Which will be better in applying for residency?

[GOBUCKY!]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Which would be better?

Ranked top 25% in the class at UWisc
or
Ranked in the middle (~50%) at Pitt

I am having serious trouble deciding between the two. I like pitt more than UWisc (but not a lot). I got off the waitlist at pitt, but I have a scholarship to UWisc, so I have no idea of where to go or what will be better for me three years from now when I apply to residencies. How much does reputation matter? 0Anyone else in a similar situation? I need to tell pitt by tomorrow, so any advice would be greatly appreciated.

GOBUCKY!

 

[doc05]

why assume that you'd be top 25% at UW? Why asssume you'd be middle of the class at Pitt?

 

[GOBUCKY!]

I don't assume that I will be in either of the two spots, but I just made up a scenario with a significant difference in class rank.

GOBUCKY!

 

[OldPsychDoc]

Which would be better?

Ranked top 25% in the class at UWisc
or
Ranked in the middle (~50%) at Pitt

I am having serious trouble deciding between the two. I like pitt more than UWisc (but not a lot). I got off the waitlist at pitt, but I have a scholarship to UWisc, so I have no idea of where to go or what will be better for me three years from now when I apply to residencies. How much does reputation matter? 0Anyone else in a similar situation? I need to tell pitt by tomorrow, so any advice would be greatly appreciated.

GOBUCKY!

Save your money and stay in Wisconsin, unless you're just burning to live in Pitt. There really is not that significant a difference.

 

[Kateroni18]

Which would be better?

Ranked top 25% in the class at UWisc
or
Ranked in the middle (~50%) at Pitt

I am having serious trouble deciding between the two. I like pitt more than UWisc (but not a lot). I got off the waitlist at pitt, but I have a scholarship to UWisc, so I have no idea of where to go or what will be better for me three years from now when I apply to residencies. How much does reputation matter? 0Anyone else in a similar situation? I need to tell pitt by tomorrow, so any advice would be greatly appreciated.

GOBUCKY!

Is the scholarship need based or merit based? If it's merit based, it may look good in the eyes of residency directors...

 

[GOBUCKY!]

It's merit based.

 

[Gimlet]

It's merit based.

Then there's no question about it - Big Red all the way. (Not that I'm biased or anything.) 😀

But seriously, based on your username it's obvious that you belong in WI.

 

[liverotcod]

I picked Wisconsin over Pitt. I liked Pitt too, but Madison will be an easier place for me and my family to live for four years, and it's definitely cheaper for me as well.

I doubt there's a significant difference in quality of education or residency placement between the two, regardless of class rank. Perhaps Pitt is better known on the East Coast, but I don't want to wind up there.

A subtle thing... no offense meant to Pitt students, but the school gave off elitist vibes (to me) similar to those at Ivy League-type schools. So did Michigan. That's good, in a way, but also sometimes tedious. Certainly I found it tedious as an undergraduate. Completely subjective, of course!

Good luck in your decision, and I'll see you in a couple months 😉

 

[GOBUCKY!]

It's a really hard choice for me becuase none of us know how well we will do or how well the school will prepare us for USMLE. My instinct tells me that Pitt would prepare me better than Wisc for rotations + USMLE and open more doors for residencies. Would you guys agree?

 

[liverotcod]

It's a really hard choice for me becuase none of us know how well we will do or how well the school will prepare us for USMLE. My instinct tells me that Pitt would prepare me better than Wisc for rotations + USMLE and open more doors for residencies. Would you guys agree?

I disagree. I felt that from that perspective, they were pretty equal.

 

[sandg]

I believe most of the posters replying, myself included, have not started school yet. That said, I tend to agree with what liverotcod has responded with thus far. This notion that one school will prepare you better for the boards does make much sense to me. The accredidation process requires any US med school to dispense the same info. Perhaps Pitt has a higher average Step I score year in and year out. This isw not because the school teaches for the boards better, but most likely is due to an overall "smarter" class being accepted each year at Pitt vs. UW--nothing against UW but Pitt is private and as liverotcod said it does seem to be into accepting those with Ivy pedigrees. Anyway, the fact that you got into Pitt means you have the personal ability to do well no matter where you go to school. If it were me, I would save the money as you will probably end up in the exact same place in four years. (Actually I made a very similar decision, so sorry if this is overly biased.)

