Do any programs produce residents a tier above the rest?

[speedyxx626]

I already matched last year, but I thought this topic would be interesting (just because lol). For the practicing radiologists or current residents on this forum: do any specific programs consistently produce radiologists that you're more impressed with?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TCOM12]

Depends on what you consider a good radiologist. If it's someone that names every finding or someone who is brief. Someone who hedges so they're never wrong vs someone who goes on a limb and may be wrong sometimes, but correct many other times. Make recommendations to CYA or based on appropriate criteria (ie 2017 Fleischner guidelines).

Smartest radiologists I know came from Hopkins, Rochester (NY), NYU, MGH, MIR, Emory, UVa. Some regional bias based on where I trained.

Some of my least favorite attendings also went to some of those institutions. So.... a lot of it is style difference and confidence that is built into that radiologist and not the program itself.

 

[Dave1980]

Old school programs that work their residents hard produce good Attendings in my experience. Some cushy academic centers graduate residents that read all the books and can give you a ddx of 10 conditions but can't really hack it in the real world.

 

[Rads Consult]

Radiology is mostly what you put into it. You can't just show up to work and expect to learn everything there. You have to read every night, especially during your R1 year when you have lots of downtime and no call responsibilities. There's just too much to know.

 

[VeitVat]

I already matched last year, but I thought this topic would be interesting (just because lol). For the practicing radiologists or current residents on this forum: do any specific programs consistently produce radiologists that you're more impressed with?

In general, the best known and most prestigious programs - and they don’t need to be named, we’re talking common sense (Stanford, Hopkins, etc) reliably produce top notch radiologists at the very least for the fact that they attract the best, top notch physician candidates. The kind of people with stellar CVs and a combination of self directed industriousness, self discipline, social adjustment and intellect.

The facilities are nice. The lecture series and teaching structure is nice and the research opportunities are nice. But having the cream of each med school class nationwide working together as residents is by far the biggest indicator of outcome.

After the rarified top of programs it becomes rapidly homogeneous and quality of produced radiologists tend to be similar. With the exception that County based systems tend to produce better independent radiologists ready for the real world more reliability than programs where most training is at private and high income clientele.

 

[GadRads]

In general, the best known and most prestigious programs - and they don’t need to be named, we’re talking common sense (Stanford, Hopkins, etc) reliably produce top notch radiologists at the very least for the fact that they attract the best, top notch physician candidates. The kind of people with stellar CVs and a combination of self directed industriousness, self discipline, social adjustment and intellect.

The facilities are nice. The lecture series and teaching structure is nice and the research opportunities are nice. But having the cream of each med school class nationwide working together as residents is by far the biggest indicator of outcome.

After the rarified top of programs it becomes rapidly homogeneous and quality of produced radiologists tend to be similar. With the exception that County based systems tend to produce better independent radiologists ready for the real world more reliability than programs where most training is at private and high income clientele.

I do not buy this view completely. I believe this sentiment is held by (and propagated by) individuals at so-called top programs, presumably to validate their supposed high-ranking. Although there is no hard data for the following idea, I suspect that radiologists, generally speaking, are quite similar in skill. The primary advantage of highly-ranked academic programs is the high level of sub-specialiazation which creates an avenue for exceptional expertise in a subspecialty. This way, residents at these programs learn from subspecialty-trained folks, some with many years of experience. The other advantage of top programs is research opportunities, resources and focused subspecialty practice. It is difficult if not impossible to be a master of general radiology, but achieving a high level of skill in a subspecialty is an achievable goal.

Working with smart and motivated residents is of course a good thing, but radiology residents are a motivated group overall, although I suspect that residents at top programs are more homogenous in their levels of motivation compared to lower-ranked programs. I am a resident at these so-called top programs, by the way.

 

[Radology]

Go to a workhorse program with a good reputation.

A program that can train you to put out concise and accurate reports will be more valuable in 99% of settings than one that trains you to put 15 impressions for every ct including laundry list differentials.

 

[radsisrad]

Interviewed at a number of "top" programs, and the residents at those programs scoffed just as much as residents at community programs about the idea of reading 2-3 hrs/day. Also interviewed at 2-3 "top" programs with call and NF schedules that were substantially cushier than those at community programs.

 

[drdoctor]

Top programs do not produce top radiologists. Some of the best radiologists when it not only comes to board scores but clinically come from so called averse programs in average locations. Many top program residents who are lazy and get by based on pedigree. Realistically no one cares when picking a job. Top program radiologists enter private practice working with community program trained radiologists. Some stay in academics but these are not competitive positions to obtain. There is a lot of self selection at that stage in the game.

 

[CaptainSSO]

It depends on the person. It’s up to you as an individual.

I agree with Cyal. I go to a not top tier program, and we have some seriosly smart and hardworking people who are going to be good radiologists, as well as some fairly lazy people. I’m sure if you want to a top program more of the residents would be in the former category.

Also, as another poster mentioned, “good” is somewhat ambiguous. My favorite attendings know what’s clinically relevant.

The best radiologists are good *doctors*, not just image interpreters.

 

[vm26]

Trained at mid-tier community program in major metro area. Best attending I had during training went to med school in the caribbean, trained in a "lower tier" program , and completed a chest fellowship at MGH. As an attending I've only worked in pp and the best rad I know graduated from mid tier, and did not do a fellowship but is capable of knocking out 140 studies in a day (including 5-6 PET/CT, 30-40 cross sectional including all types of MR) while also doing 4-7 procedures such as lung bx's, nephrostomy tubes etc. Not many attendings at top tier programs could do this....think its sorta like the NFL. While the powerhouse programs typically produce the highest # of drafted players, the best NFL players come from a variety of programs. Off the top of my head Jerry Rice (Mississippi Valley State) comes to mind

 

[RadsGuy]

Academic vs Private Practice/Community Radiology Residency Program?