Does Radiology Residency Prestige/Brand Name Matter?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

entrepreneurMD

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2014
Messages
98
Reaction score
29
It is coming time for me to apply (!!!!) and as I read about radiology residency programs around the country, I am curious how much prestige matters post-residency for both a private practice career vs an academic career?

Also, how does Duke (dream program in the south) compare to programs like BWH &MGH or UPenn?

Members don't see this ad.
 
It is coming time for me to apply (!!!!) and as I read about radiology residency programs around the country, I am curious how much prestige matters post-residency for both a private practice career vs an academic career?

Also, how does Duke (dream program in the south) compare to programs like BWH &MGH or UPenn?

Search function is your friend here.

General consensus is that name matters (mildly) for a career in academia. If comparing the top academic programs, the prestige difference is insignificant (e.g. Duke vs BWH). In this case, location to your desired area is the biggest factor. For private practice, name means very little. Regional ties and networking are the most important factors by far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Regional ties and networking are the most important factors by far.
Very true. The top programs will have the most robust, widely dispersed networks, invaluable for finding jobs after training. That said, if you want to live in a particular location, it is often better to train in that area or nearby. Once you are established and working, no one cares where you trained.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
Name matters. Don't let others tell you otherwise. When people say things like "MGH/BWH/Duke practices", the implicit message is that you may not become a partner in those practices without a certain brand.

Though Duke vs MGH vs BWH are more or less equivalent.
 
Does name matter within a region if going into private practice? For instance, does a residency training at Northwestern mean more than Rush when applying for jobs, getting competitive salaries, etc within the Chicago area?
 
Does name matter within a region if going into private practice? For instance, does a residency training at Northwestern mean more than Rush when applying for jobs, getting competitive salaries, etc within the Chicago area?

Program matters, but not necessarily in the way you think. The connections you develop will be more important than some sort of intangible measure of prestige. For instance, one program or the other might have a particular foothold in a practice in the area you are interested in. It may be hard to predict how it may affect you.

Geography trumps almost everything, at least for private practice. A Chicago group may take a Rush grad over MGH grad, especially if they have a good history with Rush grads. I mean, don't rush into a program if it seems like a dumpster fire, but geography matters a lot.

Prestige matters more for academic jobs, where it is more of a national search and people know each other more. You always have an opportunity to upgrade when you do a fellowship, as there are more fellowship spots than residency spots. However, a lot of those prime fellow spots will go to internal applicants.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Thank you so much for guidance. I can't wait to join this awesome field!!
 
Does name matter within a region if going into private practice? For instance, does a residency training at Northwestern mean more than Rush when applying for jobs, getting competitive salaries, etc within the Chicago area?

It will absolutely make you more competitive to train at NW compared to Rush in terms of getting a job in the Chicago area. The reputation and networks of the former are much stronger than the latter. It won't really affect salary though. The job pays what it pays and the partnership tract is what it is. No group adjusts those parameters just because you graduated from one program or another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Going to northwestern will in general give you the upper hand, mainly by giving you a bigger network in Chicago.

But rush, uChicago, uic, etc all have deep, deep ties with every practice in Chicago. Everyone attending has colleagues in every practice and they will be 100% honest you apply for a job there. So, while it's true that the average northwestern resident will fare better than the average rush resident, the best resident at rush will always have better opportunities than the weakest resident at northwestern.

Tl;dr what you put into your residency matters far more than the name of your residency
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
While I do agree with the last statement that what you put into your residency matters the most. What residency you go to does have a huge impact and a mediocre resident at Northwestern or UChicago will have far more opportunities than a stellar resident at Rush or UIC.

Radiology groups know that residents have already been partly weeded out from med school during the Match. They know that the caliber of residents at a top tier residency is noticeably higher than that at a mediocre program. And they will trust the training that someone will receive from a top tier program. Those top tier programs also have more renown faculty who's "word" is more trusted as well.

