Official 2009/2010 rank list help thread

[medschoolrules]

---

Members don't see this ad.

My dillemmas:

I'm interested in ID and general medicine for international medicine reasons, as well as possibly heme/onc. Regardless, i think i want to stay in academics in one way or the other. Here's what my list looks like.

I know my top 2 (Emory and Duke) but am unsure which should be first. Is the reputation of Duke so much better that I would be making a mistake by listing emory #1?

#3-10 on my list, in no particular order:
Northwestern
Pitt
Michigan
Wash U St Louis
Yale
Cornell
Mt Sinai
Brown

Any thoughts on how I should rank those? Geography doesnt matter that much except that i am looking for a diverse patient population.

Another difference between Duke and Emory is that Duke has many subspecialty inpatient services, whereas Emory is almost all general medicine floors and your subspecialty exposure is mainly through spending time on various consult services. Given my interests, do you think one method is better than the other? Also, did you guys get the sense that you have more autonomy and are more "hands-on" at emory?

 

[jdh71]

JDH71, my stats are dead accurate (no pun intended). They are also the most recent -- from 2009 NRMP statistics.

My source is http://www.nrmp.org/data/chartingoutcomes2009v3.pdf.

For ALL US seniors that matched, average ranked programs was 8.7, while for all US seniors that did not match, average ranked programs was 4.3. There are what the official stats show; please reveal your source to substantiate your claim that these aren't the true IM stats.

Again, let me just reiterate to others that IM applicants should not be mislead by uncredited information or a false sense of security that ranking 5 programs for an AMG is safe. Nobody knows how anyone will match, and your stats can't predict that either.

It's a myth to believe that most AMGs match within the top 3 of their choices in IM. Frankly speaking, there is no reliable source to back that claim. Secondly, how far down the list an applicant goes largely depends on many factors, including what med school they attended and the tier of medicine programs they interviewed at. Again, too many factors. But in all of the residents I know, most matched within the top 5 on a rank list in IM. But that's only based from my experience alone.

The reliable source back my claim is none other than the NRMP statistics themselves.

Across the board for all specialties represented a little better than 81% of US Allopathic seniors match into one of their top three choices.

Internal medicine is much less competitive than most other specialties, with the percentage of US allopathic seniors who did not match representing one of the lowest groups by the percentage of those applying ibid

And if you look on page 99 of the PDF you linked, it says the probability of matching into an IM program, ranking only three spots to be over 90% (closer to 92% if you look at the curve). (And I'm sure these stats take into account all of the outlying rejects who have to apply to medicine because they have no where else to go and are too proud to apply to FP, likely obtaining many less interviews than their better qualified contemporaries . . .)

So, if you want to make the argument that in order to absolutely, positively, guarantee a match by the statistics an allopathic US senior should go on 9 interviews and rank 9 programs, point ceded and you also get the prize for intercepting the most amount of low hanging fruit.

You make the mistake of assuming I don't know these numbers but these are all stats I know quite well. Furthermore, I take a certain amount of umbrage in your accusation of "IM applicants should not be mislead by uncredited information or a false sense of security" . . . and I assume you are talking to me, because I don't see anyone else quoted. So, let me continue this instructional lesson with a discussion about the word "most" . . .

–adjective, superl. of much or many with more as compar.
1. in the greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number: to win the most votes.
2. in the majority of instances: Most operations are successful.
3. greatest, as in size or extent: the most talent.​

So, if, as you claim, "most" is not 81% of US allopathic seniors matching into their top three choices, across the board, and this does not mean that "most" US allopathic seniors applying to IM, which is a less competitive specialty, are not matching into their top three choices . . . well!!! . . .pray tell the entire group what exactly it means? Because I think the whole group would like you to drop your wisdom on us, since this is a "myth" as you stated in your reply to me.

You can apologize for being a clown anytime now.

 

[Frugal Traveler]

The reliable source back my claim is none other than the NRMP statistics themselves.

Across the board for all specialties represented a little better than 81% of US Allopathic seniors match into one of their top three choices.

