Compilation of top residency programs

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

I dug through specialty forums for a long time and compiled a list of the very top residency programs. These are not based on any objective criteria, but rather what people report to have a strong national reputation for quality clinical training, mentors who are leaders in the field, research, placements into fellowships, not being malignant, attracting competitive applicants, etc.

NB: These lists are (mostly but not all) academics focused rather than clinical-only or community programs. Many of lists are very roughly rank ordered, as in there were many disagreements. These are not consensus lists, but what many people tended to agree on as the top of the tiers. Programs listed on the same line are considered equal. Some of them may have changed with time (faculty leave, program restructures). I'm not claiming these should be used to make personal rank lists or evaluate school match lists, but they could offer a useful starting place.

Any strong revisions?

Anesthesiology
Hopkins, MGH, UCSF
BWH, Stanford, Columbia, Duke
And many others (Penn, Wash U, Michigan, U Washington, UAB, Mayo, Cornell, Wake Forest, UCLA, UVA)

Dermatology
Penn, UCSF, NYU; Harvard, Stanford
Yale, Columbia, Michigan

Emergency Medicine
Indiana, Cincinnati, Denver, Hennepin, Carolinas, Pitt, Highland
Chrisitiana, Vanderbilt, UCLA-Harbor, UCSD, Cook County

ENT
Hopkins
MEEI, Pitt, U Washington, Iowa, Michigan
Vanderbilt, Wash U, Mayo, UNC, Baylor

General Surgery
MGH, Hopkins
Penn, Duke, BWH, Wash U, UCSF, Michigan, U Washington
Pitt, Columbia, UCLA, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Cornell

Internal medicine
Hopkins, MGH, BWH, UCSF
U Penn, Columbia, Duke, U Michigan, Wash U, Stanford, U Washington
And many others (UCLA, U Chicago, UTSW, BIDMC, Cornell, Mayo, Mt Sinai, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Yale, Pitt)

Neurology
Partners (MGH/BWH), UCSF; Hopkins, Columbia, Penn
WashU, Mayo, UCLA, BIDMC, Stanford

Neurosurgery
MGH, Columbia, Hopkins, UCSF, Mayo, Barrow Neurological Institute (though not academic)
BWH, Cleveland Clinic, U Washington, Wash U, Penn, UVA, Stanford, Baylor, Pitt, USC

Ob/Gyn
BWH, UCSF
Pitt/Magee, Northwestern, UTSW/Parkland

Ophthalmology
Bascom/Miami, Wilmer/Hopkins, MEEI/Harvard
Wills/Jefferson, Jules Stein/UCLA, Iowa
Duke, Doheny/USC

Orthopedic Surgery
HSS, Mayo, Harvard
Jefferson, Wash U, Iowa
NYU-HJD, Pitt, Rush, Cleveland Clinic, U Washington, Duke, Penn, UCSF

Pathology
BWH, Hopkins, UCSF, Stanford
MGH, Penn, UVA, Duke, Wash U, U Chicago, U Washington

Radiology
MGH, MIR/WashU, UCSF, Penn
Hopkins, Duke, Michigan, BWH

Pediatrics
CHOP, Hopkins, Boston Children's
Columbia, Cornell, Yale, Pitt, DC Children's National

Plastic Surgery - Integrated
Penn, Pitt, NYU, Harvard, U Washington, UTSW, Hopkins/UMD, U Michigan
Wash U, Baylor, Northwestern, UCSF

PM&R
RIC/Northwestern, TIRR/Baylor, Mayo, U Washington, Kessler/UMDNJ, Spaulding/Harvard

Psychiatry
MGH/Mclean, Columbia
Cornell, UCSF, UCLA, Yale
Wash U, Hopkins, Pitt, Stanford, NYU, Penn, Harvard Longwood, Cambridge Health Alliance

Radiation Oncology
MD Anderson, Memorial Sloan-Kettering, Harvard
Stanford, UCSF, U Chicago, U Michigan, Penn, Wash U, Yale, Duke, Wisconsin, Hopkins

Urology
Hopkins, Mayo, Cleveland Clinic, UCSF, Vanderbilt, U Michigan
Penn, Columbia, BWH, Baylor, Duke
UCLA, Northwestern, Cornell, UTSW, Emory, Pitt, Wash U

looks about right for the general gestalt and consensus with regards to IM

we've done ranking to death over in the IM forum, to the point that when anyone brings it up we start laughing about it, but what you've got there are the names that come up on everyone's list and the top 4 are kind of the top 4 on everyone's list

I think this thread will get a lot of haters in a short amount of time, but I'll play along.

