Residency Rank?

[DrMasochist]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

How does one figure out which residencies are good? Is there some kind of official or unofficial ranking?

Also do academic programs have better training than community programs?

I'm bit of a noob with all this stuff as I'm only a MS3.

Thanks in advance.

 

[shark2000]

Any kind of answer can cause a lot of fights.Nothing officially tells you which program gives you better training.
Overall, you get better training in university programs with multiple subspecialized attending and diversity of cases. Being in a referral center is huge advantage as you see diversity of cases.
Also bigger programs gives a huge advantage in making connections for your future job placement.

 

[Doctor D]

The best program is the one that is the best fit for you.

 

[DrMasochist]

So is it all just hearsay?

Say, for example, I like the state of Texas for some reason. Let's say that in Texas there are a 4 programs that interest me equally: Baylor, UTSW, UTH, and UTSA. As a 4th year medical student, I'm allowed 2 elective rotations in Rads, therefore I must somehow determine which two of the four I want to rate through? Should I flip a coin or draw straws?

Also, I don't want to make a decision based on the advice of individuals on the internet who a) I've never met, and b) have different criteria of what constitutes a "good program."

At this moment, where I want to do a residency is contingent on two criteria
1) The location
2) Academic residency/university affliated program

Is this it? Should I assume that all academic institutions are going to be more or less the same in terms of training?

And because a formal ranking does not exist, these "top tier, middle tier, lower tier" terms that many posters and "experts" fling around in this forum are based on what exactly? Hearsay? Reputation of the institution as a whole, which may or may not accurately display the quality of the radiology program?

 

[drizzt3117]

Certainly there is a hierarchy, that being said, different people are looking for different things.

My ranking of the Texas programs, though is:

Utsw > Baylor Dallas = Baylor Houston > uth > s&w > all the rest.

Ymmv.

So is it all just hearsay?

Say, for example, I like the state of Texas for some reason. Let's say that in Texas there are a 4 programs that interest me equally: Baylor, UTSW, UTH, and UTSA. As a 4th year medical student, I'm allowed 2 elective rotations in Rads, therefore I must somehow determine which two of the four I want to rate through? Should I flip a coin or draw straws?

Also, I don't want to make a decision based on the advice of individuals on the internet who a) I've never met, and b) have different criteria of what constitutes a "good program."

At this moment, where I want to do a residency is contingent on two criteria
1) The location
2) Academic residency/university affliated program

Is this it? Should I assume that all academic institutions are going to be more or less the same in terms of training?

And because a formal ranking does not exist, these "top tier, middle tier, lower tier" terms that many posters and "experts" fling around in this forum are based on what exactly? Hearsay? Reputation of the institution as a whole, which may or may not accurately display the quality of the radiology program?

 

[cowme]

I thought that in general, there was some truth to the "bigger name=better training" camp when I interviewed. But I think it's mainly a chicken and the egg effect-- I'm a firm believer that if you take the smartest radiology residents in the country, and put them at crappy community hospital X--I still think they'd be the smartest radiology residents in the country. As long as you pick a place that has a wide range of pathology, and subspecialty attendings, you aren't going to be sacrificing much, IMO. You may miss out on some of the fancy new toys--but I don't think you will come out lacking because you didn't have residency experience with a 7 T magnet.

I will say that I sacrificed a big name for a good location--I have not been disappointed so far.

 

[choweee]

Like everyone said, generally, the bigger and better the hospital, the more diverse the cases that come your way in the reading room, which translates to more opportunities for learning. You won't do liver cases in IR if your hospital doesn't support it, you won't learn trauma if your hospital doesn't get trauma, etc.

I applied by hospital reputation and location, and after interviewing, I got much more information to work with. Some programs will have great peds, other places will ship you off for your peds rotations (not that this matters much, as no one really goes into peds). Also, the turf battles vary from institution to institution; you will learn cardiac imaging at some places, whereas cardiologists own it at other places.

I went for fit. There are such things as malignant radiology residencies, which I ended up ranking lower despite their strong names. One interviewer I had was known to make residents cry (I found this out afterwards when I asked some residents, "What's up with Dr. _____?"). You spend a lot of time with attendings in rads and you want to wake up each morning looking forward to going to work.

