Midwest DR Program Opinions

[Radiologyreviews2015]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Haven't been many reviews posted as of late and i've looked at some of the older threads on this topic, but some are several years old and things can shake up in that time.

I will be applying to DR this year in the midwest. Mostly looking in the Chicago area but I also have some connections to Michigan, so in that IL/MI/OH/IN area is where i'm aiming. Was hoping for opinions on some programs, if anyone had any information they would like to share. Not sure if I want to go PP or academics, but i'm 50/50 on it so i'd like to go to a place where the latter career path would still be possible.

Some of the programs I was looking into that i'd especially like to learn about - UChicago, Northwestern, UIC, Rush, Michigan, Beaumont, Henry Ford, DMC, Indiana, Cincy, OSU. Would like to have an idea of where I may wish to go so I can decide where to schedule aways, etc. Any input would be appreciated - thank you!

 

[deleted564680]

Of the 4 states you listed I would probably rank the programs: Michigan > CCF = Indiana > NW > Case Western > Cincy = UChicago > Beaumont
DMC I would avoid - see AuntMinnie post about it recently.

Also U of I - Peoria is a "much better than you'd think" program and it's not far from Chicago.

Michigan is by far the most academic. Indiana and NW probably next in that category. CCF is a mix.

What sort of details do you want or what types of programs do you like? Fellow driven? Resident-driven? Academic? Small/medium/large?

 

[Radiologyreviews2015]

Of the 4 states you listed I would probably rank the programs: Michigan > CCF = Indiana > NW > Case Western > Cincy = UChicago > Beaumont
DMC I would avoid - see AuntMinnie post about it recently.

Also U of I - Peoria is a "much better than you'd think" program and it's not far from Chicago.

Michigan is by far the most academic. Indiana and NW probably next in that category. CCF is a mix.

What sort of details do you want or what types of programs do you like? Fellow driven? Resident-driven? Academic? Small/medium/large?

Thanks for the info.

Probably aiming towards something a little academic in nature, although doesn't have to be on the level of Michigan, MIR etc. I think medium-large would work best for me as well. Basically, i'd like a place where I can get good training, connections and opportunity for some research. I may end up going into PP, but if I decide to go into academia i'd want to have trained at a place where I would have the skills and network necessary to land a solid job in that area. Also considering IR or Neuro as fellowships, although again i'm not positive on that front either.

I know some people in the metro Detroit area so I may do an away at Beaumont or Henry Ford, and avoid DMC as suggested. Can you tell me anything about those two programs? I've heard IR is solid at both and both are sort of hybrid academic/community programs, so i'm hoping i'd be able to get a decent letter from someone that other programs in the midwest would recognize. Don't know much else otherwise outside of their basic layout from their websites, so any insight into their reputation/strengths/weakensses would be good.

Will look into Peoria as well. Michigan and NW will probably be my top 2 in some order, so any insight into specifics there would also be useful. I hear Michigan is great as basically everything, and NW is strong in IR.

 

[Radiologyreviews2015]

Whats the deal with DMC? I tried to find that auntminnie post but I couldn't.. could you post it here?

I have an interview there and I have been considering canceling it. I had a TY interview at the other DMC site and everything about it was horrid.

 

[Radiologyreviews2015]

Whats the deal with DMC? I tried to find that auntminnie post but I couldn't.. could you post it here?

I have an interview there and I have been considering canceling it. I had a TY interview at the other DMC site and everything about it was horrid.

http://www.auntminnie.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=469942

 

[Radiologyreviews2015]

Interesting news from DMC. Wasn't considering it greatly anyway, the facilities are rather dated and the atmosphere there seems quite archaic. Definitely going to take it off my list now.
I took a look at the current residents. HFH seems to have a lot of IMGs....didn't expect that. DMC doesn't list their residents' schools. Beaumont is all US MDs.

Any attendings (esp. @shark2000 or @Gadofosveset), I would appreciate any input you have as well!