 

[Gimlet]

It's a really hard choice for me becuase none of us know how well we will do or how well the school will prepare us for USMLE. My instinct tells me that Pitt would prepare me better than Wisc for rotations + USMLE and open more doors for residencies. Would you guys agree?

Now it sounds to me like you are leaning pretty heavily towards Pitt. If the decision is already made in your mind, you don't need us to validate it. If you will be happier at Pitt because you feel like it will better prepare you for rotations and the boards , then that is where you need to be! 🙂

 

[Winged Scapula]

It's a really hard choice for me becuase none of us know how well we will do or how well the school will prepare us for USMLE. My instinct tells me that Pitt would prepare me better than Wisc for rotations + USMLE and open more doors for residencies. Would you guys agree?

No. The MOST important factor in rotations, USMLE scores and eventual residency placement is YOU. The school you choose will not make a significant difference in any of those things.

 

[rockit]

No. The MOST important factor in rotations, USMLE scores and eventual residency placement is YOU. The school you choose will not make a significant difference in any of those things.

Why do people insist on saying things like this? All else equal, Harvard gets a better match than Vanderbilt gets a better match than Maryland gets a better match than ECU. If you are looking for a highly competitive residency in a popular location, the school helps.

 

[tigershark]

No. The MOST important factor in rotations, USMLE scores and eventual residency placement is YOU. The school you choose will not make a significant difference in any of those things.

Yeah and we will all live in gumdrop houses on lollipop lane. Ridiculous.

 

[Samoa]

For the top 5-10 schools, the school matters in residency placement. Otherwise, Kimberli is 100% correct that it's all you and not the school you choose. There was actually a study on this, that says basically the same thing. Statistically, it doesn't matter where you go. Except for one thing: students at schools in the south tend to perform a few points better on Step 1 than a similar student in another region. The difference was statistically significant, but not significant enough for any practical purpose.

And one other thing, Kimberli usually knows what she's talking about, and if I were you, I wouldn't dismiss her opinion just because it runs contrary to the pre-allo worldview.

 

[Winged Scapula]

Why do people insist on saying things like this? All else equal, Harvard gets a better match than Vanderbilt gets a better match than Maryland gets a better match than ECU. If you are looking for a highly competitive residency in a popular location, the school helps.

Never said it made NO difference but that the most significant factor is not the school you attend. Harvard or Vandy students do not necessarily get better residencies because of where they went to school but because of where they apply (students at "name" schools tend to apply to "name" programs) and the simple fact that they are likely more competitive applicants in the first place (outside of where they went to school).

For the OP, it is more important that she go where she'll be happy as there isn't really a big difference between Pitt and U Wisc if you believe rankings.

 

[Winged Scapula]

Yeah and we will all live in gumdrop houses on lollipop lane. Ridiculous.

You might want to wait until you are out of medical school and involved in residency application review to make such a statement.

After all, you have even stated much the same in your previous posts in other threads that Step 1, LORs, grades are most important when it comes to residency matching, and with research being important for big name academic institutions. With the exception of perhaps the Top 5 or 10 schools (which neither Pitt or UWisc are) reputation of one's medical school is barely given notice. In studies of measures important to PDs for selecting residency candidates, school reputation isn't even in the top 10 factors.

 

[Fantasy Sports]

For the top 5-10 schools, the school matters in residency placement. Otherwise, Kimberli is 100% correct that it's all you and not the school you choose. There was actually a study on this, that says basically the same thing. Statistically, it doesn't matter where you go. Except for one thing: students at schools in the south tend to perform a few points better on Step 1 than a similar student in another region. The difference was statistically significant, but not significant enough for any practical purpose.

