Best PreMed Programs

<p>
[quote]
Pointing out for the audience's benefit that for reasons that have to do with formalities (med schools require such letters),

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Med schools require such letters? Then what about those premeds who go to schools that won't write these letters?</p>

<p>Stanford is an example.</p>

<p>"Several schools ask for letters from the pre-medical advisor or pre-medical advisory committee. The pre-med advisors in the UAC do NOT perform this service and the medical schools know this. They do not expect such letters from Stanford applicants. "</p>

<p><a href="http://www.stanford.edu/group/spa/admit/recom.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.stanford.edu/group/spa/admit/recom.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I think it's well known that Stanford is a pretty decent school for premeds, despite the fact that the school won't write you an advisory cover letter.</p>

<p>If only it were that simple. The requirement for a school letter is intended to weed out those with character, personality, or conduct problems that may not show up on the transcript, but would disqualify someone from going to med school. Perhaps a pattern of marginal cheating, drunken brawling, etc that never got one thrown out, but which no medical schol would touch with a ten foot pole. So a non letter from someone other than the committee would be interpreted as a huge red flag. </p>

<p>The complaint about the Hopkins committee is that it its letter is based in part on grades and MCATs. Since the medical school sees your grades and MCATs, this is inappropriate. The real answer is to stay away from Hopkins for premed unless you have good reason to expect to be one of the top students (i.e. you are comfortably at the top of the range in high school grades and test scores). Otherwise, perhaps you are taking an unnecessary risk. This strategy will not work at MIT, because so many people are at the top of the scale on test scores that this is not much of a guide to being in the top reaches of the class.</p>

<p>Stanford does have a relatively high number of science majors, so perhaps it really does generate a highr proportion of premeds. But I think the California explanation is valid. Med school is so expensive that the Cal schools are the top choices for essentially enyone who is eligible for in state tuition. This makes admission brutal, and no doubt there are people who apply only to those schools, or those plus Harvard, Hopkins, and a couple of others.</p>

<p>Hi sakky,</p>

<p>You and I have actually been over letters privately. I just didn't want anybody marching into the Hopkins office waving your post around without realizing all their options.</p>

<p>If your school writes letters for anybody, it's required that you obtain one, so actually it's preferable for Hopkins to write a bad letter than to not write one at all. Students from schools that don't write letters at all, of course, are exempt.</p>

<p>My point is that - this is actually your idea, not mine - Hopkins could simply put together a form letter that's given to all applicants that they don't want to write positive, personal letters for.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Stanford does have a relatively high number of science majors, so perhaps it really does generate a highr proportion of premeds. But I think the California explanation is valid. Med school is so expensive that the Cal schools are the top choices for essentially enyone who is eligible for in state tuition. This makes admission brutal, and no doubt there are people who apply only to those schools, or those plus Harvard, Hopkins, and a couple of others.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, I don't see how the 'California explanation' actually explains how Stanford can actually get away with not providing letters to its premeds. Especially so when many (probably the majority) of Stanford students are not California state residents and are thus not eligible for UC med-school in-state tuition. </p>

<p>Besides, the in-state tuition break really isn't all that big anyway. Even an instate student has to fork over about 45k a year (in-state tuition + living costs). Hence, having to pay another 12k for the out-of-state tuition piece really isn't that much more. Either way, you're going to be in serious debt. Sure, less debt if you're a state resident, but still, serious debt. </p>

<p><a href="http://saawww.ucsf.edu/financial/general/budget.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://saawww.ucsf.edu/financial/general/budget.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Besides, I believe that if you're a med-student, it's possible for you to establish state residency while you're there, as I believe that anybody who is of age 24 and does all of the other things associated with establishing residency (i.e. getting a California driver's license, voting in California, staying in the state during holidays, buying a car and registering it with the California DMV, etc.) can establish residency. That 'magic' age of 24 is generally taken by the state of California to be an age at which you are nominally understood to be truly financially independent from your parents. Hence, you may be paying out-of-state tuition for your first couple of years (depending on your age), but after that, you can become an in-state resident. </p>

<p><a href="http://registrar.berkeley.edu/Residency/establish.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://registrar.berkeley.edu/Residency/establish.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I know this much. When students come to Berkeley to get their PhD, they are generally funded by the department (in forms of fellowships or TA/RA-ships). The department technically pays their tuition. But because the department does that, the department is incented to help them establish "state residency" so that the department doesn't have to foot the bill for out-of-state residency. Hence, most Berkeley PhD students, especially those past their first year, are state residents for tuition purposes. What that means is that it should be possible for medical students to also be able to establish residency while they are in school. It's harder, as you don't have a department that is actively trying to help you, but I suspect it is still possible.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You and I have actually been over letters privately. I just didn't want anybody marching into the Hopkins office waving your post around without realizing all their options.</p>

<p>If your school writes letters for anybody, it's required that you obtain one, so actually it's preferable for Hopkins to write a bad letter than to not write one at all. Students from schools that don't write letters at all, of course, are exempt.</p>

