Rad onc rankings

[RexKD]

That would be 2 residencies in IM and rad onc and 1 fellowship (after IM) in Heme/Onc. Shiao Woo, now at MDA, is another triple threat (IM or Peds...can't quite remember, Heme/Onc, Rad Onc).

How do these dual residencies work?

Purely hypothetical: An individual were to finish a residency in, say, IM. Then they would do a 1 year fellowship in Heme/Onc. After that they would become an attending and do a second residency part-time? Or would they just do 4 years in another residency directly?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[RadOncMan]

With all the Chairman openings and turnover (affecting probably up to 25% of all programs) that has been going on within the different Rad Onc programs, I thought I would add my perspective on the rankings. First off, I think it's important to note that you could probably get a solid training experience from almost all of the Rad Onc programs. How competitive you will be in the longterm, particularly in regard to academics, will in large part be determined by your letters, personal contacts, and research publications. For future private practicioners, prestige of the program and geography probably will carry more weight. In all cases, personal compatability trumps everything. I don' think you can weigh too much on the rankings because there is a clear dichotomy of which programs are better for those going into private practice and those going into academics and there is so much flux in the Rad Onc world that one Chairman leaving would leave a big dent on any program, but here goes:

Top Tier:
Harvard Combined - strong tradition and track record, top selectivity
MD Anderson Cancer Center - top resources, not as strong in basic research
MSKCC - strong tradition and track record, affiliation with Rockefeller and Cornell, No/New Chairman

Top 10:
Stanford - new cancer center, strong tradiation and track record
Michigan - known for basic research
U Chicago - known for basic research, strong tradition and track record
UPenn - known for basic research, strong tradiation and track record, new cancer center and proton therapy center 5 years away, No/New chairman
UCSF - clinical
Wash U - strong tradition

Next Tier:
Mayo
Hopkins
Duke
Vanderbilt - focused on basic research
Fox Chase Cancer Center
Yale
Thomas Jefferson - strong tradition and track record, very clinical, weaker institutionally
U of Washington
Florida
Wisconsin
Cleveland Clinic Foundation - very clinical
UCLA - No/New Chairman
Maryland
Beaumont
UNC

Top Half:
Emory
Henry Ford Hospital - $9 million SPORE in gene therapy, New Chairman
Indiana
Iowa
MCW
MCV
Colorado
UAB
Wake
Loyola
NYU
Albert Einstein

Name Recognition > Strength of Program
Yale - strong tradition
Columbia - Traditionally Strong Radiobiology, Chairman demoted to Program Director, financial difficulty
Cornell/Queens
USC

Group of Private Practioners with Affiliation to Medical Center:
Northwestern
Miami
Case Western
Feel free to weigh in on your thoughts...

 

[Ursus Martimus]

Top Tier:
Harvard Combined - strong tradition and track record, top selectivity
MD Anderson Cancer Center - top resources, not as strong in basic research
MSKCC - strong tradition and track record, affiliation with Rockefeller and Cornell, No/New Chairman

Top 10:
Stanford - new cancer center, strong tradiation and track record
Michigan - known for basic research
U Chicago - known for basic research, strong tradition and track record
UPenn - known for basic research, strong tradiation and track record, new cancer center and proton therapy center 5 years away, No/New chairman
UCSF - clinical
Wash U - strong tradition

Next Tier:
Mayo
Hopkins
Duke
Vanderbilt - focused on basic research
Fox Chase Cancer Center
Yale
Thomas Jefferson - strong tradition and track record, very clinical, weaker institutionally
U of Washington
Florida
Wisconsin
Cleveland Clinic Foundation - very clinical
UCLA - No/New Chairman
Maryland
Beaumont
UNC

Top Half:
Emory
Henry Ford Hospital - $9 million SPORE in gene therapy, New Chairman
Indiana
Iowa
MCW
MCV
Colorado
UAB
Wake
Loyola
NYU
Albert Einstein

I think this is a meaningful discussion, but most of it is based on previous reputation. I think there is alot of movement (Ford being a prime example). If one could assign categories (technology, Diversity of case load, Access to procedures (ie brachy), availability of inhouse peds, publication numbers - both clinical and basic sciences, Faculty to resident rations, time for research) on say a 0-10 level (very much like US News and World reports does) I think it would be more beneficial. Of course that is alot of work. I think that there would be more shake up in the rank ad file.Illustrations at point:

U of Chicago - while being known for basic sciences - this is primarily a function of the chairman's past/interests. If one was to comb the literature they would find few basic science papers coming out,shy of collaborative efforts on behalf of the chairman.

U of Michigan - Again, less familiar, but are they really chugging out that much basic science stuff?

Vanderbilt- obvious a up and coming/forward moving program with an influx of MD/PhD's. This may help it propel forward, but what about technology?

Mayo- At least based on my personal experience this place was awesome to train people. Sure they may not have a reputation of being "most selective" but those guys have great clinical exposure and solid - if not innovative therapies.

Harvard Combined - strong tradition and track record, top selectivity. This is what I would warn of "top selectivity" Seems to me a poor marker of a good program, as good in = good out, not a very meaningful measure of program. And their basic science resaerch - any worse than MD Andersen?

Upenn- Really? What do they have up on anyone but a history?

Again I don't claim to have any objective answers, however as people revisit rankings/quartiles/tiers or what ever it would be beneficial to have a running list of such objective criteria such as #of machines, types of machines (Novalis, cyberknife, gamma knife), Imaging modalities readily available (ct sim, pet-ct, fMRI, MRI, petMRI??),resident case load, pass rate for boards, ratios of placement in academic vs. private practice, publications/resident or faculty members. I am happy to contribute such information from the program I will be at, but I that will be a couple of years.

I know this is a big project, but to grip the question at hand in any meaningful and unbiased of previous "glory" manner, I don't see a better way

 

[kimplera]

After interviewing at a bunch of places, I didn't put much stock into which new toy "program A" had versus "program B". It certainly seems like the technology continues to move forward so that last years new toy is old news by the time we finish training. I'd be more concerned with how well the residents know their stuff and how they get along. Certainly, case load and board pass rate have something to do with that. In addition, for those interested in academics, looking at the track record of previous residents in finding academic positions is important (Granted, my top ranked program doesn't have a stellar history). Not only if, but where do the residents get their academic jobs? If they all stay on faculty for three years and end up in private practice that doesn't mean as much to me.

rk

 

[pikachu]

I have to take issue with the notion that Penn's reputation is based solely on its history. I interviewed there (did not match there) and was really impressed by the program. OK, so it may not be the place for you if you're passionately committed to prostate brachytherapy. Certainly the physical plant is not the prettiest, and the residents have to share computers. That aside, they have a phenomenal Peds center and clinical database resources that seem close to bottomless. Not to mention Oncolink. I also liked the combination of the VA and community hospitals with the tertiary care HUP so you have a good mix of patient types. The residents seem really bright and get along, attendings were very personable during the interview sessions and seemed like they would all be into teaching. If you really think that Penn is resting on its laurels you should check out the listing of resident publications on their website. It looks like it hasn't been updated in the past year, but these guys are publishing A LOT in major journals.

Anyway, not sure why I'm so dedicated to sticking up for Penn, but there you have it. I just wanted to give my impression of the place. There were a few other places I interviewed that had all the shiny new toys, but the teaching atmosphere did not seem nearly as positive. Even if there is a billion dollars' worth of equipment at your center, having to teach yourself to use it may not be the way you want to learn radiation oncology.

