Med School Placement Rates

Pre-Med & Medical School Pre-Med Topics
21

<p>Without a substantial foundation in the sciences you have nothing to work with, and despite what you said, many colleges DO NOT offer a sturdy foundation in these sciences.</p>

<p>You can take all the KAPLAN courses you want, but they will not help you if you don't have that foundation in sciences, especially physics.</p>

<p>Also, you will not hear it being publicized that the name of your school matters, however according to the people ive spoken to, which include deans of admissions at 3 well-ranked medical schools, it does matter.</p>

<p>They will be more familiar with the caliber of student coming from a specific school such as an ivy or other well known university, as opposed to a student applying from a small city university.</p>

<p>In a conversation with one of the individuals I spoke to because it truly is common sense when you think about it. If you have 2 candidates with the same GPA but one is from a city univerisity and one is from Johns Hopkins, who would you look at?</p>

<p>You can tell me I am wrong all you want, but you can't honestly believe that you will be on an equal playing field if you go to a no-name college as an applicant who went to a top school.</p>

<p>And trust me, ive spoken to pretty reliable resources, I wouldnt be throwing BS info out here</p>

22

<p>Just as a supplement to my post, look at the Average MCAT of students at an ivy compared to students at a 3rd tier college/university. Ill let you see the trend for yourself.</p>

23

<p>1.) I took Kaplan and the MCAT without ever having taken physics and did just fine...</p>

<p>2.) Nobody's alleging that your school's "branding" is completely useless. The point is that if you excel at a no-name school or crash and burn (actually a more narrow window than you might think) at an Ivy, the name won't be enough to swing you over.</p>

<p>My position - and I think BRM and I disagree a little bit, so I won't pretend to speak for him - is that kids from good schools need to not have anything bad in their records in order to get interviews, etc. Kids from "other" schools need to have something special in order to merit that same consideration.</p>

<p>3.) What do the numbers say? "Good" schools, however, do not seem to overlap with prestige. MIT's metrics seem to indicate that it is worse than Duke, which is substantially easier to get into and easier to get good grades at. Stanford, which is the hardest of all to get into, seems to have intermediate metrics. For example, a kid with a 3.5 from Duke seems to merit equal consideration as a kid with a 3.75 from Case, from what the numbers say. (And trust me, that's NOT a grade inflation compensator.)</p>

<p>4.) Basic analysis would tell you that it's impossible for two candidates to be identical. They might have the same GPA and even maybe the same MCAT with even the same writing score (!), but is their research of the same caliber? Did they do the same extracurriculars? Write the same essays? Give the same interview answers? If college is "just" a tiebreaker, then that's totally useless - because there's never such a thing as identical matches.</p>

<p>5.) Further, anything that really is just a tiebreaker is useless, as BRM points out by doing some very simple math. Only 252 kids in the country ever need a tiebreaker in their favor.</p>

24

<p>Doogie, can you honestly point to the difference in average MCAT score between an Ivy League student and a student from another university as even 10% due to the school they attended?</p>

<p>As afan said, and I will continue to maintain until someone can show a controlled study proving school really does matter, the motivation, intellect, test taking ability, time management, and dedication that it takes as a HS student to get accepted to an Ivy league school are congruent with the traits successful medical school applicants will most likely possess. Yes, students from the Ivy League are at an advantage when it comes to applying to medical school (or any other graduate school), but I'm arguing that the school itself has little to do with their success. The schools garner prestige by picking students out of HS from an extremely self-selecting sub-group of that year's cohort, individuals who more than likely would be extremely successful no matter where they had attended college - third tier, community college, or the Ivy League. It's not even a matter that these are the most successful students, because there are plenty of students who are successful out of HS that don't go to a top 20 school. But the students who do go to prestigious schools must have a unique set of talents and skills in order to go to said schools, that students going to lower level schools are not required to have. That doesn't mean there aren't students at these schools who also possess what it takes to get into the top schools, only that there are students at the bottom schools who don't have those qualities.</p>

