Please help me rank these 6 places

[hardworker101]

MGH
Cleveland Clinic
U of Pittsburgh
Vanderbilt
Mt. Sinai
Northwestern


I am sorry to be asking others for help but I have tried myself and would like some input from others as well. Any input is appreciated. I really care about research/fellowship opportunities. Thanks a lot

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bcat85]

MGH
Cleveland Clinic
U of Pittsburgh
Vanderbilt
Mt. Sinai
Northwestern


I am sorry to be asking others for help but I have tried myself and would like some input from others as well. Any input is appreciated. I really care about research/fellowship opportunities. Thanks a lot

Personally, I would go with NW, vandy, and MGH, in that order. Then probably Pitt, Sinai and ccf. If you don't mind working really hard and living in Boston, MGH may be a better choice, especially if you're research minded. Any of those, however, would be great choices.

 

[Creed Bratton]

MGH
Cleveland Clinic
U of Pittsburgh
Vanderbilt
Mt. Sinai
Northwestern


I am sorry to be asking others for help but I have tried myself and would like some input from others as well. Any input is appreciated. I really care about research/fellowship opportunities. Thanks a lot

academic rep MGH>Pitt=Vandy=Sinai=Northwestern>CCF. MGH will work you though

 

[Idiopathic]

Im biased towards Vandy, but it really does offer great opportunities for research in almost every area, as well as great support from both the department and the medical center.

 

[amyl]

i will defer to those above for academics but for private practice:
MGH
Cleveland Clinic
Vanderbilt
U of Pittsburgh
Mt. Sinai
Northwestern

 

[Creed Bratton]

i will defer to those above for academics but for private practice:
MGH
Cleveland Clinic
Vanderbilt
U of Pittsburgh
Mt. Sinai
Northwestern

isn't CCF half FMG's?

 

[hardworker101]

CCF is ranked 4 in national hospital ranking, so why it does not get the same reputation here on SDN?

Thanks a lot for everyone's posts

 

[givesmegas]

CCF is ranked 4 in national hospital ranking, so why it does not get the same reputation here on SDN?

Thanks a lot for everyone's posts

For me, it had to do with the resident dynamics. It seemed like the demographics of the residents was 1/3 FMG, 1/3 DOs, and 1/3 MDs. There's nothing wrong with any of those backgrounds but I would think it makes it harder to form a more cohesive resident group. On the other hand, I think the clinical training, research opportunities (Lerner!), and resources there are definitely top notch and comparable to other upper tier programs. I've talked to several students that have rotated through the OR's or ICUs and all have said remarkable things about it.

 

[bigdan]

I'm biased, too, but I think Pittsburgh is a tremendous training program. Vanderbilt and CCF both made my rank list, but I thought Pitt was the best for me.

You've obviously interviewed at all these places, so you have some idea of what you're getting into, but please let me know if you have questions or concerns about Pitt. Great clinical volume, great educational experience, and great people.

 

[its1louder]

I'm a 4th year trying to make a rank list right now. Only went to MGH and Pitt of the places you listed and was impressed by both. Of ALL the places I interviewed at, however, I was most impressed by Pitt. No place else (including UCSF, Stanford, Brigham, MGH, BID, Duke, Penn, Columbia, and Wash U) could boast a better clinical experience, and Pitt definitely had the best "feel," in my opinion. Gonna be a tough decision to weigh that versus a similar training experience at those other programs with slightly better names. Don't think you can go wrong with Pitt though.

 

[beardpapa]

Pitt's getting a lot of love this year on the threads. Are they the new up and coming elite? Or already arrived?

 

[givesmegas]

Pitt's getting a lot of love this year on the threads. Are they the new up and coming elite? Or already arrived?

It seems likes it's been a very strong program among applicants for at least the past couple years and definitely gets recognition within the the anesthesia community. Personally, I'm ranking it higher than a lot of other traditionally top tier programs. To me, it really has no glaring weaknesses and seems like it just has to fight the "it's Pittsburgh" notion despite it being a pretty great city.

 

[lushmd]

Pitt's getting a lot of love this year on the threads. Are they the new up and coming elite? Or already arrived?

I dunno. Pitt got a fair bit of love here the year (2007) that I applied for residency (and matched at UPMC...).

