Away rotation that gives visiting students best chance to match there

[NDundergrad]

So I'm a borderline rad-onc candidate who is trying everything to get myself into the field (LOTS of research, good clinical grades, etc..). My school does not have a rad onc residency program and only 2 rad onc's on staff. I want to do 1-3 aways especially at places that historically have given a boost to visiting students in terms of interviewing/matching. Can anyone provide some insight into places I should look? Does anyone have any first-hand or anecdotal experience with this?

Thanks in advance!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Sheldor]

In my experience, most programs in the middle of the pack would look kindly upon a good visiting rotation. In contrast, programs at the top are more likely to not care whether you did an away or not.

Do aways at small-ish (2-3 slots a year), preferably mid-range programs that are solid clinically. I'd advise doing them in non-competitive areas of the country, like the mid-west. Show up, work hard and make an effort to get to know the PD.

 

[thompa]

In my experience, most programs in the middle of the pack would look kindly upon a good visiting rotation. In contrast, programs at the top are more likely to not care whether you did an away or not.

Do aways at small-ish (2-3 slots a year), preferably mid-range programs that are solid clinically. I'd advise doing them in non-competitive areas of the country, like the mid-west. Show up, work hard and make an effort to get to know the PD.

Long time lurker. I'm planning on applying to rad onc, but I had a couple questions and this seemed like the best jumping off point. Sheldor, I've seen you and others mention these types of "mid tier programs that are solid clinically", and I'd love to apply to some aways at these places. However, I'm not sure how to find them. What differentiates a mid tier program from and low tier program? And once I've separated those programs, how do I find out which programs are solid clinically from those that aren't? I hope these don't come across as silly questions, I have no home rad onc program and it's difficult to get solid advice.

 

[evilbooyaa]

Long time lurker. I'm planning on applying to rad onc, but I had a couple questions and this seemed like the best jumping off point. Sheldor, I've seen you and others mention these types of "mid tier programs that are solid clinically", and I'd love to apply to some aways at these places. However, I'm not sure how to find them. What differentiates a mid tier program from and low tier program? And once I've separated those programs, how do I find out which programs are solid clinically from those that aren't? I hope these don't come across as silly questions, I have no home rad onc program and it's difficult to get solid advice.

Based off what I've read on these forums (and from interview impressions), there really isn't a "low-tier program" list in Rad Onc. However, some factors that may affect how 'solid' a residency is clinically:
1) Volume - Best bet probably to ask residents on the interview trail, but others on this board please give your input on how to best assess this.
2) Modalities (do they have brachy/SRS, and to a lesser extent, protons?)
3) How much resident education happens (lectures, morning rounds, conferences, etc.)? Conversely, how much scut are residents expected to do? More scut = less time for self-study.

Just a small condensation of what I've read so far on these forums. Sheldor and others with actual experience in the field, please jump in.

 

[Sheldor]

Long time lurker. I'm planning on applying to rad onc, but I had a couple questions and this seemed like the best jumping off point. Sheldor, I've seen you and others mention these types of "mid tier programs that are solid clinically", and I'd love to apply to some aways at these places. However, I'm not sure how to find them. What differentiates a mid tier program from and low tier program? And once I've separated those programs, how do I find out which programs are solid clinically from those that aren't? I hope these don't come across as silly questions, I have no home rad onc program and it's difficult to get solid advice.

So for actual residency application, the best thing to do is actually apply to all of them, and then interview wherever you get offers, and then you can figure out which our mid tier and solid clinically

Mid-tier programs to me have a proven track record of training residents well, but perhaps don't emphasize research and thus their "rank" ends up falling. For example, the University of Cincinnati struck me exactly like this. Their residents get very, very good training. Their peds experience is one of the best in the country. However, they don't emphasize research (though, I think they are starting to try and head that way) and so they stay in the "middle of the pack."

The other thing is, that for me, its about the training. Meaning, the faculty (Are they nice or malignant? Enough patients? Time for learning?) Your best bet is to narrow it down to a region and then ask folks further along what the "solid mid tier" programs are in that region.

Hopefully that made it clearer, and not worse.

 

[Sandman2]

This is how I think about it:

There are 10-15 brand name programs that everyone acknowledges. Sure, people may debate which is #11 vs #14, but in general these programs are considered elite programs. Check out the rankings thread. As subjective as these rankings may be, you'll see that the same programs are universally mentioned within the top 10-15 spots. In terms of doing aways, most of these programs will have many rotating students at them and it may be harder to "stand out". That is not to say that one should not do a rotation here; a strong letter from a big name at one of these places may go a long way.

