I saw that the latest US rankings for internal medicine have been posted on the US news website. As much as I know how "flawed" these rankings are :idea: ,

could some pl post them. Thanks.

USNews Internal Medicine Ranked in 2007

1 Johns Hopkins
2 Harvard
3 UCSF
4 Penn
5 Duke
6 UW
7 WashU
8 Michigan
9 Yale
10 Columbia
10 UTSW
12 Stanford
13 UAB
14 UCLA
14 Vanderbilt
16 Mayo
17 UNC
18 Cornell
19 U Chicago
20 Northwestern
20 UCSD
22 Pitt
23 Emory
24 Mt. Sinai
24 Iowa
24 Rochester

Doesn't it go any deeper?

No...that was the approximate length of last year's list, too.

wow first time i've seen emory drop that low.. or UAB that high.

Top 10 is pretty stagnant. In fact, Hopkins through Michigan (top 8 on this year's list) have not fallen into the double digits for the past 6 or 7 years.

Things get messy when you go past the high 10s. Any program can shoot up or fall drastically in any given year. The list is almost too mobile to be of any real credibility.

What a weird list overall.

As an aside, UAB is definitely a strong program, though I won't speculate on whether it is truly at the level of Stanford/UCLA. I think all three institutions train excellent physicians. Having said that, I did think Stanford's and UCLA's fellowship matchlists seemed more impressive than UAB's.

I think USNEWS is a bit off with their rankings this year. Here's just my opinion of the top 25 programs, based on all the interviews I went on, competitiveness of obtaining an interview, caliber of people they end up selecting, and, most importantly, fellowship outcomes.

1 Johns Hopkins, MGH, BWH, UCSF (virtually equivalent fellowship potential)
5 Penn
6 Duke
7 UW (on it's way down a few positions but still a very strong program)
8 Yale (superb fellowship outcomes on par with some of the very top programs)
9 Columbia
10 Stanford (very selective program, also superb fellowship outcomes)
11 Michigan, WashU
13 UTSW
14 UChicago (highly competitive, extremely popular program with applicants across the country, will be in the top 10 soon with their new chair)
15 UCLA
16 UAB, Vanderbilt
18 Mayo, Cornell
20 UVA
21 UNC, Northwestern, UCSD
24 Emory
25 Mt. Sinai (definitely on it's way up, getting more competitive to match, increased NIH funds)

You know, some people question even a "tier" approach to ranking programs, which is arguably more palatable than ranking from 1 to 25. No offense to hagart33 above, but I simply cannot imagine how anyone can arrive at discrete ranking positions for individual programs.

Anyone know where Baylor would fall on that list?

Anyone know where Baylor would fall on that list?

Not on this year's USNews list. Last year's list is somewhere on this forum.

Personally, I feel that Baylor's program is similar to UAB and Emory. County + VA + Academic/Private hospitals. Urban setting. Good clinical training. Good fellowship match. In my mind Baylor is on the same level as UAB/Emory/Vanderbilt/Northwestern/UVA, despite what USNews thinks.

I agree with you VCMM414, and no offense taken. I think the tier method of ranking programs is much better. Here's my opinion:

Tier 1: JHU, MGH, BWH, UCSF (no limit to fellowship potential at all 4 of these programs)
Tier 2: Penn, Duke, UW, Columbia, Yale, Stanford, UChicago, Michigan, WashU, UTSW
Tier 3: UCLA, UAB, Vanderbilt, Baylor, Cornell, Mayo, UVA
Tier 4: UNC, Northwestern, UCSD, Emory, Mt. Sinai (Sinai will probably move to Tier 3 within a couple years)

You know, some people question even a "tier" approach to ranking programs, which is arguably more palatable than ranking from 1 to 25. No offense to hagart33 above, but I simply cannot imagine how anyone can arrive at discrete ranking positions for individual programs.

Thanks for posting these rankings!

About UAB : I wd have to agree about their fellowship placements in cards anf GI being not at par with other top 15 programs ( In interviewed last year)... more like UVA and probably worse than Emory.

Damn, Im not going to be a good Dr.!!!! the program i matched at is not in that list!! LOL!!!

hehe, yea honestly rankings don't mean that much and we as applicants worry too much about reputation. I've seen so many examples of people from not-as-famous programs get top fellowships and go on to lead their fields. Every opportunity is what you make of it.

Damn, Im not going to be a good Dr.!!!! the program i matched at is not in that list!! LOL!!!

I think USNEWS is a bit off with their rankings this year. Here's just my opinion of the top 25 programs, based on all the interviews I went on, competitiveness of obtaining an interview, caliber of people they end up selecting, and, most importantly, fellowship outcomes.

