I actually found this list to be of very little use. The differences in quality of training and research opportunities are minor when comparing programs in the middle of this list to those at the top of this list. Mayo Rochester is a great example. While I did not match there (and few would like to 2/2 weather and location), I think it would have provided possibly the best training I encountered on the trail (even compared to MDACC and the likes).
Rad onc rankings
- Thread starter tomassieblue
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 4,653
- Reaction score
- 5,054
Keep in mind that training is just one part of the equation. There's also prestige, mentorship, intramural funding and getting plum jobs in prime locations.
I agree that many/most programs provide good training but these "X" factors can make a big difference.
I agree that many/most programs provide good training but these "X" factors can make a big difference.
Last edited:
GFunk - You are obviously more knowledgeable on this subject than I, as you recently were in the market of finding a job in a prime location. I don't disagree with your assessment, but the Mayo graduates do quite well for themselves both in the private and academic worlds. My point is, there are many programs not widely acknowledged in the 'top ten' on this forum that routinely place their graduates into prestigious academic and private positions. I was pleasantly surprised by both the quality of training and graduate job placement while visiting programs with less 'prestige' all over the country.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 0
Exceptional
Harvard Radiation Oncology Program (HROP)
University of Texas M D Anderson Cancer Center Program
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Program
Outstanding
Stanford University Program
University of California (San Francisco) Program
University of Pennsylvania Program
University of Michigan Program
University of Chicago/University of Illinois College of Medicine at Chicago Program
Johns Hopkins University Program
Duke University Hospital Program
Yale-New Haven Medical Center Program
University of Washington Program
Excellent
Washington University/B-JH/SLCH Consortium Program
University of Wisconsin Program
University of Florida Program
William Beaumont Hospital Program
Cleveland Clinic Foundation Program
University of Colorado Denver Program
Emory University Program
University of Utah Program
Fox Chase Cancer Center Program
University of Maryland Program
Case Western Reserve University/University Hospitals Case Medical Center Program
Mayo Clinic (Rochester) Program
University of Alabama Medical Center Program
New York University School of Medicine Program
University of California (San Diego) Program
Medical College of Wisconsin Affiliated Hospitals Program
Vanderbilt University Medical Center Program
University of Washington Program
Thomas Jefferson University Program
Mount Sinai School of Medicine Program
National Capital Consortium Program
Georgetown University Hospital Program
New York-Presbyterian Hospital (Columbia) Program
Henry Ford Hospital Program
McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University Program
Oregon Health & Science University Program
University at Buffalo Program
UCLA Medical Center Program
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School Program
University of South Florida Program (Moffitt)
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio Program
University of Texas Southwestern Medical School Program
University of Virginia Program
University of Rochester Program
University of North Carolina Hospitals Program
UPMC Medical Education Program
Wake Forest University School of Medicine Program
Good
Albert Einstein College of Medicine Program
University of Louisville Program
Baylor College of Medicine Program
University of Arizona Program
City of Hope National Medical Center Program
Loma Linda University Program
University of Southern California/LAC+USC Medical Center Program
Kaiser Permanente Southern California (Los Angeles) Program
University of California (Irvine) Program
University of California (Davis) Health System Program
California Pacific Medical Center Program
College of Medicine Mayo Clinic (Jacksonville) Program
Jackson Memorial Hospital/Jackson Health System Program
Rush University Medical Center Program
Loyola University Program
Indiana University School of Medicine Program
University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Program
University of Kansas School of Medicine Program
University of Kentucky College of Medicine Program
Tufts Medical Center Program
Wayne State University/Detroit Medical Center Program
University of Minnesota Program
University of Mississippi Medical Center Program
University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Medicine Program
SUNY Health Science Center at Brooklyn Program
New York Methodist Hospital Program
New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens/Cornell University Medical College Program
SUNY Upstate Medical University Program
University Hospital/University of Cincinnati College of Medicine Program
Ohio State University Hospital Program
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center Program
Drexel University College of Medicine/Hahnemann University Hospital Program
Allegheny General Hospital-Western Pennsylvania Hospital Medical Education Consortium (AGH)
Medical University of South Carolina Program
University of Texas Medical Branch Hospitals Program
Methodist Hospital (Houston) Program
Virginia Commonwealth University Health System Program
This is sort of an "academic job placement" list that reflects many of my mentors' opinions throughout the application process. It's actually very similar to the previous list, with a few minor switches between the "excellent" and "outstanding" categories.
Harvard Radiation Oncology Program (HROP)
University of Texas M D Anderson Cancer Center Program
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Program
Outstanding
Stanford University Program
University of California (San Francisco) Program
University of Pennsylvania Program
University of Michigan Program
University of Chicago/University of Illinois College of Medicine at Chicago Program
Johns Hopkins University Program
Duke University Hospital Program
Yale-New Haven Medical Center Program
University of Washington Program
Excellent
Washington University/B-JH/SLCH Consortium Program
University of Wisconsin Program
University of Florida Program
William Beaumont Hospital Program
Cleveland Clinic Foundation Program
University of Colorado Denver Program
Emory University Program
University of Utah Program
Fox Chase Cancer Center Program
University of Maryland Program
Case Western Reserve University/University Hospitals Case Medical Center Program
Mayo Clinic (Rochester) Program
University of Alabama Medical Center Program
New York University School of Medicine Program
University of California (San Diego) Program
Medical College of Wisconsin Affiliated Hospitals Program
Vanderbilt University Medical Center Program
University of Washington Program
Thomas Jefferson University Program
Mount Sinai School of Medicine Program
National Capital Consortium Program
Georgetown University Hospital Program
New York-Presbyterian Hospital (Columbia) Program
Henry Ford Hospital Program
McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University Program
Oregon Health & Science University Program
University at Buffalo Program
UCLA Medical Center Program
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School Program
University of South Florida Program (Moffitt)
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio Program
University of Texas Southwestern Medical School Program
University of Virginia Program
University of Rochester Program
University of North Carolina Hospitals Program
UPMC Medical Education Program
Wake Forest University School of Medicine Program
Good
Albert Einstein College of Medicine Program
University of Louisville Program
Baylor College of Medicine Program
University of Arizona Program
City of Hope National Medical Center Program
Loma Linda University Program
University of Southern California/LAC+USC Medical Center Program
Kaiser Permanente Southern California (Los Angeles) Program
University of California (Irvine) Program
University of California (Davis) Health System Program
California Pacific Medical Center Program
College of Medicine Mayo Clinic (Jacksonville) Program
Jackson Memorial Hospital/Jackson Health System Program
Rush University Medical Center Program
Loyola University Program
Indiana University School of Medicine Program
University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Program
University of Kansas School of Medicine Program
University of Kentucky College of Medicine Program
Tufts Medical Center Program
Wayne State University/Detroit Medical Center Program
University of Minnesota Program
University of Mississippi Medical Center Program
University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Medicine Program
SUNY Health Science Center at Brooklyn Program
New York Methodist Hospital Program
New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens/Cornell University Medical College Program
SUNY Upstate Medical University Program
University Hospital/University of Cincinnati College of Medicine Program
Ohio State University Hospital Program
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center Program
Drexel University College of Medicine/Hahnemann University Hospital Program
Allegheny General Hospital-Western Pennsylvania Hospital Medical Education Consortium (AGH)
Medical University of South Carolina Program
University of Texas Medical Branch Hospitals Program
Methodist Hospital (Houston) Program
Virginia Commonwealth University Health System Program
This is sort of an "academic job placement" list that reflects many of my mentors' opinions throughout the application process. It's actually very similar to the previous list, with a few minor switches between the "excellent" and "outstanding" categories.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2005
- Messages
- 3,634
- Reaction score
- 1,131
University of Washington? I know very little about their program, but they've gotten consistently poor reviews on here for years, particularly in relation to their lack of research. Do many of their graduates go into academics?