 

[shark2000]

1- Never ever underestimate the value of sub-specialization. Being in a large referral center usually is equal to having sub-specialized faculty. The guy who has read wrist MRI his whole life, has run weekly tumor boards with orthopods in the last 20 years and has been the MSK radiologist to go in a large center that gets all of bone tumor referrals is way way different from your average MSK trained radiologist in community who covers chest room 2 days a week and may see one bone tumor every other week. 2- Never ever under-estimate the variety of pathology that you see in large referral center. I have been in pp for a while and pathologies that we used to see every other day in residency, barely are seen here even once a month or even every 3-4 months. Sad story is one of the places we cover is trying to get accredited soon.


3- Never ever under- estimate the secured teaching time in big academic center when you can get daily lectures by people whom pp radiologists pay a couple of grands to just attend their 3 day course. Also a great mentor who walk you through each image and transfer his/her experience to you, whether it is a post-op X-ray or Knee MRI. It is way different from envronment of some places that just want to get the job done and go home.


4- The truth is learning curve is very steep in the first 1.5 year or 2 years. After that you will reach a plateau unless you are in a big academic center with diversity of cases and truly sub-specialized attending.

 

[cowme]

You've been in pp for like a year I thought. And out of curiosity, why is it so important to get such great training in diagnosing bone tumors if you never see them (and when you do, they get shipped off to a referral center anyways).

I mean, we only get around 4-6 months of msk training in residency. As someone going into private practice and not getting an MSK fellowship, I'd rather get proficient at reading bread and butter MSK than wasting my time with esoteric zebras that I will see once every 4 months (at which point ill have the MSK guy in my group to curbside anyways). But as the OP and others mentioned in this thread, different strokes for different folks.

 

[shark2000]

You've been in pp for like a year I thought. And out of curiosity, why is it so important to get such great training in diagnosing bone tumors if you never see them (and when you do, they get shipped off to a referral center anyways).

I mean, we only get around 4-6 months of msk training in residency. As someone going into private practice and not getting an MSK fellowship, I'd rather get proficient at reading bread and butter MSK than wasting my time with esoteric zebras that I will see once every 4 months (at which point ill have the MSK guy in my group to curbside anyways). But as the OP and others mentioned in this thread, different strokes for different folks.

Because you will see them anyway. Also when you have seen bunch of tumor X-rays, next time that you get a X-ray of a patient with pain and history of cancer ( very common scenario) you will easily and confidently read it. But if you have not seen many, then you will start to hedge or call any bone island a bone tumor. This is the whole idea of fellowship.
You will get proficient at reading bread and butter of many things after 2 years. Radiology is a subspecialized field. Every ED doctor can call most of the fractures. If you just want to put fx in your report, you are not helping. It is you who should call whether you are suspicious of a pathologic fx or not.


The truth is you are giving service to another doctor, many of them specialists. Every pulmonogist can read bread and butter chest CT, every neurologist can read bread and butter Brain MRI, every surgeon can read bread and butter abdominal CT. It is you that should add a value to patient care and to the report.


This is the mistake of many medical students. You are not going to be a family doctor of imaging, you are going to be the retinal surgeon of imaging.


BTW, you get surprised how much you have to do everything in pp. When you are on your own at 2am and having an abdominal CT, I suppose you don't have anybody to curbside.


If you don't know an entity exists and how it looks like, you will never see it on an imaging.

 

[cowme]

Because you will see them anyway. Also when you have seen bunch of tumor X-rays, next time that you get a X-ray of a patient with pain and history of cancer ( very common scenario) you will easily and confidently read it. But if you have not seen many, then you will start to hedge or call any bone island a bone tumor. This is the whole idea of fellowship.
You will get proficient at reading bread and butter of many things after 2 years. Radiology is a subspecialized field. Every ED doctor can call most of the fractures. If you just want to put fx in your report, you are not helping. It is you who should call whether you are suspicious of a pathologic fx or not.

I understand the point of fellowship, but come on man. That is ridiculous to think someone will hedge and call a bone island a tumor because they never trained with a bone tumor guru. I've never seen a non-MSK call an incidentally seen bone island a tumor, and some of them never even had formal cross sectional MSK training.

There's a difference between not being an expert in a subspecialty and being incompetent. We are all trained to identify pathologic fractures and "aggressive cancer vs aggressive infection vs benign?" At 2 AM, this is all that matters. I just think you are really over-estimating how important it is to see a disproportionate amount of zebras for the rare instances you encounters them in the real world.