The program where I matched (Maryland) is fortunate enough to have an influx of new equipment and a group of really dedicated attendings so I feel like I got the best of both worlds. I would definitely put it in the top tier as per radoncman. We do have to go away for Peds but so do most other programs -

 

[Ursus Martimus]

That is fair enough and I think the issue at hand. I don't mean to denegrate any particular program, rather attempt to get some objective data on the programs rather than gausalt impressions. Knowing no better way I have searched Radiation and affliated institutions and this is what I come up with for 2004

Upenn - 7
MDACC- 29
UCSF - 13
Beaumont 14 - this is a discalaimer for all interested, as this is where I'll be.

At any rate probably a poor measure as you get all kinds of hits for other stuff.

As far as the toy issue, again I partially agree. However, if an institution is looking to push technology to the next level, it illustrates a commitment ot advancing the field. That, indeed, has significant benefits for it's residents. FOr instances Tomotherapy's development at UWisc has more implications than Wayne State's purchase of a tomotherapy "unit". The impressions I think are best left for the interviewee's personal taste but I have never found a compilation of "objective" measures for the community to browse.

 

[Tanner]

That is fair enough and I think the issue at hand. I don't mean to denegrate any particular program, rather attempt to get some objective data on the programs rather than gausalt impressions. Knowing no better way I have searched Radiation and affliated institutions and this is what I come up with for 2004

Upenn - 7
MDACC- 29
UCSF - 13
Beaumont 14 - this is a discalaimer for all interested, as this is where I'll be.

At any rate probably a poor measure as you get all kinds of hits for other stuff.

QUOTE]


What exactly are these numbers? faculty size?? Did you just goggle the institution's name? curious.

One other way you can gauge the strength of a program, especially it's research/academic strength, is to look at the number of ASTRO presentations and/or total publications a program produces each year. This is only one of numerous ways, but probably one of the more objective methods.

 

[Ursus Martimus]

oh sorry, I searched the institution affiliation and the term radiation on Pubmed. Total brain fart sorry. This is the number of Pubs for 2004. I admit this is a pretty sad way. I know however if someone asked the chair of their department, they could spit out exactly how many original papers, review papers, and abstracts.

 

[stephew]

i think radonc has made a very good summary of a topic that is traditionally very difficult to do justice to. One can quibble about specifics here and there but taken on the whole, I'm quite impressed with the organizational style and sorting you've done.

 

[COhiker]

In a time of intense procrastination, let me spend a few minutes trying to update what has been written on this thread in the past about specific programs. When I was first learning about the field and thinking about places to apply, I relied heavily on this particular thread – of note, programs also seem to read this thread and take issue with it in some cases – and wanted to make sure it reflected what’s going on now (from one person’s perspective) to the extent possible.

Background: I interviewed in 2004/2005 and matched (thankfully). I came from a program with a strong history and good current residency and was looking for a combination of strong clinical and good basic research in hopes of one day doing translational stuff… As with most people, I had geographic preferences which may creep in here.

I’m not going to even try to put things in any rank order because that’s not my intention – I just want to give my impressions to provide as much info as possible for those who are thinking of places to apply.

Michigan: This is a phenomenal program. When I think back on why I felt that way leaving the interview, it is difficult to pin down specifics. The charisma and leadership of Dr Lawrence is probably the biggest factor. He is currently (and arguably) the biggest figure in the field today. The facilities are nice and modern – though not brand new – and there is natural light in the department (well, in the chairman’s office anyway). They are strong in physics, clinical and basic research. The chair gives you a very concise vision of what he wants to produce (cancer doctors) and it’s easy to buy into this vision. The residents really seemed happy – only complaints were about Ann Arbor – and there seemed to be a good support system. They have probably the strongest recent track record of getting people into academics. Coming from this program, the sense is that you’re a highly sought after commodity in academics. The department also has a lot of institutional support due to the dean (or former dean?). The result is the feeling that the department has money. Great mentors are available with lots of big names. They interview early and require a year internship in their own medicine program. This last seems to be under consideration right now if the post-match questionnaire is anything to go by.

UNC: This is a smaller department in a smaller health system in a smaller town. That said, it has some feel of the larger research type programs. They have (had?) a wonderful chair who now has a SPORE. There are also several big names in translational research who seemed like they would be great mentors. The program only has 4 residents on a somewhat strange (legacy) 2-1-1-0 schedule. The residents are bright and motivated. They work hard as they take a week of call every 4th week and during that week, prepare teaching and talks for the others. They necessarily get along well with each other and with the faculty. All the faculty are respected and only one rotation was dreaded (and that was for hours alone). They have their own treatment planning software which is designed and developed in-house. The physical plant is newer and actually quite sizable. There is some discussion of moving into a new cancer center in the coming years. This is very much a place where you can seek-out and find great mentorship. At the end of 4 years, the faculty will know you and be able to really write strong letters. It was hard to find fault with the program though I should mention that their interview was a little tougher than many other places (“Why would you leave your fancy program to come down here to little ol’ UNC? – asked with tongue planted firmly in cheek).

Penn: As has recently been discussed, this is a very strong program with all indications pointing towards a bright future. There are several issues which currently hold this program back. First, the physical space is old, limited, and not attractive. The clinic is split in two as are the resident’s rooms. To put it mildly, they have not been on the path of early adoption of new technologies. This means that IMRT is a relatively new thing (past two years or so) and CT planning has only been around for a few years longer than that. That said, they seem to have slightly changed courses and plan on having as up-to-date a clinical setting as anywhere with protons, pet-ct, IMRT, and IGRT. This won’t happen immediately but the long-running joke of when the cancer center will appear may be obsolete in the next 4-5 years. Because Dr McKenna was the chair for a long time (before heading to England this spring), the department was very much in his image. That means that basic research and translational work has been their strongest suit with physics and clinical trials being somewhat (markedly) weaker. They no longer participate in RTOG. The residents are on par with the best out there. They seemed very social, laid back and involved in the department. The faculty has some big and big-ish names, most notably Dr Glatstein. The new chairperson will very much color what happens to Penn over the next 5 years and anyone who interviews there should ask lots of questions about the direction and future.

Wisconsin: Another smaller program in a smaller location with the feel of a bigger place. Another institution – like Michigan and UNC - with a good balance of the big three (clinical, physics and biology). Some very big names in the chairman and program director and because it is a smaller place, you get a lot of time with these guys. The residents seemed really happy there and got along well (from all appearances). The leadership does not think of Wisconsin as a smaller place – nor should they. They are very proud of and confident in their residency and will tell you that it is second to none. As with many of the places I interviewed, I think the academic/private practice split coming out is around 50/50. Madison is a great small city with a lot to offer a family – cheap housing, lots to do outside, and some culture from the U. In terms of training, it’s hard to think of a reason not to strongly consider Wisconsin. As a note, location will come up in the interview so have an answer as to why you’d come from Florida to the cold north.

Chicago: Based on my interview at Chicago, I thought it was one of the top two or three out there. Subsequent discussions with others made me draw back a little from those feelings. They have some of the best didactics and as a department and are fully committed to teaching. There is a highly formalized teaching session with the whole department and Hellman sitting (in some rank order) around a table and pimping a resident on a case. The resident is prepared with a binder full of information and has been “pre-pimped” by other residents before hand. While hard to describe, it’s a pretty impressive production (and this is what it felt like) and seemed to produce some of the better read residents out there. They not only are expected to know rad onc, but also medical and surgical oncology. There is a reputation of the place having a heavy basic science bent but it should be noted that they are clinically “progressive” and treat the majority of their patients with IMRT. They pay for two one-month away rotations (one national and one international) and give you plenty of research time. Some potential drawbacks include the incorporation of the UIC(?) department mandating some minor commuting around Chicago – and all the wonderful traffic that involves. Their chairman (like Penn’s former) is a big presence in the lab and less so in the clinic – conclusions can be freely drawn from this statement, I’m actually not sure what to do with it myself. If I remember correctly, they have a relatively young, energetic faculty. The facilities are newer and they have a lot of treatment machines.