 

[deleted564680]

Beaumont is all US MDs because of the Michigan law that states all DOs must do an AOA internship before they can practice in that state when they are finished. There is a path to exemption but instead of dealing with that, Beaumont has decided to not take DOs. They do interview tons of them every year, however, and state that if a DO did an AOA intern year they would rank them. I get that you were talking about IMG/FMG but I thought I'd mention the DO thing also.

 

[Gadofosveset]

Don't know a whole lot about these programs, unfortunately.

 

[Cheyf]

Definitely didn't see this drama about DMC

 

[rufaterd]

Why is CCF new class half DOs? Not they are unqualified, but is it just because Cleveland is less desirable location?

 

[Radiologyreviews2015]

Why is CCF new class half DOs? Not they are unqualified, but is it just because Cleveland is less desirable location?

I doubt it has anything to do with Cleveland and everything to do with 1) the reputation of the program and 2) they don't feel bad about taking a good DO student over a bad MD student. And that's who they have to rank.

 

[Radiologyreviews2015]

If you're looking for good programs "in the Chicago area", don't count out MIR.

MIR would be the strongest program of all those listed here and it's just a hop away from Chicago. Geographically speaking the distance is equivalent to southern Illinois or most of Ohio.

 

[deleted564680]

Why is CCF new class half DOs? Not they are unqualified, but is it just because Cleveland is less desirable location?

CCF states that they take the "best" of all comers. Those DOs are likely exceptional. One in the 2016 class is 260+, 265+. You're welcome to pick a place that takes a 235 MD instead though. Board scores not being the only determinant but you get the idea.

There is some truth to geography though as I heard a lot of "top" MDs on the trail stating that they'd rather go to a smaller program in NYC or LA than CCF/Mayo/UPMC. I've never understood that attitude but I heard it multiple times.

 

[rufaterd]

CCF states that they take the "best" of all comers. Those DOs are likely exceptional. One in the 2016 class is 260+, 265+. You're welcome to pick a place that takes a 235 MD instead though. Board scores not being the only determinant but you get the idea.

There is some truth to geography though as I heard a lot of "top" MDs on the trail stating that they'd rather go to a smaller program in NYC or LA than CCF/Mayo/UPMC. I've never understood that attitude but I heard it multiple times.

Yeah this makes sense. I mean I ended up keeping my case interview and not my CCF mainly because class size and my schedule. Kind of regretting it but it's hard to find information about programs only online. And case seems to place fellows well.

 

[shark2000]

There is some truth to geography though as I heard a lot of "top" MDs on the trail stating that they'd rather go to a smaller program in NYC or LA than CCF/Mayo/UPMC. I've never understood that attitude but I heard it multiple times.

Once you want to get a job, geography beats everything. A smaller program in LA works much better to get a job in LA than UPMC or Mayo. Residency is 4 years of life. Living in LA or NYC is not the same as living in Pittsburgh or Cleaveland. I don't say the latter is not good, but many people prefer the former to the latter.

And don't assume you can easily get the fellowship you want in LA if you come from UPMC or CCF. Fellowships especially IR and MSK have become very competitive and most are filled with internal candidates. Even if you find a fellowship, one year is not going to be that helpful for local job network. You have to start to look for a job at the beginning of your fellowship.

Putting everything together it is not unreasonable to put a smaller program in LA or NYC over UPMC or Mayo. If you are talking about MGH, UCSF or Hopkins that is a different story.

Go to the best program in the location that you want to settle eventually. Local connections are everything. Recently my group hired a fellow who is also moonlighting for us. He did his residency in one of the local small community programs. We chose him over applicants from Hopkins, MGH, UPenn and many other big name programs.

 

[Gadofosveset]

What Shark's saying is true, I've also seen geography play to a job seeker's advantage in a competitive market.

