2007 Match Lists

[Enwysefinest]

Actually the Duke comment is innacurate. Duke is notorious for producing players that are great in college, but fail or not worthy of being in the nba. Of all the great Duke teams over the last 15 years, there has been a very small handful of meaningful nba players (hill, brand, maggete, a few others).

Now UCONN on the other hand is known as a school that produces big time nba ready players that will get drafted high and make that big money contract. A handful of players over the years have drafted higher than they should have from UCONN, but have also done well. So a top high school player who wants to have a great college career and have the most famous coach, and the classic college basketball experience, goes to Duke. But he does this knowning that his NBA prospects may not be the highest. Now if a kid wants to get drafted highly, he goes to UCONN.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

That's true, although I think everyone in med school is intelligent and capabe. I find it funny sometimes that people come on SDN and ask "would it be better to be avg at a top school or top in your class at an unranked school?", as if it were easy anywhere to be tops in your class. There are going to be those 35+ people no matter where you go, not to mention people who are going to spend their every waking hour studying (not something I do nor want to do).

Yep, you can never assume that you'll be at the top of your class regardless of whether you were a top admit or not. I know that I'm probably getting my butt kicked by people who had significantly lower MCATs than me. The same thing happened in law school.

 

[morriske]

Yep, you can never assume that you'll be at the top of your class regardless of whether you were a top admit or not. I know that I'm probably getting my butt kicked by people who had significantly lower MCATs than me. The same thing happened in law school.

My husband got in to law school off of the waitlist with a below average GPA/average LSAT for the school-now he's going to gradaute with honors

 

[jillibean]

Yep, you can never assume that you'll be at the top of your class regardless of whether you were a top admit or not. I know that I'm probably getting my butt kicked by people who had significantly lower MCATs than me. The same thing happened in law school.

At an interview some MS2 students told us they thought the MCAT had very little to do with success in med school since the #1 student in their class got in with a 24.

 

[Critical Mass]

Yep, you can never assume that you'll be at the top of your class regardless of whether you were a top admit or not. I know that I'm probably getting my butt kicked by people who had significantly lower MCATs than me.

This would be an understatement in my case. I was easily first quartile by MCAT, now third by grades.

excal, you are listed as a med student. Surely you have better access to your school's list than anyone else. And yes, I do believe that the importance of a match list is an important discussion topic in a thread titled "2007 Match Lists" in a pre-med forum.

BTW, the match list thread that I was talking about actually is now in pre-allo and was created by Phil, not Lee:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=187352

Ditto on his disclaimer.

 

[Law2Doc]

At an interview some MS2 students told us they thought the MCAT had very little to do with success in med school since the #1 student in their class got in with a 24.

A 24 is pretty rare in med school, but I wouldn't be surprised if the top person at a lot of schools was in the lower half of MCAT scores and vice versa. It's just such a different kind of challenge.

 

[Stolenspatulas]

At an interview some MS2 students told us they thought the MCAT had very little to do with success in med school since the #1 student in their class got in with a 24.

The statistical correlations that Towelie and others pointed out are not all of a sudden meaningless because of one anomalous case such as this.

If the MCAT had very little to do with success in med school than the AAMC would not use it at all. Please, wake up and smell the roses.

PS: I am not saying that a high MCAT score automatically means one will dominate medical school.

 

[jillibean]

The statistical correlations that Towelie and others pointed out are not all of a sudden meaningless because of one anomalous case such as this.

If the MCAT had very little to do with success in med school than the AAMC would not use it at all. Please, wake up and smell the roses.

PS: I am not saying that a high MCAT score automatically means one will dominate medical school.

Nice...


Actually the statistical correlations were not that strong... if I am not mistaken an R value of .5 is equivalent to random chance (GPA was .54, MCAT was .64 and together it was ~.7, in their data).

 

[AnEyeLikeMars]

Nice...


Actually the statistical correlations were not that strong... if I am not mistaken an R value of .5 is equivalent to random chance (GPA was .54, MCAT was .64 and together it was ~.7, in their data).