Imagine if I called up a mediocre program and their PD says that resident X is the best resident in the class, and then I call up the top tier program and their PD says that resident Y is very good and no red flags. I'm going with resident Y. I know in the back of my mind that the standard for being the "best" resident at the mediocre program just isn't that high. And I know I can't go wrong with a resident who has no red flags from the top tier program.

Going to northwestern will in general give you the upper hand, mainly by giving you a bigger network in Chicago.

But rush, uChicago, uic, etc all have deep, deep ties with every practice in Chicago. Everyone attending has colleagues in every practice and they will be 100% honest you apply for a job there. So, while it's true that the average northwestern resident will fare better than the average rush resident, the best resident at rush will always have better opportunities than the weakest resident at northwestern.

Tl;dr what you put into your residency matters far more than the name of your residency
 
While I do agree with the last statement that what you put into your residency matters the most. What residency you go to does have a huge impact and a mediocre resident at Northwestern or UChicago will have far more opportunities than a stellar resident at Rush or UIC.

Radiology groups know that residents have already been partly weeded out from med school during the Match. They know that the caliber of residents at a top tier residency is noticeably higher than that at a mediocre program. And they will trust the training that someone will receive from a top tier program. Those top tier programs also have more renown faculty who's "word" is more trusted as well.

Imagine if I called up a mediocre program and their PD says that resident X is the best resident in the class, and then I call up the top tier program and their PD says that resident Y is very good and no red flags. I'm going with resident Y. I know in the back of my mind that the standard for being the "best" resident at the mediocre program just isn't that high. And I know I can't go wrong with a resident who has no red flags from the top tier program.

Agreed. Many hiring partners share your sentiment. This is why I am choosing a household name over hersey about each IR program's supposed strength of training or things like "we do xyz procedure".
 
From the perspective of a current resident...brand name really does matter.

As a resident you can really only control your own effort and professionalism. You can "somewhat" control where you train at through the match process. Unfortunately once you arrive at your program, things can change quickly. You are not always guaranteed a smooth experience, great workstation teaching, or a lot of institutional support. While going to a brand name does not inherently mean better training, it's a great way to hedge your bets. Even if you feel used/overworked, as long as you can avoid red flags and pass the core, you are in a great position because your "brand name" network and prestige will open doors for you.

Contrast that to training at a lesser known program. If you get sub par training there, you can't always bank on the strength of your institutional name or network.

Don't blindly go to the biggest name you can without considering the whole picture but I do think using prestige can really help cut through the noise when attempting to organize a rank order list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Beware that sometimes lesser known will toss out things like "high volume" or have their residents shill about great teaching.

Those things can change very quickly. Names like Brigham or Columbia doesn't. Name is the only thing you can be sure about during this process.

Again, like I posted earlier in another forum, it's all well and good if you have amazing training, but it doesn't matter if that training doesn't translate into a good job or fellowship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
Beware that sometimes lesser known will toss out things like "high volume" or have their residents shill about great teaching.

Those things can change very quickly. Names like Brigham or Columbia doesn't. Name is the only thing you can be sure about during this process.

Again, like I posted earlier in another forum, it's all well and good if you have amazing training, but it doesn't matter if that training doesn't translate into a good job or fellowship.

Strongly agree with DrfluffyMD. Having experienced a ton of program change during my time during residency, all you can really bank on is your own approach to work and your program reputation/name. Most big name places have plenty of volume and opportunity, especially if you are a self directed person who seeks out opportunities.
 
When looking for a job, can getting a fellowship at a big name place help for job prospects, if you come from a mediocre residency? Or are you saying these practices just value where you do your residency training.

As a below average candidate for this upcoming cycle, I'm pretty doubtful I can land a residency in big name places.
 
When looking for a job, can getting a fellowship at a big name place help for job prospects, if you come from a mediocre residency? Or are you saying these practices just value where you do your residency training.

As a below average candidate for this upcoming cycle, I'm pretty doubtful I can land a residency in big name places.