Was it supposed to be under excellent or outstanding (it's currently under both)?
Was it supposed to be under excellent or outstanding (it's currently under both)?
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 0
Exceptional
Harvard Radiation Oncology Program (HROP)
University of Texas M D Anderson Cancer Center Program
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Program
Outstanding
Stanford University Program
University of California (San Francisco) Program
University of Pennsylvania Program
University of Michigan Program
University of Chicago/University of Illinois College of Medicine at Chicago Program
Johns Hopkins University Program
Duke University Hospital Program
Yale-New Haven Medical Center Program
University of Washington Program
Excellent
Washington University/B-JH/SLCH Consortium Program
University of Wisconsin Program
University of Florida Program
William Beaumont Hospital Program
Cleveland Clinic Foundation Program
University of Colorado Denver Program
Emory University Program
University of Utah Program
Fox Chase Cancer Center Program
University of Maryland Program
Case Western Reserve University/University Hospitals Case Medical Center Program
Mayo Clinic (Rochester) Program
University of Alabama Medical Center Program
New York University School of Medicine Program
University of California (San Diego) Program
Medical College of Wisconsin Affiliated Hospitals Program
Vanderbilt University Medical Center Program
Thomas Jefferson University Program
Mount Sinai School of Medicine Program
National Capital Consortium Program
Georgetown University Hospital Program
New York-Presbyterian Hospital (Columbia) Program
Henry Ford Hospital Program
McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University Program
Oregon Health & Science University Program
University at Buffalo Program
UCLA Medical Center Program
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School Program
University of South Florida Program (Moffitt)
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio Program
University of Texas Southwestern Medical School Program
University of Virginia Program
University of Rochester Program
University of North Carolina Hospitals Program
UPMC Medical Education Program
Wake Forest University School of Medicine Program
Good
Albert Einstein College of Medicine Program
University of Louisville Program
Baylor College of Medicine Program
University of Arizona Program
City of Hope National Medical Center Program
Loma Linda University Program
University of Southern California/LAC+USC Medical Center Program
Kaiser Permanente Southern California (Los Angeles) Program
University of California (Irvine) Program
University of California (Davis) Health System Program
California Pacific Medical Center Program
College of Medicine Mayo Clinic (Jacksonville) Program
Jackson Memorial Hospital/Jackson Health System Program
Rush University Medical Center Program
Loyola University Program
Indiana University School of Medicine Program
University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Program
University of Kansas School of Medicine Program
University of Kentucky College of Medicine Program
Tufts Medical Center Program
Wayne State University/Detroit Medical Center Program
University of Minnesota Program
University of Mississippi Medical Center Program
University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Medicine Program
SUNY Health Science Center at Brooklyn Program
New York Methodist Hospital Program
New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens/Cornell University Medical College Program
SUNY Upstate Medical University Program
University Hospital/University of Cincinnati College of Medicine Program
Ohio State University Hospital Program
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center Program
Drexel University College of Medicine/Hahnemann University Hospital Program
Allegheny General Hospital-Western Pennsylvania Hospital Medical Education Consortium (AGH)
Medical University of South Carolina Program
University of Texas Medical Branch Hospitals Program
Methodist Hospital (Houston) Program
Virginia Commonwealth University Health System Program
Sorry, correction made- meant to place it in Outstanding. Consensus from the academics at my institution was that it had strong clinical training with good academic job placement (according to their website, ranks include MSKCC, Dana Farber, and of course their own). Not sure about research opportunities available to residents specifically.
Harvard Radiation Oncology Program (HROP)
University of Texas M D Anderson Cancer Center Program
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Program
Outstanding
Stanford University Program
University of California (San Francisco) Program
University of Pennsylvania Program
University of Michigan Program
University of Chicago/University of Illinois College of Medicine at Chicago Program
Johns Hopkins University Program
Duke University Hospital Program
Yale-New Haven Medical Center Program
University of Washington Program
Excellent
Washington University/B-JH/SLCH Consortium Program
University of Wisconsin Program
University of Florida Program
William Beaumont Hospital Program
Cleveland Clinic Foundation Program
University of Colorado Denver Program
Emory University Program
University of Utah Program
Fox Chase Cancer Center Program
University of Maryland Program
Case Western Reserve University/University Hospitals Case Medical Center Program
Mayo Clinic (Rochester) Program
University of Alabama Medical Center Program
New York University School of Medicine Program
University of California (San Diego) Program
Medical College of Wisconsin Affiliated Hospitals Program
Vanderbilt University Medical Center Program
Thomas Jefferson University Program
Mount Sinai School of Medicine Program
National Capital Consortium Program
Georgetown University Hospital Program
New York-Presbyterian Hospital (Columbia) Program
Henry Ford Hospital Program
McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University Program
Oregon Health & Science University Program
University at Buffalo Program
UCLA Medical Center Program
UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School Program
University of South Florida Program (Moffitt)
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio Program
University of Texas Southwestern Medical School Program
University of Virginia Program
University of Rochester Program
University of North Carolina Hospitals Program
UPMC Medical Education Program
Wake Forest University School of Medicine Program
Good
Albert Einstein College of Medicine Program
University of Louisville Program
Baylor College of Medicine Program
University of Arizona Program
City of Hope National Medical Center Program
Loma Linda University Program
University of Southern California/LAC+USC Medical Center Program
Kaiser Permanente Southern California (Los Angeles) Program
University of California (Irvine) Program
University of California (Davis) Health System Program
California Pacific Medical Center Program
College of Medicine Mayo Clinic (Jacksonville) Program
Jackson Memorial Hospital/Jackson Health System Program
Rush University Medical Center Program
Loyola University Program
Indiana University School of Medicine Program
University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Program
University of Kansas School of Medicine Program
University of Kentucky College of Medicine Program
Tufts Medical Center Program
Wayne State University/Detroit Medical Center Program
University of Minnesota Program
University of Mississippi Medical Center Program
University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Medicine Program
SUNY Health Science Center at Brooklyn Program
New York Methodist Hospital Program
New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens/Cornell University Medical College Program
SUNY Upstate Medical University Program
University Hospital/University of Cincinnati College of Medicine Program
Ohio State University Hospital Program
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center Program
Drexel University College of Medicine/Hahnemann University Hospital Program
Allegheny General Hospital-Western Pennsylvania Hospital Medical Education Consortium (AGH)
Medical University of South Carolina Program
University of Texas Medical Branch Hospitals Program
Methodist Hospital (Houston) Program
Virginia Commonwealth University Health System Program
Sorry, correction made- meant to place it in Outstanding. Consensus from the academics at my institution was that it had strong clinical training with good academic job placement (according to their website, ranks include MSKCC, Dana Farber, and of course their own). Not sure about research opportunities available to residents specifically.