<p>Yes you're right admissions officers have a much better idea of the type of student a person is/was/will likely be when they have a Duke, or Harvard, or Stanford on their application, but it's only because those schools have "pre-screened" that candidate for them. What I'm arguing for is that good students at other schools, individuals who have shown themselves capable, are at no disadvantage or at a very insignificant one - a level easily overcome by having good research, good extracurriculars, good leadership, and good clinical experience, - doing the things that solid candidates do.</p>

<p>Further, there is real intent behind why I'm so quick to call you out - there are plenty of HS students out there right now thinking about going pre-med and trying to determine where they can go to school. And surprise, the Ivies and other top 20 schools are sometimes not realistic goals or options for everyone. To argue that attending an Ivy gives you some sort of significant advantage in getting into medical school, when that reality simply doesn't exist to the extent that you are implying, is completely unreasonable. Even for the kids who can get into Ivies, just because they can doesn't mean those schools are the best places for them. For all the positives an Ivy League education may provide, some students will be unable to "maximize their chances of doing well" if they were to attend one of those institutions. In such a case going to a top school may well hurt the candidate rather than help. </p>

<p>The basic point is that medical school admissions are a complex thing and the only real things anyone can point to that matter are the things everyone already knows: getting good grades, doing well on the MCAT, having the appropriate balance of research, leadership, extracurriculars, outside interests, clinical experience, passion for medicine, and the intangible qualities that allowed them to overcome the ridiculous attrition rate of being pre-med and will make them competent, compassionate doctors in the future. </p>

<p>BDM - I think your general gist is right. I'm sure we both can agree that it's somewhat an oversimplification of the process, and it's probably more likely to be true at a private school than a public one. It's also hard to identify exactly what qualifies as "special" and "bad". And I do agree that it's probably more that way for getting an interview than for getting an acceptance - one of those things where it gets your foot in the door, but doesn't do much beyond that.</p>

25

<p>i love this site (sarcastic) its supposed to allow everyone to put their opinions up and instead it turns to "who has the bigger ego"</p>

<p>i dont need to show you a controlled study, I know where my information came from and I know its probably more legit and uncensored then whatever book/website you got your stuff from.</p>

<p>People here can choose to believe me or they can choose to not believe me, either way I could care less and I am not gonna argue with anyone here about who's right and who's wrong.</p>

<p>Take my advice or dont...that simple</p>

26

<p>I agreew with BRM. The single biggest reason why applicants from Ivy League colleges have higher MCAT scores is that they are smart, driven students to begin with. I don't think there is much difference in the quality of instruction in your bio 101 or your gen chem course. Heck, the level of information in those classes are so basic, I can teach them.</p>

<p>This doesn't mean that there is no difference b/w colleges. Clearly, name recognition plays some role in college admissions and the research opportunities/quality of advising are probably not the same across all colleges. However, prestige is not so important that state school students have no shot at top med schools.</p>

27

<p>I might argue that some non-elite schools provide an even better foundation in the sciences. Ivy Leagues are full of driven students who are used to being top of their class, and aim to be first-ranked in college, too. Now, I've never actually attended an Ivy League, but I can assume that professor's office hours are always in demand. However, here at OSU, even though I'm in honors classes, very few of my classmates are fighting to the death to get an A. Many times I'll get my professor all to myself during his/her office hours, which allows more one-on-one learning so I can develop a complete understanding of the material.</p>

<p>Obviously, Ivies have great opportunities that state schools may not have, but when it comes to intro-level science, I have met several Ivy professors, and they for the most part seem more interested in research than in teaching.</p>

28

<p>1.) Generally it's held that you get more attention from smaller schools, not larger ones.</p>

<p>2.) Profs care more about research generally at some places and less at others - I'd be hesitant to correlate this to prestige. For example, I'd wager that Berkeley profs are much more research oriented/neglect class more than Duke profs.</p>

<p>3.) Doogie, I think part of the reason you're having trouble is that your argument rests on "I know this to be true b/c I talked to people". There's no analysis and no data. I had to pull that trick once (discussing Stanford's results) but generally it's advisable to try to give full disclosure regarding why we think certain things.</p>

29

<p>im not having trouble with my argument fella. You're having trouble believing me. Which is fine by me</p>

