Rad onc rankings

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
actually i have to say that some things have changed quite a bit since this thread was started. please remember though, try to keep this a real review of programs rather than interview impressions which is a separate thread. I know its a of a bit fuzzy distinction but...focus on the program rather than the interview day. thanks guys.
Members don't see this ad.
 
Does anyone have any thoughts on the quality of MCV's program?
 
Top 3: I think most people would agree with these. Really 1a, b, and c just depends on what your interests are.

MDACC- Many would argue that MDA is the best cancer center in the world. On top of this the rad onc program is gigantic and a leader in all disease sites. Tops for technology and clinical research. The residents have a great clinical experience. One downside is that you see fewer bread&butter cases. Great support staff = low scut. The faculty are extremely nice and well accomplished and interested in developing your career.

Harvard- Very friendly faculty and residents. A great program for basic science and clinical research. Fantastic career opportunities and mentors. Could not go wrong here. A huge program spread over two campuses which are fairly distinct from one another. Some see this as a downside others like it. You do not get to work with every attending.

MSKCC- If MDA isn't the best cancer center than MSK is. Great clinical training, maybe the best, only negative: residents have little opportunity for bench research and you have to live in NYC. Only one attending per disease site and many of these attendings travel a lot so the residents are given a lot of responsibility and independence. No protons.

Rest of Best: Hard to differentiate between these programs. All excellent places to start your career.

Stanford- a birthplace of rad onc, big names/gold medals plus young energetic faculty, very strong in radiobio/physics, best weather in America. Leader in lymphoma. Beautiful new cancer center. Top West Coast program.

Michigan- a leader in all components of the field, great chair, excellent track record for academics. A top program for people serious about an academic career.

Penn- Giant new cancer center opening next year, should be awesome. The chair is a great guy, very impressive, very nice. Residents all seem happy. Faculty with a track record of research excellence. A lot of excitement about the future. Could compete with the top three in a few years.

Wisconsin- A hidden gem in the Midwest. Birthplace of tomotherapy and a leader in translational research. A very strong program in all aspects of the field. Very happy, laid back residents. Strong in CNS and in advancing multimodality therapy. Great interaction between faculty and residents.

Yale- PD and chair are excellent, very nice people. Increased research opportunites (but not well structured) and historically a leader in radiobio. New cancer center coming soon which will be a huge addition to this program. Some may not like New Haven or having to drive inbtween two sites.

UCSF- great reputation, great residents, great city, friendly faculty. Some people may say this program has fallen over the past few years but I had the impression that it was as strong as any program in the country. Great CNS. Now stable at chair. Young faculty active in the lab.

Wash U- Historically a very strong program. New chair with a basic science background, recently expanded lab space. Full year of elective time. Awesome, beautiful facilities, leader in technology. Pioneering a new scaled-down proton accelerator.

Chicago- Great reputation especially for basic science research, appears to be some instability in the program. Residents work very hard.

Vanderbilt- A top program for the true physician-scientist. Supposedly all the residents are Holman Pathway. PhD's are heavily favored.

Duke- Malignant reputation a thing of the past. New chair well received by all. Improved technology which was a major issue in the past. Currently most of the residents focus on clinical or physics research however basic science opportunites are there. Big on hyperthermia, which may be a minus or plus for some.

Florida- Program of historical significance. Has become less popular recently (probably due to location) but still an excellent program. Protons but residents have to drive an hour to get there

Next Tier
Mayo-maybe the worst location, but its mayo

William Beaumont- year of research, big names in brachy, beautiful hospital, well represented at ASTRO

Thomas Jefferson- RTOG headquarters, some call it malignant.

Fox Chase- good all around program, friendly faculty and residents.

UAB- Big name chair, one of the better programs in the SE.

University of Washington- not familar with this program but one of the few quality programs on the West Coast.

Maryland- my impression has been that this program is higher on many applicants' lists than Hopkins

Cleveland Clinic- know people who really liked this program

Hopkins- great name, program on the rise, surprisingly limited research opportunities
 
Members don't see this ad :)
radiodog said:
To celebrate the opening of the 2007 NRMP here are my rankings based on clinical training, research/career opportunities, reputation, and mentorship. Please submit your ranks/comments.

