Best top 5 Neurology residencies?

[llogg]

Honestly, I would have thought the top tier step 1 scores would be a little higher than that. I didn't apply to any of the consensus top tier places from this thread, but I did apply to WashU. I had a 232 and didn't get an interview. (I was also top 1/3 of my class).

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ChildNeuro]

It is routinely advised to students to apply to a large breadth of residencies, i.e. apply to some dream programs like Mayo, Columbia, and a large number of middle of the road/regular residencies. I think because there are a large number of factors that goes into residency selection probably beyond grades, other things like research and who you know plays a big role as well. It would be interesting to see if there is a role for neuro audition rotations for students who are very keen on going into a certain specific neuro field like Neuro intensive care unit, and want to go to a program with a strong standing in this i.e. one of the top 5 like Mayo. I would think that if the person with a 232, (wow! smarter than me!), should have been advised to apply to a large range of programs, and applying to Harvard, UPenn, etc. . . would NOT be a waste of money in their case, especially at top 1/3 of class too,

 

[llogg]

I was actually advised to apply to some of the more "top" programs, but since I'm not interested in academia, and hate cold weather, I let other factors dictate my application list. My personality is such that, while I can recognize and stand in awe of the excellence of places like UCSF and Partners, those are not my "dream programs".

As an aside, I seriously doubt that my 232 on step 1 means I'm smarter than anybody, regardless of their score.

 

[Methyldopa]

those are not my "dream programs".

That's an excellent point. It depends what you want from your training that should determine your own dream schools.

 

[Sir Elroy]

It is routinely advised to students to apply to a large breadth of residencies, i.e. apply to some dream programs like Mayo, Columbia, and a large number of middle of the road/regular residencies. I think because there are a large number of factors that goes into residency selection probably beyond grades, other things like research and who you know plays a big role as well.

I completely agree. Step scores are only one part of your application packet. You could have scores of 260+ and still not get interviews at some of the top programs if you haven't done research or the rest of your application isn't as good. Conversely, the stronger your overall application is, the lower your scores could be. So it's hard to predict where you might (or might not) be able to get an interview.

 

[ChildNeuro]

What was a dream program in the past, may not be a dream program in the future. I think that current dream programs i.e. Partners, Columbia, UCSF are linked to the research reputations of the these institutions which have produced some excellent neuroscience researchers in the past. In the distant past the great professors of neurology/neuroscience all rotated through the same watering holes. But in today's world of neuroscience research, a public midwestern university may well have the world's expert in neurologic disorder X. And doing your PhD, or fellowship at institution y in the midwest does not rule out a bright future in neuroscience. So, the apparent advantage of having gone to Partners or Columbia may be diluted by the fact that you will be able to affiliate yourself with excellent clinical neurologists and neuroscientists at many other places. I think that more and more med students are considering location, location, location in terms of residency, realizing that whether or not you excell in residency is more important that perceived prestige of a program, and you are more likely to excell in a program that is in the right part of the country for you. My guess is that in 15 years the best neurology residency program will be located in california, probably UCSF, as people seem to gravitate to that climate, and some programs not on people's radar's like those in Texas and Florida might be pushed into the top 10.

 

[Methyldopa]

I think that more and more med students are considering location, location, location in terms of residency, realizing that whether or not you excell in residency is more important that perceived prestige of a program, and you are more likely to excell in a program that is in the right part of the country for you.

I agree with you in part. But more important, if you're considering academics, is not if you excel in residency but as an academic (whether it be in teaching or research).

Bottom line go to a program where you'll enjoy training.

 

[GopherBrain]

My guess is that in 15 years the best neurology residency program will be located in california, probably UCSF...

Ummm... As the saying goes, the future is now.

 

[ChildNeuro]

I agree with you in part. But more important, if you're considering academics, is not if you excel in residency but as an academic (whether it be in teaching or research).

Bottom line go to a program where you'll enjoy training.

Definetely go to where you will enjoy training. I think also for academics, if you do a fellowship at a good place (there are many), it might help a little, for example, if you go to midwestern neurology residency x, do superbly well, and then you get that fellowship at Stanford in subspecialty y, then this might help some. I can see someone toughing in out in the freezing cold at Partners for a two year fellowship, but for a whole residency when you are working like a dog, you need to have comfortable surroundings.

 

[Papez2008]

??

