OK, I'll bite. Instead of sharing my rank list, a lot of which depended on personal factors (like family), I'll share what I would've ranked if it was based purely on how much I liked the program.
Brigham and Women's Hospital
Pros: Reputation speaks for itself. Many faculty are really big names in the specialty. Culture is very friendly and supportive. Boston is a great city with a TON of academic medicine resources and contacts.
Cons: No trauma or liver transplants. Since Boston has many hospitals, they all seem to "fight" for volume and big cases.
Johns Hopkins
Pros: Reputation. Pretty much strong clinically in everything. Lots of structured education time (i.e, academic days). PD seems like an incredible resident advocate.
Cons: Location. If the program wasn't so flawless otherwise, Baltimore would probably be a deal-breaker. Some residents said it wasn't uncommon to be relieved late (6:00-7:00pm or later) several days per month.
Duke
Pros: Great clinical training in everything, especially cardiac, critical care, regional. Very close-knit culture. Affordable cost of living, especially compared to most top programs in bigger cities. Residents not primary workforce. Lots of support for resident wellness.
Cons: Area feels very suburban.
Stanford
Pros: Faculty are very well-known and well-connected in their fields. Lots of ties to the university's academic/research resources and the nearby Silicon Valley entrepreneurship/innovation scene. New adult and peds hospitals currently under construction.
Cons: High cost of living. Few CRNAs, so residents are the main workforce. Not much protected time for education (15min./day).
UCSF
Pros: Great clinical training. Lots of hospitals = high volume and exposure to different settings and populations (academic vs. county/safety net). Options to do specialized 'tracks' in global health, medical education, translational research, etc.
Cons: Insanely high cost of living. Program acknowledges that culture/wellness have not been valued enough in the past, and is upfront that they're working on fixing that. Residents seem to work harder than at most other programs.
Columbia
Pros: Top-tier reputation. Strong training across the board, especially critical care, cardiac, and peds. Lots of support for resident research.
Cons: Cost of living, though the CUMC area is a little less expensive and residents are paid enough to make ends meet. Lots of complaints from residents about poor ancillary staff. Weird that PD is not involved in interview day. Faculty interviewer said didactics not as strong.
(Heard lots of applicants on the trail say the culture here was cold/cutthroat, but I didn't see that at all.)
Penn
Pros: Great cardiac and peds training, in particular. Strong reputation. Lots of interdisciplinary research programs and institutes compared to other more 'siloed' universities.
Cons: Met a number of residents who complained about feeling overworked. Somewhat turned off by how much people bragged about the Penn name.
Vanderbilt
Pros: Huge catchment area, which means residents see all the "big cases" within a several-hour radius. Nashville is a mid-sized, up-and-coming city. Program sees itself as a leader in periop./ERAS. Would definitely be well-trained and happy here.
Cons: Lack of diversity, though in fairness, the program acknowledges this directly during the interview day and seems interested in improving it. Has an SRNA training program.
Wash U
Pros: Large catchment area. High volume of big cases. Hospital campus is yuuuge. Most residents live close to the hospital for very affordable rates.
Cons: St. Louis is a mixed bag; some areas seem 'up-and-coming,' others very run-down. Few residents from "top" med schools. Outgoing PD was awkward; did not get to meet incoming PD during interview.
BIDMC
Pros: Good training. Access to Harvard academic/research connections. Really liked PD and chair.
Cons: Like other Boston programs, seems to split major cases with other hospitals. Have to go outside of system to get some cases, like certain transplants. Lots of OB call.
