Program Specific Questions

[EastcoastIM]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Why? Because they are Penn. And I would say the strength of an institution - and I know this will be really, really, really hard for some of you wrap your mind around - but there is much more to factor in than cardiology fellowship matches. Fellowship matches by themselves are not as good an indicator as you might think because it varies much from year to year how many people do apply and where they want to apply. When most of you animals looks at match lists and then compare you make the incorrect assumption that because not many people matched at CCF, Mayo, or Duke for cards that this means that the places can't march someone there. This is largely horse**** sloppy thinking. It probably means that people in the last few years from that program had their reasons for NOT wanting to go to those places, location, family, mentors, research interests may have no coincided.
So ultimately are you going to not be able to match to the exact same places from Sanford as Penn? No. But that's not where Im coming from. And you did ask for anonymous opinions on a web forum and it my opinion but Penn's clinical training simply has a reputation for being rather rigorous so. Between name brand and what I think will be better clinical training Penn wins in my mind. It's not magic. It's not that nuanced. If you want us all to cosign a Stanford rank above Penn then don't ask the question. If you already have ranked the way you like? Great. We always so go with your gut. But you're not going to convince me my opinion on this one is wrong.
Good luck.

Appreciate JDH's sentiments above . I can’t speak to the national reputation of either institution (or specific interpretation of fellowship matches) but can say that I have been very happy with my experience here at Penn. While the environment/clinical training here has been great for me, there are many strong academic programs out there and I would choose the one that fits best for you. One of the best pieces of advice that I received on SDN when I was applying a few years back was to rank programs based on how they fit your individual personality/interests. You will thrive the best in a place where you are comfortable. I didn’t interview at Stanford when I was applying but have worked with a fellow who came from their program and he was top notch.

Best of luck!

 

[jdh71]

I simply disagree. If we're talking about a sample size of 2-3 people, of course that is true. If you are talking about Cardiology fellowship applications from big name programs (typically 5-10 applicants per year) and you have data over 4-5 years, that is very meaningful. Of course a given individual can have factors which keep him/her restricted to a certain part of the country, but that doesn't change that it is very meaningful to see how competitive actual residents from a program have been at top-tier Cardiology programs when you're dealing with an n of 25-40 people from each residency program.

That is very real, very meaningful data. It tells you more about what a program's present-day reputation is among other academic institutions than any other data, at least within a given subspecialty.

Bull****

 

[visari]

I simply disagree. If we're talking about a sample size of 2-3 people, of course that is true. If you are talking about Cardiology fellowship applications from big name programs (typically 5-10 applicants per year) and you have data over 4-5 years, that is very meaningful. Of course a given individual can have factors which keep him/her restricted to a certain part of the country, but that doesn't change that it is very meaningful to see how competitive actual residents from a program have been at top-tier Cardiology programs when you're dealing with an n of 25-40 people from each residency program.

That is very real, very meaningful data. It tells you more about what a program's present-day reputation is among other academic institutions than any other data, at least within a given subspecialty.

"This strategy is only used when looking at mid-tier programs that you are worried about their fellowship placement not the top 20 places"

Comparing Stanford, upenn, UCLA, Hopkins, Michigan, Mayo, Cornell, Sinai....etc based on Cardiology (or any other specialty) fellowship placement is a silly stupid meaningless thing to do whether you do it based on 1 year or 5 years data. Training at any of these places will not prevent you from going ANYWHERE for fellowship if you have what it takes.

If you tell me you want to compare University of Kentucky, Drexel, Downstate, GW....etc based on that, then it might make more sense and you might be able to come up with some useful date (maybe). Comparing community hospitals based on fellowship placement is helpful.

 

[Yona33]

"This strategy is only used when looking at mid-tier programs that you are worried about their fellowship placement not the top 20 places"

Comparing Stanford, upenn, UCLA, Hopkins, Michigan, Mayo, Cornell, Sinai....etc based on Cardiology (or any other specialty) fellowship placement is a silly stupid meaningless thing to do whether you do it based on 1 year or 5 years data. Training at any of these places will not prevent you from going ANYWHERE for fellowship if you have what it takes.