1 Johns Hopkins, MGH, BWH, UCSF (virtually equivalent fellowship potential)
5 Penn
6 Duke
7 UW (on it's way down a few positions but still a very strong program)
8 Yale (superb fellowship outcomes on par with some of the very top programs)
9 Columbia
10 Stanford (very selective program, also superb fellowship outcomes)
11 Michigan, WashU
13 UTSW
14 UChicago (highly competitive, extremely popular program with applicants across the country, will be in the top 10 soon with their new chair)
15 UCLA
16 UAB, Vanderbilt
18 Mayo, Cornell
20 UVA
21 UNC, Northwestern, UCSD
24 Emory
25 Mt. Sinai (definitely on it's way up, getting more competitive to match, increased NIH funds)

It all depends . . .
I agree that Yale should be among the top ~20 or so given fellowship outcomes, amazing research opportunities and chances to get additional research training in residency (if that's what's important to you), but I'm not convinced their general IM training is that great so I would move Yale down. I would knock UW way down on the list, and perhaps off the list. I didn't think the recent fellowship match list was that great, I'm not sure they're all that hours compliant (in spirit and maybe in fact), but they do provide excellent clinical training but so does many other places (pretty much the opposite of Yale, IMO). Hopefully new leadership at UW will improve things while maintaining the great parts about the program. I would also place BID up there somewhere - above UW and Yale, and at least equal to Michigan (newish leadership seem to have banished the "malignant" feel) and above UNC and UVA from what I've heard from close friends. I might go so far as to wonder if BID should be a top 10 program. If you're interested in systems improvement and education, I think they should be at the top of the list. I would keep WashU very high, and with the changes made this year, certainly in the top 10 if not top 5. I think Mayo is top 5 if you ignore location - to some the location moves it up a bit, to many location would move it down, but this is true, albeit to a lesser extent usually, with every program (note: I'm biased :) ). I'm surprised by some places (UAB, Emory, Vanderbuilt, even Mt Sinai) being on the list above, but I think it reflects a regional bias/ignorance. I also wonder about some places due to malignancy - UTSW and Hopkins being the biggies.
Like I said, it all depends . . .

UAB student here:

Sometimes fellowship lists are more dependent on insularity of the residency program than other factors. Looking at the resident lists, its almost 100% SE - I think the few IMGs outnumber non-SE residents! It's no surprise then that residents tend to stay at SE schools which aren't "prestigious" by other standards. Also, the IM program is not well known for pumping out academics

Most importantly, USNews rankings are based on reputation of faculty, not the residency program. Clearly the IM department here has a tremendous amount of money and strengths in faculty which meet or exceed some of the departments listed. It's not unfair to say if you took the same people and facilities in a more "desirable" location that the rankings would be much higher.

Feel free to debate my biases here - I'm more than willling to defend them.

EDIT: FYI: IM NIH funding: departmental rankings 2005:
1 UCSF
2 Hopkins
3 Duke
4 Penn
5 U of Wash
6 WashU
7 Vanderbilt
8 UCSD
9 Michigan
10 UCLA
11 CWRU
12 Yale
13 Columbia
14 UAB
15 UNC
16 Chicago
17 Colorado
18 Pitt
19 Mt Sinai
20 Stanford
21 Northwestern
22 Maryland
23 USC
24 Baylor
25 Iowa

Harvard excluded for obvious reasons.
Money alone correlates closely with USNews ranking.

Think about what an IM residency is, and then evaluate the following criteria:
1. Are the 2nd and third year residents smart, and do they teach?
2. Do the attendings teach on rounds and are they efficient?
3. Did the PD structure the program to integrate teaching into the daily grind of work?
4. Do you see excellent pathology (not Just urban, not Just Zebras, no too easy)?
5. Do you do a lot of procedures (this IS important)?
6. Are the didactics good?
7. Is scutwork minimal?
8. Is there opportunity to do the research you want?
9. Fellowship placement?
10. Is the place nice?
11. Is the place a "BIG NAME" as above?

with NIH funding in the top 5 of all programs, UW is not going anywhere. leadership at the residency PD level has no influence on the strength of an entire department of internal medicine, which largely depends on the ability of the faculty to obtain research funding.

some of the conclusions that are being drawn on UW based ultimately on a lackluster interview day are quite unfair and presumptuous.

i'm proud to have matched at UW.