Top 3
MDACC- just a little bit better than everyone else
Harvard- obviously a great program
MSKCC- only negative: residents have little opportunity for bench research

Rest of Top 10
Stanford- the birthplace of rad onc, big names, great young faculty
Michigan- a leader in all components of the field, great chair
UCSF- great reputation, great residents, great city
Wash U- program is expanding quickly, should not be overlooked
Penn- giant new center opening next year
Chicago- great reputation, many may have it higher
Duke- malignant reputation a thing of the past

Top Tier
Florida- a hidden gem
Wisconsin- another hidden gem, rumors that a big name may be leaving
Vanderbilt- a top program for basic science
Yale- program on the rise
Mayo- no comment

Next Tier
William Beaumont
Thomas Jefferson
Fox Chase
UAB
University of Washington
Maryland
Cleveland Clinic
Hopkins
Iowa
UTSW
MCV
UNC
Utah
Click to expand...

UTSW, Utah, Cleveland Clinic on the same level as Univ of Washington and Hopkins? Iowa?!? Yale as top tier is highly debatable.

I think everyone usually agrees on the top ten (give or take a few). However, there is a reason that there is no national ranking system for rad onc. The programs are small and that makes it difficult to objectively judge clinical training. I think it is much easier to say "Top Ten" "Second Tier" and a few small community programs as outliers. The middle that makes up 90% of programs are just too close in the quality of training to rank IMO.
When I interviewed, I remember talking with other students/residents re: Maryland, Loyola, UAB, Pitt, Cleveland Clinic, Emory, etc...the primary ranking system used wasn't program reputation - it was what group fit the applicant's personality best. Because, honestly, that is how the programs truly differed....Now, when ranking places like Harvard, MDACC, reputation plays a far bigger role.
 
Id say even the top ten needs a bit of tweaking these days.
 
Yale debatable as top tier?
35-40 faculty, some of the strongest basic research of all the programs, new program director 3 years ago, tons of teaching and resident support, great resident morale, large volume....
Anybody visited recently??
 
Just finished up a run of the major programs with a few smaller ones left; and my rankings are below, I think location should be excluded, since it confounds the analysis of real strengths and weaknesses of a given program, and it is a very subjective variable. For example, I'm at a West Coast school and think it's too cold to go anywhere past the PST zone.

I found many of the programs to be "tied" for a given spot, but nonetheless they are listed in a rough order as the top ten :

(All three tied for 1st)

1. MD Anderson: great residents and faculty, cool proton center, solid clinical research and good basic science research, there is simply nothing bad about the program (except Houston, which doesn't count in this ranking)
2. MSKCC: by the far the coolest residents, solid attendings who seem awesome to work for, excellent ancillary staff; limited research/elective time.
3. Harvard: a giant in the field of radonc, with a rare combination of solid clinical and outstanding research, protons, impressive residents with great credentials; seems very large with three different hospitals to run between.

4. Yale: Solid clinical training program because of a superb program director, phenomenal research which is rapidly expanding because of the Chair, very famous radiobiology department, new cancer center, 1 year elective time, all of the residents are very happy (don't listen to CNPhair).

5. Upenn: A great clinical chair chair, young enthusiastic new faculty from great places, friendly residents who seem very happy, Holman-friendly, and new center with protons.

6. Stanford: Historical significance, good elective time.
7. UCSF: 2nd place for the coolest residents, good elective time, uncertain Chair situation.

8. Duke: great chair.
9. Vanderbilt: perfect for the holman candidate.
10. Chicago: Historical significance, new program director.

also somewhere towards the end of the top ten should be Michigan and WashU. Although many may disagree on the specific order, i think these 12 programs are the top ones.
 
please respect the views of other users as you would wish to be respected. if good faith isnt enough to encourage this, remember its a small field.

I should also add that in a few short years you will be more modest in your self-assurence regarding issues like this.
 
