- Joined
- Jul 9, 2019
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 60
Are any med schools improving particularly quickly relative to the average? If so, which one(s)? (Be it by Step1, Match lists, or ‘subjective ranking’)
This is impossible to answer because the criteria that might be important to you might not be to someone else.
If SLU suddenly got a major P01 research award, would you necessarily care?
And rankings???? Only pre-meds and med school Deans care about those.
Several schools that switched from Step1 after preclinical to Step1 after the clinical year report a 5-10 point jump in their average step 1 score.
Harvard, Washington State University, University of Michigan were three of the ones I interviewed at that all had it...I actually didn’t know it was a thing until I interviewed and honestly it makes fantastic sense (particularly for the 12 month preclinical - that is a game changer)What schools do this? I only know of 2 off the top of my head (Baylor and Iowa)
Harvard, Washington State University, University of Michigan were three of the ones I interviewed at that all had it...I actually didn’t know it was a thing until I interviewed and honestly it makes fantastic sense (particularly for the 12 month preclinical - that is a game changer)
Harvard and Mich saw those huge bumps in step 1????
IMHO this is an excellent idea.Harvard, Washington State University, University of Michigan were three of the ones I interviewed at that all had it...I actually didn’t know it was a thing until I interviewed and honestly it makes fantastic sense (particularly for the 12 month preclinical - that is a game changer)
I agree. I have liked both the 12 month preclinical and the step 1 after clinicals.IMHO this is an excellent idea.
Stonybrook, Penn StateWhat schools do this? I only know of 2 off the top of my head (Baylor and Iowa)
I was recently told by M4 that the cost of this is less preparation for medicine rotation, if that is proximal. However, Step >> RotationHarvard, Washington State University, University of Michigan were three of the ones I interviewed at that all had it...I actually didn’t know it was a thing until I interviewed and honestly it makes fantastic sense (particularly for the 12 month preclinical - that is a game changer)
That is true, but when everyone goes in with less preparation, the field remains even. 😉I was recently told by M4 that the cost of this is less preparation for medicine rotation, if that is proximal. However, Step >> Rotation
I was recently told by M4 that the cost of this is less preparation for medicine rotation, if that is proximal. However, Step >> Rotation
Though this should never decide where someone matriculates.
I know the 12 month preclinical is factoring very strongly into my ideal decision making. Not for the step aspects, but because it gives you all of M3 to figure out what you want to do and pursue those efforts as opposed to the July through October just if of M4...It make the education a lot more customizableI could legitimately imagine myself/others basing our decisions on this. Or at least giving it a lot of weight
I know the 12 month preclinical is factoring very strongly into my ideal decision making. Not for the step aspects, but because it gives you all of M3 to figure out what you want to do and pursue those efforts as opposed to the July through October just if of M4...It make the education a lot more customizable
Are any med schools improving particularly quickly relative to the average? If so, which one(s)? (Be it by Step1, Match lists, or ‘subjective ranking’)
Harvard, Washington State University, University of Michigan were three of the ones I interviewed at that all had it...I actually didn’t know it was a thing until I interviewed and honestly it makes fantastic sense (particularly for the 12 month preclinical - that is a game changer)
Also Duke and Vanderbilt.What schools do this? I only know of 2 off the top of my head (Baylor and Iowa)
Applicants place too much emphasis on certain things that should be non-factors when deciding between schools. Of course, schools want to differentiate themselves, hence all the emphasis on meaningless "curricular innovations" and other gimmicks.I could legitimately imagine myself/others basing our decisions on this. Or at least giving it a lot of weight.
This might be ignorant to ask, but is there really much difference between match lists at various top medical schools? My main considerations for choosing a medical school (assuming I get multiple acceptances to top schools) are cost and location.Applicants place too much emphasis on certain things that should be non-factors when deciding between schools. Of course, schools want to differentiate themselves, hence all the emphasis on meaningless "curricular innovations" and other gimmicks.