I think an R value of 0 means there's no correlation. A 0.64 correlation for the MCAT is actually pretty strong.

 

[Law2Doc]

I think an R value of 0 means there's no correlation. A 0.64 correlation for the MCAT is actually pretty strong.

Bear in mind that both the MCAT and Step 1 have undergone a variety of changes since the date of the study, and the percentage of med students/med schools represented in the study wasn't huge (There are quite a few more schools/students today). So, yes, there is a correlation, but it's not enough to get too excited about - I wouldn't say pretty strong in terms of the current landscape.

 

[Stolenspatulas]

Nice...


Actually the statistical correlations were not that strong... if I am not mistaken an R value of .5 is equivalent to random chance (GPA was .54, MCAT was .64 and together it was ~.7, in their data).

R-values range from -1 to 1.

0 = no correlation.

Sigh.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

At an interview some MS2 students told us they thought the MCAT had very little to do with success in med school since the #1 student in their class got in with a 24.

We have a friend from college who got into his state school with a 24. He, too, was one of the top students, always did well on his USMLEs and matched where he wanted to in a competitive field. I have no doubt that it happens pretty regularly.

 

[jillibean]

I think an R value of 0 means there's no correlation. A 0.64 correlation for the MCAT is actually pretty strong.

Actually according to wikipedia on r values, the percentage that factor Y is responsible for change X (in our case Y=MCAT and X=Med school grades or whatever that paper evaluated) is 1-r^2 or 1-(.64)^2 which is only 59%... not that strong really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_product-moment_correlation_coefficient

"The square of r is conventionally used as a measure of the association between X and Y. For example, if the coefficient is 0.90, then 81% of the variance of Y can be "accounted for" by changes in X and the linear relationship between X and Y."

 

[Towelie]

Bear in mind that both the MCAT and Step 1 have undergone a variety of changes since the date of the study, and the percentage of med students/med schools represented in the study wasn't huge (There are quite a few more schools/students today). So, yes, there is a correlation, but it's not enough to get too excited about - I wouldn't say pretty strong in terms of the current landscape.

As someone who has studied statistics quite a bit, I can tell you that a 0.64 correlation is VERY large in the statistical world. Pretty strong would be putting it mildly.

There are dozens of studies showing strong positive correlations between MCAT and Step 1 throughout the last decade.

Obviously, I agree with you that someone with a high MCAT score shouldn't underprepare for Step 1, and rely solely on his/her ability to take tests well. But good test takers will tend to do well on all standardized tests, and vice versa for bad standardized test takers. That's what the correlation means.

 

[Stolenspatulas]

Bear in mind that both the MCAT and Step 1 have undergone a variety of changes since the date of the study, and the percentage of med students/med schools represented in the study wasn't huge (There are quite a few more schools/students today). So, yes, there is a correlation, but it's not enough to get too excited about - I wouldn't say pretty strong in terms of the current landscape.

There are many many many many studies reflecting this subject matter. http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/research/bibliography/start.htm

Yes, many of the studies are from several years ago... but that does not mean that the value of MCAT and GPA as predictors of success are all of a sudden not ''pretty strong.'' Something tells me that the AAMC knows what they are doing.

 

[AnEyeLikeMars]

Bear in mind that both the MCAT and Step 1 have undergone a variety of changes since the date of the study, and the percentage of med students/med schools represented in the study wasn't huge (There are quite a few more schools/students today). So, yes, there is a correlation, but it's not enough to get too excited about - I wouldn't say pretty strong in terms of the current landscape.

If the study is no longer valid that's a whole different story, and you're right. I was just trying to make the point that a 0.64 correlation is considered strong/large.

 

[dutchman]

seeing as the thread has veered of on a tangent, I will like to ask what you guys think about gays in the military.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

The statistical correlations that Towelie and others pointed out are not all of a sudden meaningless because of one anomalous case such as this.

If the MCAT had very little to do with success in med school than the AAMC would not use it at all. Please, wake up and smell the roses.

