Ranking the worst rad onc programs in the nation - for med students
Started by FrostyHammer
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
All pretty average and probably less deserving of spots than CCF or Wisconsin
drewdog1973
Full Member
On what metric?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
And those assessments are fair. Its clearly gone beyond that. Doesn't matter much to me either way. Just my assessment of this thread, and the need for it to be on the "thread **** list."
Historic program quality/reviews, size, known faculty etc. Ever know how they do us news rankings for med school or how they do the college football rankings?
Every list will have a degree of subjectivity
drewdog1973
Full Member
Yes, US News is an excellent role model.
Average to below average programs. Some of these places SOAPd other specialty rejects. That's all that needs to be said.
Based on us news, doximity, sdn forum, and rad oncs (residents and faculty). No ranking system is perfect and taking an aggregate is the best we can do like in any other field.
The notion that where you trained translates into the quality of physician you become could not be more wrong.
One of the best rad oncs I have ever worked with came from a program that is listed as a bottom program. One of the absolute worst rad oncs who completely lacked sound clinical judgment (not to mention had major personality issues) was an MD/PhD from a top program. I would send a family member to the former without any hesitation and I would jump through hoops to make sure the latter did not treat anyone I know’s hamster.
Inherent traits like character, ethics, genuine compassion for patients, and a desire to do the right thing mean so much more than where you train. And I say this as someone who has benefited from a CV with lots of fancy names.
One of the best rad oncs I have ever worked with came from a program that is listed as a bottom program. One of the absolute worst rad oncs who completely lacked sound clinical judgment (not to mention had major personality issues) was an MD/PhD from a top program. I would send a family member to the former without any hesitation and I would jump through hoops to make sure the latter did not treat anyone I know’s hamster.
Inherent traits like character, ethics, genuine compassion for patients, and a desire to do the right thing mean so much more than where you train. And I say this as someone who has benefited from a CV with lots of fancy names.
I’ve seen a lot of programs SOAP other specialty rejects... thats pretty much how programs fill these days.
drewdog1973
Full Member
Based on this metric (others mentioned), Beaumont on **** list, too?
Nope, because per other metrics (ie. Us news, rad oncs irl, doximity, forums), it's still a good program but all of the 15 programs that have been consistently mentioned are still trash.
drewdog1973
Full Member
Interesting views.
drewdog1973
Full Member
Tell me more about why US News and Doximity have relevance to Rad Onc training programs? I’m sincerely curious. These sound like popularity contest situations that are self fulfilling. It only seems people younger than me care about those two rankings. I’m happy to hear more, though.
I trained at one of the programs on the list. Can’t say which because I would dox myself, but I actually thought training was good there. I worked with people on multiple national guidelines and committees and we had standardized resident-led weekly conferences which at least a few staff attended each week. The danger at my program was if you took no initiative faculty could all function completely independently.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I really doubt there was much difference in competency between residents over past 10 years. Let’s say you were the best in your class at a medium size state med school with one paper to your name. At best you would end up at a program on the list. Intellectually, are you likely to be on par with a Harvard grad. Of course. Obviously circumstances have changed and programs that SOAP/can’t attract mediocre applicants should close, despite the fact that they had excellent grads in the past.
But often people aren’t receiving good training at many big name programs. A rep on name isn’t the only thing that matters.
I agree there’s oversupply for sure. But program bashing isn’t always justified
I just met a DO med student recently from a new-ish DO school. A school upon which we would either frown or of which we'd be unaware. He was studious, knowledgeable, personable, well-spoken, handsome, and he made a 265 on Step 1. And........... he wants to be a med onc.
Beaumont was **** basically after the chair and big names like kestin, vicini etc bolted to 21C iirc. Not sure how it is now though
drewdog1973
Full Member
Handsome is important
They are relevant because prestige/reputation plays component in all ranking systems. Those two website provide info purely on reputation (ie. What others think) while rad oncs IRL and forums can provide concrete examples of programs. It's important to use all resources when coming up with rankings.
Also, it's not debatable that the 10 to 15 programs (ie. Ny presby, WVU, Tennessee, Mississippi) always mentioned are poor programs. You can debate about whether places like Kansas, Kentucky, etc can be on there.
This thread is very interesting and all. However, arguing which program is better or worse in the current environment is analogous to arguing for the front or rear car of a train that is about the hurtle off the tracks into an abyss.
