Bidmc

[hurler33]

Read a post on here which mentioned that BIDMC had received a bad rap on here recently. Could not find anything criticizing the program when doing a search.

I am a 3rd year student who has identified this school as a high interest for next year and am thinking about doing an elective in the harvard system this summer. I am interested to know what people think about this program who interviewed there recently. I come from a smaller school in the midwest that has placed some students there in the past for IM, 240 on step 1, some cardiology research. Appreciate the help and thoughts.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Scaredshizzles]

Read a post on here which mentioned that BIDMC had received a bad rap on here recently. Could not find anything criticizing the program when doing a search.

I am a 3rd year student who has identified this school as a high interest for next year and am thinking about doing an elective in the harvard system this summer. I am interested to know what people think about this program who interviewed there recently. I come from a smaller school in the midwest that has placed some students there in the past for IM, 240 on step 1, some cardiology research. Appreciate the help and thoughts.

Not really a bad rep, just considered a little more cush, and not in the same tier as BWH/MGH, but still a top 20 program with good fellowship placement.

You have a chance with your stats, especially if they like students from your school as they have taken in the past. BIDMC--you don't have to be AOA to get there, but honors in medicine is still important.

 

[Frugal Traveler]

I thought BIDMC is a great program. The residents there seemed very happy. Outside of competitive fellowships (namely cardiology and GI), they had a great match list (both ID and PCCM were matching inside the Harvard network, probably others too but forgot). I felt like they did not match as strong in cardiology as some other programs.

Main issues:
1. Program director
- if you look at the reviews on scutwork.com, some people raise some concerns here. At the interview, she was somewhat awkward, but I talked to people that know her... and they said she was great. She has won educational awards and such.
2. Harvard with a "heart"
Two issues here:
- it is considered "third fiddle" of the Harvard programs (I don't agree with the classification because I think it has its own unique mission)... that is based on reputation.
- The heart seems to be true - again felt the residents were great there, enjoying life
- Some people have claimed the residency is "cush." I would suspect that the residents work hard there
3. "In the network"
One great advantage of the program is that you are in the Harvard network for research and so on. The residents there seemed to get much accomplished.
4. Chair
- seemed like he was involved and nice guy.

Bottom line from SDN: Solid training, perhaps not a "top ten" program, questions about being cush

My personal opinion is that I thought it was a great program. I would have applied there again.

 

[berkshire]

Main issues:
1. Program director
- if you look at the reviews on scutwork.com, some people raise some concerns here. At the interview, she was somewhat awkward, but I talked to people that know her... and they said she was great. She has won educational awards and such.
2. Harvard with a "heart"
Two issues here:
- it is considered "third fiddle" of the Harvard programs (I don't agree with the classification because I think it has its own unique mission)... that is based on reputation.

I completely agree, and I even liked BIDMC. the PD wasn't at the top of her game at my interview day. at the end of the her slideshow presentation, one applicant asked "so what sets beth israel apart from the other harvard programs?" and she wasn't able to give a solid answer. that should be bread & butter stuff for a PD.

to your second point, i felt like this program more than the others played up the harvard name (and the boston red sox.. that was weird) and everyone in the program seemed to have a slight chip on their shoulder about not being BWH/MGH.

again I liked the program and was impressed by the residents I met so these are minor criticisms, but I definitely agree.

 

[Speculatrix]

I will have to agree with all the postings here. ER was somewhat awkward, and seemed to go to bat for *some* of the residents but not all of them. Some undercurrents I gleaned from my interview were that there were some residents who were in her office like every week, but others who went totally above her radar, and yet they didn't seem to be fully supported in fellowship endeavors by her... more by the appropriate Harvard subspecialty faculty. While she and LB of Penn shared a lot of similar research interest features (i.e. resident education -- look up their pubs in pubmed), my gut sensation was both programs were where resident freedoms (like not playing 100% by the books) would be slightly frowned upon. This is where MGH, and even BWH to a huge extent, seemed very different. If I could pick the diametric opposite to ER, it would be JS at Vandy.

 

[ID15]

Agreed as well- not really sure why BID would have a bad rap. It struck me as a great program with nice facilities (great MR system as well) in a fun area of Boston. The cush rep may come from the fact that there’s pretty much no overnight call (just 2 weeks of night float a year, I believe) and the people there are not as intense as you’d see at MGH/BW, for the most part. Their residents come less from the tip-top schools, but have a considerable # of HMS grads, which I think speaks highly of the program since many of them chose it over other top names. I asked one about this and it just came down to the feel of the program - it really has a different philosophy and feel than the other two. I would definitely put it in that highly subjective 8-15 range of programs. Match list was pretty comparable to all the top 20 schools, aside from the big 4, plus maybe Penn/Columbia/Duke.

The PD strikes everyone differently. She seemed very nice and engaging to me, but I can see how people get the sense she’s awkward. The residents all seemed to have high regard for her, though that’s coming from a pretty superficial exploration on my part. Not one said anything about her ‘not going to bat’ for them. It’s the biggest program I saw in terms of # of residents and perhaps it’s hard for her to get to know everyone intimately (and perhaps that’s her fault). Having to make an effort to get to know your PD, I can understand, would be a huge turn-off for some. This is just speculation, however - I don’t know the truth, perhaps a resident could comment.

Bottom line was overall great opportunities for research, residents were happy, and Boston is a great place. Perhaps a tinge inferiority complex with MGH/BW down the road, but I think that’s overplayed (and honestly, it’s not hard to imagine many other great programs feeling a little overshadowed by those two, if places were switched). It’s going to get you where you want to go, and likely then some. I had no problem ranking it pretty highly.

 

[ResidentMD]

Agreed as well- not really sure why BID would have a bad rap. It struck me as a great program with nice facilities (great MR system as well) in a fun area of Boston. The cush rep may come from the fact that there's pretty much no overnight call (just 2 weeks of night float a year, I believe) and the people there are not as intense as you'd see at MGH/BW, for the most part. Their residents come less from the tip-top schools, but have a considerable # of HMS grads, which I think speaks highly of the program since many of them chose it over other top names. I asked one about this and it just came down to the feel of the program - it really has a different philosophy and feel than the other two. I would definitely put it in that highly subjective 8-15 range of programs. Match list was pretty comparable to all the top 20 schools, aside from the big 4, plus maybe Penn/Columbia/Duke.
The PD strikes everyone differently. She seemed very nice and engaging to me, but I can see how people get the sense she's awkward. The residents all seemed to have high regard for her, though that's coming from a pretty superficial exploration on my part. Not one said anything about her ‘not going to bat' for them. It's the biggest program I saw in terms of # of residents and perhaps it's hard for her to get to know everyone intimately (and perhaps that's her fault). Having to make an effort to get to know your PD, I can understand, would be a huge turn-off for some. This is just speculation, however - I don't know the truth, perhaps a resident could comment.

Bottom line was overall great opportunities for research, residents were happy, and Boston is a great place. Perhaps a tinge inferiority complex with MGH/BW down the road, but I think that's overplayed (and honestly, it's not hard to imagine many other great programs feeling a little overshadowed by those two, if places were switched). It's going to get you where you want to go, and likely then some. I had no problem ranking it pretty highly.

The biggest thing that turned me off on my BIDMC interview day was that the PD seemed to have a pre-determined list of interview candidates who she was going to walk up and talk nice to, and she did - and for a strange reason, it appeared to me that those candidates were from "prestigious" med schools (I am not from a prestigious med school, but the point is such a discriminatory behavior really struck me, because I hadnt seen it happening at any other program I interviewed at - few of them in the same tier as BIDMC). So it appeared to me that the program was really trying to get the chip off their shoulder by going all out to recruit med students from the programs that have the best reputation, and not necessarily the best candidates themselves (again there is nothing wrong with that - this entire process is a game). Both my interviewers were phenomenal, and I echo the sentiments that the residents were one of the nicest groups that I have met on the trail (chief residents included). But I was quite disturbed by the behavior I had seen. Having said that, the last line of the post above is the reason I still ranked that program highly.

 

[Scaredshizzles]

The biggest thing that turned me off on my BIDMC interview day was that the PD seemed to have a pre-determined list of interview candidates who she was going to walk up and talk nice to, and she did - and for a strange reason, it appeared to me that those candidates were from "prestigious" med schools (I am not from a prestigious med school, but the point is such a discriminatory behavior really struck me, because I hadnt seen it happening at any other program I interviewed at - few of them in the same tier as BIDMC). So it appeared to me that the program was really trying to get the chip off their shoulder by going all out to recruit med students from the programs that have the best reputation, and not necessarily the best candidates themselves (again there is nothing wrong with that - this entire process is a game). Both my interviewers were phenomenal, and I echo the sentiments that the residents were one of the nicest groups that I have met on the trail (chief residents included). But I was quite disturbed by the behavior I had seen. Having said that, the last line of the post above is the reason I still ranked that program highly.

It's funny that you only noted that at BIDMC actually. Most interviews I went to...if there was someone from HMS or JHU, the PD made it a point to speak with that person. I even saw it at Boston U...and that is a program that will almost never actually get someone from those med schools. But nevertheless Dr. Halle made it a point to speak to the three candidates (two from HMS, the other JHU) who were there that day. Granted, he also spoke to almost all the rest of the candidates at the end of the day, but he certainly didn't have everyone else's name and face memorized and did not seek them out of the crowd.


BIDMC's match list outside of heme-onc, isn't on par with a top 10 program, and that is probably why most don't see it as a top 10 program. Between cards and GI, their only match at an elite program last year was one cards match at UPenn. For everything other than GI and cards, I'm sure you have a chance of getting to the MGH/BWH programs.

 

[bostonguy911]

..

 

[Scaredshizzles]

can someone explain what cush really means?
what are the differences say between the harvard hospitals in terms of hours/night call? Intern year arent most people working 80+ hours?

Also, what is the difference in step 1 scores..
BIDMC- 230-250
BWH/MGH- 250+

Obviously there are exceptions, but i do not really understand the differences amongst them. I hear BWH is great for cards?

They have differences in teaching style, but at the end of 3 years, the only real difference is in prestige and research. You'll be a good clinician from any of these places, obviously, if you're motivated to be a good clinician.

People tend to wind up at fellowships of a similar level as the residency program. So what would be the difference between BWH and BIDMC for cards? Well the likelihood of the research being published in NEJM or JACC, etc is 10x more likely at BWH or MGH than at BIDMC. As a fellow your research isn't likely to be important enough to make those journals obviously, but if you stay on as faculty, it becomes an issue. Anyone who spends time and effort on research, would like their research to actually be known and read. The journal it is published in lends instant credibility, whether that be right or wrong. And in turn, the institution you're at significantly impacts the likelihood of being published in the important journal, almost irregardless of the quality of the research. Which in turn impacts the likelihood of getting NIH funding.

 

[ResidentMD]

They have differences in teaching style, but at the end of 3 years, the only real difference is in prestige and research. You'll be a good clinician from any of these places, obviously, if you're motivated to be a good clinician.

People tend to wind up at fellowships of a similar level as the residency program. So what would be the difference between BWH and BIDMC for cards? Well the likelihood of the research being published in NEJM or JACC, etc is 10x more likely at BWH or MGH than at BIDMC. As a fellow your research isn't likely to be important enough to make those journals obviously, but if you stay on as faculty, it becomes an issue. Anyone who spends time and effort on research, would like their research to actually be known and read. The journal it is published in lends instant credibility, whether that be right or wrong. And in turn, the institution you're at significantly impacts the likelihood of being published in the important journal, almost irregardless of the quality of the research. Which in turn impacts the likelihood of getting NIH funding.

Just for future readers on this thread, the part in bold is wrong. Im tired of explaining why.

 

[Scaredshizzles]

Just for future readers on this thread, the part in bold is wrong. Im tired of explaining why.

Well this point can be debated, but what can't be debated is how many more cards articles in the main journals will be from BWH compared to BIDMC. So you can make the argument that maybe the quality of the research is also much better there, but the end result is what it is. Don't take my word for it, just run searches on the main journal websites.

 

[ResidentMD]

Well this point can be debated, but what can't be debated is how many more cards articles in the main journals will be from BWH compared to BIDMC. So you can make the argument that maybe the quality of the research is also much better there, but the end result is what it is. Don't take my word for it, just run searches on the main journal websites.

i am making the exact opposite argument of what you think I would make.

Considering you had the time to make a mastersheet of the top 30 IM programs using various parameters, why dont you make a list of the author affiliations of all the original articles and reviews over the last 12 months from the three journals - NEJM, JAMA and Annals and post it on here? Then we can talk.

(I am not debating your BWH and BIDMC cards issue; that can only be specific for a person interested in cards; the way there is currently a discussion about Cornell vs Sinai).

Basically, you keep making a ridiculous point that the institution decides where your research is published, and that is complete nonsense. So while your list may show BWH/MGH, Hopkins and UCSF which have the maximum number of articles, I just want to prove (and so you can stop talking) that there are articles in NEJM and JAMA from a place, like the University of Arkansas and the University of Iowa.

 

[Scaredshizzles]

i am making the exact opposite argument of what you think I would make.

Considering you had the time to make a mastersheet of the top 30 IM programs using various parameters, why dont you make a list of the author affiliations of all the original articles and reviews over the last 12 months from the three journals - NEJM, JAMA and Annals and post it on here? Then we can talk.

(I am not debating your BWH and BIDMC cards issue; that can only be specific for a person interested in cards; the way there is currently a discussion about Cornell vs Sinai).

Basically, you keep making a ridiculous point that the institution decides where your research is published, and that is complete nonsense. So while your list may show BWH/MGH, Hopkins and UCSF which have the maximum number of articles, I just want to prove (and so you can stop talking) that there are articles in NEJM and JAMA from a place, like the University of Arkansas and the University of Iowa.

Who said there weren't? Exceptions don't disprove the rules unless the rules are stated as absolutes. It is a question of odds. It is like a parent advising their 5'8" son on what to do with his life: should he hit the books and try to become a doctor, or should he try to become an NBA player? You can point Nate Robinson out to him and tell him you can make way more money being an NBA player, so forget your studies. But would that be wise considering the probabilities?

 

[Frugal Traveler]

can someone explain what cush really means?
what are the differences say between the harvard hospitals in terms of hours/night call? Intern year arent most people working 80+ hours?

Also, what is the difference in step 1 scores..
BIDMC- 230-250
BWH/MGH- 250+

Obviously there are exceptions, but i do not really understand the differences amongst them. I hear BWH is great for cards?

I would rank the programs overall:
1. BWH
2. MGH
3. BID

I thought BWH was the best Harvard program. Joel Katz and associates (including legendary medical educator Marshall Wolf) will no doubt craft excellent physicians.

Others will disagree and rank these programs in a different order.

I would disagree with any certain score cutoff. That being said, > 240 will get you in the door for an interview at many places. It is going to depend on your whole application as well.

I would also consider how you feel about a program in addition to objective variables. Call and other program elements can change, so keep that in mind but do not base the decision entirely on a small subset of variables.

"Cush" means a kinder, gentler America. For instance, Europe is "cush" compared to America with the shorter work hours and dedication to family.
Some community programs can be cush. Most academic medicine programs are likely not cush.

It is of the Traveler's opinion that medicine is not cush. Show up to work wherever you may be... this isn't PM&R.
Depending on your stage of life, cush is either good or bad. I feel that you need to be pushed to the next level, and if you are in a cush and permissive environment, you may not progress with adequate celerity to that next level.

Bottom line with the match: Try to do your best in school. You'll land where you land next year!

Addendum: The point needs to be made that I (and probably most people) would be happy to end up at any of the aforementioned programs!

 

[Frugal Traveler]

BWH has a good reputation for cards:

http://www.cardiologyrounds.com/profiles/blogs/eugene-braunwald

 

[Scaredshizzles]

BWH has a good reputation for cards:

http://www.cardiologyrounds.com/profiles/blogs/eugene-braunwald

Isn't he the guy who had someone in his lab falsify data and get published multiple times. Just goes to show you the BWH name can get you published even if you don't do the experiments!

 

[ResidentMD]

Isn't he the guy who had someone in his lab falsify data and get published multiple times. Just goes to show you the BWH name can get you published even if you don't do the experiments!

You need to find a hobby that gets you away from the computer.....STAT.

 

[Crazy Diamond]

Isn't he the guy who had someone in his lab falsify data and get published multiple times. Just goes to show you the BWH name can get you published even if you don't do the experiments!

are you talking about Braunwald..?



you really scare me !

 

[Crazy Diamond]

Ever heard of something called
TIMI or Harrison's principles of internal medicine ?

 

[jdh71]

I don't ever apply in the NE - some good programs, don't want to live there (wouldn't have gotten an invite at B&W or MGH, probably would have had a shot at BID), so I have no personal experience at any of these programs, namely BID to speak about, but what I would like to comment on is the idea that "BID fellowship match sucks" . . . it doesn't. BID may not necessarily get you an interview at an elite cards or GI program, but I bet it gets you at least 10 interviews anywhere else. And 10's enough - more than enough for a match (unless you are a raging douche bag). And as I'm interviewing for fellowship, I beginning to see what sets "top" fellowship programs aside from solid middle of the road fellowship programs and it is NOT the clinical training - it's MOSTLY the basic science opportunities. The higher up the food chain, the more likely to find good research that will get you not only funding and published data, but a faculty appointments and the luxury of being able to sub-subspecialize in an area of interest. In fact, MOST of your BETTER programs, clinically speaking, with respect to the amount you get to do and see, are NOT top programs, which will funnel you into a research lab for 12-18 months (with a 4th year on a training grant likely for many projects). You actually spend less time doing clinical work at top programs than you do and middle of the road programs. So, is the match really THAT bad? It's all about your personal goals and what you want to do with your career.

Furthermore, you WILL work hard in medicine practically everywhere. There are very, very, few actually "cush" programs anywhere in this country community to university. The question is how masochistic are you and how much sleep deprivation can you take. If Cush = no q4 overnight call, then I'm in favor of cush all the way.

 

[Scaredshizzles]

Ever heard of something called
TIMI or Harrison's principles of internal medicine ?

Yes, and apparently you're not familiar with the allegations of falsification of data of one of the members of his lab. Apparently he stood up for the person accused. Makes one wonder if Braunwald himself was involved.

 

[ResidentMD]

I don't ever apply in the NE - some good programs, don't want to live there (wouldn't have gotten an invite at B&W or MGH, probably would have had a shot at BID), so I have no personal experience at any of these programs, namely BID to speak about, but what I would like to comment on is the idea that "BID fellowship match sucks" . . . it doesn't. BID may not necessarily get you an interview at an elite cards or GI program, but I bet it gets you at least 10 interviews anywhere else. And 10's enough - more than enough for a match (unless you are a raging douche bag). And as I'm interviewing for fellowship, I beginning to see what sets "top" fellowship programs aside from solid middle of the road fellowship programs and it is NOT the clinical training - it's MOSTLY the basic science opportunities. The higher up the food chain, the more likely to find good research that will get you not only funding and published data, but a faculty appointments and the luxury of being able to sub-subspecialize in an area of interest. In fact, MOST of your BETTER programs, clinically speaking, with respect to the amount you get to do and see, are NOT top programs, which will funnel you into a research lab for 12-18 months (with a 4th year on a training grant likely for many projects). You actually spend less time doing clinical work at top programs than you do and middle of the road programs. So, is the match really THAT bad? It's all about your personal goals and what you want to do with your career.

Furthermore, you WILL work hard in medicine practically everywhere. There are very, very, few actually "cush" programs anywhere in this country community to university. The question is how masochistic are you and how much sleep deprivation can you take. If Cush = no q4 overnight call, then I'm in favor of cush all the way.

Very well said. This comment should be made a sticky on SDN...honestly...for anyone who talks about prestige/reputation/getting into fellowships from any academic program.

 

[Scaredshizzles]

Very well said. This comment should be made a sticky on SDN...honestly...for anyone who talks about prestige/reputation/getting into fellowships from any academic program.

Not sure why you agree when he says it, but disagree when I said the main difference is research. Maybe he said it more nicely by saying that the non top programs probably have better clinical training. Personally I feel clinical training is more up to the individual control than is research and having the big name research mentors who will fast track you.

 

[ResidentMD]

Not sure why you agree when he says it, but disagree when I said the main difference is research. Maybe he said it more nicely by saying that the non top programs probably have better clinical training. Personally I feel clinical training is more up to the individual control than is research and having the big name research mentors who will fast track you.

Because -
1. You make foolish assumptions about what other people think, like the one you have made above (again). I never spoke about clinical training in this context.

2. You make blanket statements as highlighted below, which clearly proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. Notice you said- the NAME of the institutions decides WHERE you publish, which is completely ridiculous. Then you come up with some NBA player concept. No one knows if that person will do anything good or not, but just because he is 5 ft 8 doesnt mean he cant become competent if he wants to. You make it sound like in order to publish anything or do anything significant with your life, you need to score > 250 and go to either BWH, MGH or Hopkins (UCSF and Penn just cant cut it for you). When the fact is, there are many other institutions in this country where you can achieve your goals. What JDH71 said is the truth - that the top places have MORE bench research opportunities, and that also opens doors. But that does not mean that you cannot find GOOD bench research at the University of Iowa, that can get published in NEJM (Pubmed Hunninghake G). Also, its more about finding what you will enjoy doing and where you think you will thrive the best. So it really isnt a cardinal sin to rank WashU or Vandy over BWH or Hopkins if someone really wants to do so - they have their own reasons for it. People arent *****s to have gotten interviews from those places, and are probably smart enough to make their decisions.

3. You shout at the top of your voice so loudly that the sensible people on this forum have actually stopped commenting, but the fact is, there are still many med students and applicants who access this forum to get more insight into the entire process (as did I, a year ago), and when they see someone being so vocal about it, then there is a small chance that they may think it to be true. (I'm not even getting into the Braunwald discussion)

Well this point can be debated, but what can't be debated is how many more cards articles in the main journals will be from BWH compared to BIDMC. So you can make the argument that maybe the quality of the research is also much better there, but the end result is what it is. Don't take my word for it, just run searches on the main journal websites.

On what basis can you say the quality of research is better at BWH over BIDMC? It is the number of PI's, or the number of R01s that the program has. Good research can happen anywhere -you just dont get that point.

They have differences in teaching style, but at the end of 3 years, the only real difference is in prestige and research. You'll be a good clinician from any of these places, obviously, if you're motivated to be a good clinician.

People tend to wind up at fellowships of a similar level as the residency program. So what would be the difference between BWH and BIDMC for cards? Well the likelihood of the research being published in NEJM or JACC, etc is 10x more likely at BWH or MGH than at BIDMC. As a fellow your research isn't likely to be important enough to make those journals obviously, but if you stay on as faculty, it becomes an issue. Anyone who spends time and effort on research, would like their research to actually be known and read. The journal it is published in lends instant credibility, whether that be right or wrong. And in turn, the institution you're at significantly impacts the likelihood of being published in the important journal, almost irregardless of the quality of the research. Which in turn impacts the likelihood of getting NIH funding.

You should have stopped at important journal. The "irregardless of the quality of research" concept that you have makes you sound like a complete *****.

 

[Scaredshizzles]

While your argument is sensible, I just think you're naive. There is a lot of politics in research, there is also a lot of fudging of data and presenting it in "unique" ways. It isn't exactly easy to judge what is of quality and what is not of quality when you consider all the unique ways in which people present data and their studies to make them appear significant. What winds up being a huge tiebreaker is the institution it comes from. You're 100% naive if you think the same study coming out of Missouri-Columbia will get published in the same quality of journal as if it came out of Hopkins or BWH, etc. It is just not reality to think the reputation of an institution doesn't afford you instant credibility, right or wrong.

 

[lurkerboy]

Yes, and apparently you're not familiar with the allegations of falsification of data of one of the members of his lab. Apparently he stood up for the person accused. Makes one wonder if Braunwald himself was involved.

It is just silly to bring this up. It happened something almost 30 years ago. He's published quite a bit of solid stuff since then.

 

[mauvespice]

.