 

[Papez2008]

What was a dream program in the past, may not be a dream program in the future. I think that current dream programs i.e. Partners, Columbia, UCSF are linked to the research reputations of the these institutions which have produced some excellent neuroscience researchers in the past. In the distant past the great professors of neurology/neuroscience all rotated through the same watering holes. But in today's world of neuroscience research, a public midwestern university may well have the world's expert in neurologic disorder X. And doing your PhD, or fellowship at institution y in the midwest does not rule out a bright future in neuroscience. So, the apparent advantage of having gone to Partners or Columbia may be diluted by the fact that you will be able to affiliate yourself with excellent clinical neurologists and neuroscientists at many other places. I think that more and more med students are considering location, location, location in terms of residency, realizing that whether or not you excell in residency is more important that perceived prestige of a program, and you are more likely to excell in a program that is in the right part of the country for you. My guess is that in 15 years the best neurology residency program will be located in california, probably UCSF, as people seem to gravitate to that climate, and some programs not on people's radar's like those in Texas and Florida might be pushed into the top 10.

yeah!!!!!

 

[Methyldopa]

I can see someone toughing in out in the freezing cold at Partners for a two year fellowship, but for a whole residency when you are working like a dog, you need to have comfortable surroundings.

I like that statement. You forget (or choose to ignore) that some of us like snow and actually like Boston! Brings up the point each person has different comfort levels. For example, I hated the summer in San Francisco, beautiful city though.

I do agree fellowships are also important, which makes it easier if you start up at one of the top programs, because you can more easily get the highly competitive fellowships.

 

[Methyldopa]

Ummm... As the saying goes, the future is now.

Of course, this is an unbiased view!

 

[typhoonegator]

For someone serious about this specialty, I cannot see how the climate can have any more than a passing relevance. The theory that warm weather neurology programs are going to rise to dominance seems laughable to me. UCSF is a great program, but I think it does the program a disservice to theorize that this is in any way due to San Francisco's mild winters.

I moved to Boston for residency, and aside from a few potentially uncomfortable minutes each day, it is always 70 degrees with low humidity and plenty of light.

By the way, if you really think that the "old guard" programs like Columbia and Partners are really just resting on their laurels and past reputations, you might want to pick up a journal or a textbook.

 

[ChildNeuro]

I moved to Boston for residency, and aside from a few potentially uncomfortable minutes each day, it is always 70 degrees with low humidity and plenty of light.

By the way, if you really think that the "old guard" programs like Columbia and Partners are really just resting on their laurels and past reputations, you might want to pick up a journal or a textbook.

I think by always 70 degrees with low humidity and plenty of light (artifical light?) you mean the inside of the hospital. I think that there are large segments of the populations in Boston that are Vitamin D deficient because of the lack of sunlight overall during the year. Probably something I learned reading 'em books or articles. I have electronic subscriptions to several journals, and try to take a look at an average of 10 articles a week, as well as reading textbooks. With all else being equal weather matters alot for some, and less for others, after all, if you are serious about your specialty you want to have the best optimal working/living conditions during residency, if you love snow then of course Boston is up your alley.

My *main point* is that excellence in neurology is more distributed across the country today than 50 years ago, i.e. while the northeast area does still publish alot of papers, the rest of the country is producing a large amount of
excellent new neurology/neuroscience work as well, something you would know if you looked more closely at your articles. A person who chooses a residency in say Florida, perhaps for a reason of being near family, will be able to find excellent research options which may meet or excell what is in Boston. I think that my observation of this trend over the past 50 years will hold up over the next 50 years. You misunderstood if it is to denigrate an institution like Harvard, I am only saying that in the future each large state will have its own prestigious institution, equal to Harvard.

 

[typhoonegator]

I totally agree with that statement. Big time research and big name talent are more evenly distributed now than ever before. You can and do find brilliant people in all sorts of subjects in all sorts of places.

I would say, however, that there simply isn't enough research money or high-quality academic researchers out there to have a program with the uniformity of quality like Columbia or UCSF in every state. These programs rise to prominence because they offer the resources, space, time, and potential collaborators that cannot be found elsewhere, and this attracts the best people. We live in an academic meritocracy, and there will always be "hot-spots" in every field, from medicine to agriculture.