Sorry I have to strongly disagree (which is a great reason to have this forum) with UWashington being in the outstanding category. I personally have spoken with a number of well established academic faculty from outside programs, recent graduates of the program and even faculty of the program. I was thinking about ranking the program highly and so needed to be completely informed. I have also talked with a faculty member who was in the mix for a prominent position in the Dept for the near future. While it is definitely an excellent program which is making great strides to better itself, it is by no means among the very top in the field. Residents have complained about difficulty finding jobs and were being beaten out by other residents from other programs in the excellent category. Also some faculty members voiced concern that while the residents certainly have a high clinical load, there are specific shortcomings in the clinical diversity. Research is for the most part non-existent and in order to be an outstanding program, I think there needs to be strong basic and clinical research opportunities. I by all means think very highly of this program, I am just saying that it does not belong in the outstanding category, especially since UWisconsin, a far superior program was moved by this user to the excellent category (Any reasons for moving them out of the outstanding category?). I also don't think Hopkins belongs in the outstanding category quite yet, however I am certain they will soon belong there with what is being done with that program. I think the name carries it a little higher than where it is with regard to quality of training at this point in time. Please feel free to disagree.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2011
- Messages
- 13
- Reaction score
- 0
I had a similar interest in UW and did my homework, much like the above poster, and arrived at the same conclusions. The job placements cited previously at MSKCC and Dana-Farber do not appear to be true academic positions, more like clinical faculty practicing at an academic institution or satellite center. The research infrastructure is weak (but improving), and the didactics are still an area of major weakness. After interviewing at both UW and Wisconsin, I respectfully disagree with putting UW higher. Wisconsin is a great program and the residents are extremely well trained and happy there.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 0
Fair enough about UW vs. U Wisconsin, I honestly didn't do much research on the program, just relaying what I've been told by my mentors.
And that list above... UPenn in the same category as the big 3, and better than the likes of UCSF? Beaumont in category 2, post faculty exodus??
I get the feeling that there is wide divergence on ideas about the quality of programs... I mean, I at least thought the big 3 were untouchable...
And that list above... UPenn in the same category as the big 3, and better than the likes of UCSF? Beaumont in category 2, post faculty exodus??
I get the feeling that there is wide divergence on ideas about the quality of programs... I mean, I at least thought the big 3 were untouchable...
I would move Alabama and Utah up and Penn down. This is based on the research I did while interviewing at these programs. Utah and UAB routinely place their residents and into great academic and private practices. Penn, although amazing, was not on par with the top three (just my opinion).
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2005
- Messages
- 3,634
- Reaction score
- 1,131
As he stated, the list is fraught with bias. Wagy is a resident at Beaumont. However, I do agree it will likely remain strong in the wake of recent events.
Again, specifics help. There is probably good rationale to justify many on the list. The rest were thrown into a heap at the bottom - given a pleasantly named category to soften the blow.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2012
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
Elite 8
Harvard
MDACC
MSKCC
Duke
Stanford
UCSF
JHU
UPenn
Tier 2
Yale
UWisconsin
UMichigan
UChicago
Washington University in St. Louis
UNC Chapel Hill
Wake Forest
William Beaumont
USF Moffitt
Thomas Jefferson
Fox Chase
Columbia/ NY Presbyterian
NYU
UVA
Vanderbilt
University of Washington
Harvard
MDACC
MSKCC
Duke
Stanford
UCSF
JHU
UPenn
Tier 2
Yale
UWisconsin
UMichigan
UChicago
Washington University in St. Louis
UNC Chapel Hill
Wake Forest
William Beaumont
USF Moffitt
Thomas Jefferson
Fox Chase
Columbia/ NY Presbyterian
NYU
UVA
Vanderbilt
University of Washington
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 53
This same list was given to me by a "big wig." I personally think it's a bit dated.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2005
- Messages
- 3,634
- Reaction score
- 1,131
And yet there is another program that does a significant portion of their clinical rotations at UPenn and you put them in the bottom tier, presumably because you just didn't know that. That program also has excellent job placement, particularly with respect to academic positions and is very integrated with UPenn's research.
The issue with these comprehensive rankings is that people are ranking programs they know and programs they don't know on the same list. I'd feel confident ranking 5-6 programs. For all the rest, I'd just be making stuff up.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 10
- Reaction score
- 0
A complete list of elite programs should include U Mich, Yale, and Wash U at the very least. My sense is that some would argue if you have to choose only 8 elite programs, which is completely arbitrary btw, that you should replace some of those in your elite 8 with these three.
Yeah, I'm pretty familiar with the current 'elite 8'' and a variety of those not in that 8. I don't want to be negative but there are at least 2 programs in the 8 that should be replaced by Michigan and Yale. No question. Agree that Wash u is there as well and Wisconsin is a fabulous place not to be overlooked. Slam dunk by anybody who has been there.
Also it's interesting to see what recent applicants think compared to attendings. If i asked senior attendings at my place to rank, they would be pretty off base compared to current reality. Time goes by and things change and in some cases not for the better.
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2011
- Messages
- 85
- Reaction score
- 88
that "tier 2" list is horrendous both for its inclusions and omissions.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 0
Ahh, but who will be hiring us at the end of five years?
As far as tangible program quality goes (teaching, research opportunities, intramural funding, quality of surrounding cancer center, etc.), that last list is quite flawed.
But if you look at academic reputation as a sole metric, older attendings are probably more impressed by the names in that top category than others. And as far as I understand, they're the ones making most hiring decisions, especially in academia.
The real question is- how much does a name's shock value matter when making hiring decisions, vs. objective metrics (number and impact of publications, etc.)? GFunk and other junior attendings can probably speak to this.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
Okay, this recent flurry of activity has caught my attention and I felt the need to comment. I think we need to take a step back here and try to wrap our heads around what we're really trying to tease out when we create these rankings.
First, it goes without saying that the vast majority of us are not familiar with >75% of the programs that exist. Therefore, many of the programs that end up on these "tiered" lists are just randomly thrown on for no good rhyme or reason. In addition, I think it's fair to say that most of the people on this forum only like paying attention to the cream of the crop, making minor rearrangements, and then balking at changes that are contrary to their (inherently subjective and under informed) beliefs. It is an ultimately silly and futile endeavor, but I get it: it's fun, and we all like the mini-dramas that ensue. Here is my short-list of standout programs based on what I'd like to think is a more thorough, honest, and current analysis of programs. Please feel free to disagree:
1) TRAINING
I think the first problem that needs to be addressed is training vs. reputation. The two should go hand-in-hand, but I'm sure many of you, as with me, have had experiences to the contrary. Based on rotating at 5 different programs through medical school and residency, I think there are huge disparities even amongst the so-called "elites." When I envision what I think perfect training should be, I think of great didactics, great patient and case diversity, being busy (but not too busy), a balance between autonomy and faculty mentorship, and having great co-residents. Yes, being at a big time cancer center helps - oncology training is multidisciplinary these days and there is a real benefit to training at a known cancer center. Here are my thoughts with comments in some cases:
1) Harvard – Busier rotations admixed with lighter rotations. Exposure to multiple hospitals and multiple attendings translates to a richer training experience.
2) MDACC - Working with the movers and shakers in every subsite. Very benign training environment overall; heavily focused on resident learning.
3) JHU – Great training environment for anything onc in general; very academically oriented. Workload can be demanding at times but did not strike me as being onerous-more of a good busy. Mix of younger (ambitious) and older, established attendings with a balanced patient population.
4) MSKCC – Residents can be VERY busy, to the point of being exhausted, although it is hit and miss depending on the rotation. Phenomenal training otherwise.
5) Michigan – Unbelievable mentorship and strong didactic training in all subjects. However, residents are extremely busy on a regular basis. Scut may be an issue.
6) Penn – Strong overall, just busy past the point of resident benefit. Things are reportedly improving now.
7) Stanford – Somewhat similar in flavor to Michigan, resident scut has been a problem in the past.
8) Wash U St. Louis
9) Wisconsin - strong faculty and great academic training.