There is one important caveat, however… many of the small programs in NYC and northern NJ are truly terrible: residents as workhorses, miserably poor didactics, poor learning at the workstation. "Faculty" don't really care because they know they can always get a bunch of people to choose a NYC program, so there's no reason to improve (I don't know about LA as much, but I assume it's similar).

Some people knowingly choose these ratty programs because they think it will give them a local advantage… the problem is that at the next level (getting a job), the problem recurs…. NYC has far fewer good jobs available than applicants, and you've given yourself an advantage among multiple workhorse jobs -- those hiring know that this is NYC and they don't have to offer a competitive job to get applicants.

Some may be knowingly setting themselves up for this. Some may be living in denial thinking that they are guaranteed to catch a great metro job by working in a small metro program. It's true that your chances of getting a job in the area go up, from say 10%, to 25% or something (numbers obv made up), but recognize that if you've gone through some ratty program to guarantee yourself a 1 week on / 1 week off night job at a salary in the bottom 25% -- all to stay in NYC (or environs) -- you better know what you're doing. Same goes for other metro areas.

On the flip side, some programs in horse country may give you a lot better learning experience. You can use that for the rest of your (working) life. But Shark's right, geography (along with name/national reputation of program) is probably the single best factor to getting people's attention when hiring. So if you need to try to give yourself every advantage of staying in NYC or LA, then go there… but don't be in denial about your future job market. You really should go to the best program in the area you want to live… how to set up the second line of the rank list is a conundrum, though… (bad program / "good" area) or (good program / "bad" area)? Tough choices.

 

[shark2000]

What Shark's saying is true, I've also seen geography play to a job seeker's advantage in a competitive market.

There is one important caveat, however… many of the small programs in NYC and northern NJ are truly terrible: residents as workhorses, miserably poor didactics, poor learning at the workstation. "Faculty" don't really care because they know they can always get a bunch of people to choose a NYC program, so there's no reason to improve (I don't know about LA as much, but I assume it's similar).

Some people knowingly choose these ratty programs because they think it will give them a local advantage… the problem is that at the next level (getting a job), the problem recurs…. NYC has far fewer good jobs available than applicants, and you've given yourself an advantage among multiple workhorse jobs -- those hiring know that this is NYC and they don't have to offer a competitive job to get applicants.

Some may be knowingly setting themselves up for this. Some may be living in denial thinking that they are guaranteed to catch a great metro job by working in a small metro program. It's true that your chances of getting a job in the area go up, from say 10%, to 25% or something (numbers obv made up), but recognize that if you've gone through some ratty program to guarantee yourself a 1 week on / 1 week off night job at a salary in the bottom 25% -- all to stay in NYC (or environs) -- you better know what you're doing. Same goes for other metro areas.

On the flip side, some programs in horse country may give you a lot better learning experience. You can use that for the rest of your (working) life. But Shark's right, geography (along with name/national reputation of program) is probably the single best factor to getting people's attention when hiring. So if you need to try to give yourself every advantage of staying in NYC or LA, then go there… but don't be in denial about your future job market. It's a conundrum, but you really should go to the best program in the area you want to live… how to set up the second line of the rank list is tougher, however.

Totally agree.

On the other hand, look at MIR graduates. They don't do that well when it comes to find a job in west coast or northeast. And we are talking about MIR which is considered one of the best radiology programs in the nation.

People usually have a lot of bias towards the place that they were trained. A graduate of a small terrible community program in LA who is now in charge of hiring for his group is not going to consider his previous residency program terrible. Or even if he considers it terrible, he is not going to consider its graduates terrible. His justification is that this new applicant is like him a few years back. He was a well qualified student (though he was not) who chose this program over MIR because he wanted to stay in LA (though he didn't). Long story short, it is hard to sell yourself as a graduate of a non local program like MIR to private practice groups in LA which consist mostly of graduates of California programs.

If you doubt it, just take a look at private practice radiology groups in each area. Most of them, even the new ones are the graduates of local programs.