There are very bright people doing amazing research in all sorts of different places, but as most people enter residency, they don't always have a perfectly clear idea of their career trajectory, and so the more well-established programs are attractive because they offer opportunities to work with well-known faculty in multiple divisions. My comments are in no way meant to start some sort of academic pissing contest. I'm just trying to help med-students make educated decisions about their choice of programs.

 

[Papez2008]

For someone serious about this specialty, I cannot see how the climate can have any more than a passing relevance. The theory that warm weather neurology programs are going to rise to dominance seems laughable to me. UCSF is a great program, but I think it does the program a disservice to theorize that this is in any way due to San Francisco's mild winters.

I moved to Boston for residency, and aside from a few potentially uncomfortable minutes each day, it is always 70 degrees with low humidity and plenty of light.

By the way, if you really think that the "old guard" programs like Columbia and Partners are really just resting on their laurels and past reputations, you might want to pick up a journal or a textbook.

I disagree. Lifestyle matters to medical students/residents and warm weather is high on their list; if you dont believe me think about Mayo; its biggest turnoff is its location and the size of the city; lastly in 100 yrs Boston and UCSF as well as our beloved NYC will probally all be underwater anyway!!! But of course Miami maybe as well!! I just want a place where I can learn neurology without getting killed (both physically and mentally) and still be able to see my family every now and then and at least be able to afford a movie once in a while. My biggest turn off about MGH is how piss poor they pay their residents compared to how expensive Boston is; but of course it's Boston and Harvard so maybe its worth it to some, not to me.

 

[Papez2008]

A new 82!!

 

[Papez2008]

A new 82!!

Just my take based on what I've heard from residents/faculty. The big mover is WashU and some minor movers.

TOP TIER

1. MGH/Partners
2. UCSF
3. Columbia
4. Hopkins
5. Penn
6. Mayo Clinic
7. WashU
8. Stanford
9. UCLA
10. BI

NEXT TIER

11. Cornell
12. Yale
13. UT Southwestern
14. Emory U
15. Duke
16. U of Rochester
17. Michigan
18. Virginia
19. Cleveland Clinic
20. Mount Sinai

ANOTHER TIER

21. UCSD
22. U of Chicago
23. Baylor
24. Rush
25. Oregon
26. Miami
27. USC
28. Albert Einstein
29. Case Western
30. Tufts
31. Colorado
32. Brown
33. UIC
34. North Carolina
35. UAB
36. Thomas Jefferson
37. Northwestern
38. NYU
39. Arizona
40. Utah
41. Pittsburgh
42. George Washington
43. Cincinnati
44. U of Washington
45. U of Florida
46. Drexel
47. Vanderbilt
48. Iowa
49. UMass
50. Barrows Institute/Arizona
51. Georgetown
52. Boston U
53. Tulane
54. UMDNJ
55. Mayo/Scottdale
56. UTexas/Houston
57. Maryland
58. Minnesota
59. Wake Forest
60. Saint Louis
61. UC Irvine
62. Wisconsin/Madison
63. UC Davis
64. Henry Ford
65. Mayo/Jacksonville
66. Loyola
67. LSU
68. Cleveland Clinic/Weston
69. Michigan State
70. Indiana
71. Long Island Jewish
72. Dartmouth
73. St. Vincents/NY
74. Kentucky
75. Loma Linda
76. Temple
77. Medical College of Georgia
78. SUNY/Syracuse
79. UConn
80. Ohio State
81. New Mexico
82. SUNY/Buffalo

 

[GopherBrain]

aaaaaaargh!!! Stop The Madness!

 

[ChildNeuro]

lastly in 100 yrs Boston and UCSF as well as our beloved NYC will probally all be underwater anyway!!! But of course Miami maybe as well!! .

It will be interesting to see how cities construction around the rising oceans, presumably it will happen slowly, I always assumed there will be a slow migration maybe 25 miles inland, or, in the case of Manhattan I figure they might build a gigantic wall around the city, unfortunately turning alot of cities into a situation like New Orleans had/has . . . maybe we can all learn from that mistake and build further inland. Another possibility, I saw this on discovery channels MegaMovers is that they can literally jack up a building a pneumatic system, plopp it on a giagantic truck and move it, I'm talking about like 6 story banks and all, on place they did it so slowly that people could work in the building, so so so maybe a futuristic MegaMover crew could help to move buildings in shore, I'm sure they couldn't tackle the empire state building, but maybe they could . . . hmmm gives me an idea for a cool science fiction movie: "In a world about to be underwater, when buildings need to be moved, and elite squad of ex-astronauts moves in to save the day, . . .