Duke: This program has a bad reputation (sometimes thinly veiled) on this site. This year, the program came out and addressed issues which have been raised on here. (This occurred something along these lines: PD – “Tell me what others are saying about Duke”; Applicants – SILENCE; PD – “No really, tell me… what do they say on *that* message board?”; Applicants – SILENCE; PD – “They say we’re mean, and they we have no technology, right?”; Applicants – [eyes downcast, mumbling] “Maybe we heard something like that…”; PD – “Well those allegations are wrong and I’ll tell you why…”) From a technology standpoint, the program now seems to be in the top tier. They have new space, tons of treatment machines, and if I’m not mistaken, a pet-ct in the department (might be an MRI…???). From the malignancy standpoint, it’s nearly impossible to comment other than to say that they flat-out denied it. I’m not fully conversant on the history of this problem but from what I gathered, the individual in question is no longer as involved. They have a brand new chair who seemed very dedicated to producing academics. They do a lot of clinical and basic research. If I recall correctly, they have good physics as well. The VA experience is integrated and seemed popular enough. Based on the interviews, people were nice and interested in teaching – many people from the Harvard programs in the faculty. Overall this seemed like a strong program and I was impressed that they (rather overtly) addressed concerns. If I’m not mistaken none of the applicants from Duke matched there this year: there are likely lots of reasons for this but I think it’s notable.

 

[COhiker]

UCSF: This is a place which I think most people are dying to fall in love with – or at least I was. It’s in a great city, in a great location, and has a wonderful reputation (especially among faculty). While I’m trying to update what has been written about this place previously, I think most of the negatives still hold true. There is a distinct lack of commitment as a department to teaching. That’s not at all to say that individual attendings don’t teach (and even do it well from all reports) but simply to say that teaching does not seem to be in the “mission” of the department. This is manifest in many ways including poor (or no) attendance at chart rounds, limited didactics and somewhat spotty involvement from faculty. It’s difficult to fully explain how individual attendings can be good teachers and want to teach but how the department as a whole can fall flat but that was my sense. It has the feeling of binding time until there is change in leadership. All that said, the residents – because they are some of the best around – come out well trained as they take it upon themselves to learn. They also generally have a lighter schedule allowing time to read (and write). Splitting time between the two campuses didn’t seem to be a big deal and there was discussion of increasing the pay to make it less unreasonable to move to SF. As the chief said, “You don’t come to UCSF for the pay.” Other good things about the department include new toys, great CNS, lots of big names, great health system, and that reputation. Not a great history producing academics but I expect you do what ever you wanted coming out – I’m suggesting that they might not inspire a lot of folks to enter academics. Not a big biology place but very good physics and clinical.

Stanford: The feel of Stanford could not be more different from UCSF. Where UCSF is hands off, Stanford feels very hands on – very. The PD is involved to a large degree in the residency and teaching is reported to be very important. They work longer hours than the UCSF folks. The new cancer center is striking, to put it mildly – the place is really beautiful. They have as much technology as you could ever want. I didn’t get the impression that the faculty morale was very high (unlike say Wisconsin) but they are proud of being at Stanford. There is a lot of biology and basic cancer research that goes on at Stanford and of the bay area programs, it is by far the more science-y. They are also more academic feeling. More than most places I visited, I felt like the department was putting on a show for the applicants. Hard to know what to make of feelings like that… I did have a gripe with the interview experience. The PD and chairman spend a not insignificant amount of time harping on the fact that they don’t believe that programs should contact students: essentially that the match should be pure. They stress that they will answer questions but will not contact you after the interview. Having talked to folks, I think everyone got an e-mail from the PD several days after the interview saying general post-interview niceties. While not the typical “contact” that goes on as the rankings are formed, it did seem slightly unsettling.

Harvard: The recently combined (but clearly still quite separate) Harvard Rad Onc Program (HROP???) is something to behold. While it has all the benefits of rotating through lots of hospitals, there is a real possibility of falling through the cracks. You don’t “belong” to a given place and don’t get the benefits of getting to know a single hospital well. They’ve joined in name but nothing else as far as I can tell. The residents have a common video lecture in the mornings and go back and forth every 6 months but otherwise things feel very separate. There are two chairs, and not even a common website (or website at all!). The faculty still seem wary of the combination though the chairs assured me that they were glad of the joining and thought everything would continue to go well. There are tons of research opportunities and you’re given a year in which to undertake a project. The residents are close but the separation makes things difficult in terms of not seeing people very often when they’re “on the other side.” The technology is not as flashy as other places and the departments are not as new feeling as some. There are a lot of big names and the potential for them to get to know you – though this possibility is far more real at a smaller place. There are also a lot of young faculty – this is a nice balance though one gets the feeling that the young ones are there to work. There is a big emphasis on going into academics: you will be asked outright and it will be suggested that there should be only one answer. The interview experience is perhaps too involved. Over 36 hours you interview with ~20 people. Through all of this, they never sit down and give you a program overview. Without a website you are left to ask for even the most basic info. Perhaps others had a different impression but my sense was that the place has still not “declared” itself (other than the obvious MGH and Joint Center reputation).

Yale: The interview was poorly run making it difficult to truly assess the program. We only me a few resident (a big red flag) and the chair didn’t meet with us. They present themselves as being very hands off and expecting a lot of the residents. This was true to the point where residents would have an afternoon or two off (they weren’t expected to see follow ups I think) and they were supposed to be self teaching. The residents have to drive something like 45 minutes to an hour each way to a satellite clinic. Some good research available and by reports a nice chair.

MCV: While not on the radar of many people, this seemed to be an extremely strong program. Having lost their chair recently and with no immediate plans to look for a replacement, things are expected to remain somewhat static for a few years. In this case, this doesn’t seem to really be a negative though. They have a whole lot of physics and some good biology. They are also a very high volume center from the looks of things. My impression was that perhaps the rad onc department was the strongest in the hospital. While nice, this is far from ideal for a training program. The faculty are strong and very nice. It’s a small program so fitting in is more important than other places. While less discussed on this site, it seems to be well respected when you talk to faculty. Richmond seemed very livable.

Hopkins: This program has reputation significantly worse than reality. Perhaps our gentle moderator has been too harsh in her assessment – I’ll sing the place’s praises. First, Hopkins is Hopkins and once they set their mind to something, you should assume they’ll do it right. To that end, they seem committed to greatly expanding the department both in clinical function and research. There is no kinder, more interested chair out there. He thanks you for coming and actually seems to mean it. The facility is new and beautiful. The other faculty are generally nice and relatively young. The reputation of not being up to typical Hopkins standards should be reversed – the place is an up and comer. Probably most notable is the real sense of excitement about the future. The residents gave the impression of being happy.

Utah: Without a doubt, the best location – ever. If you like to ski, or hike, or bike, or paddle, or really do anything in the outdoors, SLC is a wonderful location. The new hospital has a great view and sits at the base of the mountains. The facility is really shiny and new. There seems to be a lot of translational options and the faculty are pushing for resident research. Others can probably better speak about the relative merits of the training but my impression was that Utah is trying to push for academics. Notably, the former (energetic) PD, is now in a semi-private practice setting but associated still with the training. There was a sense that the place was very much up and coming.