And just to clarify something. I don't recommend people to go to a terrible small program in NJ or NYC. But just know what you are doing to your life. You may have only 25% (random number) of chance of getting a reasonable job in NYC if you go to this terrible community program but your chance of getting a job in NYC if you come from even a top midwest program is lower than that, sometime close to zero.

Most jobs in big cities don't get advertised. NYC is notorious to be very isolated. The same for California.

 

[AlexMorph]

If you're looking for good programs "in the Chicago area", don't count out MIR.

MIR would be the strongest program of all those listed here and it's just a hop away from Chicago. Geographically speaking the distance is equivalent to southern Illinois or most of Ohio.

Sure...300 miles is just a hop away...

 

[AlexMorph]

Totally agree.

On the other hand, look at MIR graduates. They don't do that well when it comes to find a job in west coast or northeast. And we are talking about MIR which is considered one of the best radiology programs in the nation.

People usually have a lot of bias towards the place that they were trained. A graduate of a small terrible community program in LA who is now in charge of hiring for his group is not going to consider his previous residency program terrible. Or even if he considers it terrible, he is not going to consider its graduates terrible. His justification is that this new applicant is like him a few years back. He was a well qualified student (though he was not) who chose this program over MIR because he wanted to stay in LA (though he didn't). Long story short, it is hard to sell yourself as a graduate of a non local program like MIR to private practice groups in LA which consist mostly of graduates of California programs.

If you doubt it, just take a look at private practice radiology groups in each area. Most of them, even the new ones are the graduates of local programs.

And just to clarify something. I don't recommend people to go to a terrible small program in NJ or NYC. But just know what you are doing to your life. You may have only 25% (random number) of chance of getting a reasonable job in NYC if you go to this terrible community program but your chance of getting a job in NYC if you come from even a top midwest program is lower than that, sometime close to zero.

Most jobs in big cities don't get advertised. NYC is notorious to be very isolated. The same for California.

I see your point, but you also cannot discount the giant network a strong program provides you nationally. Traditionally strong residencies that pump out double digit residents every year have built up a vast alumni network over the years that is spread out throughout the nation and will go to bat for you when time comes. Just another point to consider.

 

[shark2000]

I see your point, but you also cannot discount the giant network a strong program provides you nationally. Traditionally strong residencies that pump out double digit residents every year have built up a vast alumni network over the years that is spread out throughout the nation and will go to bat for you when time comes. Just another point to consider.

Disagree. Your statement is correct on average, but not locally.

Let me give you an example. The network of a small community hospital in LA is much stronger than the network of MGH or MIR. Now, if you go to Dallas, the small community program in LA has zero network but MGH or MIR have a network though easily dwarfed by UTSW network.

As a private practice radiologist who knows many radiologists in my area, the number of MGH or MIR graduates that I have seen in my area are much less than the number of Harbor-UCLA graduates. I don't say choose Harbor-UCLA over MGH but once you finish training at MGH don't expect to be chosen over the graduate of Harbor-UCLA esp for private practice. From a class of 10-15 at MGH, probably one will end up in LA each year at most, but from a class of 5-6 at Harbor-UCLA probably 4 will end up in LA. Which one has a stronger network locally?

Rule of thumb:
For academic career, go to a big name program.
For private practice go to the best local program (unless you have a chance at some giant name like UCSF, MGH or Hopkins.)

 

[Radiologyreviews2015]

Disagree. Your statement is correct on average, but not locally.

Let me give you an example. The network of a small community hospital in LA is much stronger than the network of MGH or MIR. Now, if you go to Dallas, the small community program in LA has zero network but MGH or MIR have a network though easily dwarfed by UTSW network.

As a private practice radiologist who knows many radiologists in my area, the number of MGH or MIR graduates that I have seen in my area are much less than the number of Harbor-UCLA graduates. I don't say choose Harbor-UCLA over MGH but once you finish training at MGH don't expect to be chosen over the graduate of Harbor-UCLA esp for private practice. From a class of 10-15 at MGH, probably one will end up in LA each year at most, but from a class of 5-6 at Harbor-UCLA probably 4 will end up in LA. Which one has a stronger network locally?

