Would these schools be mid-tier or low-tier?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Not that I'm really an expert, but I would say mid-tier??? Except for Temple maybe.
Only basing that off a general impression on here.
 
1) Drop the obsession with tiers.
2) They're all good schools. Tuition at Tufts is obscene, though
3) On LizzyM score, they rank as follows Iowa, Rochester (72) > SLU, Gtown, Tufts (70) > Temple (69)

When I advise people on lists, Rochester and Iowa tend to be on the higher end, based upon the company they keep on the lists. For example, I equate Rochester with Emory, Einstein, Keck and Hofstra




datpremedgirl said:
Just wondering... what is your general impression of the "tier" these following schools belong to (mid or low):

Saint Louis
Temple
George Washington
Rochester
Iowa
Tufts
Click to expand...
 
I think "tiers" is a silly thing for medical schools, but I'd probably say:

Rochester ~= Iowa

Temple ~= Tufts ~= GW ~= St. Louis


By that, I mean to say that Rochester and Iowa are slightly better than the rest (upper end of mid-tier) while the other four round out the mid-tier. I don't think that there are any meaningful differences between the four, however. It more depends on location, personal preference, grading system, cost, etc.
 
To me:

Top-tier= You know them
Mid-tier= Not top-tier but has the research and/or resources to set you up for any specialty you like
Low-tier= Little research and you'll have to put in more legwork to set yourself up for a competitive specialty.

All those schools fit into the mid-tier category, but SLU, Iowa, Rochester, and somewhat Temple win points on price
 
Goro said:
1) Drop the obsession with tiers.
2) They're all good schools. Tuition at Tufts is obscene, though
3) On LizzyM score, they rank as follows Iowa, Rochester (72) > SLU, Gtown, Tufts (70) > Temple (69)

When I advise people on lists, Rochester and Iowa tend to be on the higher end, based upon the company they keep on the lists. For example, I equate Rochester with Emory, Einstein, Keck and Hofstra
Click to expand...
You would equate Rochester with Hofstra despite Hofstra being so new?
 
bearintraining said:
Curious, where does SUNY Upstate fall in this list?
Click to expand...
Still mid-tier. They are a good school. They consistently send many students to strong academic centers and have a good number of specialties matches which means they have everything you need to be successful. The matches are actually more geographically diverse than I expected, but I think name recognition is the only tick against Upstate
 
datpremedgirl said:
Just wondering... what is your general impression of the "tier" these following schools belong to (mid or low):

Saint Louis
Temple
George Washington
Rochester
Iowa
Tufts
Click to expand...
There is no accepted tiering of med schools. That's a college thing.

Many people use the US news research ranking as a proxy for "prestige" so you can use that to stratify if you must. But don't put too much weight on that -- the place ranked 30 and the place ranked 45 are probably essentially equal in prestige, quality, etc.

I would point out that Tufts and GW are in popular cities for young people so they will get a ton more applications than the other two and as a result, getting in there might be more competitive than their rank would suggest.
 
Goro said:
Yup.
Click to expand...

6a00d8341c652b53ef0120a56f272f970b-800wi
 
Yes.

njtrimed said:
Due to its affiliation with North Shore-LIJ? Or based on LizzyM? Or both?
Click to expand...

Here's my own very rough rule of thumb, based upon LizzyM scores:
High > 74 (Pitt, Harvard, Baylor, U MI, Wash U)
Medium 70-73 (Hofstra, U IA, Emory, Keck)
Low: < 70 (SLU, NYMC, Drexel, LSU-NO, Mercer)

Interestingly, some of the top DO schools are breathing down hard on the necks of the lower LizzyM score MD schools, like Drexel or LSU

Double interesting note: CUNY Med is now in MSAR, but no stats yet. I wonder how they'll be in a year!!

To answer the question above, SUNY Upstate has a 69 score.




So what are the different tiers? God tier, high tier, mid tier, low tier, garbage tier?
 
Last edited:
I understand the rankings/tiers are perhaps arbitrary and debatable (not too mention silly) beyond the few top schools.

If all the above schools are considered as "mid-tiers," then by the same logic, what are the MD "low tiers" in the States? Albany/Drexel/NYMC/Rosy Franklin/Loyola?

