I only applied to 10. It seems like programs keep saying a record number of applicants.
My PD mentioned it dosen't hurt to do so.
Yes
Yeah…there are a few that haven’t made this list and I haven’t heard from yet: UCSF, UCSD, Columbia, Mayo, Northwestern, Children’s National, Yale, Michigan…
I would like to know it too.
I also applied to Children’s National and Northwestern and haven’t heard anything along with a few other people I know.
I am interested in what other people have views on this topic as I had a similar query. In my limited knowledge, I think USNews ranking does not give a great sense of the program itself. I think your priority (clinical acuity/research niche/family ties) of whatever you are looking for in a program is first. If you have comparable programs in terms of that then I guess US ranking is helpful to rank them. I also feel however that some programs were really good and they were not ranked as their patient population and full program experience was divided among two different hospitals. Which might not be individually ranked as a solid hospital but great as a whole package (?). US rankings are based on patient survival and patient experience (correct me if m wrong). So it is a plus for a program but would not be solely used by me to rank for fellowship. For eg: if a highly USnews ranked program is mostly doing basic science research. I would not rank them high on my list because that's not what I want to do in my career.
Almost any fellowship ultimately has lots of graduates who do not do research based academics. There are a few that may push the research career harder but even those realize that it isn't for everyone. If you interview someone and they are pushing lab based research that doesn't interest you, well, then that place isn't for you.
I'll let others provide any names if they wish, but I will say honestly that I'm pretty familiar with many of the top programs and complaints of toxicity are rare. The programs are competing for top applicants and toxicity really isn't a characteristic (IMHO) of modern neo fellowships. To be sure, some programs push the hour maximums more than others and in particular some may push lab research more than others, but I think that stuff is pretty clear on the interview trail. This wasn't the case 20 years ago when there were some over-the-top places (not many) but I just don't see that these days. However, I'm willing to be corrected and if you give a reason, anyone is welcome to name names....
Did that spreadsheet ever get started?
Nope...
Sorry to hear that. I haven't heard what proportion of spots filled this year but usually there are some openings after the match. If you'd like more general advice about reapplying, let us know some details, if you'd prefer, you can PM me.
Thanks, I tried to get an open spot but didn't work out. I've had a few days to decompress and come to terms with the match, but I do have some general questions if you have some time to answer. I thought I'd leave it in the forum incase it helps others in my situation.