From what I've seen, people get decent jobs even if they are DOs from no name residencies as long as their fellowships are legit.
 
When looking for a job, can getting a fellowship at a big name place help for job prospects, if you come from a mediocre residency? Or are you saying these practices just value where you do your residency training.

As a below average candidate for this upcoming cycle, I'm pretty doubtful I can land a residency in big name places.

The last place you train is the most important from a prestige standpoint. Residency is still important though, particularly as residencies are larger and therefore are better for networking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
When looking for a job, can getting a fellowship at a big name place help for job prospects, if you come from a mediocre residency? Or are you saying these practices just value where you do your residency training.

It absolutely helps you to do a fellowship at a big name place. More faculty will have connections, plus you will meet more people who may help you out in the future.

From what I've seen, people get decent jobs even if they are DOs from no name residencies as long as their fellowships are legit.

Well, this is sort of true. The problem is, DOs from no name residencies have more trouble landing those big name fellowships. Not impossible, but definitely harder. It helps that there are more high quality fellowship spots than residency spots.

The easiest way to get a top residency is to be from a top medical school. The easiest way to get a top fellowship is to be from a top residency. The best way to be rich is to start out rich in the first place!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I don't quite understand radiology's rather unique obsession with brand names.

This isn't a situation unique to radiology. It's true in law, medicine, and business.
 
Not at all unique to radiology. Many of my colleagues in other fields (ortho, ophtho, etc.) feel the same way.

At the end of the day you can have a distinguished and/or lucrative career coming from 98% of programs. But that doesn't mean that brand name doesn't help you in achieving those goals.

I don't quite understand radiology's rather unique obsession with brand names.
 
I don't see very many other specialties discussing program tiers. It seems like the degree to which people care is rather unique within medicine.
 
I don't see very many other specialties discussing program tiers. It seems like the degree to which people care is rather unique within medicine.

Like I said, if you chose to ignore the evidence and make the wrong statement, that's fine. If you chose to stick your head in the sand, that's fine too.

But go to any discussion forum regarding law (T25, T14, HYS, etc), where you go to school is often the most important (some say one of the only) thing that affect your future.

Ditto for business. Ditto for internal medicine, and so on.

I am not sure if there is a field where name doesn't matter.

You may say, oh EM isn't about name brand. EM is very much about name brand, except in EM Highland is a bigger brand than Stanford.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Who cares about law or business? No one is talking about either of those.

Did you actually read the threads you posted? Again, I'm more than happy to be wrong, but I have rarely if ever seen a multi-page mental masturbation-a-thon of people arguing about program tiers quite like I have in this forum. Would be happy to see evidence otherwise.

Edit: I am not, quite obviously, saying name doesn't matter.
 
Last edited:
Who cares about law or business?

Are you a hiring partner belonging to a practice in Southern California or NYC, or chair of radiology at certain UCs or certain Boston hospitals?

If not, then who cares? We all know prestige doesn't matter unless you have a very specific goal in mind.

This discussion is clearly not meant for you if you don't have desire to go work in Socal or NYC.

The prestige train only matter in certain circumstances. Unfortunately I find myself in a position of having to jump on this train.
 
It's apparent you have not bothered to see the evidence for yourself.

I challenge you to start a thread titled "Does [FILL IN THE BLANK] Residency Prestige/Brand Name Matter?" in any other forum. I'll wager you will get a similar number of replies.

What you're doing right now is amounting to trolling. What is the purpose of your posts? Even if there was a greater concern in Radiology for training at a top institution (which there isn't), so what? What are you trying to prove with your trolling? The title of the thread is "Does Radiology Residency Prestige/Brand Name Matter?" Several individuals have posted their feelings on the matter. You, on the other hand, are just derailing the thread by insulting everyone who is participating in this discussion.


Who cares about law or business? No one is talking about either of those.

Did you actually read the threads you posted? Again, I'm more than happy to be wrong, but I have rarely if ever seen a multi-page mental masturbation-a-thon of people arguing about program tiers quite like I have in this forum. Would be happy to see evidence otherwise.