PS: I am not saying that a high MCAT score automatically means one will dominate medical school.

Again, another example of extremes. I don't think anybody's saying there's no correlation between your MCAT, your med school performance and your USMLE. Good test takers who do well on the MCAT do take those skills with them to some extent. However, you still can't dismiss your competition at your school by assuming you'll do better than them because you did better on the MCAT, or because you had a 4.0 or because you went to an Ivy or because of anything. You also shouldn't count yourself out of doing well because you barely got admitted.

In the end, there's nothing more obnoxious than a person who shows up at a school expecting to be a top student just because he scored in the 99th percentile on his MCAT or whatever.

 

[JDMD243.0]

Well, I'm not sure the stats quite say what you suggest. There is a modest correlation between MCAT scores and board scores, but it was a study on a small minority of med students at a small minority of med schools years ago, and both Step 1 and the MCAT have undergone not insubstantial changes since those studies. So it's absolutely a debatable point. Expect to fight to be the big fish regardless of where you go, and don't expect any advantage because you have good numbers. It doesn't work out that way for half the class.

What all of the statistics above suggest is that ceteris paribus - all else being equal - higher GPA/MCAT indicates higher med school grades/Step1. Its why those two stats have such an overwhelming weight in med school admissions. Now if someone with high stats slouches in med school or someone with low stats is a gunner, then it is no longer ceteris paribus. So I am not debating that one has to work hard at any school to be at the top regardless of their previous MCAT/GPA and I really don't think anyone has suggested otherwise anywhere on this thread. The point is that it will be statistically more difficult for a person to be in the top of their class at a more competitive school with more competitive students than at a less competitive school.

You are free to argue against several peer reviewed studies that are cited by the AAMC as well as every med school admissions office in the country all you want.

 

[Stolenspatulas]

Again, another example of extremes. I don't think anybody's saying there's no correlation between your MCAT, your med school performance and your USMLE. Good test takers who do well on the MCAT do take those skills with them to some extent. However, you still can't dismiss your competition at your school by assuming you'll do better than them because you did better on the MCAT, or because you had a 4.0 or because you went to an Ivy or because of anything. You also shouldn't count yourself out of doing well because you barely got admitted.

In the end, there's nothing more obnoxious than a person who shows up at a school expecting to be a top student just because he scored in the 99th percentile on his MCAT or whatever.

Of course of course of course.

I agree with you completely (the underlined portion).

What I am trying to say is that a single verifiable case of someone with a 24 mcat dominating medical school does not mean that it happens ''regularly.'' The statistics are out there and the correlation does exist. That implies that people with higher MCAT/higher GPAs tend to do better in medical school. That likewise imples that people with lower MCAT/lower GPAs tend to do a little worse, in general. I am tired of people not wanting to face the truth.

Realize that I am not saying that the individual's experience and circumstance does not matter. AS A WHOLE, the MCAT/GPA correlation does exist and can be used on the med student population, AS A WHOLE.

I am sorry that you think my stance is extreme. I think it is exactly middle-of-the-road.

 

[NCF145]

1. People who perform well on the MCAT tend to do well on their USMLEs b/c they are good standardized test takers.
2. People who had good grades in undergrad have a good chance of performing well in medical school, because their A's in undergrad are indicative of strong work ethic.

I think people tend to take these statistics far too seriously. Yes, there is a correlation for the reasons stated above. However, your past performance does not guarantee your future performance. People that religiously quote statistics from previous years to make themselves feel better or justify their view that they will perform well are forgetting one thing. Those statistics do not include them. They reflect what everyone else has done. Just because you had a 3.5 and a 30 does not mean you will not graduate AOA with a 245. Even if 90% of people with your stats do not come near this mark, it does not mean you won't. This is because these percentages and stats leave out some crucial information: your drive, talents and how you feel the day you take the USMLE.

The point is to try your hardest no matter what your past achievements are. You get out what you put in.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

I am sorry that you think my stance is extreme. I think it is exactly middle-of-the-road.

