- Joined
- Sep 26, 2009
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 6
I'd make sure to tell everyone in that program that they are your number 1 choice. #suicidematchEver hear of anyone matching with one interview ?
I'd make sure to tell everyone in that program that they are your number 1 choice. #suicidematchEver hear of anyone matching with one interview ?
Ever hear of anyone matching with one interview ?
Yes, I’ve heard of it, and also people not matching after ranking half a dozen or more.
Does anyone know when the rank order list feature of ERAS opens?
Do you mean NRMP? Because of so it’s been up for a day or two
It's that time of the season now I think. Interviews have dried up so trying to figure out what I should do. How would you rank the following. No major future plans. I'd be okay with General. Thanks in advance:
Mayo clinic Rochester
UCSD
UCLA
UC Davis
U Pitt (UPMC)
Baylor Houston
Baylor Dallas
Northwestern
Vanderbilt
University of Arizona Tucson
Northshore/Northwell LIJ
Georgetown/Washington hospital center
Dartmouth
UVA
Montefiore Bronx
NYU
UC Irvine
VCU
Cooper
CCF >>> UC Davis. UC Davis has a good structural program. That's it and its a state-run university hospital in a relatively underserved area. so they will have patients. It cannot hold a candle to the cardiology division/department at Cleveland Clinic, imho.I’m thinking between a top program like Cleveland clinic (top tier but location is not ideal) vs. UC Davis (Would love to be in California) in terms of ranking 1. Will Cleveland really give that much of an advantage compared to UC Davis? I feel like if I just want a job and not some academic power house both would give equal opportunities. Any thoughts?
If you wish to do academics, can not go wrong with UCSF..... UCLA, UCSF should have good clinical training too, but i would think not at the same level at CCF. CCF is more formal, no nonsense kind of place. so would take in to account your learning style and personality as well.How would you compare CCF to other programs in California like UCLA, UCSD, UCSF? Are none of them in a similar tier?
It's that time of the season now I think. Interviews have dried up so trying to figure out what I should do. How would you rank the following. No major future plans. I'd be okay with General. Thanks in advance:
Mayo clinic Rochester
UCSD
UCLA
UC Davis
U Pitt (UPMC)
Baylor Houston
Baylor Dallas
Northwestern
Vanderbilt
University of Arizona Tucson
Northshore/Northwell LIJ
Georgetown/Washington hospital center
Dartmouth
UVA
Montefiore Bronx
NYU
UC Irvine
VCU
Cooper
How would you guys drink these programs? Career goal is interventional and structural.
- University of Cincinnati
- University of Arizona Phoenix
- LVHN
- Kettering Medical Center
- Medical College of Georgia
- University of South Dakota
- Ascension Providence (Detroit)
- Orlando Regional Medical Center
Hey guys thanks a lot for taking the time to respond. I guess I need to figure my life out soon because honestly I don't know what I want to do academic vs. private practice. I just wanted to pick an institute where all the options are open. I will say that yeah Mayo is completely geared towards academic medicine to the point where they force you to do a research year and subspecialize so I need to reevaluate stuff.
What kind of academics? No one really explores this question but everyone says "I want to do academics". Research? Education? Clinical?
Research -> basically 99% of research is junk. Do you want to do be doing low powered, garbage retrospective studies for the rest of your life? Statistically, only a small percentage of cardiologists actually produce meaningful research that moves the field. Everyone else is cranking researching for the sake of doing so without thought to what is actually being produced. Basic science is even worse. Success rates in the single digits if you want to go down the K -> R pathway. At that point, you essentially stop being a clinician. Nearly every basic science clinician I've met has been garbage; wouldn't trust them with a simple cellulitis. Being a great clinician takes as much work as being a great researcher.
Education -> Have you done any curriculum design? Do you have a 5 year plan in place to get to a place of success (eg aPD/PD). Teaching doesn't mean much and it doesn't command a salary in the academic world. You supplement teaching with clinical work. Do you really want to be answering dumb emails all day about minutiae relating to protocols and educational theory? Are you willing to spend an extra year or two getting a masters of education?
Clinical -> private practice workload for academic pay and none of the actual respect. The university respects researchers, not those in the trenches making the actual money for the university. I learned that our pulm/cc guys make ~140k/year because the expectation is that you supplement your salary with grants.
Academics has a ton of bull****, pomp and circumstance attached to it. It's great for the cases, but is it worth 200k+/year more? Something you can only decide. I just hate hearing "academics!!!" without a clear sense of why you want to do academics.