Just sayin'
Just sayin'
First class vs economy on the titanic.
It’s what rad oncs do!
Perhaps not the best analogy. Class and gender influenced survival
These sorts of debates are necessary because the acgme will not provide applicants with any useful information they have regarding individual programs like case loads, resident evaluation scores, board pass rates, nature of previous issues with programs ect.... The acgme wants applicants to have as little information as possible regarding individual programs. All you get is the program accredited? are they on probation?
drewdog1973
Full Member
Debates are good
just placing Loyola (or whatever) on the **** list with no context is much less good.
Ya that's the problem when really no one has hard info/data on these programs other then acgme. Personally do I think Loyola is a bad or **** program? No I don't. I have heard about Loyola from second had sources and it seems like a solid mid tier type of place. Do I have data to show or prove that? Nope.
I'm really interested in this statement - did they go uncovered for parts of the year? My experience is the opposite, to a degree. The faculty could, technically, function independently at my program, but it would be a scandal (slight hyperbole lol). The expectation from virtually Day 1 in my department is residents better carry the service, and if someone is falling behind, the senior residents better pick up the slack until they get their act together.
It serves as great Accidental Education, but its motivation comes from "teaching you isn't getting my grant application in any faster".
They usually went uncovered for one fourth if not half the year. Similar to where I’m an attending now. Also, some residents in my residency didn’t make the strongest effort in general.
Also as an attending, the thing residents improve my efficiency on most is notes as I don’t have to rewrite the whole thing and just co-sign. (They don’t see every single one of my patients either, maybe half) When it comes to contours and treatment planning I end up re-contouring most everything. I also function without a resident many months of the year though I do have an np for help two days of the week.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Oh wow. I have a general sense of how other institutions work - but maybe only 5-10 out of the ~90 (where I have IRL friends), and SDN just continually surprises me with how everyone can do a "RadOnc residency" but the nuts-and-bolts of that experience can be so different.
I guess that's the point of this thread, haha.
Why do you end up recontouring most everything? You mean targets and OARs? Are they "bad" or are they just not in your personal style?
drewdog1973
Full Member
“Trash no good very bad contours! There are even a few lawsuits! Stay away!”
I want my foie gras and beluga in first class at the Anderson on snowpiercer, please
OARs mostly style, though parotids are usually way under contoured. Targets it’s hit or miss, sometimes style sometimes substance. I treat HN so most people under contour some areas and over contour others. I am very particular with my volumes.
We’re all drunk on our own kool-aid!
That we are...but I’m the one ultimately responsible for the patients outcome.
As am I.
But what about tubarials?!?
Couldn’t agree more. Guys like Isidor Strauss couldn’t buy their way off the Titanic, but I guarantee they could but a residency slot for their kids at any program in the country. Horrible analogy 🙂
This thread on the worst and the best programs is cute.
Let's face it, every program should, independently or in aggregate, look deeply into their respective navels and contemplate cutting 50% of their spots. For programs that are too small, they should either shut down or merge with another program. Why the f**k are there 8 separate residency programs in NYC? Those are cheap labor positions that should be full time jobs for board-certified rad onc's. Don't even get me started on places like Willis-Knighton that want to start a residency program.
These threads on the worst and best programs foster a false and toxic narrative, that if students can get into a "best" program, they'll be safe from job market woes.
When it's 2026, no one will care how many proton gantries and NRG committee chairs your program has, because no jobs will be available, except instructor/postdoc/fellow jobs at UW and UCLA.
Let's face it, every program should, independently or in aggregate, look deeply into their respective navels and contemplate cutting 50% of their spots. For programs that are too small, they should either shut down or merge with another program. Why the f**k are there 8 separate residency programs in NYC? Those are cheap labor positions that should be full time jobs for board-certified rad onc's. Don't even get me started on places like Willis-Knighton that want to start a residency program.
These threads on the worst and best programs foster a false and toxic narrative, that if students can get into a "best" program, they'll be safe from job market woes.
When it's 2026, no one will care how many proton gantries and NRG committee chairs your program has, because no jobs will be available, except instructor/postdoc/fellow jobs at UW and UCLA.
If there are no bad programs, there can't be any good programs.
There are plenty of bad programs. Many have been listed here. Trust your eyes. Better yet, don't apply at all.