Originally Posted by chronicidal

Orthopedic Surgery
HSS, Mayo, Harvard
Jefferson, Wash U, Iowa
NYU-HJD, Pitt, Rush, Cleveland Clinic, U Washington, Duke, Penn, UCSF

Top Academic: HSS, Harvard, Mayo, UW, NYU-HJD, Iowa, WashU, Pitt, Rush, Jefferson
Top Clinical Training: Brown, Emory, Carolinas, Utah, Campbell Clinic (UTHSC), Rochester, Vanderbilt, UCSF, Wisconsin, UPenn
[Notice the omission of cleveland clinic and duke. ]

These lists are consistent with what I've heard from 4th yrs. All of these programs are very competitive to match into.

further discussion/pissing contest here: http://www.orthogate.org/forums/view...php?f=1&t=4232

Originally Posted by jdh71

looks about right for the general gestalt and consensus with regards to IM

we've done ranking to death over in the IM forum, to the point that when anyone brings it up we start laughing about it, but what you've got there are the names that come up on everyone's list and the top 4 are kind of the top 4 on everyone's list

I thought I had heard UAB had a top IM program. Your thoughts?

Originally Posted by dr zaius

I thought I had heard UAB had a top IM program. Your thoughts?

They do. Great program. Awesome tradition. Excellent clinical training. Hard to go there and not be impressed (I was). UAB's "big problem" is being in Birmingham. It's hard to recruit there. Folks from the south shrug - whatever. But you can't get the costal boys to give them serious consideration.

The list above BTW is a very short list, lots of other awesome IM programs that didn't get posted.

Originally Posted by chronicidal

Emergency Medicine
Indiana, Cincinnati, Denver, Hennepin, Carolinas, Pitt, Highland
Chrisitiana, Vanderbilt, UCLA-Harbor, UCSD, Cook County

Should add Emory.

Originally Posted by chronicidal

Pediatrics
CHOP, Hopkins, Boston Children's
Columbia, Cornell, Yale, Pitt, DC Children's National

Add UC Denver.

I don't have much insight into most specialties, but looking at your lists, you have a HEAVY East Coast Bias to your lists. That's the major problem with the list overall across all specialties.

I can only speak with knowledge about Peds, but your list is, in my opinion, completely off base. Particularly, leaving off Texas Children's (Baylor), Denver and Cincinnati while including Cornell and Columbia are egregious errors. Yale is not on the same level as the others and should not be listed. And the "many others" list you failed to include for peds should include places like UTSW, Children's Mercy in Kansas City, Arkansas, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Utah, Seattle (UDub), Emory, Indiana, and Ohio State among others.

I'd argue that in many fields, many off the radar locations are ridiculously strong in particular sub-specialties, which can have a sizable impact on fellowship chances. One of my favorite facts is that Arkansas Children's Hospital did more pediatric heart transplants than any other hospital in the country in 2011. If you're interested in peds cardiology or peds critical care that might be a huge draw and that sort of reputation will help with fellowship matching.

Originally Posted by jdh71

They do. Great program. Awesome tradition. Excellent clinical training. Hard to go there and not be impressed (I was). UAB's "big problem" is being in Birmingham. It's hard to recruit there. Folks from the south shrug - whatever. But you can't get the costal boys to give them serious consideration.

The list above BTW is a very short list, lots of other awesome IM programs that didn't get posted.

Ahh, thanks. I guess to us country bumpkins Birmingham might as well be NYC. Sure felt that way when I moved there. I plan on trying to move back after my mil obligation.