What kind of academics? No one really explores this question but everyone says "I want to do academics". Research? Education? Clinical?
Research -> basically 99% of research is junk. Do you want to do be doing low powered, garbage retrospective studies for the rest of your life? Statistically, only a small percentage of cardiologists actually produce meaningful research that moves the field. Everyone else is cranking researching for the sake of doing so without thought to what is actually being produced. Basic science is even worse. Success rates in the single digits if you want to go down the K -> R pathway. At that point, you essentially stop being a clinician. Nearly every basic science clinician I've met has been garbage; wouldn't trust them with a simple cellulitis. Being a great clinician takes as much work as being a great researcher.
Education -> Have you done any curriculum design? Do you have a 5 year plan in place to get to a place of success (eg aPD/PD). Teaching doesn't mean much and it doesn't command a salary in the academic world. You supplement teaching with clinical work. Do you really want to be answering dumb emails all day about minutiae relating to protocols and educational theory? Are you willing to spend an extra year or two getting a masters of education?
Clinical -> private practice workload for academic pay and none of the actual respect. The university respects researchers, not those in the trenches making the actual money for the university. I learned that our pulm/cc guys make ~140k/year because the expectation is that you supplement your salary with grants.
Academics has a ton of bull****, pomp and circumstance attached to it. It's great for the cases, but is it worth 200k+/year more? Something you can only decide. I just hate hearing "academics!!!" without a clear sense of why you want to do academics.
You should probably just work at Goldman-Sachs
Look at the most competitive specialties. There's a reason why there's a prevailing theme. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure what that is.You should probably just work at Goldman-Sachs
This is a great list! Several solid programs...As is obvious Northwestern, Vandy, UPMC, Baylor (actually both Baylors), UCLA, Mayo, NYU, UVA and montefiore stand out. I would rank it based on where you would like to practice. If its west coast wd put UCLA, UCSD and UC Davis higher. If you dont care about location Vandy, Mayo Rochester and UVA are great too. Some of the famous places may not give you level 2 cath in a 3 year fellowship (if that is what you want to do). But the days of diagnostic angiographers may be coming to an end.. would make sure you get trained in echo, nuc and CT if gen cards is what you wish to do.
What kind of academics? No one really explores this question but everyone says "I want to do academics". Research? Education? Clinical?
Research -> basically 99% of research is junk. Do you want to do be doing low powered, garbage retrospective studies for the rest of your life? Statistically, only a small percentage of cardiologists actually produce meaningful research that moves the field. Everyone else is cranking researching for the sake of doing so without thought to what is actually being produced. Basic science is even worse. Success rates in the single digits if you want to go down the K -> R pathway. At that point, you essentially stop being a clinician. Nearly every basic science clinician I've met has been garbage; wouldn't trust them with a simple cellulitis. Being a great clinician takes as much work as being a great researcher.
Education -> Have you done any curriculum design? Do you have a 5 year plan in place to get to a place of success (eg aPD/PD). Teaching doesn't mean much and it doesn't command a salary in the academic world. You supplement teaching with clinical work. Do you really want to be answering dumb emails all day about minutiae relating to protocols and educational theory? Are you willing to spend an extra year or two getting a masters of education?
Clinical -> private practice workload for academic pay and none of the actual respect. The university respects researchers, not those in the trenches making the actual money for the university. I learned that our pulm/cc guys make ~140k/year because the expectation is that you supplement your salary with grants.
Academics has a ton of bull****, pomp and circumstance attached to it. It's great for the cases, but is it worth 200k+/year more? Something you can only decide. I just hate hearing "academics!!!" without a clear sense of why you want to do academics.
What do you guys thinking about ranking the programs below:
1. Rochester/Strong Memorial
2. Henry Ford
3. Loyola University Chicago
4.University of South Florida, Tampa
5. Tulane University New Orleans
6. University of Connecticut Farmington
7. West Virginia University
8. University of Vermont
9. University of Tennessee Memphis
I'm wondering if CT is a regional thing, is it a big thing with gen cards where you are? It's not really a thing where I am. Same thing for diagnostic cath, it doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon where I am. Unless you meant the days of gen cards doing diagnostic caths is going away, which I can see. With that said, if a program lacks CT training I don't think it's a huge deal since there's courses that get you level 2/3.
Harsh truth, but agree. Research/education is important for sure, but it certainly can be shoved down our throats as if it's the only type of career one can have, despite a majority ending up in PP.