Edit: I am not, quite obviously, saying name doesn't matter.
 
You are not comprehending what I am writing and are replying to straw men. This is a rather dull back and forth.

Dull indeed. You haven't been able to come up with any sound counter argument or offer any constructive insight in this thread.
 
I would go with training quality over name. Particularly for IR (dx rad subspecialties will get you the experience you need for the most part no mattrr where you go). Some IR big name brand programs literally suck. But then again, I am not trying to be a diagnostic rad who dabbles in IR. In my corner of the country (one of those top 1 2 or 3 places), training in the same location you want a job matters as well as quality of product (big names help too no doubt). Our IR program, while not the best im the nation, does nearly the full gamut of IR and fellows are given a huge amount of autonomy. Practices in the area know this and getting a job is not an issue even with just cold calling. So you can take your name brand and I will take all your peripheral vascular and dialysis work while you have do your next thoracentesis and mammo screener.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
And for the record I would go to Rush over any other Chicago IR fellowship. They successfully grew their peripheral and aortic practice from the ground up (now doing like 80% or arterial endovasc interventions) and have nearly boxed out other specialists. I rather learn how to do that than do my 100th Chemoembo or ablation that you will not even do again in most private practices unless you are at a tertiary center.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Big names matter, but matters more when the job market was crappy. Market is better and better each year now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
And for the record I would go to Rush over any other Chicago IR fellowship. They successfully grew their peripheral and aortic practice from the ground up (now doing like 80% or arterial endovasc interventions) and have nearly boxed out other specialists. I rather learn how to do that than do my 100th Chemoembo or ablation that you will not even do again in most private practices unless you are at a tertiary center.

I respectfully disagree. I think there is a lot of people right now who believes that PAD is one and the only worthwhile thing to learn in IR and programs that don't do as much PADs are trash.

There are a few usual IR fellowship suspect that got talked up a lot because of that.

The issues about PAD is that we no longer fully control the forefront of research and development in PAD.

Meanwhile, a lot of great names (including some places in Bostons that are often trashed by people as "literally suck) are actually doing a lot of innoviation, just not in the high and mighty PAD and they get ignored. We still control the forefront of things like gastric embolization or prostate work and those should really be the forefront.

For me, my goal is to carve out new niches and figure out new roles for my field. I am just not contend with learning how to put in a stent graft. If I just wanted to do that I would have checked a different box (hint, it's called vascular surgery).

IR is so much more than vascular surgery, yet too many people I run into think that if a program doesn't offer vascular-lite it's a bad program.

Additionally, the goal is to ultimately find a job. I've known enough people to know that the big names like Boston programs, Columbia and Cornell actually places people (including academic, full IR jobs) just as well, if not better than of the PAD heavy places that get jerked around here a lot.

More over, programs change so much over the years, and if a program ONLY has PAD as its distinguishing feature, it can be swept away in days by a group of aggressive vascular surgeons. Meanwhile, a big name don't change and stay with you throughout your career.

A guy who graduated from Harvard is going to be at least equal, if not more at an advantage at almost every job search scenario vs. Rush grad except at PAD heavy situations.

The other thing about PAD, is where will you be doing it? Big centers don't do PAD except at a handful of places, and when you go to the Podunk, you will do PAD, whether you wanted to or not. One of my good friend had no training in his fellowship for PAD, and he is now doing 70% PAD work.

This is why I personally chose name (to a point) over supposed "training" (which usually means how much PAD work, ironicallt.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I respectfully disagree. I think there is a lot of people right now who believes that PAD is one and the only worthwhile thing to learn in IR and programs that don't do as much PADs are trash....
Meanwhile, a lot of great names (including some places in Bostons that are often trashed by people as "literally suck) are actually doing a lot of innoviation, just not in the high and mighty PAD and they get ignored. We still control the forefront of things like gastric embolization or prostate work and those should really be the forefront.