--jj

While I agree that leadership at the PD level does not affect the strength of a department as a whole, especially in regards to NIH funding, I do think it can affect the strength of a residency program and fellowship outcomes. Having leadership very involved in advising, having a PD or chair who is well connected across the country, and a responsive administration to improve weaknesses in the program--these are the intangibles that I'm considering. I agree, UW will probably remain where they are. I'm just saying if they fail to make these improvements, I could see more applicants being turned off and the program slipping a few spots. It's just my opinion, and I just threw this stuff out there for the sake of discussion.

with NIH funding in the top 5 of all programs, UW is not going anywhere. leadership at the residency PD level has no influence on the strength of an entire department of internal medicine, which largely depends on the ability of the faculty to obtain research funding.

some of the conclusions that are being drawn on UW based ultimately on a lackluster interview day are quite unfair and presumptuous.

i'm proud to have matched at UW.

--jj

with NIH funding in the top 5 of all programs, UW is not going anywhere. leadership at the residency PD level has no influence on the strength of an entire department of internal medicine, which largely depends on the ability of the faculty to obtain research funding.

From my perspective, right now, I basically rank DOMs by the strength of their residency program, and is why I would put BID very high and UW relatively low. But there is no question about UW having an awesome DOM in other respects and on the USNews list I would expect UW to remain in the top 10.

And yes, I left the interview day with a pretty negative feeling about the place (laregely because it is such an amazing DOM in other respects) and was not about to trust my next 3+ years to their administration. But people in next year's match should look for themselves.

I agree with you VCMM414, and no offense taken. I think the tier method of ranking programs is much better. Here's my opinion:

Tier 1: JHU, MGH, BWH, UCSF (no limit to fellowship potential at all 4 of these programs)
Tier 2: Penn, Duke, UW, Columbia, Yale, Stanford, UChicago, Michigan, WashU, UTSW
Tier 3: UCLA, UAB, Vanderbilt, Baylor, Cornell, Mayo, UVA
Tier 4: UNC, Northwestern, UCSD, Emory, Mt. Sinai (Sinai will probably move to Tier 3 within a couple years)

It's curious that your tier 2 contains more programs than any other tiers. Though there are no hard and fast rules about this, I wonder if a more pyramidal distribution might be appropriate.

It's curious that your tier 2 contains more programs than any other tiers. Though there are no hard and fast rules about this, I wonder if a more pyramidal distribution might be appropriate.
That idea is waaaaay too scientific sounding.

yes. i think you sniffed out a mud phud :)

That idea is waaaaay too scientific sounding.

I agree with you VCMM414, and no offense taken. I think the tier method of ranking programs is much better. Here's my opinion:

Tier 1: JHU, MGH, BWH, UCSF (no limit to fellowship potential at all 4 of these programs)
Tier 2: Penn, Duke, UW, Columbia, Yale, Stanford, UChicago, Michigan, WashU, UTSW
Tier 3: UCLA, UAB, Vanderbilt, Baylor, Cornell, Mayo, UVA
Tier 4: UNC, Northwestern, UCSD, Emory, Mt. Sinai (Sinai will probably move to Tier 3 within a couple years)


Just a couple of observations:

1. As much as WashU and Mich may be competitive to get in to and they may be providing residents with rigorous training, their fellowship placements in cards( I am a recent 'cards convert') are not as spectacular as other tier 2 programs. I loved U Chicago when I visited them last year, I was interested in endo then , didnt pay attention to their cards placements. UTSW's cards placements were pretty much limited to UTSW, except for an occasional Duke here or there( which is not bad!!)

2.I am quite amused to note Mayo so low down on the list ( I guess you are considering competitiveness pretty high on your list here). I loved Mayo when I visited it in 2005- just didnt have the balls to live in Rochester :D
It is surely a program that provide superb clinical and academic training ( this includes didactics, complex problem solving and medical management in a very learning-conducive environment and has a great track record in getting resident research published in good quality journals). I wd have to say that it is as teaching-oriented as BWH :thumbup: , though only 20 percent as competitive :thumbdown . Cant say the same about Baylor and Cornell. I ranked programs by the factors I just mentioned when I interviewed ( also include autonomy which a friend who did his residency from MAyo tells me is pretty good there, but the program definitely is cushy). I guess Mayo's global reputation props them up on the US news rankingsfor hospitals.