Let me add, what impresses medical students is often not the best measure of what makes a top program. conversely you can get great training from places not ranked as top.
 
CNphair said:
UTSW, Utah, Cleveland Clinic on the same level as Univ of Washington and Hopkins? Iowa?!? Yale as top tier is highly debatable.

I think everyone usually agrees on the top ten (give or take a few). However, there is a reason that there is no national ranking system for rad onc. The programs are small and that makes it difficult to objectively judge clinical training. I think it is much easier to say "Top Ten" "Second Tier" and a few small community programs as outliers. The middle that makes up 90% of programs are just too close in the quality of training to rank IMO.
When I interviewed, I remember talking with other students/residents re: Maryland, Loyola, UAB, Pitt, Cleveland Clinic, Emory, etc...the primary ranking system used wasn't program reputation - it was what group fit the applicant's personality best. Because, honestly, that is how the programs truly differed....Now, when ranking places like Harvard, MDACC, reputation plays a far bigger role.
Click to expand...

very wise
 
OldMSTPStudent said:
Just finished up a run of the major programs with a few smaller ones left; and my rankings are below, I think location should be excluded, since it confounds the analysis of real strengths and weaknesses of a given program, and it is a very subjective variable. For example, I'm at a West Coast school and think it's too cold to go anywhere past the PST zone.

I found many of the programs to be "tied" for a given spot, but nonetheless they are listed in a rough order as the top ten :

(All three tied for 1st)

1. MD Anderson: great residents and faculty, cool proton center, solid clinical research and good basic science research, there is simply nothing bad about the program (except Houston, which doesn't count in this ranking)
2. MSKCC: by the far the coolest residents, solid attendings who seem awesome to work for, excellent ancillary staff; limited research/elective time.
3. Harvard: a giant in the field of radonc, with a rare combination of solid clinical and outstanding research, protons, impressive residents with great credentials; seems very large with three different hospitals to run between.

4. Yale: Solid clinical training program because of a superb program director, phenomenal research which is rapidly expanding because of the Chair, very famous radiobiology department, new cancer center, 1 year elective time, all of the residents are very happy (don't listen to CNPhair).

5. Upenn: A great clinical chair chair, young enthusiastic new faculty from great places, friendly residents who seem very happy, Holman-friendly, and new center with protons.

6. Stanford: Historical significance, good elective time.
7. UCSF: 2nd place for the coolest residents, good elective time, uncertain Chair situation.

8. Duke: great chair.
9. Vanderbilt: perfect for the holman candidate.
10. Chicago: Historical significance, new program director.

also somewhere towards the end of the top ten should be Michigan and WashU. Although many may disagree on the specific order, i think these 12 programs are the top ones.
Click to expand...

This list looks pretty accurate to me, but I also agree wholeheartedly with Stephew that most of the top programs are so close together. It really comes down to how you fit with each program. And please take all negative comments made on this board with a grain of salt (including those negative comments I make!) because you never whether anyone has a chip on their shoulder or a vendetta.

I would also include in the top 5 Michigan: Ted Lawrence, Lori Pierce, Eisbruch, etc. etc. etc. Amazing physics, etc. Can't say enough good things about the program.

UCSF, nice residents. But seriously, would it be ranked that high if it were in, oh, Ohio?

Speaking of Ohio, Cleveland Clinic seems like a top tier program to me, if you're not as into basic science but more into the clinical side of things. Chair talked about brain mets at ASTRO, if I recall.

UAB seems up and coming. New cancer center (I think? was being built a couple years ago?), excellent chair (Bonner). Alabama: either you love it or don't know about it at all.

Harvard, MDACC: huge programs in terms of size. Everything is big in Texas. Including the radiation oncology programs.

MSKCC: Nice residents, but a pretty busy program. Very big names in the field, but not much time? Good clinical training. Living in NYC in subsidized housing!

Yale: Agree with the top 5 / top 10. Strong presence at ASTRO, it seemed to me. In terms of a residency program, everything I've heard has been very positive. Happy residents, seems like lots of research coming out of there.