30

<p>A lot of your arguments seemly have no basis:</p>

<p>"some of the smaller, unknown schools may not prepare you well enough for the MCAT"</p>

<p>Then why do liberal arts colleges (including many unknown ones) have such high med school acceptance rates? You don't need a phD and a Nobel Prize to teach Bio 101. </p>

<p>"However, at top schools the science courses will prepare you for the MCAT"
I learned absolutely no physiology in my intro bio course and a ton of plant stuff which was all useless for the MCAT. I felt that my intro bio course at Cornell underprepared me for the bio section of the MCAT. I don't think you can just generalize that small schools don't prepare you for the MCAT while top schools prepare well for the MCAT.</p>

<p>"Just as a supplement to my post, look at the Average MCAT of students at an ivy compared to students at a 3rd tier college/university."
The reason for this is not clear: is it due to higher quality of students or due to better education at the Ivies? This is why only a controlled study (ie a study that examines the avg. MCAT score of 1500 SAT students at an Ivy vs. 1500 SAT students at a state school) can delineate the true cause of this trend. Establishing a correlation b/w prestige and MCAT scores doesn't prove causation.</p>

31

<p>norcal</p>

<p>These studies have been done. SAT scores do predict MCAT scores</p>

<p>Montague, J. R; Frei, J. K. (1993). A twelve-year profile of students' SAT scores, GPAs, and MCAT scores from a small university's premedical program. Academic Medicine, 68;306-8.</p>

<p>You don't need science beyond the requirements:</p>

<p>"The authors concluded that quantity of science-based undergraduate premedical education, either in its entirety or in subdivisions, did not materially affect the performance of the selected medical school students in their preclinical years of medical school."</p>

<p>Hull, M.L., & Stocks, M.T. (1995). Relationship between Quantity of Undergraduate Science Preparation and Preclinical Performance in Medical School. Academic Medicine, 70, 230-235.</p>

<p>Science majors do better in preclinical premed courses than do non science majors. But the groups are equal in the clinical years.
Koenig, J.A. Comparison of Medical School Performances and Career Plans of Students with Broad and with Science-focused Premedical Preparation. Academic Medicine, 67;191-196, 1992.</p>

<p>And most to the point:</p>

<p>"Our findings suggest that using institutional selectivity indices or categorizations as an admission characteristic may not be necessary. In addition, use of institutional selectivity indices or categorizations may discriminate against applicants with other desirable characteristics who have been granted degrees from less selective undergraduate institutions. Our results reassure admissions officers that the performances of students who attend smaller undergraduate institutions or community colleges are predictable when using their MCAT scores and undergraduate GPAs. In summary, our results indicate that the characteristics of the degree-granting undergraduate institution, as measured by three different types of institutional selectivity or categorization, do not add to the ability to predict performances on USMLE Steps 1 and 2 and overall medical school GPA if the MCAT score and unadjusted undergraduate GPA are available."</p>

<p>Blue, A.V., Gilbert, G.E., Elam, C.L., & Basco, W.T., Jr. (2000). Does Institutional Selectivity Aid in the Prediction of Medical School Performance? Academic Medicine, 75, S31-S33.</p>

<p>Your grades matter, your MCAT scores matter. Beyond your grades and MCAT's, your undergraduate institution does not matter. EXCEPT if you would actually get a better education, higher GPA, higher MCAT's from one place than from another.</p>

<p>There are far more doctors who graduated from state colleges than there are from the Ivies. Yes, a higher portion of Ivy students go to med school, but they had higher grades and test scores from high school. Not much evidence that, as a group, these students did better from Ivies than they would have from state college.</p>

32

<p>ok when you ever look at these studies you have to consider that many of them are subjective. Plus, who the hell studies for the SAT?? MOST people ive known who have done really well on the SAT are the ones who have actually studied an practiced. But who's to say taht someone doesn't take the SAT seriously and really focuses on the MCAT? Also, people mature and become better test takers with practice (which you get in college). Personally, i think the whole SAT/MCAT releation is bogus (and I didn't even do THAT badly on the my SATs).</p>