What about Tulane?
 
Mwooster said:
I understand the rankings/tiers are perhaps arbitrary and debatable (not too mention silly) beyond the few top schools.

If all the above schools are considered as "mid-tiers," then by the same logic, what are the MD "low tiers" in the States? Albany/Drexel/NYMC/Rosy Franklin/Loyola?

What about Tulane?
Click to expand...
Loyola and Tulane I would call mid-tier. The others I would call lower-tier since (most) have really spread out clinical sites and not much research opportunities.

Edit: I would, personally, also add Netter and potentially FIU to the lower-tier list because they lack an academic med center and have less research opportunities. But if those things aren't important to you, then it doesn't really matter

And I also don't rank in my mind by LizzyM scores, but rather by the resources the school has to get you where you want to go
 
Last edited:
Goro said:
Double interesting note: CUNY Med is now in MSAR, but no stats yet. I wonder how they'll be in a year!!
Click to expand...
From what I've been reading, CUNY will be in a category of it's own. Their med school already has people in their 2nd year who will be starting clinicals next year. It looks like they will be keeping it a 7 year BS/MD program that is very heavily mission-based towards recruiting people from the community for primary care.
 
Mansamusa said:
From what I've been reading, CUNY will be in a category of it's own. Their med school already has people in their 2nd year who will be starting clinicals next year. It looks like they will be keeping it a 7 year BS/MD program that is very heavily mission-based towards recruiting people from the community for primary care.
Click to expand...

Of the 4 people I know that graduated from that school, approximately zero of them are going into primary care
 
Psai said:
Of the 4 people I know that graduated from that school, approximately zero of them are going into primary care
Click to expand...
The CUNY med school hasn't graduated a class yet (but the 7 year program has been going for a while). I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't producing only primary care physicians, but I still thinks it's good that a lot of their students are URMs and from low-income communities.

I am also pretty sure that St Barnabas was considered the best clinical site for NYITCOM students, so I wonder how that's gonna play out.
 
Nietzschelover said:
Mid-tier = a lower tier I may or will be attending

Low-tier = all the other lower tiers I won't be attending
Click to expand...

You almost have it, this is really how it goes:

High tier: Harvard and whatever school I attend

Mid tier: Schools that accept me that I choose not to attend

Low tier:
Any school that doesn't accept me

Carib Tier: any school I don't apply to

This is drawn from data discovered during a double blind, peer reviewed study. Guaranteed to be 99.8 % correct. Also appears to be the same type of logic StartClass used to determine its rankings :whistle:
 
WedgeDawg said:
"We asked a panel of 15 doctors with different backgrounds and specialties to weigh in. Each panelist listed which schools they believe train the best primary-care doctors based on their experience and professional opinion."

Such a wonderfully flawless methodology
Click to expand...

And this is the reason why some crazy things get propogated in our society.. One exceptionally poor "research study" gets published on some dumb website common among social media users and next thing you know it is being cited in presidential debates and other public arenas.. I mean, everything just taken at face value these days...

/late night soapbox
 
Goro said:
Yes.



Here's my own very rough rule of thumb, based upon LizzyM scores:
High > 74 (Pitt, Harvard, Baylor, U MI, Wash U)
Medium 70-73 (Hofstra, U IA, Emory, Keck)
Low: < 70 (SLU, NYMC, Drexel, LSU-NO, Mercer)

Interestingly, some of the top DO schools are breathing down hard on the necks of the lower LizzyM score MD schools, like Drexel or LSU

Double interesting note: CUNY Med is now in MSAR, but no stats yet. I wonder how they'll be in a year!!

To answer the question above, SUNY Upstate has a 69 score.




So what are the different tiers? God tier, high tier, mid tier, low tier, garbage tier?
Click to expand...

It's difficult to compare the top DO schools and the lower tier MD schools because of how AMCAS and AACOMAS calculate GPA.
Since none of the MD schools allow for grade replacement someone who gets into a top tier DO school could have a much higher GPA and thus lizzym score through the AACOMAS app than they would through AMCAS.
For example, one of my friends, who is a brilliant guy but had a rough start in college, had a 3.2 AMCAS GPA but a 3.7 on AACOMAS because he re-took and aced a bunch of classes. He had a great MCAT too and ended up getting into a top tier DO schools but didn't so much as get an interview from any one of the low tier MD schools (their loss)
 
True, but you have to go with what you got, published-wise.