Penn: great leadership, Dr. Hahn a big presence at ASTRO this year, and they're building protons soon? The investment in protons, whether it pays of scientifically or clinically, is indicative of a huge institutional investment in the program, which speaks very highly of the program, don't you think?

Stanford: Dr. Hoppe was a gold medal winner this year at ASTRO. He gave a very impressive review of all the people and stuff that's come out of Stanford. Still, in the radonc business, it's "What have you done for me lately?"

Others in the next tier: UCLA?, Beaumont, UNC?, U Wash? Hopkins? UMD? Come to think of it, Radiation Oncology is a pretty small field, isn't it?
 
let me put some context on just for consideration:
student often tout the "new cancer center being built". consider that many places NOT in their top 10 already have a cancer center. and anything new has promise but promise and fulfillment are two different things. further, "astro presence". I can think of a few names who've gone on to embarass radonc in spite of their ubiquity. My comments merely go towards this caveat: advertising comes in many shapes and sizes and we all -students especially- are susecptible to it. im not arguing with any specific evaluation made on this list though, naturally, i disagree with some of it. but these are just things to keep in mind in general
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I totally agree with all of the comments above, with the following things to add:

1. Places like Upenn and Yale should not be overtaken by other places with historical significance... and/or sunny location (because we all will be spending most of our days in a basement anyway).

2. Radonculous is an awesome log-on name.
 
Wow, this thread has certainly become a lot fiestier than when it was started a few years ago. As a current intern who matched in a "top" program, allow me to throw in a couple of cents as well.

1. You simply cannot take location out of the equation. Among all residencies, RadOnc possibly affords its residents the greatest amount of free time. And where would your rather be spending your free time? A thriving, culture-rich metropolis, a sleepy suburb, or a fair-sized city within driving distance of larger cities? Only the applicant can answer this question.

2. A lot of programs do a great sales job with promises of a "new cancer center" or "new facilities." No doubt these projects have been approved and you may even get a glimpse of the construction site. However, never rank a program based on future availability of new hardware/buildings. I've talked w/ many PGY-5's and chief residents (who graduated ~7 months ago) who were promised the same things. They still haven't materialized in many cases . . .

3. Do not discount historical significance. In some cases, applicants have observed that the strengths of certain programs have definitely fallen short of their reputation -- this is true. However, in a small field rep is a big deal in getting you a dream job when you graduate.

4. Other than the big 3 (MDACC, MSKCC, Harvard) I think there is quite a bit of variability among the rest of the so-called "top 10." A lot of programs can be shuffled around based on personal preference.

5. I agree w/ CNPhair that after the "top" programs there is a large swath of programs that are largely equivalent in terms of training/regional reputation. There are a handful of programs w/ questionable residencies as well, but not many.

6. A rankings thread is fun and enjoyable to read but one should pay more attention, I feel, to the comments made about the actual programs. These can tell you a little more about things which are important to you, the applicant.
 
acutaly UPenn has historical strength and is just getting back to it with the new chair. but i think gfunk is right; rather than merely write your list of favorites, comments/assessments are more useful.
 
top 3: Harvard, MSKCC, MDACC

top tier: (no paricular order) Penn, Chicago, Yale, Duke, Wisconsin, Michigan, WashU, Vanderbilt, Florida, UCSF, Stanford
 
It's been quite a while since I've posted, so I actually forgot my password and my old email address is long gone. So I've re-registered, but I was "oscar" from years ago.

Anyway, I contributed early on to rankings discussion, and now that I'm finishing residency, I thought it might be helpful to re-vise what my rankings of programs would be right now. Just to let you know, I'm going into academics, and I've gotten to know a lot of other residents around the country over the past 4 years. So I've been able to talk to them a lot and compare notes about our residency programs and I've visited a lot of programs during residency and faculty interviews.

Just to be open with my "methodology," I'm not ranking these based on where you'll get the best training, as that is a little subjective and based on the type of person you are. To tell you the truth, a lot of what goes into this subjective "formula" is based on a mix of reputation and track record of faculty, resources and technology, contributions to the field, research opportunities as a resident, access to academics as a career, future of the department, and overall gestalt. If you're in any of the top programs (and for that matter, in just about any programs) you're going to get fine clinical training. That's why the academic stuff is mainly what distinguishes the top tier from the others. Once I run out of programs that I am familiar with, I'll stop. This list is not all-inclusive.