Internal medicine is much less competitive than most other specialties, with the percentage of US allopathic seniors who did not match representing one of the lowest groups by the percentage of those applying ibid

And if you look on page 99 of the PDF you linked, it says the probability of matching into an IM program, ranking only three spots to be over 90% (closer to 92% if you look at the curve). (And I'm sure these stats take into account all of the outlying rejects who have to apply to medicine because they have no where else to go and are too proud to apply to FP, likely obtaining many less interviews than their better qualified contemporaries . . .)

So, if you want to make the argument that in order to absolutely, positively, guarantee a match by the statistics an allopathic US senior should go on 9 interviews and rank 9 programs, point ceded and you also get the prize for intercepting the most amount of low hanging fruit.

You make the mistake of assuming I don't know these numbers but these are all stats I know quite well. Furthermore, I take a certain amount of umbrage in your accusation of "IM applicants should not be mislead by uncredited information or a false sense of security" . . . and I assume you are talking to me, because I don't see anyone else quoted. So, let me continue this instructional lesson with a discussion about the word "most" . . .

–adjective, superl. of much or many with more as compar.
1. in the greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number: to win the most votes.
2. in the majority of instances: Most operations are successful.
3. greatest, as in size or extent: the most talent.​

So, if, as you claim, "most" is not 81% of US allopathic seniors matching into their top three choices, across the board, and this does not mean that "most" US allopathic seniors applying to IM, which is a less competitive specialty, are not matching into their top three choices . . . well!!! . . .pray tell the entire group what exactly it means? Because I think the whole group would like you to drop your wisdom on us, since this is a "myth" as you stated in your reply to me.

You can apologize for being a clown anytime now.

A+ for usage of umbrage in your above post.

Bottom line is who cares about the stats. If you don't match because you didn't rank 7-10 programs as everyone's adviser probably stated, then it is going to be unpleasant as an anesthesiologist at Yale when you scramble. The more programs you rank, the better certainty that you will match.

The other thing is the match is a crapshoot. If I got my first choice, I would be very happy. Do I expect to get my first choice, no. I'm ranking every program carefully because we have heard across the board this year that more competitive students are applying to medicine (my alternative theory is we have many closet dermatologists on the trail who have read enough tragedy to know that the world only has so many comedones and that in this change you can believe in era, people knew medicine would be a safe and patriotic bet).

Stats are great, but listen to your adviser. No need to argue about this further. It's called a match process for a reason! Rank wisely.

 

[Phineus]

A+ for usage of umbrage in your above post.

Bottom line is who cares about the stats. If you don't match because you didn't rank 7-10 programs as everyone's adviser probably stated, then it is going to be unpleasant as an anesthesiologist at Yale when you scramble. The more programs you rank, the better certainty that you will match.

The other thing is the match is a crapshoot. If I got my first choice, I would be very happy. Do I expect to get my first choice, no. I'm ranking every program carefully because we have heard across the board this year that more competitive students are applying to medicine (my alternative theory is we have many closet dermatologists on the trail who have read enough tragedy to know that the world only has so many comedones and that in this change you can believe in era, people knew medicine would be a safe and patriotic bet).

Stats are great, but listen to your adviser. No need to argue about this further. It's called a match process for a reason! Rank wisely.

Really?!!! C'mon Frugal, you most definitely get an A++ for humility!

 

[dsprague12]

I'm ranking every program carefully because we have heard across the board this year that more competitive students are applying to medicine (my alternative theory is we have many closet dermatologists on the trail who have read enough tragedy to know that the world only has so many comedones and that in this change you can believe in era, people knew medicine would be a safe and patriotic bet).

Shouldn't the squeeze from the more competitive cycle be felt in the process of being selected for interviews rather than in the match itself? Programs may have gotten more apps this year - maybe from even more competitive applicants than usual - but I suspect they all interviewed just as many as they typically do (same gross number, but perhaps a smaller overall percentage in relation to total apps they received). They should thus go roughly as far down their respective rank lists to fill their slots as they have in previous years. Or, is my logic flawed?

 

[CaptainDave]

Shouldn't the squeeze from the more competitive cycle be felt in the process of being selected for interviews rather than in the match itself? Programs may have gotten more apps this year - maybe from even more competitive applicants than usual - but I suspect they all interviewed just as many as they typically do (same gross number, but perhaps a smaller overall percentage in relation to total apps they received). They should thus go roughly as far down their respective rank lists to fill their slots as they have in previous years. Or, is my logic flawed?