Even MD schools will take best composite MCAT scores of re-takers, or the most recent best score. So which is the "real" score??


occams_razor said:
It's difficult to compare the top DO schools and the lower tier MD schools because of how AMCAS and AACOMAS calculate GPA.
Since none of the MD schools allow for grade replacement someone who gets into a top tier DO school could have a much higher GPA and thus LizzyM score through the AACOMAS app than they would through AMCAS.
For example, one of my friends, who is a brilliant guy but had a rough start in college, had a 3.2 AMCAS GPA but a 3.7 on AACOMAS because he re-took and aced a bunch of classes. He had a great MCAT too and ended up getting into a top tier DO schools but didn't so much as get an interview from any one of the low tier MD schools (their loss)
Click to expand...
 
occams_razor said:
It's difficult to compare the top DO schools and the lower tier MD schools because of how AMCAS and AACOMAS calculate GPA.
Since none of the MD schools allow for grade replacement someone who gets into a top tier DO school could have a much higher GPA and thus LizzyM score through the AACOMAS app than they would through AMCAS.
For example, one of my friends, who is a brilliant guy but had a rough start in college, had a 3.2 AMCAS GPA but a 3.7 on AACOMAS because he re-took and aced a bunch of classes. He had a great MCAT too and ended up getting into a top tier DO schools but didn't so much as get an interview from any one of the low tier MD schools (their loss)
Click to expand...

I think the different classification system (BCMP vs 'Science') would also have a sizable effect on GPA... My sGPA is actually lower in AACOMAS then AMCAS, and rumor has it sGPA is the more important. I don't know if there are statistics for how frequently grade replacement is used, but I'd be surprised if really THAT high. I think it probably makes a world of difference for some, but minimal for most.
 
Don't use tiers, instead use median GPA and MCAT on MSAR to determine where you should apply. Also ask yourself "would I be a good fit here?" "Does this school excite me"?
 
Just to echo the sentiment here, Rochester is bordering on being a low-top tier school. Their MCAT median from the previous year was something like a 34 (which 5 years ago would have been close to the median at all the top schools). Strong Memorial is a major regional powerhouse and it competes in *some* specialties on a national level (ie: palliative medicine) so it can definitely play with the big kids at the big kids table. They have a great match list and a very strong undergrad that does a lot to bolster the med school reputation (as opposed to a place like Georgetown and their med school).
 
Thego2guy said:
Just to echo the sentiment here, Rochester is bordering on being a low-top tier school. Their MCAT median from the previous year was something like a 34 (which 5 years ago would have been close to the median at all the top schools). Strong Memorial is a major regional powerhouse and it competes in *some* specialties on a national level (ie: palliative medicine) so it can definitely play with the big kids at the big kids table. They have a great match list and a very strong undergrad that does a lot to bolster the med school reputation (as opposed to a place like Georgetown and their med school).
Click to expand...
I'm almost certainly misunderstanding you, but are you implying that Georgetown is not a very strong undergrad? Or rather that having a very strong undergrad hasn't helped the Georgetown med school in the same way that it has at Rochester?
 
Thego2guy said:
Just to echo the sentiment here, Rochester is bordering on being a low-top tier school. Their MCAT median from the previous year was something like a 34 (which 5 years ago would have been close to the median at all the top schools). Strong Memorial is a major regional powerhouse and it competes in *some* specialties on a national level (ie: palliative medicine) so it can definitely play with the big kids at the big kids table. They have a great match list and a very strong undergrad that does a lot to bolster the med school reputation (as opposed to a place like Georgetown and their med school).
Click to expand...

Uh what? since when does Palliative Care make someone able to play at the big kids table... That's like saying because the hospital I work at is a leader in diabetic care that it might as well be Hopkins...

And in case my last post wasn't clear enough, there are no tiers. There is Harvard, Hopkins, UPenn and the ilk and then there is everyone else. If it is in the US then you will recieve top notch medical training...
 