WashU: Like Hopkins, WashU has a feeling of excitement about the future with a brand new chair. By report, there was a period of intense stagnation which is now being reversed. The direction that the program will go is still not fully declared as the chair is really new but interviewees should ask, ask, ask. There remain some strong personalities in the faculty based on the interview day and by report but generally, the residents seemed happy. I did notice that when asked, residents noted that they chose WashU because they “got in.” In today’s climate, that’s a realistic and honest answer – but not the ringing endorsement one might expect. The chair is reversing the lack of biologic research available and will make it a more balanced research institution. Naturally it has a premiere reputation and the facilities (new) and faculty would seem to back that up. The faculty are very interested in teaching and residents seem happy. St Louis is an easy place to live and there seemed to be a significant number of residents with families. There is also the benefit of the very strong health center.

 

[COhiker]

Florida: When talking to faculty, this was fairly consistently ranked in the “top tier.” I therefore interviewed expecting to come away impressed. Whether it was Gainesville, the now older facilities or something else, I came away somewhat underwhelmed (burn out was also a possibility as they interview towards the end). The residents were among the nicest and most interesting I met on the interview trail and all were clearly bright and motivated. The facilities are modern, but not as shiny and new as many listed above. They are completing a proton facility in Jacksonville – an hour away – which will be nice. Medical oncology is by report weak there which hampers education. The faculty are really – really! – nice and it was difficult not to imagine four happy years there. As I know little about head and neck, I can’t really comment on what is reported to be the strongest specialty there. Gainesville has few small town charms and some of the bigger city headaches including traffic – but then I made my preferences clear in regards to Utah. Florida is clearly still a strong program but it didn’t have the energy or excitement that many other programs currently have.

I think that’s it. I’ve tried to be honest with regards to my impressions of places. I am certainly open to criticism but this was by no means meant to be an attack on any program – merely an additional perspective. While this site (and this thread in particular) are very helpful, things tend to be heavily colored by the few who contribute. Consider this is my diluting influence. I also would echo others in encouraging this year’s group to share their experience.

 

[stephew]

Thank you for your interview impressions.
I have two quick comments:
as for hopkins, i dont think ive been particularly harsh on them in public at all. And ive always said I have enormous respect for the Ted DeWeese, the chair for a year (+) now. I do fully agree with your impression of its potential future. But with regard to the validity of any critique ive ever made about JHH (through 7/04 at anyway), I will leave you only with this perspective: I was there for four years, not just a day's interview. I did the hopkins thing.

As for Harvard: im surprised to hear your impression is that the young faculty are there to be work horses; that's not the dynamic at all. the division of labor and the chance for academic advancement is very equitable. Additionally the seniors support the juniors in their advancement and development. From the faculty standpoint, its great. There are places known to chew up junior faculty but this isn't one of them by any stretch. again, this is from experience. Oh yea and the new HROP web site is just about ready. There's been no web site presence for ages.

I realize youre impressions are exactly that; and valuable. these are just mine.

 

[COhiker]

Perhaps it wasn't specifically your impression of Hopkins that I was trying to respond to but a more widely held belief that the program does not live up to the "Hopkins" name. (I may be alone on this and if so, I apologize) I was very surprised at what I saw there on the interview day and what the current residents had to say. While this thread fails to provide much in the way of historical perspective, it can (and should) give as up-to-date impressions as possible and my goal was to update Hopkins’ (and other places’) image. The vast majority of what is written here (by myself and others) is based on a single day’s impression and should be treated as such. Notably, I find it difficult to give the whole scoop on my home institution – or even places I spent a month. It just feels ungrateful.

As for the HROP thing, I will certainly defer to you on matters of what it’s like to be on faculty. I’m first to admit that I lack a certain degree of perspective.

So I’ll concede both points (because this is naturally an argument) and will look forward to the new website.

 

[stephew]

Perhaps it wasn't specifically your impression of Hopkins that I was trying to respond to but a more widely held belief that the program does not live up to the "Hopkins" name. (I may be alone on this and if so, I apologize) I was very surprised at what I saw there on the interview day and what the current residents had to say. While this thread fails to provide much in the way of historical perspective, it can (and should) give as up-to-date impressions as possible and my goal was to update Hopkins’ (and other places’) image. The vast majority of what is written here (by myself and others) is based on a single day’s impression and should be treated as such. Notably, I find it difficult to give the whole scoop on my home institution – or even places I spent a month. It just feels ungrateful.

As for the HROP thing, I will certainly defer to you on matters of what it’s like to be on faculty. I’m first to admit that I lack a certain degree of perspective.

So I’ll concede both points (because this is naturally an argument) and will look forward to the new website.

no youre right about the hopkins thing in that its been a weak point next to the rest of the hopkins stuff; they're so strong in so many other areas, including medonc, that radonc was comparitively weak. I think that's being remedied. On interesting thing is that im now in a position to compare a few programs first hand and there really are different cultures, but one common thread is most people dont appreciate what they do have while they're there.

 

[landon]

Website launched last week reflects a variety of recent and ongoing changes as well as new information.
http://radonc.yale.edu

 

[tomassieblue]

It seems like this thread is really turning into something very influential for applicants. I hope more and more people can contribute their thoughts after the interview process because it's great hear how things may or may not be changing year in and year out. I applied for residency back in 2002 and it seems like many programs have made great strides in improving their residencies. I'm a 2nd year (PGY-3) resident now, and I've been lurking this whole time to see what's being said, especially about my program after our interviews to see the impression we make on the applicants.

This thread probably represents the most in-depth analysis on program rankings and reputations available, and I just wanted to say how great it is to have people contribute the way they have. Let's keep the posts coming!

 

[Thaiger75]

It seems like this thread is really turning into something very influential for applicants. I hope more and more people can contribute their thoughts after the interview process because it's great hear how things may or may not be changing year in and year out. I applied for residency back in 2002 and it seems like many programs have made great strides in improving their residencies. I'm a 2nd year (PGY-3) resident now, and I've been lurking this whole time to see what's being said, especially about my program after our interviews to see the impression we make on the applicants.

This thread probably represents the most in-depth analysis on program rankings and reputations available, and I just wanted to say how great it is to have people contribute the way they have. Let's keep the posts coming!

I find it interesting that a program (ie Duke) actually takes comments made on this forum seriously. That does attest to the influence of this website.

 

[RadOncMan]

The faculty list at Yale must be the most incestuous I have ever seen! I don't remember seeing more than one faculty member coming from another instutition. One can only wonder how such a program can ever improve for the better without any outside perspective or fresh insight. It's like the old IBM PC division churning out the same PCs and being overtaken by nimble competitors like Dell. I don't mean to pick just on Yale cuz a lot of other RadOnc programs are just as guilty.

On the flip side - you would think that the Yale trainees would want to accept a faculty position somewhere else to expand their horizons or at least to learn something new. Maybe... they just aren't competitive enough to obtain those positions?

 

[landon]

Just looking at the MD faculty listed, 1/3 appear to have trained elsewhere. Of those who trained and stayed at Yale, do you really think they were not competitive enough to secure a position elsewhere? Perhaps there were things about yale that kept them there. Yale obviously had interest in keeping them.

 

[stephew]

fyi the HROP site will be up and running WEds. Its actually up but not publically announced yet.

 

[khybs]

HROP?

fyi the HROP site will be up and running WEds. Its actually up but not publically announced yet.