Someone at Wake Forest told me they interviewed 100 more applicants this year than in years past, and I heard people at a couple other programs mention they interviewed more than normal this year. Just FYI.

 

[Phineus]

Shouldn't the squeeze from the more competitive cycle be felt in the process of being selected for interviews rather than in the match itself? Programs may have gotten more apps this year - maybe from even more competitive applicants than usual - but I suspect they all interviewed just as many as they typically do (same gross number, but perhaps a smaller overall percentage in relation to total apps they received). They should thus go roughly as far down their respective rank lists to fill their slots as they have in previous years. Or, is my logic flawed?

I think this might in fact be the case. Is it not also possible that applicants this year are applying to more programs, hence an overall increase in number of apps each program receives e.g. applicant in 2008/9 applying to 15 programs vs. applicant 2009/10 applying to 25? I guess these questions will be answered in May 2010 with the release of the NRMP stats.

 

[dsprague12]

Someone at Wake Forest told me they interviewed 100 more applicants this year than in years past, and I heard people at a couple other programs mention they interviewed more than normal this year. Just FYI.

If that's what you were told, I imagine its probably true, but I don't particularly see the logic behind it. Dusting off my economics skills from back in the day, supply and demand would suggest that its a seller's market if this is really a tougher cycle than years past... No reason to interview more people if these spots are really in high demand.

 

[aspiringdoctor]

i'm currently interested in hospital medicine, unsure if I will pursue fellowship later on. really appreciate any advice/thoughts. thanks

 

[zedx]

Trying to figure out how the rank the following (interested in Heme/onc down the road):

-Uchicago
-Northwestern
-Boston U
-Brown U
-UAB
-Mayo
-OSU

*I specially interested in what ppl have to say about the two chicago programs, I've heard quite a bit about the internal conflicts at UofC but I've recently heard that NW might be losing their PD.

 

[jdh71]

i'm currently interested in hospital medicine, unsure if I will pursue fellowship later on. really appreciate any advice/thoughts. thanks

Heh.

UCSD
Colorado
UDub Boise

 

[jdh71]

Trying to figure out how the rank the following (interested in Heme/onc down the road):

-Uchicago
-Northwestern
-Boston U
-Brown U
-UAB
-Mayo
-OSU

*I specially interested in what ppl have to say about the two chicago programs, I've heard quite a bit about the internal conflicts at UofC but I've recently heard that NW might be losing their PD.

Hmmmm . . . I'm thinking . . .

UChicago=Mayo
UAB
NWern
Brown = Boston
OSU

I might change my mind though. Tough list.

 

[chitown82]

Trying to figure out how the rank the following (interested in Heme/onc down the road):

-Uchicago
-Northwestern
-Boston U
-Brown U
-UAB
-Mayo
-OSU

*I specially interested in what ppl have to say about the two chicago programs, I've heard quite a bit about the internal conflicts at UofC but I've recently heard that NW might be losing their PD.

According to a recent e-mail sent to applicants, UChicago's fiscal year has been one of the strongest in years and that construction for the new $750M hospital is ahead of schedule. I think each NU and Chicago both claim to have a "better" program. I don't think you can go wrong with either. I was more impressed by Chicago's fellowship match (seemed to be on par with some of the "heavy hitter" east coast programs) and it seems like it has a stronger reputation on the coasts. NU's facilities trump Chicago's, NU residents seemed very happy (not to mention rested), and NU has a solid EMR (Chicago isn't quite there yet). Regarding Heme/Onc, both are NCI-designated cancer centers.

 

[Scaredshizzles]

Hmmmm . . . I'm thinking . . .

UChicago=Mayo
UAB
NWern
Brown = Boston
OSU

I might change my mind though. Tough list.

The weird thing about Boston University is that they have a match list that looks as good as a lot of supposed top 10 programs, certainly their out of house matches look very strong. Brown's match list is no where near as strong: Brown is not sending people to MGH for cards or to MSK/MD Anderson for heme-onc or Duke for GI; BU is. I don't know if it has to do with being able to work with Brigham faculty at the Boston VA or what, but they have done outstanding.