Goro said:
Here's my own very rough rule of thumb, based upon LizzyM scores:
High > 74 (Pitt, Harvard, Baylor, U MI, Wash U)
Medium 70-73 (Hofstra, U IA, Emory, Keck)
Low: < 70 (SLU, NYMC, Drexel, LSU-NO, Mercer)
Click to expand...

This is a bad way to think about it for many reasons:
1) schools are mission driven, particularly HBCs and state schools... they'll take a student with lower stats who fits their mission (ex: in state, URM) over a student with higher stats who doesn't (ex: OOS, ORM)
2) location plays a huge role in admission stats. schools in large metro areas like NYC have inflated stats because it is a highly desirable place to live. as a result admission stats get inflated as the school can be pickier.
3) if you are trying to get at results/outcomes such as residency matching and career prospects by looking at admissions stats you're missing the point
 
AnatomyGrey12 said:
Uh what? since when does Palliative Care make someone able to play at the big kids table... That's like saying because the hospital I work at is a leader in diabetic care that it might as well be Hopkins...

And in case my last post wasn't clear enough, there are no tiers. There is Harvard, Hopkins, UPenn and the ilk and then there is everyone else. If it is in the US then you will recieve top notch medical training...
Click to expand...

Institutions with big fish professors in particular fields attract the most talented faculty in the departments, fellows, residents, and in turn medical students. They help bring in tremendous revenue and provide quality research opportunities making for an amazing education in academic medicine. There are many places outside of Hopkins/MGH/BWH/UCSF (note...your UPenn is not in this list) that have top clinical and research department's allowing them to select top talent...earning a spot at the big kids table.

Mount Sinai is not on the same level as say, Hopkins/MGH but their geriatrics research and clinical faculty make it one of the best in the country for training.

Cornell is no match for UCSF overall, but if you are particularly interested in psychoanalysis within psychiatry, then that is the place to be.

NYU is not a huge national player, but they are world renowned for derm and plastics.

UPenn might have a nice rep overall, but UoP is no match to a rad onc program at MSKCC.


So yes, Rochester has hidden gems within the institution that give it world wide recognition thanks to key faculty members. Last time I checked, UMass, Tufts, Upstate, etc. did not have a single clinical or research member worthy of being compared to national leaders hosted by places like Rochester, Sinai, etc. UofR has arguably one of the best optics departments in the country. Guess what, someone interested in diagnostic optical imaging or molecular imaging would be much better off going to Rochester and hooking up with a big name professor than going to UCSF or Penn.

So you are right, there are no tiers really. But you are also wrong. Hopkins/MGH/Penn vs. the rest is not how it works either. No offense but that is a very "premed" way of looking at things.
 
Thego2guy said:
Institutions with big fish professors in particular fields attract the most talented faculty in the departments, fellows, residents, and in turn medical students. They help bring in tremendous revenue and provide quality research opportunities making for an amazing education in academic medicine. There are many places outside of Hopkins/MGH/BWH/UCSF (note...your UPenn is not in this list) that have top clinical and research department's allowing them to select top talent...earning a spot at the big kids table.

Mount Sinai is not on the same level as say, Hopkins/MGH but their geriatrics research and clinical faculty make it one of the best in the country for training.

Cornell is no match for UCSF overall, but if you are particularly interested in psychoanalysis within psychiatry, then that is the place to be.

NYU is not a huge national player, but they are world renowned for derm and plastics.

UPenn might have a nice rep overall, but UoP is no match to a rad onc program at MSKCC.


So yes, Rochester has hidden gems within the institution that give it world wide recognition thanks to key faculty members. Last time I checked, UMass, Tufts, Upstate, etc. did not have a single clinical or research member worthy of being compared to national leaders hosted by places like Rochester, Sinai, etc. UofR has arguably one of the best optics departments in the country. Guess what, someone interested in diagnostic optical imaging or molecular imaging would be much better off going to Rochester and hooking up with a big name professor than going to UCSF or Penn.

So you are right, there are no tiers really. But you are also wrong. Hopkins/MGH/Penn vs. the rest is not how it works either. No offense but that is a very "premed" way of looking at things.
Click to expand...