As a PGY1 If I were to grade residency programs I wd consider the following factors:
didactics and emphasis on clinical training, opportunites for resident career development and track record of resident research(I feel internal medicine as a speciality in itself is academic and not for cocky jocks) fellowship placements, autonomy for managing complex medical problems, reputation and prestige ( these are so artificial), competitiveness ( again "effect modified" by reputation and also artificial). I have probably not used the last two factors in my rankings. Number of procedures is not that great a measure as it can be easily adjusted for ( an agressive resident in a laidback program will accomplish a lot for example)

Tier 1 wd be unchanged

Tier 2: Duke, Penn, Stanford , Columbia, MAyo, may be UW ( pretty old schoolish in its outlook on residents),UChicago, may be UTSW, may be UMich, may be WashU

Tier 3: the may-bes from tier 2 wd definitely come here. Yale , UCLA , BIDMC, NW, Vanderbilt , maybe UAB

tier 4: Cornell, UNC, emory , UCSD, Colorado, Mt. Sinai, UVA,may be Baylor, maybe Pitt ( though resident quality is a concern with Pitt), Iowa, Wisconsin, Case ( come on- they are not that bad!), OHSU.

Tier 4 would be most heterogenous or the one with most noise!

I wd again emphasize that I have not included competitiveness here ( if I did that Iowa would lose out to Rush in Chicago any day!). I am also quite turned off by programs that believe that residency is less of a learning experience and more of an initiation.

If I considered how residents from some of these programs performed on their morning reports on my interview day tiers 2-4 would change markedly. For instance residents from Sinai were a big disappointment. But thats just a snapshot of their performance. So I wdnt use that much.

These rankings are pretty ridiculous. People from the big "4" can gloat over themselves and be happy , while tiers 2-4 should just fight it out among themselves. FYI I am from tier 2 . After considering my confusion about rads, which I have been vocal about in my program and here on SDN, I cannot name it here;)

But now that I have been through a trophy med school and am at top 10 program I wd only say that I have no reason to not believe that a well-read and experienced resident from UNebraska could not kick my ass on rounds, if I didn't make the best use of resources avaialble to me.

UAB student here:

Sometimes fellowship lists are more dependent on insularity of the residency program than other factors. Looking at the resident lists, its almost 100% SE - I think the few IMGs outnumber non-SE residents! It's no surprise then that residents tend to stay at SE schools which aren't "prestigious" by other standards. Also, the IM program is not well known for pumping out academics

Most importantly, USNews rankings are based on reputation of faculty, not the residency program. Clearly the IM department here has a tremendous amount of money and strengths in faculty which meet or exceed some of the departments listed. It's not unfair to say if you took the same people and facilities in a more "desirable" location that the rankings would be much higher.

Feel free to debate my biases here - I'm more than willling to defend them.

EDIT: FYI: IM NIH funding: departmental rankings 2005:
1 UCSF
2 Hopkins
3 Duke
4 Penn
5 U of Wash
6 WashU
7 Vanderbilt
8 UCSD
9 Michigan
10 UCLA
11 CWRU
12 Yale
13 Columbia
14 UAB
15 UNC
16 Chicago
17 Colorado
18 Pitt
19 Mt Sinai
20 Stanford
21 Northwestern
22 Maryland
23 USC
24 Baylor
25 Iowa

Harvard excluded for obvious reasons.
Money alone correlates closely with USNews ranking.


JUst curious: where is Mayo here?? I do know that a lot of their research is funded through their own money, but how do they fare in federal grants?

They're not on the list.

Why is Harvard excluded for obvious reasons? :confused:

JUst curious: where is Mayo here?? I do know that a lot of their research is funded through their own money, but how do they fare in federal grants?

Mayo doesn't have a university backing, so it'll never be on the top list for NIH dollars.

Mt. Sinai doesn't have a university backing, but impressively they still make the top 20 in NIH dollars.

Mayo doesn't have a university backing, so it'll never be on the top list for NIH dollars.

I thought that this would be a useful link ( check out the trends by institution and independenet hospitals and adding up the dollars for all the Hahvads is quite an aweinspiring experience!).

This also brings up an interesting fact- that Mayo ain't that big on federal grants, which makes sense as they were mostly a well renowned private "clinic" till sometime back.

And Sinai sure is impressive! :thumbup: I hope their faculty members spend some time teaching their residents ( just kidding he he)

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/award/awardtr.htm

:idea:

It is so interesting to draw parrallels b/w being an academic researcher in a big university and an enterpreneur in an industry. Research track faculty members end up putting in so much brainwork and legwork trying to get grants and then use the money they receive for maintaing and promoting their own research and the university's machinery. Clinical-track faculty members do the same by bringing money by providing patient care. This becomes especially relevant in light of massive cuts in federal funding for public universities.

delete

Mayo doesn't have a university backing, so it'll never be on the top list for NIH dollars.