1a and 1b - MDA and MSK - nothing really needs to be said, although I might give MDA a slight edge (though my impression is that the clinical training is not even in the top 10)
3 - Harvard - really a close second to 1a and b, but this distinction is mainly based on general impression (they can't all be #1!!) and not on anything specific
4 - Univ of Michigan - lots of great faculty, great research, HUGE cancer biology program
5a and 5 b - UCSF and Stanford - UCSF has great faculty and great things going on clinically and technologically. Stanford also has great technology, less number of prestigious faculty (but they are BIG ones), a VASTLY superior cancer biology program (in the top 2 or 3 in the country, maybe #1)
7 - Wash U - great faculty doing great things, chair is basic science person
8 - Univ of Chicago - great faculty with big cancer bio program, some big names, but not as many other places
9 - U Penn - good overall, but I think the future is bright
10 - U Wisconsin - brilliant chair, great things going on
11 - Duke - Willett as chair and Robert Lee brought in, good things going on
12 - Univ of Florida - some big faculty still around, tons of clinical research, great physics, proton center, future could be very bright
13 - Beaumont - amazing faculty on the level of any big university, only limitation may be the lack of surrounding great "academic" departments since it's a private hospital

At this point, I can't really distinguish them anymore. There are probably other programs that have a legitimate claim to 12 and 13 on my list, but I can't say I have enough info to say.

Feel free to disagree!
 
i think oscar/stangetz raises a good point that ive tried to make before; what people perceive as good or important changes as you get experience. always good to keep in mind. thanks for your inpuc oscar/stan.
 
West
1. MDA
2. Stanford
3. UCSF
4. Washington
5. UTSW
6. Utah

Midwest
1. Michigan
T2. Wash U
T2. Chicago
T2. Wisconsin
5. Mayo
6. Beaumont

Northeast
T1. MSK
T1. Harvard
3. Penn
4. Yale
5. Fox Chase
6. TJ

South
1. Duke
2. Vanderbilt
3. Florida
4. Hopkins
5. UAB
6. Wake Forest
 
What are the strongest for basic research?
 
Impressions said:
What are the strongest for basic research?
Click to expand...

Hard to say for sure. I think you have to look at opportunites in terms of research elective time and the cancer biology program at the institution. Programs that come to mind are Harvard, Yale, Vanderbilt, Michigan, Wash U, Penn. MDA and MSK tend to be heavier on clinical research.
 
Impressions said:
West
1. MDA
2. Stanford
3. UCSF
4. Washington
5. UTSW
6. Utah

Midwest
1. Michigan
T2. Wash U
T2. Chicago
T2. Wisconsin
5. Mayo
6. Beaumont

Northeast
T1. MSK
T1. Harvard
3. Penn
4. Yale
5. Fox Chase
6. TJ

South
1. Duke
2. Vanderbilt
3. Florida
4. Hopkins
5. UAB
6. Wake Forest
Click to expand...

So which school emerges from each region to the Final Four, and who wins in the finals?
 
I like Stanford vs Duke and Harvard vs. Beaumont as the Cinderella.

Finals - Harvard 61, Stanford 60.
 
People should always take this ranking thing with a grain of salt.

Let's say, in 20 years, when all the famous people in strong programs retire, the name of the school is all one has left. Even though programs like Johns Hopkins may not be as strong as some of the more established programs like Duke, U Chicago, or Wash U, but in time (20 years later), JHU will always hold the one ring to rule them all.

That's why all this ranking thing only works for 3-4 years max, especially in this era when there are as many chairman spots as there are residency spots...

:smuggrin:
 
john24 said:
the name of the school is all one has left.
Click to expand...