I'm more of a proponent of looking at match lists, as ultimately that's what matters: can a school get you to where you want to go? This will incorporate differences on Step scores from timing of Step I etc. Match lists should be viewed as just another data point though, and not the end-all-be-all, as it tells you nothing about individual preferences (those who opted to stay due to family, etc)
For most purposes, there is no significant difference between similarly ranked schools. However, if an applicant is dead-set on being in Boston for residency due to family (and their ego would only allow them to apply to MGH or BWH), then being a medical student at HMS would likely be more advantageous than being a student at Hopkins, Penn, or Stanford. Cost and location are factors that should be considered when deciding between schools.This might be ignorant to ask, but is there really much difference between match lists at various top medical schools? My main considerations for choosing a medical school (assuming I get multiple acceptances to top schools) are cost and location.
I am saying doing clinical during M2 year that way M3 and M4 is all elective/your choice rotations as opposed to just M4I don't know if I'm understanding this correctly. How does taking Step 1 after M3 change what you would do?
I am saying doing clinical during M2 year that way M3 and M4 is all elective/your choice rotations as opposed to just M4
Yah, this is mostly what I mean lol Spending an entire year doing urology rotations would not be productive. But basically you don’t have to stress as much about doing research alongside the preclinical years or taking a 5th year for a masters etc.the way these curricula tend to be is that the "extra" year you get from a condensed preclinical / core clerkship curriculum can be used for research / personal projects / earning a masters degree, etc. The advantage is that you spend less time on classes, and you can pick a research project / mentor / masters degree after doing the core clerkships; i.e. when you have a better idea of what you may want to match into. I'm not sure many ppl at these programs are filling up an entire year with extra elective rotations
For most purposes, there is no significant difference between similarly ranked schools. However, if an applicant is dead-set on being in Boston for residency due to family (and their ego would only allow them to apply to MGH or BWH), then being a medical student at HMS would likely be more advantageous than being a student at Hopkins, Penn, or Stanford. Cost and location are factors that should be considered when deciding between schools.
Not as significant for NYC as Columbia and Cornell are not as competitive for most specialties. In my humble opinion, MGH and BWH are in a league of their own, at least for internal medicine, which allows them to be much more selective. Even an average middle-of-the-road HMS student can match in internal medicine at MGH or BWH; whereas above average students from similarly prestigious schools might not even be invited for interview. Almost all residency programs show a strong preference for their own, usually for good reason (fewer unknowns).How much of an advantage are we talking about? How about dead set on NYC, how much advantage does Columbia or Cornell give say over Hopkins, Mayo, Stanford and Yale?
Not as significant for NYC as Columbia and Cornell are not as competitive for most specialties. In my humble opinion, MGH and BWH are in a league of their own, at least for internal medicine, which allows them to be much more selective. Even an average HMS student can match in internal medicine at MGH or BWH; whereas above average students from similarly prestigious schools will not even be invited for interview. Almost all residency programs show a strong preference for their own, usually for good reason (fewer unknowns).
Those lists focus on different metrics.Why is there a discrepancy bw Top 20 med school vs T20 hospital lists? One would think that they correlate closely but obviously med school rankings seem to be a different ball game.
Say it louder for the people in the backAs an aside, rankings (for medical school, residency, fellowship, etc) should not be mistaken for quality of training.
Rankings (for medical school, residency, fellowship, etc) should not be mistaken for quality of training.Say it louder for the people in the back
Not as significant for NYC as Columbia and Cornell are not as competitive for most specialties. In my humble opinion, MGH and BWH are in a league of their own, at least for internal medicine, which allows them to be much more selective. Even an average middle-of-the-road HMS student can match in internal medicine at MGH or BWH; whereas above average students from similarly prestigious schools might not even be invited for interview. Almost all residency programs show a strong preference for their own, usually for good reason (fewer unknowns).
Say it louder for the people in the back
RANKINGS (FOR MEDICAL SCHOOL, RESIDENCY, FELLOWSHIP, ETC) SHOULD NOT BE MISTAKEN FOR QUALITY OF TRAINING.Rankings (for medical school, residency, fellowship, etc) should not be mistaken for quality of training.
RANKINGS (FOR MEDICAL SCHOOL, RESIDENCY, FELLOWSHIP, ETC) SHOULD NOT BE MISTAKEN FOR QUALITY OF TRAINING.
Applicants place too much emphasis on certain things that should be non-factors when deciding between schools.
I'm more of a proponent of looking at match lists
Not rly, he basically indicates that he values match list as a stronger data point than other measurable outcomes. #teammoko on this oneTop-tier irony.