You have misunderstood what I said. I used examples of schools that offer a high level of "prestige" which is what most people use these "tiers" to distinguish. In all reality any school in the US is going to offer great medical training and opportunities. Yes someone is going to get better LORs and research at experiences at certain schools that have big name faculty in whatever field. But these aren't things most people consider when putting together "tier" list, and I was pointing this fact out. I was just pointing out that there are the national brand schools and then there is everyone else. I was in no way saying that schools like Rochester are lower than even the national brand schools, often they are viewed so only because of name recognition. You are 100% correct.
 
The following are my personal impressions and should not be taken to mean anything more than that.

I think the only real "mid" tier on that list is Rochester. Iowa maybe. The others I would all consider "low" tier.
 
Basically, a school is either top tier or it's not. I've heard all of those schools be referred to as both mid-tier and low-tier depending on who you ask, and it's not for show that people say you should go to the school that is the best fit for you.
 
Thego2guy said:
Institutions with big fish professors in particular fields attract the most talented faculty in the departments, fellows, residents, and in turn medical students. They help bring in tremendous revenue and provide quality research opportunities making for an amazing education in academic medicine. There are many places outside of Hopkins/MGH/BWH/UCSF (note...your UPenn is not in this list) that have top clinical and research department's allowing them to select top talent...earning a spot at the big kids table.

Mount Sinai is not on the same level as say, Hopkins/MGH but their geriatrics research and clinical faculty make it one of the best in the country for training.

Cornell is no match for UCSF overall, but if you are particularly interested in psychoanalysis within psychiatry, then that is the place to be.

NYU is not a huge national player, but they are world renowned for derm and plastics.

UPenn might have a nice rep overall, but UoP is no match to a rad onc program at MSKCC.


So yes, Rochester has hidden gems within the institution that give it world wide recognition thanks to key faculty members. Last time I checked, UMass, Tufts, Upstate, etc. did not have a single clinical or research member worthy of being compared to national leaders hosted by places like Rochester, Sinai, etc. UofR has arguably one of the best optics departments in the country. Guess what, someone interested in diagnostic optical imaging or molecular imaging would be much better off going to Rochester and hooking up with a big name professor than going to UCSF or Penn.

So you are right, there are no tiers really. But you are also wrong. Hopkins/MGH/Penn vs. the rest is not how it works either. No offense but that is a very "premed" way of looking at things.
Click to expand...

This seems like a very intelligent post. One question. Let's say you are into "optics" or think you might be. Should that person focus on trying to get in UR for med school or for residency. Same question for the other examples above (e.g. Cornell and psychoanalysis).
 
Curious, where would Geisel fall into the tiers? Some call it mid, some call it reach... Is there a consensus?
 
Goro said:
Yes.



Here's my own very rough rule of thumb, based upon LizzyM scores:
High > 74 (Pitt, Harvard, Baylor, U MI, Wash U)
Medium 70-73 (Hofstra, U IA, Emory, Keck)
Low: < 70 (SLU, NYMC, Drexel, LSU-NO, Mercer)

Interestingly, some of the top DO schools are breathing down hard on the necks of the lower LizzyM score MD schools, like Drexel or LSU

Double interesting note: CUNY Med is now in MSAR, but no stats yet. I wonder how they'll be in a year!!

To answer the question above, SUNY Upstate has a 69 score.




So what are the different tiers? God tier, high tier, mid tier, low tier, garbage tier?
Click to expand...

@Goro, where would you put UIC in these categories?
 
Using LizzyM as a proxy to ranking quality is definitely contributing to the continued emphasis placed on the MCAT. By that logic wouldn't cnu be a higher ranking institution then some state schools with lower stats ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Tier List
Replies
2
Views
685
futurebonedr
F
J
  • Locked
would quinnipiac be considered a low tier or mid tier program?
Replies
14
Views
2K
wysdoc
wysdoc
T
MD Texas mid tier med schools. Please stats guys?
Replies
0
Views
368
thelion
T
E
anyone with a disability applied to top tier medical schools?
Replies
3
Views
2K
cj_cregg
cj_cregg
D
Mid/Low cGPA sGPA, post-grad plans
Replies
7
Views
1K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
Top