And one other thing, Kimberli usually knows what she's talking about, and if I were you, I wouldn't dismiss her opinion just because it runs contrary to the pre-allo worldview.

Can I see this study? I have never heard of this, and it seems very difficult to control for all the variables that would be involved in said study.

Too bad you UCLA fools at #11, you might as well have gone to University of Montana (yeah I know) since your school doesnt matter once you are out of the top 10 (sarcasm)

And I do think that when Kimberli says "Harvard or Vandy students do not necessarily get better residencies because of where they went to school but because of where they apply (students at "name" schools tend to apply to "name" programs)" you can look at that in two ways. Either its a motive from the top tier schoolers (they want to get into competitive fellowship) or lower tier applicants dont apply because they know they wont get in.

Im not sure which, but I think its naive to think that a UCLA grad is on equal footing with a University of Montana grad.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

Can I see this study? I have never heard of this, and it seems very difficult to control for all the variables that would be involved in said study.

Too bad you UCLA fools at #11, you might as well have gone to University of Montana (yeah I know) since your school doesnt matter once you are out of the top 10 (sarcasm)

And I do think that when Kimberli says "Harvard or Vandy students do not necessarily get better residencies because of where they went to school but because of where they apply (students at "name" schools tend to apply to "name" programs)" you can look at that in two ways. Either its a motive from the top tier schoolers (they want to get into competitive fellowship) or lower tier applicants dont apply because they know they wont get in.

Im not sure which, but I think its naive to think that a UCLA grad is on equal footing with a University of Montana grad.

Especially since U of Montana doesn't have a medical school.

Look, you can waste your time and energy gunning after "Big Name" programs if you want, but the truth is, there really is no difference between a #5-25 school and a #25-55 school (as though the rankings meant diddley ****). I trained in a Top 50 school and matched into a Top 10. I had colleagues in residency from Pitt and from Wisconsin, as well as from Wayne State, Medical College of Ohio, University of Chicago, Northwestern, you name it. I'll say it one more time--IT DOESN'T MATTER!!! Go where you want to live and have a life.

 

[SocialistMD]

Im not sure which, but I think its naive to think that a UCLA grad is on equal footing with a University of Montana grad.

And it is incredibly arrogant and insulting to think a UCLA grad is better than a "University of Montana-esque" grad. Hopefully you won't think less of the residents evaluating you during your clinical years simply because they went to a "lower tier" school than you.

 

[tigershark]

You might want to wait until you are out of medical school and involved in residency application review to make such a statement.

After all, you have even stated much the same in your previous posts in other threads that Step 1, LORs, grades are most important when it comes to residency matching, and with research being important for big name academic institutions. With the exception of perhaps the Top 5 or 10 schools (which neither Pitt or UWisc are) reputation of one's medical school is barely given notice. In studies of measures important to PDs for selecting residency candidates, school reputation isn't even in the top 10 factors.

I'm at the end of my third year now so I am more than qualified to comment on rotations and step 1.

I go to a middle of the pack state school...it's not terrible but it is definitely lacking in many areas. I chose to go to this school mainly based on location after hearing numerous people saying the crap you are saying "school doesn't matter, it's all what you make of it..blah..blah" At the end of my third year I feel like I have cheated myself by going to a subpar school. Our clinical experience is crap from top to bottom...and talking to my friends who went to "better" schools, it's not as bad everywhere. All the knowledge I have gained has been primarily from independent study, and I feel like my clinical "experience" is more like unlawful imprisonment rather than a learning experience. We hardly ever see the attendings, there is a pervasive negative attitude towards teaching among the residents, and we have ZERO responsibilties or input on patient care. It plain sucks and I know it is not like this everywhere. If it wasn't for my reseach experience I would have never started IVs, placed central lines, intubated etc....I wouldnt have had the opportunity do ANY hands on clinical work...the residents take ALL the procedures here with a few rare exceptions.