There is a reason for that sentiment. However in my experience, people don't regard places that don't do PAD as trash. The fact of the matter is that your high end cases in most community practices is going to be vascular interventional cases (be it PAD, embos, or dialysis maintanence). Not IO, yet there is a disconnect right now in large academic centers with the reality in the community. Fact is, PAD is one of the most common disease entities out there, on the order of several millions of patients with that diagnoses at any time. Doing a hepatoma embo for HCC is relatively uncommon, and unheard of outside of transplant centers. Prostate embo is niche right now.



The issues about PAD is that we no longer fully control the forefront of research and development in PAD.

There is a reason for this. It is lucrative. Why should we give it up when we invented it and you literally have cardiologists salivating over atherectomy cases (which are probably the highest paying endovascular cases out there)? Also there literally are NOT enough vascular surgerons for PAD patients. That is why we should continue to do it. And we should work closely with our surgeons to provide comprehensive vascular care.

IR is so much more than vascular surgery, yet too many people I run into think that if a program doesn't offer vascular-lite it's a bad program.

Agreed. That is why I am in VIR instead of vascular surgery.

A guy who graduated from Harvard is going to be at least equal, if not more at an advantage at almost every job search scenario vs. Rush grad except at PAD heavy situations.

Agreed. Big names will help in practices that are academic or expect you to do a lot of Dx and some IR. For a hardcore IR group , multispecialty, or Diag + IR group that allows IR to run wild, the Rush guy all day.

The other thing about PAD, is where will you be doing it? Big centers don't do PAD except at a handful of places, and when you go to the Podunk, you will do PAD, whether you wanted to or not. One of my good friend had no training in his fellowship for PAD, and he is now doing 70% PAD work.

Well since we are talking about Rush. It is in Chicago, far from podunk. And if you go to podunk doing learning PAD on the job might be ok since you have no competition, but if you are in a big city, your reputation and referrals are toast if you are a n00b.

Home - Minimally Invasive Surgical Solutions This private practice does a lot of PAD. Located in CA, the heart of Silicon Valley.
Venous & Arterial Vascular Disease Specialists | PEDES OC This PP does atherectomies, multiple per week, in highly desirable coastal Orange county.

Just a few examples. I can go on and on if you know about local markets. An attending of mine left academics to go to PP and has a growing PAD practice in a desirable metro.

My buddy interviewing for jobs right now said that he probably will never do another Y-90 or TACE since he is going for communicty practice (even at hospital large enoughto support 7 IRs). But he will do PAD. He said many practices are doing a lot of PAD, and this is in large CA metros. This is a fact. Another person interviewing for the same job from big brand name program had never even done a fistulogram while my buddy can do them fast and effectively since he has done so many.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
To each his own. But, all else being equal, a graduate from Northwestern or U of C will land the job over a Rush grad. The alumni network, faculty reputation, and long-term track record of the latter are just on another level. This is particularly true outside of Chicago. I know my partners, both diagnostic and IR, would have far fewer reservations in taking someone with a solid recommendation from a known program.

While I do agree IO is more prevalent in universities than in community hospitals, it's very disingenuous for you to suggest they are not being done. I do more IO at my 300-bed community hospital practice than I do PAD. Back when I was graduating from fellowship and interviewing for jobs, groups were more interested in me for my ability to build up the IO practice. If we were hiring now, we'd probably not have a singular focus in terms of skill set, but but the first thing I'd look at is what fellowship they came from.


And for the record I would go to Rush over any other Chicago IR fellowship. They successfully grew their peripheral and aortic practice from the ground up (now doing like 80% or arterial endovasc interventions) and have nearly boxed out other specialists. I rather learn how to do that than do my 100th Chemoembo or ablation that you will not even do again in most private practices unless you are at a tertiary center.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Maybe I'm biased by my experience, but this simply isn't true. My residency program was fine, but it was essentially the equivalent of rush--small program outshined by big names in the region.