No, I never said your stance was extreme. What you're doing is assuming that those arguing with you are taking an extreme stance. You and Dookter both are doing the exact same thing -- we're here saying something is maybe useful in a highly qualified sense. You guys then come back at us and say, hey, you can't say this has zero predictive ability. In sum, you're misconstruing our argument to make it look less legitimate.

 

[dutchman]

Since non of you will answer my question about gays in the military, I thought I'd ask one that might interest you. How can you use a study from 1992 to predict your performance in 2010?

 

[Law2Doc]

You are free to argue against several peer reviewed studies that are cited by the AAMC as well as every med school admissions office in the country all you want.

As I indicated above, the studies are on different versions of the MCAT and Step 1, and back at a time when the number of students in med school was less, and back at a time when the composition of the student body in med school was drastically different (fewer women, nontrads, nonsci majors, etc) so not exactly applicable today. Might be true, might not. If you could go back in time and take the test in the early 90s, your correlation would be better. As for your latter point, you will note that once above a certain score med schools actually tend to take folks with interesting and diverse backgrounds ahead of some with the highest scores -- the top schools do not have averages of 4.0/40 even though they could, and you always see folks with some of the highest stats getting a handful of rejections from places you'd think they were competitive. So obviously schools don't see sufficient correlation with success of a few more points above a certain threshold to take someone with the 38 over someone with the 35 and better experiences.

This thread does seem to have drastically deviated off track. That's what happens when you start a thread when only a handful of folks have lists to distribute, I guess.

 

[Law2Doc]

Since non of you will answer my question about gays in the military, I thought I'd ask one that might interest you. How can you use a study from 1992 to predict your performance in 2010?

That's been my point repeatedly on this thread. But folks with high stats want them to mean something so to tell them otherwise meets with hostility.

 

[adam6]

Hi,

Anyone have any of these match lists?

Thx

 

[JDMD243.0]

Since non of you will answer my question about gays in the military, I thought I'd ask one that might interest you. How can you use a study from 1992 to predict your performance in 2010?

No one is saying that because several studies indicate a correlation that any one person can predict how they will do. The point is that when you take a population of people, the stats do have a strong predictive value.

 

[Law2Doc]

Hi,

Anyone have any of these match lists?

Thx

These things take time to trickle in. Patience.

 

[Law2Doc]

No one is saying that because several studies indicate a correlation that any one person can predict how they will do. The point is that when you take a population of people, the stats do have a strong predictive value.

If the tests and the population are comparable. I'd suggest they aren't.

 

[polycon7]

I'm assuming there are no other matchlists available out there since the topic of this thread has moved onto statistics.

 

[Dookter]

No, I never said your stance was extreme. What you're doing is assuming that those arguing with you are taking an extreme stance. You and Dookter both are doing the exact same thing -- we're here saying something is maybe useful in a highly qualified sense. You guys then come back at us and say, hey, you can't say this has zero predictive ability. In sum, you're misconstruing our argument to make it look less legitimate.

What is your deal? I didn't think I was doing that, so I just went and read every one of my posts in this thread. I was replying to someone who DID say the lists are meaningless. I'm not putting any arguments in anyone's mouth. So please stop saying that I'm doing that..... Maybe you should go read everything I've posted on this thread to refresh your memory of what I've said. Since this is the second time you've specifically said this about me, I'd appreciate if you just defaulted to re-reading what I actually said before calling me out on things.

 

[45408]

Yes, yes, but will somebody please start posting MATCH LISTS (which was the entire purpose of this thread, remember?) again?

relax.....you can always search for them yourself. I'll post my school's if it becomes publicly available (I got the in-house version, but it says not to distribute it).

 

[45408]

You certainly couldnt tell just looking at the number of unfilled spots after the match --- there were more unfilled spots in Rads, anesthesia, path, and even rad onc.