 

[RadOncMan]

Just looking at the MD faculty listed, 1/3 appear to have trained elsewhere. OK I STAND CORRECTED ON THAT - ON SECOND LOOK. Of those who trained and stayed at Yale, do you really think they were not competitive enough to secure a position elsewhere? YES. WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO STAY AT YALE WHEN YOU COULD GO ELSEWHERE? THE FACILITIES AREN'T THAT GREAT AND THE CANCER CENTER ADMITTEDLY IS ONE OF THE WEAKER AREAS AT YALE. NEW HAVEN STILL IS A DUMP AFTER ALL THESE YEARS, WITH THE ONLY POSITIVES BEING GREAT PIZZA, LOUIS BURGERS, AND JIMMY'S SEAFOOD. AT LEAST THEY LET GO THE MUCH MALIGNED DEAN DAVID KESSLER, WHO PER SEVERAL CHAIRMEN, LACKED VISION AND SET THE MEDICAL SCHOOL BACK A FEW YEARS. Perhaps there were things about yale that kept them there. PLEASE TELL. Yale obviously had interest in keeping them. UNLESS THEY COULDN'T ATTRACT ANYONE BETTER.

 

[stephew]

HROP?

harvard radonc program

 

[stephew]

i think that its great, nearly 20K views of this thread and the impressions are very important. I refer to no one post here, but I'd add some general thoughts; the first is that these are impressions and my familiarity with several makes the impressions very interesting; some are right on and some are far off base; thats fine, its not a problem because these are impressions and so the more the better. Another thing I note is what people perceive as important. I noted this on the interview thread as well. I note applicants continually underweight the role of interview. Similarly there is a disconnect (I think- and this is a fuzzier thing to quantify) between what applicants believe is a good sign in a program and what, from my side of the fence anyway, is a relevant. Again this latter issue is one that could stir a lot of debate that's genuinely fair whereas I know quite firmly that applicants have been underappreciate the interview and how it effects their ranking.

Just some thoughts and encouragement to please continue posting your impressions.

 

[JTradonc]

Utah: Without a doubt, the best location – ever. If you like to ski, or hike, or bike, or paddle, or really do anything in the outdoors, SLC is a wonderful location. The new hospital has a great view and sits at the base of the mountains. The facility is really shiny and new. There seems to be a lot of translational options and the faculty are pushing for resident research. Others can probably better speak about the relative merits of the training but my impression was that Utah is trying to push for academics. Notably, the former (energetic) PD, is now in a semi-private practice setting but associated still with the training. There was a sense that the place was very much up and coming.

As a PGY-3 at this program, I wholly endorse CoHiker's impression. In my opinion the academic training is excellent. The current crop of residents performed EXTREMELY well on the In-Service examinations, and we typically score in the > 90% on physics RAPHEX (I am not privy to the clinical scores).

We are given a lot of rope with regard to research. Both our seniors this year have many job offers on their plates, both private and academic. One was offered an academic job at an institution that is often listed as top 5. I am in my PGY-3 year now and have had 2 Oral presentations at excellent meetings (now submitted for publication), and 2 additional abstracts submitted for upcoming meetings. The department does not mind flying residents both domestic and international for research meetings.

Technology is superb, A Novalis brainlab, 2300EX x 2, 2100cd and 6/100, and HDR afterloader. We have just received approval for 4D IGRT planning system.

When I was applying, I would have laughed out loud (before interviewing) at the notion of coming to Utah for my training. I spent months agonizing over my rank list trying to convince myself not to rank it #1 in lieu of some of the big name programs. As far as I can tell, we are being well trained and (based on our current seniors) getting recruited like mad for both Academia and private.

The Moral of the story: who is best/worst is a challenging way to look at radiation oncology programs. I agree that threads like these are useful to get an overall impression of past reputations. Nevertheless, I think it is best to apply widely, and evaluate each program yourself, so you can see which have the best fit for your personal situation.

 

[radonculous]

Just looking at the MD faculty listed, 1/3 appear to have trained elsewhere. OK I STAND CORRECTED ON THAT - ON SECOND LOOK. Of those who trained and stayed at Yale, do you really think they were not competitive enough to secure a position elsewhere? YES. WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO STAY AT YALE WHEN YOU COULD GO ELSEWHERE? THE FACILITIES AREN'T THAT GREAT AND THE CANCER CENTER ADMITTEDLY IS ONE OF THE WEAKER AREAS AT YALE. NEW HAVEN STILL IS A DUMP AFTER ALL THESE YEARS, WITH THE ONLY POSITIVES BEING GREAT PIZZA, LOUIS BURGERS, AND JIMMY'S SEAFOOD. AT LEAST THEY LET GO THE MUCH MALIGNED DEAN DAVID KESSLER, WHO PER SEVERAL CHAIRMEN, LACKED VISION AND SET THE MEDICAL SCHOOL BACK A FEW YEARS. Perhaps there were things about yale that kept them there. PLEASE TELL. Yale obviously had interest in keeping them. UNLESS THEY COULDN'T ATTRACT ANYONE BETTER.

Two things - anyone in this day and age who types in all caps needs to either stop leaning on the shift key, or learn some etiquette. Really, it hurts my eyes. It feels like listening to a small child who can't modulate their voice. It sounds like you know something about New Haven and Yale with your references to food, their erstwhile Dean, and "new haven after all these years", so maybe you've got an axe to grind? I see no reason to think of Yale as having "not so great" facilities. Their website boasts of a gamma knife, the standard IMRT and high dose rate gizmos that you'd expect at a residency program. So please try and keep your personal gripes out of what has been a very well moderated and thoughtful forum.

Secondly, I think most small and medium programs programs are pretty inbred, and that isn't just Yale. I looked at Fox Chase and it looks like around 1/2 of their faculty is home grown, and I think most radiation oncology programs are like that in my brief survey of websites. But the point is well taken, that it's probably better to have faculty come from diverse areas, at least so that there are that much more connections to the radiation oncology world as a whole. But if we're at the point of nit-picking whether 1/3 to 2/3 of faculty have been home grown, then I think we've all fallen off the deep end. Questions that are more relevant are, "Are the residents happy?", "Are the residents successful academically and professionally?" and "Will this program support me and help me be a great radiation oncologist?"

 

[radonculous]

The Moral of the story: who is best/worst is a challenging way to look at radiation oncology programs. I agree that threads like these are useful to get an overall impression of past reputations. Nevertheless, I think it is best to apply widely, and evaluate each program yourself, so you can see which have the best fit for your personal situation.

This is the most refreshing post I've seen in a loooooong time. Hear hear!

Stop listening to the noise and all the crap that gets posted on these boards (sorry moderators ) and listen to your gut, your loved ones, and go where you'll be happy.

 

[stephew]

This is the most refreshing post I've seen in a loooooong time. Hear hear!

Stop listening to the noise and all the crap that gets posted on these boards (sorry moderators ) and listen to your gut, your loved ones, and go where you'll be happy.

no worries. but then should they listen to your post then... .aha the philosophy of it all!

 

[plentystupid]

Here are my two cents on the top 15 programs.

My disclaimer is that ranking is a very personal experience.
This one represents my humble opinion.
Additionally, I did not factor geography into this analysis.

I organized the list into groups.
I feel it difficult to distinguish programs within each grouping and see little value in doing so.

Here we go:

Number 1
MDACC (without a doubt)


Numbers 2-3
MSKCC
Harvard

Number 4
Michigan (superstar program)

Numbers 5-7
UCSF (mainly based on reputation)
Chicago
Stanford

Numbers 8-11
Penn (moving up)
Yale (moving up)
Wisco
Wash U

Numbers 12-15
Duke
Florida
Hopkins (moving up)
Mayo

Stay tuned for my indepth ranking with analysis

- PlentyStupid

 

[Kara]

I interviewed at UCSF this year, and I definitely agree that the actual quality of the training program in recent years has fallen short of the program's reputation. However, with Dr. Roach becoming chairman (as of Jan. 1, 06), do you feel that some of the program's weaknesses (ex. didactics) will be remedied and that the program may be considered in your "moving up" category? Or do you feel that besides this recent change, the program does not have a much brighter future than its present?

