Comparing these top programs in "desirable locations"

[MasterShifu69]

I searched online and found some info, but wanted to get a better idea of how these programs stack up against each other in these geographically desirable locations. More specifically:

MGH vs. BWH in Boston
NYU vs. Cornell in NYC
UCSF vs. Stanford in Cali

I've gotten interviews at several of these programs (hopefully more to come), and wanted to hear your guys thoughts.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TCOM12]

In terms of reputation, the first one listed in each region is considered the best. But, you're splitting hairs, IMHO. If you were to match any of those six programs, you'd be looked at favorably.

Be sure to take some interviews at safety programs that you're willing to rank. Many people will rank the above mentioned high, and the rank favors the med student over the institution primarily.

 

[SeldingerFan78]

All are great programs - go where you feel the most comfortable/best fit. The best program for one person is not necessarily the best for another. That's why you have to take those rankings with a grain of salt.

 

[Madelung]

MGH vs BWH - There are multiple differences in which one is not necessarily better than the other but is still substantively different for the experience and may play into your preferences.

• Program directors/associate program directors: MGH is old school. BWH is new school.
• Chiefs: At MGH, chief residents are spring R2-R3. At BWH, chief residents are a year more senior than that.
• Fourth-year arrangement: At MGH, full-year quasi-fellowship in one subspecialty is the norm, without resident call. At BWH, a mix of electives with resident call and nuclear medicine is the norm.
• Para-curricular experiences: At MGH, opportunities to do work in research, leadership, education, and innovation are somewhat free-form buffet style. At BWH, there are formalized tracks.
• Accountability: BWH tests first-year residents at ends of rotations (OSCEs). MGH has no such thing. Both take annual ACR in-training exams.
• Ultrasound: BWH is hardcore about performing ultrasound yourself. MGH is not. BWH radiology still keeps a finger in obstetric ultrasound. MGH does not.
• Pediatrics: BWH residents rotate at Boston Children's, a big place. MGH residents rotate in-house, a small place.
• IR: BWH runs CSIR as a separate service from angioIR. MGH integrated abdominal and vascular IR. BWH recently changed division chiefs, a year ago, an assistant professor. MGH just changed division chiefs, this month, an associate professor.
• Cardiac: BWH cardiologists have more numbers and power than radiologists in cardiac imaging. The opposite is the case at MGH.
• Everything else in diagnostic radiology is similarly strong clinically, although MGH has an edge on reputation for most areas.
• MGH has a bigger PhD research operation.
• Facilities: BWH reading rooms are mostly scattered across campus. MGH reading rooms are mostly centralized. This affects in-person interactions with each other in the department and with referring clinicians.
• Both have the same salary, cost of living, and grand rounds speakers.
• Both have in-house attending coverage on call.
• Moonlighting exists at both.

 

[vm26]

I searched online and found some info, but wanted to get a better idea of how these programs stack up against each other in these geographically desirable locations. More specifically:

MGH vs. BWH in Boston
NYU vs. Cornell in NYC
UCSF vs. Stanford in Cali

I've gotten interviews at several of these programs (hopefully more to come), and wanted to hear your guys thoughts.

All great programs. Can't go wrong with any of them. Any idea of where you eventually want to settle down?

 

[maxxor]

MGH vs BWH - There are multiple differences in which one is not necessarily better than the other but is still substantively different for the experience and may play into your preferences.