Not rly, he basically indicates that he values match list as a stronger data point than other measurable outcomes. #teammoko on this one
I agree with your points that match lists need to be interpreted with caution (see below for the last sentence of the post you quoted), though I disagree that "match lists are almost never helpful to premeds". Match lists are a tool like any other, and can certainly be misused and misinterpreted; but they are one of the few semi-objective ways to assess a school's results (with caveats). Context can be gained from doing some due diligence (talking with current students, practicing physicians, etc). Of course, there are many other more important factors to consider when choosing between schools.Match lists are almost never helpful to pre-meds, because (just as Moko said), they show you "can a school get you to where you want to go?". How do you as a pre-med have any idea where every person in that class wants to go? Despite what some may believe, most students do not want to do Internal Medicine in Boston. Besides, pre-meds are especially ill-equipped to understand what a "strong" match may be--they likely just go by the reputation of the parent university. If you're trying to use match lists to decide between schools of different caliber (Hopkins vs. State School A), you have added an unnecessary step to your calculation. If you're trying to use match lists to decide between schools of similar caliber (UCSF vs. Harvard, or State School A vs. State School B), then you may miss going to the school that was better suited to you because you got lulled into a false sense of being informed. There are way more important things to take into account. I know this is all counter-intuitive because match lists have a lot of data points (and more data is always good, right?). But this is data without an incredible amount of context, which really makes it noise for most pre-meds.
Match lists should be viewed as just another data point though, and not the end-all-be-all, as it tells you nothing about individual preferences (those who opted to stay due to family, etc)
they are one of the few semi-objective ways to assess a school's results
We are mostly in agreement, though it would be difficult for most applicants to parse out a school's reputation (as determined by program directors) without some inference from the match list.Other than telling you overall match rates (100% students match vs. 80%), there is very little that is helpful to an applicant. Say you want to measure a school's success by "how good" their match is. What makes a good match? It isn't ending up at a particular well-regarded hospital or specialty, but rather ending up where the you wanted. What maximizes your chances of ending up where you wanted? Good scores, good grades, good letters, good research, and a good school reputation (not in that order). Of those things, what can one school provide that another can't? The school reputation and research opportunities. So go look at the school reputation and the research opportunities! Don't bother looking at a match list that is affected by a myriad of confounders.
We are mostly in agreement, though it would be difficult for most applicants to parse out a school's reputation (as determined by program directors) without some inference from the match list.
While graduating seniors regularly "match down" (a highly competitive student matching into a non-competitive specialty or non-competitive program due to personal preferences), students rarely "match upwards". So when I see a lesser known program have year-after-year of strong matches relative to what I see as their peer institutions, that may suggest that others are appreciating things that I have yet to notice.
If a student's goal is to match into a competitive subspecialty in a competitive program and major city (no judgment), then some further research may be warranted before matriculating at a school that rarely matches anyone into the types of programs they are interested in. This may be due to graduating seniors "matching down", but it may also hint that the school lacks particular subspecialty-specific resources, or that there are other issues at play. Talking with current students and others in-the-know can help clarify these points.
As I said before, match lists should not be the end-all-be-all, nor should they be the most important factor to consider. But, they can provide some useful information once the noise and potential confounders are accounted for. Obviously these are just my own views.
If they’re in the same “tier” differences in reputation are negligible.Isn't it safe to say that if you are in at several schools in the same tier, you should pick one that has better perceived reputation? It's so nebulous to apply this. Reputation is inherently subjective. So what's the real rule of thumb? Applicant's personal perception of reputation or what the applicant thinks what others think of the school??
For matching purposes, it's the program directors' perception that matters. For programs in the same tier (as judged by program directors), any differences are negligible. No one should be picking a program based solely on reputation/prestige.Isn't it safe to say that if you are in at several schools in the same tier, you should pick one that has better perceived reputation? It's so nebulous to apply this. Reputation is inherently subjective. So what's the real rule of thumb? Applicant's personal perception of reputation or what the applicant thinks what others think of the school??
I agree with your points that match lists need to be interpreted with caution (see below for the last sentence of the post you quoted), though I disagree that "match lists are almost never helpful to premeds". Match lists are a tool like any other, and can certainly be misused and misinterpreted; but they are one of the few semi-objective ways to assess a school's results (with caveats). Context can be gained from doing some due diligence (talking with current students, practicing physicians, etc). Of course, there are many other more important factors to consider when choosing between schools.