Can anyone familiar with these programs offer any insight. Particularly interested in Northwestern, U. Chicago, Loyola, UIC, and Rush.
Last edited:
Chicago Programs
- Thread starter radddds
- Start date
D
deleted564680
Northwestern is a top tier program (top 20ish), UChicago is good but think it's better than it is, Loyola/UIC/Rush are nothing to write home about but will give you fine enough training. So says the prestige gods of previous years of AuntMinnie and SDN, anyway.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 3,923
- Reaction score
- 361
Rush IR rules.
R
Radz123
I'm familiar with UChicago from prior training although didn't do residency there. Their faculty seemed chill, residents relatively competent, and definitely happy. They had a pretty sweet IR set up too with lots of rooms and seemingly strong turnover time.
Beyond that all I know is IR. Generally IR ranks Rush > Northwestern >> U Chicago >>>> Loyola. Can't comment on UIC and whatever else is in the area.
Beyond that all I know is IR. Generally IR ranks Rush > Northwestern >> U Chicago >>>> Loyola. Can't comment on UIC and whatever else is in the area.
Strongly disagree with that. IMO Northwestern >> Rush. Rush is a good program, but relatively unknown nationally. NW has some of the best (if not the best) IO in the country. Also, Rush fellows are worked like dogs.
Northwestern >> Rush > U of C = UIC >> Loyola
Rush's diversity of IR is one of the best in the country. They have very skilled (Arslan and Turba) guys formerly at UVA, who do a fair amount of PAD and aortic work and are aggressively recruiting patients from podiatry etc. Arslan is very aggressive and has built some amazing practices.
As far as oncology, almost every center in the country does a fair amount of IO (affiliation with transplant centers). Northwestern is a premiere IO center especially when it comes to Y90 with Salem and Lewandowski. However, if there are no liver transplant centers (most private practice hospitals) it is pretty challenging to build IO in the real word.
Many of the biggest name radiology programs don't have true clinical IR practices with longitudinal care of their patients. These are the things I would look for when it comes to training. Also, you want an IR training program where you cover as many of the following as feasible (PAD/oncology/venous/neuro-interventional/fibroids/pain).
If you want to do IR well, you should hope that you get worked as a fellow. You want to see and do as much as possible with attending back up. This will give you much greater confidence once coming out of training.
As far as oncology, almost every center in the country does a fair amount of IO (affiliation with transplant centers). Northwestern is a premiere IO center especially when it comes to Y90 with Salem and Lewandowski. However, if there are no liver transplant centers (most private practice hospitals) it is pretty challenging to build IO in the real word.
Many of the biggest name radiology programs don't have true clinical IR practices with longitudinal care of their patients. These are the things I would look for when it comes to training. Also, you want an IR training program where you cover as many of the following as feasible (PAD/oncology/venous/neuro-interventional/fibroids/pain).
If you want to do IR well, you should hope that you get worked as a fellow. You want to see and do as much as possible with attending back up. This will give you much greater confidence once coming out of training.
R
Radz123
Not sure how fellow workload is relevant regarding the ranking of program training? It's only one year of your life.
I'd also disagree about Rush not being known nationally by practicing IR's.
I'd also disagree about Rush not being known nationally by practicing IR's.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2004
- Messages
- 212
- Reaction score
- 98
Is anyone commenting here a practicing IR? Anyone practice in the Chicagoland area? I am and I do. Let me set the record straight.
First off, for residency:
*Northwestern = U of C >> Rush = Loyola = UIC
*most students prefer NW because it's in a much nicer area
Now, for IR (my area of expertise):
Northwestern > U of C > Rush > UIC > Loyola
1) Northwestern. NW is hands down the premiere IR program in the city. They have one of the largest IR sections in the country, with a unbelievable clinical research staff, and some of the most well known faculty. Salem is an IO pioneer, Lewandowski is a rising star who will probably eventually leave to become chief/chair at another university, Nemcek was editor of JVIR, Vogelzang has been active in SIR for decades, etc. Anyone who states that Northwestern isn't #1 is not to be trusted, and probably a resident or med student at one of the other programs.
2) U of C. Smaller hospital than you would expect, but with well established faculty and long-standing reputation. Radiology and IR groups outside of Chicago know U of C. Same can't be said of #3 through 5 on this list. This is because the IR group is very involved in national meetings, ACR/ABR committees, etc. Half of the faculty (3 out of 6) are FSIR. Funaki is very well known and liked in IR circles and is a likely a future SIR president.