Apparently what happened is that a few of these programs, anesthesia for one, thought that they could be more selective than they really could be, so they didn't rank as many applicants as they should have, and those cream-of-the-crop applicants got into better programs, leaving a fair number of gaps in some programs.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

What is your deal? I didn't think I was doing that, so I just went and read every one of my posts in this thread. I was replying to someone who DID say the lists are meaningless. I'm not putting any arguments in anyone's mouth. So please stop saying that I'm doing that..... Maybe you should go read everything I've posted on this thread to refresh your memory of what I've said. Since this is the second time you've specifically said this about me, I'd appreciate if you just defaulted to re-reading what I actually said before calling me out on things.

Okay, quick point -- don't quote me when you're arguing with another post. Some guy in post #28 said something and then modified it. You quoted me to take your beef our with him with the implication that I was making the same argument.

 

[45408]

hey stolenspatulas, you asked for some debate here, and then you missed my post. posted again for your pleasure:

Well what about schools such as Pritzker? They right out tell you that they have a weaker Step 1 average compared to all the top schools. Why do they match well?

Would you please post a "bad" match list? I'd like to compare. Preferably from a school that is higher ranked than Pritzker.

 

[JDMD243.0]

If the tests and the population are comparable. I'd suggest they aren't.

The study I cited was published in 2002 and agreed with all of the studies published before it. I'd agree that there has been some change in demographics since then but there is nothing to suggest that these studies are all of a sudden invalid.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

Do some people blatantly deny the truth and say that a match list tells you absolutely nothing? Absolutely.

Just for a reminder, here's where you did exactly what I'm accusing you of doing. Nobody in this thread has "blatantly" denied the truth and said match lists have absolutely no value. One person in post #28 said they were "meaningless" and then came back and modified his statement. IMO, you're creating controversy where it doesn't exist by essentially misrepresenting the argument of the people you're disagreeing with. I just find it really fascinating that stolenspatulas did exactly the same thing.

 

[Dookter]

Okay, quick point -- don't quote me when you're arguing with another post. Some guy in post #28 said something and then modified it. You went on acting like we were all saying that match lists were meaningless. Read your post above to me where you misquoted my argument again.

I can't believe I'm wasting time doing this....

I assume you're talking about when I said that some people deny the truth and say that match lists tell you nothing... I did not say YOU said that. I said some people. Some people do say that...I've been on these forums enough to know that [especially since someone DID say that in this specific thread].

The bottom line is that I did not accuse everyone here of making extreme claims about match lists...so stop saying that I'm doing that.

 

[45408]

I can't believe I'm wasting time doing this....

I assume you're talking about when I said that some people deny the truth and say that match lists tell you nothing... I did not say YOU said that. I said some people. Some people do say that...I've been on these forums enough to know that [especially since someone DID say that in this specific thread].

The bottom line is that I did not accuse everyone here of making extreme claims about match lists...so stop saying that I'm doing that.

You said that she said that I said that you said that she said that you said that someone said in post 28 that match lists are meaningless. Ugh.

 

[Dookter]

Just for a reminder, here's where you did exactly what I'm accusing you of doing. Nobody in this thread has "blatantly" denied the truth and said match lists have absolutely no value. One person in post #28 said they were "meaningless" and then came back and modified his statement. IMO, you're creating controversy where it doesn't exist by essentially misrepresenting the argument of the people you're disagreeing with. I just find it really fascinating that stolenspatulas did exactly the same thing.

Look, people DO say those things. I've been on these damn forums constantly while procrastinating from studying for a LONG time. I'm not trying to bolter any argument. I made ONE statement about how some people put WAY too much emphasis on match lists. In the VERY next sentence I also said how some people deny that they can tell us anything. That is not me swinging one way or the other. That is me sitting right in the damn middle of the issue! Once again, go re-read the post. If you'd copy/paste BOTH sentences together instead of just the second sentence, you'd get what I'm saying.

 

[Dookter]

You said that she said that I said that you said that she said that you said that someone said in post 28 that match lists are meaningless. Ugh.

Hey, I'm not the one who started this. I think it's ridiculous. I am just sick of my name showing up in posts accusing me of making these extreme arguments when I'm not. Maybe if everyone could just post their points and not include my name in them, that would solve it.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

You said that she said that I said that you said that she said that you said that someone said in post 28 that match lists are meaningless. Ugh.

