Dartmouth vs. USC vs. Tufts

[DrRockrr]

I need help deciding between these schools as their is a lot to love about them all. Second Looks are coming up, which I hope will help me decide but I'd really appreciate any input!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Berkely10]

Hey! I can't really speak for USC but I did interview at both Tufts and Dartmouth.

Personally, I liked Tufts far more than I liked Dartmouth. Dartmouth seemed to be in the middle of nowhere with a fairly non-diverse community. It also seemed that there wasn't much to do there :/. Also, as I am a sucker for the new and latest I was a bit disappointed by their facilities. On the plus side, Dartmouth is obviously a big-name school and it does provide a very personal "community" feel to it.

On the other hand, Tufts is in Boston. You know there will always be stuff to do (several other large cities are within driving distance also) and they have some very nice buildings. (They just added a new section if im not mistaken). However, although it is in Boston, it isn't in the best part. Also, being in a bigger city might not be your thing.

As for USC, I know nothing about it but it is in California ^^

 

[BTC]

This is easy. USC. Tufts and Dartmouth are two schools that get by a lot just because of their name. If either weren't linked to prestigious undergrad institutions, they'd be 2nd rate schools.

Dartmouth is in the middle of nowhere - you described it yourself.
Tufts hospital network is limited which means limited hospital exposure which means limited training experience.

At USC you get to train at LA County and live in the sun. They also do REALLY well on boards so preclinical training is good - don't know 1st hand.

USC.

 

[Wermz]

Tufts.

 

[90minIPA]

Dartmouth students murder the boards, and the school has clinical sites all over the US, including SF. They'll give you housing if you travel for rotations, too. The Dartmouth name isnt limited to the undergrad, as reflected in their insane match lists. They also (allegedly) offer outstanding financial aid. That being said, if you felt iffy about NH, you prob won't be able to handle 4 long winters up there.

Also, Tufts isn't in an enjoyable part of the Boston area. Its in medford and chinatown. That's a big difference. Winter in the boston area blows hard, too.

If youre really concerned about location, USC may be your best bet. But I would (and may) pick Dartmouth.

 

[SoyRicoSuave]

I don't how familiar you are with LA, but USC is in the ghetto. The being in the sun and by the beach is fun but I wouldn't want to live near the school.

 

[Evergrey]

Gonna vote for USC, and not just because I got in there

-P/F systems-based curriculum, unranked for the first two years. They do have cumulative exams at end of 1st and 2nd year though.
-Tremendous support from administration and older students for taking boards, more than any other school I've read about. I mean, ICS is basically protected time for Step 1 studying.
-I hear during first two years you are only testable on content given in the official handouts, so profs can't ramble on about their research and expect you to study it
-lecture attendance is not mandatory, so you have a lot of flexibility over what you spend your time doing. Planned curriculum is 20 hours in lecture and minimal small groups, and an additional 20 hours self-directed study time (including PPM and ICM courses)
-awesome opportunities at LAC+USC, but a lot of high-tech stuff too at the university hospital (multiple departments use the new Da Vinci, for example) and one of the best children's hospitals west of Texas and Chicago. 75% match rate in Cali, if you care about that. As a caveat, I hear that IM is not as strong at LAC+USC as other places.
-sunny weather. some will call me silly for factoring this in, but personally I get hardcore SAD in the winter. Happiness from sun -> success in med school

I wish I knew more about the clinical year experiences, and since I am going to second look that is definitely something I will be asking more about.

 

[InsultedViper]

I would also vote USC!

 

[Harpoon]

Dartmouth students murder the boards

Are those numbers available online? I'm strongly considering Dartmouth, and I'd like to take a look at them.

 

[Evergrey]

Are those numbers available online? I'm strongly considering Dartmouth, and I'd like to take a look at them.

USC students murder the boards too Board averages are usually above 230.

 

[90minIPA]

Are those numbers available online? I'm strongly considering Dartmouth, and I'd like to take a look at them.

Step 1 score reporting is a bit controversial, as the schools that choose to do so aren't held accountable by a third party. The only online publication of these scores that I've found is on SDN, which gives them essentially zero credibility. Here's a recent thread that has a lot of (unsubstantiated) Step 1 scores in it:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=8987742&postcount=252 (Dartmouth is on par with Duke, WashU, Michigan etc..)

For me it's more valuable to speak with actual Dartmouth students about step 1, which is where I got my information. Any school can say they do well on the boards, and any troll can post fake scores on SDN, but Dartmouth students are uniformly confident regarding Step 1 and their match lists back this up entirely.