3) Rush. Rush was in shambles 5 years ago. Some big names like Ferral left to private practice because of politics. But the hospital made a smart decision to hire Arslan from UVA. Very aggressive in growing the practice. BUT they use fellows like slave labor. Why? Because it's a private practice group. Most residents in the Chicago area aim for Northwestern or U of C for fellowships for this reason. Hardly anyone knows Rush outside of Chicago.
4) UIC. Solid, stable program. Only got better when UIC hired Ray from Colorado. Ray is current SIR president. Well-published and established faculty. They just don't have the sexy facilities or reputation that #1 through 3 have.
5) Loyola. Small program. Didn't have a fellowship until 3 years ago. Have lots of respect for Borge.
First off, for residency:
*Northwestern = U of C >> Rush = Loyola = UIC
*most students prefer NW because it's in a much nicer area
Now, for IR (my area of expertise):
Northwestern > U of C > Rush > UIC > Loyola
1) Northwestern. NW is hands down the premiere IR program in the city. They have one of the largest IR sections in the country, with a unbelievable clinical research staff, and some of the most well known faculty. Salem is an IO pioneer, Lewandowski is a rising star who will probably eventually leave to become chief/chair at another university, Nemcek was editor of JVIR, Vogelzang has been active in SIR for decades, etc. Anyone who states that Northwestern isn't #1 is not to be trusted, and probably a resident or med student at one of the other programs.
2) U of C. Smaller hospital than you would expect, but with well established faculty and long-standing reputation. Radiology and IR groups outside of Chicago know U of C. Same can't be said of #3 through 5 on this list. This is because the IR group is very involved in national meetings, ACR/ABR committees, etc. Half of the faculty (3 out of 6) are FSIR. Funaki is very well known and liked in IR circles and is a likely a future SIR president.
3) Rush. Rush was in shambles 5 years ago. Some big names like Ferral left to private practice because of politics. But the hospital made a smart decision to hire Arslan from UVA. Very aggressive in growing the practice. BUT they use fellows like slave labor. Why? Because it's a private practice group. Most residents in the Chicago area aim for Northwestern or U of C for fellowships for this reason. Hardly anyone knows Rush outside of Chicago.
4) UIC. Solid, stable program. Only got better when UIC hired Ray from Colorado. Ray is current SIR president. Well-published and established faculty. They just don't have the sexy facilities or reputation that #1 through 3 have.
5) Loyola. Small program. Didn't have a fellowship until 3 years ago. Have lots of respect for Borge.
Rush has arguably the most comprehensive IR practice of all of Chicago. Arslan is nationally and even internationally known. He has a very aggressive mindset and has a history of building great practices. His trainees are known to be well trained and are able to build practices.
If you are going to go to an academic IO practice, Northwestern would be a great place. Or if a radiology practice wants to expand their IO services , the cognitive understanding of cancer by Salem and Lewandowski is certainly a plus. IO is very challenging to build in the community (without a transplant team) due to lack of level I evidence ( outside of hepatocellular cancer). If the combined data of the prospective RCT Y90 trials showcase an overall survival benefit, this may change.
If you are going to go to an academic IO practice, Northwestern would be a great place. Or if a radiology practice wants to expand their IO services , the cognitive understanding of cancer by Salem and Lewandowski is certainly a plus. IO is very challenging to build in the community (without a transplant team) due to lack of level I evidence ( outside of hepatocellular cancer). If the combined data of the prospective RCT Y90 trials showcase an overall survival benefit, this may change.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2004
- Messages
- 212
- Reaction score
- 98
Please. Just stop it. You must be a Rush resident or fellow to make such exaggerated comments regarding Rush.
The most comprehensive IR practice in all of Chicago? Absolutely not. Name one thing they do at Rush that they don't do at the other programs? Northwestern is far ahead of Rush in the IO game and they're the only practice with a prostate artery embolization trial going.
Is Arslan nationally and internationally known? Sure, but every other program has one person - if not multiple faculty - who can say the same thing. This isn't a knock on Arslan. Fantastic guy and great IR, but he's no more special than any of the other IR chiefs in the area.
Who are Arlsan's trainees? Please, name one that has made a name for himself? You don't think Northwestern or U of C fellows have made a name for themselves? Can you name another big IR practice in the Chicagoland area that is run by a Rush grad? Can you name any faculty at NW/UC/UIC/Loyola that are Rush grads?