If you tell me you want to compare University of Kentucky, Drexel, Downstate, GW....etc based on that, then it might make more sense and you might be able to come up with some useful date (maybe). Comparing community hospitals based on fellowship placement is helpful.

Look, of course we are picking nits between programs. What would SDN be otherwise? And no, the question was never if someone could even match in Cardiology (as it would be from Drexel, Downstate, etc.), but rather which of the competitive IM programs put people in the best position to match at top Cardiology (or other competitive subspecialty) programs. There are trends one can see over a 4-5 year period. I respect your position, but in my opinion when you're talking about 25-40 data points per program, I believe the data is meaningful. If you don't feel the data is meaningful, don't use it.

Or in the words of the immortal Ned Flanders, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[EDScribe17]

Hello! Just finished up my interviews this week. UNC, VCU, UVA, and Jefferson were my top 4. Of course, everyone sounds fantastic on interview day. I was curious if anyone has any input, positive or negative program characteristics that they have heard or wish they new before the match?

Thank you all for your time and help!

 

[jdh71]

Kindly ask the mod to move this to the appropriate thread.

 

[visari]

which of the competitive IM programs put people in the best position to match at top Cardiology (or other competitive subspecialty) programs

That's a wrong question to ask when we're talking about the top 15-20 IM programs in the country because any of them will open doors to go wherever you like if the rest of your app is strong.

you're talking about 25-40 data points per program, I believe the data is meaningful. If you don't feel the data is meaningful, don't use it

data points + (believe, feel) don't go together. You can collect whatever data you want and use it for yourself if you like, but it's not right when you try to make rules out of it and imply those on the applicants by telling them Top program X is better than Top program Y based on the date the you "feel" is meaningful. When you say Saint Bohishido Hospital program is better than Mercy God Jesus Hospital program because looking back, the first had successfully matched some of its residents into GI and Cards where the later never did that in the last 5 years, then someone might use this information to say " well, if you're interested in fellowship, St Bohishido seems a better option for you". But taking it too far to say "it seems that Upenn is better than UCLA because if you look closely, you can see that Upenn had 3 residents go to CCF and 2 got to Hopkins for Cards in the last 2 years while UCLA graduates either stayed there or went to UCSF, Cornell and Stanford". That's pure BULL****

SDN compares these programs based on workload, resident camaraderie, number of hospitals to rotate at, EMR, structure of educational conferences....etc but thinking that anyone would be limited in his fellowship placement coming out of a top IM program is crazy.

 

[IM2GI]

Why? Because they are Penn. And I would say the strength of an institution - and I know this will be really, really, really hard for some of you wrap your mind around - but there is much more to factor in than cardiology fellowship matches. Fellowship matches by themselves are not as good an indicator as you might think because it varies much from year to year how many people do apply and where they want to apply. When most of you animals looks at match lists and then compare you make the incorrect assumption that because not many people matched at CCF, Mayo, or Duke for cards that this means that the places can't march someone there. This is largely horse**** sloppy thinking. It probably means that people in the last few years from that program had their reasons for NOT wanting to go to those places, location, family, mentors, research interests may have no coincided.

So ultimately are you going to not be able to match to the exact same places from Sanford as Penn? No. But that's not where Im coming from. And you did ask for anonymous opinions on a web forum and it my opinion but Penn's clinical training simply has a reputation for being rather rigorous so. Between name brand and what I think will be better clinical training Penn wins in my mind. It's not magic. It's not that nuanced. If you want us all to cosign a Stanford rank above Penn then don't ask the question. If you already have ranked the way you like? Great. We always so go with your gut. But you're not going to convince me my opinion on this one is wrong.

Good luck.

Great post.

The bolded should be a sticky somewhere. Med students are ingrained to think only about ranks/the best. By the time you get the fellowship, there are hopefully other priorities in your life that matter more than your academic ego. Guess what? MGH does not want to train private practice/community cardiologists, or even "clinician educators". They don't care if you are good at your job, they want to train academics. As much as you may pretend along the way that you want to be an academic, the rubber hits the road at fellowship time. Eventually you have to stop lying to yourself and decide how you want to practice/live for the rest of your life.

There are a lot of applicants from great programs that could go to "better" fellowships but make an active choice not to. I have seen residents from "top 10" programs go to community fellowship programs, because they just want to scope/cath people all day and are tired of playing the game.

