Pitt, Michigan, Emory, etc. have medians of 518-519 and then matriculating classes of 515-516. Maybe if people adhered to the matriculated value, things would be in more...order. Anyways who knows.

Really? I'm truly shocked to hear you say this, because you are one of the most knowledgeable, respected, revered, etc., of all the adcoms who post here, and this runs counter to everything that I thought I learned here over the past 2+ years. While nobody has ever questioned the importance of stats, I thought the whole thing nowadays was "holistic review."

Whatever you do, DO NOT say anything about Santa.

isn't it common knowledge that the stat eaters auto-II you if you have a high MCAT? also just look at msar, tells you all you need to know about holistic review

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Yeah no, definitely as ORM and trad as can be with lots of research and 524+ MCATs, pretty much zero service or clinical experience apart from shadowing I think and some obligatory remote "volunteering." From T5 undergrad though. Not sure about Michigan or UChicago but I know JHU, NYU, WashU, Vanderbilt, etc. were mentioned a lot, I think if most of them who got an II at one of those got II's at all of them. Also n = 5 here so not like huge, but then again they were all pretty much the same lol.

I bet it is T5 UG that helped on top of MCAT. I have seen that with my limited sample size.

 

[Fano]

Irt holisitic reviews, maybe there's a very strong correlation of high stats with better essays, EC, LORs, & interviews? If so, this leaves a small slice of the holisitic pie to make up for it.

 

[stinkycheeseperson]

Really? I'm truly shocked to hear you say this, because you are one of the most knowledgeable, respected, revered, etc., of all the adcoms who post here, and this runs counter to everything that I thought I learned here over the past 2+ years. While nobody has ever questioned the importance of stats, I thought the whole thing nowadays was "holistic review."

Whatever you do, DO NOT say anything about Santa.

he and mrs clause are getting divorced

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Irt holisitic reviews, maybe there's a very strong correlation of high stats with better essays, EC, LORs, & interviews? If so, this leaves a small slice of the holisitic pie to make up for it.

I don’t think so. Each school has their own criteria/biases and holistic review is just a catch phrase they use to justify their decisions. In the end we all conclude that process is random and luck plays bigger role than your stats and rest of the app. So apply broadly with no expectation to get into a one particular school is the right strategy.

 

[stinkycheeseperson]

I don’t think so. Each school has their own criteria/biases and holistic review is just a catch phrase they use to justify their decisions. In the end we all conclude that process is random and luck plays bigger role than your stats and rest of the app. So apply broadly with no expectation to get into a one particular school is the right strategy.

ASSUMING you meet a baseline. Unless you're an astronaut or smth, you're v v v v unlikely to be looked at with a 2.3 499 5-IA etc. And not counting the stats ****** (hallo Wash, Vandy, JH)

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

ASSUMING you meet a baseline. Unless you're an astronaut or smth, you're v v v v unlikely to be looked at with a 2.3 499 5-IA etc. And not counting the stats ****** (hallo Wash, Vandy, JH)

Yes, you need baseline. Despite the reputation I know someone not getting Vandy and WashU interviews with 3.9x and 524+ ( not my kid) but got other top tier schools.

 

[KnightDoc]

Do you know if it's median accepted mcat or matriculated mcat that contribute to these rankings?

I only ask because most schools out of top10ish still seem to be accepting these 524+ students yet no one ever matriculates. If you look at schools like Sinai, Pitt, Michigan, Emory, etc. have medians of 518-519 and then matriculating classes of 515-516. Maybe if people adhered to the matriculated value, things would be in more...order. Anyways who knows.

isn't it common knowledge that the stat eaters auto-II you if you have a high MCAT? also just look at msar, tells you all you need to know about holistic review

No, it's not common knowledge, at least not to me. Other than URM/low SES high stat unicorns, very few high stat people report auto-IIs (as evidenced by all of the T10/20 IIs they don't receive, even when they are successful). In addition, very few people, including those with high stats, report II-->A conversion rates above 33-50%, again, excepting those demos that the schools absolutely covet.

I am sure that what USNWR uses is medians for the class, not of those who are admitted. While you are correct that matriculated numbers are invariably lower than those of merely admitted students, everyone admitted ends up somewhere, and you need to first admit someone to ultimately be in a position to enroll them. Your observations about Pitt, Michigan, etc. are accurate, but you'll obviously see a much smaller delta between admitted and enrolled at schools that really heavily weigh stats like Penn, WashU, NYU, etc.