The most comprehensive IR practice in all of Chicago? Absolutely not. Name one thing they do at Rush that they don't do at the other programs? Northwestern is far ahead of Rush in the IO game and they're the only practice with a prostate artery embolization trial going.
Is Arslan nationally and internationally known? Sure, but every other program has one person - if not multiple faculty - who can say the same thing. This isn't a knock on Arslan. Fantastic guy and great IR, but he's no more special than any of the other IR chiefs in the area.
Who are Arlsan's trainees? Please, name one that has made a name for himself? You don't think Northwestern or U of C fellows have made a name for themselves? Can you name another big IR practice in the Chicagoland area that is run by a Rush grad? Can you name any faculty at NW/UC/UIC/Loyola that are Rush grads?
Rush is the only IR division of the above mentioned Chicago programs that does any decent volume of lower extremity revascularizations including SAFARI as well as aortic endovascular repairs. Just like every other major academic center, they do their fair share of trans-arterial liver directed therapy.
PAD is much more prevalent in private practice and unless you are at an academic/transplant center it is very difficult to build a high end IO practice. There is a fair amount of competition in the PAD space by cardiology and vascular surgery as well as vascular medicine and so you have to be fairly well trained in order to be able to get these referrals from podiatry or primary care.
PAD is much more prevalent in private practice and unless you are at an academic/transplant center it is very difficult to build a high end IO practice. There is a fair amount of competition in the PAD space by cardiology and vascular surgery as well as vascular medicine and so you have to be fairly well trained in order to be able to get these referrals from podiatry or primary care.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2004
- Messages
- 212
- Reaction score
- 98
Rush does probably do more PAD at their main hospital than the others, but other programs have their fellows rotate through the Chicago area VA hospitals and/or vascular surgery departments. But, hey, as an IR, I'm happy that Rush is training their fellows to do it.
The fact of the matter is that Rush is absolutely NOT the premiere IR program in the city. And it's not even close.
The fact of the matter is that Rush is absolutely NOT the premiere IR program in the city. And it's not even close.
Last edited:
That is up for debate and is a matter of opinion. I personally feel a Rush fellow is better suited for private practice because of their extensive PAD exposure. The other Chicago IR program fellows have had inadequate exposure to PAD and are on average less comfortable performing PAD procedures.
Without transplant and trauma, the scope and breadth of these other Chicago academic IR practices would arguably be a bit different.
It is unfortunate Luke Sewell's group VIR Chicago does not have a training program as I feel they would do a tremendous job training someone to be a strong clinical IR practitioner ready to compete in today's IR private practice market.
Without transplant and trauma, the scope and breadth of these other Chicago academic IR practices would arguably be a bit different.
It is unfortunate Luke Sewell's group VIR Chicago does not have a training program as I feel they would do a tremendous job training someone to be a strong clinical IR practitioner ready to compete in today's IR private practice market.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 3,923
- Reaction score
- 361
having just gone through the IR match, I agree 100% with ir warrior in that Rush is the best IR fellowship in Chicago. Now for overall diagnostic radiology training, northwestern is probably the best.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2004
- Messages
- 212
- Reaction score
- 98
Pure nonsense. I challenge every medical student reading this thread to approach the interventional radiology attendings at their medical school and pose the question. I will guarantee you, the answer is not Rush. Don't believe the rubbish being posted here.
2 questions for @badasshairday:
1) What program did you match at?
2) Did you interview at all 5 Chicago programs? If not, which programs did you interview at?
2 questions for @badasshairday:
1) What program did you match at?
2) Did you interview at all 5 Chicago programs? If not, which programs did you interview at?
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 3,923
- Reaction score
- 361
Not sure why the antagonism in your posts about Rush. No I did not interview at all the Chicago programs but looked into them extensively, especially Rush, U of C, and NW. My general opinion is based on numerous people I've talked to who have interviewed at Chicago programs and other high end programs (ie. UMich and MCW, basically people who know what a hardcore clinical program is all about). The current general consensus is that Rush is the most hardcore clinical program in Chicago especially when it comes to high volume arterial work including aortic and technically challenging extremity work (ie. CTO/SAFARI).