• Program directors/associate program directors: MGH is old school. BWH is new school.
• Chiefs: At MGH, chief residents are spring R2-R3. At BWH, chief residents are a year more senior than that.
• Fourth-year arrangement: At MGH, full-year quasi-fellowship in one subspecialty is the norm, without resident call. At BWH, a mix of electives with resident call and nuclear medicine is the norm.
• Para-curricular experiences: At MGH, opportunities to do work in research, leadership, education, and innovation are somewhat free-form buffet style. At BWH, there are formalized tracks.
• Accountability: BWH tests first-year residents at ends of rotations (OSCEs). MGH has no such thing. Both take annual ACR in-training exams.
• Ultrasound: BWH is hardcore about performing ultrasound yourself. MGH is not. BWH radiology still keeps a finger in obstetric ultrasound. MGH does not.
• Pediatrics: BWH residents rotate at Boston Children's, a big place. MGH residents rotate in-house, a small place.
• IR: BWH runs CSIR as a separate service from angioIR. MGH integrated abdominal and vascular IR. BWH recently changed division chiefs, a year ago, an assistant professor. MGH just changed division chiefs, this month, an associate professor.
• Cardiac: BWH cardiologists have more numbers and power than radiologists in cardiac imaging. The opposite is the case at MGH.
• Everything else in diagnostic radiology is similarly strong clinically, although MGH has an edge on reputation for most areas.
• MGH has a bigger PhD research operation.
• Facilities: BWH reading rooms are mostly scattered across campus. MGH reading rooms are mostly centralized. This affects in-person interactions with each other in the department and with referring clinicians.
• Both have the same salary, cost of living, and grand rounds speakers.
• Both have in-house attending coverage on call.
• Moonlighting exists at both.

Having rotated at one of these and been a resident at the other, some additional comments:

MGH has way more moonlighting opportunities (4 internal sites, 3 external sites) than BWH (2 internal sites).

Clinical volume expectations are higher at MGH. Many services are resident run with the resident expected to clear the list. I am not aware of such an expectation at BWH.

MGH 4th year is not “quasi-fellowship”. The MGH curriculum is a 3 year residency meeting all ABR requirements with built in fellowship during 4th year. You are treated identically to the fellows when acting as a subspecialty fellow. It’s only not a fellowship because it’s during residency. BWH is a quasi fellowship in that you still have general residency call with Mammo/NM mixed in, taking you away from focusing on the subspecialty.

Cardiac imaging is radiology driven at MGH. Cardiac CT is purely interpreted by Radiology. Cardiac MR is 70/30 radiology/cardiology. Nuclear cardiac is 50/50 with joint readout of the stress by cardiology and the imaging by Nuclear radiology. The volume is high and you can achieve the numbers for the CBCCT exam without doing a mini fellowship in cardiac if you desire.

MGH is a bigger referral hospital (sorry BWH), and has a larger referral network. Case volume is significantly higher.

If you want to be an ultrasound tech, MGH residents can rotate at BWH.

 

[Puff-of-Snow Sign]

Having rotated at one of these and been a resident at the other, some additional comments:

...

Clinical volume expectations are higher at MGH. Many services are resident run with the resident expected to clear the list. I am not aware of such an expectation at BWH.

MGH 4th year is not “quasi-fellowship”. The MGH curriculum is a 3 year residency meeting all ABR requirements with built in fellowship during 4th year. You are treated identically to the fellows when acting as a subspecialty fellow. It’s only not a fellowship because it’s during residency. BWH is a quasi fellowship in that you still have general residency call with Mammo/NM mixed in, taking you away from focusing on the subspecialty.

...

MGH is a bigger referral hospital (sorry BWH), and has a larger referral network. Case volume is significantly higher.

If you want to be an ultrasound tech, MGH residents can rotate at BWH.

Dude...why do you feel the need to go on the offensive? Hard to read tone through an internet forum, but your language re: Brigham is really harsh. We're all Partners, @maxxor...settle down.

1. You're totally on-point about the 4th year fellowship at MGH. People at BWH (e.g. me) would like to move to that model, but we're not there yet. Our 4th year is tailored to your interests, which means a lot of people do mini-fellowships and some take dedicated research time.

2. But you're way off-base on clinical volume expectations. I'd say it's pretty balanced, averaged over sections. Don't go spreading false rumors, dude.

3. Case volume may be higher, but you have more residents and way more fellows to spread it across. BWH residents who've done fellowships at MGH have been pretty consistent in saying that volume is pretty equal in most sections.

Let's keep it civil here, folks.