 

[shark2000]

I understand the point of fellowship, but come on man. That is ridiculous to think someone will hedge and call a bone island a tumor because they never trained with a bone tumor guru. I've never seen a non-MSK call an incidentally seen bone island a tumor, and some of them never even had formal cross sectional MSK training.

There's a difference between not being an expert in a subspecialty and being incompetent. We are all trained to identify pathologic fractures and "aggressive cancer vs aggressive infection vs benign?" At 2 AM, this is all that matters. I just think you are really over-estimating how important it is to see a disproportionate amount of zebras for the rare instances you encounters them in the real world.

What you want to justify?

I didn't say there is a whole difference between two academic centers. However, you have to agree that there is a difference between being trained at MGH, UCSF, Hopkins versus your random unknown community hospital with a pp group who just want to get the job done and go home.

As a person who has done my residency and fellowship in one of the best programs, let me tell you something. We had fellows from small and big programs. And I certainly tell you there is a tangible difference between somebody who has done his training in an academic tertiary center vs some who has done it somewhere else. You can feel it even after the first call with them.

Anyway, we may argue over it for ever. The OP asked about the program to choose.
Let me tell you. In pp, these days for every job there are 10-20 applicants and half of them come from some big names and LIKE IT OR NOT, RIGHT OR WRONG, most groups have a bias towards graduates of big programs. Even if it is useless, for marketing purposes it works better to write graduate of DUKE rather than a small name when you want to talk to referring doctors. That is the reason that graduates of many small programs have to do 2 fellowships to make them more marketable.

Long story short: In this job market, go to a big name program if you can. Right or wrong, you will have a significant edge over others. Our only fellow who could not find a job was the one from a small residency, as the rest of us had our jobs lined up before starting fellowship.

 

[cowme]

I respectfully disagree, especially regarding your odd assumption that all community programs just want to "do the work and go home" while academic places are there for true noble and virtuous reasons-- or that only radiologists at tertiary care centers can differentiate a bone island from a tumor (something I could do as a med student). You seem to have an odd superiority complex about your training at a top tier place. Or maybe I have an inferiority complex for not being at one. But whatever, there's no point to argue about this because we've gotten way off topic.

 

[shark2000]

I respectfully disagree, especially regarding your odd assumption that all community programs just want to "do the work and go home" while academic places are there for true noble and virtuous reasons-- or that only radiologists at tertiary care centers can differentiate a bone island from a tumor (something I could do as a med student). You seem to have an odd superiority complex about your training at a top tier place. Or maybe I have an inferiority complex for not being at one. But whatever, there's no point to argue about this because we've gotten way off topic.

Sure. Bone island was just an example.
You may be right. Your argument is like talking about Toyota and BMW. BMW costs 4 times, even if Toyota is as good or even more reliable.

I hope the job market will open in 5-6 years. Otherwise, Please just remember this discussion when you are looking for a job and see how the best jobs are going to even mediocre residents/fellows just because they have a BIG residency name in their CV. Then you will join the club of complainer about tight job market.

To the OP: Go to the best program you can.

I am done with this post. Thanks.

 

[DrMasochist]

Thanks for the replies.

From what I gathered from Shark2000 and the others is that Academic Programs are the way to go, and I had a feeling that was going to be the case. Though my main question has not been answered and maybe that's due to it's extremely subjective nature. I guess it's a shot in the dark, and really depends on where you want to live for the next 4-5 years of your life. Once I figure that out, I will have to sift through the residencies are located in that area.

To the OP: Go to the best program you can.

Umm ok. Listen, I understand that MGH and John Hopkins and UCSF are top programs, and any idiot could deduce that, but what about all the other ones. How do I know which of the others is "better?"

the bigger and better the hospital, the more diverse the cases that come your way in the reading room, which translates to more opportunities for learning.

So I should stick to huge medical centers like, for example, Houston, or any metropolitan city for that matter?

Thanks all.

 

[cowme]

unfortunately, there are no BIG residency program names in Houston. Apparently, you have to go to Duke or else you will get a terrible job

 

[drizzt3117]

I did reply to your post with a hierarchy.

Thanks for the replies.