Rule of thumb:
For academic career, go to a big name program.
For private practice go to the best local program (unless you have a chance at some giant name like UCSF, MGH or Hopkins.)

Thanks for the informative post - always appreciate your insight. Do you have any opinions on the programs mentioned in the OP, especially UChicago/Northwestern/Beaumont/Henry Ford?

 

[Radiologyreviews2015]

If you're looking for good programs "in the Chicago area", don't count out MIR.

MIR would be the strongest program of all those listed here and it's just a hop away from Chicago. Geographically speaking the distance is equivalent to southern Illinois or most of Ohio.

Not counting out MIR, but it is one of those uber competitive programs where even getting an interview is not guaranteed with great stats. Trying to focus on the next tier because there's less talk about them.

 

[qwerty89]

@shark2000 Isn't Harbor-UCLA equivalent to the bad NYC programs mentioned earlier that one should avoid?

I am curious if, for example, you think Harbor-UCLA has a better network in the bay area than a MIR?

 

[shark2000]

@shark2000 Isn't Harbor-UCLA equivalent to the bad NYC programs mentioned earlier that one should avoid?

I am curious if, for example, you think Harbor-UCLA has a better network in the bay area than a MIR?

Bay area is different than LA. Don't mixed things up. A small community program's network is limited to its own city and usually nothing beyond it.

I can not decide what you should do and what you shouldn't do. I can comment on the quality of teaching, quality of programs and other things, but what makes you happy totally depends on you. There are people who go for location, do their residency in a small local community program and end up getting a job in the same area and are very happy with their decision. There are people who only get happy if they have an MGH or Hopkins or UCSF in the resume.

Each group has their own very good reasons. Life is beyond residency or a job. Regarding community programs, the education is not going to be as good as a big academic center with good referrals. It is not only about faculty. It is about case mix, referrals, sub-specialization and ... Being trained by Gurus in the field in a place with a variety of cases is very different than reading 100 normal head CTs or simple pathologies every day.

I have seen how much some community program graduates brag about their volume. Volume per se is not important. In fact, in a big academic center you can not get even close to the volume of smaller pseudo-academic places because of the complexity of cases. Also I have seen some people argue that private practice pathology is bread and butter radiology so what is the point of being trained for complex cases. This is a wrong statement. Believe me. The same complex case that you think only belongs to academics, can show up in your list at 2 am even in a small community practice. And by giving a high quality report, you will shine in front of referring doctors, other radiologists and people in your practice. Otherwise, every ED doctor can look at a large subdural hematoma and call neurosurgery. Don't forget that you are a radiologist and you should be better than most referring physicians. Building a reputation is the key esp in the first few years of your practice. Once the referring physicians trust you, you will have job satisfaction and a lot of job stability. If for some reason the group shrinks which is very common these days, after major share holders the most diverse and the most dependable radiologists are the ones who will stay.

I can go on and on. There is no definite answer to your question. Choosing between an excellent academic center far away from your home versus a local community program is and has been always a challenge. It is a very personal decision. You have to know what you are doing to your life by making either decision. This is my summary:
Local community program: The education may be terrible. But is better for local job network. And local means very local. Your chance of getting a job in a different location will be much lower. Residency is 4 years and may be very important to you to stay at home.

Big university program far from home: The education will be very good to excellent most of the time with a few exceptions. You may struggle a lot to get a job back at home at least right after fellowship unless you have a Hopkins or MGH name on your CV and even in that case your chance will be still less than local community program graduates.

The best balance is to be able to get a spot at a local big university program. If you are from Seattle, UW is the best balance of everything. If from Chicago, NW or University of Chicago or other good programs in Chicago.

If you are from a smaller town and you want to go back home after you are done, usually the market is much better in smaller towns and it will be much easier.