<p>My point is that - this is actually your idea, not mine - Hopkins could simply put together a form letter that's given to all applicants that they don't want to write positive, personal letters for.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well obviously I like my own ideas, heh heh. So I obviously endorse the idea of having Hopkins just write a generic form letter for those premeds that it doesn't really want to support. </p>

<p>However, I do question just how strict the requirement really is for these letters. There are a lot of no-name low-tier med schools out there. While they may SAY that they require these letters, what would happen if somebody from Hopkins submitted an application without such a letter? I would suspect that the med-school probably wouldn't notice. After all,of all of the thousands of undergrad programs out there, some give out letters, others (like Stanford) do not, and I don't think it's easy for these lower-tier med-schools to keep track of them all. </p>

<p>But in any case, I obviously still agree that in the case of Hopkins, having a form letter is better than having no letter at all.</p>

<p>I was invoking the California explanation as a potential reason for lower than expected success rates (if this is true) for Stanford students. The argument was that the Stanford students may overly concentrate their applications to a small number of schools, in order to take advantage of instate tuition. Your points about gaining in state status while in school would incent OUT of state students to apply, making admission to the california state med schools even more competitive. </p>

<p>I doubt schools hold it against Stanford students if Stanford does not issue letters for anyone.</p>

<p>However, if Hopkins were to issue two tiers of letters, one for their favored students, and one for the rest, the second group would be at so severe a disadvantage that it might be a waste of time and money to apply. </p>

<p>"no-name low-tier " medical schools do not exist in this country. Medical education is so highly controlled and regulated that there is very little difference in the content of the education from one school to the next, and even less difference that matters.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I was invoking the California explanation as a potential reason for lower than expected success rates (if this is true) for Stanford students. The argument was that the Stanford students may overly concentrate their applications to a small number of schools, in order to take advantage of instate tuition.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, and that's exactly my point. I don't particularly see why Stanford students would choose to overly concentrate their med-school applications in one particular part of the country, except possibly at the local schools (UCSF, UCDavis, and Stanford itself). And even Davis isn't really "that" local to Stanford. After all, it takes about the same time to travel from Stanford to UCDavis as it does to travel from Harvard/MIT to Yale, or from Yale to New York City. </p>

<p>All of the rest of the UC medical schools are located in Southern California which is so far away that it might as well be in another state. Northern California shares almost nothing in common culturally with Southern California. Put it another way, even the 2 Ivies that are farthest away from each other (Dartmouth and UPenn) are not as far apart as Stanford is to UCSD. </p>

<p>So the point is, I don't see how/why Stanford students would be overly concentrating their applications. There are only 2 med-schools in the Bay Area (UCSF and Stanford) and, if you really want to push it, Davis is somewhat local. But that's it. There's only 3. And of those 3, only 2 are public. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Your points about gaining in state status while in school would incent OUT of state students to apply, making admission to the california state med schools even more competitive.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But like I said, that gaining of the instate status will probably happen WHILE you're in med school, because it's actually quite hard to gain instate student while you're just an undergrad. Hence, I don't see why Stanford students would be any more incented to apply to UC's, other than the fact that many (but not the majority of) Stanford students were California residents to begin with. </p>

<p>
[quote]
and one for the rest, the second group would be at so severe a disadvantage that it might be a waste of time and money to apply.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I doubt this is true. See below. </p>

<p>
[quote]
"no-name low-tier " medical schools do not exist in this country. Medical education is so highly controlled and regulated that there is very little difference in the content of the education from one school to the next, and even less difference that matters.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No-name low-tier med-schools not in terms of quality but in terms of where Hopkins premeds are likely to apply. Let's face it. There are over 120 med schools in the country. Some of them are schools of which Hopkins premeds almost never apply to. </p>

<p>Let's take an example. Take the Ponce School of Medicine in Puerto Rico. That's a fully accredited private medical school. But honestly, how many Hopkins premed are applying to that school every year? Or take some of these osteopathic schools. Sure, these aren't 'medical schools' per se, but they still grant you a degree that allows you to practice medicine. I highly doubt that lots of Hopkins premeds are applying to the Des Moines University Osteopathic Medical Center or the Arizona College of Osteopathic Medicine in droves. </p>

<p>So the point is, if Hopkins were to just give mediocre premeds who are applying to these (relatively) lower-end schools a different letter, honestly, do you think these schools would even notice? Like I said, these schools don't get many Hopkins applicants, and the ones they do get tend to be of rather mediocre quality anyway. So it's not like these schools would never really have much of an opportunity to compare letters and ask why one applicant got the 'good' letter and the other got the 'bad' letter. All they would usually see is just one kind of letter every year. Perhaps they might see different letters in different years (as in certain years, maybe some good Hopkins premeds might apply), but the chances of seeing 2 different letters from 2 applicants in the same year seems slight to me.</p>

<p>But come on, afam, you gotta be imaginative here. I think we both know that med-school admissions officers at these (relatively) low-end med schools are pressed for time and simply don't have the the wherewithal to thoroughly check every single piece of the application that is submitted. So if they were to get a form letter from a Hopkins applicant, honestly, do you think that all of them would really notice? </p>