What do you guys thinking about ranking the programs below:
1. Rochester/Strong Memorial
2. Henry Ford
3. Loyola University Chicago
4.University of South Florida, Tampa
5. Tulane University New Orleans
6. University of Connecticut Farmington
7. West Virginia University
8. University of Vermont
9. University of Tennessee Memphis
Need advice. Goals: ok with doing research during fellowship but not a major part of my career. Clinically inclined towards interventional.
Please rank the following:
Univ Kentucky
Henry Ford
Brown
Univ Minnesota
UMKC
Indiana
Baylor Houston
Case Western / University Hospitals
UAB
UPMC
Wake Forest
Guys, I really appreciate your thought about these programs.
CCF FL
UCSD
Tufts Univ
Univ of Kentucky
Loma Linda Univ
West Virginia Univ
Univ of Toledo
Creighton Univ
UCSF Fresno
UC Riverside
Future plan: Non-invasive (Imaging > HF)
Hey guys thanks a lot for taking the time to respond. I guess I need to figure my life out soon because honestly I don't know what I want to do academic vs. private practice. I just wanted to pick an institute where all the options are open. I will say that yeah Mayo is completely geared towards academic medicine to the point where they force you to do a research year and subspecialize so I need to reevaluate stuff.
I agree, don’t think CT is an absolute. If you want to learn it and get boarded as you said there’s a bunch of courses where you can do it anyway - not super hard to read lol
Nuclear and echo are a must, Vascular is a plus
Need advice. Goals: ok with doing research during fellowship but not a major part of my career. Clinically inclined towards interventional.
Please rank the following:
Univ Kentucky
Henry Ford
Brown
Univ Minnesota
UMKC
Indiana
Baylor Houston
Case Western / University Hospitals
UAB
UPMC
Wake Forest
What kind of academics? No one really explores this question but everyone says "I want to do academics". Research? Education? Clinical?
Research -> basically 99% of research is junk. Do you want to do be doing low powered, garbage retrospective studies for the rest of your life? Statistically, only a small percentage of cardiologists actually produce meaningful research that moves the field. Everyone else is cranking researching for the sake of doing so without thought to what is actually being produced. Basic science is even worse. Success rates in the single digits if you want to go down the K -> R pathway. At that point, you essentially stop being a clinician. Nearly every basic science clinician I've met has been garbage; wouldn't trust them with a simple cellulitis. Being a great clinician takes as much work as being a great researcher.
Education -> Have you done any curriculum design? Do you have a 5 year plan in place to get to a place of success (eg aPD/PD). Teaching doesn't mean much and it doesn't command a salary in the academic world. You supplement teaching with clinical work. Do you really want to be answering dumb emails all day about minutiae relating to protocols and educational theory? Are you willing to spend an extra year or two getting a masters of education?
Clinical -> private practice workload for academic pay and none of the actual respect. The university respects researchers, not those in the trenches making the actual money for the university. I learned that our pulm/cc guys make ~140k/year because the expectation is that you supplement your salary with grants.
Academics has a ton of bull****, pomp and circumstance attached to it. It's great for the cases, but is it worth 200k+/year more? Something you can only decide. I just hate hearing "academics!!!" without a clear sense of why you want to do academics.
Any thoughts about MSU?wow, invites still being sent out...
Thanks a lot. Yeah I was very impressed by the program with the amount of growth in last 2 years. That is among my top choice especially after interviewing there. Was very impressed.Currently a fellow at the West Virginia University. I guess program is still not well known to outsiders. We have expanded our heart and vascular services a lot and in fact have a dedicated tower where we have all our labs, OR, hybrid ORs for structural cases, floors, CVICU etc. The program is pretty big in terms of volume and you will nearly see most pathology in your training. Cath lab is very busy and fellows get lots of exposure in Cath labs. You also get significant autonomy in Cath labs even though there is a dedicated interventional cardiology program. Structural is good and we are doing everything from TAVRs, watchman, amulet, Mitra clip to tendyne mitral valve replacements. EP volume is also good and all EP procedures are offered. In terms of advanced heart failure, we have started LVAD program and planning on heart transplant next year. Imaging is heavy and echo labs are pretty busy (about 60+ TTEs each day and nearly 7-8 TEEs). Cardiac MRI and CTs are gearing up as well. Usually we do about 7-8 nuclear stress tests every day as well. So bottomline, you will get overall good training. I am personally planning on an academic career in EP but program gives you a solid foundation for private practice as well. PM me if any questions.