From what I gathered from Shark2000 and the others is that Academic Programs are the way to go, and I had a feeling that was going to be the case. Though my main question has not been answered and maybe that's due to it's extremely subjective nature. I guess it's a shot in the dark, and really depends on where you want to live for the next 4-5 years of your life. Once I figure that out, I will have to sift through the residencies are located in that area.



Umm ok. Listen, I understand that MGH and John Hopkins and UCSF are top programs, and any idiot could deduce that, but what about all the other ones. How do I know which of the others is "better?"



So I should stick to huge medical centers like, for example, Houston, or any metropolitan city for that matter?

Thanks all.

 

[DrMasochist]

no offense, but exactly who are you? Why should I trust your judgement? Who or what are your sources? Even if you tell me your banging some radiology PD and she has told you everything, to me you are simply some anonymous person on the internet. This goes back to my original point: IT'S ALL HEARSAY. The only program that you can expertly comment on is the one you are currently in.

 

[cowme]

He's just an intern. He does actually know a fair amount more than his peers, but you right, his opinions are probably just as biased by the self-perpetuating heresay that you'll find anywhere else. I'm pretty certain he has far less familiarity with Texas hospitals than you do.

I'd recommend talking to ACTUAL radiologists over on the general radiology forum on auntminnie, or better yet, at your home program/city. You'll find varied thoughts there, but the prevailing opinion is that: 1) you want to train where you want to end up living, 2) you don't need to train at MGH to be a good radiologist

 

[DrBowtie]

P53 list obviously trumps all

 

[viper930]

no offense, but exactly who are you? Why should I trust your judgement? Who or what are your sources? Even if you tell me your banging some radiology PD and she has told you everything, to me you are simply some anonymous person on the internet. This goes back to my original point: IT'S ALL HEARSAY. The only program that you can expertly comment on is the one you are currently in.

You've obviously searched for a list like this and didn't get any Google results to your liking. Any ranking list, no matter how official (by "official" i assume you mean something like USNews) will carry the inherent biases of those who construct the list. If it's clear that the only lists out there are unofficial and vary wildly from one person to the next, why even come here and ask this question? Further, why post douchey responses to a guy who actually tried to give you the information that you wanted?

 

[drizzt3117]

no offense, but exactly who are you? Why should I trust your judgement? Who or what are your sources? Even if you tell me your banging some radiology PD and she has told you everything, to me you are simply some anonymous person on the internet. This goes back to my original point: IT'S ALL HEARSAY. The only program that you can expertly comment on is the one you are currently in.

No offense, but who are the f are you? I've at least been through the interview process and have done my research into rads programs. Go f yourself, I'm done with this. /ignore

 

[Deceptacon]

No offense, but who are the f are you? I've at least been through the interview process and have done my research into rads programs. Go f yourself, I'm done with this. /ignore

long day at your cush transitional year?

 

[drizzt3117]

long day at your cush transitional year?

Nah, on vacation.

 

[Asp]

Generally location matters more than name.

For desirability / competitiveness:

T1: Top 4 Cali (Stanford, UCSF, UCLA, UCSD); Mass General
T2: Brigham; Top NY (Cornell, NYU); UW
T3: Every other decent Cali program; Top 10 programs in marginal locations (Penn, Duke, Michigan); Top Chicago (Northwestern, UChicago); UTSW; BID
T4: Hopkins, MIR, Mayo, Wake Forest and pretty much any other academic powerhouse in less desirable locations; rest of Cali
T5: Big city academic program in rest of country = community program in NY (at least the ones that aren't consistently on the probation list), Chicago, Boston
T6: Academic program in fly-over land = community program in other big cities not aforementioned
T7: Community program in fly-over land

Anything T1-T5 is fine. Arguably some of the less desirable locations are more livable on a resident's salary. For some the star locations (SF, NY) are worth it; for many, not.

T6 is marginal. At T7 I would only do radiology if you truly love it. You will likely be training with many IMGs and have difficulty competing for the best fellowships and jobs.

 

[Asp]

I tried to be nationally objective but really there are people who would place any Cali program as high as tier 2. People in this state are bat **** insane about staying here.

 

[shark2000]

You can find really excellent programs in midwest, which are easier to match than really mediocre or even weak community programs in desirable large metropolitan areas like NY or Cali.