My class of 4 landed attending jobs--2 in academics at "top 10 brand names", and 2 in large desirable private practices in Boston and New York. I know for a fact that I was competing with several residents at the stronger programs and got the offer over them. The three classes of former residents above me all landed similar level jobs in major markets, even during the recession.

Maybe I just had a diamond in the rough program that has a better reputation than I give it credit for, but I never see it listed on any match list ranking threads.

Look, brand name certainly matters to an extent, more so for academics, but this "prestige" phenomenon gets far credit in the job hunt than it actually deserves.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Maybe I'm biased by my experience, but this simply isn't true. My residency program was fine, but it was essentially the equivalent of rush--small program outshined by big names in the region.

My class of 4 landed attending jobs--2 in academics at "top 10 brand names", and 2 in large desirable private practices in Boston and New York. I know for a fact that I was competing with several residents at the stronger programs and got the offer over them. The three classes of former residents above me all landed similar level jobs in major markets, even during the recession.

Maybe I just had a diamond in the rough program that has a better reputation than I give it credit for, but I never see it listed on any match list ranking threads.

Look, brand name certainly matters to an extent, more so for academics, but this "prestige" phenomenon gets far credit in the job hunt than it actually deserves.

Certain programs have more prestige than its names should suggest. A good example is Cedars.

This is why I think sometimes name to layman matters more as that will be what attracts patients to your practice.

Cedars Sinai probably sounds more prestigous to the lay person than Mallencrokt Institute of Radiology or Wash U.
 
Last edited:
Is there a pretty accurate tier list? I know this is about way more than just which program is better. And clearly there has been some dispute as to even if it is necessary. But I am curious if a 220 is competitive for, say, Arizona, or a 240 at UCLA.. while I know the latter is more on the average to low end for UCLA, I'm curious about programs in the southwest. Please direct me to another page if you find this to be ill-fit for this discussion.
 
Is there a pretty accurate tier list? I know this is about way more than just which program is better. And clearly there has been some dispute as to even if it is necessary. But I am curious if a 220 is competitive for, say, Arizona, or a 240 at UCLA.. while I know the latter is more on the average to low end for UCLA, I'm curious about programs in the southwest. Please direct me to another page if you find this to be ill-fit for this discussion.

I had 260. I was not interviewed by some california community programs. I think 240 is not enough for UCLA unles you are from Stanford, UCSF, Hopkins or Harvard.
 
A lot of names are regional too. For example, growing up in the Midwest, lay people have no idea about MGH, BWH, Cedars Sinai, Columbia, etc. but they all know Northwestern, Mayo, and Cleveland Clinic.
 
A lot of names are regional too. For example, growing up in the Midwest, lay people have no idea about MGH, BWH, Cedars Sinai, Columbia, etc. but they all know Northwestern, Mayo, and Cleveland Clinic.

Among lay people, Columbia and Harvard are national names. So is Mayo. NW and CCF are not as much.
 
"Harvard" is a national name to lay people. However, MGH or BWH are not. The average layperson does not know that Massachusetts General Hospital is one of Harvard's main teaching hospitals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
yep...which is why its not uncommon to see "Harvard Medical School" listed when people mention their residency on practice websites and other places viewed by the lay public. I've seen that on several PP websites.
 
I've even seen people do that for BID (!)
 
On Eras, MGH and BWH are listed as MGH/HMS and BWH/HMS
 
It is coming time for me to apply (!!!!) and as I read about radiology residency programs around the country, I am curious how much prestige matters post-residency for both a private practice career vs an academic career?

Also, how does Duke (dream program in the south) compare to programs like BWH &MGH or UPenn?

Would you buy a Maserati SUV even though you know for a fact that the comparable Mazda is a better car?
 
Would you buy a Maserati SUV even though you know for a fact that the comparable Mazda is a better car?

My current program is the equivalent of a Mazad or a Hyundi, and I found out the hard way that just making a nice car isn't enough sometimes.
 
Top