There are plenty of bad programs. Many have been listed here. Trust your eyes. Better yet, don't apply at all.
drewdog1973
Full Member
This is exactly right and why the lists do more harm than good. It allows some percentage of programs off the hook, when all are guilty.
Sure, every program should reduce, but.... some should reduce to zero. Permanently.
I don't think "expert" opinion here/spreadsheet/elsewhere is unimpeachable, but it's a VERY good starting point. Again, trust your own eyes, but let those eyes be more discerning in various locales.
I don't think "expert" opinion here/spreadsheet/elsewhere is unimpeachable, but it's a VERY good starting point. Again, trust your own eyes, but let those eyes be more discerning in various locales.
Larceny isn't the same thing as assault or murder. Recently created programs should bear the brunt of it, because they knew better, could argue the same for recently expanded spots from traditional solid names. CCF and mayo Rochester should go back to 2/year as much as LIJ and mayo az/jax should shut down
Last edited:
My pessimistic side believes that yes I agree bad programs should be closed and overall residency positions should be reduced, however my belief is that a “good-great” program would just use that as a rationale for them to just expand more.
I think we are all in 100% agreement that absolutely nothing is going to change anytime soon or most likely ever!
I think we are all in 100% agreement that absolutely nothing is going to change anytime soon or most likely ever!
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
IMO Bottom tier programs to avoid due to combination or single issue: poor job placement/lack of help getting jobs, poor residency experience, subpar educational culture, board failures, tons of scut and service component which vastly outweighs education, history of resident firing/ugliness, brand new program in a saturated area/cheap labor expansion, malignancy, nepotism/corruption. This of course does not mean residents from these places are incompetent. My goal is to guide readers in choosing wisely.
NYP Methodist
Columbia
Northshore LIJ
SUNY downstate
SUNY upstate
Darthmouth
Stony Brook
Allegheny
WVU
Arkansas
Oklahoma
MUSC
Univ of Tennessee
Baylor
UT-San Antonio
UTMB-Galveston
Texas A&M/Baylor Scott and White
Mississippi
Univ. of Kentucky
Louisville
Case Western
UC Davis
UC Irvine
UPMC
Jefferson
Miami
USC
Loma Linda
Cedar Sinai
Wayne State
Iowa
Univ. Of Minnesota
Nebraska
Any “rumored” hellpit place in the works in any coast, swampy place, whatever
NYP Methodist
Columbia
Northshore LIJ
SUNY downstate
SUNY upstate
Darthmouth
Stony Brook
Allegheny
WVU
Arkansas
Oklahoma
MUSC
Univ of Tennessee
Baylor
UT-San Antonio
UTMB-Galveston
Texas A&M/Baylor Scott and White
Mississippi
Univ. of Kentucky
Louisville
Case Western
UC Davis
UC Irvine
UPMC
Jefferson
Miami
USC
Loma Linda
Cedar Sinai
Wayne State
Iowa
Univ. Of Minnesota
Nebraska
Any “rumored” hellpit place in the works in any coast, swampy place, whatever
Last edited:
Is Darth Mouth a Sith Lord? If so, are you spoiling the end of the mandalorian for me? Not cool man!
But isn't the bolded bad for education, or is that just my opinion? The last line, however, is very important as a good thing - attendings SHOULD be able to function independently. Makes you go from being on a service for the service and being on a service for the education.
We had at least 50% attending led lectures/educational sessions, at least on the major clinical topics, and have to believe that an attending talking about an educational topic is better than a PGY-2 reading a book and teaching other residents.
Residents did journal clubs and occasional things, but definitely not on a weekly basis.
There is all sorts of scut that is not educational and is a purely service obligation that I have seen and heard of residents having to do, the vast majority of which has ZERO educational value, either ever (like calling an outside facility to obtain records because there are no ancillary staff or physicists won't do it), or after doing maybe some concrete number of times (like contouring normals, let's say 5-10 times per anatomic site).
I think resident led didactics are fine as long as attendings are there to correct misinformation and provide their real-life experience.
drewdog1973
Full Member
AlleghEny
The purposeful misspelling is a micro aggression. Astro would not take kindly to that. You want to have 300 residents? Fine, be our guest. But limit your micro aggressions, or corrective action will be taken.
The purposeful misspelling is a micro aggression. Astro would not take kindly to that. You want to have 300 residents? Fine, be our guest. But limit your micro aggressions, or corrective action will be taken.
Similar threads
