Preempting the inevitible rankings thread

[BertMacklinFBI]

For the last 10-15 years, my school has maintained a de-identified excel spreadsheet of programs where the applicant matched, step 1/2 scores, and GPA. We have access to it in order to see where we might be competitive when going through the application process. Not surprisingly, the rankings listed here often do not correspond with expected board scores (partially because of my small sample size). For example, we have graduates matching at a program consistently ranked #10-15 with step 1 scores of 215-225. These are fine scores, but not the >240 that you hear is necessary to match top tier. In addition, another program in the #15-20 range has not taken anyone from our school with less than upper 230-250's/260-270's/AOA since 2000. Just because you do or don't have a certain score does not guarantee you an interview or automatically exclude you from certain top programs.

My query is, of these Top 20-ish programs, how would you rank them strictly in terms of clinical training? I am curious, because during my interview adventures I felt that some clearly stood out as amazing clinically, where interns do all procedures, the 2nd year residents pretty much comfortable handling anything, etc (Columbia and UTSW come to mind), while others seemed so focused on research that the clinical abilities seemed to take a hit

The best thing for M3's and M4's to learn from this forum is that the top 10-20 will really set you up for a competitive fellowship and are particularly beneficial if you want to stay in academics. GTV brings up a good point - quality of clinical training is another place in where the rankings fall short.

It has been said over and over on these forums, but you will get excellent training at any of these places as long as you play nice, work hard, and keep reading.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[jturkel]

Here's a thought: regardless of the specific ordering and details, everyone more or less agrees on the "top 20" programs and agrees that while some (the Big Four) will undoubtedly put you at a significant advantage when applying to fellowships, certainly none of the rest will hold you back in any way. My query is, of these Top 20-ish programs, how would you rank them strictly in terms of clinical training? I am curious, because during my interview adventures I felt that some clearly stood out as amazing clinically, where interns do all procedures, the 2nd year residents pretty much comfortable handling anything, etc (Columbia and UTSW come to mind), while others seemed so focused on research that the clinical abilities seemed to take a hit (totally fellow-run ICUs, lackluster morning reports, etc-- I'm thinking of two particular institutions here, one in California and one in Chicago).

Again, I realize that you will come out as perfectly competent from any of these institutions and that you'll have great fellowship opportunities from all of them, but all other things being equal I would imagine that clinical excellence is a factor that most people find important when formulating their rank lists.

IMO, outside looking in from interview day and my own research, Clinical training at ucla, ucsf, (wait for it) and maybe ucsd > Stanford. I'm assuming ur Chicago institution ur referring to is NW?

 

[pithecanthropus]

Here's a thought: regardless of the specific ordering and details, everyone more or less agrees on the "top 20" programs and agrees that while some (the Big Four) will undoubtedly put you at a significant advantage when applying to fellowships, certainly none of the rest will hold you back in any way. My query is, of these Top 20-ish programs, how would you rank them strictly in terms of clinical training? I am curious, because during my interview adventures I felt that some clearly stood out as amazing clinically, where interns do all procedures, the 2nd year residents pretty much comfortable handling anything, etc (Columbia and UTSW come to mind), while others seemed so focused on research that the clinical abilities seemed to take a hit (totally fellow-run ICUs, lackluster morning reports, etc-- I'm thinking of two particular institutions here, one in California and one in Chicago).

Again, I realize that you will come out as perfectly competent from any of these institutions and that you'll have great fellowship opportunities from all of them, but all other things being equal I would imagine that clinical excellence is a factor that most people find important when formulating their rank lists.

Not that this helps anyone, but I thought Hopkins, Duke, WashU and maybe Mayo and Yale stood out for clinical training. Other than those three, programs tended to blend together for me. A couple had really sad morning reports, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and not repeat their names here.

 

[keindo]

For example, we have graduates matching at a program consistently ranked #10-15 with step 1 scores of 215-225. These are fine scores, but not the >240 that you hear is necessary to match top tier.

Our school keeps a list too. A "competitive" score and 3rd year performance for an URM is very, very different than for e.g. an Asian / Caucasian male.

 

[jturkel]

Not that this helps anyone, but I thought Hopkins, Duke, WashU and maybe Mayo and Yale stood out for clinical training. Other than those three, programs tended to blend together for me. A couple had really sad morning reports, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and not repeat their names here.

I'd agree with all but mayo. IMO mayo is better for subspecialty training than for IM

 

[wunderland]

For the last 10-15 years, my school has maintained a de-identified excel spreadsheet of programs where the applicant matched, step 1/2 scores, and GPA. We have access to it in order to see where we might be competitive when going through the application process. Not surprisingly, the rankings listed here often do not correspond with expected board scores (partially because of my small sample size).

Doesn't seem all that de-identified to me if you can see where people matched. All you'd need is a match list from you school to figure out about 1/2 of the "de-identified" data. Seems dumb but I guarantee some overzealous med students would take the time to figure out it.

 

[jdh71]

Doesn't seem all that de-identified to me if you can see where people matched. All you'd need is a match list from you school to figure out about 1/2 of the "de-identified" data. Seems dumb but I guarantee some overzealous med students would take the time to figure out it.

Yup. People we like to call a**holes.

 

[step213]

IMO, outside looking in from interview day and my own research, Clinical training at ucla, ucsf, (wait for it) and maybe ucsd > Stanford. I'm assuming ur Chicago institution ur referring to is NW?

From my interview days I actually thought Stanford was quite good. I'm not going to say better or worst as obviously I'm biased as I'm going there but I would say the Stanford class is a lot more competitive in terms of applicants that match there and fellowship match lists then both UCSD and UCLA. Training wise I find is really up to the resident - I've worked with good residents and "lemons" from both Stanford and UCSF in a prior career.

 

[JP2740]

bump

 

[ceali1]

Humbly asking the trust for help again.
I am having a lot of back and forth on my #2-4 ranks.
Interested in heme/onc.

Emory: great hospital systems, but seems less heme/onc focused, and heard that the atmosphere can be questionable
UVA: great group of residents and the town is nice
UWisc

 

[gutonc]

Humbly asking the trust for help again.
I am having a lot of back and forth on my #2-4 ranks.
Interested in heme/onc.

Emory: great hospital systems, but seems less heme/onc focused, and heard that the atmosphere can be questionable
UVA: great group of residents and the town is nice
UWisc

That's not what this thread is about.

 

[Instatewaiter]

That's not what this thread is about.

Yup, this thread is about measuring cock size

 

[MedcatHouse]

Yup, this thread is about measuring cock size

The other one is too, sometimes

 

[EastOfSalinas]

*coughs*

 

[rokshana]

*coughs*

Really?? Necrobump of a 4 year old thread for that? The SOAP addle your brain?

 

[EastOfSalinas]

Brain's been addled for the past few days

would love some post match hot takes

 

[gutonc]

Brain's been addled for the past few days

would love some post match hot takes

In a 4 year old thread?

 

[Instatewaiter]

Hell this thread really got started 9 years ago. Just like wine these threads get better with Age.

 

[EastOfSalinas]

In a 4 year old thread?

I kind of wanted to keep it going...