 

[meehawl]

in 100 yrs Boston and UCSF as well as our beloved NYC will probally all be underwater anyway!!!

UCSF is perched halfway up the Twin Peaks hilltop in SF - I think it will be okay. In any case, it could retreat a little bit further up the hillside and build all the way up to the antenna tower! A 10-metre ocean rise will flood Golden Gate Park, Sunset, and the Richmond, but might leave the UCSF Twin Peaks campus as a nice cliffside/beachfront property.

 

[Methyldopa]

How anyone can seriously rank 80+ programs is beyond me!!!

 

[star1080]

Any reason for Cleveland Clinic's plummet?

 

[neurologist]

aaaaaaargh!!! Stop The Madness!

You're the moderator . . . can't you just pull the plug?

 

[GopherBrain]

You're the moderator . . . can't you just pull the plug?

I could, but that seems a bit heavy-handed. I prefer just reminding everyone how *****IC it is to try to precisely quantify and rank something like quality of residency training. My dream is that if I trash this thread enough, people will just let it die a natural death.

 

[ChildNeuro]

I think that trying to differentiate between number 50 and 51 is pretty pointless. However, for the programs that are in the top 20, for an excellent applicant, or one who just wants to aim high, who wants the best training they would probably want to make sure that they apply to some/all of these programs during match as you can only apply to so many programs . . . I would guess that the programs in the top 20, and certainly the top 10 are doing something right for their residents.

It would be nice to know how residents rankings of their own programs matches up with how programs are ranked nationally. In the past I would have suspected that the top 20 absolutely have excellent electives or teaching for their residents. But, maybe some residents choose them for name recognition alone? Maybe a resident at a top 20 ranked neurology residency program could talk about why they applied for a higher ranked program and what they may offer that others don't . . .

 

[Wheezy]

I think that trying to differentiate between number 50 and 51 is pretty pointless. However, for the programs that are in the top 20, for an excellent applicant, or one who just wants to aim high, who wants the best training they would probably want to make sure that they apply to some/all of these programs during match as you can only apply to so many programs . . . I would guess that the programs in the top 20, and certainly the top 10 are doing something right for their residents.

I ranked one of the programs that didn't make the tope 50 above one of the ones that made the top 15! Don't get me wrong, they're both really good programs and I was struggling on which to rank higher, this just gives you an idea of how widely different peoples perceptions are. I interviewed at both these places. I wonder if anyone could interview/visit 82 places.

ChildNeuro, you got a point though. A much more useful list would be "programs I think are really good" but I guess it's not a sexy title. A list of what some people consider "top tier" is kinda useful too, but lets just not get carried away with it.

My reason is that what you want to do is alert people to an opportunity that they might not have considered. I have interviewed at programs that i wouldn't have considered if it was not for the good press they received on studentdoctor.net, also I interviewed at programs that got bad press and I liked some of them too.

 

[jjmack]

I feel that this post is too limited it should be titled "Best top 10" ;-)

 

[ChildNeuro]

I ranked one of the programs that didn't make the tope 50 above one of the ones that made the top 15! Don't get me wrong, they're both really good programs and I was struggling on which to rank higher, this just gives you an idea of how widely different peoples perceptions are. I interviewed at both these places. I wonder if anyone could interview/visit 82 places.

ChildNeuro, you got a point though. A much more useful list would be "programs I think are really good" but I guess it's not a sexy title. A list of what some people consider "top tier" is kinda useful too, but lets just not get carried away with it.

My reason is that what you want to do is alert people to an opportunity that they might not have considered. I have interviewed at programs that i wouldn't have considered if it was not for the good press they received on studentdoctor.net, also I interviewed at programs that got bad press and I liked some of them too.

I guess it all depends what you are looking for in a neurology residency. For some people undoubtedly location is key. While for others, they want the powerhouse residency i.e., whereas I no doubt there are those, like you describe, who have found the gems in the rough where they never would have applied to without knowing the "word on the street" for these programs. A list of how residents rank their own programs might also be problematic because how would residents know how their program compares to others? (although they may have some of an idea). I guess this is why some applicants rely on national rankings where neurologist PDs in the field rank other programs in their field . . .