 

[90minIPA]

This is easy. USC. Tufts and Dartmouth are two schools that get by a lot just because of their name. If either weren't linked to prestigious undergrad institutions, they'd be 2nd rate schools.

not sure if serious...

 

[drizzt3117]

There are basically three factors that contribute to how well you do on step 1, IMO, 1) how smart you are / how good a test taker you are 2) how long do you have to study for step 1, and 3) luck. You can be tested on many different topics and question composition can be drastically different, good well-prepared test takers will still do well but this can lead to up to 10-20 points in variability IMO. Note that only one of these things (how long you have to study) has anything to do with your school.

I think the only schools with inherent advantages in step 1 are those schools with 15-18 month curricula, because having some/all of the clinical years done would help a lot.

 

[drizzt3117]

not sure if serious...

All three programs are mid tier, only slightly above average. im not sure too many people would really argue otherwise. That being said, sc is the only one of these with depts that people would argue were among the nation's best (neurosurgery), although one could also argue there is greater variability in clinical training there as well.

 

[90minIPA]

All three programs are mid tier, only slightly above average. im not sure too many people would really argue otherwise.

I don't disagree that these are "mid-tier" schools, either. But BTC implied that the Dartmouth name tag over-inflates the medical school's reputation, while USC's doesn't. Not only is this a strange comment, but it conflicts directly with USNWR, where Dartmouth edges out USC in all categories including PD scores.

 

[drizzt3117]

I don't disagree that these are "mid-tier" schools, either. But BTC implied that the Dartmouth name tag over-inflates the medical school's reputation, while USC's doesn't. Not only is this a strange comment, but it conflicts directly with USNWR, where Dartmouth edges out USC in all categories including PD scores.

I agree with them in the sense that the school definitely gets some name recognition from being an ivy. I actually liked dartmouth quite a bit upon interviewing, but it's resources just aren't all that great compared to top (or even other mid tier programs). USC with county and tufts with NEMC have much higher volume of cases.

Btw I can't think of a metric less useful than the PD scores, it's just utterly useless. If you want to know how good a department is, you need to talk to people in fields, if you're going to look at numbers, the only numbers that would be useful are the BRIMR guide to NIH funding per med school department. That's not perfect, however, as many departments have collaboration with non-med school departments for grants and others are getting private grants.

I honestly don't see much difference between sc and dartmouth, I'd argue tufts is not quite as good as these two although the difference isn't huge, location/cost would probably be the best metric to use here.

 

[90minIPA]

I agree with them in the sense that the school definitely gets some name recognition from being an ivy. I actually liked dartmouth quite a bit upon interviewing, but it's resources just aren't all that great compared to top (or even other mid tier programs). USC with county and tufts with NEMC have much higher volume of cases.

Btw I can't think of a metric less useful than the PD scores, it's just utterly useless. If you want to know how good a department is, you need to talk to people in fields, if you're going to look at numbers, the only numbers that would be useful are the BRIMR guide to NIH funding per med school department. That's not perfect, however, as many departments have collaboration with non-med school departments for grants and others are getting private grants.

I honestly don't see much difference between sc and dartmouth, I'd argue tufts is not quite as good as these two although the difference isn't huge, location/cost would probably be the best metric to use here.

I hate to hijack this thread, but could you elaborate on your reasoning for the bolded text? I always thought the PD rankings were a relatively meaninful proxy for a schools rep in the medical community, since they are direct feedback from the people whose opinions actually matter (residency program directors).

 

[drizzt3117]

I hate to hijack this thread, but could you elaborate on your reasoning for the bolded text? I always thought the PD rankings were a relatively meaninful proxy for a schools rep in the medical community, since they are direct feedback from the people whose opinions actually matter (residency program directors).

Just think about the methodology... Usnwr sends email/letters whatever to "pds" some of whom who respond (<40%) and they tabulate the scores. What specialty are these "program directors" from? How does Usnwr know they are current program directors or they they're even program directors? Presumably anyone who actually is a program director is really busy. Do you think theyre going to sit down and actually rank all 90 programs with what they really think about them? Have they interviewed candidates from all these programs? Also, program director reviews candidates in a specific specialty, and schools differ a lot in relative program strength, are all depts equally well represented in the 40% of people that respond to the survey?

My point is that while a lot of residency selection is subjective, this info just isn't useful. You might as well ask on SDN and let people tell you case western and mayo are the best.al

The BRIMR research funding info, while not perfect, is at least objective unequivocal data.

 

[JokerMD]

hands down usc

it wins in terms of location/reputation/curriculum/grading/cost (maybe)