Here are my two cents on the top 15 programs.

My disclaimer is that ranking is a very personal experience.
This one represents my humble opinion.
Additionally, I did not factor geography into this analysis.

I organized the list into groups.
I feel it difficult to distinguish programs within each grouping and see little value in doing so.

Here we go:

Number 1
MDACC (without a doubt)


Numbers 2-3
MSKCC
Harvard

Number 4
Michigan (superstar program)

Numbers 5-7
UCSF (mainly based on reputation)
Chicago
Stanford

Numbers 8-11
Penn (moving up)
Yale (moving up)
Wisco
Wash U

Numbers 12-15
Duke
Florida
Hopkins (moving up)
Mayo

Stay tuned for my indepth ranking with analysis

- PlentyStupid

 

[plentystupid]

I interviewed at UCSF this year, and I definitely agree that the actual quality of the training program in recent years has fallen short of the program's reputation. However, with Dr. Roach becoming chairman (as of Jan. 1, 06), do you feel that some of the program's weaknesses (ex. didactics) will be remedied and that the program may be considered in your "moving up" category? Or do you feel that besides this recent change, the program does not have a much brighter future than its present?

I feel even considering this wonderful news about Dr. Roach (Although from what I understand, he is technically interim chair and it whether or not he gets the nod, which I hope happens, has not yet been finalized or official), I had already taken this under consideration and based my ranking on the best possible scenario for UCSF.

If anything I feel UCSF will probably continue slipping down before it regains ground. So honestly, I feel if anything it is still moving down instead of moving up.... that being said, Dr. Roach will do GREAT things for UCSF. So perhaps, it will simply moving down at a slower pace... (sorry)

Depending upon what happens, in maybe 10yrs or so, it may return to its former status (i.e. where I ranked it on my list)... But I do not see it eclipsing Michigan anytime soon.

I hope this helps clearify...

- PlentyStupid

 

[Kara]

Your assessment is interesting. My feeling has been that UCSF's shortcoming's have namely been the faculty's lack of commitment to didactics and the program's lack of structure. During my time there, I got the impression that under Dr. Roach as chair (if in fact that happens), these issues would be resolved (is that naive?). Are these issues essentially the same contributing factors to your feeling that UCSF will continue slipping before regaining ground, or are there other aspects of their program that concern you?

I feel even considering this wonderful n
ews about Dr. Roach (Although from what I understand, he is technically interim chair and it whether or not he gets the nod, which I hope happens, has not yet been finalized or official), I had already taken this under consideration and based my ranking on the best possible scenario for UCSF.

If anything I feel UCSF will probably continue slipping down before it regains ground. So honestly, I feel if anything it is still moving down instead of moving up.... that being said, Dr. Roach will do GREAT things for UCSF. So perhaps, it will simply moving down at a slower pace... (sorry)

Depending upon what happens, in maybe 10yrs or so, it may return to its former status (i.e. where I ranked it on my list)... But I do not see it eclipsing Michigan anytime soon.

I hope this helps clearify...

- PlentyStupid

 

[plentystupid]

Your assessment is interesting. My feeling has been that UCSF's shortcoming's have namely been the faculty's lack of commitment to didactics and the program's lack of structure. During my time there, I got the impression that under Dr. Roach as chair (if in fact that happens), these issues would be resolved (is that naive?). Are these issues essentially the same contributing factors to your feeling that UCSF will continue slipping before regaining ground, or are there other aspects of their program that concern you?

I hope this does not come across the wrong way. I actually quite like Dr. Roach and hope that he will do wonderful things for UCSF...

However, the fact remains that he has been there for quite a long time. He has had ample opportunity and time to influence the program, to take initiative and implement changes that would improve the program even before he became interim chair.

Additionally, he has been interim chair for quite some time (relatively speaking) and my impression was that not much improvement has been made. This opinion is based on personal observation and input from current residents.

This is not to say that promoting someone internally means that status quo will be maintained for better or for worse. Look at Penn, and Hopkins for example, they promoted internally and have been making tremendous advances already.

In summary, I am not saying that Dr. Roach will not improve things at UCSF… On the contrary, I feel confident that he will. I was simply expecting more, and was unfortunately disappointed with what I saw. On a side note, the program director perhaps has more influence on the concerns that have been brought up by this forum in the past. I am sure the chair can and will influence these concerns. However, I feel that some considerable effort will have to be made in order to improve the issues that UCSF suffers from. I look forward to these improvements as the Dept. follows through with their "renewed commitment" to resident training. Alas, perhaps they are waiting until the final chair decision is made officially before more decisive initiative is taken.

- Plentystupid

 

[CNphair]

Just wondering if anyone has new insights into the situation at Thomas Jefferson...When this thread first started (way back in 2003), Jefferson was often listed as a top program. However, there were several complaints about a lack of involvement by the chair and an overall sense of malignancy.

I am hoping someone familiar with the program as it stands now may be able to share the relative strengths/weaknesses of the department. It was one of my first interviews, and I left with a rather negative impression. However, I recognize that this was based on the feeling that too many applicants were interviewed on one day, very few residents came by to meet the applicants, and not one faculty member had glanced at my application ahead of time. This doesn't mean it is a bad training program...just a bad interview.

Any other thoughts?

 

[plentystupid]

Just wondering if anyone has new insights into the situation at Thomas Jefferson...When this thread first started (way back in 2003), Jefferson was often listed as a top program. However, there were several complaints about a lack of involvement by the chair and an overall sense of malignancy.

I am hoping someone familiar with the program as it stands now may be able to share the relative strengths/weaknesses of the department. It was one of my first interviews, and I left with a rather negative impression. However, I recognize that this was based on the feeling that too many applicants were interviewed on one day, very few residents came by to meet the applicants, and not one faculty member had glanced at my application ahead of time. This doesn't mean it is a bad training program...just a bad interview.

Any other thoughts?

I had quite a few thoughts about Jefferson...

This was my only interview that I walked away from decided that I would prefer not to match than to go to this program. So I did not rank them.

Across the board I had at best an uncomfortable experience. Faculty, residents, and fellow interviewies seemed to say "stay away from this program." It did not seem like a safe learning environment. One of my interviewers spent 10 of the 15min interview telling me that all my research was useless and why did I even bother waisting my time working on it because it wouldn't amount to anything. They after the 10 min... he told me that I did a good job defending my work while keeping my cool. He told me my head was screwed on right. Then he told me that I am not coming to Jeff. Followed by "what programs are you seriously considering."

The residents told us that at best, "some of the attendings like teaching" and that "the malignant atmosphere is still very much prevelant." They have a well above average level of scut. They seem to have a trend of private practice, with many residents saying that they were, "scared out of academics." One of the senior residents struggled to find something positive to say about the program, other than the fact that they were going to be a radiation oncologist.

The faculty said they were understaffed. They did not seem to show much interest in the residents and seemed more interested in their own careers.

I truly labored as I looked for someone who could say something nice about the program... in the end, I feel the best thing that I can say is that the clinical load is heavy, and that they are involved with some great clinical research protocols... They have the head of the RTOG... Additionally, there is one rotation at their satilite clinic which seemed to be a great learning expereince.

I am sorry if this response is too strong. I feel I usually do a good job of remaining even keeled and not getting too emotional with my feelings about a program. Alas, I was only going to write about Jeff if someone asked... and you asked.