 

[Qed274]

I heard a rumor that Pitt only had to go something like 24 spots down their rank list last year.....that seems extraordinarily unlikely to impossible given the average rank to fill is 6-7/spot, and that would be only slightly over 1.....but does anybody actually know?

 

[AnesthesiaAC]

I heard a rumor that Pitt only had to go something like 24 spots down their rank list last year.....that seems extraordinarily unlikely to impossible given the average rank to fill is 6-7/spot, and that would be only slightly over 1.....but does anybody actually know?

wow is the avg rank to fill really 6-7/spot? I was always told / thought it was more like 3-4/spot with that being generous. But this is my first and only rodeo of course

 

[Per4mer8]

wow is the avg rank to fill really 6-7/spot? I was always told / thought it was more like 3-4/spot with that being generous. But this is my first and only rodeo of course

Its in the Charting the Outcomes data. From memory the # of ranks per spot to fill for Categorical positions was like 8.x for 2011.......the # of ranks per spot to fill for advanced positions was 13-14. However as far as I remember those numbers are for ALL cat or ALL adv with no stat given per program.

A certain person at a fairly big named institution I interviewed at this season quoted that his program typically requires 4.5-5 ranks/spot to fill, with 20ish spots thats 80-100 people down the rank list. If the average place interviews approx 10x the available spots that would be a roughly 1 in 2 chance of matching to that program alone. So essentially 50/50 at ONE place and most people interview at 8-10.....therefore this is why the vast majority match inside their top 3.

 

[jwizle]

Its in the Charting the Outcomes data. From memory the # of ranks per spot to fill for Categorical positions was like 8.x for 2011.......the # of ranks per spot to fill for advanced positions was 13-14. However as far as I remember those numbers are for ALL cat or ALL adv with no stat given per program.

A certain person at a fairly big named institution I interviewed at this season quoted that his program typically requires 4.5-5 ranks/spot to fill, with 20ish spots thats 80-100 people down the rank list. If the average place interviews approx 10x the available spots that would be a roughly 1 in 2 chance of matching to that program alone. So essentially 50/50 at ONE place and most people interview at 8-10.....therefore this is why the vast majority match inside their top 3.

I'm confused. What is more competitive than? Categorical positions or advanced positions?

 

[Per4mer8]

I'm confused. What is more competitive than? Categorical positions or advanced positions?

Thats actually a good question. Here's my take (opinion ahead):

There are more categorical positions, more applicants prefer the categorical spots vs the advanced. However most people apply to both and when given the choice during ranking rank categorical spots before advanced (on AVERAGE). Therefore the advanced spots have to go farther down their list because people are ranking categorical spots ahead and therefore matching.

I kind of think of the # of ranks/spot to fill stat as a how competitive/desirable is each spot kind of statistic, with higher # meaning less competitive/desirable. Basically Program A that fills with 4 ranks per spot is more competitive that Program B that takes 7 etc...But again these stats are an average of all programs, so there are definitely programs with advanced only (think big name places) that are likely more competitive than many categorical programs.

 

[Harrison486]

This is interesting. I was under the impression that some of the bigger name, more popular programs didn't usually go very far down their rank lists.

 

[Per4mer8]

This is interesting. I was under the impression that some of the bigger name, more popular programs didn't usually go very far down their rank lists.

This can still be true, remember the general stat given is an avg of all categorical spots nationwide. But I'd be surprised if some places, ex MGH go more than 2.5-3 ranks per available spot.

 

[AnesthesiaAC]

Its in the Charting the Outcomes data. From memory the # of ranks per spot to fill for Categorical positions was like 8.x for 2011.......the # of ranks per spot to fill for advanced positions was 13-14. However as far as I remember those numbers are for ALL cat or ALL adv with no stat given per program.

A certain person at a fairly big named institution I interviewed at this season quoted that his program typically requires 4.5-5 ranks/spot to fill, with 20ish spots thats 80-100 people down the rank list. If the average place interviews approx 10x the available spots that would be a roughly 1 in 2 chance of matching to that program alone. So essentially 50/50 at ONE place and most people interview at 8-10.....therefore this is why the vast majority match inside their top 3.

Thanks for the info! very helpful. Also makes me feel better about my chances of couples matching in my top 3. With the stats you've given, it would actually make sense for programs to send out love letters to as much as the top half of their rank list