 

[IM2GI]

I simply disagree. If we're talking about a sample size of 2-3 people, of course that is true. If you are talking about Cardiology fellowship applications from big name programs (typically 5-10 applicants per year) and you have data over 4-5 years, that is very meaningful. Of course a given individual can have factors which keep him/her restricted to a certain part of the country, but that doesn't change that it is very meaningful to see how competitive actual residents from a program have been at top-tier Cardiology programs when you're dealing with an n of 25-40 people from each residency program.

That is very real, very meaningful data. It tells you more about what a program's present-day reputation is among other academic institutions than any other data, at least within a given subspecialty.

Are you a med student? The best thing to do is skim the match lists: Did they get a lot of people into cards/GI/heme onc? Did a few people go to elite programs? Good enough. Trying to read too much into, or assume that someone going to program A could not get into program B, is bull****.

 

[Instatewaiter]

.

 

[Instatewaiter]

.

 

[Instatewaiter]

There are a lot of applicants from great programs that could go to "better" fellowships but make an active choice not to. I have seen residents from "top 10" programs go to community fellowship programs, because they just want to scope/cath people all day and are tired of playing the game.

A good point about the different types of fellowships. Many of the big name programs that have resident run residencies, have a fellowship that is essentially training on how to write a research grant. If you want to be a clinician, these are places you need to avoid. Perhaps not all that common for top 10 residents to go to community programs, but is somewhat common for people to choose "lesser" programs because of location or because of better training.

 

[jcr123]

Appreciate all the thoughts above. Didn't mean to nitpick based on match lists. My question was more about how going to program with a slightly better national reputation (eg Penn vs Stanford) helps with an academic career if their match lists are comparable.

A good point about the different types of fellowships. Many of the big name programs that have resident run residencies, have a fellowship that is essentially training on how to write a research grant. If you want to be a clinician, these are places you need to avoid. Perhaps not all that common for top 10 residents to go to community programs, but is somewhat common for people to choose "lesser" programs because of location or because of better training.

 

[Yona33]

Appreciate all the thoughts above. Didn't mean to nitpick based on match lists. My question was more about how going to program with a slightly better national reputation (eg Penn vs Stanford) helps with an academic career if their match lists are comparable.

No meaningful difference in national reputation nor a significant impact on your ability to pursue whatever your next step is in your career. Go with whichever program you overall felt fit you best & where you'd like to live. Good luck!

 

[EDScribe17]

UNC and UVA are on the same tier. I saw a lot of people from these programs during my interviews for fellowship. Both attract strong students and have strong national reputations. UNC probably has higher clinical volumes overall. Both seemed like pretty laid back programs.

VCU gives decent clinical training. However, it's national reputation is not all that strong and if you want to do a competitive fellowship this may not be as good as UVA or UNC. I interviewed there for fellowship and was literally asked why I bothered to apply there as if they thought I wasn't going to rank them... during two separate interviews. That was offputting.

Thank you for your input! Currently strongly leaning to Hospitalist, but might consider ID vs. crit care.

 

[Krogershopper]

Any thoughts specifically about UCSD? San Diego is a truly unbeatable city, and I loved the feel of the program and their PD. However, the fellowship match seems a little weak for Cards, GI, and heme/onc. Anyone know anything about their new hospital and changes in their heme/onc dept?

Also, why is Cedars-Sinai thought of in such low regard when they match in such high numbers to Cards and GI?

Any thoughts about UPMC are also welcome.

Much thanks!

 

[jdh71]

Any thoughts specifically about UCSD? San Diego is a truly unbeatable city, and I loved the feel of the program and their PD. However, the fellowship match seems a little weak for Cards, GI, and heme/onc. Anyone know anything about their new hospital and changes in their heme/onc dept?

Also, why is Cedars-Sinai thought of in such low regard when they match in such high numbers to Cards and GI?

Any thoughts about UPMC are also welcome.

Much thanks!

If one more mouth breathing tries to talk to me about how great one program matches so many into GI or Cards like it really means something, I'm going to start a ****ing riot. I'm talking tipping shiz over and setting ****ing fires. I'll watch this place burn bishes. You just watch me.