 

[ResidentMD]

The weird thing about Boston University is that they have a match list that looks as good as a lot of supposed top 10 programs, certainly their out of house matches look very strong. Brown's match list is no where near as strong: Brown is not sending people to MGH for cards or to MSK/MD Anderson for heme-onc or Duke for GI; BU is. I don't know if it has to do with being able to work with Brigham faculty at the Boston VA or what, but they have done outstanding.

I agree with this - the BU residents explain it as their clinical training has developed a national reputation.

 

[Scaredshizzles]

I agree with this - the BU residents explain it as their clinical training has developed a national reputation.

Boston City Hospital certainly made a name for itself during the AIDS crisis, as did SFGH to some extent. But I have to think there must be a component of the LORs coming from well known people at BU. I didn't know BU had that many well known people, but I'm guessing they must. Maybe people who moved in from the various other Boston hospitals.

 

[dsprague12]

I think this might in fact be the case. Is it not also possible that applicants this year are applying to more programs, hence an overall increase in number of apps each program receives e.g. applicant in 2008/9 applying to 15 programs vs. applicant 2009/10 applying to 25? I guess these questions will be answered in May 2010 with the release of the NRMP stats.

For those interested, I followed up on this "more competitive cycle" issue today when I met with my program's IM advisor. She said that the vast majority of the increase in IM applications has come from people applying to more programs (based on info from ERAS themselves), not necessarily from more people applying to IM in general. She agreed that this would account for a squeeze on applicants in the interview selection process. But, the impact on the match shouldn't be significant in her opinion, and it was even speculated that programs might go slightly further down their ROLs to fill their slots due to the redundancy of people applying to more programs. This, like everything else here on SDN, is to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

 

[RonBurgandy]

I hope you're advisor is correct. That would be a fantastic for all of us with interviews at places we like. Still, I'm not sure if that's true. My school's PD is a national leader in IM training, and he is asking us all to meet with him to review our lists due to increased competition. Has anyone else heard anything similar to what DrSprague is saying?

 

[Scaredshizzles]

i'm currently interested in hospital medicine, unsure if I will pursue fellowship later on. really appreciate any advice/thoughts. thanks

Can't comment on the Boise track, but I think UColorado is arguably a better program than UCSD, although SD is arguably one of the best cities to live in.

 

[normansatx]

Can't comment on the Boise track, but I think UColorado is arguably a better program than UCSD, although SD is arguably one of the best cities to live in.

Hey I am a UW resident in the seattle track, but can answer some questions about Boise.
For those that don't know, the Boise track is a track where you spend your entire second year at the Boise ID VA. You do the same first year as all the UW residents, and a very similar third year. I can not comment about fellowship match, etc... but one of the Boise residents is doing a chief year with me so the seattle faculty still think of them highly.
The Boise track isn't for everyone, but is still very good. The main complaints I have heard is harder to get research second year and electives are not as good or well connected as they are all in Boise. You can take a month in Seattle, but for the most part everything is done in Boise. Also, its kind of tough for some to uproot and move to Boise then move back third year. Otherwise, I think its great.
UCSD and Colorado are also tremendous programs that will get you where you need to go, not an easy choice. PM me with any more questions.

 

[booya123]

Hi everyone. I'm interested in cardiology. I do want to stay in NYC if possible, but recognize that given my interest in Cards, I will have to strongly consider programs outside NYC. Additionally, I'm hoping for excellent, hands-on clinical training with a group of happy/social residents (as is everyone I'm sure). Here are my schools in no particular order.

Columbia
Mt. Sinai
Cornell
NYU
MGH
BIDMC
UPenn
Northwestern
UChicago
UCLA

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

[Mental Gymnast]

Hi everyone. I'm interested in cardiology. I do want to stay in NYC if possible, but recognize that given my interest in Cards, I will have to strongly consider programs outside NYC. Additionally, I'm hoping for excellent, hands-on clinical training with a group of happy/social residents (as is everyone I'm sure). Here are my schools in no particular order.