10) Mayo
Notable 'top 10' omissions:
11) UCSF – No offense to our esteemed moderator. No one can deny that UCSF has a tremendous reputation in the field, but strictly with respect to resident training, they are, frankly, not a top 10 program for reasons discussed ad nauseam in prior posts. This is sadly true even in 2012 - won't get into specifics.
12) Yale – If there's any way to describe this program it's "laid-back," in almost every respect. It's awesome, in many ways, but a little too hands-off to the detriment of overall training.
13) UChicago – It's a love it or hate it system. On balance, having spoken to many residents across various programs, the training is more stressful than it is beneficial.
2) PRESTIGE
Second, aggregate prestige as qualified by current faculty and residents. This list needs to be included for the following reason: it's what people perceive/believe to be true, for whatever reason, and in many cases, in spite of information to suggest otherwise. This way of thinking is erroneous on a few levels, but I think it is more reflective of resident 'desirability' during the dreaded job hunt and is therefore an undeniably important metric to consider.
1) Harvard
2) MSKCC
3) UCSF
4) MDACC
5) Stanford
6) Penn
7) Hopkins
8) Michigan
9) Wash U St. Louis
10) Yale
11) Duke
12) UChicago
13) UWisconsin
14) Vanderbilt
15) Beaumont
Surprises this year: I see UCSD, Moffitt, and Emory as rising stars. I've heard a lot of chatter about these programs…
Of note, program location was NOT taken into account. Anyone who's honest will admit that happiness comes from within, not from without
. I presume everyone who ranks programs in radiation oncology is wise enough to understand that where you live does not determine your happiness as much as how you live...
And there it is!
First, it goes without saying that the vast majority of us are not familiar with >75% of the programs that exist. Therefore, many of the programs that end up on these "tiered" lists are just randomly thrown on for no good rhyme or reason. In addition, I think it's fair to say that most of the people on this forum only like paying attention to the cream of the crop, making minor rearrangements, and then balking at changes that are contrary to their (inherently subjective and under informed) beliefs. It is an ultimately silly and futile endeavor, but I get it: it's fun, and we all like the mini-dramas that ensue. Here is my short-list of standout programs based on what I'd like to think is a more thorough, honest, and current analysis of programs. Please feel free to disagree:
1) TRAINING
I think the first problem that needs to be addressed is training vs. reputation. The two should go hand-in-hand, but I'm sure many of you, as with me, have had experiences to the contrary. Based on rotating at 5 different programs through medical school and residency, I think there are huge disparities even amongst the so-called "elites." When I envision what I think perfect training should be, I think of great didactics, great patient and case diversity, being busy (but not too busy), a balance between autonomy and faculty mentorship, and having great co-residents. Yes, being at a big time cancer center helps - oncology training is multidisciplinary these days and there is a real benefit to training at a known cancer center. Here are my thoughts with comments in some cases:
1) Harvard – Busier rotations admixed with lighter rotations. Exposure to multiple hospitals and multiple attendings translates to a richer training experience.
2) MDACC - Working with the movers and shakers in every subsite. Very benign training environment overall; heavily focused on resident learning.
3) JHU – Great training environment for anything onc in general; very academically oriented. Workload can be demanding at times but did not strike me as being onerous-more of a good busy. Mix of younger (ambitious) and older, established attendings with a balanced patient population.
4) MSKCC – Residents can be VERY busy, to the point of being exhausted, although it is hit and miss depending on the rotation. Phenomenal training otherwise.
5) Michigan – Unbelievable mentorship and strong didactic training in all subjects. However, residents are extremely busy on a regular basis. Scut may be an issue.
6) Penn – Strong overall, just busy past the point of resident benefit. Things are reportedly improving now.
7) Stanford – Somewhat similar in flavor to Michigan, resident scut has been a problem in the past.
8) Wash U St. Louis
9) Wisconsin - strong faculty and great academic training.
10) Mayo
Notable 'top 10' omissions:
11) UCSF – No offense to our esteemed moderator. No one can deny that UCSF has a tremendous reputation in the field, but strictly with respect to resident training, they are, frankly, not a top 10 program for reasons discussed ad nauseam in prior posts. This is sadly true even in 2012 - won't get into specifics.
12) Yale – If there's any way to describe this program it's "laid-back," in almost every respect. It's awesome, in many ways, but a little too hands-off to the detriment of overall training.
13) UChicago – It's a love it or hate it system. On balance, having spoken to many residents across various programs, the training is more stressful than it is beneficial.
2) PRESTIGE
Second, aggregate prestige as qualified by current faculty and residents. This list needs to be included for the following reason: it's what people perceive/believe to be true, for whatever reason, and in many cases, in spite of information to suggest otherwise. This way of thinking is erroneous on a few levels, but I think it is more reflective of resident 'desirability' during the dreaded job hunt and is therefore an undeniably important metric to consider.
1) Harvard
2) MSKCC
3) UCSF
4) MDACC
5) Stanford
6) Penn
7) Hopkins
8) Michigan
9) Wash U St. Louis
10) Yale
11) Duke
12) UChicago
13) UWisconsin
14) Vanderbilt
15) Beaumont
Surprises this year: I see UCSD, Moffitt, and Emory as rising stars. I've heard a lot of chatter about these programs…
Of note, program location was NOT taken into account. Anyone who's honest will admit that happiness comes from within, not from without
. I presume everyone who ranks programs in radiation oncology is wise enough to understand that where you live does not determine your happiness as much as how you live... And there it is!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 4,653
- Reaction score
- 5,054
I really like jigglypuff's dual lists and nuanced reasoning. We may disagree a bit on rank order but the rationale is solid.
Top 10 programs based on aggregate rank averages from responses from the entirety of this thread.
(that included a numerical 1-10 ranking) (n=30)
#1 (1.8) Harvard
#2 (2.3) MSK
#3 (2.4) MDACC
#4 (5.5) UCSF
#5 (6.0) Stanford
#6 (6.6) Michigan
#7 (7.1) Penn
#8 (8.5) Yale
#9 (8.7) Chicago
#10 (9.0) Wash U
(that included a numerical 1-10 ranking) (n=30)
#1 (1.8) Harvard
#2 (2.3) MSK
#3 (2.4) MDACC
#4 (5.5) UCSF
#5 (6.0) Stanford
#6 (6.6) Michigan
#7 (7.1) Penn
#8 (8.5) Yale
#9 (8.7) Chicago
#10 (9.0) Wash U
Last edited:
I wont rank because it is in the eyes of the beholder but, I would like to address the thoughts regarding Yale being "hands off". (Full disclosure-I have a Yale bias). Dr. Wilson has worked hard over the years to eliminate essentially all scut, create an atmosphere of collegiality, and has removed any and all malignancy from the program. This environment which allows first name basis with most attendings and ability for residents to freely ask questions, and admit when they don't know something is healthy. Attendings are indeed very hands on and every patient is seen by an attending and every patient at the simulator is managed by a resident AND and attending who is present. Hence, the 'one on one' teaching is strong and significant in the clinic, and the didactics are well delineated on the departmental website and taught by attendings and not residents-(Residents do have chief resident orchestrated conferences though). Case log numbers at Yale are large, Dr. Wilson even goes into precise detail on Yale resident board performance data on interview day and reviews the job placement of all of the trainees since his has run the program-so training appears to not be suffering.
See this editorial written by Dr. Wilson himself. Scroll down to the bottom of the link to see his article on the matter of teaching style. He came to an interesting revelation early on in his career regarding teaching style and environment.
http://journals.lww.com/academicmed...eaching__A_Tale_of_Two_Places_in_Time.18.aspx
So, its important not to confuse a "laid back" and friendly atmosphere that is completely non malignant with a detriment to training. I would argue its modern and respectful.