It only seems like no one ever matriculates, but, rest assured, everyone matriculates somewhere. I'm guessing every school is just not in a position to do what @LizzyM is suggesting at the scale necessary to move their median up to 522, but I have no doubt every school, other than those that already have a 520+ median, could absolutely report a higher median MCAT for both admitted and enrolled candidates if they placed more emphasis on the exam than they currently do, so it is apparent to me that most schools are looking at something other than stats when making decisions.

 

[LizzyM]

Do you know if it's median accepted mcat or matriculated mcat that contribute to these rankings?

Median Medical College Admission Test, or MCAT, score (0.13 in the research medical school model; 0.0975 in the primary care medical school model): This is the median MCAT score of the 2020 entering class. The median scores were converted to a common 0-100 percentile scale for the ranking.
On usnews.com, only users with a U.S. News Medical School Compass subscription can view the MCAT scores.
Median undergraduate GPA (0.06 in the research medical school model; 0.045 in the primary care medical school model): This is the median undergraduate GPA of the 2020 entering class.

Acceptance rate (0.01 in the research medical school model; 0.0075 in the primary care medical school model): This is the proportion of applicants for the 2020 entering class who were offered admission.

So medians which favor schools that recruit a large proportion of high stats applicants while filling out the class with a few low stats students who bring other characteristics to the table.
The acceptance rate contributes a tiny bit to the formula but rewards those who encourage everyone to apply and then make offers only to those who sit up and beg so that their yield is high and few offers are turned down.

 

[deleted1025488]

but I have no doubt every school, other than those that already have a 520+ median, could absolutely report a higher median MCAT for both admitted and enrolled candidates if they placed more emphasis on the exam than they currently do, so it is apparent to me that most schools are looking at something other than stats when making decisions.

I mean not really, there's a pretty limited pool of 522+ scorers. Emory can accept a class with a median of 522 but no one's going to go, most likely, lol. In any case it'll be interesting to see where these MCAT medians go next spring, after the covid cycle. I would agree that schools like harvard and stanford seem to not care as much, I'm sure they could get the highest medians if they really wanted..

 

[KnightDoc]

I mean not really, there's a pretty limited pool of 522+ scorers. Emory can accept a class with a median of 522 but no one's going to go, most likely, lol. In any case it'll be interesting to see where these MCAT medians go next spring, after the covid cycle. I would agree that schools like harvard and stanford seem to not care as much, I'm sure they could get the highest medians if they really wanted..

No, you're misunderstanding what I was trying to say. I wasn't trying to imply that anyone could get to 522 if they just focused more on the MCAT. I meant that anyone who wasn't already in the 520s could certainly go up if they focused on it more, and I'm pretty sure that's true. Emory certainly can't fill a class with 520+, but, given that its median is 517, its 25%-ile is 513 and its 10%-ile is 511, I'm fairly certain that the #22 school in the country could pull all of those numbers up if it wanted to.

We agree that Harvard and Stanford care less than others, since they pretty obviously could have the highest scores in the country if they wanted to. I'm just saying that, given how incredibly competitive US MD admissions are today, any school, other than those approaching the practical upper limits, like NYU and Penn, could increase their numbers if they wanted to. After all, UCF, the #86 school in the country, has a 514 median and Hofstra, at #66, has a 518. Surely Emory could do better than 517 if it wanted to.

 

[LizzyM]

Having a lower than expected MCAT median may be a function of "holistic admission" and a big F-U to USNooze.

 

[deleted1025488]

After all, UCF, the #86 school in the country, has a 514 median and Hofstra, at #66, has a 518. Surely Emory could do better than 517 if it wanted to.

Ah i see, yeah that makes sense. I feel like any school that pulls a pseudo-UCLA (pretty much giving R's to every <512 and probably accepting very little if any >514's) will probably spike upwards to 518 pretty fast. Hopefully, schools don't do that though...maybe UCLA just needed to do that because California

 

[deleted1105534]

.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Ah i see, yeah that makes sense. I feel like any school that pulls a pseudo-UCLA (pretty much giving R's to every <512 and probably accepting very little if any >514's) will probably spike upwards to 518 pretty fast. Hopefully, schools don't do that though...maybe UCLA just needed to do that because California

Unless we have MCAT stats for each of their diversity categories the stats we see in MSAR are useless.