Originally Posted by BigRedBeta

I don't a lot about most those specialties, but looking at your lists, you have a HEAVY East Coast Bias to your lists. That's the major problem with the list overall across all specialties.

I can only speak with knowledge about Peds, but your list is, in my opinion, completely off base. Particularly, leaving off Texas Children's (Baylor), Denver and Cincinnati and including Cornell and Columbia are egregious errors. Yale is not on the same level as the others. And the "many others" list you failed to include for peds should include places like UTSW, Children's Mercy in Kansas City, Arkansas, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Utah, Seattle (UDub), Emory, Indiana, and Ohio State among others.

I'd argue that in many fields, many off the radar locations are ridiculously strong in particular sub-specialties, which can have a sizable impact on fellowship chances. One of my favorite facts is that Arkansas Children's Hospital did more pediatric heart transplants than any other hospital in the country in 2011. If you're interested in peds cardiology or peds critical care that might be a huge draw and that sort of reputation will help with fellowship matching.

Ya also thought it strange you left off Cinci for peds.

You left off the following for Emergency medicine:

King's County, UNM, Maricopa, UofA, UofM and the grand daddy of the county programs: USC-LAC

Originally Posted by KinasePro

I think this thread will get a lot of haters in a short amount of time, but I'll play along.



Top Academic: HSS, Harvard, Mayo, UW, NYU-HJD, Iowa, WashU, Pitt, Rush, Jefferson
Top Clinical Training: Brown, Emory, Carolinas, Utah, Campbell Clinic (UTHSC), Rochester, Vanderbilt, UCSF, Wisconsin, UPenn
[Notice the omission of cleveland clinic and duke. ]

These lists are consistent with what I've heard from 4th yrs. All of these programs are very competitive to match into.

further discussion/pissing contest here: http://www.orthogate.org/forums/view...php?f=1&t=4232

I'd put Jeff and WashU in top clinical and Brown, Rochester and UPenn in academic

Originally Posted by chronicidal

Anesthesiology
Hopkins, MGH, UCSF
BWH, Stanford, Columbia, Duke
And many others (Penn, Wash U, Michigan, U Washington, UAB, Mayo, Cornell, Wake Forest, UCLA, UVA)

I'd add Wisconsin here, first anesthesia residency program and very competitive.

Dermatology
Penn, UCSF, NYU; Harvard, Stanford
Yale, Columbia, Michigan

Would add UCLA to this.

Emergency Medicine
Indiana, Cincinnati, Denver, Hennepin, Carolinas, Pitt, Highland
Chrisitiana, Vanderbilt, UCLA-Harbor, UCSD, Cook County

Would add Harvard/BWH and maybe NYU to the academic programs.

ENT
Hopkins
MEEI, Pitt, U Washington, Iowa, Michigan
Vanderbilt, Wash U, Mayo, UNC, Baylor

General Surgery
MGH, Hopkins
Penn, Duke, BWH, Wash U, UCSF, Michigan, U Washington
Pitt, Columbia, UCLA, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Cornell

I would add Yale and UVA to at least the 2nd tier.

Internal medicine
Hopkins, MGH, BWH, UCSF
U Penn, Columbia, Duke, U Michigan, Wash U, Stanford, U Washington
And many others (UCLA, U Chicago, UTSW, BIDMC, Cornell, Mayo, Mt Sinai, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Yale, Pitt)

Neurology
Partners (MGH/BWH), UCSF; Hopkins, Columbia, Penn
WashU, Mayo, UCLA, BIDMC, Stanford

Neurosurgery
MGH, Columbia, Hopkins, UCSF, Mayo, Barrow Neurological Institute (though not academic)
BWH, Cleveland Clinic, U Washington, Wash U, Penn, UVA, Stanford, Baylor, Pitt, USC

I would add Emory and UCLA and probably drop Stanford from the list.

Ob/Gyn
BWH, UCSF
Pitt/Magee, Northwestern, UTSW/Parkland

Would add Wash U.

Ophthalmology
Bascom/Miami, Wilmer/Hopkins, MEEI/Harvard
Wills/Jefferson, Jules Stein/UCLA, Iowa
Duke, Doheny/USC

UCSF should be here.