There is no doubt that every body puts MGH over any community program. But the major issue is to choose between a large academic center in midwest and a mediocre large city community program.
I highly recommend you to go for the former, unless there is something really crucial preventing you from doing it. 6 years ago people may have recommended you something different, but don't forget that in this job market you should be more than just an average radiologist for your group.

 

[loljkttyl]

To get a rough idea of desirability, go here (http://radiology.matchapplicants.com/select.php), click on the programs of interest, and then compare their Step 1 scores...

 

[2012mdc]

Generally location matters more than name.

For desirability / competitiveness:

T1: Top 4 Cali (Stanford, UCSF, UCLA, UCSD); Mass General
T2: Brigham; Top NY (Cornell, NYU); UW
T3: Every other decent Cali program; Top 10 programs in marginal locations (Penn, Duke, Michigan); Top Chicago (Northwestern, UChicago); UTSW; BID
T4: Hopkins, MIR, Mayo, Wake Forest and pretty much any other academic powerhouse in less desirable locations; rest of Cali
T5: Big city academic program in rest of country = community program in NY (at least the ones that aren't consistently on the probation list), Chicago, Boston
T6: Academic program in fly-over land = community program in other big cities not aforementioned
T7: Community program in fly-over land

Anything T1-T5 is fine. Arguably some of the less desirable locations are more livable on a resident's salary. For some the star locations (SF, NY) are worth it; for many, not.

T6 is marginal. At T7 I would only do radiology if you truly love it. You will likely be training with many IMGs and have difficulty competing for the best fellowships and jobs.

Pretty solid breakdown

When applying last year I went 1/5 for on T1, 2/4 on T2, and pretty well on T3/4.

FWIW I ranked MGH and BWH ahead of the "T3" Cali program I matched at but had NYU behind it

 

[killinsound]

Pretty solid breakdown

When applying last year I went 1/5 for on T1, 2/4 on T2, and pretty well on T3/4.

FWIW I ranked MGH and BWH ahead of the "T3" Cali program I matched at but had NYU behind it

ditto...

1 from T1, 1 T2 really well T3 and T4. That said, I matched at my number one in T4 but was really impressed with the quality of applicants that I saw at my non UCLA/SF/Stanford california interviews.

 

[2012mdc]

ditto...

1 from T1, 1 T2 really well T3 and T4. That said, I matched at my number one in T4 but was really impressed with the quality of applicants that I saw at my non UCLA/SF/Stanford california interviews.

Yeah man, was particularly impressed by the interviewees at UCI, Davis, and SC. Most had top 10-15 interviews out of state.

Cali is ridiculously tough

 

[hematogone]

Yeah man, was particularly impressed by the interviewees at UCI, Davis, and SC. Most had top 10-15 interviews out of state.

Cali is ridiculously tough

Why is Cali so much more competitive than the rest of the country in Radiology? The weather is of course good. But are there other reasons? It at least seems like it is more of a phenomenon in Radiology compared to other fields.

 

[deleted103644]

Why is Cali so much more competitive than the rest of the country in Radiology? The weather is of course good. But are there other reasons? It at least seems like it is more of a phenomenon in Radiology compared to other fields.

Ratio of Cali people to Cali residency spots is too high.

Add to that a couple of great programs and nice weather and you have the rest of the explanation.

 

[shark2000]

Cali is isolated from the rest of country geographically. Let's say you are originally form Baltimore. You have almost 5-6 choices of programs within your 1 hour driving distance. Then you have tons of programs within 3-4 hour of drive or 1 hour flight. On the other hand, let's say you are from SF, which has much more population than Baltimore. You have only 3-4 program choices even within 1 hour flight.
This also occurs when applying for fellowships. You get surprised how a mediocre cali program get filled much faster than some Ivy tower fellowships. 2-3 years ago, one of the UCIs fellowships turned out to be more difficult to match than Hopkins (a friend of mine applied to both).

 

[2012mdc]

Ratio of Cali people to Cali residency spots is too high.

Add to that a couple of great programs and nice weather and you have the rest of the explanation.

Yup. Only 13 radiology programs in the statecompared to 25 in New York

Also I've heard the theory that since radiology residents spend less time in the hospital than a lot of other fields location is considered more important in our field.