See this editorial written by Dr. Wilson himself. Scroll down to the bottom of the link to see his article on the matter of teaching style. He came to an interesting revelation early on in his career regarding teaching style and environment.
http://journals.lww.com/academicmed...eaching__A_Tale_of_Two_Places_in_Time.18.aspx
So, its important not to confuse a "laid back" and friendly atmosphere that is completely non malignant with a detriment to training. I would argue its modern and respectful.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 4,653
- Reaction score
- 5,054
Thanks for doing this. It's very interesting and looking at 30 user's rankings does help to iron out bias.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2006
- Messages
- 70
- Reaction score
- 1
can u post article . . . link asks me to log in to read it; tks
It's still quite biased, and probably inaccurate past number 4/5. It draws from data from up to 10 years ago, and does not account for programs which have improved substantially over this period (for example, IMO Penn should be higher and JHU should certainly be on the list somewhere with the strides these programs have made, and others could easily be booted out).
It also selects for people who have felt the need to rank-order programs (rather than tiering, which is probably more appropriate).
Based on combination of following factors: (1) breadth of clinical exposure; (2) availability and encouragement of basic, translational, clinical, and health services research; (3) educational and collegial environment with minimal scutwork, optimal 1-on-1 and didactic teaching, and resident happiness; and (4) national reputation and job prospects. I did NOT consider location since that is even more highly subjective.
+++++ unparalleled
++++ fantastic but not absolutely perfect
+++ excellent
++ not a strength but not a huge weakness
+ needs significant improvement
Disclaimer: This is complete BS, so take it for what it's worth... pretty much nothing (besides the fact that it's up-to-date). This is not nearly as nuanced as it should be, since every category should be broken down into multiple sub-categories. Too bad I'm too lazy.
Untouchables:
1. Harvard: clinical +++++, research +++++, environment ++++, reputation +++++
2. MDACC: clinical +++++, research +++++, environment ++++, reputation ++++
Right below:
3. Yale: clinical ++++, research ++++, environment +++++, reputation +++
4. Penn: clinical ++++, research ++++, environment +++, reputation +++
5. Michigan: clinical ++++, research ++++, environment ++, reputation +++
6. MSKCC: clinical ++++, research ++++, environment +, reputation ++++
A bit below:
7. JHU: clinical +++, research ++++, environment +++, reputation +++
8. Wisconsin: clinical +++, research +++, environment ++++, reputation ++
9. Stanford: clinical +++, research +++, environment +++, reputation +++
10. UCSF: clinical ++, research +++, environment +++, reputation ++++
+++++ unparalleled
++++ fantastic but not absolutely perfect
+++ excellent
++ not a strength but not a huge weakness
+ needs significant improvement
Disclaimer: This is complete BS, so take it for what it's worth... pretty much nothing (besides the fact that it's up-to-date). This is not nearly as nuanced as it should be, since every category should be broken down into multiple sub-categories. Too bad I'm too lazy.
Untouchables:
1. Harvard: clinical +++++, research +++++, environment ++++, reputation +++++
2. MDACC: clinical +++++, research +++++, environment ++++, reputation ++++
Right below:
3. Yale: clinical ++++, research ++++, environment +++++, reputation +++
4. Penn: clinical ++++, research ++++, environment +++, reputation +++
5. Michigan: clinical ++++, research ++++, environment ++, reputation +++
6. MSKCC: clinical ++++, research ++++, environment +, reputation ++++
A bit below:
7. JHU: clinical +++, research ++++, environment +++, reputation +++
8. Wisconsin: clinical +++, research +++, environment ++++, reputation ++
9. Stanford: clinical +++, research +++, environment +++, reputation +++
10. UCSF: clinical ++, research +++, environment +++, reputation ++++
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 4,653
- Reaction score
- 5,054
To assist future users in responding to the rank lists of others, I've provided a useful template below.
I think [user name]'s list is totally off base. To write that [insert program which was ranked lower than you liked, probably because you are a resident there] is [scut-heavy, has no research opportunities, too light clinically, etc.] demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of [insert program which was ranked lower than you liked, probably because you are a resident there]. Recently, our [department chair, program director] has implemented radical new changes which will completely turn the program around. In fact, I'm completely confident that it will crack the top 5 in a few short years.
Also I think that [user name] ranking [program you hate for some reason] as high as he did is completely stupid. The only reason [program you hate for some reason] is "prestigious" at all is because of [location, history, former faculty] and this bears no relation to the current environment. I would rank [program you really like] over [program you hate for some reason] any day!
I'm not going to post my own ranking list because [they are biased, I am lazy, I am scared of anonymous online criticism]. However, after reading this [user name]'s rank list, I felt compelled to respond.
I think [user name]'s list is totally off base. To write that [insert program which was ranked lower than you liked, probably because you are a resident there] is [scut-heavy, has no research opportunities, too light clinically, etc.] demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of [insert program which was ranked lower than you liked, probably because you are a resident there]. Recently, our [department chair, program director] has implemented radical new changes which will completely turn the program around. In fact, I'm completely confident that it will crack the top 5 in a few short years.
Also I think that [user name] ranking [program you hate for some reason] as high as he did is completely stupid. The only reason [program you hate for some reason] is "prestigious" at all is because of [location, history, former faculty] and this bears no relation to the current environment. I would rank [program you really like] over [program you hate for some reason] any day!
I'm not going to post my own ranking list because [they are biased, I am lazy, I am scared of anonymous online criticism]. However, after reading this [user name]'s rank list, I felt compelled to respond.
D
deleted4401
Nicely done, moderator! Need a few more templates like that...
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2011
- Messages
- 1,216
- Reaction score
- 16
So....I hate to be 'that guy' but.....can we just agree that the good programs are good? If someone is choosing between Harvard, Sloan-Kettering, MD Anderson, Wash U, Penn, Stanford, whatever, their decision is probably based on where they want to live. I'm pretty sure that graduates from harvard or md anderson won't have much trouble finding a job in the city they want or getting a position at an academic institution of their choice.
Can we get back to helping the 'average joe' who wants to know about residencies where we might actually get an interview without a 260+, PhD, a billion publications in Nature and a top 5 med school?
Oh and I almost forgot. Ahhhh, I'm gonna need you to go ahead and come in on Sunday, too. Yea...
Can we get back to helping the 'average joe' who wants to know about residencies where we might actually get an interview without a 260+, PhD, a billion publications in Nature and a top 5 med school?
Oh and I almost forgot. Ahhhh, I'm gonna need you to go ahead and come in on Sunday, too. Yea...
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 4,653
- Reaction score
- 5,054
We could, but that would defeat the purpose of this whole thread!
If you want perspective and reviews of other programs, the interview impressions thread is a great place to start.
I agree FSU, we always review the "top places" but there are a number of other phenomenal programs to train at. I matched at one of the above but interviewed at a bunch of lesser reviewed programs and so will do my best using the system above to review them, hoping that others may have interviewed at some of the same programs and use this comparison to add other programs not included on this list. Like the user who originally posted this said, it is completely BS, but I think it could be somewhat useful to applicants in the future.
+++++ unparalleled
++++ fantastic but not absolutely perfect
+++ excellent
++ not a strength but not a huge weakness
+ needs significant improvement
Disclaimer: This is complete BS, so take it for what it's worth... pretty much nothing (besides the fact that it's up-to-date). This is not nearly as nuanced as it should be, since every category should be broken down into multiple sub-categories. Too bad I'm too lazy.