Thanks a lotI think Henry Ford, Loyola, USF ,Univ of vermont and Farmington definitely stand out from the rest. best of luck!
What kind of academics? No one really explores this question but everyone says "I want to do academics". Research? Education? Clinical?
Research -> basically 99% of research is junk. Do you want to do be doing low powered, garbage retrospective studies for the rest of your life? Statistically, only a small percentage of cardiologists actually produce meaningful research that moves the field. Everyone else is cranking researching for the sake of doing so without thought to what is actually being produced. Basic science is even worse. Success rates in the single digits if you want to go down the K -> R pathway. At that point, you essentially stop being a clinician. Nearly every basic science clinician I've met has been garbage; wouldn't trust them with a simple cellulitis. Being a great clinician takes as much work as being a great researcher.
Education -> Have you done any curriculum design? Do you have a 5 year plan in place to get to a place of success (eg aPD/PD). Teaching doesn't mean much and it doesn't command a salary in the academic world. You supplement teaching with clinical work. Do you really want to be answering dumb emails all day about minutiae relating to protocols and educational theory? Are you willing to spend an extra year or two getting a masters of education?
Clinical -> private practice workload for academic pay and none of the actual respect. The university respects researchers, not those in the trenches making the actual money for the university. I learned that our pulm/cc guys make ~140k/year because the expectation is that you supplement your salary with grants.
Academics has a ton of bull****, pomp and circumstance attached to it. It's great for the cases, but is it worth 200k+/year more? Something you can only decide. I just hate hearing "academics!!!" without a clear sense of why you want to do academics.
AgreeMy experience with physician-scientists have been different. They are very smart people and seem to excel both in research and clinical, atleast from what I have seen. Academic programs mostly have high volume and so far what I have seen is that big names have more than enough numbers for everything. I thought the same as you mentioned, but I found that to be incorrect. Bottom line big places have excellent didactic, they invite experts in each field to deliver lectures etc. Always aim for a big name, as that name will stay with you for the rest of your professional life; and they will provide you with most up-to-date evidence based learning. I do agree that making a career in academics is much tougher than private practice, though you stay relevant in the field. I do not think most of the research published in big journals is useless; all of this adds to a pool of knowledge which is essential to design more comprehensive prospective studies.
My experience with physician-scientists have been different. They are very smart people and seem to excel both in research and clinical, atleast from what I have seen. Academic programs mostly have high volume and so far what I have seen is that big names have more than enough numbers for everything. I thought the same as you mentioned, but I found that to be incorrect. Bottom line big places have excellent didactic, they invite experts in each field to deliver lectures etc. Always aim for a big name, as that name will stay with you for the rest of your professional life; and they will provide you with most up-to-date evidence based learning. I do agree that making a career in academics is much tougher than private practice, though you stay relevant in the field. I do not think most of the research published in big journals is useless; all of this adds to a pool of knowledge which is essential to design more comprehensive prospective studies.
University of North Carolina and Mayo Clinic Arizona has a big name. Is it Thomas Jefferson in PA?, if it is that's a really good program.Hey guys, really appreciate your thought about these programs.
UofRochester, UNC, USC, USF, Temple, Jefferson, Mayo AZ, Beaumont.
Goals: Looking at Advanced Echo/Imaging or HF/Transplant.
My experience with physician-scientists have been different. They are very smart people and seem to excel both in research and clinical, atleast from what I have seen. Academic programs mostly have high volume and so far what I have seen is that big names have more than enough numbers for everything. I thought the same as you mentioned, but I found that to be incorrect. Bottom line big places have excellent didactic, they invite experts in each field to deliver lectures etc. Always aim for a big name, as that name will stay with you for the rest of your professional life; and they will provide you with most up-to-date evidence based learning. I do agree that making a career in academics is much tougher than private practice, though you stay relevant in the field. I do not think most of the research published in big journals is useless; all of this adds to a pool of knowledge which is essential to design more comprehensive prospective studies.
I never advocated not doing fellowship at an academic center (although as others have said, it needs to at the right one that emphasizes clinical excellence). Nor did I advocate against going into academics. My point was that you need to have a real plan (eg 100% committed to T32 to K to R pathway with XYZ researcher because of his/her success in getting juniors funded) when you commit to academics, otherwise you'll just be clinician faculty earning half of what you should be and getting no respect from the University system because you don't contribute anything to the brand. You think BWH gives a **** about the in-the-trenches nephrologist who doesn't do any research (hint they don't, pay is ca 100k).