Cali probably gets the biggest location boost because of pure numbers but NYC and Chicago also get huge location boosts

 

[deleted103644]

Yup. Only 13 radiology programs in the statecompared to 25 in New York

Also I've heard the theory that since radiology residents spend less time in the hospital than a lot of other fields location is considered more important in our field.

Cali probably gets the biggest location boost because of pure numbers but NYC and Chicago also get huge location boosts

Yup, but NYC has so many programs (too many I'd say) that it isn't hard to get a radiology spot in NYC, just hard to get a radiology education in NYC.

 

[2012mdc]

Yup, but NYC has so many programs (too many I'd say) that it isn't hard to get a radiology spot in NYC, just hard to get a radiology education in NYC.

I agree but programs like Cornell and NYU get large competitiveness boosts from simply being in NYC

 

[deleted103644]

I agree but programs like Cornell and NYU get large competitiveness boosts from simply being in NYC

Hence the second part of my post.

There are do nothing community programs that are easy to match into, but the real programs can be tough (ie main 5 academic programs,+/- NSLIJ/NYMC/BI/SLR).

 

[fizzle]

To get a rough idea of desirability, go here (http://radiology.matchapplicants.com/select.php), click on the programs of interest, and then compare their Step 1 scores...

Unfortunately, the matchapplicants data is not accurate at all. There are numerous duplicate entries, there are several fake entries with a Step 1 score set to 0 (which is factored into calculating the averages and heavily skews the averages downwards at selected schools), and there is no differentiation between US seniors and FMGs/DOs.

It's a shame, because with just a little work, it could be much more useful than it currently is.

 

[greg1184]

Unfortunately, the matchapplicants data is not accurate at all. There are numerous duplicate entries, there are several fake entries with a Step 1 score set to 0 (which is factored into calculating the averages and heavily skews the averages downwards at selected schools), and there is no differentiation between US seniors and FMGs/DOs.

It's a shame, because with just a little work, it could be much more useful than it currently is.

Not to mention that many of the entries are either old and outdated or contrary to my personal experience in the program. Case in point: UTMB and EVMS.

 

[HerrTex]

Not to mention that many of the entries are either old and outdated or contrary to my personal experience in the program. Case in point: UTMB and EVMS.

What were ur impressions on utmb?

 

[greg1184]

What were ur impressions on utmb?

Some of the happiest residents I have encountered during my trail (which directly contradicts a matchapplicants' comment). Very chill program... possibly too chill. Galvaston's population is just coming back after hurricane ike a few years ago... so volume is starting to increase. But not the highest volume place. They got plenty of federal aid, so they are building a brand new hospital building there and they have the latest technology. Location is pretty nice... beach area with houston a short drive away. They just got a new chair... an IR guy... very cool person. The PD and attendings I encountered are very nice.

It doesn't have the volume or size of a UT houston or UTSW, but it is not a bad program especially if you want to break into Texas.

 

[HerrTex]

Yeah I came away with the same feelings. Can't remember how the residents ended up for fellowship though.

 

[neolynx]

So is it all just hearsay?

Is this it? Should I assume that all academic institutions are going to be more or less the same in terms of training?

DrMasochist,

As you've seen, this is a controversial topic. For physicians, and radiologists in particular I think, our intelligence is a big part of our identity, which makes us defensive at the implication that someone or some other program is "smarter" or "better." Posts like this are always going to degenerate into arguments because we feel like we need to defend our sense of self against the idea that someone else "beats" us.

Here's a list I created using the annual Aunt Minnie awards for best training program.
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=973851
This list isn't perfect, but at least it averages out the subjective opinions of a lot of different radiologists, rather than any one department.

Regional bias is very strong and very important. If you want a long-term career in Texas, than a place like UT-SA or UTSW will serve you better than a higher ranked institution. Many of the "best programs" lists out there are affected by regional bias as well - for example, someone in this thread implied that basically all the academic California programs were top tier. The idea that California has cornered the market on excellent radiology training is silly, though there is some truth that many of these may be more competitive to match into than "better" programs in the Midwest or South, simply because people want to be in CA.

