Why are medical schools ranked based on research??

[TOcho118]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Ok, so I know that this is a debate that probably gets thrown around a lot, yet still I cannot seem to find an adequate answer. Why are medical schools ranked based on research opportunities and prestige? I have yet to meet a pre-med who is going into medical school with the sole intention of having a research career. Why are schools not rated based on something more pertinent such as average step 1 or 2 scores, or percentage of graduates who match into their top three? I know that these stats are available, but why not attach a national ranking? Speaking at least for myself, these are rankings that would have been more influential in a decision making process.

 

[aSagacious]

The US News research ranking is based on:
- Peer assessment score (other med school's opinions)
- Residency director assessment score
- Research activity (based on NIH $ per faculty)
- Total research activity (total NIH $ for whole school and its surrounding hospitals)
- Primary care rate
- Student selectivity
- Mean MCAT score
- Mean undergraduate GPA
- Acceptance rate
- Faculty resources

 

[vivalavie]

Ok, so I know that this is a debate that probably gets thrown around a lot, yet still I cannot seem to find an adequate answer. Why are medical schools ranked based on research opportunities and prestige? I have yet to meet a pre-med who is going into medical school with the sole intention of having a research career. Why are schools not rated based on something more pertinent such as average step 1 or 2 scores, or percentage of graduates who match into their top three? I know that these stats are available, but why not attach a national ranking? Speaking at least for myself, these are rankings that would have been more influential in a decision making process.

First off, I have met someone who only wanted to go to medical school to do research. It's kind of unsettling and very strange, I've spoken to him about it many times but he's a smart guy, he knows what he's getting himself into and all of the debt concerns and still insists that for clinical research an MD is the way to go. I can't really comment on that, but both his parents are PhDs and they crunched the numbers with him so I'll defer to his research.

That said, I wouldn't mind seeing a ranking like the one you're talking about, though it still probably wouldn't matter to me as much as prestige. Prestige helps with residency selection, and a lot of schools have students who are self-selecting for less competitive residencies, so the type of numbers you're looking for may not tell the whole story.

Why is research money the major factor for determining prestige? Well, the schools that get the most money are the schools that have the medical world heavy-weights that attract that money. They also have lots of resources and doing research on the cutting edge meaning they are operating on the cutting edge. They've got the best technology, the best medical minds, the best hospitals and the best research. Research by itself is important for many specialties and important for learning how to think about medicine and medical science, especially if you're going to be a leader in the field.

Just my 2 cents, recently had similar question and asked the 3rd-4th year coordinator at a good medical school (family friend) and she completely changed my mind.

 

[TOcho118]

Ok, so I totally hear both of your points. But in a way, isn't that all just part of a self-reinforcing cycle? Higher prestige --> students with better scores (GPA + MCAT) apply --> school can now be more selective in whom they accept --> overall better students at that school --> higher prestige.

or

Higher prestige --> more money allocated for research --> better scientist come because they can get paid more (and the prestige) --> more advancements are made --> higher prestige --> and so on...

It almost makes it impossible for any other school to crack the top 10 or so no matter how good they are at training med students. I mean, that's what's most important right?

Kinda reminds me of applying for bartending jobs over the summer. Everyone wants to hire people with lots of experience, but how are you supposed to get experience if no one will hire you without any?

 

[vivalavie]

Ok, so I totally hear both of your points. But in a way, isn't that all just part of a self-reinforcing cycle? Higher prestige --> students with better scores (GPA + MCAT) apply --> school can now be more selective in whom they accept --> overall better students at that school --> higher prestige.

or

Higher prestige --> more money allocated for research --> better scientist come because they can get paid more (and the prestige) --> more advancements are made --> higher prestige --> and so on...

It almost makes it impossible for any other school to crack the top 10 or so no matter how good they are at training med students. I mean, that's what's most important right?

Kinda reminds me of applying for bartending jobs over the summer. Everyone wants to hire people with lots of experience, but how are you supposed to get experience if no one will hire you without any?

no one's saying it's not a self perpetuating cycle, but that's what prestige IS when you get down to it, that's why the oldest schools are often the most prestigious to this day, originally people were reluctant to take a bet on a new school when something else is tried and true, and since the best continued to attend and come out of those schools they maintain their reputation.

The pre-clinical curriculum is standardized enough that variations really aren't that important, we all have to learn the same basic science. But if a med school did, year after year, pump out amazing residents... residency programs realize that stuff. When residency programs start to recruit heavily from your school you move up in prestige and your students get better match results.

 

[Narmerguy]

Ok, so I know that this is a debate that probably gets thrown around a lot, yet still I cannot seem to find an adequate answer. Why are medical schools ranked based on research opportunities and prestige? I have yet to meet a pre-med who is going into medical school with the sole intention of having a research career. Why are schools not rated based on something more pertinent such as average step 1 or 2 scores, or percentage of graduates who match into their top three? I know that these stats are available, but why not attach a national ranking? Speaking at least for myself, these are rankings that would have been more influential in a decision making process.

Mainly because step 1 or 2 scores is a terrible means of assessing quality of education. The test wasn't really intended to be used the way it's being used now and reinforcing this growing trend to heap so much importance on those tests will cause greater and greater movement to "teaching to the test" so to speak.

At the same time, whether or not students are matching into what they chose as their top three choices, is this really capturing the quality of the medical school's education? Perhaps you could argue that NIH $$ doesn't either but I'm not sure if adding another marginally relevant variable is the best way to go.

 

[dbeast]

This is a good question, but I think USNews only calls them "research" rankings when a lot more goes into the equation... The issue is more with poorly naming the rankings when research funding is only part of the algorithm.