Untouchables:
1. Harvard: clinical +++++, research +++++, environment ++++, reputation +++++
2. MDACC: clinical +++++, research +++++, environment ++++, reputation ++++
Right below:
3. Yale: clinical ++++, research ++++, environment +++++, reputation +++
4. Penn: clinical ++++, research ++++, environment +++, reputation +++
5. Michigan: clinical ++++, research ++++, environment ++, reputation +++
6. MSKCC: clinical ++++, research ++++, environment +, reputation ++++
A bit below:
7. JHU: clinical +++, research ++++, environment +++, reputation +++
8. Wisconsin: clinical +++, research +++, environment ++++, reputation +++
9. Stanford: clinical +++, research +++, environment +++, reputation +++
10. UCSF: clinical ++, research +++, environment +++, reputation ++++
Some programs belong in this gap such as UChicago, WashU, Duke, (Possibly Vanderbilt, Beaumont Mayo Rochester)
UFlorida: clinical +++, research ++, environment ++, reputation ++++
UAB: clinical +++, research +++, environment +++, reputation ++
Emory: clinical +++, research +++, environment ++, reputation ++
UColorado: clinical ++, research ++, environment +++, reputation ++
NYU: clinical +++, research ++, environment ++, reputation ++
UWashington: clinical +++, research ++, environment ++, reputation ++
UMaryland: clinical +++, research +++, environment +, reputation ++
UNC: clinical ++, research ++, environment ++, reputation ++
Thomas Jefferson: clinical ++, research +++, environment ++, reputation ++
MCW: clinical ++, research ++, environment ++, reputation ++
UMiami: clinical ++, research ++, environment +++, reputation ++
URochester: clinical ++, research ++, environment ++, reputation ++
MUSC: clinical ++, research +, environment ++, reputation ++
+++++ unparalleled
++++ fantastic but not absolutely perfect
+++ excellent
++ not a strength but not a huge weakness
+ needs significant improvement
Disclaimer: This is complete BS, so take it for what it's worth... pretty much nothing (besides the fact that it's up-to-date). This is not nearly as nuanced as it should be, since every category should be broken down into multiple sub-categories. Too bad I'm too lazy.
Untouchables:
1. Harvard: clinical +++++, research +++++, environment ++++, reputation +++++
2. MDACC: clinical +++++, research +++++, environment ++++, reputation ++++
Right below:
3. Yale: clinical ++++, research ++++, environment +++++, reputation +++
4. Penn: clinical ++++, research ++++, environment +++, reputation +++
5. Michigan: clinical ++++, research ++++, environment ++, reputation +++
6. MSKCC: clinical ++++, research ++++, environment +, reputation ++++
A bit below:
7. JHU: clinical +++, research ++++, environment +++, reputation +++
8. Wisconsin: clinical +++, research +++, environment ++++, reputation +++
9. Stanford: clinical +++, research +++, environment +++, reputation +++
10. UCSF: clinical ++, research +++, environment +++, reputation ++++
Some programs belong in this gap such as UChicago, WashU, Duke, (Possibly Vanderbilt, Beaumont Mayo Rochester)
UFlorida: clinical +++, research ++, environment ++, reputation ++++
UAB: clinical +++, research +++, environment +++, reputation ++
Emory: clinical +++, research +++, environment ++, reputation ++
UColorado: clinical ++, research ++, environment +++, reputation ++
NYU: clinical +++, research ++, environment ++, reputation ++
UWashington: clinical +++, research ++, environment ++, reputation ++
UMaryland: clinical +++, research +++, environment +, reputation ++
UNC: clinical ++, research ++, environment ++, reputation ++
Thomas Jefferson: clinical ++, research +++, environment ++, reputation ++
MCW: clinical ++, research ++, environment ++, reputation ++
UMiami: clinical ++, research ++, environment +++, reputation ++
URochester: clinical ++, research ++, environment ++, reputation ++
MUSC: clinical ++, research +, environment ++, reputation ++
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2010
- Messages
- 3,501
- Reaction score
- 6,322
Why all the "+" signs? My imaginary formula is much simpler, using vampires and zombies.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,481
- Reaction score
- 2,990
Applicants, just keep a few points in mind. No two rank lists will look any where near similar.
Most agree on who the top are for prestige and resources...MSKCC, Harvard, MDACC. You can do anything you want at these places. Pedigree does matter to an extent so if you can go to these places it does give you an edge in the job market. Especially if you want to be a department chair or in some other leadership position. My personal observation, I interviewed at 15 places and 12 of the chairs trained at Harvard. Just saying.
For the rest keep a few thoughts in mind.
1) While some are better than others most major academic centers have access to tons of research and resources. If you want to do academics, you won't go wrong at most major centers. How do Maryland, UNC, Ohio State, and any other academic program rank relative to eachother? Who knows, but most people that want academic jobs can find them if you train at a place that has the resources and faculty to get you published and funded (having a lab is a little different story though as there are far fewer jobs available...cutting edge transferable research and pedigree are more key in this highly competative niche).
2) Clinical training: Im going to quote Lynn Wilson (PD at Yale) here "Its a small feild and you can get top notch clinical training at 60 or so of the 70ish training programs." I don't know who the bottom ten are in his opinion.
How people here say clinical training is better at x place vs y is a mystery to me in most instances. Without a good metric their evidence is anecdotal at best. Some metrics to consider are patient volume, population, and availability of various treatment modalities.
3) Where you want to ultimately end up matters. Some markets are hard to crack and being there helps. If you know you want to get a job in the Bay Area then Mich, Yale, Vandy, Duke, no matter how nice they are, prob won't be in your top group.
4) If you are unsure match as high as you can to give yourself the best edge. But keep in mind, when it comes down to it there really is the very top and everyone else. I don't know of any evidence that "3rd teir" program graduates really have much of an edge over "4th tier"program grads (if there even is such a thing). If you like a place, find out what their grads are doing and if you are happy, go for it!
Most agree on who the top are for prestige and resources...MSKCC, Harvard, MDACC. You can do anything you want at these places. Pedigree does matter to an extent so if you can go to these places it does give you an edge in the job market. Especially if you want to be a department chair or in some other leadership position. My personal observation, I interviewed at 15 places and 12 of the chairs trained at Harvard. Just saying.
For the rest keep a few thoughts in mind.
1) While some are better than others most major academic centers have access to tons of research and resources. If you want to do academics, you won't go wrong at most major centers. How do Maryland, UNC, Ohio State, and any other academic program rank relative to eachother? Who knows, but most people that want academic jobs can find them if you train at a place that has the resources and faculty to get you published and funded (having a lab is a little different story though as there are far fewer jobs available...cutting edge transferable research and pedigree are more key in this highly competative niche).
2) Clinical training: Im going to quote Lynn Wilson (PD at Yale) here "Its a small feild and you can get top notch clinical training at 60 or so of the 70ish training programs." I don't know who the bottom ten are in his opinion.
How people here say clinical training is better at x place vs y is a mystery to me in most instances. Without a good metric their evidence is anecdotal at best. Some metrics to consider are patient volume, population, and availability of various treatment modalities.
3) Where you want to ultimately end up matters. Some markets are hard to crack and being there helps. If you know you want to get a job in the Bay Area then Mich, Yale, Vandy, Duke, no matter how nice they are, prob won't be in your top group.