Columbia
Mt. Sinai
Cornell
NYU
MGH
BIDMC
UPenn
Northwestern
UChicago
UCLA

Thanks in advance for your help.

1/2. I would personally put MGH number 1, but if you REALLY want to stay in NYC then Columbia will surely get you where you want to be (largest heart transplant center in the world?)
3. Penn
4. Cornell/Sinai (since you want to stay in the city)
5. UCLA
6. The rest

Very solid list. Congrats! 👍

 

[futureres]

Hi everyone. I'm interested in cardiology. I do want to stay in NYC if possible, but recognize that given my interest in Cards, I will have to strongly consider programs outside NYC. Additionally, I'm hoping for excellent, hands-on clinical training with a group of happy/social residents (as is everyone I'm sure). Here are my schools in no particular order.

Columbia
Mt. Sinai
Cornell
NYU
MGH
BIDMC
UPenn
Northwestern
UChicago
UCLA

Thanks in advance for your help.

OK, I'll play.
1. MGH
2. UPenn
3. Columbia (esp if you want to do Cards in NYC)
4. UCLA (partial to the West Coast)
5. Cornell
6. UChicago

Rank the rest how you like...

 

[Scaredshizzles]

OK, I'll play.
1. MGH
2. UPenn
3. Columbia (esp if you want to do Cards in NYC)
4. UCLA (partial to the West Coast)
5. Cornell
6. UChicago

Rank the rest how you like...

I would rank it..
1. MGH
2. Columbia
3. UPenn
4. Cornell
5. Mt. Sinai
6. UChicago=BIDMC
7. UCLA

Given your stated preference for NYC, I have moved Cornell and Mt. Sinai ahead of UChicago and BID.

I think Columbia is at least as good as UPenn, and given your nYC preference, placing them second is a good choice. I was a little skeptical about Columbia with reputations of it being a tough program, but having spoken to some of the interns there, it seems like they are managing quite well. And obviously they match very well.

 

[EaglesPA]

Hi everyone. I'm interested in cardiology. I do want to stay in NYC if possible, but recognize that given my interest in Cards, I will have to strongly consider programs outside NYC. Additionally, I'm hoping for excellent, hands-on clinical training with a group of happy/social residents (as is everyone I'm sure). Here are my schools in no particular order.

Columbia
Mt. Sinai
Cornell
NYU
MGH
BIDMC
UPenn
Northwestern
UChicago
UCLA

Thanks in advance for your help.

Taking into consideration your desire to stay in NYC,
1. Columbia
2. & 3. Mt Sinai & Cornell
4. MGH
5. Penn
6. NYU
7. BIDMC
8. UCLA
9. Northwestern
10. UChicago

 

[futureres]

I would rank it..
1. MGH
2. Columbia
3. UPenn
4. Cornell
5. Mt. Sinai
6. UChicago=BIDMC
7. UCLA

Given your stated preference for NYC, I have moved Cornell and Mt. Sinai ahead of UChicago and BID.

I think Columbia is at least as good as UPenn, and given your nYC preference, placing them second is a good choice. I was a little skeptical about Columbia with reputations of it being a tough program, but having spoken to some of the interns there, it seems like they are managing quite well. And obviously they match very well.

Agreed, actually. I allowed my NYC aversion to affect my ranking...lol. But the post is not about me. 🙂

 

[comet266]

Hi all, I'm interested in Nephrology...

Here are my programs in no particular order:

BIDMC
BU
Tufts
Brown
Yale
Cornell
Mount Sinai
NYU
Jefferson
Colorado

Thanks!

 

[Scaredshizzles]

Hi all, I'm interested in Nephrology...

Here are my programs in no particular order:

BIDMC
BU
Tufts
Brown
Yale
Cornell
Mount Sinai
NYU
Jefferson
Colorado

Thanks!

You'll do great with the Boston and New York programs for nephro. The underserved populations are the hot beds for end stage renal disease. Obviously don't place Tufts ahead of Yale, but Cornell, BIDMC, NYU, BU, Mt. Sinai, and Yale should be your top choices in some order. I would put Colorado next, then Jeff, then Brown/Tufts to round it out.