 

[jturkel]

Any thoughts specifically about UCSD? San Diego is a truly unbeatable city, and I loved the feel of the program and their PD. However, the fellowship match seems a little weak for Cards, GI, and heme/onc. Anyone know anything about their new hospital and changes in their heme/onc dept?

Also, why is Cedars-Sinai thought of in such low regard when they match in such high numbers to Cards and GI?

Any thoughts about UPMC are also welcome.

Much thanks!

also interested in thoughts about UCSD. thx

 

[IM2GI]

also interested in thoughts about UCSD. thx

People really want to live in San Diego, so they keep hoping it is better than it really is.

 

[jturkel]

People really want to live in San Diego, so they keep hoping it is better than it really is.

can't say i blame them. san diego is a fun/city with awesome weather. sometimes city > reputation

 

[jdh71]

People really want to live in San Diego, so they keep hoping it is better than it really is.

Well. It's not like it's got zero gravitas.

It's not like al career options go to San Diego to die or something. You'll find all your fellowships fine with good baseline IM training in San Diego.

 

[pithecanthropus]

Well. It's not like it's got zero gravitas.

It's not like al career options go to San Diego to die or something. You'll find all your fellowships fine with good baseline IM training in San Diego.

I don't understand why UCSD doesn't get more love. As a research operation, UCSD itself is second only to UCSF in state, and by the time you throw in affiliates at each, activity at UCSD outstrips UCSF by a wide margin. Yet UCSF is far more reputable, and the SDN version of reality seems to place UCSD below Stanford and even UCLA. Based on clinical training? I don't even know how to measure that, but there's no issue with people passing their boards at UCSD, which is more than can be said for some reputable places.

I've seen a lot of programs this season, and I would be hard pressed to tell you why any one is better than the others. For research, at least there are some objective measures, but clinically, it looks like a lot of mythology to me. Not that I can bring myself to rank UCSD as highly as I want to, but they really ought to be neck and neck with UCSF.

 

[jturkel]

I don't understand why UCSD doesn't get more love. As a research operation, UCSD itself is second only to UCSF in state, and by the time you throw in affiliates at each, activity at UCSD outstrips UCSF by a wide margin. Yet UCSF is far more reputable, and the SDN version of reality seems to place UCSD below Stanford and even UCLA. Based on clinical training? I don't even know how to measure that, but there's no issue with people passing their boards at UCSD, which is more than can be said for some reputable places.

I've seen a lot of programs this season, and I would be hard pressed to tell you why any one is better than the others. For research, at least there are some objective measures, but clinically, it looks like a lot of mythology to me. Not that I can bring myself to rank UCSD as highly as I want to, but they really ought to be neck and neck with UCSF.

going off your boards comment...per the the interview day, they have a 100% board pass rate last 3 yrs and 99+% board pass rate last 5 yrs. so they're doing something right (not sure if test = clinical competence, just like not sure SAT or MCAT or STEPs mean anything), but w/e.

 

[pithecanthropus]

going off your boards comment...per the the interview day, they have a 100% board pass rate last 3 yrs and 99+% board pass rate last 5 yrs. so they're doing something right (not sure if test = clinical competence, just like not sure SAT or MCAT or STEPs mean anything), but w/e.

I've been consulting the three-year rates through 2012, which has UCSD at 96%, UCSF at 95%, UCLA at 93% and Stanford at 89%. Stanford raises my eyebrows a little, but hard to read too much into it with just those three years. I start to get worried when I ask programs about their pass rates and they start blaming the residents, or offer no explanation. If you're an elite program with adequate training, your residents ought to pass their boards at a rate well above the national average. If they don't and a program starts talking about teaching to the test or bad apple residents, then I wonder about the program's priorities. Boards matter.

 

[jturkel]

I've been consulting the three-year rates through 2012, which has UCSD at 96%, UCSF at 95%, UCLA at 93% and Stanford at 89%. Stanford raises my eyebrows a little, but hard to read too much into it with just those three years. I start to get worried when I ask programs about their pass rates and they start blaming the residents, or offer no explanation. If you're an elite program with adequate training, your residents ought to pass their boards at a rate well above the national average. If they don't and a program starts talking about teaching to the test or bad apple residents, then I wonder about the program's priorities. Boards matter.