The US News & World rankings are not based on funding for an institution. From their website:

"Specialty Rankings: The rankings are based solely on ratings by medical school deans and senior faculty from the list of schools surveyed. They each identified up to 10 schools offering the best programs in each specialty area. Those receiving the most nominations appear here."

The US News & World rankings are not based on funding for an institution. From their website:

"Specialty Rankings: The rankings are based solely on ratings by medical school deans and senior faculty from the list of schools surveyed. They each identified up to 10 schools offering the best programs in each specialty area. Those receiving the most nominations appear here."


This method is wrong on so many levels that I would just refrain from commenting on the validity of it all. :eek:

I guess once we go below top 8 or 10 the random variations in individual response to rankings become more significant. It would be interesting to see how these rankings would be broken down by the respondents' medical school location and whether they themselves were ranked in the top 20 ( Winners choose winners and that way there is no way a lower program could ever enter top 20). Betting on winners is something we so often see being done in life and research. I have every reason to believe that at annual med school meetings NIH rankings get passed around. The deans and senior faculty members must be using NIH dollars and their own subjective impression of the school ( which can be so biased)for choosing their top 10 institutions. If you read the first para of the sentence , I too am making an assumption that the top 8 are valid- I guess I too am biased by where I belong.


One may argue that these biases can be in either direction for a school and would tend to cancel out . But to be sure of that we would need to stratify these results by the various confounders and effect modifiers that we can think of . Only then can we be sure.

In no way can this be considered reflective of the strength of clinical training ( that is something we are worried about all the time). From a fellowship prespective, more NIH money also means more research going on in general, which translates in to more research mentors ( and more well known mentors who cd push in your fellowship application). I think MAyo suffers from the opinion that existed about it 15 years ago. Also schools like UTSW that have been not that high on NIH funding rankiings for some years now have a pre-existing bias working in their favor (that Parkland trains some of the best clinicians in the country etcetc) . Moreover having Noble Laureates on their faculty helps.


I guess I shd shift to the ABIM-research pathway and do a thesis on rankings and measurement.:D

Whats a good or average step 1 score to match into these top tier programs?

Whats a good or average step 1 score to match into these top tier programs?
This has been discussed so many different times I'm shocked you can't find this info. Have you tried the sticky? A search? Just browsing around?

To answer your questions, since I'm feeling nice tonight...
This is debatable, since every program does things their own way. But I think most people would agree that somewhere in the 230's is the point at which your Step 1 score won't close any doors. 240's will probably let you interview at almost everywhere you want unless there's something horrible in your application, like multiple felony convictions. Below 230 and you might, based on board score alone, not get interviews at the most selective places (like, maybe 5-10 places) unless you come from a very elite medical school or have some amazing attribute like being able to turn water into wine.

This has been discussed so many different times I'm shocked you can't find this info. Have you tried the sticky? A search? Just browsing around?

To answer your questions, since I'm feeling nice tonight...
This is debatable, since every program does things their own way. But I think most people would agree that somewhere in the 230's is the point at which your Step 1 score won't close any doors. 240's will probably let you interview at almost everywhere you want unless there's something horrible in your application, like multiple felony convictions. Below 230 and you might, based on board score alone, not get interviews at the most selective places (like, maybe 5-10 places) unless you come from a very elite medical school or have some amazing attribute like being able to turn water into wine.

I thought IM is not that competitive. A 240 should assure you a spot in a top tier program if IM is what some dumbasses call it.

A 240 will absolutely not insure that you get a spot at a top program. I know of a bunch of kids at my school that were good applicants with 240+ and went through the match and didn't match at a top program many didn't even score interviews at harvard/ucsf. Just wait until you go through it before you make those kind of statements. While it's true that IM (dumba** here) as a whole is easy to get into, spots at top programs are really hard to score. Take Brigham where 1/3+ of their residents are MD/PhD and 40% are from Harvard, that doesn't leave much left for everyone else and a 240+ score simply gets your foot in the door (maybe).

Actually Internal Medicine at the top tier programs is extremely competitive. There are many AOA candidates who apply. There are hundreds of applicants with Step scores above 235. A lot of them don't get interviews at the top tier places. The people matching at UCSF and Brigham could've gotten into dermatology or radiation oncology with their numbers and achievements.

IM programs, unlike many other specialties like Rads, tend to favor preclinical and clinical grades over Step scores. They also pay more attention to Step 2 scores, if available, than Step 1 scores. Honors in 3rd year medicine is much more important than Step scores in the initial screening process. In the ranking process, everything--Letters of rec, evals, grades, Personal Statement, phone calls, school name--comes into play. A 240 step alone won't carry you very far.