Orthopedic Surgery
HSS, Mayo, Harvard
Jefferson, Wash U, Iowa
NYU-HJD, Pitt, Rush, Cleveland Clinic, U Washington, Duke, Penn, UCSF

Would add UCLA and maybe USC.

Pathology
BWH, Hopkins, UCSF, Stanford
MGH, Penn, UVA, Duke, Wash U, U Chicago, U Washington

Mayo should be on this list.

Radiology
MGH, MIR/WashU, UCSF, Penn
Hopkins, Duke, Michigan, BWH

Should add UCLA, Washington, NYU, and Stanford to the second group.

Pediatrics
CHOP, Hopkins, Boston Children's
Columbia, Cornell, Yale, Pitt, DC Children's National

Cincinnati, Rainbow Babies, UTSW, CHLA, Chicago Childrens', and Seattle Childrens aren't on this list, I'm not sure I'd have any of the schools in the second tier listed at at all instead of these.

Plastic Surgery - Integrated
Penn, Pitt, NYU, Harvard, U Washington, UTSW, Hopkins/UMD, U Michigan
Wash U, Baylor, Northwestern, UCSF

UCLA and Stanford?

PM&R
RIC/Northwestern, TIRR/Baylor, Mayo, U Washington, Kessler/UMDNJ, Spaulding/Harvard

Psychiatry
MGH/Mclean, Columbia
Cornell, UCSF, UCLA, Yale
Wash U, Hopkins, Pitt, Stanford, NYU, Penn, Harvard Longwood, Cambridge Health Alliance

Radiation Oncology
MD Anderson, Memorial Sloan-Kettering, Harvard
Stanford, UCSF, U Chicago, U Michigan, Penn, Wash U, Yale, Duke, Wisconsin, Hopkins

No MGH on the urology rankings? I would probably have BWH and MGH in the first tier and Vandy and Michigan in the second tier. I know people are concerned about the chairman change at BWH but it's definitely the most operative urology program.

Good thread. I've always been interested in someone compiling something better than the US News rankings, which also omit a lot of specialties.

It's hard for me to derive much meaning from this list without better understanding your ranking system. A lot of it seems rather vague or highly susceptible to subjective bias. Some thoughts: 1) who is a competitive applicant and how do you know where they go 2) how do you determine if a program is malignant 3) how do you know which mentors are considered leaders 4) regarding research, is it dollars, # pubs, impact 5) how do you determine quality of training and 6) is national reputation fair to programs that aren't such "big name" places?

I suggest you spell out in detail how you derived these rankings. Also, you might want to find and include objective data, such as specialty boards pass rates, number who go onto academic careers, or even survey data of resident satisfaction. "What people report" is too vague for me to impute much meaning. Who are these people? Are they anonymous posters online or chairs of departments? How many are there? Were they asked specifically to offer an opinion or are you just speculating from prior statements?

Finally, these rankings, as is well established, say little as to what the best program for any given individual is. Nonetheless, I think what you're doing is a good idea and thank you for the dedication.

Originally Posted by chronicidal

I dug through specialty forums for a long time and compiled a list of the very top residency programs. These are not based on any objective criteria, but rather what people report to have a strong national reputation for quality clinical training, mentors who are leaders in the field, research, placements into fellowships, not being malignant, attracting competitive applicants, etc.



General Surgery
MGH, Hopkins
Penn, Duke, BWH, Wash U, UCSF, Michigan, U Washington
Pitt, Columbia, UCLA, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Cornell

Hopkins is a great place to train if you like standing aside as a PGY5 and holding hooks while the chief and 18 fellows battle for carotids and fem-pops; they were on probabtion in the recent past because their trainees were so technically inept but watever. You also seem obsessed with duke on most your lists for no real merit. CH is as good or better in most things and will actually see a patient even if they dont carry AAAA* premium insurance.