<p>But anyway, this also leads to another idea of mine. I can see why somebody like Fishbein or another premed officer might not want to sign a committee endorsement for a mediocre premed to apply to Harvard Medical School. But like I said, there are over 120 accredited med schools/osteopathic schools out there. So Fishbein might say that he won't endorse an application to Harvard but will endorse an application to Ponce.<br>
In that way, premeds are steered to the schools that are most likely to admit them. You said it yourself - the quality of the actual medical education varies little from school to school, such that even the lowest-ranked med-school is still going to give you a decent education. So what's so wrong about Hopkins then trying to steer premeds to the schools that are appropriate for them? I think that's another way to square the circle. </p>

<p>Of course this is contingent upon not having to submit a general committee letter in stage 1 of the app process. So perhaps Hopkins shouldn't provide these letters in stage 1. Only provide them in stage 2, when students have been invited to submit the secondary apps to specific schools. At that time, Fishbein and co. can happily endorse a particular student for a particular school. It can even be in the form of a 'dynamic' letter - just a letter with the template of 'Insert school name here', and you replace that phrase with Harvard or Ponce or whatever school that Fishbein and co. have agreed to endorse for a particular student. </p>

<p>But what you don't ever do is issue a blanket bad rec. If you can't say anything good about a candidate, just don't say anything at all.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So perhaps Hopkins shouldn't provide these letters in stage 1. Only provide them in stage 2, when students have been invited to submit the secondary apps to specific schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, this is already always the case. Schools only accept applicants' letters during the secondary phase.</p>

<p>I have looked at usnews premium editions info on various universities and see that Rice has what appears to be a stunning success rate of students going to medical school. </p>

<p>80% of Rice students go on to grad school within 5 years-- 44% immediately.</p>

<p>of the 80% 35 percent go to med school and 15 percent go to law school.</p>

<p>Are you aware of any undergraduate program that has such a high percentage of its graduates going to med school?</p>

<p>Thanks. </p>

<p>Icscouter-two</p>

<p>Those would be... vastly above the norm. I believe many top schools have numbers in the 8-15% range. Stanford's also pretty high, but I don't think it's in the 35% range. (Probably more like 25%.)</p>

<p>Notice of course that there are a lot of other metrics involved in how good an idea it is to be a premed there - i.e. you'd want to evaluate attrition, etc.</p>

<p>With that said, I can believe Rice's percentage is very high. First, the TX residency is probably the best one to have for premedical purposes. Second, Rice is immediately adjacent to TMC, which is a phenomenal resource. Third, Rice is one of those up-and-coming schools, a hallmark of which is often a pre-professional slant (as opposed to an ivory-tower philosophical ranting slant).</p>

<p>Still, 35% is a pretty high number if that can be verified.</p>

<p>Actually, I don't think that 35% of those who go to further education going to medical school is that unusual. </p>

<p>The high percent going ultimately to grad or professional school is pretty typical of the elite privates, and medical school is of course one of the more common destinations.</p>

<p>Find me the numbers if you think 35% is normal. I'll assert that Duke is around 15%, and that this is already the high end for most such schools.</p>

<p>Brown, Harvard, Yale, JHU, Stanford or Princeton?</p>

<p>U.S. News ranks Harvard as top and Brown as...get this, 38.</p>

<p>? Is this their overall ranking? Or their ranking for percentage of student body going to med school? Or... ?</p>

<p>BDM,</p>

<p>You are misreading the figures. The question was what % of students go to medical school. The question was what percent of students who get advanced degrees get medical degrees. Unless all students go on to further education, they former will always be less than the latter.</p>

<p>
[quote]
if Hopkins were to just give mediocre premeds who are applying to these (relatively) lower-end schools a different letter, honestly, do you think these schools would even notice?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes. </p>

<p>Doing this would essentially label the student as not admittable. This would be way worse than a bad MCAT score. There are so many well qualified students that sending a letter like this would be cruel. </p>

<p>These schools are not nearly as desparate for students as this proposal assumes.</p>

<p>I do not know where Hopkins undergrads and alums apply to medical school. However, I hope that, at least, those who do not get in the first time expand their universe of medical schools and resist the notion that only a few select schools can provide them with a medical education.</p>

<p>afan,</p>

<p>35% of 80% is still 28%, a figure that is very high compared to what I believe most schools are. If you believe this to be the norm, I will prove very amenable to changing my mind if you can provide the data.</p>

<p>I have a question about Pre-med studies.</p>

<p>I was thinking this over by myself today, and I am thinking that I could get better grades at a school like UCI than Princeton because I'm guessing that the type of competition I am against wouldn't be as severe. (I'm not saing UCI is a bad school or anything, I'm just using it as an example.) I guess ivy leagues are more prestigous, but is the idea of going to a UC or like a USC a bad idea?</p>

<p>Princeton has a 90%+ acceptance rate to med school so the increased competition doesn't seem to have any negative impact.</p>

<p>Thanks. Norcalguy. And also I have one more question: where can I get stats regarding acceptance rates to med schools?</p>

<p>Only a few schools release such stats (they can be found on the school's website). Princeton, Duke, Cornell, MIT, Berkeley are some notable ones that do have their med school acceptance stats posted.</p>