33

<p>1.) First off, to call a relationship "bogus" is absurd. Obviously there are standardized test skills that transfer.</p>

<p>2.) It's not like these studies are claiming that your SAT score completely predicts your MCAT score. They just claim they're related. Which is clearly and obviously true.</p>

<p>3.) I studied for the SAT.</p>

<p>4.) For what it's worth, I've never met anybody who was more than five points off for the SAT (1600) --> LSAT conversion. (SAT/20.5 + 100.5 = LSAT). Granted, five points is a lot.</p>

<p>5.) Still, afan, I'd be interested to see: "Controlling for SAT score and HS achievement, do students from Duke perform better on the MCAT than students from UC Berkeley? Or vice versa?"</p>

34

<p>Very informative afan. Thanks for putting in the time to find those. </p>

<p>It doesn't necessarily answer the exact question (since it's medical school performance, not acceptance), but provides a lot of good information which are corollaries to the ideas you and I are trying to make. </p>

<p>I don't think that NCG was saying that SAT scores didn't predict success MCAT success, but rather that he wanted a study in which students with identicle SAT scores but that went to very different schools (Ivy vs non-top 100 or whatever) had their MCAT scores end up with dichotomous results. That's the sort of study he was asking Doogie to provide to prove his point.</p>

<p>Doogie, while you may be fine accepting your own N of 1 study as gospel, those of us in medical school, for whom evidence-based medicine is more than just a buzzword instead being quite literally pounded into our brains, put a little weight into controlled studies with large sample sizes and real statistical analysis.</p>

35

<p>i dont believe anyone i speak to on this thing is in medical school, i only listen to the people I know personally who are either on admissions as medical schools or who are in medical schools.</p>

<p>Most of the people on this site are wishful thinkers and have severe inferiority complexes</p>

36

<p>... two of us are in medical school.</p>

<p>As for the inferiority complexes, I suppose a little averaging out never hurt anyone.</p>

37

<p>The study cited, and a more recent one in Oct '05 Academic Medicine looked at medical school performance prediction based on premedical characteristics. They both found that the MCAT contained almost all the predictive value to be had. Adding undergraduate GPA increased prediction of medical school grades and USMLE scores very slightly. Once you know MCAT and GPA, then adding in a factor for selectivity of undergraduate college does not contribute anything at all to predicting medical school performance. Since this includes looking at students with a range of scores, and from a range of schools, I believe this answers the question.</p>

<p>There was a study years ago that correlated SAT and MCAT across a range of colleges, but I can't find it now. It concluded that SAT was a very good predictor of MCAT and medical school performance.</p>

38

<p>Inferiority complexes lol BDM and BRM are already in med school and, without being too presumptuous, I think I will be joining them when I apply next year. After all, it has been six years since someone with a 3.9+ GPA from my school did not get into med school. Your "people" told you that undergrad institution is given consideration in the admissions process. Not a single person on this board would deny that. We are simply debating whether there are any actual educational benefits to attending prestigous colleges.</p>

39

<p>afan,</p>

<p>Yes, the SAT is clearly a good predictor of MCAT performance. The question is, is undergraduate institution also a good predictor of MCAT performance, after SAT has been controlled for?</p>

<p>In other words, I'm interested in using multiple regression to find the r-squared, p-value, and beta-2 coefficient for, say, undergraduate college after SATs have already been used as your first variable. Of course, the variables would be endogenous, but there's several meaningful econometric techniques to separate them, which I used to be familiar with.</p>

40

<p>wow, if thats the case then im glad our medical schools allow students enough time to consistently post on college confidential...i know my faith in medicine has finally been restored.</p>

<p>Seems like you have much more free time on ur hands then the medical students Ive spoken to at columbia, university of virginia, mt sinai, george washington, and johns hopkins...interesting</p>

<p>either way this post isnt going anywhere and i feel sorry for anyone who refers to this particular board for legitimate information anyway. </p>

<p>My advice: go to someone with credentials instead of listening to someone who is just a name on a computer. And that goes for listening to anything ive said too so dont think im just referring to the guys above me.</p>