I thought IM is not that competitive. A 240 should assure you a spot in a top tier program if IM is what some dumbasses call it.

I thought IM is not that competitive. A 240 should assure you a spot in a top tier program if IM is what some dumbasses call it.
I'd respond but I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.

I'd respond but I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.

i think he was referring to how 'top tier' is an arbitrary phrase. i'm not sure though, hard to understand. it seems like he has altered mental status. though i'm not sure what his baseline is.

i think he was referring to how 'top tier' is an arbitrary phrase. i'm not sure though, hard to understand. it seems like he has altered mental status. though i'm not sure what his baseline is.

Your Avatar says it all. It totally agrees with a retarded southern red-neck. And your baseline, if your lucky, should be well below down-syndrome.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Your Avatar says it all. It totally agrees with a retarded southern red-neck. And your baseline, if your lucky, should be well below down-syndrome.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
his avatar is a popular actor from indian cinema - not a southern red neck. i think u need to brush up a little lest u think that that "IM dumbasses" are outwitting u :)

anyways my 2c is that most of the university programs offer solid clinical training. ur no worse off at very good programs like suny downstate, montefiore, bu, nemc, et al. yes the top tier programs are gr8 in their own right. but as an earlier poster said just bcoz ur from jhu doesnt mean ur a better doc than a unebraska person.

[QUOTE=idiotpathic;4990212]his avatar is a popular actor from indian cinema - not a southern red neck. i think u need to brush up a little lest u think that that "IM dumbasses" are outwitting u :)



I''ll guess he smells like curry then.:D

[QUOTE=idiotpathic;4990212]his avatar is a popular actor from indian cinema - not a southern red neck. i think u need to brush up a little lest u think that that "IM dumbasses" are outwitting u :)



I''ll guess he smells like curry then.:D
i choose to only say that people of asian indian origin form 1% of the total US population but make up 10% of all physicians in the usa. i hope u just didnt alienate urself from 10% of all the visitors to this forum with ur comment..

Tier 1 wd be unchanged

Tier 2: Duke, Penn, Stanford , Columbia, MAyo, may be UW ( pretty old schoolish in its outlook on residents),UChicago, may be UTSW, may be UMich, may be WashU

Tier 3: the may-bes from tier 2 wd definitely come here. Yale , UCLA , BIDMC, NW, Vanderbilt , maybe UAB

tier 4: Cornell, UNC, emory , UCSD, Colorado, Mt. Sinai, UVA,may be Baylor, maybe Pitt ( though resident quality is a concern with Pitt), Iowa, Wisconsin, Case ( come on- they are not that bad!), OHSU.

Tier 4 would be most heterogenous or the one with most noise!



Just curious, what in particular is concerning to you about the quality of residents at Pitt?

Ok here's an attempt at a more pyramidal distribution of rankings per VCMM414's suggestion:

Tier 1: JHU, MGH
Tier 1a: BWH, UCSF (splitting hairs here)
Tier 2: Penn, Duke, UW, Columbia, Yale, Stanford
Tier 3: UChicago, Wash U, Michigan, UTSW, UCLA, Vanderbilt, Cornell, Mayo
Tier 4: Northwestern, UCSD, Emory, UAB, UVA, UNC, Mt. Sinai, Baylor, URochester, Pitt

It's curious that your tier 2 contains more programs than any other tiers. Though there are no hard and fast rules about this, I wonder if a more pyramidal distribution might be appropriate.

[QUOTE=Teejay;4990265]
i choose to only say that people of asian indian origin form 1% of the total US population but make up 10% of all physicians in the usa. i hope u just didnt alienate urself from 10% of all the visitors to this forum with ur comment..

No cause for alarm. I was just being funny and guffy :p . Nothing personal. I have some asian roots too. I have roots in every race. Its bizarre but i'm a quatra racial hybrid. kinda feels good.

Just a couple of observations:

1. As much as WashU and Mich may be competitive to get in to and they may be providing residents with rigorous training, their fellowship placements in cards( I am a recent 'cards convert') are not as spectacular as other tier 2 programs. I loved U Chicago when I visited them last year, I was interested in endo then , didnt pay attention to their cards placements. UTSW's cards placements were pretty much limited to UTSW, except for an occasional Duke here or there( which is not bad!!)

...