This is the one field where this isn't true - I mean, what other residency programs aren't great at UCLA besides rad onc - as the previous poster stated, columbia, cornell are big names in everything besides rad onc. I totally disagree. . . names help but are less useful in this field than anything else. The infrastructure, NIH grants, senior faculty all matter a great deal more. . .
 
does anybody have anything to say about the colorado program? I haven't seen it mentioned in a long while on this board and I'm wondering how it stacks up. And how about UNC (if their website is any indication, it may be just slightly behind the times)?
 
Colorado is kind of an unknown at this point. They have not yet graduated their first class of residents, so there is really no recent history or alumni network present.

I talked with a couple "old timers" (rad onc's within a year or two of retiring) about Colorado. Apparently it has somewhat of a negative historical reputation. Before the current chair, there was a great deal of funding issues and extreme competition with private practice groups in the local area. There have been quite a few changes since the "old timers" were in the loop, though, as many of them didn't even know who the current chair is.

The current chair, Laurie Gaspar, is a Canadian trained rad onc known for her RPA CNS work. She had a reputation for conducting a malignant interview on the trail a few years ago. Apparently she would toss up some films and start to pimp interviewees. There was none of that in recent times though and, in fact, she was a very pleasant person to talk with.

There seems to be a preference for Canadian attendings as the current program director, Tracey Schefter, is also a Canadian trained rad onc that did a year fellowship at MD Anderson before going to Colorado.

The program currently has GREATLY improved facilities and has been moved into the brand new Anschultz Cancer Pavilion (on the first floor -- windows). They have a standard array of LINACS and a Novalis Brain Lab.

As far as research goes, they do some radiobiology (radiosensitizers) and a few of the attendings are PI's on national trials. I've heard the best attending there, in terms of both teaching and research, is Rachel Rabinovitch. She's an MSK grad and one of the PI's on the partial breast irradiation study. She's also apparently an excellent teacher and a genuinely nice person. There is also an attending from Johns Hopkins (Raben) and a newer one from U Penn.

In spite of the positive changes, there remains some issues with the program. As alluded to above, there is very little basic science research. Their clinical research is limited by their patient volume, which quite frankly is one of the lowest that I've seen at a residency program. Also, given that this is a new residency program, the attendings were apparently not entirely used to having residents around and were unsure what should be reasonably expected from them, but that appears to be improving.

Most all of the attendings are quite nice, though there are "personalities". There is almost no scut work given the very helpful support staff. Patient load is low. In fact, I think the patient load is almost too low.

There is also only minimal monetary support for research and almost no support for travel to conferences, etc. 3 months of research is all that is allowed. I've heard stories of some of the residents having to come up with creative ways to attend conferences that they were presenting at (like asking for donations from annual cancer center donors) because the program director was so tight with funds.

Funding as a whole remains an issue with the department (from what I've heard). They receive very little financial support from the medical school or the state, so they have to be very self-sufficient. They also continue to experience cut-throat competition for patients from huge local private practice clinics (Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers, Denver Oncology, US Oncology, etc).

As far as the location, well, it's Denver. Enough said.

Bottom line: I think this is a solid lower mid-tier program that will be quite competitive due primarily to its location. I don't think the residency program will expand much given the current (and historical) funding and patient volume limitations. In 10 years (once there is a solid alumni network), this will be a great place to train for people desiring to enter private practice in the Southwest. However, I question if it will be able to compete with the larger and more historical residency programs for those wishing to enter academia in only ten years time.
 
Question about entering academia derived from the last post ...

If the survey results are correct, 70% of graduates are entering private practice, and 30% of graduates are entering academia (even though 100% of interviewees say they plan on academic careers). Also, anecdotally, there is a shortage of practicing academic rad-oncs.

If almost everyone going into the field today is pretty high-caliber in terms of grades/scores, research, intellectual curiosity, and interest in the field ... then why would 'top' academic positions limited to those that train at top programs?

I think it's safe to say that the difference between a JCRT grad and a Colorado grad is minimal. So, if that's the case AND there is a limited # of candidates for academic positions AND there is a need for academic rad-oncs, why would there be a bias for top program grads?

