Do No Harm releases merit-focused rankings of U.S. medical schools

Do No Harm, a nonprofit watchdog group focused on medical education, released a merit-focused ranking of U.S. medical schools, arguing that traditional academic measures and admissions standards should drive physician training. The organization contends that some schools have redirected their curricula toward identity-based and DEI-oriented approaches that it says can undermine core medical training. The report describes such shifts as a threat to patient care and says prospective students and patients deserve clarity about which schools preserve a traditional emphasis on medical excellence.

The ranking emphasizes merit as its starting point. It evaluates whether schools admit students with high undergraduate GPAs and MCAT scores—the predictors the group says most strongly correlate with success in medical practice. It also examines grading policies, flagging institutions that have moved away from letter grades or numerical marks in favor of pass/fail schemes. In addition, the ranking notes whether schools have removed Alpha Omega Alpha, the national medical honor society that recognizes the top 20% of each class, arguing that the loss of this benchmark makes it harder for residency programs to distinguish outstanding applicants. Finally, the index assesses each school’s commitment to DEI initiatives, and penalizes those that embed DEI into their mission or maintain a DEI office, according to the organizers.

According to the organization, the top overall performer was the University of South Florida’s Morsani College of Medicine, which the group credited with a perfect score by prioritizing traditional merit criteria and limiting emphasis on identity-political content. The top 10 also included the University of Central Florida College of Medicine, the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Phoenix, and both University of Texas campuses in Austin and San Antonio. New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine ranked among the top five in the assessment, underscoring the model’s reach into major research institutions.

By contrast, some long-established national peers fared poorly in the Do No Harm ranking. Harvard Medical School was listed at 53, and Yale School of Medicine at 75, figures the group described as reflecting a shift away from assessments of medical excellence toward ideological or policy-driven considerations. The ranking’s authors argued that such positioning undercuts the prestige associated with rigorous medical training and could influence which schools graduate doctors best prepared for clinical practice.

Ian Kingsbury, director of the Center for Accountability in Medicine at Do No Harm, framed the release as a call to recalibrate how medical education is evaluated in the United States. He said the rankings are designed to highlight institutions that “put the practice of medicine first” by preserving transparent grading standards, maintaining strong academic benchmarks, and avoiding curricular shifts that devalue traditional measures of achievement. Kingsbury stressed that the aim is not to denigrate any school but to illuminate which programs align with proven predictors of clinical proficiency and patient outcomes.

The publication of the rankings comes amid broader debate about how U.S. colleges and universities are perceived by the public. Do No Harm argues that this disclosure should help prospective medical students and their families make more informed choices, while also guiding patients who rely on well-trained physicians for care. Critics of the approach note that medical education is multifaceted and that DEI initiatives, student well-being, and inclusive teaching can play important roles in producing competent physicians. Supporters of merit-based emphasis argue that clear, objective indicators of academic rigor are essential in selecting and training the physicians who will administer care across the country.

The Do No Harm ranking was published as an opinion piece in the New York Post, with the organization citing its own methodological framework as the foundation for the scoring. The report’s emphasis on GPA, MCAT, grading policies, and DEI commitments marks a departure from more traditional medical school assessments, which often rely on government funding, residency placement rates, or overall research activity. Whether the ranking shifts public perception of top medical schools remains to be seen, but it adds a new data point to ongoing discussions about how best to measure medical education quality and, ultimately, patient health outcomes.