2017-2018 Interview Thread -- Radiology

[drubabe92]

Hey guys, I have a DR interview at NYU Winthrop on 12/15. Can anyone switch with me? I'd ideally like to interview on 11/20 or 11/17. DM me. I'd really appreciate it!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SpartanWolverine]

So, much in the way of invites for any of you in the last month or so? Curious how many schools are sending out further rounds of interviews.

 

[ValleyRad2018]

So, much in the way of invites for any of you in the last month or so? Curious how many schools are sending out further rounds of interviews.

I got one last week, was the first I had received in what seemed like a month. A couple of waitlist invites as well over the last month, but overall not a lot of movement here.

 

[ValleyRad2018]

I got one last week, was the first I had received in what seemed like a month. A couple of waitlist invites as well over the last month, but overall not a lot of movement here.

Having gone through this process before, most of my cancellations occurred in December/January, so I would expect more action from the waitlists at that time. Or people may cancel those interviews this month, but prepare to interview during those months for waitlisted programs.

 

[wallebergsyndrome]

Hey everyone I am a FMG and have 7 radiology IVs so far. Haven't heard from most programs. Do I Stand a chance? step 250s in both

 

[radiosoda]

Hey everyone I am a FMG and have 7 radiology IVs so far. Haven't heard from most programs. Do I Stand a chance? step 250s in both

2 FMGs I know of:
* 250s and 7 interviews matched at his top choice (a top 5 rads program in doximity list)
* 250s and 4 interviews matched, I dont know if he matched at his top choice (but he matached at a top 20 rads program in dox)

 

[Doktaliz]

Has anyone heard anything from UCSD for interview invites or rejections?

 

[PENNYWISETHECLOWN]

Has anyone interviewed at rutgers NJMS, and care to share their experience?

 

[DrfluffyMD]

2 FMGs I know of:
* 250s and 7 interviews matched at his top choice (a top 5 rads program in doximity list)
* 250s and 4 interviews matched, I dont know if he matched at his top choice (but he matached at a top 20 rads program in dox)

I have 6 IVs myself, three of them are from top 20s in doximity list, and three are community programs, I sure hope I match at my first choice. But we FMGs have very irregular interview invitation tendencies so I belive it is difficult to come up with an accurate prediction

Doximity list is not a good list for strength and reputation of radiology programs.

 

[radiosoda]

Doximity list is not a good list for strength and reputation of radiology programs.

Not a good list for reputation? people keep insisting on this. I know it does not fit some people but the reason why I mention it is to give an idea of the competitiveness of each program. No one will argue that the "top 10" or 20 at doximity are SUPER competitive, at least for IMGs, and it IS important for other IMGs to know that we have also matched at very competitive programs before, and will definitely continue to do so. By no means did I try to say that doximitys list is the best list, but I do believe it is at least a GOOD list for competitiveness and may even be the best one we have

 

[DrfluffyMD]

Not a good list for reputation? people keep insisting on this. I know it does not fit some people but the reason why I mention it is to give an idea of the competitiveness of each program. No one will argue that the "top 10" or 20 at doximity are SUPER competitive, at least for IMGs, and it IS important for other IMGs to know that we have also matched at very competitive programs before, and will definitely continue to do so. By no means did I try to say that doximitys list is the best list, but I do believe it is at least a GOOD list for competitiveness and may even be the best one we have.

Certain programs on that list have persistently take IMGs. Not to diminish your accomplishment, however.

Emory, for example, has taken a FMG every year for the past few years.

 

[Cognovi]

By no means did I try to say that doximitys list is the best list

may even be the best one we have

 

[radiosoda]

Saying it MAY, is not a categorical response. wth? *cringing

 

[radiosoda]

Certain programs on that list have persistently take IMGs. Not to diminish your accomplishment, however.

Emory, for example, has taken a FMG every year for the past few years.

Okaay, I dont get your point... I was trying to explain how we can still match at competitive programs with low interview numbers. Are you saying Emory or programs that persistently take IMgs are not competitive? (I was not invited there btw or to programs that "persistently take imgs")

 

[DrfluffyMD]

Okaay, I dont get your point... I was trying to explain how we can still match at competitive programs with low interview numbers. Are you saying they are not competitive?