As for step 1, it is undeniable that the pass rates can vary widely from school to school, independent of percieved "selectiveness" or quality of students. The pass rate of the classes several years ahead of mine was abysmal...they changed up some things and started placing a heavy emphasis on step 1 prep and we finally have decent pass rates now with around 40+ >244. The faculty and atmosphere definitely has an effect on step 1 scores.

Do you have to go to an ivy league school? No, of course not. But this crap about your medical education is "all about you" is just that, crap. There is a large variation in the quality of education among medical schools and an astute student will take that into account.

 

[criminallyinane]

I *heart* Pitt, since I am going there 🙂 but despite my bias towards my selected institution, I can't see much of a difference between training at Pitt or UWisc - both are excellent schools. For me, the decision would come down to personal preference. Anything other than that is splitting hairs. Also, money, if that's important to you (ie, if decreasing your debt is important, then that should tip it towards Wisc.)

 

[SocialistMD]

I'm at the end of my third year now so I am more than qualified to comment on rotations and step 1.

I go to a middle of the pack state school...it's not terrible but it is definitely lacking in many areas. I chose to go to this school mainly based on location after hearing numerous people saying the crap you are saying "school doesn't matter, it's all what you make of it..blah..blah" At the end of my third year I feel like I have cheated myself by going to a subpar school. Our clinical experience is crap from top to bottom...and talking to my friends who went to "better" schools, it's not as bad everywhere. All the knowledge I have gained has been primarily from independent study, and I feel like my clinical "experience" is more like unlawful imprisonment rather than a learning experience. We hardly ever see the attendings, there is a pervasive negative attitude towards teaching among the residents, and we have ZERO responsibilties or input on patient care. It plain sucks and I know it is not like this everywhere. If it wasn't for my reseach experience I would have never started IVs, placed central lines, intubated etc....I wouldnt have had the opportunity do ANY hands on clinical work...the residents take ALL the procedures here with a few rare exceptions.

As for step 1, it is undeniable that the pass rates can vary widely from school to school, independent of percieved "selectiveness" or quality of students. The pass rate of the classes several years ahead of mine was abysmal...they changed up some things and started placing a heavy emphasis on step 1 prep and we finally have decent pass rates now with around 40+ >244. The faculty and atmosphere definitely has an effect on step 1 scores.

Do you have to go to an ivy league school? No, of course not. But this crap about your medical education is "all about you" is just that, crap. There is a large variation in the quality of education among medical schools and an astute student will take that into account.

But to simply say your experience is the result of going to (in your mind) a "sub-par" school doesn't do justice to other medical schools snubbed (for whatever reason) by the ranking-gods yet that still offer superior clinical exposure. I, too, went to a school without much of a reputation but found it to be very educational. My residents did enjoy teaching and we received quite a bit of facetime with our attendings. That said, some of us had better experiences than others because we made them better by seeking out more while other classmates were able to slip by under the radar doing the minimal amount of work because that is what they wanted.

I guess my point is, don't declare all lower-rep schools are bad simply because your experience wasn't what you had hoped; if you want to do people a favor, tell them not to come to your school rather than including all schools in your blanket.

 

[tigershark]

But to simply say your experience is the result of going to (in your mind) a "sub-par" school doesn't do justice to other medical schools snubbed (for whatever reason) by the ranking-gods yet that still offer superior clinical exposure. I, too, went to a school without much of a reputation but found it to be very educational. My residents did enjoy teaching and we received quite a bit of facetime with our attendings. That said, some of us had better experiences than others because we made our experiences better by seeking out more while other classmates were able to slip by under the radar doing the minimal amount of work because that is what they wanted.

I guess my point is, don't declare all lower-rep schools are bad simply because your experience wasn't what you had hoped; if you want to do people a favor, tell them not to come to your school rather than including all schools in your blanket.

I didnt declare any lower-rep schools as bad, I made a point of saying you didn't need to go to an Ivy league school but that you shouldn't just assume all schools will provide the same experience.

