Residency program rankings

[radiologyology]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I know this is wayyyyyyy too early to be thinking about this, but is this site accurate?

 

[joker2400]

I know this is wayyyyyyy too early to be thinking about this, but is this site accurate?

The consensus around here is not really

 

[Gadofosveset]

+1

Not really.

 

[PL198]

+1

Not really.

just looking at the rads I don't see anything that draws any red flags in the top 10? even if it's not super accurate it's probably decent for people like me who have literally no idea of the rankings , to get a general feel of where programs rank.

it's kinda creepy you just put in your name and it knows where you go to school. then it asks you 4 random streets and which is closest to your house. how the hell would I know

 

[Gadofosveset]

There is no perfect ranking system.

Doximety rankings have questionable methodology and are mostly based on name brand.

"Consensus statements" from sites like SDN are biased and have wide variability, which can be more annoying than an artificially neat list. But, as long as consensus rankings are from resident level and above, they give a more accurate idea of the facts on the ground for training programs. One of the strongest benefits is that they can parse out more biased ranking subsets based on your interests.

Take all ranking systems with a couple grains of salt.

 

[PL198]

There is no perfect ranking system.

Doximety rankings have questionable methodology and are mostly based on name brand.

"Consensus statements" from sites like SDN are biased and have wide variability, which can be more annoying than an artificially neat list. But, as long as consensus rankings are from resident level and above, they give a more accurate idea of the facts on the ground for training programs. One of the strongest benefits is that they can parse out more biased ranking subsets based on your interests.

Take all ranking systems with a couple grains of salt.

what metrics did you use to evaluate the strength of each program you were interested in?

 

[Gadofosveset]

what metrics did you use to evaluate the strength of each program you were interested in?

My take is that metrics are usually misleading for applicants.

If I were choosing again today, I would have a much better idea what factors are more important (e.g. fellow:resident ratio, MR volume/types of studies, board pass rate, resident opinion of lectures, moonlighting opportunities, ability of residents to get their choice of unhindered minifellowhip, hands on US time, satisfaction of grads with the problem, etc., NOT fellowship placement)..... but although you can get a general idea of a program from these and other factors, they're often unhelpful for fine distinctions between programs, which is what is applicants are often looking for.

I ranked my residencies based on location, which attendings I liked better, and which programs I thought made resident teaching a priority. No regrets.

 

[KinasePro]

The doximity rankings, at least in orthopaedics, are total baloney. For at least a few reasons:

1) Look at the piddling response rates... after the top 10 they have essentially no data to rank programs
2) They fail to take into account any real-world issues with the programs. For example, WashU ortho is ranked #2 by doximity, yet they lost a bunch of their famous faculty recently and more are rumored to leave.
3) Far too many truly excellent programs are hidden deep down in the list. Mis-ranking those programs saps any credibility from these rankings whatsoever.
4) Ranking residency programs is kind of a useless activity, because the vast majority are equivalent. All programs produce sh:tty doctors, and all programs produce all stars. In my limited experience, where someone did residency tells you close to nothing about their abilities as a doctor.

 

[Danbo1957]

Certain specialties seem right-on (Family Medicine), others seem way-off (surgery)...

 

[operaman]

The biggest issue with the Doximity rankings was that nobody seemed to know it was even happening until the lists were posted. The surveys went out to Doximity members but it was all fairly under the radar because the site was/is pretty young and not that widely used compared with established social networks. Given all the publicity it got, my guess is that the surveys will be taken much more seriously next time and programs will work hard to get their own alumni to respond. Expect to see some movement in all fields when the next iteration comes out.

Beyond that, good rankings with some semblance of decent methodology can be useful, but probably not for making fine distinctions. We can see this in the US News rankings for schools and how they have changes each year. I always find it amusing that there can be so much movement when by and large the schools haven't changed at all since the previous year. The number 2 school is suddenly number 1 despite being no different than the year before - same faculty, same curriculum, same facilities, same everything. Rankings can help give you a general sense of "tiers" of schools/programs/whatever, but not much more.