Do boards translate to clinical competence? Just curious. I know they don't equate to reputation

 

[pithecanthropus]

I have no idea. I'm just another applicant. No one seems to think that boards and clinical competence are the same thing, so they probably aren't. On the other hand, if a program doesn't care whether its pass rate is 95% or 85%, then I think it's doing its residents a disservice by failing to adequately prepare them for the test - whether that's through clinical experience or formal board review.

 

[timbuktu]

I have no idea. I'm just another applicant. No one seems to think that boards and clinical competence are the same thing, so they probably aren't. On the other hand, if a program doesn't care whether its pass rate is 95% or 85%, then I think it's doing its residents a disservice by failing to adequately prepare them for the test - whether that's through clinical experience or formal board review.

[fellow applicant speaking] I've actually asked a couple PDs about this topic and all of them said essentially the same thing: ABIM pass rates are more a reflection of the type of residents they hire more so than the support the program provides. Perhaps that's a CYA-type of attitude, but it came from programs with 99%+ rates and 88%-ish rates alike, so TIFWIW. (i'd be interested to hear what some of the faculty around here have to say about it, for sure)

i'm sure somebody ITT vehemently disagrees with that stance and will eviscerate me, so feel free to attack ad lib.

 

[trickster123]

Any thoughts specifically about UCSD? San Diego is a truly unbeatable city, and I loved the feel of the program and their PD. However, the fellowship match seems a little weak for Cards, GI, and heme/onc. Anyone know anything about their new hospital and changes in their heme/onc dept?

Also, why is Cedars-Sinai thought of in such low regard when they match in such high numbers to Cards and GI?

Any thoughts about UPMC are also welcome.

Much thanks!

Do you by any chance have the most recent match list for cedars in terms of Cards/GI/heme onc?

 

[fantasty]

If one more mouth breathing tries to talk to me about how great one program matches so many into GI or Cards like it really means something, I'm going to start a ******* riot. I'm talking tipping shiz over and setting ******* fires. I'll watch this place burn bishes. You just watch me.

Heh. (You know, my program matched Mayo, Michigan, UW, and WashU in recent years in cards, GI, and allergy 😉 )


Anarchy!

 

[jdh71]

Heh. (You know, my program matched Mayo, Michigan, UW, and WashU in recent years in cards, GI, and allergy 😉 )

Anarchy!

And where I did residency sent people to Mayo, Duke, WashU, Vandy, CCF in everyone's favorite sub-specialties

 

[Instatewaiter]

If one more mouth breathing tries to talk to me about how great one program matches so many into GI or Cards like it really means something, I'm going to start a ******* riot. I'm talking tipping shiz over and setting ******* fires. I'll watch this place burn bishes. You just watch me.

I do love when you post drunk.

 

[jdh71]

I do love when you post drunk.

I haven't had a drop to drink in 7 years.

 

[Instatewaiter]

Based on clinical training? I don't even know how to measure that, but there's no issue with people passing their boards at UCSD, which is more than can be said for some reputable places.

That people can pass their boards is a stupid metric for clinical or research acumen. You'll see that when you get through training that it doesn't correlate with ability to doctor. Lemme explain using an example: The state of Maryland

I don't think anyone will argue that in Maryland, the best programs are JHH, Maryland and Bayview. None of those programs have the highest board pass rate in the state. That honor goes to one of the worst programs in the state- Maryland General Hospital. Other terrible program like GBMC and Good Sam have essentially the same board pass rate as Hopkins. I have personally rotated with students from these programs when I was an intern and they were PGY2s and they were absolutely terrible. I mean scarry bad.

An aside: One time I was cross covering the patients one of these assassins admitted the night before. She had no idea why this cancer patient had abdominal pain. Got called by radiology that her CT scan with contrast showed the bladder lit up with inflammation. I talked to the patient- dysuria and suprapubic pain. Looked at the UA- floridly positive... how many of you have diagnosed a UTI using a CT with contrast... I promptly started antibiotics...

Another time, post-adriamycin cardiomyopathy patient with an EF 15% with BPs in the 90s/60s range (as expected with cardiomyopathy) and the resident was signing out to another assassin to discharge the patient but stop the beta blocker and ALL of the afterload reduction and the diuretics before sending them out... luckily I and one of my co-interns heard this and had to explain to the 2nd year resident why this patient would re-present in 3 days in cardiogenic shock if they did that...