Please take my comments with a salt shaker and add liberally. That being said, when I spoke with other interviewees and residents at other programs, they seemed to have similar feelings towards this program. I do not feel I am in the minority.

In summary, I would prefer not to match, than to train there.


- PlentyStupid

PS I am going to write more later in my in-depth evaluation of some of my visits.

 

[user_name]

I too was very dissatisfied with my Jefferson interview. First of all, I am from a different geographic region and experienced outright bias with my interviewers to the point that I wondered why they wasted my time or theirs. A basic scientist applauded my academic record effusively only to bash my research efforts as insignificant. The interview (this was last year) was on a Saturday and only 3-4 residents bothered to show up and most left very quickly. The chair was the only nice person that I met (and the only one who seemed to have glanced at my CV seconds before I entered.) One guy ate his lunch while we talked, and I had to stare at his partially digested hoagie while he asked me stupid questions that were already on my application.

Another thing to point out about their program that has not been mentioned is the fact that they are not the only show in town. There are, I believe, 3 other training programs in the city with UPenn and Fox Chase being at least equal or better. The residents said that they lacked in several major anatomic sites because the referral patterns were to the other programs. It seemed in Philly that the programs had a niche to their programs.This could be a major problem if you want to be a private practice rad onc that would treat all comers.

I am confident they are living on a 20 year old reputation and their stranglehold on RTOG leadership positions.

 

[Gfunk6]

Wow, some pretty strong comments about Jeff. I can offer no special insights on the program myself, other than to say I interviewed there this year for half a day. However, it appears that my perception was quite different from the above two posters. Following interviews, I liked to write a quick summary of my fresh thoughts of the program. Here's what I wrote about Jeff:

Thomas Jefferson
Location: Urban (Philadelphia, PA); Unlike Penn and Temple, TJeff is in a rather nice area of town; Though Philadelphia is a famous historical landmark and boasts some nice cultural/sports events, it is also centrally located in the NE; All residents but one live in the city itself (the exception commutes ~1 hr from NJ)

Faculty: 8-10 full-time RadOnc clinical faculty; Adam Dickers heads their translational research efforts and he was a very engaging and honest individual to talk to; Walter Curran heads the department and is the chair of RTOG with other faculty heading up sub-committees; several residents have been heavily involved in large-scale clinical trials or have initiated smaller scale clinical studies on their own

Residents: Heard a lot about “Wally’s Angels” in the past but saw no sign of them on my interview day; Either they were hidden or graduated; During the morning orientation the chair pointed out that they recently made some “major” changes due to resident feedback though declined to elaborate what said changes were; the residents are an eclectic bunch – though they seemed to get along with each other and were generally friendly I got a very strange vibe from them; Perhaps other applicants could back me up on this but I couldn’t quite put my finger on what the deal was; Historically, I’ve heard residents work inordinately long hours here but they told me only one or two clinical services keep you here until 7 pm or so, the rest are more normal hours

Department: Most of the Department is located in the Bodine Center for Cancer Treatment – a very nice facility indeed; their Gamma Knife stuff is located in the Neuroscience center a few blocks away and is easily within walking distance

My Two Cents: A fantastic place to be trained to conduct clinical trials and a pretty good place for basic/translational research (I think Dr. Dickers would make an excellent faculty mentor); Only potential negative is the quirkiness of the residents (of note, the newer residents appear more appreciative of the program than the seniors)

Obviously, you can see that my interests are basic-science oriented. As to say, "I'd rather not match than go to Jeff" . . .

That's a pretty strong statement and not one I am willing to make.

 

[plentystupid]

Wow, some pretty strong comments about Jeff. I can offer no special insights on the program myself, other than to say I interviewed there this year for half a day. However, it appears that my perception was quite different from the above two posters. Following interviews, I liked to write a quick summary of my fresh thoughts of the program. Here's what I wrote about Jeff:



Obviously, you can see that my interests are basic-science oriented. As to say, "I'd rather not match than go to Jeff" . . .

That's a pretty strong statement and not one I am willing to make.

I agree it was a strong statement and unfortunately true for me.

To be honest, I very much wanted to like TJ. I mean TJ is located in a fabulous part of a great town. And, I truly enjoyed my time with Dr. Curran. But aside from my time with Curran, my day started with watching some of the senior attendings take turns "humbling" the junior residents, and then it went downhill from there.

In the end, I most likely had a very different experience from Gfunk6. I am the first person to admit that this was only my opinion. My opinion is based on my experience and those I have spoken with, who are both fellow interviewees and current residents.

I sincerely hope Gfunk6 received a much more accurate taste for the program, and that I along with everyone I spoke, were all wrong.

If I am wrong, which I hope I am, then perhaps TJ could benefit from reading this thread. If effort is made, they will be able to make sure more people leave the interview day feeling like Gfunk6 and fewer people leave feeling like myself and other's I have spoken with.

For example, Duke did a fabulous job of dispelling old myths during their interview day. I came away feeling like they were a fabulous place to train and no longer malignant. I feel much of their improvement came from Dr. Marks' efforts and he should be recognized for this success. In addition to listening to the interviewees and current residents, he read what was being said about his program and did something about it.

Alas, if I am right, then the only thing I am right about is that TJ is not the program for me. This is not to say that TJ is an awful program or that they are at risk of loosing accreditation. Ranking programs is a very personal thing… I am the first to say that one person’s opinion about the weaknesses of a program might in fact be a strength for another. e.g. the clinical intensity of programs like MSK and MDA. Other interviewees may see that as a weakness. I personally see it as an important strength of a program (that being said there are upper limits of clinical load that I freely recognize… We are not slave labor.) But the busy program should be full of valuable clinical and research experiences, not busy with scut.

So, perhaps Dr. Dicker will be a fabulous mentor to someone. My impression was otherwise. He told me that it would be unlikely that anything I did during med school or could do during residency would be “worth while.” For me, that is not the sign of a good mentor. I look for a mentor who not only challenges me, but also supports my efforts. And as such, I am comfortable with the risk of not matching rather than being at a program that would make me miserable.

To Gfunk6,
I raise a glass to you and toast, "may we both end up at the programs where we want to train, and in the end become wonderful Radiation Oncologists." I look forward to our paths crossing in the future and sincerely hope there is no bad blood between us. Cheers.

The same goes for the rest of you all.

My fingers, etc... are crossed for us all...

Good Luck!!!

- PlentyStupid

 

[Gfunk6]

To Gfunk6,
I raise a glass to you and toast, "may we both end up at the programs where we want to train, and in the end become wonderful Radiation Oncologists." I look forward to our paths crossing in the future and sincerely hope there is no bad blood between us. Cheers.

Well said.

I certainly did not mean my post to challenge your own observations or user_name's. Since I had a different opinion, I thought it would be useful to share with the community.

Though you were very gracious in assuming that my observations may have been the accurate ones, I concede to you that I believe the reverse to be true. Most of the people I have spoken to have had a negative view of TJeff and I guess finding it was not so bad kind of surprised me.

As an important caveat, I will say that TJeff was one of my first interviews and -- due to lack of experience -- I may not have had the wherewithal to accurately assess them. Towards the end of the interview trail, on the other hand, my "n" was high enough that I could compare programs better.