 

[HumbleMD]

Hmm, not too bad. I'm sure it depends on the field. OBGYN had a few missing but got all the big ones in there. Michigan seems to be the surprise MVP for popping up into every field.
Residency is so much more personal, and you'll have different plans, wants, needs.
But this looks like a great place to start to generate a 20+ list of programs to initially apply to, then start talking to other folks in your future field, your chairperson, etc. It seems like a fine place to start if you're really starting form square one.

 

[Elixir6]

I know this is wayyyyyyy too early to be thinking about this, but is this site accurate?

Actually, I can tell you pretty certainly that it is 99% accurate. Especially the function that narrows programs based on your fellowship program of interest.

The only issue I found with it is that my home internal medicine program is ranked 28th, but after talking to the faculty I'm pretty sure our program is top 6-8~

 

[PL198]

Cool guys thanks for all the info

 

[Mitali]

The consensus around here is not really

My reading suggests "Yes" and "No". Yes, higher ranked hospitals give more opportunities for training under reputed surgeons, exposure to complicated and challenging cases, robust didactic, simulation, and limitless opportunities for research. "No" when I read about many best doctors who've come up with innovative techniques in curing the sick, most residencies of those physicians are not from highly reputed (or USNEWS ranked best hospitals) hospitals. This gives me a lot of hope and motivation. Unfortunately, we do not have a magic lamp, and there is no genie. We must use our own skills and endeavors to make the good doctors we want and need. It is an awesome responsibility, ranking alone will not cut it.

 

[Law2Doc]

As Southern Surgeon suggested above, programs send emails asking faculty and alumni to respond favorably, so the higher rankings really just reflect programs more organized at getting the vote out. So bigger/ older programs with more alumni will be better ranked, and that won't necessarily provide you useful data.

 

[hallowmann]

Short of a handful of fields, mostly those that lead towards competitive fellowships, objective "ranking" of residency programs is not particularly useful. You're looking for fit and good training exposure to what you actually want to do when it comes to residency training. I don't know, maybe use it as an initial guide, but I wouldn't exclude places you're interested in just because they're not in the top 20 or something.

 

[RangerBob]

Like others say, I've found the first 8-10 (in PM&R) to be fairly accurate in terms of I'd say those are the top PM&R programs (not necessarily the same order). After that you start seeing programs that don't belong as high up and programs that belong much higher up. As stated, the surveys were conducted/distributed in a pretty biased and limited manner, and surveys in general will be quite biased, so while most people in most fields will agree that programs X, Y, and Z all belong in the top 10, a lot of other programs will have pretty skewed results, one way or another.

I would just ignore the rankings. Maybe it helps if you have no idea how to narrow down programs, but I was able to do that pretty efficiently by talking with my mentors, others in the field, and looking at programs' curricula, geographical location, etc. Then I interviewed and I chose places that were the best training/atmosphere for me, and not what would impress other doctors. I matched to my "best fit." Is it the best? No. Certainly a hidden gem. And I wouldn't go to any program listed higher than it is (or lower for that matter).

 

[ProfMD]

Your best bet is to ignore these rankings completely. Choose a medical school based on whatever criteria, choose a speciality, then talk to the chair of that department at your school.

These rankings are of dubious value for several reasons:
1) Suspect methodology
2) Different people have different goals: priorities which change rankings - academic vs non; research vs clinical; region of country; particular sun specialities; etc
3) Rankings change - this may not change things dramatically in most cases, but some smaller programs / specialities can change based on the movement of a few faculty
4) For residency, goodness of fit is generally more important than prestige. Prestige of program may play a role if you are seeking a high powered fellowship or too academic job, but otherwise it means significantly less than finding a place where you will be happy and thrive

Your chair / advisor in med school will help you sort through these issues.