 

[ResidentMD]

You'll do great with the Boston and New York programs for nephro. The underserved populations are the hot beds for end stage renal disease. Obviously don't place Tufts ahead of Yale, but Cornell, BIDMC, NYU, BU, Mt. Sinai, and Yale should be your top choices in some order. I would put Colorado next, then Jeff, then Brown/Tufts to round it out.

A lot also depends on your research interests, and if you are oriented towards that. BIDMC has some very famous people in Nephro research, and the chair of BWH carries the biggest name in Nephrology currently. MGH has some leaders in renal transplant. Yale too has some good biomarkers in AKI research. But if you are into an academic career esp for Nephro, the transition for fellowship would be extremely smooth in Boston, and if interested, you can get a jumpstart on it as well.

 

[mbadoc]

Hi all, I'm interested in Nephrology...

Here are my programs in no particular order:

BIDMC
BU
Tufts
Brown
Yale
Cornell
Mount Sinai
NYU
Jefferson
Colorado

Thanks!

I would do:

CORNELL
BIDMC
YALE
MT. SINAI
NYU
BU
TUFTS
JEFFERSON
BROWN
COLORADO

 

[dsprague12]

I would do:

CORNELL
BIDMC
YALE
MT. SINAI
NYU
BU
TUFTS
JEFFERSON
BROWN
COLORADO

If these lists are being generated primarily off IM reputation alone (as this particular list probably should be given no caveats by the OP re: location, program size, hospital system, etc.), then Colorado should be nowhere near the bottom of the list. Again, based on rep alone, its clearly ahead of Tufts, Jeff, & Brown, and most would probably agree ahead of NYU & BU (which are strong programs but get a significant boost in desirability among applicants due to NYC and Boston).

 

[ResidentMD]

If these lists are being generated primarily off IM reputation alone (as this particular list probably should be given no caveats by the OP re: location, program size, hospital system, etc.), then Colorado should be nowhere near the bottom of the list. Again, based on rep alone, its clearly ahead of Tufts, Jeff, & Brown, and most would probably agree ahead of NYU & BU (which are strong programs but get a significant boost in desirability among applicants due to NYC and Boston).

I would agree to that. I think Colorado is really = to NYU and BU, and I think its more about where the applicant would feel comfortable, fellowship opportunities,etc, because from workload standpoint and fellowship potential, they appear to be the same - regional differences taken into consideration (e.g. you have a greater probability of staying in Boston for fellowship if you go to BU).

 

[obiwan]

just wondering what peoples thoughts are regarding stanford vs. utsw in terms of academic reputation, fellowship placement, and clinical training.. thanks

 

[Scaredshizzles]

just wondering what peoples thoughts are regarding stanford vs. utsw in terms of academic reputation, fellowship placement, and clinical training.. thanks

Academic reputation: Probably pretty similar. I feel the bench science at Stanford is stronger.

Fellowship placement: UTSW does somewhat better I feel, or at least they send people out to better places. UTSW is able to send people to Texas Heart and MD Anderson, which is an advantage. Stanford despite having a strong cards and heme-onc program, largely matches internally...a lot to do with geography, and UCSF seems to not like to take Stanford people, maybe rivalry related there, just like Hopkins Vs. MGH/BWH. As I posted in another thread, Stanford in house spots, especially in cards and h/o will still be very good, but unfortunately they seem to be needing to do chief years or scientist tracks to get them. It seems in general programs that don't match as well outside their program tend to be able to kind of push people into chief years or other tracks to become competitive for in house slots.

Clinical training: UTSW is going to be a more rigorous training, so it depends on whether that is something you want.

 

[EPADHA]

just wondering what peoples thoughts are regarding stanford vs. utsw in terms of academic reputation, fellowship placement, and clinical training.. thanks

I would hazard a guess and say that Stanford is more reputed. However, UTSW's clinical training is probably the among the most rigorous in the country. I wd expect their fellowship matches to be similar.. Stanford cards is certainly more reputed and respected of the 2...

 

[jdh71]

Stanford cards is certainly more reputed and respected of the 2...

You really think so? I'm not saying you're wrong, but wonder if you have specific reasons for saying this.

I'm not a cardio fanboy by any means, but I've heard more about SWern cards than Stanford, easily.