I am saying that places like Emory may not be as competitive compared to say, UCLA or USC despite it being ranked higher on doximity. This is due to the large number of residents Emory have and its location relative to NYC or California.

 

[radiosoda]

I am saying that places like Emory may not be as competitive compared to say, UCLA or USC despite it being ranked higher on doximity. This is due to the large number of residents Emory have and its location relative to NYC or California.

I was not invited to emory, the FMGs I was talking about did not match at programs that "persistently take IMGs". One of them was invited to the likes of Upenn and the other to MIR, in the last 10 years, which are probably more competitive than UCLA. But that was not my point, my point is that some IMGs have matched to highly competitive and may continue to do so in the future. Not due to the programs being from an undesirable location, large numbers of residents per year or because they "persistently take FMGs", but maybe because they had very competitive CVs.

 

[DrfluffyMD]

I was not invited to emory, the FMGs I was talking about did not match at programs that "persistently take IMGs". One of them was invited to the likes of Upenn and the other to MIR, in the last 10 years, which are probably more competitive than UCLA. But that was not my point, my point is that some IMGs have matched to highly competitive and may continue to do so in the future. Not due to the programs being from an undesirable location, large numbers of residents per year or because they "persistently take FMGs", but maybe because they had very competitive CVs.

MIR isn’t more competitive than UCLA. I am not disputing your point of FMG matching into competitive programs. I am saying the doximity list isn’t represenative of real world competitiveness nor program training strength. There is a rough correlation but the list is misleading.

 

[radiosoda]

IMGs have previously matched at competitive programs, that do NOT necessarily persistently take IMGs.
BTW do you even know how many applicants per position each program has as to give such categorical responses? I am honestly not interested in knowing which one is more competitive. I was just trying to help other IMGs telling them I know other FMGs/IMGs that have matched to the likes of MGH! so that they dont lose hope

 

[DrfluffyMD]

IMGs have preivously matched at competitive programs, that do NOT necessarily persistently take IMGs.
BTW do you even know how many applicants per position each program has as to give such a categorical responses? I am honestly not interested in knowing which one is more competitive. I was just trying to help other IMGs telling them I know other FMGs/IMGs that have matched to the likes of MGH! so that they dont lose hope

I know those precise details because I was once in your shoes and applied to those programs. MGH has taken FMG before and that’s quite impressive. However there was also one year with 900 US applicants for 1100 spots when now there is 1400 Us applicant for 950 spots.

 

[radiosoda]

I know those precise details because I was once in your shoes and applied to those programs. MGH has taken FMG before and that’s quite impressive. However there was also one year with 900 US applicants for 1100 spots when now there is 1400 Us applicant for 950 spots.

Yes its more difficult now. But who knows, life can be surprising

 

[Rads4lyfe]

MIR isn’t more competitive than UCLA. I am not disputing your point of FMG matching into competitive programs. I am saying the doximity list isn’t represenative of real world competitiveness nor program training strength. There is a rough correlation but the list is misleading.

I agree that doximity rank doesnt equate to competitiveness in matching. Doximity is based on reputation. MIR is considered a bigger name in the radiology world than UCLA and most people(private practice and especially in academics) would agree. It doesnt necessarily mean the training is better either or it's harder to match into MIR over UCLA.

Id say doximity is pretty reliable at the top and gets very inaccurate the further down the list. Most people would agree that the top 10-15 programs generally belong there, but past 15, it gets pretty controversial. And anything past 30 is unreliable.

 

[DrfluffyMD]

I agree that doximity rank doesnt equate to competitiveness in matching. Doximity is based on reputation. MIR is considered a bigger name in the radiology world than UCLA and most people(private practice and especially in academics) would agree. It doesnt necessarily mean the training is better either or it's harder to match into MIR over UCLA.

Id say doximity is pretty reliable at the top and gets very inaccurate the further down the list. Most people would agree that the top 10-15 programs generally belong there, but past 15, it gets pretty controversial. And anything past 30 is unreliable.

Not to trash talk MIR as an institution, and MIR is an excellent, excellent place to learn radiology, but its geographical location places it at a great disadvantage.

For the world of radiology, job market is all about where you trained and who you know. People are more likely to end up with a California job going to Cedars, which may well be more competitive than MIR and certainly seem to place people into big name fellowship just as well in California.

