<p>
[quote]
It's more subjective than that. School's build up a track record. Harvard has an excellent track record, so people are looked at in that context. At the same time, we know the curriculum extremely well, so we can tell if people have padded their extracurriculars, taken the easier version of a course, not pushed themselves with graduate classes. For example, university of arizona has a good track record as well, so we look at them more favorably. If we took a chance on bloomington U. one year, because the person looked good on paper and got glowing recommendations, and then were a train wreck in med school. We' re going to doubt the recs, and A's that come from that school. Both students may be 3.8 GPAs, 34 MCATs, well-rounded.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So, you're not arguing for prestige but rather "track record." Many non-prestigous schools have established track records simply because they produce a lot of med school applicants a year. I'm not even sure that a track record can mean all that much since some of the most successful schools in getting applicants into med school are liberal arts colleges that produce only a handful of med school applicants each year.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I fully agree with you. I really do not see why it is so hard for people to accept this reality. The counter-argument to your point (usually given by norcalguy ) is an old one and always the same, but clearly does not add up.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What counterargument are you referring to? That you can't separate the effects of prestige from the effects of characteristics intrinsic to the applicants themselves? </p>
<p>If you read my recent posts, you'd know that I've been arguing the same thing as the OP (that prestige matters more than many people think). I just think Kilbeez012 does a poor job arguing that point. "Harvard graduates get into top residency blah blah blah" well...duh Would we expect Harvard graduates to get into worse residencies than graduates from University of Missouri? Many of the prestigous residencies are on the West and East Coasts. Many of the graduates from midwest med schools simply don't want to go there for residency. They're fine with doing family med or peds and practicing in their small town. It's hard to separate the effects of the quality of students vs. the desires of students vs. the role of prestige when explaining match lists. Hence, most med schools warn us not to use match lists (or avg. USMLE scores) as a way of judging schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Icarus -- Yes. Emed programs are great at noname places.</p>
<p>But it's ridiculous to argue the exception. I would imagine that most readers to these posts want to know the answer to the header. Does prestige matter in the various phases of medical training? The answer is yes, from me, and everyone who has credentials to actually speak with some authority on the matter agree. Is it the most important thing? Of course not. But it is important.</p>
<p>Your argument adds nothing to the readers b/c your example is based on:
1) a noncompetitive specialty like emed (<5% unmatch rate)
2) a specialty that's training depends on indigent, low-incoome populations, that thus have high volume ERs, and thus the best programs are along the mexican border or in very poor communities
3) your argument is like saying Hopkins is not the best in tropical foot medicine. See hopkins and places like it are not good places to train.</p>
<p>Great medical centers have earned their reputation.</p>
<p>Readers want to know that if they choose a high prestige place versus a low prestige place will it likely help them? And the answer is yes. Will it help as much with family medicine as much as orthopedic surgery? Who knows? It will help is the answer. And for someone who has not decided what specialty they are going into, why not go to the place that can help you out if all else is equal. If you don't believe me go to a carribean medical school, and then see if you have a hard time getting a combined ortho surgery residency at harvard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not sure how you can determine what the "readers" want. By your definition, 90% of the specialties out there are "non-competitive" specialties. It is likely that more of our readers are interested in mid-range specialties (like emergency med or internal med or anesthesiology) than practicing plastics or derm in Los Angeles. </p>
<p>This all goes back to the fact that the title of this thread is "How much prestige matters" and the poster failed to answer that question. All he/she said is that prestige matters. Again, kinda obvious and "adds nothing to the readers."</p>