Tier 1 wd be unchanged

Tier 2: Duke, Penn, Stanford , Columbia, MAyo, may be UW ( pretty old schoolish in its outlook on residents),UChicago, may be UTSW, may be UMich, may be WashU

Tier 3: the may-bes from tier 2 wd definitely come here. Yale , UCLA , BIDMC, NW, Vanderbilt , maybe UAB

tier 4: Cornell, UNC, emory , UCSD, Colorado, Mt. Sinai, UVA,may be Baylor, maybe Pitt ( though resident quality is a concern with Pitt), Iowa, Wisconsin, Case ( come on- they are not that bad!), OHSU.

Tier 4 would be most heterogenous or the one with most noise!


Interesting to read your comments on UChicago. I remember seeing their fellowship matchlist and thinking it's similar to WashU's (can't comment on Michigan). It's been a while, though, and I can't be 100% sure. Anyone familiar with the UChicago program care to post it?

IMO Duke, Penn, Stanford, and Columbia stand firmly in tier 2. I would put UW, UTSW, Mayo, UChicago, WashU, and Michigan all in the "maybe" category, oscillating between tiers 2 and 3 depending on who you ask and which part of the country you are in.

Beyond this point things get hazy. Yale, UCLA, and BIDMC are all securely tier 3. A number of others (UAB, NW, Vandy, Cornell, Emory...) are "maybes" at this level.

Interesting to read your comments on UChicago. I remember seeing their fellowship matchlist and thinking it's similar to WashU's (can't comment on Michigan). It's been a while, though, and I can't be 100% sure. Anyone familiar with the UChicago program care to post it?

IMO Duke, Penn, Stanford, and Columbia stand firmly in tier 2. I would put UW, UTSW, Mayo, UChicago, WashU, and Michigan all in the "maybe" category, oscillating between tiers 2 and 3 depending on who you ask and which part of the country you are in.

Beyond this point things get hazy. Yale, UCLA, and BIDMC are all securely tier 3. A number of others (UAB, NW, Vandy, Cornell, Emory...) are "maybes" at this level.

I guess I will give my opinion as well. I think a lot depends on what regional opinion and preference. I base mine on reputation of the IM department, quality of training, fellowship matches, these are all of course closely linked and interdependent.

1st group: MGH, BWH, JHU, UCSF are the top.

2nd group: Penn, Duke, Columbia, Wash U/Michigan, and UW (probably in that order)

3rd: University of Chicago (just not as strong as the other two midwest programs), Stanford (clinical training maybe not as good as 1st two groups, Santa Clara is not their hospital, lots of the university patients are privates, but great fellowship match anyway, better even than many in 2nd group), Mayo, UTSW

4th: Vandy, Emory, Cornell, BID, Northwestern, UAB, Yale, UCLA (probably forgot several here)

3rd: University of Chicago (just not as strong as the other two midwest programs), Stanford (clinical training maybe not as good as 1st two groups, Santa Clara is not their hospital, lots of the university patients are privates, but great fellowship match anyway, better even than many in 2nd group), Mayo, UTSW

Really good points about Stanford. Excellent fellowship matches that more or less rival Penn and Duke -- that is, they are superior to WashU/UChicago, and maybe even a tad better than Columbia. I think clinical training at Stanford is absolutely above par (3 different hospitals/patient populations... yes Santa Clara Valley is not owned by Stanford but it is still a vital part of the training), though probably not as strong as some similarly prestigious programs (think Hopkins, Duke, MGH, UTSW, UCSF). Several Stanford residents (all east coast graduates) commented that the overall quality of their didactic conferences is currently not quite at the level of east coast powerhouses, but the new chair of medicine is the "real deal" who is devoted to improving housestaff education. At the same time, the PD is very passionate about "teaching residents how to teach," and has appropriately oriented the program to attract and foster future medical educators. Definitely a very good program.

2nd group: Penn, Duke, Columbia, Wash U/Michigan, and UW (probably in that order)

I'm not sure that there's a definite pecking order to these programs, and certainly not the first couple. Penn and Duke are neck-to-neck in terms of clinical training, research opportunities, fellowship matches, quality subspecialty departments, and overall reputation. Applicants from the northeast likely favor Penn; same goes for southern applicants and Duke. I'll say that west coasters view both programs in similar light: great residencies in less than ideal locations. Finally, while I'm not from the midwest, a few of my friends at strong midwest schools have pretty much heard the same.

I see that Cleveland clinic is not on this top tiers list. I was wondering if any of you had any personal experiences or could tell me how the cleveland clinic IM program fairs with these mentioned in this forum.
Thanks!

I see that Cleveland clinic is not on this top tiers list. I was wondering if any of you had any personal experiences or could tell me how the cleveland clinic IM program fairs with these mentioned in this forum.
Thanks!

