Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

US News Rankings: UChicago Med School Dropping Like a Stone


Replies to: US News Rankings: UChicago Med School Dropping Like a Stone

  • ChrchillChrchill Registered User Posts: 1,025 Senior Member
    @JHS In fact, according to some serious department heads I saw last night, as long as you are in the top 25-30 medical schools, the relative rankings matter a lot less than in law or business. Residency is what matters most.
  • JHSJHS Registered User Posts: 17,992 Senior Member
    How do Princeton, Oxford and Cambridge even hold their heads up when all the universities hit the playground at recess. They are not top anything in any professional school category. They must feel so inadequate!

    Seriously, it's nice that Chicago has good professional schools, but it would still be a great university without them. One of the things that's great about Chicago, though, is the high degree of integration of the professional schools with the rest of the university. I'm not certain that's the case at Harvard or Stanford.

    Note: H and S are top 5 in Education, too. Chicago is . . . ooops, not playing in that league. But Harvard and Chicago are top 5 in Public Policy, and Stanford isn't. Chicago, you go!
  • ChrchillChrchill Registered User Posts: 1,025 Senior Member
    Well, Chicago is top ten or higher in many many academic fields, and its not just economics. For example,how does Chicago get a top 1 rating in English tied with UC Berkeley ?
  • CU123CU123 Registered User Posts: 2,742 Senior Member
    I doubt that the med school will ever rise that much as its mostly a money losing operation and without a very large endowment it will be hard to improve its overall status. I think UChicago is fine with its top 20 med school.
  • DeepBlue86DeepBlue86 Registered User Posts: 922 Member
    @Chrchill - one could equally truthfully say that Yale beat UChicago in two out of the three major professional school categories. And it would mean equally little in assessing which of the two schools was somehow superior to the other.
  • ChrchillChrchill Registered User Posts: 1,025 Senior Member
    @DeepBlue86 just to be totally granular :) Adding them each up. The lower the total, the better (indicating higher ranking)

    UChicago -- Law 4, Business, 1, medicine 18 = 23
    Yale - Law 1, Medicine 11, Business 11 = 23

  • JBStillFlyingJBStillFlying Registered User Posts: 5,090 Senior Member
    The practice of medicine is a highly restricted industry. If you look at admit rates of the top 50 Med schools they are, for the most part, under 10%.

    In no particular order, what Med School administrators would tend to care most about are things like peer reviews, residence director assessments, the quality of student they are enrolling, and research dollars generated by faculty members on average. Those metrics tend to be pretty good for UChicago overall. When you look at peer reviews and residency assessments side by side for the current top 20, you really do notice some outliers. Same - although to a lesser extent - with MCAT and GPA. Obviously nothing's in a vacuum and it's factors taken altogether that matter in how the ordinal is formed. It just goes to show that the result can be a bit wacky compared to the underlying metrics. Overall, UChicago seems to be ranked about right. Not sure about a few others. In the end, quality is going to be associated with dollars, and so those institutions generating the large dollars will have an edge both in terms of cutting-edge research and attracting the big brass.
  • JBStillFlyingJBStillFlying Registered User Posts: 5,090 Senior Member
    edited March 20
    ^^ Meant to add something else. Peer review is, in part, based on ground-breaking work that the institution has done. When you look at who has won the Nobel for medicine/physiology in, say, the past 50 years, UChicago loses out to a whole bunch of other places. Obviously, centers of research and STEMmy places - not necessarily med schools - are the nurturing environments for a good number of these folks. But Stanford, Harvard, Columbia, Vandy, WUSTL, and some of the UC schools do hold their own for comparison. Two notable absences: UChicago and, shockingly, Mayo (given that it's supposedly a research powerhouse rivalling JHU).
  • socaldad2002socaldad2002 Registered User Posts: 733 Member
    @Chrchill "Residency is what matters most."

    Agree. Brother in law went to a non top 100 med school in NY. Achieved his dual PhD/MD and got his residency at Columbia University Medical Center (NY Presbyterian Hospital) and now works as a pediatric anesthesiologist Texas Children's Hospital as well as assistant professor Baylor College of Medicine.
  • JBStillFlyingJBStillFlying Registered User Posts: 5,090 Senior Member
    Is quality of residency independent of quality of med school? Not sure of that - not the least because underlying both may be top med students who become top docs. Unfortunately, many of the highest ranked med schools aren't revealing what percentage of the graduating class gets their first choice residency. That would seem a pertinent metric when ranking these places.
  • BooajoBooajo Registered User Posts: 1,171 Senior Member
    @JBStillFlying the percentage of med students who get their top choice residency is extremely complex, assuming you are talking about rank lists. To rank a program, you have to first get an interview there. So let’s say my “dream residency” is anesthesia at Stanford. But I don’t get an interview there. In fact, I don’t get ANY anesthesia interviews. So I rank a local preliminary program #1 and match there. Voila, I matched at my top rank program.

    Most medical schools extensively counsel their students where to apply. The goal is to be realistic with applicants, so that everyone ends up with SOMETHING.
  • 85bears4685bears46 Registered User Posts: 412 Member
    Ranking is a beauty contest: nothing more and nothing less. No one should take it too seriously.

    Booth is ranked No. 1 By USNWR. As a GSB graduate, am I particularly proud or happy? Not really. That just means Booth being the flavor of the year for this particular ranking. I know in general business world people likely still rank HBS and SGSB much higher.

    Make no mistake, I am proud of my U of C GSB education. But I am not going to let any ranking define my world view of MBA programs.
  • HydeSnarkHydeSnark Registered User Posts: 851 Member
    edited March 20
    Theorem (College Confidential Booster): for any university, we can construct a non-trivial collection of rankings such that this university appears to be the best or arbitrary close to the best in these rankings

    Proof: Left as an exercise for the collective consciousness of College Confidential
  • TiglathpileserTiglathpileser Registered User Posts: 59 Junior Member
    I think this is a two part discussion. If the question is where is the "best" research done, then these rankings are interesting (I put quotes around"best" because defining best is another matter). But best research is only lightly correlated to the "best"doctor for you for a given ailment. For example in cancer the protocols are so defined by the insurance companies that the variation in treatment for a given diagnosis is not high. Also, it matters where you live-if you have a certain type of lymphoma the guy who has done the most published research is at MD Anderson in Houston - good luck if you live in (say) Maine. So likely you will go to someone local who will follow protocol, and if there is something real quirky about the case your local MD will call or email the MD Anderson guy (BTW these super guru MDs are uniformly good about responding with advice to fellow MDs). Anyways the "best" doctor is a bit like the search for the holy grail.

    My favorite current story is IBM's effort through "Watson" to "automate" cancer treatment- turns out it basically incorporates Sloan Kettering's protocols (thats the doctors they interviewed) and the issue is the rest of the world may or may not agree..for example the japanese get the most incidences of gastric cancer, have developed their own protocols,and basically ignore Watson.
  • JBStillFlyingJBStillFlying Registered User Posts: 5,090 Senior Member
    edited March 20
    ^^@HydeSnark - every Admissions Office in the country has already proved that theorem.
Sign In or Register to comment.