My hypothesis: top program grads self-select to become academic docs, and the mid-to-lower tier grads self-select to become private docs. In this age, my guess is that if you publish a fair amount, have a decent personality, you probably have at least a shot at any job.

-S
 
Actually one of our harvard grads will be going to CO. to do peds and be PD. I expect he'll be well liked.
 
Thanks for the info on UofCO, I was wondering about that program too. How about Beaumont? No one really talked about Beaumont but the name keeps popping up. Anyone?
 
Impressions said:
Thanks for the info on UofCO, I was wondering about that program too. How about Beaumont? No one really talked about Beaumont but the name keeps popping up. Anyone?
Click to expand...

William Beaumont is a very good training program. It's located in a nice Detroit suburb and is one of the largest hospitals in the US. Its a unique program because Beaumont is a private, non-university hospital. It is a five year program with a built in transitional year which is supposedly really good. The program offers excellent and diverse clinical training. The residents work hard and see a lot of patients. The chair is a big name in brachytherapy and because of this the residents get one of the best brachy experiences in the country. The department is also well known for its physics, a pioneer in IGRT. They have a new radiobiologist and they are working on some exciting translational research projects involving targeted therapies and molecular imaging. Each resident has a full year of protected research time and is expected to publish. The interview day itself was very standard. 8-10 interviews with faculty. The interview with the chair may be a little intimidating for some, he makes it clear that you will work hard and will publish. I have a lot of respect for him from our brief meeting. He is a great leader and cares a lot about the residents. The hospital itself is beautiful with the best cafeteria (w/ waiters) I have ever seen. One of the residents this year was going to Michigan for a faculty position and another was looking at UCSF. In summary, Beaumont is a very strong program that offers excellent clinical training, especially in brachytherapy. The full year of elective time is a great opportunity for your career. The main negatives of this program is that it is a private hospital and there is little basic science research going on outside the department. That being said some may like this community setting. I would definetly apply and interview if you have the chance.
 
What are people's opinions regarding some of the "smaller" West-Coast programs? I am applying for rad onc next year and would like to learn more about places like OHSU, UC Davis, Arizona, UCLA, Kaiser-So Cal, etc. I realize these aren't considered "top-tier" places, but any practical information or knowledge anybody could pass on would be much appreciated. Thanks!
 
Impressions said:
What are people's opinions regarding some of the "smaller" West-Coast programs? I am applying for rad onc next year and would like to learn more about places like OHSU, UC Davis, Arizona, UCLA, Kaiser-So Cal, etc. I realize these aren't considered "top-tier" places, but any practical information or knowledge anybody could pass on would be much appreciated. Thanks!
Click to expand...


I second that question, but also wondering about california pacific and loma linda
 
IRISH22 said:
I second that question, but also wondering about california pacific and loma linda
Click to expand...

Loma Linda:

1. MUST do a rotation there to be considered for interview.
2. Hope that student from school is not applying.
 
stephew said:
Actually one of our harvard grads will be going to CO. to do peds and be PD. I expect he'll be well liked.
Click to expand...


Is this grad expected to take over for Schefter this year?
 
all i heard from at our state of the dept address was he was going there to be the new pd and peds person.
 
Does anyone know about the current state of affairs in Radiation Oncology at Henry Ford Hospital? They have a new program director who seems very focused on resident education. The chairman has a wonderful leadership style and appears to be very supportive of residents.

Is everything as wonderful as it seems?

Thanks in advance for any reply

RADONC rules! E=hv
 
sorry to beat a dead horse, but a few more questions about the west coast programs...

1) Washington--its thrown out there as an "upper-middle tier" program; any thoughts on it after the recent interview season? and what gives with the separate application? Worth a look for an externship?

2) Utah--havent seen anything about this one...any thoughts?

peace
 
I did an externship at UW & my advice would be to NOT do an externship there. I worked my ace off while I was there, got along great with the residents & faculty & felt like I performed well. However, I was not granted an interview. I know that you should not "expect" an interview from someplace just b/c you rotated there..but it seemed to me that the PD seemed biased AGAINST students who rotate through..whether you shine or not. This sounds asanine, but I think it is true. I know 3 other students who rotated through, not one got an interview.