There is nothing special with CCF residency. When I was an OSU med student back in teh days when CCF and OSU were affiliated, OSU students could do their entire 3rd and 4th years at Cleveland. Several students stayed on as residents at CCF in other fields (ortho, neuro), but NOBODY in medicine did.

bump

Just curious, what in particular is concerning to you about the quality of residents at Pitt?


I have nothing against them. Few of my friends had interviewed there last year, and they were not impressed with residents in general( academic prowess mainly). I have no first-hand experience of Pitt and was generally going by what people had told me during my application process then.

But the DOM there seems to be coming up.

My apologies, if I offended you.

I have nothing against them. Few of my friends had interviewed there last year, and they were not impressed with residents in general( academic prowess mainly). I have no first-hand experience of Pitt and was generally going by what people had told me during my application process then.

But the DOM there seems to be coming up.

My apologies, if I offended you.

Doesn't matter if you are offending him or not, you speak the truth. Wouldn't put Pitt anywhere close to the top for internal medicine residency training.

I see that Cleveland clinic is not on this top tiers list. I was wondering if any of you had any personal experiences or could tell me how the cleveland clinic IM program fairs with these mentioned in this forum.
Thanks!

I only have hearsay, but I have heard nothing particularly supportive. Essentially Fellows get great training because they can't rely on the house officers.

Lets face it, all these programs are great. I'd be happy to get into any of them. They all give you a great opportunity for fellowship and offer great training. My question is, given how competitive these places are can average Joes (average step 1, no AOA, some but not WOW research) get accepted at any of the top 20 places if he/she does away rotation there and applies to all of them?

I have nothing against them. Few of my friends had interviewed there last year, and they were not impressed with residents in general( academic prowess mainly). I have no first-hand experience of Pitt and was generally going by what people had told me during my application process then.

But the DOM there seems to be coming up.

My apologies, if I offended you.


I might have been extremely lucky but i've worked with some pretty brilliant residents here, for the most part (from my experience anyway. I haven't worked with everyone). The unique thing is that there is a lot of collegiality among interns and residents, maybe this is interpreted as "weak" by some. I see it as a strength.

Doesn't matter if you are offending him or not, you speak the truth. Wouldn't put Pitt anywhere close to the top for internal medicine residency training.

Pitt might not be at the "top" but it's a pretty solid rigorous academic program with amazing variety of cases, strong teaching, yet with a friendly and supportive atmosphere.

I only have hearsay, but I have heard nothing particularly supportive. Essentially Fellows get great training because they can't rely on the house officers.

I was just wondering if any of y'all with friends who are fellows at CCF could elaborate on that comment one way or the other.

I might have been extremely lucky but i've worked with some pretty brilliant residents here, for the most part (from my experience anyway. I haven't worked with everyone). The unique thing is that there is a lot of collegiality among interns and residents, maybe this is interpreted as "weak" by some. I see it as a strength.
I have no beef with Pitt, but do people honestly think that the friendly/supportive/collegial/brilliant residents at your home program/a program you did your away at/a program you visited once/a program you've heard of are truely unique? Nothing personal, Chicamedia, and maybe you've actually done a rigorous study of resident collegiality and Pitt is clearly way above all other programs, but in my mind "unique" is either a polite way of saying "screwed up so badly that this can't possibly happen anywhere else" or "I actually have no clue what I'm talking about".

I was just wondering if any of y'all with friends who are fellows at CCF could elaborate on that comment one way or the other.

A friend who is a cardiology fellow there often relates to me their frustrations with some of the residents. However, I don't think that necessarily affects the quality of the fellows' training. They get great training, full stop; and (not because) the residents are nothing special.

Cheers,
-AT.

I have no beef with Pitt, but do people honestly think that the friendly/supportive/collegial/brilliant residents at your home program/a program you did your away at/a program you visited once/a program you've heard of are truely unique? Nothing personal, Chicamedia, and maybe you've actually done a rigorous study of resident collegiality and Pitt is clearly way above all other programs, but in my mind "unique" is either a polite way of saying "screwed up so badly that this can't possibly happen anywhere else" or "I actually have no clue what I'm talking about".

True, point taken. I shouldn't really say "unique" because i haven't worked in too many other places--however you are just arguing an issue of semantics. . .ok so I used not quite the appropriate word there. I do hear about situations friends at some other programs have had to go through though, that i'm thankful neither i (nor my co-interns or residents) have had to deal with here. Sorry to have touched a raw nerve there, GooglieGoo, i didn't mean to put Pitt on a pedestal or anything, just relating my experience.