In the legal profession there is the concept of “trap school” where it’s a highly reputable school but doesn’t necessarily get you the job you want. Compared to Cornell and Cedars MIR may well be such a thing.

Another example. 4/17 residents in MIR’s 2016-2020 class are FMG or IMG. This is one class out of four.

Meanwhile, not a single FMG is found on the entire resident staff of Cedars Sinai of 16 people (except one person who went to McGill, a LCME accredited Canadian school).

Again, MIR likey provide better training than Cedars Sinai, but in my personal experience, Cedars, a California community program, is likely more competitive than MIR to match to. This maybe counterintuitive to med students but make total sense to me as I am begining to worry about jobs.

 

[radiosoda]

Not to trash talk MIR as an institution, and MIR is an excellent, excellent place to learn radiology, but its geographical location places it at a great disadvantage.

For the world of radiology, job market is all about where you trained and who you know. People are more likely to end up with a California job going to Cedars, which may well be more competitive than MIR and certainly seem to place people into big name fellowship just as well in California.

In the legal profession there is the concept of “trap school” where it’s a highly reputable school but doesn’t necessarily get you the job you want. Compared to Cornell and Cedars MIR may well be such a thing.

Another example. 4/17 residents in MIR’s 2016-2020 class are FMG or IMG. This is one class out of four.

Meanwhile, not a single FMG is found on the entire resident staff of Cedars Sinai of 16 people (except one person who went to McGill, a LCME accredited Canadian school).

Again, MIR likey provide better training than Cedars Sinai, but in my personal experience, Cedars, a California community program, is likely more competitive than MIR to match to. This maybe counterintuitive to med students but make total sense to me as I am begining to worry about jobs.

LOL. Are you assuming that Mir is less competitive because they matched a couple of fmgs? I understand this is true to mid or lower tier programs. But if an fmgs matches to mgh, Mir or jhu, believe me that they may very likely have many more publications and higher usmle scores than the most other applicants, ie they are outlying applicants that were picked against top US medical school applicants. Some programs don't invite fmg just because of their visa status. It's not that cedars is now more competitive than mgh because they have matched less fmgs in the last few years. It's kind of perplexing and funny the way some of you guys look at things

 

[radiosoda]

@DrfluffyMD is providing false, opinionated statements. The IMG/FMG applicants who match at top programs are stellar, and do not say anything negative about the program.

From the Emory thread...


I'd take more seriously the verified Program Director's word.

Ikr. I'll just stop posting replies, I guess some ppl will just have a strange way of looking at things, and as long as it doesn't affect my career I'll stop worrying about their mental processes. But its kind of perplexing tbh

 

[fetorius]

@DrfluffyMD is providing false, opinionated statements. If you look at his/her post history, they spend the majority of time on SDN discussing the logistics of the non-traditional applicant pool (IMG/FMG/DO).

I wouldn't brush off advice (esp. from a Rads resident) just because you disagree with it. I don't know about DrfluffyMD's post history but they have posted here consistently. Competitiveness is important but what DrfluffyMD posted has been mentioned by other posters elsewhere. From what I can gather, location is very important since groups tend to hire who they know (hence why certain community programs may be more competitive to match in). People, for the most part, work around the area where they do residency. For example, if you want to work in CA, you should train in CA but it doesn't mean you can't get to CA from a top rated program. I remember trying to make this decision not too long ago and it's tough. I would say try to find a balance between where you want to live and choose the best program in that area.

 

[radiosoda]

I wouldn't brush off advice (esp. from a Rads resident) just because you disagree with it. I don't know about DrfluffyMD's post history but they have posted here consistently. Competitiveness is important but what DrfluffyMD posted has been mentioned by other posters elsewhere. From what I can gather, location is very important since groups tend to hire who they know (hence why certain community programs may be more competitive to match in). People, for the most part, work around the area where they do residency. For example, if you want to work in CA, you should train in CA but it doesn't mean you can't get to CA from a top rated program. I remember trying to make this decision not too long ago and it's tough. I would say try to find a balance between where you want to live and choose the best program in that area.