It might all be regional gestalt.

 

[Phineus]

I would hazard a guess and say that Stanford is more reputed. However, UTSW's clinical training is probably the among the most rigorous in the country. I wd expect their fellowship matches to be similar.. Stanford cards is certainly more reputed and respected of the 2...

I keep on hearing this over and over on the trail but noticed that the fellowship placement is not that impressive. If these guys are so impressive (is this a national or regional rep?), why don't they have a more impressive match? also, how does the rigor of their training compare to JHU, Duke, Columbia and MGH?

 

[obiwan]

I keep on hearing this over and over on the trail but noticed that the fellowship placement is not that impressive. If these guys are so impressive (is this a national or regional rep?), why don't they have a more impressive match? also, how does the rigor of their training compare to JHU, Duke, Columbia and MGH?

i would say that UTSW has one of the most intense programs even compared to those ivory tower programs because their primary training site is a 900 bed county hospital so the patient population is pretty sick compared to the university type hospital settings that duke or mgh might get

 

[jdh71]

I keep on hearing this over and over on the trail but noticed that the fellowship placement is not that impressive. If these guys are so impressive (is this a national or regional rep?), why don't they have a more impressive match? also, how does the rigor of their training compare to JHU, Duke, Columbia and MGH?

The reputation of the place is one where residents work their assess off in a borderline malignant environment . . . at least that is the gossip. Most people seem to think this equals "rigorous" clinical training. I didn't think the fellowship placement was too shabby, especially for cards.

 

[VCMM414]

I keep on hearing this over and over on the trail but noticed that the fellowship placement is not that impressive. If these guys are so impressive (is this a national or regional rep?), why don't they have a more impressive match? also, how does the rigor of their training compare to JHU, Duke, Columbia and MGH?

Having interviewed at UTSW in the past (several times actually, for residency and fellowship both), and am currently a PGY3 at one of the four institutions you later mentioned above, I am convinced that the rigors of clinical training at UTSW is on par with the likes of Hopkins, Duke, etc.

Part of this is through hearsay, by comparing notes with fellows at my institution that come from UTSW as well as through my attendings while I was in medical school and now in residency. My gestalt, though, is that they may not be as well thought of on the west coast, at least through my limited sampling amongst some of my friends who are now residents on the west.

i would say that UTSW has one of the most intense programs even compared to those ivory tower programs because their primary training site is a 900 bed county hospital so the patient population is pretty sick compared to the university type hospital settings that duke or mgh might get

I disagree with this post. I come from a medical school with a prominent county hospital very comparable to Parkland (in size of hospital, ancillary services, and patient population), and I have never thought for a second that patients at major centers like MGH or Hopkins are any less sick than county hospital patients. As a matter of fact, places like Hopkins and Duke cater to their respective local indigent population as well as complicated "train-wreck" referrals from outside hospitals, whereas county hospitals are less likely to receive referrals from outside.

 

[gutonc]

I disagree with this post. I come from a medical school with a prominent county hospital very comparable to Parkland (in size of hospital, ancillary services, and patient population), and I have never thought for a second that patients at major centers like MGH or Hopkins are any less sick than county hospital patients. As a matter of fact, places like Hopkins and Duke cater to their respective local indigent population as well as complicated "train-wreck" referrals from outside hospitals, whereas county hospitals are less likely to receive referrals from outside.

My med school was similar, my residency/fellowship is a tertiary referral center and virtual county hospital. In my experience the "train wrecks" show up in both places, the main difference in the two is that they come in de novo at the County while they tend to come in to the referral center with a diagnosis and a huge workup already done once somebody has given up on them.

 

[EPADHA]

You really think so? I'm not saying you're wrong, but wonder if you have specific reasons for saying this.

I'm not a cardio fanboy by any means, but I've heard more about SWern cards than Stanford, easily.

It might all be regional gestalt.

great discussion on this webpage.. I have to confess that I am sitting on the west coast ( not Stanford).I think Stanford has clearly made a name for itself in certain areas of cardiology like transplant and heart failure, whereas UTSW's claim to fame is bench research ( all the nobel laureates that they have had and now Helen Hobbs).