Finally: University of Maryland, which most feel is a strong program clinically with a good national reputation ranks at the bottom of the list in Maryland for board pass rate (10th out of 13 programs in Maryland). So just because a program has a high or low board pass rate doesn't mean anything for how the training is

 

[Instatewaiter]

I haven't had a drop to drink in 7 years.

Are you also a member of liars anonymous?

 

[jdh71]

Are you also a member of liars anonymous?

I assume you're joking, but that's a little insulting.

 

[IM2GI]

I've seen a lot of programs this season, and I would be hard pressed to tell you why any one is better than the others. For research, at least there are some objective measures, but clinically, it looks like a lot of mythology to me. Not that I can bring myself to rank UCSD as highly as I want to, but they really ought to be neck and neck with UCSF.

Uh huh

 

[IM2GI]

Well. It's not like it's got zero gravitas.

It's not like al career options go to San Diego to die or something. You'll find all your fellowships fine with good baseline IM training in San Diego.

Yea I mean theres nothing wrong with the program, but people want to talk themselves into it being a "top 10" program so they can justify their desire to live in SD.

 

[pithecanthropus]

Uh huh

I'm just saying that, on paper, I don't see an objective justification for the disparity between UCSD and UCSF in reputation. If you've got something, please do tell.

 

[IM2GI]

going off your boards comment...per the the interview day, they have a 100% board pass rate last 3 yrs and 99+% board pass rate last 5 yrs. so they're doing something right (not sure if test = clinical competence, just like not sure SAT or MCAT or STEPs mean anything), but w/e.

You will normally find higher board pass rates at community/low tier IM programs. Passing your boards says more about the resident than the program. People typically fail because they are cocky and don't study, not because the program did not prepare them.

I'm just saying that, on paper, I don't see an objective justification for the disparity between UCSD and UCSF in reputation. If you've got something, please do tell.

Most programs look the same on paper. If it was that easy, there would not be hundreds of posts every cycle with people asking for help.

 

[pithecanthropus]

That people can pass their boards is a stupid metric for clinical or research acumen. You'll see that when you get through training that it doesn't correlate with ability to doctor. Lemme explain using an example: The state of Maryland

I don't think anyone will argue that in Maryland, the best programs are JHH, Maryland and Bayview. None of those programs have the highest board pass rate in the state. That honor goes to one of the worst programs in the state- Maryland General Hospital. Other terrible program like GBMC and Good Sam have essentially the same board pass rate as Hopkins. I have personally rotated with students from these programs when I was an intern and they were PGY2s and they were absolutely terrible. I mean scarry bad.

An aside: One time I was cross covering the patients one of these assassins admitted the night before. She had no idea why this cancer patient had abdominal pain. Got called by radiology that her CT scan with contrast showed the bladder lit up with inflammation. I talked to the patient- dysuria and suprapubic pain. Looked at the UA- floridly positive... how many of you have diagnosed a UTI using a CT with contrast... I promptly started antibiotics...

Another time, post-adriamycin cardiomyopathy patient with an EF 15% with BPs in the 90s/60s range (as expected with cardiomyopathy) and the resident was signing out to another assassin to discharge the patient but stop the beta blocker and ALL of the afterload reduction and the diuretics before sending them out... luckily I and one of my co-interns heard this and had to explain to the 2nd year resident why this patient would re-present in 3 days in cardiogenic shock if they did that...

Finally: University of Maryland, which most feel is a strong program clinically with a good national reputation ranks at the bottom of the list in Maryland for board pass rate (10th out of 13 programs in Maryland). So just because a program has a high or low board pass rate doesn't mean anything for how the training is

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. I do, however, think that an elite program that gets many of the students it wants ought to be producing a high pass rate. Take Duke, for example. Their 3-year rate through 2012 was 87%. Duke is way above average in the students it attracts and in its overall reputation, but their pass rate is barely above the national average. Why? And more importantly, is anyone doing anything about it? The part that puts me off is when programs think it's okay to carry a mediocre pass rate because the test is just a test. It's not the same thing as overall clinical acumen, sure, but programs, in addition to providing undoubtedly excellent clinical training, should also help their residents jump through an important hoop.