I believe every other program is a solid program in radiation oncology. They provide excellent training but may not have as many research opps or may not have all the toys that some of the elite programs do. I feel that an applicant can get the biggest bang for their buck by doing an away at programs like this. You may not have insane amount of competition from other med students, and you may have a more personal experience as a rotating student. Most of these programs will offer rotaters an interview, whereas there might be less of a guarantee at an elite program.

While there may not be any low-tier programs per say, I think newer programs or unstable programs may fall into this category. I would shy away from doing an away at these programs as your yield may not be great.

Just my two cents.

 

[Sheldor]

This is how I think about it:

There are 10-15 brand name programs that everyone acknowledges. Sure, people may debate which is #11 vs #14, but in general these programs are considered elite programs. Check out the rankings thread. As subjective as these rankings may be, you'll see that the same programs are universally mentioned within the top 10-15 spots. In terms of doing aways, most of these programs will have many rotating students at them and it may be harder to "stand out". That is not to say that one should not do a rotation here; a strong letter from a big name at one of these places may go a long way.

I believe every other program is a solid program in radiation oncology. They provide excellent training but may not have as many research opps or may not have all the toys that some of the elite programs do. I feel that an applicant can get the biggest bang for their buck by doing an away at programs like this. You may not have insane amount of competition from other med students, and you may have a more personal experience as a rotating student. Most of these programs will offer rotaters an interview, whereas there might be less of a guarantee at an elite program.

While there may not be any low-tier programs per say, I think newer programs or unstable programs may fall into this category. I would shy away from doing an away at these programs as your yield may not be great.

Just my two cents.

I agree with a lot of this. I think the sweet spot are the mid-range programs that have big names at them because then you get the best of both worlds.

That said, there are definitely low tier programs. Perhaps you were fortunate enough to only interview at programs above the mean, but I saw quite a few programs that were not great and ones I would describe as below the mean. You're right in that sometimes its because they are new, but other times it was just lack of good educational leadership. Its amazing how much the PD effects the program.

There were some programs that seemed low tier based on name that I visited and thought were mid tier, and some that seemed okay and that I would have placed in the lower category. So, will you still be a Rad Onc out of the low tier programs? Yes. However, you may do scut work and be miserable for four years.

 

[SJSM001]

I would add that it's probably better for your chances to do these rotations at places that have 3 or 4 spots in next year's match rather than only 1 or 2.

 

[medgator]

I would add that it's probably better for your chances to do these rotations at places that have 3 or 4 spots in next year's match rather than only 1 or 2.

With the caveat that there are not as many mid tier places at that size

 

[gvsudew]

I would recommend checking out the University of Rochester to rotate through for the following reasons: we'll be taking 3 residents in the 2015 match cycle (8 residents in the program total), typically only 1-2 U of R students apply to rad onc each year so its not like all/most the spots are filled internally, the department is not so large meaning you will get to meet/perhaps work with everyone while on rotation, there are several well known attendings to write a letter, you'll get exposure to all modalities except protons, there are opportunities to get involved in in research while you're here, and Rochester is beautiful in the Fall season with plenty of activities to do when you're rotating. I'm a resident there and would be happy to answer any questions you have by PM.

 

[Member 1111]

I agree with a lot of this. I think the sweet spot are the mid-range programs that have big names at them because then you get the best of both worlds.

That said, there are definitely low tier programs. Perhaps you were fortunate enough to only interview at programs above the mean, but I saw quite a few programs that were not great and ones I would describe as below the mean. You're right in that sometimes its because they are new, but other times it was just lack of good educational leadership. Its amazing how much the PD effects the program.

There were some programs that seemed low tier based on name that I visited and thought were mid tier, and some that seemed okay and that I would have placed in the lower category. So, will you still be a Rad Onc out of the low tier programs? Yes. However, you may do scut work and be miserable for four years.

What would you include in the list of "mid-range with big names"? Thanks for your help!

 

[Neuronix]

So, will you still be a Rad Onc out of the low tier programs? Yes. However, you may do scut work and be miserable for four years.

I don't believe that SDN's version of "low" "mid" or "top" tier has much to do with levels of resident scut work or happiness.

 

[Burt Radnolds]

I love a good thread resurrected from the dead. I completely agree that level of scut and supposed tier have almost zero correlation, and honestly it may be correlated the other way. I come from a program that would not qualify as top tier and it was fantastic, with excellent training, great lifestyle, lifelong friends, and minimal scut.

 

[punkedoutriffs]

I love a good thread resurrected from the dead. I completely agree that level of scut and supposed tier have almost zero correlation, and honestly it may be correlated the other way. I come from a program that would not qualify as top tier and it was fantastic, with excellent training, great lifestyle, lifelong friends, and minimal scut.

Would you mind PM-ing me what program did you train at? Thanks!