Agree. If the OP said best program it’s obvious BU would be higher (although not likely it would change that Monte Jeff UMD and BU are all great training programs in big cities on the east coast). Given preference for NY > philly plus fellowship match id rank Monte>Jeff but the truth is your top 7-8 would set you up well enough for the future you wish
Just some not so great vibes I got form the residents and PD really, and I didn't realize how much RI lacked diversity. I'm likely still going to rank them, but considering the overwhelmingly awesome experiences I had with other places, and other priorities in my life, it's just not going to be a top place for me.
How would you rank them?
Quality of clinical training doesn’t really have anything to do with University status, assuming the hospital is large enough to ensure a good patient base. That’s going to be program dependent and dependent on how autonomous the residents are, how much the faculty teach, etc etc.
Are you sure monte has a better fellowship match? I have several friends who are 3rd year residents there who applied this cycle and it sounds like the program as a whole had fewer interview offers and worse match results than they had hoped for.
Evaluating Fellowship match “results” especially year over year (as compared to looking at several of the past years) is highly subjective. In addition, Programs don’t necessarily freely give out the n and often times you don’t know how many went unmatched, how many got top choices etc. you often don’t know reasons for applicants picking certain programs ie geographic etc. there is only so much you can gather from a match list and very little gained from only looking at one year. I do think it’s valuable to look at as long as you understand the limitations it has.
www.jefferson.edu
That’s what I’m saying. At my program we rarely have any residents who don’t match for fellowship and usually if they don’t, it’s a visa issue. But I’m at a top 20.Evaluating Fellowship match “results” especially year over year (as compared to looking at several of the past years) is highly subjective. In addition, Programs don’t necessarily freely give out the n and often times you don’t know how many went unmatched, how many got top choices etc. you often don’t know reasons for applicants picking certain programs ie geographic etc. there is only so much you can gather from a match list and very little gained from only looking at one year. I do think it’s valuable to look at as long as you understand the limitations it has.
That all being said, this info is publicly available and you can judge for yourself. A lot more GI matches at Jeff than Monte. Selection bias? Applicants that went unmatched? Who knows.
See attached for Monte 2020 match.
jefferson
Resident Future Plans
Previous Monte match lists
No one is comparing Monte and Jeff to a top 20 program. So on that alone, while your experience is helpful to know, it’s irrelevant in this conversation.
Clearly I struck a nerve. I defer to your many years of wisdom and retrospective data. All I know is none of my classmates who are at Monte have been satisfied with how the match ended this year.
I agree with @whoknows2012 that the fellowship match results speak for themselves. While both Jeff and monte typically send residents to 'mid-tier' fellowships among the big 3 (cards, gi, h/o), there at least a handful at monte that match into higher tier programs over the years vs Jeff from what I see. But I agree it's not a huge difference. I don't think the experience of your colleagues should necessarily be discounted in choosing how to rank programs (i.e. having to find coverage for interviews sounds rough), but I think a lot of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the match is largely driven by expectations, and thus I wouldn't say it's a reliable indicator of a program's match success.
don't know any specifics about it but from what I've heard, it seems to be a solid program!
Location, or personal preference, is pretty much all you can use.
I had a program at the interview tell me that "entering the orders is the easy part" when alluding to scutwork. That means not only is scutwork expected there, but they are also diminishing and dismissing the cognitive work of a physician with that comment. They were my 2nd interview and it still pisses me off. I DNR'ed them.
Exactly in that order.
You can frankly put them in any order from an objective perspective. I think you should consider location honestly, but this order is as good as any other.
I say duke if you don't mind three years in NC. You'll easily be able to get a top NE fellowship from duke. I also think you may be underranking Northwestern esp if you might want GI
For onc, Penn, Vandy, Cornell, Michigan stand out to me
Put them in order. If you can't be bothered, why would anyone else?
You can always go back to Cali as a cardiologist. It’s becoming a popular thing to leave Cali anyway as their tax policies will keep physicians living a middle class life well into their 50s at this rate.
So I actually rated them a 7/10 after interview (which on my initial list just based off ratings put them at #14 ). I was tested on my medical knowledge which was kind of a turn off. The residents were very stoic and not too welcoming. It's a harder program as they have high patient volume, very socioeconomically/ethnically diverse patient population. The residents really raved about the range of pathology and their confidence as physicians from the intensity of the program. Hours are 6:30am-3pm for short call and until 7pm for long call. They're not big on research, 26 2 week block rotations, PGY1 have 4 weeks of clinic and PGY2/3 have 6+2 schedule, no scut work, able to do a lot of procedures.
Thank you for providing your valuable impression. Can you please tell me what kind of medical question were you asked during interview?