 

[SocialistMD]

I didnt declare any lower-rep schools as bad, I made a point of saying you didn't need to go to an Ivy league school but that you shouldn't just assume all schools will provide the same experience.

But your post seemed to imply that going to a more reputed school somehow ensures a better clinical experience. I don't know that it is true.

 

[criminallyinane]

But your post seemed to imply that going to a more reputed school somehow ensures a better clinical experience. I don't know that it is true.

I am a lowly zero (as in MS0) but my impression was always that you might actually get more experience at schools that are lower-ranked or not as much of an "academic powerhouse" as some of the big Ivy schools and top 10's, if only because there are less fellows/residents/interns trying to outcompete each other, and therefore the med students might get more opportunities to actually do stuff. Maybe? I'm sure it depends on the institution.

 

[Samoa]

Can I see this study? I have never heard of this, and it seems very difficult to control for all the variables that would be involved in said study.

Well, technically it's unpublished, so I can't cite it without the authors' permission. However, it is available on the web, and if you google "ETS Step 1 performance GPA MCAT" and click on "I'm feeling lucky" it will take you straight to the page. They measured step 1 performance as a function of med school attended while controlling for entry GPA, MCAT, minority status, region of the country and maybe a few other things. 🙂 It's a long and boring study, though, and I don't understand regression well enough to critique it with any sophistication.

 

[tigershark]

Well, technically it's unpublished, so I can't cite it without the authors' permission. However, it is available on the web, and if you google "ETS Step 1 performance GPA MCAT" and click on "I'm feeling lucky" it will take you straight to the page. They measured step 1 performance as a function of med school attended while controlling for entry GPA and MCAT. 🙂 It's a long and boring study, though, and I don't understand regression well enough to critique it with any sophistication.

Samoa - not sure you are interpreting that study right? It basically says that differences among schools acount for the largest amount of variation in step 1 scores.

From the discussion:

"What is clear is that any particular student will not be equally successful at any medical school. It is hoped that quantifying this information will allow for the maximization of successes and minimization of failures."

 

[Samoa]

here's another quote from it:

"Step 1. Five variables significantly predicted school mean Step1 scores. Step 1 scores were .21 lower in the Central region and .34 greater in the West region compared to schools in the rest of the country. A coefficient of .54 indicated that for each point increase in the school average PS score, school mean Step 1 scores are expected to increase by .54 points (See Table 10). Positive coefficients for ENROLL and SSGPA indicated that medical schools with higher enrollments or average undergraduate science GPAs tended to have higher average Step 1 scores."

In the discussion:
"The results of this study suggest three school characteristics that accounted for many of the differences among school models. These are selectivity, region of the country, and school enrollment.

Selectivity
Selectivity is defined here as the degree to which medical schools may choose from among available candidates. In choosing school characteristics for this study, the variable ESELECT was created as the ratio of number of candidates to number of enrolled students representing our conception of this characteristic. While this variable did prove useful, the construct of selectivity appears to have been more complex than could be accounted for in this way. In particular, increases in school average scores for MCAT section scores as well as increases in school average undergraduate grade point averages were associated with increases in all three USMLE Step means. Another kind of selectivity was observed for the relationship between undergraduate science GPA and Step 1 scores. Schools with high average undergraduate non-science GPA have a greater strength of relationship between SGPA and Step 1 scores. In the process of variable selection, undergraduate science GPA was only slightly weaker as a predictor of the relationship between Step 1 and SGPA and little would have been lost by its selection instead of OGPA. This suggests that schools selecting students on the basis of high GPAs clearly do so for good reason as high GPAs are conducive to early success in their schools as indicated by success on the Step 1 exam.