4) If you are unsure match as high as you can to give yourself the best edge. But keep in mind, when it comes down to it there really is the very top and everyone else. I don't know of any evidence that "3rd teir" program graduates really have much of an edge over "4th tier"program grads (if there even is such a thing). If you like a place, find out what their grads are doing and if you are happy, go for it!
As already stated by supyall in their original post, there are a number of subtleties and nuances difficult to parse out in this highly subjective list. With that said, I think as a recent candidate trying to get a rough overview of programs I knew nothing about, this list might be somewhat useful. We all know there are a "top" bunch of programs but that does not mean all others are equivalent, especially to candidates looking for programs with strengths in certain areas, i.e research vs clinical etc.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,481
- Reaction score
- 2,990
We all know there are a "top" bunch of programs but that does not mean all others are equivalent, especially to candidates looking for programs with strengths in certain areas, i.e research vs clinical etc.[/QUOTE]
Totally agree RadBio. I said the top and everyone else for pedigree purposes only. In terms of pedigree at hiring time (excluding regional bias as previously discussed) there pretty much are a few iffy programs, the afforementioned wow programs, and everyone else, or so I have been told.
But, ranks lists are only useful if their point of relativity is given. Like you said, not all programs are equivalent for research. But what does random poster X mean by research? Time for research in residency? Clinical? Basic science? Acceptance of Holmann by faculty? Total NIH funding? Publication rates by residents? Some of these lists state their vantage points and those are the most useful and awsome
for applicants who are looking for different things. Without that, I think applying broadly based on the above general principles and using the Interview Impressions thread is a good plan of attack. Or, as other users have done, request a specific list like which programs offer the most research time, etc.
I don't think there is no use in seeing the collective opinions on how people think things teir out, but like a lot of posters have indicated that data has serious limitations on how useful it is for most applicants who are not targeting the top places.
Totally agree RadBio. I said the top and everyone else for pedigree purposes only. In terms of pedigree at hiring time (excluding regional bias as previously discussed) there pretty much are a few iffy programs, the afforementioned wow programs, and everyone else, or so I have been told.
But, ranks lists are only useful if their point of relativity is given. Like you said, not all programs are equivalent for research. But what does random poster X mean by research? Time for research in residency? Clinical? Basic science? Acceptance of Holmann by faculty? Total NIH funding? Publication rates by residents? Some of these lists state their vantage points and those are the most useful and awsome
for applicants who are looking for different things. Without that, I think applying broadly based on the above general principles and using the Interview Impressions thread is a good plan of attack. Or, as other users have done, request a specific list like which programs offer the most research time, etc. I don't think there is no use in seeing the collective opinions on how people think things teir out, but like a lot of posters have indicated that data has serious limitations on how useful it is for most applicants who are not targeting the top places.
D
deleted4401
The thing about pedigree and jobs ... So, basically for the elite practices near big cities that are highly focused on pedigree and want to hire a new grad, there are about 20-25 possible graduates from the top programs. Half of them want to go academics, probably. Another half probably want to go to more 'random' places in midwest or south or whatever, and some may have family ties to a particular community. So, there are maybe just a handful of freshly graduated, pedigreed folks to go around. A few of them might be socially inept or poor fits or not like any of those groups. The groups have to hire someone eventually, and so most of them do. Point is, it helps to get certain jobs by having Harvard on your resume, but it by no means rules you out by not having the name. It just might be more circuitous or you may have to have some external help - a phone call from someone to the practice or knowing someone that works there already or a chance encounter at a smaller conference.
But, some places might truly be off limits for mere mortals. I'm looking at the Princeton-NJ group - 4 from Harvard, 2 from Penn, 1 from MSKCC, 1 from JHH, 1 from UFL, and from UMD but Harvard fellowship. Jeez...
But, some places might truly be off limits for mere mortals. I'm looking at the Princeton-NJ group - 4 from Harvard, 2 from Penn, 1 from MSKCC, 1 from JHH, 1 from UFL, and from UMD but Harvard fellowship. Jeez...
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 4,653
- Reaction score
- 5,054
With private practice jobs in cush locations there is also the issue of favoritism. Frequently, graduates of certain programs (e.g. Harvard grads in Princeton Rad Onc) either establish or manage a practice and tend to gravitate towards their alma mater to recruit new physicians.
There are several advantages to doing this such as (a) you can personally vouch for the quality of their training, (b) you are on good terms with faculty and staff so you can solicit honest onions which may be lacking from a typical letter of recommendation, and (c) name recognition for marketing purposes. Also, they may be looking for a candidate with specialized training in a certain area whether it be SRS, APBI, HDR brachy, or (in the case of Princeton last year) protons.
In my admittedly limited (n=1) experience, pedigree is sometimes necessary but NEVER sufficient to get you a job.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,481
- Reaction score
- 2,990
Anyone considering private practice listen to these guys. I can only speak from the perspective of academics, my personal observations and the observations of some pretty savy people in the field. In general, there has been great favoratism for graduates of a handful of programs in terms of becoming a department chair or other leadership positions (much less so for PDs though). Like I said, I interviewed at 15 places and 12 chairs were from Harvard.
But please don't lose sight of my original post! Most people in both PP and academics are NOT from these places.
Are there any opinions on what 10 programs applicants should perhaps rank lower?
Not trying to step on anyone's toes... It seems like everyone posting reviews and rank lists are posting from Mt. Olympus... but for us mortals seeking to do radonc, it would be helpful to know which programs are to be avoided for now?
Not trying to step on anyone's toes... It seems like everyone posting reviews and rank lists are posting from Mt. Olympus... but for us mortals seeking to do radonc, it would be helpful to know which programs are to be avoided for now?
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2004
- Messages
- 11,703
- Reaction score
- 11,781
Any program on probation is basically one you have to question about ranking. There's always that possibility that things may not work out at the next site review.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2011
- Messages
- 191
- Reaction score
- 127
Having gone through the application process last year, and having spent many an (unhappy) hour agonizing over the rankings in this thread, I would encourage this year's applicants to peruse this thread once and then forget about it.
Whatever your scores and research, statistically you are unlikely to match into one of the "top 5" programs. You are competing against individuals who are as qualified as you are, and at this point you have no control over what additional criteria help a particular to make the "final cut". Do not let the fact that you haven't gotten that invite from MDACC of MSKCC to be a blow to your confidence. You are not (necessarily) inferior in intelligence to those who match at these stellar institution. You may just have been a little sloppy planning your away/research elective, or preparing for the boards, or setting up a network of attendings who would support you in your application. Learn this important lesson for the future, and move on.
Moreover, I had lots of pleasant surprises at some programs that this thread ranks as mid- (or even low-) tier! Residents there are productive in research, attendings are sharp and supportive, and it would truly be a privilege to match into one of these programs! Residents (if they put in the work) do come out exceedingly well-trained and with solid research track.
Finally, I did apply very broadly, and hence interviewed at several programs (some of which were mid-tier according to the rankings in this thread) that I ended up not ranking at all! Why would a program be listed as mid-tier if the residents there publish and present little? or are routinely short of the required number of cases?
In summary, I am firmly convinced that not matching to a "stellar" program does not preclude one from becoming a stellar resident. Apply broadly, explore and try to keep your focus on becoming an awesome radiation oncologist rather than matching at a "top 5" program.
Whatever your scores and research, statistically you are unlikely to match into one of the "top 5" programs. You are competing against individuals who are as qualified as you are, and at this point you have no control over what additional criteria help a particular to make the "final cut". Do not let the fact that you haven't gotten that invite from MDACC of MSKCC to be a blow to your confidence. You are not (necessarily) inferior in intelligence to those who match at these stellar institution. You may just have been a little sloppy planning your away/research elective, or preparing for the boards, or setting up a network of attendings who would support you in your application. Learn this important lesson for the future, and move on.