Ugh, I agree.

I'm just waiting for some of the elitists to have some balls and start pointing out why those of us who go to cr@ppy schools have such poor match lists. It'll be fun.

 

[JDMD243.0]

As for your latter point, you will note that once above a certain score med schools actually tend to take folks with interesting and diverse backgrounds ahead of some with the highest scores -- the top schools do not have averages of 4.0/40 even though they could, and you always see folks with some of the highest stats getting a handful of rejections from places you'd think they were competitive. So obviously schools don't see sufficient correlation with success of a few more points above a certain threshold to take someone with the 38 over someone with the 35 and better experiences.

Agree that above a certain threshold, in the upper tail of the bell curve, these stats become less predictive to the point where a school (except WashU) would rather have a diverse student body over a statistically superior one. But you are using the extreme case in an attempt to invalidate the overall point.

 

[JDMD243.0]

Ugh, I agree.

I'm just waiting for some of the elitists to have some balls and start pointing out why those of us who go to cr@ppy schools have such poor match lists. It'll be fun.

I'd appreciate it if the ad hominem attacks cease. It doesn't contribute to the argument. Calling someone names doesn't invalidate their point. Just because someone argues a position you don't like doesn't make them elitist.

edit: check out my md apps, i'm at just about the most average school in the country and done some things that require more nads then typing messages anonymously.

 

[amandil]

Hi,

Anyone have any of these match lists?

Thx

Rumor has it the list will be published tomorrow... whenever it comes out, I'll post it.

 

[Davjc2009]

It's been like 70 posts since a match list has actually been posted... that's depressing.

 

[Law2Doc]

The study I cited was published in 2002 and agreed with all of the studies published before it. I'd agree that there has been some change in demographics since then but there is nothing to suggest that these studies are all of a sudden invalid.

Well, that study was only of students at two med schools, so it's hardly a representative sample of the 125+ schools today. And the MCAT portion of that study was taken in the 90s I believe, so we are talking about a decade of test evolution since then. And the Step 1 exam underwent pretty significant changes a few years back, moving from straightforward pseudo MCAT-like questions to more of an application of concepts "hide the ball" version. As for demographics since the 90s, I'd say it's actually pretty significant - there are many more nontrads, nonsci majors, postbaccers and the like than ever before, and women now constitute the majority at quite a few schools. So I maintain that those studies are interesting, but not tightly applicable.

When you get to med school you are going to see it's a different ballgame. What you accomplished in undergrad got you there, but really doesn't apply any further. Medicine is one of those fields where you have to prove yourself over and over again every step of the way. And believe it or not, being able to make the adjustment to the change in workload and teaching style counts for more than raw intelligence or ability. No point arguing, you will see.

 

[Law2Doc]

It's been like 70 posts since a match list has actually been posted... that's depressing.

No big surprise. That's what happens when there's a weekend -- it's not like folks (other than perhaps the 4th years) have easy access to the match lists, the schools have to make them available. And except for the admissions staff, the med school administrators tend not to be at work uploading things onto the web on a Sunday. The lists ought to trickle in as folks get access to them during the week.

 

[Davjc2009]

No big surprise. That's what happens when there's a weekend -- it's not like folks (other than perhaps the 4th years) have easy access to the match lists, the schools have to make them available. And except for the admissions staff, the med school administrators tend not to be at work uploading things onto the web on a Sunday. The lists ought to trickle in as folks get access to them during the week.