Regions of the Country
The influence of region of the country is difficult to interpret. The interpretation of any such effect would assuredly need to be based on a reference to some real difference among the schools that region of the country is a proxy for. The identity of an underlying variable in this study remains unclear. Two types of regional effects were observed- changes in adjusted mean Step score and changes in predictability of Step scores. Attending a medical school in the Southern region was associated with increases of approximately 1.6 points in adjusted mean Step 1 scores and 2.5 points in adjusted mean Step 2 scores over adjusted mean Step scores observed in the other regions. Adjusted mean Step 3 scores were approximately 2.9 points lower in the West region. Although the reason for these differences is unclear, it is important to keep in mind that these are differences in adjusted mean Step scores. They do not indicate that differences in actual performance follow this configuration, but that these differences would be expected for schools in regions with predictors at their means. One possible interpretation may be that schools in these regions are overperforming or underperforming given the characteristics of attending students. That is, were students in a school from the Southern region at the grand mean for MCAT, GPA, and URM makeup, Step 1 scores are predicted to be higher than for other regions.

Enrollment
Enrollment was associated with changes in Step 1 scores. For Step 1, increased mean scores were associated with increases in a school’s enrollment, controlling for measures of selectivity and region of the country. Also, enrollment was associated with the decrement in Step 1 scores associated with status as an URM. Increases in enrollment were associated with a lesser decrement in Step 1 scores associated with status as an URM."

 

[Hoya11]

Just to keep the argument going..

At my school the curriculum is taught right toward the boards from day 1. All multiple choice test questions, lots of emphasis on what you need to know for the boards, heavy pressure to stay above a score on tests, tricky wording and board-type questions. I mean, I would say we are CONSTANTLY training for the boards, in a way it sucks, but in a way it is good.

I have a good college friend at a state school who had a much easier time first year than I did. He said the learning is much more comfortable and slow-paced and really covers the main topics so you understand. That is great, dont get me wrong the pressures of my school make me wish I had this kind of supportive environment.

But honestly, I feel like he would not stand up to the curve in my class for one second, only because he has never been exposed to that kind of testing/school philosophy before. I honestly feel like, my time spend at school was a lot harder and sucked, but how could i NOT be in better shape for the boards?

 

[Law2Doc]

But honestly, I feel like he would not stand up to the curve in my class for one second, only because he has never been exposed to that kind of testing/school philosophy before. I honestly feel like, my time spend at school was a lot harder and sucked, but how could i NOT be in better shape for the boards?

Well, to analogize to my prior field: in law schools there are two kinds of teaching methodologies -- one that tries to teach their students to "think like a lawyer" (esp. via socratic method) most frequently used by the higher ranked schools, and the other that teaches students exactly what they need to know to pass the bar exam. Yet the pass rates of those students who go to the former schools (socratic method) are ALWAYS higher than that of the latter (bar exam focused learning). I don't know that medical training works the same way, or that the distinction isn't mostly related to the disparity calibre of students at these school, but I think this could suggest that targeted learning (for eg. the boards, as for the bar exam) is not necessarilly the optimal approach.

 

[jbm44]

This is a no brainer, Wisconsin all the way. Pitt isn't that much better in rankings, anyways who really cares with the difference of 5 or 10 spots in the rankings?

Come on now, money talks...Madison is a cool city.

 

[GOBUCKY!]

I never thought this post would go this far...anyways...i did research...I had a friend ask a friend who is on the admission board at a top 25 Chicago Med School and I was told that choosing Pitt over Wisc is a no brainer even with a scholarship. It will open more doors for me. It is not the fact that it will make me more likelier to get into a particular specialty, but will help me match with more competitive residencies and the experience in rotations will be better.

I agree to the posters who are saying that Wisc students are equal to Pitt students (from GPA and MCAT) But then why are pitt's aver step 1 scores higher than wisc? This must attest somewhat to the school. I am not ragging on wisc students since I am one (undergrad), but Wisc step 1 scores only hover above the national average and have been declining over the years. Both schools are great, but I think pitt is much better in MY opinion from factors that I feel are important to me.

So...just my two cents after reading everyone's comments

GOBUCKY!