As for what you get at a highly ranked institution:
If you think you might want to do some research or teaching, the opportunities are better at centers where the research money is available, there are lots of mentors to show you how, and the institution values these activities. If, like most radiology residents, you know you want a private practice career, these are less important, but there's still value in training with highly specialized teachers. If you go to a community program, you'll be taught how to manage bread and butter radiology by very skilled general radiologists. If you go to a more academic center, you get to inherit the expertise of radiologists who've dedicated their attention to specific areas of radiology. Because you'll train with experts from all specialties, you'll come out with more specialized knowledge than the generalists can give you. You'll also see more zebras, which *I* think is important in radiology because often you'll be the one to catch that diagnosis in the community, saving the patient a lot of aggravation and time.
Finally, you'll be taught by academic radiologists, who (while not always true) generally like to teach and will give you more time, attention and didactic training.

The reputation of a school is a bit like the emperor's new clothes: we're the best because everybody says so. What this does accomplish is attracting the best residents to the program. As someone else mentioned, these residents would be great at any program, but putting them all in one place - I think - helps them all challenge and teach each other to be even better. When I interviewed, I noticed that I felt more comfortable with residents who were 'at my level,' that is, I felt intimidated in some places, not challenged in others, and "just right" at some. The better reputation schools also generally draw the best faculty, who will be training you.

One last thing to think about that may or may not be important to you: after med school nobody sees your transcript again. The only marker you carry forward that you rocked as a med student is the name of the place where you trained. Again, it's a bit like the emperor's new clothes, but if people are going to be making assumptions about the quality of your training, this may as well work for you instead of against you.

I'm of the opinion that within any tier of reputation you can find diversity of location and geography, so you should find the location you like the best within the highest tier that you are competitive for. I don't think there's a lot of value in quibbling over whether the program is ranked 7th or 12th - this probably doesn't make a difference in your training.

Good luck in your decisions! You're not choosing between right and wrong programs - it's a "multiple correct answers" test.

 

[rads_2015]

Generally location matters more than name.

For desirability / competitiveness:

T1: Top 4 Cali (Stanford, UCSF, UCLA, UCSD); Mass General
T2: Brigham; Top NY (Cornell, NYU); UW
T3: Every other decent Cali program; Top 10 programs in marginal locations (Penn, Duke, Michigan); Top Chicago (Northwestern, UChicago); UTSW; BID
T4: Hopkins, MIR, Mayo, Wake Forest and pretty much any other academic powerhouse in less desirable locations; rest of Cali
T5: Big city academic program in rest of country = community program in NY (at least the ones that aren't consistently on the probation list), Chicago, Boston
T6: Academic program in fly-over land = community program in other big cities not aforementioned
T7: Community program in fly-over land

Anything T1-T5 is fine. Arguably some of the less desirable locations are more livable on a resident's salary. For some the star locations (SF, NY) are worth it; for many, not.

T6 is marginal. At T7 I would only do radiology if you truly love it. You will likely be training with many IMGs and have difficulty competing for the best fellowships and jobs.

Will be applying next year, and am curious as to whether this still holds true...

 

[radiology2014]

Unfortunately, the matchapplicants data is not accurate at all. [...].

Not to mention that many of the entries are either old and outdated or contrary to my personal experience [...]

Just FYI for people applying this year:

Yes, matchapplicants has been completely defunct for several years. I actually spoke with the author last year and he doesn't even have access to the server anymore. It is just running as a zombie. People can submit new entries, but can't edit/change/add to/revise/delete them, so unfortunately the nonsense just keeps piling up...

 

[maxxor]

Will be applying next year, and am curious as to whether this still holds true...

I'd say it's pretty good list. Note, this is true for diagnostic radiology. Interventional radiology strength is independent of diagnostic strength.

 

[Kaputt]

Will be applying next year, and am curious as to whether this still holds true...

Yeah, that holds true for competitiveness for sure.

As loathed and debated as it is, the p53 list is pretty much the best ranking out there as far as "quality" of programs.

 

[Bradstein]

Yeah, that holds true for competitiveness for sure.

As loathed and debated as it is, the p53 list is pretty much the best ranking out there as far as "quality" of programs.

You mean this one? http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/top-25-radiology-program-list-from-auntminnie-com.660618/

 

[Kaputt]

You mean this one? http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/top-25-radiology-program-list-from-auntminnie-com.660618/

Yep, that's the one. Classic thread...so much beautiful arguing. I still think the list (largely) holds up. CCF should probably be dropped from the top 25, though, and throw in an honorable mention in its place.