 

[Nerdoscience]

When you actually get to making your rank lists, you will see how ridiculously useless this list actually is. It was nice to get an idea of where to apply, but that's about it. You don't rank programs on reputation alone. It's a complex mix of location, academic strength and how they match your interests, reputation, environment and attitude, and myriad other factors.

I ranked a program that didn't make the list higher than a second tier program, and I think it is way better than most of the third tier programs on the list in general. It was especially better for me because of the fact that it was in a city I liked, had research opportunities in areas I was interested in, and had the kind of collegial atmosphere that I value highly.

 

[ChildNeuro]

When you actually get to making your rank lists, you will see how ridiculously useless this list actually is. It was nice to get an idea of where to apply, but that's about it. You don't rank programs on reputation alone. It's a complex mix of location, academic strength and how they match your interests, reputation, environment and attitude, and myriad other factors.

I ranked a program that didn't make the list higher than a second tier program, and I think it is way better than most of the third tier programs on the list in general. It was especially better for me because of the fact that it was in a city I liked, had research opportunities in areas I was interested in, and had the kind of collegial atmosphere that I value highly.

I hate to generalize, but I sense that alot of the more prestigious places are occassionally less collegial, maybe because they are populated with some highly competitive people, some of the most collegial places I have worked at would not be considered "prestigious" by any means, but treat their students and residents *very* well . . .

 

[Nerdoscience]

That is kind of true, but I've also noted that East Coast programs tend to be less collegial than West Coast, which are less collegial than Midwest programs. Also, bigger city programs are less collegial. This is obviously a generalization. Chicago, for instance, has some of the most and least collegial programs in the country. And I can think of at least one top-tier school that is far more collegial than a specific third tier school.

Now, I'm waiting for someone to rank the top 80 most collegial programs...

That's a joke; don't do it.

 

[neurologist]

I could, but that seems a bit heavy-handed. I prefer just reminding everyone how *****IC it is to try to precisely quantify and rank something like quality of residency training. My dream is that if I trash this thread enough, people will just let it die a natural death.

Oh well . . . at least nobody can accuse you of abusing your power!

(Not that there'd be anything wrong with that, in this case . . . )

 

[neurologist]

It would be nice to know how residents rankings of their own programs matches up with how programs are ranked nationally.

This is a great idea. The caveat of course, is that residents have most likely done their residency at only one program, so they really couldn't "compare" program x to program y.

Maybe the SDN powers-that-be can design something like this? If it was done "well" from a statistical perspective I bet it would even border on being a publishable study . . .

 

[ChildNeuro]

This is a great idea. The caveat of course, is that residents have most likely done their residency at only one program, so they really couldn't "compare" program x to program y.

Maybe the SDN powers-that-be can design something like this? If it was done "well" from a statistical perspective I bet it would even border on being a publishable study . . .

I think that it would work if it included data on residents that were *very* unhappy with their current program for a certain reason. If several residents had the same complaint, then you could guess that a program is malignant. Happy residents would add little information because I would guess that most residents would be happy with their program.

However, some smaller community residency programs away from big urban centers have residents that are extremely happy. When you know everyone really well in a small to medium sized hospital it is much better to work as a cohesive team. In some large university hospitals, nobody seems to know anyone, and there is a lot of hostility between various services. At bigger places I think that there are some residents in the same year who haven't really talked to each other. The best way to know about a prospective program is to talk to people who are there.

 

[Papez2008]

Any reason for Cleveland Clinic's plummet?

Honestly...CC from what I have heard does some decent clinical research but many people/faculty/residents told me they are not even top 20 (anymore) and this is manily because they have dropping numbers of US medical graduates in their residency program (and many people were more impressed with the hotel they put you up in than the residency program during their interview); for instance in 2005 they had one FMA and one DO and 3 US grads, whereas in 2006 out of 7 residents only one was a US grad (from Nebraska I think); this is I've heard not a good sign but please check out it out yourself:
http://cms.clevelandclinic.org/neuroscience/body.cfm?id=295

others told me they have lost their luster and so thus their current 19# (12# from before was a mistype). I think one thing that separtes the top 10 from the rest in that they seem to be very stable programs and have a overwhelming proponderance of US medical residents in their program in addition to the aforementioned qualites in this thread.