 

[Scaredshizzles]

I keep on hearing this over and over on the trail but noticed that the fellowship placement is not that impressive. If these guys are so impressive (is this a national or regional rep?), why don't they have a more impressive match? also, how does the rigor of their training compare to JHU, Duke, Columbia and MGH?

Well because they do not have the reputation of an MGH or Hopkins or even Duke, so they are obviously not going to do quite as well for fellowship placement...And remember, the people who get into the MGH like programs, have very strong credentials pre-residency, that also go on their CVs when applying for fellowships. And went to a great med school, etc.

But as far as the original question of Stanford Vs. UTSW, both will land you a good cards spot if that is what you want. Stanford will push you more along the lines of research and academics to get that spot, while UTSW will be about developing clinical skills through a rigourous program. I think either would be a good choice, just depends on what you're looking for or if geography is a preference. I'm sure both have relatively nice weather compared to the northeast or Baltimore.

 

[Scaredshizzles]

great discussion on this webpage.. I have to confess that I am sitting on the west coast ( not Stanford).I think Stanford has clearly made a name for itself in certain areas of cardiology like transplant and heart failure, whereas UTSW's claim to fame is bench research ( all the nobel laureates that they have had and now Helen Hobbs).

That's a funny take, because I kind of see it the other way around, LOL. Admittedly, UTSW has great bench science, but I just don't think their internal medicine residency program is one which uber-encourages participation in bench research. I will agree though that Stanford is probably more known as a heart transplant place than UTSW.

 

[digoybugoy]

That's a funny take, because I kind of see it the other way around, LOL. Admittedly, UTSW has great bench science, but I just don't think their internal medicine residency program is one which uber-encourages participation in bench research. I will agree though that Stanford is probably more known as a heart transplant place than UTSW.

Yeah that's for sure. One of my interviewers there said there is almost no chance of research during intern year. I was very impressed at utsw. you actually get to be the doctor and your decisions matter. I come from a medical school with the same type of patients and hospital setup and I would like to train in an environment like that. in fact this was the turning point for me to chose medicine over other fields. Unfortunately during my interviews I'm seeing that research is more valued than training when it comes to fellowship placement.

 

[Scaredshizzles]

Yeah that's for sure. One of my interviewers there said there is almost no chance of research during intern year. I was very impressed at utsw. you actually get to be the doctor and your decisions matter. I come from a medical school with the same type of patients and hospital setup and I would like to train in an environment like that. in fact this was the turning point for me to chose medicine over other fields. Unfortunately during my interviews I'm seeing that research is more valued than training when it comes to fellowship placement.

I'm not sure how true that is. Places that really have that reputation for rigiorous training like UTSW or even Boston Medical center, do pretty well. Other places with rigiorous training but which unfortunately don't have the reputation, probably don't do as well.

 

[RonBurgandy]

I'm not sure how true that is. Places that really have that reputation for rigiorous training like UTSW or even Boston Medical center, do pretty well. Other places with rigiorous training but which unfortunately don't have the reputation, probably don't do as well.

Having talked to a few of the residents from BMC who matched in cards, I know that they all did research and at good labs. That's the appeal of BU, not just BMC's rigorous training, but that they have some world leaders in cards research, and you can work with them. For instance, the chief who matched at MGH has a PHD. He also worked in a top lab.

 

[Proteasome]

Hi sdners!

Interested in heme-onc fellowship....deciding between Yale and MSSM. Slight preference for NYC, but not to the degree that I would sacrifice fellowship placement advantage. Any thoughts?

 

[thegraduate56]

Having an easier time ranking the top of my list and the bottom of my list than the middle. Not sure what I want to do, want solid clinical training and the option of a strong fellowship match

In no particular order...
Davis
UCLA
Harbor-UCLA
USC
Cedars-Sinai
CPMC
Kaiser Oakland
Kaiser SF
OHSU

 

[Scaredshizzles]

Hi sdners!

Interested in heme-onc fellowship....deciding between Yale and MSSM. Slight preference for NYC, but not to the degree that I would sacrifice fellowship placement advantage. Any thoughts?

I think Mt. Sinai is your slightly better option if NYC is a priority. But I might be biased here.