Originally Posted by GladifImakeit

It's hard for me to derive much meaning from this list without better understanding your ranking system. A lot of it seems rather vague or highly susceptible to subjective bias. Some thoughts: 1) who is a competitive applicant and how do you know where they go 2) how do you determine if a program is malignant 3) how do you know which mentors are considered leaders 4) regarding research, is it dollars, # pubs, impact 5) how do you determine quality of training and 6) is national reputation fair to programs that aren't such "big name" places?

I suggest you spell out in detail how you derived these rankings. Also, you might want to find and include objective data, such as specialty boards pass rates, number who go onto academic careers, or even survey data of resident satisfaction. "What people report" is too vague for me to impute much meaning. Who are these people? Are they anonymous posters online or chairs of departments? How many are there? Were they asked specifically to offer an opinion or are you just speculating from prior statements?

if you can't derive any meaning from these lists then just move on to another thread. OP clearly said that these are just a compilation of opinions found on SDN without any objective data whatsoever. most/all of the data you are talking about is most likely not available.

Originally Posted by GladifImakeit

"What people report" is too vague for me to impute much meaning. Who are these people? Are they anonymous posters online or chairs of departments? How many are there? Were they asked specifically to offer an opinion or are you just speculating from prior statements?

These are anonymous posters online in specialty forums on SDN, orthogate, uncleharvey, urologymatch, otolaryngologyresidencyapplicants.yuku. Also the Ophthalmology Times survey of program directors.

In some cases these people claim to be reporting a list they received from their chair or advisor who is in the field. Most cases they say it is their gestalt after talking to people on the interview trail, meeting residents, doing their own research, or talking to faculty.

I can't give you a number, but I included programs on this list only if several posters listed it as a top tier program.

Usually someone started a thread specifically asking what the rankings in a specialty are, or what are the elite programs, or what are the top tier programs, what are the highest quality programs, what have the best reputation, etc.

honestly, I wouldn't even put a list for EM up there. when the "top list" gets to be over 30 long (which it easily could), you start to realize that in EM there isn't really a top program, just programs that originated the field and programs with a large number of nationally-recognized speakers.

Originally Posted by Rendar5

honestly, I wouldn't even put a list for EM up there. when the "top list" gets to be over 30 long (which it easily could), you start to realize that in EM there isn't really a top program, just programs that originated the field and programs with a large number of nationally-recognized speakers.

I think EM is a tough specialty to evaluate because you start getting into relationship between trauma surgery and the emergency department, facilities, indigenous patient population, etc. Obviously the ED at the Brigham and that at LAC-USC or Grady will see drastically different patient populations, with far more Farber patients with complications of malignancy in the former group and far more trauma in the latter two. There's also a divide of programs between ones that are 3 years and ones that are 4 years...

Originally Posted by sirenomelia

Hopkins is a great place to train if you like standing aside as a PGY5 and holding hooks while the chief and 18 fellows battle for carotids and fem-pops; they were on probabtion in the recent past because their trainees were so technically inept but watever. You also seem obsessed with duke on most your lists for no real merit. CH is as good or better in most things and will actually see a patient even if they dont carry AAAA* premium insurance.

Would you like to make suggestions for the General Surgery list then?

Originally Posted by drizzt3117

I think EM is a tough specialty to evaluate because you start getting into relationship between trauma surgery and the emergency department, facilities, indigenous patient population, etc. Obviously the ED at the Brigham and that at LAC-USC or Grady will see drastically different patient populations, with far more Farber patients with complications of malignancy in the former group and far more trauma in the latter two. There's also a divide of programs between ones that are 3 years and ones that are 4 years...

Good point. Some hospitals don't let EM do anything, while others have EM covering all types of procedures.

I was under the impression that Penn/Scheie was a top Ophtho program.

Originally Posted by GuyWhoDoesStuff

I was under the impression that Penn/Scheie was a top Ophtho program.

Well, not top enough to be included in chronicdal's list.

[QUOTE=JackShephard MD;12428634]Would you like to make suggestions for the General Surgery list then? QUOTE]

General Surgery
Mayo, Cleve clinic, Iowa, emory, Cincinnati, Baylor, Rochester

The top ortho program is whichever one that takes me

No love for Stanford internal med, Drizzt? =)

Originally Posted by drizzt3117

I would add Emory and UCLA and probably drop Stanford from the list.