Moreover, I had lots of pleasant surprises at some programs that this thread ranks as mid- (or even low-) tier! Residents there are productive in research, attendings are sharp and supportive, and it would truly be a privilege to match into one of these programs! Residents (if they put in the work) do come out exceedingly well-trained and with solid research track.
Finally, I did apply very broadly, and hence interviewed at several programs (some of which were mid-tier according to the rankings in this thread) that I ended up not ranking at all! Why would a program be listed as mid-tier if the residents there publish and present little? or are routinely short of the required number of cases?
In summary, I am firmly convinced that not matching to a "stellar" program does not preclude one from becoming a stellar resident. Apply broadly, explore and try to keep your focus on becoming an awesome radiation oncologist rather than matching at a "top 5" program.
With the interview season picking up steam, thought this would be a good time for reviving this thread.
If you a MD,PhD interested in pursuing an academic career focussed on basic / translational oncology with an aspiration to become a leader in the field, what are the top 5 Radiation Oncology programs that will best train you towards that goal while providing unsurprassed clinical training? All inputs / suggestions welcome.
If you a MD,PhD interested in pursuing an academic career focussed on basic / translational oncology with an aspiration to become a leader in the field, what are the top 5 Radiation Oncology programs that will best train you towards that goal while providing unsurprassed clinical training? All inputs / suggestions welcome.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 14,905
- Reaction score
- 8,791
Top programs are top because of their academic reputations. So the top five places here are probably going to be the top five in general. Personal opinions vary on which programs you should go to launch an "academic career". I would recommend going to a place that will support you to do a Holman pathway in your area of research interest, but that's a controversial opinion.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 4,653
- Reaction score
- 5,054
Generally, this thread is annually resurrected AFTER interview season is over. It is presumptuous to rank programs before you've completed all of your interviews.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2012
- Messages
- 24
- Reaction score
- 0
Given the subjective nature of ranking programs on this site, I decided to perform an intellectual exercise and rank programs on "less subjective" metrics by using already existing metrics that may or may not be accurate per se. But the metric below incorporates the medical school rankings (US News), Rankings of the Cancer hospitals (US News), Rad onc program rankings that were mentioned on this thread (in 6 categories), and research ranking from 1-5 based on NIH funding... I most likely left out some good programs as an oversight, also this list does not incorporate any input from interview impressions.
I admit this is by no means perfect but I thought it would be a good starting point with some added objectivity:
1-10
1 MD Anderson
2 Harvard
3 MSKCC
4 UCSF
5 UPenn
6 U Michigan
7 Johns Hopkins
8 Wash U
9 Stanford
10 Yale
11-20
11 Duke
12 U Chicago
13 Columbia
14 U of Washington
15 U Wisconsin
16 Mayo
17 Vanderblit
18 UCLA
19 U Maryland
20 U of Pittsburgh
21-30
21 Cleveland Clinic
22 NYU
23 Ohio State
24 Emory
25 U Minnesota
26 Northwestern
27 UNC Chapel Hill
28 U of Iowa
29 UCSD
30 Thomas Jefferson U
31-40
31 Baylor
32 Mount Sinai
33 U Florida
34 U Colorado
35 U of Alabama
36 UT Southwestern
37 University of Virginia
38 Cornell (Weill) - Queens
39 U Rochester
40 UC Davis
41-50
41 OHSU
42 U Southern California
43 UC Irvine
44 Fox-Chase (Temple)
45 U South Florida (Moffit)
46 Georgetown U
47 Albert Einstein
48 Tufts
49 SUNY upstate
I admit this is by no means perfect but I thought it would be a good starting point with some added objectivity:
1-10
1 MD Anderson
2 Harvard
3 MSKCC
4 UCSF
5 UPenn
6 U Michigan
7 Johns Hopkins
8 Wash U
9 Stanford
10 Yale
11-20
11 Duke
12 U Chicago
13 Columbia
14 U of Washington
15 U Wisconsin
16 Mayo
17 Vanderblit
18 UCLA
19 U Maryland
20 U of Pittsburgh
21-30
21 Cleveland Clinic
22 NYU
23 Ohio State
24 Emory
25 U Minnesota
26 Northwestern
27 UNC Chapel Hill
28 U of Iowa
29 UCSD
30 Thomas Jefferson U
31-40
31 Baylor
32 Mount Sinai
33 U Florida
34 U Colorado
35 U of Alabama
36 UT Southwestern
37 University of Virginia
38 Cornell (Weill) - Queens
39 U Rochester
40 UC Davis
41-50
41 OHSU
42 U Southern California
43 UC Irvine
44 Fox-Chase (Temple)
45 U South Florida (Moffit)
46 Georgetown U
47 Albert Einstein
48 Tufts
49 SUNY upstate
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2012
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 0
How did you weight these "objective" measures for each program? Also curious as to why you would include US News best medical schools, as those rankings are largely calculated based off of matriculant stats (GPA, MCAT), presumed prestige (peer and residency program assessment), and NIH funding. Not sure how that relates in the least to radiation oncology departments, not to mention that some of these programs are not affiliated with medical schools.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2012
- Messages
- 24
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi Rolltide487. I weighed med school rank : cancer hosp rank : NIH funding : ranking on this current thread with a 3:4:4:6 relative weights 6 being most important.
I understand that US news is controversial but broadly speaking it is nevertheless a method of ranking medical schools that is based on GPA, MCAT, but also peer-opinion, research etc... Programs that may be not top-tier but in top tier med schools may offer resources that other mid-tier programs in mid-tier med schools do not. I'm not defending the US news method, but there aren't many other alternatives and I am seeking a semi-object method to rank rather than "dept gossip" even though that is already part of it. The reason I included cancer hospital rankings is because I think it's relevant to the rad onc training. Good hospitals have good cases, good tumor boards etc...
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 15,229
- Reaction score
- 7,176
This logic still doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Most residency programs are only peripherally involved with the affiliated medical schools (aside from the obvious teaching responsibilities) that I don't see how that's much help. In fact, in some cases, the medical school and the affiliated teaching hospital aren't even owned or run by the same people. I know that was the case at Pitt (where I did undergrad) - UPMC is run by a group separate from the School of Medicine.
And honestly, if a rad onc program would have to depend on the nearby med school's resources to make up for gaps in its own program.... doesn't that just highlight the problems with that program? Or is this an idiosyncrasy that's unique to rad onc that's not found in other specialties? I'm genuinely curious.
In my humble opinion, it does make some sense. To give an example, it appears to me (based what has been said here and elsewhere), Hopkins is not one of the strongest Rad Onc programs in the country. However, just being Hopkins does bring additional advantages that may indirectly lift the program. When patients are referred to Hopkins because they have the best best medical oncologist or a surgical oncologist for a certain disease, the rad oncs may benefit because patients often like to consolidate their care. For residents, if the research within the department is not as exciting, it's easy to find a top notch investigator in a different department in the area they are interested in. You also cannot completely discount the fact that when you submit grants etc, the brand name does sometimes make a difference in breaking a tie. Departments don't exist in vacuum and in this heavily interconnected world, some non-Rad Onc factors may end up influencing Rad Onc care and prestige (whether we like it or not). Just my opinion.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2004
- Messages
- 11,703
- Reaction score
- 11,781
Well said. Based on my cursory review, there are programs in the bottom third of that list that need to be switched with those in the top third. And I am sure I am not the only one who feels that way