Yeah, but the fact that about 80% of those 70 posts have nothing to even do with match lists is somewhat depressing also. I checked yesterday and it was on the third page. I check today it's on the fourth almost 5th page and I'm like "Oh maybe there's a couple more matchlist"but to my disappointment...nada. Screw it... time to go be a bum and watch the NCAA tournament

 

[Uncle Izzy]

DUKE MATCH LIST 2007

Specialty Program
Anesthesiology University of Florida Health Science Center, Gainesville, FL
Anesthesiology Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, FL
Anesthesiology Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
Anesthesiology Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Anesthesiology Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Emergency Medicine SUNY Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, NY
Emergency Medicine University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH
Emergency Medicine Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Emergency Medicine University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH
Family Medicine University of North Carolina Hospital, Chapel Hill, NC
Family Medicine Virginia Commonwealth Univ.-Fairfax Family Medicine; Fairfax, VA
General Surgery Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
General Surgery Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI
General Surgery Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
General Surgery Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
Internal Medicine University of Chicago Hospitals, Chicago, IL
Internal Medicine Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Internal Medicine Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Internal Medicine Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
Internal Medicine Barnes and Jewish Hospital, Washington University, St. Louis, MO
Internal Medicine University of Washington Affiliated Hospitals, Seattle, WA
Internal Medicine Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY
Internal Medicine Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Internal Medicine Stanford University Hospitals, Palo Alto, CA
Internal Medicine Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
Internal Medicine Vanderbilt Medical Center, Nashville, TN
Internal Medicine Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
Internal Medicine University of Washington Affiliated Hospitals, Seattle, WA
Internal Medicine Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
Internal Medicine Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
Internal Medicine University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, UT
Internal Medicine Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Internal Medicine Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
Internal Medicine Vanderbilt Medical Center, Nashville, TN
Internal Medicine Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
Medicine/Pediatrics Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Medicine/Pediatrics Brigham and Women's Hospital/Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA
Medicine/Pediatrics Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA
Medicine/Pediatrics Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Neurology University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
Neurosurgery Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
Neurosurgery University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI
Obstetrics and Gynecology Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New Hyde Park, NY
Obstetrics and Gynecology McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
Ophthalmology Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Ophthalmology Vanderbilt Medical Center, Nashville, TN
Ophthalmology Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Ophthalmology Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Ophthalmology Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
Ophthalmology University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA
Ophthalmology University of California Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA
Orthopaedic Surgery Thomas Jefferson University Program, Philadelphia, PA
Orthopaedic Surgery Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Orthopaedic Surgery Hospital for Special Surgery, Weill Medical College of Cornell University; New York, NY
Orthopaedic Surgery Harvard Combined Program, Boston, MA
Orthopaedic Surgery Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY
Otolaryngology McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
Pathology Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Pathology Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
Pediatrics Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania; Philadelphia, PA
Pediatrics University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI
Pediatrics University of Colorado Denver Health Sciences Center, Denver, CO
Pediatrics Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Pediatrics University of Colorado Denver Health Sciences Center, Denver, CO
Pediatrics Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
Pediatrics Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, VA
Pediatrics Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Pediatrics University of Washington Affiliated Hospitals, Seattle, WA
Pediatrics Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Pediatrics Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
Pediatrics Vanderbilt Medical Center, Nashville, TN
Plastic and Reconstructive Surg Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
Prelim Medicine Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Prelim Medicine University of Florida Health Science Center, Gainesville, FL
Prelim Medicine University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Nashville, TN
Prelim Medicine Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY
Prelim Medicine Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Prelim Medicine University of North Carolina Hospital, Chapel Hill, NC
Prelim Medicine University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY
Prelim Medicine Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA
Prelim Medicine University of Florida Health Science Center, Gainesville, FL
Prelim Medicine Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC
Prelim Medicine University of Washington Affiliated Hospitals, Seattle, WA
Prelim Medicine University of Maryland Mercy Medical Center, Baltimore, MD
Psychiatry Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
Psychiatry Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY
Psychiatry University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA
Radiation Oncology New York University Medical Center, New York, NY
Radiation Oncology MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston Texas
Radiation Oncology Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD
Radiology Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Radiology Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA
Radiology McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
Radiology Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Radiology University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI
Transitional Med. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
Transitional Med. McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
Transitional Med. University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI
Transitional Med. Hawaii Residency Programs, University of Hawaii John A. Burns School of Medicine, Honolulu, HI
Transitional Med. University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI
Transitional Med. Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, Colton, CA
Urology Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH
Urology Einstein/Beth Israel Medical Center; New York, New York
Urology Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC