Hello, has anyone heard horror stories or hugely negative things from friends or anyone really in regards to some of the more well regarded IM programs? Have heard things about not having significant autonomy or most of those programs training adept researchers more than clinicians but would love to hear anything else that anyone has heard!
Malignant residency programs?
- Thread starter Heat45
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2021
- Messages
- 177
- Reaction score
- 453
Which programs are you talking about? Without naming names, this thread is not going to have much value!
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2016
- Messages
- 618
- Reaction score
- 1,516
Naming and shaming is just about the only leverage that students and residents have on their institutions. The whole culture of "don't trash talk your program online, it's unprofessional" is the med school equivalent of "don't discuss your salary with co-workers, it's rude." They will push you to the brink if nothing keeps them accountable. Basically nothing keeps them accountable except their ability to pull in accomplished classes, and that's driven by reputation. If they deserve it, go ahead and tarnish it.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2021
- Messages
- 177
- Reaction score
- 453
Exactly! Or, don't start the thread. But, starting a thread, giving examples, and then not naming names just seems kind of pointless.
You'll find more information on the name and shame threads on Reddit. Generally speaking for IM (and probably most specialties other than rads), NYC programs are tough for the wrong reasons. HCA programs are also to be avoided if possible.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 842
- Reaction score
- 598
There are some websites specifically designed for this where current and former residents can review their programs anonymously.
Doximity residency navigator (Doximity Residency Navigator)
Residency Program Reviews | Scutwork
Careful though since some of the info can be out of date, and residency programs are subject to change dramatically depending on a variety of factors such as changes in program leadership. But if you want to do your research these are places to start.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2010
- Messages
- 3,092
- Reaction score
- 10,006
I would add that there’s a stark difference between a classically malignant program and simply one that provides less autonomy or has a more research focused outlook.
I think residents can give excellent insight on malignant qualities in their program, poor QOL, rules violations, and hours. They are probably less able to give meaningful insight into the actual quality of their training.
This may seem counterintuitive, but it’s hard to get a sense of what you’re learning in training until you get far enough along. A program that looks like mostly scut and micromanagement to an intern may look like a great autonomous experience to the senior who is supervising them. Or it could mean the training sucks. Either way, it takes a lot of digging to really get a sense of a program.
In my case, I think of the other 2 programs that were vying with my top pick when making my rank list. What I thought were big names and great training seemed to turn out some lackluster surgeons from what I saw in fellows who had graduated from those programs and what I heard from transferring faculty. If it’s that hard for me to figure out even after years in a program with lots of connections at other places, I can’t imagine how much harder it is for medical students to try and figure out.
It’s still worth trying though. Just make sure to get many opinions and bounce them off some faculty members you trust.
I think residents can give excellent insight on malignant qualities in their program, poor QOL, rules violations, and hours. They are probably less able to give meaningful insight into the actual quality of their training.
This may seem counterintuitive, but it’s hard to get a sense of what you’re learning in training until you get far enough along. A program that looks like mostly scut and micromanagement to an intern may look like a great autonomous experience to the senior who is supervising them. Or it could mean the training sucks. Either way, it takes a lot of digging to really get a sense of a program.
In my case, I think of the other 2 programs that were vying with my top pick when making my rank list. What I thought were big names and great training seemed to turn out some lackluster surgeons from what I saw in fellows who had graduated from those programs and what I heard from transferring faculty. If it’s that hard for me to figure out even after years in a program with lots of connections at other places, I can’t imagine how much harder it is for medical students to try and figure out.
It’s still worth trying though. Just make sure to get many opinions and bounce them off some faculty members you trust.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2010
- Messages
- 4,955
- Reaction score
- 5,991
In regards to the above posts,
1.) The Reddit anonymous spreadsheets and name/shames probably have the most information on there if you’re truly looking for dirt and not just generic promotional material about the programs. I will say that you have to take everything said with a grain of salt as it’s mostly stressed out applicants trying to find a release for their anxiety.
2.) Doximity is meh. Program leadership encourages residents to post post-residency evaluations s/p match day for matched residents who’ve got what they’ve wanted. Also agree that residency cultures change rapidly based on who’s in leadership and what was said about program on SDN or Doximity 10 years ago may be different now.
3. I completely agree with Operaman. I think most interns like to speak up about the quality of their training and those are some of the voices on those Reddit sheets but they don’t really know the full context yet and more importantly they haven’t been in the shoes of someone else at another institution so they can’t truly compare how their program is compared to another. In my experience I feel people hype up their programs if they’re happy and trash them if they’re not but there seems to be a pretty generic experience in IM across the board despite there being a lot of programs with a lot of different reputations.
1.) The Reddit anonymous spreadsheets and name/shames probably have the most information on there if you’re truly looking for dirt and not just generic promotional material about the programs. I will say that you have to take everything said with a grain of salt as it’s mostly stressed out applicants trying to find a release for their anxiety.
2.) Doximity is meh. Program leadership encourages residents to post post-residency evaluations s/p match day for matched residents who’ve got what they’ve wanted. Also agree that residency cultures change rapidly based on who’s in leadership and what was said about program on SDN or Doximity 10 years ago may be different now.
3. I completely agree with Operaman. I think most interns like to speak up about the quality of their training and those are some of the voices on those Reddit sheets but they don’t really know the full context yet and more importantly they haven’t been in the shoes of someone else at another institution so they can’t truly compare how their program is compared to another. In my experience I feel people hype up their programs if they’re happy and trash them if they’re not but there seems to be a pretty generic experience in IM across the board despite there being a lot of programs with a lot of different reputations.
Rule of thumb: if it's in a desirable location and/or has a prestigious name, it is slightly more likely than not that the program is malignant, and there's a nontrivial chance the program is highly malignant. Just have to ask the residents for their honest opinions if possible, and peruse the previous reddit pages
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2021
- Messages
- 4,533
- Reaction score
- 4,243
any in New York. Having unionized nurses is really a drag
I trained in Manhattan. Program was definitely not malignant and the PDs went out of their way to ensure this was the case. Was training hard? Sure, unionized nursing is definitely a thing and the caseloads were high - but we also saw insane pathology and overall got excellent training. Set us up well for fellowships across all the competitive IM specialties.
This is highly variable depending on specialty as well.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2018
- Messages
- 3,499
- Reaction score
- 8,776
Depends on the definition of malignant. I trained in the East, so I have an idea, although my program I didn't consider such. Some of my co residents might think so. My PD was very strict and not warm and fuzzy. He was very supportive if you stayed in bounds with regard to his expectations. He clearly felt it was better to be feared than loved. BTW, I can attest, fear is a pretty good motivator.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 842
- Reaction score
- 598
Largely specialty-dependent. Tends to affect specialties that are inpatient heavy and have more direct contact with nursing staff like IM and Surgery. Largely a non-issue specialties like pathology or radiology. Some program leadership have tried to cut down on the amount of resident scutwork though it can be difficult since it would require large changes to the hospital system. But avoid all the community programs in NYC at all costs since those are the worst and unsurprisingly are nearly 100% IMGs/FMGs.
Similar threads