 

[Instatewaiter]

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. I do, however, think that an elite program that gets many of the students it wants ought to be producing a high pass rate. Take Duke, for example. Their 3-year rate through 2012 was 87%. Duke is way above average in the students it attracts and in its overall reputation, but their pass rate is barely above the national average. Why? And more importantly, is anyone doing anything about it? The part that puts me off is when programs think it's okay to carry a mediocre pass rate because the test is just a test. It's not the same thing as overall clinical acumen, sure, but programs, in addition to providing undoubtedly excellent clinical training, should also help their residents jump through an important hoop.

Is your goal of residency to pass a test or be a good internist? Having worked with a lot of Duke people, I can assure you they are doing something right at Duke. I have been universally impressed with everyone I have met from Duke- and that's compared to people from Hopkins, The Brigham, and MGH.

I will repeat what has already been said on this thread: passing the test has less to do with the residency and more to do with how the individual resident prepares. That is why people who should pass the test but don't study, don't pass

 

[Instatewaiter]

I assume you're joking, but that's a little insulting.

Just a joke, didnt think I'd hit a nerve

 

[futuredoctor10]

Finally: University of Maryland, which most feel is a strong program clinically with a good national reputation ranks at the bottom of the list in Maryland for board pass rate (10th out of 13 programs in Maryland). So just because a program has a high or low board pass rate doesn't mean anything for how the training is

Where can we see the board pass rates by state or program (updated)? Online I found the ABIM 2010-2012, but this is alphabetical, not by state.

Thanks!

 

[gutonc]

So you found that but couldn't find Ctrl-F on your keyboard?

 

[Instatewaiter]

Where can we see the board pass rates by state or program (updated)? Online I found the ABIM 2010-2012, but this is alphabetical, not by state.

Thanks!

http://bit.ly/1kVHEx5

second one down

 

[jdh71]

Just a joke, didnt think I'd hit a nerve

No worries. As much as everyone likes to poke fun at the easy targets in AA for a lot of people without anywhere to go, there are people there that will give a **** and try and help. It's not the only way to get sober but its a tried and true way. And while many probably too many in AA are full of crap, "liars", its really the last house on the block for guys who if they don't stop will end up in jail, an institution, or dead. And I've met some truly amazing people in AA helping those the rest of you have written off as far to gone to help, who aren't "liars" the real deal, sober for decades.

I guess all I'm saying is just remember that before being so flippant about it.

 

[alibai3ah]

I am currently figuring out my rank list and thought some of you guys might help shed some light into Cornell's IM program and if some of these rumors are true.

1) Compared to some of the other NYC programs, I have heard Cornell has a more "private hospital" feel and some residents may complain about lack of autonomy. Is this true?
2) What is the quality of education on rounds if anyone knows? Are attendings good about teaching? What are other pros/cons of the program?

Thanks, I have talked to residents there about some of these questions, but #1 is definitely one I felt uncomfortable asking about. If there are any other residents/med students from Cornell on these forums, please let me know!

 

[johncalvin]

I am currently figuring out my rank list and thought some of you guys might help shed some light into Cornell's IM program and if some of these rumors are true.

1) Compared to some of the other NYC programs, I have heard Cornell has a more "private hospital" feel and some residents may complain about lack of autonomy. Is this true?
2) What is the quality of education on rounds if anyone knows? Are attendings good about teaching? What are other pros/cons of the program?

Thanks, I have talked to residents there about some of these questions, but #1 is definitely one I felt uncomfortable asking about. If there are any other residents/med students from Cornell on these forums, please let me know!

I asked about #1 during my interview. I got a vague answer that there are some private attendings, and it is what it is. But I didn't feel that any residents complained about it?

 

[futuredoctor10]

So you found that but couldn't find Ctrl-F on your keyboard?

My post states the following "(updated)" as I was hoping for more recent data than 2010-2012, which I listed in the post.
But yes I am aware of the Ctrl-F function. And looks like the document I saw in the past was different than this one which is organized by state.

 

[StlSportsFan]

Any thoughts about Saint Louis University's IM program in comparison to Washington University in St. Louis's quality of education and relative competitiveness...