I am originally from Seattle, so I was very motivated about the program & wanted to fall in love with it. However, there were things that turned me off. There is not a lot of support for the residents in terms of didactic training. Most of the conferences (from my limited observation) were resident-driven. In fact, I did not see a single faculty member show up at any teaching sessions. Additionally, I was asked to give a presentation (as is customary for visiting students) and no faculty even showed up for that..I was REALLY disappointed about that b/c I worked my butt off preparing for the presentation. The feel I got from the residents is that they aren't super happy with the administration and they are overworked and underappreciated. They do work very hard (compared to other programs I visited) & a lot of that stems from the fact that they work out of so many different centers within Seattle. There is a lot of time spent just getting from place to place in heavy traffic & that adds up in terms of hours.

Anyway, this program has EVERYTHING in terms of resources and the opportunities at UW seem limitless. They have all the technologies (protons, neutrons,etc) My feeling is that the current PD (unless they have changed PD's, which I heard may happen) is not very student or resident friendly. I think things could turn 180 degrees though with someone else in charge..there are lots of really cool faculty there. I just wouldn't rotate through, even if it's tops on your list, b/c I doubt it will help you get an interview. Good luck.
 
Not a single faculty member showing up to a visiting M4 presentation is just totally unacceptable. At both my rotations, the chair and program director made an appearance, and they were at bigger programs than Washington. I think Napoleon's advice to avoid this externship appears pretty sound.
 
napoleondynamite said:
Anyway, this program has EVERYTHING in terms of resources and the opportunities at UW seem limitless. They have all the technologies (protons, neutrons,etc) My feeling is that the current PD (unless they have changed PD's, which I heard may happen) is not very student or resident friendly. I think things could turn 180 degrees though with someone else in charge..there are lots of really cool faculty there. I just wouldn't rotate through, even if it's tops on your list, b/c I doubt it will help you get an interview. Good luck.
Click to expand...


UW has protons?
 
My understanding is that they have broken ground for a proton center.
 
point taken..Ill stay away from UW for the externship. Thanks for the advice
 
I also rotated at UW and was fortunate enough to get an interview. The program director will be changing soon. Douglas is stepping down or out and Patel will be the new one. Do not expect this to change the selection or program much though. The ones making the resident decisions this year will also be the same ones making the decisions next year. Laramore, Koh, Douglas, and Russel are the only voices that count apparently.

Also, as of the interview (Jan 2007), UW cannot find financing for the proton center, so that may or may not happen. It certainly will not happen for at least 5 years.

As far as an externship, like most other programs, at UW it could either help or hurt. If I had to rotate there vs. someplace where there is a high density of "big names" (MD Anderson), I'd probably choose the bigger program just for the letters.
 
Also, no faculty members showed up for my end of the rotation presentation. Most of your performance is based upon feedback from the residents.
 
thanks for the info bout U-dub....anyone have any sage advice about the Utah program? Also wondering about UAB
 
sorry to beat a dead horse, but a few more questions about the west coast programs...

1) Washington--its thrown out there as an "upper-middle tier" program; any thoughts on it after the recent interview season? and what gives with the separate application? Worth a look for an externship?

2) Utah--havent seen anything about this one...any thoughts?

peace
Click to expand...

I appreciate the input about UW but I'm interested in the second part of this question: what about Utah? I lived there for a while and I think it's a nice location. I miss the mountains and the fishing. Any thoughts about the program?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

P
Rad Onc oral boards
Replies
10
Views
662
Barcelona PSG
B
Gfunk6
Rad Onc? Burnt Out?
Replies
36
Views
1K
thecarbonionangle
thecarbonionangle
TheWallnerus
Rad onc supervision, the epilogue
Replies
10
Views
1K
elementaryschooleconomics
elementaryschooleconomics
U
Why is rad onc not more competitive?
2 3 4 5
Replies
233
Views
9K
medgator
M
D
Rad onc as a second residency?
Replies
25
Views
2K
SneakyBooger
SneakyBooger
Top