Are you referring to neurosurgery or to IM?

Originally Posted by drizzt3117

Would add UCLA and maybe USC.

Yea UCLA came up often but it has a traditional 2yr-post-GS program rather than an integrated program so it didn't feel right putting it with the rest.

Originally Posted by chronicidal

Are you referring to neurosurgery or to IM?

Neurosurg. Stanford has really low volume. It has good research and Steinberg and a few other people are top notch, but as a training program, I think places like USC are better. Ucla has the reputation of being a little malignant and Martin isn't the most charismatic chairman but they are very good, especially at endovascular.

Yea UCLA came up often but it has a traditional 2yr-post-GS program rather than an integrated program so it didn't feel right putting it with the rest.

Ucla has its own brand new orthopedic hospital right by the ocean. It has the nicest facilities of any program in the country.

Columbia doesn't make top ten for optho, ENT, AND ortho? Optho is especially surprising to me given the Columbia-Cornell powerhouse dual residency that it is. And NYU isn't in the top rads?
Agree that Stanford isn't all that good for neurosurg except for non-clinical academia. Maybe this was just me, but I was under the impression that Penn > MGH.

Originally Posted by drizzt3117

Ucla has its own brand new orthopedic hospital right by the ocean. It has the nicest facilities of any program in the country.

Oops I meant the part for plastic surgery.

Originally Posted by mmmcdowe

Optho is especially surprising to me given the Columbia-Cornell powerhouse dual residency that it is.

Cornell: http://weillcornelleye.org/education/residency.html
Harkness/Columbia: http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/dept/ey...ncy-about.html

Unrelated, but NYEE comes closest of the NYC programs to break the top 10 in overall quality in the Ophthalmology Times survey.

Originally Posted by drizzt3117

I think EM is a tough specialty to evaluate because you start getting into relationship between trauma surgery and the emergency department, facilities, indigenous patient population, etc. Obviously the ED at the Brigham and that at LAC-USC or Grady will see drastically different patient populations, with far more Farber patients with complications of malignancy in the former group and far more trauma in the latter two. There's also a divide of programs between ones that are 3 years and ones that are 4 years...

It'd probably be easier to compile a list of bad programs - if people were to talk about them; otherwise, the list of top programs will be LONG (E.g. I'd add Temple University to the top programs list).

Originally Posted by mmmcdowe

Columbia doesn't make top ten for optho, ENT, AND ortho?

I've heard operative experience is poor, orthogate residency reviews also mention this.

That said, if you plan to do a fellowship anyway and enjoy research, I'm sure the program is great.

Originally Posted by mmmcdowe

Columbia doesn't make top ten for optho, ENT, AND ortho?
Agree that Stanford isn't all that good for neurosurg except for non-clinical academia. Maybe this was just me, but I was under the impression that Penn > MGH.

As someone who matched in neurosurgery and interviewed at all three places, I would argue that Stanford not only is an academic powerhouse but that its clinical volume is on par with East Coast programs but doesn't compare to UCSF. However, there's no way Penn is better than MGH, either clinically or academically; Jefferson is much stronger than Penn clinically.

Originally Posted by drizzt3117

Would add UCLA to this.

UCLA doesn't belong on the list.

Yale should probably move up to the first tier.
Stanford should probably be in the second tier, and should definitely be joined by Mayo Rochester, Miami, and Emory. You could probably make a case for including UT Southwestern and Northwestern as well.

Originally Posted by mmmcdowe

Columbia doesn't make top ten for optho, ENT, AND ortho? Optho is especially surprising to me given the Columbia-Cornell powerhouse dual residency that it is. And NYU isn't in the top rads?
Agree that Stanford isn't all that good for neurosurg except for non-clinical academia. Maybe this was just me, but I was under the impression that Penn > MGH.