 

[neurologist]

Honestly...CC from what I have heard does some decent clinical research but many people/faculty/residents told me they are not even top 20 (anymore) and this is manily because they have dropping numbers of US medical graduates in their residency program (and many people were more impressed with the hotel they put you up in than the residency program during their interview); for instance in 2005 they had one FMA and one DO and 3 US grads, whereas in 2006 out of 7 residents only one was a US grad (from Nebraska I think); this is I've heard not a good sign but please check out it out yourself:
http://cms.clevelandclinic.org/neuroscience/body.cfm?id=295

others told me they have lost their luster and so thus their current 19# (12# from before was a mistype). I think one thing that separtes the top 10 from the rest in that they seem to be very stable programs and have a overwhelming proponderance of US medical residents in their program in addition to the aforementioned qualites in this thread.

They may have dropping #s of US grads, but having had some exposure to the program I can tell you that the IMGs who go to CC are probably smarter than at least 80% of US grads. I think one of the bigger reasons for any perceived decline may be "internal politics" -- remember that their chair (Luders) recently left. While he was there, he put together a veritable United Nations of neurology -- lots of international people, but a very, very smart group.

 

[jeeneeree]

i just wanted to say:

i came to this thread hoping to find a list of neurology residency rankings.
i found this list.
and then there were more.
and then there was a monster list.
and then some people loved it, but some people.. didn't.

everybody has their own opinion. what does this mean? either that a. we are all equally lost or b. we are all entitled to our own opinion, and one should take one's gut instinct and run with it.

regardless, the result is the same: i found what i was looking for, and it turned out that this is not what i need, nor truly want.

but sometimes you have to travel the dark side before returning to the light.

thanks for the entertaining enlightenment...

 

[neurologist]

i just wanted to say:

i came to this thread hoping to find a list of neurology residency rankings.
i found this list.
and then there were more.
and then there was a monster list.
and then some people loved it, but some people.. didn't.

everybody has their own opinion. what does this mean? either that a. we are all equally lost or b. we are all entitled to our own opinion, and one should take one's gut instinct and run with it.

regardless, the result is the same: i found what i was looking for, and it turned out that this is not what i need, nor truly want.

but sometimes you have to travel the dark side before returning to the light.

thanks for the entertaining enlightenment...

Well, that begs the question of just what it is that you were looking for?

I think I know the answer to that rhetorical question, and it is "what you want simply doens't exist."

Nevertheless, I like your thought of "we are all equally lost!"

 

[Jonath00]

Education-wise: Columbia, Hopkins, Cornell
Reputation-wise: Above and Harvard, UCSF

 

[ChildNeuro]

Hopkins is excellent for internal medicine and neurology in terms of the best education in the country, over Harvard, IMHO.

 

[GopherBrain]

Education-wise: Columbia, Hopkins, Cornell
Reputation-wise: Above and Harvard, UCSF

And what is your affilliation to Cornell, exactly? It seems like an odd-ball choice to round out the top 5... Not a UPenn fan?

 

[sickofit]

Hopkins is excellent for internal medicine and neurology in terms of the best education in the country, over Harvard, IMHO.

Wow! I can honestly say that I'm impressed. You have completed residencies in both internal medicine and neurology at not one but two programs! It is an honor merely to quote you. Thank you.

 

[sickofit]

double post

 

[sickofit]

triple post

 

[sickofit]

quadruple post

 

[sickofit]

i think i just set a record!

 

[Neuro Doctor]

That's exactly where I want to be placed. Right in the top tier!

 

[buckley]

Quite an interesting thread indeed!
I wish I was also worrying about how to rank schools, rather than if I am eligible to apply to a particular school. Based on websites ALONE(and can anyone tell me if this is a reliable means of obtaining info?! im almost scared that's a rhetorical question), my "dream" programs are 1. Partners, 2. UCSF (darn, how it pains me that I can't apply to this one...even if it's just a shoot in the dark...the very very dark...lol) 3. Columbia (yep, can't apply there too), 4. Hopkins (although seeing their current roster makes me wonder if I do stand a chance with a girl who's finished US fellowship before going into residency or a guy with a PhD in neurosciences), 5. Rochester (can't apply there too : ( ) and though I'm surprised I don't see it here, U Cincinatti.
Actually liked U chicago, rush, duke, usc and u wisconsin also. Actually (hmmm word of the moment), almost all neuro programs here in the US I see look pretty decent...and I guess that's why I'm trying to make it here...
So that's my clueless take on the top program hitlist. Thanks for the thread though...this forum is awesome!