It has definitely been a subject of debate whether going to a better school (i.e., more noted for rigor, ranking, prestige, whatever) helps, or in an of itself doesn’t affect, your odd of medical school admissions. There are several posters on this site who seem to be involved in med. school admissions, or are very close to it in some capacity, with differing views on that point. Some say, yeah, a lower GPA from Yale is going to be just fine; others say you’re better off Phi Beta Kappa from a lower-tier school. Don’t know. That is a legitimate point of contention. If that is what Amherst is saying, then that’s their own view of the thing.
I don’t know how to measure it, or at least I haven’t given it much thought. Must it be measured to be important or to be real? How can we practically measure it in any event? You have to control like 100 other variables. My view is, who cares? We all do a lot of things in life based on a set of reasons that have not been perfectly reduced to quantitative analysis and conclusion. With a kid who spent at least part of his undergraduate studies pursuing a pre-med curriculum, I think we think that there was value in what his LAC faculty and advisors brought to the equation. But, of course, I didn’t do a regression analysis on Middlebury’s med school placement vs. the Ohio State University’s.
So I look at this way. If a school has made an attempt to organize its affairs such that they think they offer some level of attention and thought to preparing kids for med school admissions, then I think it reasonable to assume that there’s something there. I guess we’re talking about proving the negative vs. proving the positive. Depends on how you want to assign the burden of proof. All else being equal, I’d lean toward a school of repute that has devoted time and thought to its pre-med advising and curriculum structure. The idea that coursework does not translate to standardized testing is in my view inaccurate. There are ways you can spend your undergraduate years that will better benefit you than others for, say, the LSAT. There’s a reason the philosophy, math and music kids have historically out-performed the English and Poli Sci kids on that particular test, and that reason is known to those of us who have taught LSAT prep. I haven’t taught MCAT prep, and thus will defer to those who have.
Of course, it goes w/o saying that placement rates need to be read in strict context. For example, we know Middlebury has a nice placement rate because they are starting with pretty sound raw material to begin with. But, again, it doesn’t follow that they aren’t doing something right there as an institution. But, I can’t measure it.
Yes, a lot of kids, arguably most kids, come here at least seeking confirmation that better school = better chances. I don’t know if they’re right or wrong. As I said, there have been seemingly informed views expressed in this forum arguing both.
On the law side, which I thought I knew, my impression, based on experience 20+ years ago, is that the quality of your undergraduate school absolutely mattered. @Hanna, who is a counselor and knows her stuff, has suggested that has changed quite a bit as result of law schools trying to out-stat the competition.