I mean, it's not one of the original UH big six, but this stuff is all tough because the programs are so different. HMS, Hopkins, and Columbia all have relatively low operative experience compared to Mayo, Barrow, NW, and USC, but academically are extremely strong. My friends tell me if there's a "best" program, it's probably UCSF, but then again, it just depends what you want. It has good clinical training and research, but HMS/JHU probably has better research and BNI/Mayo/NW are probably better clinically. When programs are small and so different, it's really about what an individual applicant is looking for.

Originally Posted by Mortal_Lessons

As someone who matched in neurosurgery and interviewed at all three places, I would argue that Stanford not only is an academic powerhouse but that its clinical volume is on par with East Coast programs but doesn't compare to UCSF. However, there's no way Penn is better than MGH, either clinically or academically; Jefferson is much stronger than Penn clinically.

I mean, I suppose one could say Stanford's gross volume is comparable to Columbia/MGH/Hopkins, but i'm not sure the complex volume is quite as high as MGH. Certainly it has lower volume than BNI, Mayo, CCF, USC, UCSF, etc.

Originally Posted by BigRedBeta

I don't have much insight into most specialties, but looking at your lists, you have a HEAVY East Coast Bias to your lists. That's the major problem with the list overall across all specialties.

I can only speak with knowledge about Peds, but your list is, in my opinion, completely off base. Particularly, leaving off Texas Children's (Baylor), Denver and Cincinnati while including Cornell and Columbia are egregious errors. Yale is not on the same level as the others and should not be listed. And the "many others" list you failed to include for peds should include places like UTSW, Children's Mercy in Kansas City, Arkansas, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Utah, Seattle (UDub), Emory, Indiana, and Ohio State among others.

I'd argue that in many fields, many off the radar locations are ridiculously strong in particular sub-specialties, which can have a sizable impact on fellowship chances. One of my favorite facts is that Arkansas Children's Hospital did more pediatric heart transplants than any other hospital in the country in 2011. If you're interested in peds cardiology or peds critical care that might be a huge draw and that sort of reputation will help with fellowship matching.

Agreed on the additions by BigRed. However, I think it's worth subdiving the categories into those that are clinically strong, academically strong, and both clinically and academically strong.

This is my attempt at sorting things, which I'm sure will get some push-back:

Clinically+Academically:
CHOP, Boston Childrens, UMichigan, Utah, UWashington (Seattle), UColorado (Denver), Hopkins

Clinically:
Arkansas, CHLA, Texas Children, UTSW, Rainbow Babies (Case Western, University Hospital)

Academically:
UCSF, Stanford

UCSD is a top EM program? Nope

Originally Posted by sirenomelia

General Surgery
Mayo, Cleve clinic, Iowa, emory, Cincinnati, Baylor, Rochester

You complain about residents holding hook and fighting fellows for cases and bring up the Cleveland Clinic as a top program?

Or about hospitals discriminating against patient's with bad insurance and bring up Mayo?

I love these kind of threads

What distinguishes a "top tier" from a "second tier" program, honestly? What's the endpoint you are using for comparison? Most active research? Most NIH money? Most faculty in leadership positions on the national level? Most patient volume? Best patient outcomes? Board pass rates? Most name recognition from the lay public? The problem is that "top" is completely subjective.

As other's have already said - if you are looking at compiling a list of programs where you will receive excellent training and have strong options available after residency for employment or fellowship, you list is going to be very, very long. In my field (ENT) nearly every program fits into that category (and yes, I'm training at one of the programs on 'the list' and could care less about that).

I'd argue the the best program is the one that it is best aligned with your own personal and professional goals. Do you want to be a clinician scientist with a 50-50 practice? There's programs better suited for that. Do you just want to receive good training at a place close to family and to where you ultimately want to practice to make good professional connections? There's programs better suited for that. This whole "programs/tiers/etc" discussion just seems like a lame exercise in arguing whose **** is bigger.

I sort of got into this with the discussion on neurosurgery; having an idea of the relative strengths and weaknesses of specific programs is important, but an actual "rank" is less so.

Some lists on various forums in ranking programs in terms of clinical training, academic productivity, research, exposure to top faculty, etc, can potentially be useful, though.