He is saying a community program is likely more competitive than Mallinkrodt Institute of Radiology because it has no taken FMGs in the past, without factoring in that some programs (specially smaller ones with less resources) will just not consider FMG applications due to administrative and economical limitations. I dont think that I have to agree with what seems obvious nonsense to me just because it comes from a rads resident. I am curious, what is this "advice" you mention? that people should rank location over training strength and reputation to be able to find a better job? (it does not sound very reasonable tbh)

 

[Rads4lyfe]

Not to trash talk MIR as an institution, and MIR is an excellent, excellent place to learn radiology, but its geographical location places it at a great disadvantage.

For the world of radiology, job market is all about where you trained and who you know. People are more likely to end up with a California job going to Cedars, which may well be more competitive than MIR and certainly seem to place people into big name fellowship just as well in California.

In the legal profession there is the concept of “trap school” where it’s a highly reputable school but doesn’t necessarily get you the job you want. Compared to Cornell and Cedars MIR may well be such a thing.

Another example. 4/17 residents in MIR’s 2016-2020 class are FMG or IMG. This is one class out of four.

Meanwhile, not a single FMG is found on the entire resident staff of Cedars Sinai of 16 people (except one person who went to McGill, a LCME accredited Canadian school).

Again, MIR likey provide better training than Cedars Sinai, but in my personal experience, Cedars, a California community program, is likely more competitive than MIR to match to. This maybe counterintuitive to med students but make total sense to me as I am begining to worry about jobs.

I partially agree with what you said. It's true that if you wanted to practice in California, going to cedars for residency is likely better. But doximity rankings are based on the overall perception of a program nationwide. If you wanted to move to texas though, you would be better coming from MIR over Cedars since it has a stronger overall reputation.

As far as FMGs...are we talking about FMGs or IMGs? There's a big difference. I've met/see. a few FMG residents or prior residents from places including MGH, Hopkins, Penn, etc. Those applicants usually have robust research, high scores and are usually rock stars from their countries.

IMGs are the american citizens going to foreign medical schools. Generally they, and also DOs, are looked more unfavorably. I have not met or seen any at the top programs.

As far as competitiveness to match, i agree that more desirable locations are tougher. However, from my experience(i interviewed at cedars, MIR, and ucla) and based on the quality of applicants i saw, ucla is much harder to match than MIR. I'd say the applicants I met at MIR were still solid though and had a edge over cedars. Though, cedars(pseudo-community program) is definitely tougher to match than many/a lot of bigger academic programs.

 

[radiosoda]

I partially agree with what you said. It's true that if you wanted to practice in California, going to cedars for residency is likely better. But doximity rankings are based on the overall perception of a program nationwide. If you wanted to move to texas though, you would be better coming from MIR over Cedars since it has a stronger overall reputation.

As far as FMGs...are we talking about FMGs or IMGs? There's a big difference. I've met/see. a few FMG residents or prior residents from places including MGH, Hopkins, Penn, etc. Those applicants usually have robust research, high scores and are usually rock stars from their countries.

IMGs are the american citizens going to foreign medical schools. Generally they, and also DOs, are looked more unfavorably. I have not met or seen any at the top programs.

As far as competitiveness to match, i agree that more desirable locations are tougher. However, from my experience(i interviewed at cedars, MIR, and ucla) and based on the quality of applicants i saw, ucla is much harder to match than MIR. I'd say the applicants I met at MIR were still solid though and had a edge over cedars. Though, cedars(pseudo-community program) is definitely tougher to match than many/a lot of bigger academic programs.

I'm an FMG and speak for other FMGs that I know of, but very few people know the difference between FMGs and IMGs. Having said that, I noticed you mention that matching at UCLA or cedars can be more difficult than MIR, but at the same time noticed that applicants at MIR had "a edge over cedars", wouldn't that mean that you would need a richer CV (hence more difficulty) to compete with the other applicants at MIR than at Cedars?

Why would these programs then be come competitive? Do their applicants or current residents have higher USMLE scores and number of publications than larger programs at "undesirable locations"?

 

[Rads4lyfe]

He is saying a community program is likely more competitive than Mallinkrodt Institute of Radiology because it has no taken FMGs in the past, without factoring in that some programs (specially smaller ones with less resources) will just not consider FMG applications due to administrative and economical limitations. I dont think that I have to agree with what seems obvious nonsense to me just because it comes from a rads resident. I am curious, what is this "advice" you mention? that people should rank location over training strength and reputation to be able to find a better job? (it does not sound very reasonable tbh)

He means if you want to practice in florida, you'll likely be able to build more connections and find a job easier if you do residency in floridavs at university of michigan for instance.

 

[radiosoda]

He means if you want to practice in florida, you'll likely be able to build more connections and find a job easier if you do residency in floridavs at university of michigan for instance.

He was talking about general competitiveness (QUOTED ""Cedars, a California community program, is likely more competitive than MIR to match to. ""). Why would a community program be more competitive than a larger one, are you saying their applicants (and current residents) have higher usmle scores and publications than residents at MIR/MGH?

 

[Rads4lyfe]

I'm an FMG and speak for other FMGs that I know of, but very few people know the difference between FMGs and IMGs. Having said that, I noticed you mention that matching at UCLA or cedars can be more difficult than MIR, but at the same time noticed that applicants at MIR had "a edge over cedars", wouldn't that mean that you would need a richer CV (hence more difficulty) to compete with the other applicants at MIR than at Cedars?

Why would these programs then be come competitive? Do their applicants or current residents have higher USMLE scores and number of publications than larger programs at "undesirable locations"?

You've confused what i said. When i said MIR had the edge, i meant MIR was slightly more difficult to match than cedars in my opinion.

When i mean more competitive to match, i mean better scores, research, and coming from better medical schools.

 

[radiosoda]

You've confused what i said. When i said MIR had the edge, i meant MIR was slightly more difficult to match than cedars in my opinion.

When i mean more competitive to match, i mean better scores, research, and coming from better medical schools.

I only disagree with the notion that the "occasional FMG" matching at a top tier program is an indicator of lower competitiveness as other previous posts suggest

 

[DrfluffyMD]

I only disagree with the notion that the "occasional FMG" matching at a top tier program is an indicator of lower competitiveness as other previous posts suggest

I get what I am saying maybe upsetting to you, but I was just stating an objective fact that MIR is not the most competitive program for location reason I described above.

If you think that’s a strange way of thinking or choose to put your head into the sand, then good luck.

The fact remain that some programs like MIR or Emory has a large program and as a result, interview many applicants and often, whether by choice or necessity or a combination of both, match non USMDs. It says nothing about the training quality of the program (both excellent), just competitive.

Get this into your head. The strongest training program may not be the most competitive and vice versa. Like wise the strongest training program may not be the best program to get you the best jobs if location is a big concern.

I am a resident who has matched into one of the best IR fellowship in the country, and I am fairly experienced with the residency selection process. I am not an APD, not yet.

 

[radiosoda]

I get what I am saying maybe upsetting to you, but I was just stating an objective fact that MIR is not the most competitive program for location reason I described above.

If you think that’s a strange way of thinking or choose to put your head into the sand, then good luck.

The fact remain that some programs like MIR or Emory has a large program and as a result, interview many applicants and often, whether by choice or necessity or a combination of both, match non USMDs. It says nothing about the training quality of the program (both excellent), just competitive.

Get this into your head. The strongest training program may not be the most competitive and vice versa. Like wise the strongest training program may not be the best program to get you the best jobs if location is a big concern.

I am a resident who has matched into one of the best IR fellowship in the country, and I am fairly experienced with the residency selection process. I am not an APD, not yet.

Sticking my head into sand?, says someone who categorically says a community program is more competitive than a large academic one

 

[DrfluffyMD]

lol, sticking my head into sand?, says the rads resident in "one of the best IR fellowships in the country" who categorically says a community program is more competitive (has residents with higher usmle scores and publications) than MIR. Good luck to you bro

Cedars isn’t any community program. I am just trying to say that exceptions to the academic and community paradigm exist and the match is more nuanced than simply always “academic > community”.

By the way, a little more humility will help with the interviews.

 

[radiosoda]

Cedars isn’t any community program. I am just trying to say that exceptions to the academic and community paradigm exist and the match is more nuanced than simply always “academic > community”.

By the way, a little more humility will help with the interviews.

Ok noted, more humility. Who better than someone who equals occasional outlying FMGs matching at academic programs with lower program competitiveness level, to give advice on humility

 

[TCOM12]

Everyone should remember that this is an anonymous forum and should take all advice with a grain of salt.

In regards to where to train in order to get a job in the region, I would say it would matter more if you want to live in “less desirable” places to train there. The people in LA, NYC, Chicago, etc, know why you’re applying from anywhere in the country. But landing a strong PP or even academic job in places with long winters or not so much to do, they want people who are not only intelligent, but will be happy there.

And most academic institutions have attendings from across the country who are connected to both academic and private practice. They will make phone calls for you.

But my best advice is while in residency become a yes man/woman. Show up to work and be eager, don’t take sick days unless you’re about to be hospitalized, and always smile. At the end of the day, people will remember that you will be easy to work with and not a work hazard. The people that called my higher ups about recommendations asked more about personality and work ethic than anything else.

I don’t intend to derail the thread, but I want to offer some perspective from nearing the end of training (fellow here).

Lastly, be yourself at an interview. You may be dazzled by the fact that you got an interview at the big 5-10 institutions, but maybe you feel more at home at a mid tier or community program (the opposite could also be true). At the end of the day, it’s work and you’ve gotta be happy for 5-6 years and then eventually pay off student loans.

 

[Rads4lyfe]

A

 

[Rads4lyfe]

Sticking my head into sand?, says someone who categorically says a community program is more competitive than a large academic one

Some community programs can be much more competitive to match into than academic centers due to location... not sure why this is so confusing?

 

[radiosoda]

Some community programs can be much more competitive to match into than academic centers due to location... not sure why this is so confusing?

This discussion has long since lost its usefulness for me but just to make it clear, I was not trying to debate competitiveness between programs. I was rather perplexed by the fact that some people take the ocassional fmg matching at a prestigious program as a synonym of low competitiveness (which may indeed make sense at lower and mid tier programs but not at other such as mgh). I really do not care which program is more prestigious or competitive than the other. ... not sure why this is so confusing?

 

[DrfluffyMD]

Everyone should remember that this is an anonymous forum and should take all advice with a grain of salt.

In regards to where to train in order to get a job in the region, I would say it would matter more if you want to live in “less desirable” places to train there. The people in LA, NYC, Chicago, etc, know why you’re applying from anywhere in the country. But landing a strong PP or even academic job in places with long winters or not so much to do, they want people who are not only intelligent, but will be happy there.
.

Remember, take all advice with a grain of salt.

Now, this is going to be an unpopular comment, but unfortunately, it’s the other way around.

Practices in NYC or SoCal don’t care why you are applying there. They get so many applications that they prefer to take the local candidates who they know well and may have moonlighted there since residency. Google people who are interventional radiologists in the bay area. Almost all of them did fellowship at UCSF.

I have never heard of people needing to justify why they want to relocate to the boonies. There is a reason why some of those jobs offer nearly two or three times the income potential and still have trouble filling. Especially in this job market, those places have a hard time filling.

This is why when I was applying to fellowships, I looked at name, training but most importantly location. For a location conscious applicant, fellowship at the location you want to train can trump big names.

 

[DrfluffyMD]

This discussion has long since lost its usefulness but just to make it clear, I was not trying to debate competitiveness between programs. I was rather perplexed by the fact that some people take the ocassional fmg matching at a prestigious program as a synonym of low competitiveness. I really do not care which program is more prestigious than the other. ... not sure why this is so confusing?

This discussion may not be useful to you as a FMG, but note that this is not the FMG interview thread. This is the rad interview thread. choosing the right program is one of the most pertinent discussion for students right now.

This discussion centers around the following FACT: match where you want to live.

Ok so let me sort out the various thread for you

Are FMG matching in a program occasionally suggest low competitiveness: depends on the program. Some huge programs offer strong training but are not the most competitive (Emory comes to mind), as a result they often match FMGs because they may have a hard time filling 17 people class with all AMG. This says nothing about their training (which is excellent). I remember radiologyPD said in their AMA that since their program is not very big, they typically do not rank FMG or DO high because doing so creates the perception of a noncompetitive program.

TLR: a program who has matched FMG may or may not be competitive. A program who had never matched FMG or DO even during the lean years is likely very competitive.

Prestiguous vs nonprestiguous programs: there are three elements to prestige: lay people, referal and other radiologists. Going to a program well known to radiologists help with jobs, going to a program well known to referals help with practice building, same with lay people.

For example, MIR is very well known and well regarded to a radiologist, but probably not considered to be top 5 by a referer or lay person. (Rads ranking: top 5-10, referer: top 10-20, lay people: 20-30, again just ballpark number to illustrate the concept). A medicine doc will think wash U is competitive but will not understand what MIR mean in radiology.

Take a different example: BWH IR: many IRs consider BWH to be not as strong as its name. However, DRs, referers and lay people all consider BWH to be a top 10 name. In this case the recognition pattern reverse from MIR.

So break down the prestige of programs where you interviewed using the three category above and think about what do you want to do. In general a good rep in the combination of all three is useful.

 

[radiosoda]

This discussion may not be useful to you as a FMG, but note that this is not the FMG interview thread. This is the rad interview thread. choosing the right program is one of the most pertinent discussion for students right now.

This discussion centers around the following FACT: match where you want to live.

Ok so let me sort out the various thread for you

Are FMG matching in a program occasionally suggest low competitiveness: depends on the program. Some huge programs offer strong training but are not the most competitive (Emory comes to mind), as a result they often match FMGs because they may have a hard time filling 17 people class with all AMG. This says nothing about their training (which is excellent). I remember radiologyPD said in their AMA that since their program is not very big, they typically do not rank FMG or DO high because doing so creates the perception of a noncompetitive program.

TLR: a program who has matched FMG may or may not be competitive. A program who had never matched FMG or DO even during the lean years is likely very competitive.

Prestiguous vs nonprestiguous programs: there are three elements to prestige: lay people, referal and other radiologists. Going to a program well known to radiologists help with jobs, going to a program well known to referals help with practice building, same with lay people.

For example, MIR is very well known and well regarded to a radiologist, but probably not considered to be top 5 by a referer or lay person. (Rads ranking: top 5-10, referer: top 10-20, lay people: 20-30, again just ballpark number to illustrate the concept). A medicine doc will think wash U is competitive but will not understand what MIR mean in radiology.

Take a different example: BWH IR: many IRs consider BWH to be not as strong as its name. However, DRs, referers and lay people all consider BWH to be a top 10 name. In this case the recognition pattern reverse from MIR.

So break down the prestige of programs where you interviewed using the three category above and think about what do you want to do. In general a good rep in the combination of all three is useful.

I found it pointless to keep debating/discussing about program competitiveness, but I do find the rads interview thread very useful, even if (and specially because) I am an FMG, and I will continue to use it as I am also interviewing for rads. Thanks for the advice, though I am not ranking my programs based on prestige or location, but rather on its training strength (which may coincidentally come hand-in-hand with prestige) as my primary goal is radiology.

 

[TCOM12]

Remember, take all advice with a grain of salt.

Now, this is going to be an unpopular comment, but unfortunately, it’s the other way around.

Practices in NYC or SoCal don’t care why you are applying there. They get so many applications that they prefer to take the local candidates who they know well and may have moonlighted there since residency. Google people who are interventional radiologists in the bay area. Almost all of them did fellowship at UCSF.

I have never heard of people needing to justify why they want to relocate there. There is a reason why some of those jobs offer nearly two or three times the income potential and still have trouble filling. Especially in this job market, those places have a hard time filling.

This is why when I was applying to fellowships, I looked at name, training but most importantly location. For a location conscious applicant, fellowship at the location you want to train can trump big names.

I don’t disagree with your thoughts about having a better chance at a place that knows the trainees, which definitely has a regional bias. It’s likely you are more dispensible to a place that is desirable because of having more applicants for a job. There will always be a balance between pay and location.

As is the beauty of medicine... different philosophies to get the same result.

Will this thread transition to the interview experience at places?

 

[Cognovi]

There are three proxy measures of program competitiveness that can be derived by analyzing the resident list using publicly available information: 1) percentage of FMG/IMGs, 2) percentage Alpha Omega Alpha, and 3) percentage from top 30 US MD schools. I bet the best programs in the midwest would score lower than second-tier programs in California.

 

[masaraksh]

There are three proxy measures of program competitiveness that can be derived by analyzing the resident list using publicly available information: 1) percentage of FMG/IMGs, 2) percentage Alpha Omega Alpha, and 3) percentage from top 30 US MD schools. I bet the best programs in the midwest would score lower than second-tier programs in California.

Can you run the numbers for us bud?

 

[bradsof]

There are three proxy measures of program competitiveness that can be derived by analyzing the resident list using publicly available information: 1) percentage of FMG/IMGs, 2) percentage and 3) percentage from top 30 US MD schools. I bet the best programs in the midwest would score lower than second-tier programs in California.

Why are you guys so anal about california and competitiveness?

 

[Muncus]

There are three proxy measures of program competitiveness that can be derived by analyzing the resident list using publicly available information: 1) percentage of FMG/IMGs, 2) percentage Alpha Omega Alpha, and 3) percentage from top 30 US MD schools. I bet the best programs in the midwest would score lower than second-tier programs in California.

As this post is implying, I agree that "competitiveness" is multi-factorial and is hard to estimate by looking at a single factor. As we all know the selection process is highly variable too and one "competitive" applicant for one program may be totally undesirable in another.

Regarding the first factor mentioned however, would it not make more sense that top programs that accept non-traditional applicants are more competitive for traditional applicants? For a program that already has a good reputation it wouldn't make sense to not interview/rank non-traditionals simply because of what some applicants may think. They will still get thousands of applications and could probably easily fill their spots with competitive traditional applicants if they wanted to. Of course these programs want residents that are good matches on a personal level but I also think they want to train the best residents in the world.

I'm just an applicant like most people here though and this is just what I think.

 

[DrfluffyMD]

As this post is implying, I agree that "competitiveness" is multi-factorial and is hard to estimate by looking at a single factor. As we all know the selection process is highly variable too and one "competitive" applicant for one program may be totally undesirable in another.

Regarding the first factor mentioned however, would it not make more sense that top programs that accept non-traditional applicants are more competitive for traditional applicants? For a program that already has a good reputation it wouldn't make sense to not interview/rank non-traditionals simply because of what some applicants may think. They will still get thousands of applications and could probably easily fill their spots with competitive traditional applicants if they wanted to. Of course these programs want residents that are good matches on a personal level but I also think they want to train the best residents in the world.

I'm just an applicant like most people here though and this is just what I think.

Not so, actually. If you look at charting outcome in the match, 18% of 652 US seniors, or 117 of them, are AOA members while 5% of them, or 32 people in the country are MD PHDs.

While matching one or two FMG every couple years is indicative of a strong candidate, matching FMGs every year suggest the inability to fill its rank with the best AMG.

When I met with the PD of UCSF rad onc earlier on in my career to discuss the specialty, they proudly bragged that UCSF almost always only match MD PhDs. You can quickly see that if Emory and Wash U wants to do that, they will go unfilled as there are only 32 applicants with PHD in the country and there are almost 30 spots between those two programs.

Within those 117 AOA applicants, you can imaging places like California with UCSF, USC Standord and UCLA take up 20-30, NYC take up another 20-30, then various other places take up 20-30 and the midwest and the South could be competiting for 10-20 AOA students.

Emory and MIR are huge programs in an unfavorable location. This means they likely won’t be able to fill with all super star USMD. Now, they probably elect to fill their ranks with superstar FMG rather than medicore AMGs, but there literally aren’t enough super star AMG applicants in radiology during its lean years to fill massive programs like MIR and Emory.

When the job market was bad, people were advocating cutting residency spots. It remains to be seen but we could still be training too many radiologists.

 

[Cognovi]

When I met with the PD of UCSF rad onc earlier on in my career to discuss the specialty, they proudly bragged that UCSF almost always only match MD PhDs. You can quickly see that if Emory and Wash U wants to do that, they will go unfilled as there are only 32 applicants with PHD in the country and there are almost 30 spots between those two programs.

UCSF resident lists are impressive but the PDs exaggerate even more (or people exaggerate their conversations with the PDs). Every class of UCSF rad onc residents except one has had a non-PhD: Previous Medical Residents | UCSF Department of Radiation Oncology I heard something similar about the PD of UCSF IM saying they only interview AOA's from top 30 medical schools. But at least a third of their residents are either not AOA or not from a top 30 school: UCSF | Department of Medicine | Residency Programs | Current Housestaff - Interns

Can you run the numbers for us bud?

Set up a crowdsourcing spreadsheet.