Northwestern does almost no PAD, and definitely no aortic work. If you want to do IO then that is your place, but honestly high end IR work in the community is arterial intervention, let us be honest. U of Chicago is a nice program as well and they do mesenteric arterial work, but minimal to no extremities and no aortas. You can talk about how they get VA exposure or vascular surgery exposure to get arterial work, but it is preferable to learn in a place where you are competing against other specialists who have motivation to do arterial work and to work under IR physicians rather than surgeons. IR at the VA does not need to be aggressive clinically at most places.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 3,923
- Reaction score
- 361
I did not match at any of the Chicago area programs, so I don't have any jealousy if you think that is why I am posting what I am posting. I think your opinions are useful, but just know that Rush seems to have changed by leaps and bounds in past few years.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2004
- Messages
- 212
- Reaction score
- 98
No antagonism to Rush. But I do have antagonism to bad advise being given to med students.
First, I think its disingenuous of you to post that Rush is the best IR program in Chicago if you're not from here (resident or practicing physician in Chicago) or you didn't interview at all the programs.
Second, while I fully believe in IRs doing PAD work (believe me, I've started threads on this topic), I would disagree that it's the defining aspect of a program. If that's your passion, then that's fine. You should choose a training program that fits what you want to do in your career. But to generalize that one program is better just based on that one aspect is very skewed. It would be like seeing a thread on which are the best general surgery residencies, and someone claiming that because one hospital does more robotic surgeries, that they are better.
I think Rush is a good program. And I know that it has improved significantly since Arlsan came over. I've met him a few times at meetings, and I know the stuff he's doing. If you're a resident or fellow there, I'm sure you'll do well. But it's not the best program in Chicago and, frankly, it's not really up for debate. To give another analogy, it would be like making the claim: "Duke University just recruited a nobel laureate to their faculty. They're the best university in the country." No. Duke is a fine place, and recruiting a nobel laureate to an institution is a big deal. But it doesn't change the fact that Harvard is still the best university. (My apologies to Yale or Princeton grads who think otherwise.)
First, I think its disingenuous of you to post that Rush is the best IR program in Chicago if you're not from here (resident or practicing physician in Chicago) or you didn't interview at all the programs.
Second, while I fully believe in IRs doing PAD work (believe me, I've started threads on this topic), I would disagree that it's the defining aspect of a program. If that's your passion, then that's fine. You should choose a training program that fits what you want to do in your career. But to generalize that one program is better just based on that one aspect is very skewed. It would be like seeing a thread on which are the best general surgery residencies, and someone claiming that because one hospital does more robotic surgeries, that they are better.
I think Rush is a good program. And I know that it has improved significantly since Arlsan came over. I've met him a few times at meetings, and I know the stuff he's doing. If you're a resident or fellow there, I'm sure you'll do well. But it's not the best program in Chicago and, frankly, it's not really up for debate. To give another analogy, it would be like making the claim: "Duke University just recruited a nobel laureate to their faculty. They're the best university in the country." No. Duke is a fine place, and recruiting a nobel laureate to an institution is a big deal. But it doesn't change the fact that Harvard is still the best university. (My apologies to Yale or Princeton grads who think otherwise.)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 3,923
- Reaction score
- 361
I respect your opinion. I would like to hear from someone who did actually interview this past application cycle at NW, Rush, and UofC.
I would have to disagree that it is not up for debate however. Besides you, everyone in this thread are saying NW and Rush are the top 2, with U of C is number three. Even your example of Duke recruiting a nobel laureate versus Harvard is not a good one. Harvard may have the best "name brand" reputation and is good at all the subjects it offers for a university, it is not the best at all of them. A good example would be that Harvard has a good IR department, but it is most definitely not the best out there, despite it being Harvard. If Duke recruited a nobel laureate in topic X, it may also become better at Harvard at that topic.
It seems that NW may be the best for a person who wants academic job and cutting edge IO techniques. I think Rush for a person who wants to learn how to thrive in private practice and build a strong arterial practice.
Last edited:
R
Radz123
Fab you may be disappointed in the results you get with your IR attending poll. Rush and NW are both highly regarded by the attendings at my institution. Slightly more go for NW over Rush. Regarding the one classmate above me who matched last year, his #1 was Rush among the Chicago programs but went with someplace he liked more.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2016
- Messages
- 130
- Reaction score
- 152
Generally, Advocate >>>>>>>St.Francis>>Stroger.
