Help with Rank order list

Started by Hurst1
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor
H

Hurst1

New Member
7+ Year Member
The ROL date is approaching. Please help me with ranking. I'm interested in invasive fellowship.

In random order,

Kansas University
Lankenau, Philadelphia
University of Minnesota
Cooper University Hospital, NJ
Univeristy of Miami, Jackson Program
Aurora St Luke, Milwakee
Beth Israel Deaconess, Boston
 
Well this is certainly interesting...people just drop names of programs (without stating their interests/career goals) and somebody else ranks the programs without asking for more details or explaining their ranking criteria...something is definitely wrong with this picture if people actually do follow this method
 
Ranking assuming based on overall quality of cards program/national reputation and prospects for academia. Individual preferences - i.e. better cath vs EP vs imaging may change the order.
 
I'm not sure if asking others to rank your programs for you is really that helpful. I mean there are many different factors, both subjective and objective, that go into making your rank list - strength of the program in a particular subspecialty, clinical volume, mentorship, significant other's preference, overall vibe from interview, etc, etc. I think is more useful to ask for impressions from people familiar with the program and then incorporate that info into making your own rank list.
 
Friends,
Can you please give ur opinion on these programs: henry ford, baylor dallas, uni of louisville, Kansas, uni of wisconsin
based on clinical volume, workload, fellows autonomy, learning experience and overall academic reputation. goal to go into intervention
any input is really appreciated
Thanks
 
anuska said:
Friends,
Can you please give ur opinion on these programs: henry ford, baylor dallas, uni of louisville, Kansas, uni of wisconsin
based on clinical volume, workload, fellows autonomy, learning experience and overall academic reputation. goal to go into intervention
any input is really appreciated
Thanks
Click to expand...

Don't know programs personally but from what I have heard - baylor dallas is high volume pvt cnter, not much academics. wisconsin is probably on the other end of the spectrum. Kansas and louisville are more balanced and henry ford is very malignant. you have to decide.

I would appreciate inputs on my list posted above, if folks have some input?
 
Hi! - I was looking on some input on the following programs - goal is general cardiology/cath - academic career with significant (>70%) clinical work and outcomes research.

Mayo
BIDMC
Emory
UAB,
NYU,
Vandy
BU
Case western
U Washington
 
Integrilin66 said:
Hi! - I was looking on some input on the following programs - goal is general cardiology/cath - academic career with significant (>70%) clinical work and outcomes research.

Mayo
BIDMC
Emory
UAB,
NYU,
Vandy
BU
Case western
U Washington
Click to expand...

Mayo, ueber alles.
 
anuska said:
Friends,
Can you please give ur opinion on these programs: henry ford, baylor dallas, uni of louisville, Kansas, uni of wisconsin
based on clinical volume, workload, fellows autonomy, learning experience and overall academic reputation. goal to go into intervention
any input is really appreciated
Thanks
Click to expand...

I would put either henry ford or univ of wisconsin first
 
Thanks Integrellin and CanIMakeIt for your opinion
Since Wisconsin was my 1st interview, I forgot about their clinical volume and hands-on experience. i know they have a VA too where they get good volume. if you have further info, i would really appreciate
What do you think abt uni of louisville ?
Input from anyone is appreciated
 
Hi all, looking for some guidance about rank order. Would appreciate any insight!

How would you compare Kaiser-LA, UC Irvine, and UC-davis? Putting location aside, purely interested in program quality, training, quality of life as fellow and job prospects after.
 
Can anyone share any insights on U Washington, Seattle - I feel its great for basic science and Heart failure but I am not inclined towards either - any input regarding quality of overall clinical training? future prospects in interventional ?
 
nope80 said:
Hi all, looking for some guidance about rank order. Would appreciate any insight!

How would you compare Kaiser-LA, UC Irvine, and UC-davis? Putting location aside, purely interested in program quality, training, quality of life as fellow and job prospects after.
Click to expand...

Anyone about to give me some last minute advice?
 
can anyone provide insights into these two programs: uni of louisville and kansas university ? any input from any perspective is greatly appreciated. thanks in advance
 
nope80 said:
Anyone about to give me some last minute advice?
Click to expand...

1. Kaiser-Sunset
2. UC Davis
3. UC Irvine

In that order. With emphasis on quality of life as a fellow and job prospects after. Kaiser Sunset is a tertiary referral center for all of the Kaiser hospitals in Southern California....gets a huge volume. If you are more interested in academics and the best teaching I'd rank Davis 1.
 
ladoctor said:
1. Kaiser-Sunset
2. UC Davis
3. UC Irvine

In that order. With emphasis on quality of life as a fellow and job prospects after. Kaiser Sunset is a tertiary referral center for all of the Kaiser hospitals in Southern California....gets a huge volume. If you are more interested in academics and the best teaching I'd rank Davis 1.
Click to expand...

Hi LaDoctor,

Thanks for your response! That is interesting that you put Kaiser number 1 and UC irvine last. In terms of job prospects you think kaiser definitely better respected than UCI? I was thinking that UCI since it was an academic center may have a better name? Do you know anything more specifically about Kaiser and UCI (those are at the top of my list). I would like a balance between hard work as a fellow and learning. It seemed like at Kaiser fellows were incredibly busy (especially on certain rotations where there are less IM residents than there should be). Any input would be greatly appreciated.
 
nope80 said:
Hi LaDoctor,

Thanks for your response! That is interesting that you put Kaiser number 1 and UC irvine last. In terms of job prospects you think kaiser definitely better respected than UCI? I was thinking that UCI since it was an academic center may have a better name? Do you know anything more specifically about Kaiser and UCI (those are at the top of my list). I would like a balance between hard work as a fellow and learning. It seemed like at Kaiser fellows were incredibly busy (especially on certain rotations where there are less IM residents than there should be). Any input would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

it's simple. for the private/clinical sector BUSY is good because you'll get higher COCATS levels. "Respect" is far less important than what you can offer to a practice. I know people out of Harvard programs that have a harder time getting a clinical job than people at lesser name places because they dont have the necessary experience during fellowship.
 
Integrilin66 said:
Hi! - I was looking on some input on the following programs - goal is general cardiology/cath - academic career with significant (>70%) clinical work and outcomes research.

Mayo
BIDMC
Emory
UAB,
NYU,
Vandy
BU
Case western
U Washington
Click to expand...


Excellent list.. I may say.. BIDMC (harvard clinical research institute, better cath training than the Brigham, imaging is okay, EP is excellent but Josephson can be difficult) = Emory (better clinical cath experience than BIDMC)= Mayo (more research, less autonomy in cath lab, horrible location)> Vandy= UAB (both have issues)> Univ of Washington (excellent location, clinical training is lukewarm, not much clinical research,good epidemiologic research)= NYU (excellent if you can work with Judith Hochman for outcomes research)= BU> Case Western.
 
Struggling a bit with many of the same programs, at this point a lot of the details of each program are running together and I had a really had a hard time getting a sense of the programs during the interview days. I feel like so many times in this process reality is much different than what they tell you. Maybe people can give me some help. I'm interested in imaging, primarily advanced echo training. I'm interested in an academic career so the ability to tailor your training and research training are all pluses. Ideally I'd like to go somewhere strong all modalities including Echo, Nuc (PET too), MRI, and CT. The MRI and CT is not essential and a strong echo program would take precedence. As my contribution I've given my take on each program from the interview day and the relative strength of each program. I'd appreciate any help in ranking based on the above factors.

BIDMC: Came in with really high expectations and was a bit disappointed by my interview day. They interviewed 19 people on one day and the organization was very scattered. Some people missed their first interview because the PC didn't tell them that they had to find the interviewers themselves (all on the same floor though). Also thought it was interesting that they interview people from a variety of schools and backgrounds but the people that match there seem to be from tier 1 programs. They mentioned that they like to interview lots of people to "spread the word" about their program, but it seems to reflect poorly if they're not ranking these people highly. Interesting that just about every faculty member has a title for whatever little niche field they were into. Wave Maven hosted out of here. MRI seems very strong with Warren Manning's lab. CT didn't get a great feel for. Echo didn't get a great feel for. Interventions seems just ok although there is someone into vascular work. EP it seems is their crowning jewel with Mark Josephson. They said that its easy to do research at the Brigham and MGH, and they've had someone from MGH leading their research for a few years now. Longwood avenue seems like a nice area. Can anyone give me some more direction with this program? I know its overshadowed by the other two HMS programs in research funding, but what is its reputation outside of that? Would it be equivalent to Michigan/WashU/Emory when taken on its own merit? Is this program stronger than the others on this list? I get the sense that its not in the same league as BWH, MGH, UCSF, Hopkins, Duke but is that a misconception? Are things more organized than the interview day would have you believe?

Emory: A lot of great history here with Andreas Gruentzig and J Willis Hurst, this place has a place in history with intervention. They've been involved with TAVR and the PARTNERS trials for years now. Heart failure is very strong here as they are the major referral center in the region. Congenital heart disease is also very strong being a referral center for the region. Imaging is above average with good echo, pet, nuclear, MRI, and CT all available. But outside of PET the imaging seems to be more clinically oriented than research as CT/MRI are radiology owned. Research position is out of match spot. Clinical tract is pretty balanced all 3 years with call preference given to upper levels. A very big program but the fellows still seem to be a bit stretched covering all the hospital. Program is open to tailoring your experience but you have to find your own funding to do it. Atlanta decent place to live.

University of Washington Seattle: Wasn't quite sure what to think of the program. Really had high hopes. Seems like a decent amount of research money and good reputation. CT/MRI are mostly radiology owned, although there is one attending that does congential MRI. Echo of course is top notch here with Otto and Pearlman. New program director change in last year or two. Seattle decent place to live. Strong congenital program with everyone doing two months during their second year. Nuclear seems a bit weaker but some exposure is present. Other than echo and Seattle can anyone tell me what would make this program better than the others on this list? They had such a laid back attitude during the interview day.

Yale: Wasn't sure what to expect but was pleasantly surprised. Quite a bit of basic, translational, and clinical research going on here. Has plenty of funding for advanced degrees if thats what you're into. Echo and nuclear are very strong here. MRI is present but not a ton of work from cardiology side, clinical machines are radiology owned. CT I didn't get a great sense of. New Haven seems like a bit of a difficult area to live. I think historically they have been a bit behind in Cardiology but appears to be very aggressively trying to catch up. Recent merger with a community program makes this a pretty big program. Not sure if someone with more experience internally with the program could give insights?

UAB: Really nice people. They seem to be a bit in transition with many of their big names focusing on journal editing rather than direct clinical work. Quite a few IMG which was surprising. Cardiology seemed to be located in an older part of the hospital but the overall facilities seemed nice. The program director is into MRI but again all the big stuff is owned by radiology. They do TAVR here. Birhmingham was a bit bigger than I expected but still a pretty small town compared to Chicago/Atlanta. First year sounds pretty busy with all weekend and holiday coverage with things easing up quite a bit as an upper level. Intervention seems pretty robust. Peripheral vascular training is here but you get farmed out to an outside group due to internal competition with vascular surgery. EP seems like it has a huge history here but like a lot of things is in transition. Echo also historically very strong here but didn't get a great feel for it on my interview day.

Case Western: Seems like a very up and coming program. I was apprehensive at first given its next door to CCF, but they had impressive facilities and looks like a very aggressive research push. Their hospital is gorgeous and their cardiovascular institute model seems to be working for them. They were a bit too aggressive in pushing all of the advanced technologies that they do like TAVR and (especially the parachute device). Overall I felt like the training is probably solid, the exposure to a variety of patients and technologies is good, and if you're interested in basic science the presence of the great biomedical engineering department is a boon. MRI is owned by radiology but they have 1-2 cardiologists that work with it. They have 6 MRI's next to each other that seem to work for both research and clinical use with a team of PhD's constantly working in the area. Didn't get a good feel for CT. Cleveland itself seems to be improving a bit but still a bit of a rust belt city.
 
Ahh what the heck. Here are the rest of the programs I'm looking at. Can you guys help with these as well and do any of them belong higher?

Loyola-Strong clinical training. Have ok imaging. 2 year interventonal program that doesn't include structural. Has imaing fellowship.
UF Gainsville-Farms out imaging and vascular training to outside. Clinically strong. Can get projects funded by Gatoraid money.
Beaumont-Clinically strong program. Very strong in CT. Does some MRI. Historically very strong intervention and EP. Cush program.
UCincinnati-Great imaging does Nuclear very well. CT and MRI are growing. Institute model. Nice facilities.
Henry Ford-Very strong clinical training. STEMIs from Canada. Up and coming imaging department. Has imaging fellowship.
Dartmouth-Rural location. Decent training. Small department. Good echo.
Thomas Jefferson-Very clinical, maybe second to UPenn in Philly?. Heart failure program decent. Imaging didn't get the sense they did a ton.
UT Houston-Intense first year, to the point that fellows during interview were saying not worth it. Echo heavy program. CT/MRI owned by rads. Great cardio-oncology.
Oschner New Orleans-All the toys, very good ability to tailor training. Got too much of the "good ol' boy" attitude here to rank high.
 
BIDMC does have the harvard name and you will likely get a lot a research support from MGH/Brighams - Brighams has an excellent advance imaging program which would be easier to get into if you are coming from BIDMC. Cath numbers are an issue in most boston programs from what I hear.

Emory - very strong cath - 5 hospitals -widespread program - for me atlanta is one of the best cities to live in the south east - and it is equivalent to Vandy and UAB in the region. If you want cath emory is better than BIDMC,

Seattle - Echo training seemed great but no major publication from their echo lab and no other advanced imaging modality really. Clinically they make you work like residents supervising interns on CCU which a lot of fellows hated. Cath numbers are moderate at best and they apparently go to an outside (county) hospital if I remember correctly to get their numbers.

Does have a solid national reputation though.


Case - HF was a major drawback - echo seems pretty robust clinically and like you mentioned plenty of research support. Cath wise decent - can not compare to some high volume programs across the country, Probably Oschner on your list

Henry Ford - clinically strong - one major person doing imaging - the only downside is detroit, really busy call schedule. I don't remember exactly - ?q3 in first year? Also, national reputation not as high as your other programs.

UAB: Loss of faculty is a big issue - but apparently they are actively recruiting - clinical training is still superb given the pathology and acuity. Call schedule is horrible in first year - few of the fellows warned me about that. And its in house call where fellow admits patients from ED and residents sit back and basically follow the plan. Birmingham is a downside. Has the potential to bounce back to its old glory I feel. You saw a lot IMG's there because they can put up with the call schedule and most american grads don't want to go to birmingham unless there is a major family reason. Comparable to the best programs in the south east though.

Your other assessments are pretty good - don't have much to add.
 
ImagingCards2014,
Very solid list of programs there - you'll do well with any of them. From your list, I interviewed at Emory, BIDMC and Yale and those would be my top 3 to consider based on your interest in academic career and imaging. Both Emory and Yale have high clinical volume such that if you happen to change your mind and decide on interventional, you'd be fine.
Emory is solid in all the imaging modalities, although as you mentioned cardiac CT/MRI is radiology's domain like many other places. Atlanta is great.
Yale echo is strong and there are fellows there who have been able to get level 3 echo within the three years. Nuclear is also very strong with the foundation laid by Barry Zaret and Frans Wackers. Some friends who went to college at Yale felt New Haven is actually a decent place to live.
BIDMC has strong MRI as you noted and you'd have the opportunity to do research with other people within the Harvard system if you chose. I imagine it would also make it easier to get into the BWH advanced imaging fellowship (which is a good one for someone interested in academics - you could for example do 2 years at BiDMC then do the 2 year fellowship at BWH and get level 3 in echo, Nucs, CT and MRI. Boston is a nice city to live.
Gl
 
imagingcards2014 said:
Ahh what the heck. Here are the rest of the programs I'm looking at. Can you guys help with these as well and do any of them belong higher?

Loyola-Strong clinical training. Have ok imaging. 2 year interventonal program that doesn't include structural. Has imaing fellowship.
UF Gainsville-Farms out imaging and vascular training to outside. Clinically strong. Can get projects funded by Gatoraid money.
Beaumont-Clinically strong program. Very strong in CT. Does some MRI. Historically very strong intervention and EP. Cush program.
UCincinnati-Great imaging does Nuclear very well. CT and MRI are growing. Institute model. Nice facilities.
Henry Ford-Very strong clinical training. STEMIs from Canada. Up and coming imaging department. Has imaging fellowship.
Dartmouth-Rural location. Decent training. Small department. Good echo.
Thomas Jefferson-Very clinical, maybe second to UPenn in Philly?. Heart failure program decent. Imaging didn't get the sense they did a ton.
UT Houston-Intense first year, to the point that fellows during interview were saying not worth it. Echo heavy program. CT/MRI owned by rads. Great cardio-oncology.
Oschner New Orleans-All the toys, very good ability to tailor training. Got too much of the "good ol' boy" attitude here to rank high.
Click to expand...

Did you receive any " Will Rank you high" letters/emails or something like that from any of your above listed programs? because some of us did receive those letters from few above mentioned programs!
 
anuska said:
can anyone provide insights into these two programs: uni of louisville and kansas university ? any input from any perspective is greatly appreciated. thanks in advance
Click to expand...
I interviewed in both places and feel U of L is a overall better program with strong heart failure/transplant/VADS population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.