Originally Posted by ZagDoc

What distinguishes a "top tier" from a "second tier" program, honestly? What's the endpoint you are using for comparison? Most active research? Most NIH money? Most faculty in leadership positions on the national level? Most patient volume? Best patient outcomes? Board pass rates? Most name recognition from the lay public? The problem is that "top" is completely subjective.

As other's have already said - if you are looking at compiling a list of programs where you will receive excellent training and have strong options available after residency for employment or fellowship, you list is going to be very, very long. In my field (ENT) nearly every program fits into that category (and yes, I'm training at one of the programs on 'the list' and could care less about that).

I'd argue the the best program is the one that it is best aligned with your own personal and professional goals. Do you want to be a clinician scientist with a 50-50 practice? There's programs better suited for that. Do you just want to receive good training at a place close to family and to where you ultimately want to practice to make good professional connections? There's programs better suited for that. This whole "programs/tiers/etc" discussion just seems like a lame exercise in arguing whose **** is bigger.

Originally Posted by ZagDoc

What distinguishes a "top tier" from a "second tier" program, honestly? What's the endpoint you are using for comparison? Most active research? Most NIH money? Most faculty in leadership positions on the national level? Most patient volume? Best patient outcomes? Board pass rates? Most name recognition from the lay public? The problem is that "top" is completely subjective.

As other's have already said - if you are looking at compiling a list of programs where you will receive excellent training and have strong options available after residency for employment or fellowship, you list is going to be very, very long. In my field (ENT) nearly every program fits into that category (and yes, I'm training at one of the programs on 'the list' and could care less about that).

I'd argue the the best program is the one that it is best aligned with your own personal and professional goals. Do you want to be a clinician scientist with a 50-50 practice? There's programs better suited for that. Do you just want to receive good training at a place close to family and to where you ultimately want to practice to make good professional connections? There's programs better suited for that. This whole "programs/tiers/etc" discussion just seems like a lame exercise in arguing whose **** is bigger.

I largely agree, although, not every field is like ENT. Just like others have mentioned, some EM programs are excellent and others are awful. Therefore, having such a list may be helpful in some instances. Yet, I agree with your overall statement. It's very individual and this can turn into an unproductive pissing match more often than not.

Originally Posted by drizzt3117

I sort of got into this with the discussion on neurosurgery; having an idea of the relative strengths and weaknesses of specific programs is important, but an actual "rank" is less so.

Some lists on various forums in ranking programs in terms of clinical training, academic productivity, research, exposure to top faculty, etc, can potentially be useful, though.

agreed.

Where's FM?

Originally Posted by jcu

Where's FM?

No Jefferson for neurosurg/neurology?

Originally Posted by jcu

Where's FM?

Joking aside, I'd be curious to see if there actually are programs that stick out above the rest in FM.

Originally Posted by chronicidal

Cornell: http://weillcornelleye.org/education/residency.html
Harkness/Columbia: http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/dept/ey...ncy-about.html

Unrelated, but NYEE comes closest of the NYC programs to break the top 10 in overall quality in the Ophthalmology Times survey.

I must be thinking of net then because I know one of the two is combined.

Originally Posted by Mortal_Lessons

As someone who matched in neurosurgery and interviewed at all three places, I would argue that Stanford not only is an academic powerhouse but that its clinical volume is on par with East Coast programs but doesn't compare to UCSF. However, there's no way Penn is better than MGH, either clinically or academically; Jefferson is much stronger than Penn clinically.

That's very interesting and demonstrates the departmetal bias that shapes my opinin

Jeez, man, you haven't even started medical school yet and you're already doing all of this? It's good information, but this isn't the kind of crap you should be worrying about. Hell most second years don't even care about this at that point in the game. I appreciate the effort, but relax.

Originally Posted by southernIM

You complain about residents holding hook and fighting fellows for cases and bring up the Cleveland Clinic as a top program?

Or about hospitals discriminating against patient's with bad insurance and bring up Mayo?

The CL clinic trained colleagues ive worked with have been great.
Mayo is actually an elite referral center; dook is not.
Sabiston was an overated attention whore goon. I havent yet met anyone trained by him that wasnt mentally unstable, inherently or because of that experience.