 

[deleted4401]

GENERAL: I guess since everyone is being open, I'd like to say TJ seemed better than Scutwork or SDN reviews from the year prior. Maybe by the time I was invited, they had the residents better coached or whatever, but I didn't get the 'malignant - do not come here' feeling. I thought the research oriented faculty didn't really have much to say to me, or anything to ask me. I guess I might have felt the same way .. "Um, so what molecules do you centrifuge?" I liked the one junior attending from the satellite site - he's the only one that made me feel comfortable. I laughed the entire time, and he seemed like an excellent mentor. Little or no research talk with him. Just talked about zany hijinks with his highschool buddy who happened to have the same last name as me and interreligious marriages. Much more interesting than the molecule stuff, and running gels.

LOCATION: I think Centre City is a great location, and Philly isn't a bad place to live for a single guy, and I like it's distance to NYC and DC. Seems somewhat expensive, but it's a great restaurant in town. All the major sports, ton of museums, and good shopping. I'd put it in my top 10 big cities to live in.

SCHEDULE: The hours seemed tougher than most, but after doing a prelim in medicine, I take it with a grain of salt when a rad-onc resident complains about a 7a - 7p day. 60 hours is not a bad week, y'all, especially when you get the weekend off.

FACULTY: As opposed to the research folks, the clinical faculty seemed pretty cool, and Curran seemed pretty interested in us. In fact, the junior attending I really liked said "Curran's mellowed out" since he was a resident. He seemed to care about my future, and that's all I really want to see in a chair.

RESIDENTS: The residents were around us most of the morning and at lunch. Nice enough guys, met zero angels, but there were a few token MD/PhD made me feel inadequate as usual. GFunk, people like you will always terrify single-degreed people like me

Those are the only things that matter to me, I guess. I go with "general feel", "location", and "people", and that's how I ranked my programs.

S

 

[Impressions]

In summary, I am not saying that Dr. Roach will not improve things at UCSF… On the contrary, I feel confident that he will.

Looks like aggressive change is afoot @ UCSF.

Link: http://pub.ucsf.edu/today/cache/news/200607262.html

Summary:

1. Dr. Roach has taken over as the new chair of the Cancer Committee for the UCSF Comprehensive Cancer Center.

2. Website has been totally revamped and updated.

3. Recruited Dr. Fowler (one of the top breast cancer experts from FCCC) to UCSF when her husband came to Bay Area to retire.

 

[Butch]

I would encourage applicants to take this thread with a large grain of salt. I think the numerical ranking of programs is not very productive.

A few thoughts ...

1. The program that is best for a given applicant depends on the goals and learning style of the applicant. Do you want more emphasis on clinical or research? Private practice or academic? If research, clinical or basic? Do you learn more from seeing lots of cases or from reading or from more direct instruction?

2. I would spend a lot of time looking into the various programs. Many of the rankings are based on reputation, not quality of residency training. Certain programs are improving.

3. There is a lot of criticism in the past dozen or so threads on the lack of basic science publications from various radiation oncology departments. As a general rule, this is a broadly applicable criticism. At present, there is not a great quantity of basic, molecular-oriented research coming out of radiation oncology. This will likely change with time.

4. The rankings reflect the biases of the authors. There are many top-notch programs (UAB, U Maryland and Beaumont come to mind) that are virtually non-existent in this thread. For full disclosure, I am not affiliated with any of these institutions.

5. Looking at what specific equipment exists at any given program is an exercise in silliness and futility. The quality of your training is far more dependent on your own initiative and the quality of the attendings/educational program. Whether there is a proton this or Tomo that is largely superfluous unless that is your particular research focus.

 

[stephew]

nothing like a new website to get people excited about a program.

As for butch's post: I think most of that is self-explanatory however there's nothing wrong with a reminder now and then. Point number 5 is one of those points that I will argue the oppositite of no matter what is posted: What Butch is saying is largely correct: student sget a little too hot and bothered about the lastest and greatest equipment. Its sexy, yes, but don't let the pretty face lure your into thinking you have a meaningful relationship. However having said that, there are some general features that a program should be developing (ie *some form* of IMRT and IGRT etc) as both an issue of current and acceptable patient care on the one hand, and as a teaching tool for residents in how to think about tehcnique. However I think Butch's point should be very well taken especially on this board.

Asfor point two: yes some progrmas are improving and some are declining. It s very fluid thing and change can happen rapidly. Also distinguish *reputaion* from the "quality of training". I'd say hopkins rep isn't very high order but the clinical training was top notch in my day (if imperfect).

Good reminders though butch.

 

[deleted4401]

I think something important to figure out, and I am sure it has been said before, is what kind of teaching style the program has. I.e. - lots of lectures and blocked in didactic time, or resident-run conferences and mucho self study. This is the four years where you will have to learn something pretty tough, and if possible, it should fit your style.

In med school, I just sort of 'phoned it in', and it worked for me. I learned best by having a framework of what to study, and just did it at the home office (i.e. the cafe). I realized that I don't want to be spoon fed. I liked knowing I had something to learn, and getting a little help in figuring out what to read, and just doing it.

I think it would be helpful this year for those that interview to ask pointed questions about the education system and style, and to report that. It will make a big difference in your education. This is my example of what would have helped me:

My program is not for those that want or need structure. The clinic is very busy all day, and teaching is 'drive-by'. There are tumor boards, but they are practical. There is a chief-resident driven Wednesday conference (with 2 to 3 faculty in attendence) that focuses on a specific site, with the alternate week being a practical treatment planning session. However, we do not go over anatomy, staging, etc. You are expected to learn that on your own and will get pimped on that periodically. Instead, we go over seminal/key papers in detail. There is now a radiology conference headed by a faculty that is dual boarded in diag and therapeutics, again article based. You need to learn cross sectional anatomy yourself. Physics is pure didactics - a weekly lecture. Radbio is self-study with a 1 week hard-core session by Dr. Lin, a famous radbio teacher who comes in every fall - we have clinical duties off that week. You also have to present a disease site to the entire onc faculty/fellows every 4 months, and you tend to learn a lot during the preparation of those 3 yearly presentations. Key articles are stored on a resident drive, as well as board-recalls, typed summaries of the chapters in Perez, and other helpful tools. Finally, chart rounds/QA have become educational sessions where a faculty member asks questions about a disease, going by the most junior resident who is allowed to 'tag-out' to an upper level when they don't know the answer.

-Simul

 

[stephew]

a lack of formal teching will hurt particuarly come boards time. Clinical skills are keenly imporant for daily practice but are not alone sufficient. when you learn "habits" and not why you can't adapt. and in rad onc its ALL about adaptation. What do your fields become when you have IMRT or just more complex 3D planning? If you dont know "why" the standard fields are what they are, you can't modify. You dont know why to modify based on subtle differences in surgery (TME or not?) or pathology. You also dont know why we recommend the treatment we do or why you'd choose CI rather than bolus for treatment of GI malignancy, and what option to use if there is too much gastrointestinal toxicity unless you knew the lit. (And dont say the Med oncs will figure that out because they often turn to you- radoncs know more about oncology in general) So you need some good didactics. Thought we've gotten a little off topic from talking about the programs themselves.

 

[Thaiger75]

I heard that University of Cincinnati sent out invites by phone. Can anyone confirm this? Dates?

Does anyone know anything about this program. Their residency website is broken and their department website is not very helpful. Barrett Cancer Center looks nice.

Interviewed there a couple years back. Small program, nice faculty, decent third tier program.

 

[alvin]

Updated rankings for 2006-2007?

 

[Gfunk6]

It would be more than a little presumptuous for an applicant to rank the "top" programs so early. Probably you'll have to wait till late Jan or early Feb for a kind soul who made the grand interview circuit to throw in thier two cents.

 

[radonc]

rankings dont change much year to year in radiation oncology, its not like collge football. hey, maybe someone should come up with a BCS-style ranking system for radonc programs...