Advocate is the only level 1 trauma center covering the north side , and is avery busy community based program. Average 3-4 residents per class. Great mix of cases and you see a lot of interesting pathology and trauma. Residents seem very happy overall and their board pass has been about 100% for a long time. Good fellowship match. It's arguably in the best neighborhood in chicago when compared to other programs ( lakeview / lincoln park) . As far as board scores go, they tend to match pretty good candidates every year - they have a good local reputation and largely attract graduates from local schools. I interviewed here and I think they generally consider candidates in the 225/230+ range on boards.
St.Francis is also a community hospital , but is in evanston, which is a closeby suburb of chicago, probably about 30-40 minute train ride to downtown. Small program as well, I think about 2 residents per year. Their fellowship match and board pass rate hasn't been as good - but it's difficult when you've only got 2 residents per class. ( i.e., one person screws up, board pass becomes 50% ) . Not as busy as advocate, but still generally see a good variety of cases. Have had a bit more trouble filling in the past - I think this is because they don't interview very many candidates, and generally interview only a few local applicants / people who have rotated through ( at my interview they told us they were only interviewing 25 or so people ) . When interviewed here, everyone was very friendly, seemed like a decent community program overall. Not much trauma / emergency..didactics didn't seem all that good.
Stroger, I didn't interview at. But, it's Stroger. You'll likely see the most crazy trauma and pathology of any program in chicago..but you'll also be at the county. I have friends at this program and they have had trouble keeping residents the past few years. The big complaints are low board pass rates, limited 'read out' time with attendings, and very limited didactic experience. Pros are, volume , volume, volume, and lots of internal moonlighting. It's very much of a where the 'tire meets the road' kind of program - I think residents have to do all ultrasound scans on their own when on call ( and sometimes when not on call ) .
Between the 3, i'd say advocate is great, st. francis seemed average, and Stroger isn't for everyone.
Fab5Hill33 is a former IR fellow from UofC who I remember had some big grudge against Rush at Auntminnie.
UofC is a great place and so is Rush. But lets face it Rush has become the better hospital over the past 5 years with the better reputation. What Fab is saying is old, like what one might say 7 years ago. And I probably would have agreed if it was 2008. But times change. US News ranks Rush higher than UofC in just about every specialty and has for a few years now, and these rankings are based on practicing physician reputation surveys. Come on Fab lets give credit where credit is due. I too remember UofC hospital was the cat's meow back in the days I was a med student, but Rush has since surpassed it in reputation. And speaking of giving credit look how highly ranked NW Memorial has become in the past few years, top 10 in the country! That also has exceeded all expectations. I have no skin in the game either as I literally ended up training at all 3 places in the end (and liked them all!), and listen the fact is my reputation is no longer based on any one of them, it's instead based on how I perform at my actual job (which is in Chicago). Additonally, my group employs rads from NW, Rush, Loyola, UIC and UofC and we hold no preferences (unless we detect the slightest hint of arrogance, personal or otherwise!), so it is hard for me to badmouth any one of them. Either way I have to give a lot of credit to NW and Rush for what they've accomplished over the last 5 years, they deserve a lot of credit. And I definitely hope UofC can spring back over the next 5 themselves, and it looks like they may!
Go Cubs!
UofC is a great place and so is Rush. But lets face it Rush has become the better hospital over the past 5 years with the better reputation. What Fab is saying is old, like what one might say 7 years ago. And I probably would have agreed if it was 2008. But times change. US News ranks Rush higher than UofC in just about every specialty and has for a few years now, and these rankings are based on practicing physician reputation surveys. Come on Fab lets give credit where credit is due. I too remember UofC hospital was the cat's meow back in the days I was a med student, but Rush has since surpassed it in reputation. And speaking of giving credit look how highly ranked NW Memorial has become in the past few years, top 10 in the country! That also has exceeded all expectations. I have no skin in the game either as I literally ended up training at all 3 places in the end (and liked them all!), and listen the fact is my reputation is no longer based on any one of them, it's instead based on how I perform at my actual job (which is in Chicago). Additonally, my group employs rads from NW, Rush, Loyola, UIC and UofC and we hold no preferences (unless we detect the slightest hint of arrogance, personal or otherwise!), so it is hard for me to badmouth any one of them. Either way I have to give a lot of credit to NW and Rush for what they've accomplished over the last 5 years, they deserve a lot of credit. And I definitely hope UofC can spring back over the next 5 themselves, and it looks like they may!
Go Cubs!
Last edited:
