Hopkins Med Placement

Colleges & Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
1

<p>So just a little trend I saw - in 2008-2009, UChicago had 4 students total at Hopkins Med:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/sebin/c/i/jhu_school_medicine_catalog09.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/sebin/c/i/jhu_school_medicine_catalog09.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>(Pg. 451 of PDF)</p>

<p>Other colleges of note - Brown had 7 students at Hopkins Med, Dartmouth 10, and Columbia 8.</p>

<p>and, in 2009-2010, UChicago jumped to 8 students total at Hopkins Med:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/som/students/academics/catalog/SOMCatalog0910.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/som/students/academics/catalog/SOMCatalog0910.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>(Pg. 460 of PDF)</p>

<p>Other colleges of note - Brown had 7, Columbia 10, and Dartmouth 9. </p>

<p>I have no idea if this trend has continued, but, ~2005 is where UChicago's admissions policies began changing. Perhaps med school placement has improved considerably since that point. Not much can be derived from such a small sampling of data, but hopefully UChicago's beginning to perform right on par with its close peers, like Columbia or Brown.</p>

<p>(Note - I couldn't gain access to Hopkins Med's more recent academic catalogs, so I could only pull data from 08-09 and 09-10.)</p>

2

<p>Hopkins hasn’t provided the academic catalog for the 10-11 year.</p>

<p>Cue7, you picked the three worst performing peer schools at Hopkins Med however to illustrate a point so its only fair to look at how UChicago’s other peer schools are doing.</p>

<p>Johns Hopkins University: 65
Yale: 40
Harvard: 39
Stanford: 23
Cornell: 16
Duke: 14
MIT: 14
Princeton: 12
University of Pennsylvania: 12
Northwestern: 5
CalTech: 1</p>

<p>Besides CalTech (for obvious reasons) and Northwestern, all of U of C peers seem to do better in medical school placement to JHU.</p>

3

<p>goldenboy:</p>

<p>I don’t count Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT, and Princeton to be UChicago’s peers - they are UChicago’s superiors.</p>

<p>Otherwise, I think UChicago does just fine when compared to Northwestern, Penn, Columbia, Brown, and Dartmouth. </p>

<p>Out of the peer group, as a nod to Duke’s med school placement savvy, Duke is the only school that seems to outpace its immediate peers at Hopkins Med. Given Penn’s size, Cornell’s size, and the pure numbers from similarly-sized schools (Brown, Columbia, and Dartmouth), UChicago’s placement seems just fine of late.</p>

<p>Or am I missing something here, with my previous disclaimers in mind?</p>

4

<p>Also, here’s a list of total applicants to medical school, broken down by undergrad institution:</p>

<p><a href=“https://www.aamc.org/download/161114/data/table2-6.pdf[/url]”>https://www.aamc.org/download/161114/data/table2-6.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>As you can see, Cornell (471), Duke (355), Hopkins (358), Penn (331), and Northwestern (302) produce a LOT of med school applicants, whereas Dartmouth (180), Columbia (183), and UChicago (170) do not produce as many applicants. </p>

<p>Based on volume of med school applicants, one would expect Duke and Penn to place about twice as many students as D, C, and U of C, and Cornell should place nearly 3 times as well as D, C, and U of C.</p>

<p>At least from the Hopkins numbers, it doesn’t quite play out that way. All these schools place very well, and, especially when adjusted for volume of med school applicants each school produces, places all of them roughly on par (just at Hopkins, in that particular year - our sampling size is still small here).</p>

5

<p>The analytical mistake you’re making here with that assumption Cue7 is you’re hypothesizing that all of Duke and Chicago medical school applications are qualified and that they all apply to Hopkins or Harvard Medical School in the first place. For med school placement, it really makes sense to only look at the absolute placement-only a certain number of Chicago and Duke premeds have the GPAs and MCAT scores to be even considered by the elite medical schools.</p>

<p>Considering how many premeds that Penn and Duke have, a lot of them are not going to get a high GPA since all of the required science classes for the premed route are curved and only a certain number receive As and Bs-typically, the same students do well in all the science classes and these are the prime candidates who would garner consideration from Hopkins Med.</p>

<p>For example, lets look at the matriculation chart for Ohio State Medicine, a pretty run of the mill medical school: <a href=“http://medicine.osu.edu/students/admissions/Documents/classprofile.pdf[/url]”>http://medicine.osu.edu/students/admissions/Documents/classprofile.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Duke: 12
Johns Hopkins: 6
University of Chicago: 1</p>

<p>Clearly, there are orders of magnitude more med school aspirants at Duke and JHU who look at whatever medical schools there are in their home state than at schools like Chicago and Princeton who have so few medical school applicants in the first place.</p>

<p>My point is that I suspect that all of the elite schools in Tier 2 (Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Penn, Chicago, and Columbia) have a similar amount of super qualified medical school applicants due to the curving and grade distribution requirements at these schools and the fact that the student bodies are at a similar level of test taking ability (based on HS SAT/ACT score ranges).</p>

<p>I just think Duke and JHU just have better advising and more accessible clinical opportunities for their students than Columbia or Chicago. It’s the intangibles that can’t be quantified.</p>

6

<p>Sorry, this is somewhat unrelated, but have you found anything on UC’s placement into top business schools?</p>

7

<p>I want to point out something here. Overall, UChicago now has a better medical school placement than its peers.</p>

<p>Cornell has a medical school placement rate of 67%.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“Career Services | Student & Campus Life | Cornell University”>http://www.career.cornell.edu/HealthCareers/acceptedApplied.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>JHU (and this is shocking) has an overall medical school placement rate of merely 63%.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[JHU</a> Pre-Professional Advising](<a href=“Pre-Professional Advising | Student Affairs”>Pre-Professional Advising | Student Affairs)</p>

<p>One of my friends asked the CCIHP advisors to confirm their claim that UChicago has a placement rate of 77% last year, and they reaffirmed that number.</p>

8

<p>DivineComedy and Goldenboy:</p>

<p>You both present interesting points, and I’ll address them sequentially here.</p>

<p>First, DivineComedy, you present placement rates from Hopkins (63%) and Cornell (65%) and argue that UChicago does much better. UChicago does indeed outperform JHU and CU, but keep in mind that Duke (80-85%), Penn (80%) and Brown (81%) have slightly better placement rates. See:</p>

<p>[Office</a> of Health Professions Advising – Duke University](<a href=“http://prehealth.duke.edu/prospectivestudents/]Office”>http://prehealth.duke.edu/prospectivestudents/)
[Career</a> Services, University of Pennsylvania](<a href=“http://www.vpul.upenn.edu/careerservices/gradprof/healthprof/med.html]Career”>http://www.vpul.upenn.edu/careerservices/gradprof/healthprof/med.html)
[Medical</a> Admission Data Snapshot](<a href=“WELCOME TO HEALTH CAREERS ADVISING | Health Careers Advising”>WELCOME TO HEALTH CAREERS ADVISING | Health Careers Advising)</p>

<p>Nevertheless, the differences are pretty slight, and slight enough to vary from year to year. </p>

<p>If UChicago has a 77% med school placement rate, that’s certainly good, and could certainly bump up to the 80% range soon as the classes continue to get stronger and savvier. In “Tier 2” (Brown, Columbia, UChicago, etc.) UChicago used to be at the very bottom (as Cornell or Hopkins appear to be now), and recent news suggests that it is improving on this front. This is good to hear.</p>

<p>Goldenboy:</p>

<p>You said:</p>

<p>“My point is that I suspect that all of the elite schools in Tier 2 have a similar amount of super qualified medical school applicants due to the curving and grade distribution requirements at these schools and the fact that the student bodies are at a similar level of test taking ability (based on HS SAT/ACT score ranges).”</p>

<p>My point was that in the past, at UChicago, the school actually limited the number of “super qualified” students by presenting these students with such significant academic challenges across the board. Science classes used to be curved very hard, and all of the other classes graded hard too. So, a super qualified applicant was MUCH better served going to Duke or Brown.</p>

<p>Now, as UChicago’s numbers at top schools begin to resemble their peers, it appears that the super qualified applicants have been given a better environment within which to succeed at UChicago. So, instead of 3-4 kids at Hopkins, UChicago now has double that amount. I’m hoping this trend will be found at other top schools too. </p>

<p>The general point I’m hoping for is that, as all these other changes occur at UChicago, it’s professional school placement will improve. There are some early indications that such improvement is taking place.</p>

9

<p>“I don’t count Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT, and Princeton to be UChicago’s peers - they are UChicago’s superiors.”</p>

<p>I’m puking. Maybe this is why UChicago has produced far more Nobel prize winners than these other inferior schools. Historically, UChicago is second to none of these schools and today as well has many unsurpassed programs. Does MIT have a better Law School than UChicago? Does Yale have a better business school than UChicago? Making these kind of shallow generalizations is silly.</p>

<p>UChicago has a better undergraduate curriculum than any of these schools.</p>

<p>Very true that no American university lives up to the ideal standard–but UChicago comes closest for having its priorities straight.</p>

10

<p>Truth123:</p>

<p>I meant as schools overall. If you define elite school very narrowly - as in, a place where ideas are generated and research is created, then sure, U of C is probably on roughly equal footing with these other schools.</p>

<p>I, however, choose to define the purpose of elite schools much more broadly. Elite schools should prepare its constituents to be leaders across all spectrums - in research, industry, government, etc., and also possess a wealth of resources. UChicago does very well with research, but it’s hardly on equal footing with these other schools on the other metrics.</p>

<p>Again, I’m a UChicago alum and I had a great experience, but if I had the choice today to go to, say, Yale over UChicago, I’d do that in a heartbeat. Yale does better overall with the metrics I provided above. </p>

<p>I never understood why UChicago folks got so flustered when people would “dare” to say that x school has more of this or that than UChicago. Some schools out there are better - and I can only shrug indifferently when people gather arms and excitedly rise to UChicago’s defense.</p>

11

<p>^^ Agreed with Cue7 here.</p>

<p>Chicago still has a ways to go to catch up to HYPS, especially at the undergrad level. Zimmer’s making a good push for Chicago to produce leaders across all fields, but it’s still going to take time. The University is WAY too research- and theory-oriented at the moment to be considered a peer of Harvard or Yale. H and Y can compete with Chicago at the research and theory levels, while Chicago doesn’t even touch H or Y on leader production. Zimmer is trying to fix this by, for instance, creating institutes for engineering and politics.</p>

<p>I will disagree with you in one aspect and classify MIT as a peer. Chicago is to theory what MIT is to engineering. Unfortunately, MIT gets much more attention as many more people find engineering more appealing than theory. Perhaps rightfully so. So even if Chicago/MIT are on equal footing at an institutional level in different aspects, MIT wins via reputation.</p>

12

<p>I have a somewhat diverse range of interests in terms of what I would like to do after graduation, spanning from working for an international body like the WHO or IMF to journalism to working for a research institute. I was lucky enough to be accepted at Chicago but wait listed at Brown, Harvard and Columbia. Do the advantages that these schools provide in terms of career opportunities really far outweigh those of Chicago’s, so much so that I should pursue the wait lists aggressively and turn Chicago down if by some miracle I’m accepted?</p>

13

<p>I’m also considering getting a PhD afterwards, depending on what I study, but I know Chicago is top notch if I eventually go down that path.</p>

14

<p>PMCM18, regarding your waitlists:</p>

<p>No, Columbia and Brown don’t offer more opportunities than UChicago. </p>

<p>Yes, you should pursue the Harvard waitlist aggressively. Harvard rarely takes from their waitlist, but it’s worth giving it your best effort.</p>

15

<p>For what it’s worth, I agree with Cue7. As among Columbia, Brown, and Chicago, a rational person could make any choice; each of them has advantages and disadvantages vis a vis the others, and they are pretty much peers. Both of my kids ranked Chicago far above Brown, and they split on Columbia. As between Harvard and Chicago . . . well, a rational person could certainly muster some arguments in Chicago’s favor, including that it may actually provide many/most students a meaningfully better educational experience. But somehow 99%+ of apparently rational people facing that choice choose Harvard, and I don’t think it’s because they became suddenly irrational.</p>