Top 50 U.S. News 2012 Radiology Rankings

Discussion in 'Radiology' started by 2012Ranking, Mar 23, 2012.

  1. SDN is made possible through member donations, sponsorships, and our volunteers. Learn about SDN's nonprofit mission.
  1. 2012Ranking


    Mar 23, 2012
                                            U.S. News 2012 Ranking                    Case Volume     Score 
                             ======================================================   ============    ===== 
                             Adult   Adult   Adult   Adult   Peds    Peds    Peds     # Radiology     
                             Neuro   Ortho   IM      Cancer  Neuro   Ortho   Cancer   Studies   
                                                                                      per Resident 
     1. MGH                  3       3       4       7       1       1       1        15225           5 
     2. Mayo                 2       2       6       4       16      18      47       19231           7 
     2. Johns Hopkins        1       5       3       3       3       11      9        9800            7 
     2. Cleveland Clinic     6       4       7       9       7       26      21       56250           7 
     5. Columbia             4       16      8       19      11      15      17       -               13 
     5. Duke                 8       6       5       11      36      34      28       11042           13 
     5. UPMC                 10      7       9       29      13      23      19       26667           13 
     8. Penn                 14      13      14      15      2       2       2        10938           14 
     8. Brigham              17      20      22      5       1       1       1        12500           14 
     8. Univ of Washington   16      17      20      6       10      17      8        -               14 
     8. MIR                  13      9       19      16      5       10      18       11875           14 
     12. UCLA                7       19      2       10      23      18      26       5208            16 
     13. UT-Houston          22      30      23      1       4       16      4        -               17 
     13. UCSF                5       21      12      8       22      -       23       9615            17 
     13. Northwestern        12      17      29      21      9       14      13       -               17 
     14. Rush                15      8       17      40      9       14      13       15000           18 
     15. Michigan            27      25      11      13      27      13      31       11364           20 
     16. Stanford            20      15      44      12      34      37      19       -               23 
     17. NYU                 11      10      15      25      -       -       -        -               25 
     18. Univ of Iowa        21      12      -       28      46      24      43       -               27 
     18. Case Western        47      23      23      36      19      12      22       19444           27 
     20. Emory               18      -       27      37      24      8       12       -               31 
     20. Cedars-Sinai        24      22      40      32      -       -       -        27500           31 
     20. Univ of Chicago     29      43      34      14      31      46      37       9375            31 
     23. Ohio State          45      36      -       20      32      20      16       -               33 
     23. BID                 41      -       17      33      1       1       1        9091            33 
     25. Thomas Jefferson    48      14      47      31      -       -       -        15625           35 
     26. Indiana             33      48      25      -       28      31      28       16667           36 
     27. Vanderbilt          37      47      -       26      39      29      41       -               37 
     27. USC                 25      24      30      48      -       -       -        9091            37 
     29. Univ of Minnesota   36      34      -       23      -       -       24       9091            38 
     30. Yale                39      -       10      24      -       -       -        9975            39 
     31. Univ of Maryland    -       28      47      22      -       -       -        10833           41 
     31. Univ of Alabama     32      -       36      -       11      39      39       14844           41 
     33. Univ of Wisconsin   -       -       31      29      45      -       48       19094           44 
     33. Univ of Florida     28      -       -       35      47      -       -        -               44 
     35. Univ of Colorado    50      -       -       34      20      9       10       5556            45 
     35. UCSD                -       48      -       47      37      4       25       -               45 
     37. UT-Southwestern     31      -       -       -       21      3       14       15385           47 
     38. Beaumont            -       33      26      -       -       -       -        11900           48 
     38. Mount Sinai         22      -       -       41      -       -       -        6875            48 
     40. Loyola              39      -       -       -       9       14      13       -               49 
     40. Univ of Virginia    35      -       -       48      -       -       -        -               49 
     42. UC-Davis            -       46      -       39      -       -       -        11250           50 
     43. Henry Ford          38      -       -       -       -       -       -        30556           55 
     44. Wake Forest         -       -       -       42      -       -       -        10000           58 
     44. Univ of Rochester   48      -       -       -       48      49      -        9583            58 
     46. MCW                 -       -       -       -       33      29      33       13125           61 
     46. UIC                 -       -       -       -       9       14      13       5625            61 
     46. Univ of Utah        -       -       -       -       6       32      38       10417           61 
     49. Univ of Cincinnati  -       -       -       -       8       5       5        6875            62 
     49. Univ of Louisville  -       -       -       -       38      39      45       -               62 
     50. UNC                 -       -       -       -       -       44      -        12500           64 
     51. OHSU                -       -       -       -       43      -       35       7542            65 
    Taken from

    Other posts got me interested in trying to come up with a more objective ranking for Radiology departments, something more than "this one guy at this one conference came up with this list based on his opinion." I entered into this project not knowing what to expect but at least using some of my experience and U.S. News' already exhaustive survey of hospital clinical departments, and with a little sweat and time, published case volume.

    As a PGY4 Radiology resident I realize that Radiology residency is divided between at least 4 months of Neuroradiology (where you cover the Neurology and Neurosurgery services, including screening diagnosis, pre-op planning, post-op complications, and long term followup). This is similarly done with Chest (which from my experience leans towards Cancer and Adult IM departments in that order), Body (more Adult IM/Surgery than Cancer), MSK (obviously leaning towards the strength of the Orthopaedic department), etc.

    The ACR is gearing everyone towards subspecialization with the expectation that each of us find a clinical department of expertise and cover that one department, but moreso the future seems to be that we actually are employed by these departments. This is already happening and what the ACR is prepping us for (with the new boards, the second round of which is a subspecialized focused exam). Already, for instance, a large Ortho group hires a full time MSK Radiologist as part of their group. This reality didn't really sink in when I was a medical student, I was still stuck in "Medical School" rankings mode which has absolutely nothing to do with residency. Diagnostic Radiology is completely, 100% dependent on the strength of the departments and the complexities of the hospital-wide services that actually order each and every study. If there is not a strong Neurosurgery department, for instance, you will not be seeing as many interesting cases or as relative of a high volume during residency and will be forced to instead "go to the books."

    Already published 2012 U.S. News Hospital rankings were reviewed that account for primary Radiology volume. This includes the departments of Neurology/Neurosurgery, Orthopedics, Adult/Geriatric Internal Medicine, Cancer, and Pediatric Neurology/Neurosurgery, Pediatric Orthopedics, and Pediatric Cancer. The Pediatric services' U.S. News rankings were averaged and Pediatrics was given one score. I took the suggestion to weight these services and I did so with the following factors: Neurology/Neurosurgery (15), Orthopedics (15), Adult/Geriatric Internal Medicine (10), Cancer (15), and Pediatrics (10). Weighting them moderately differently made little difference in final score.

    Published annual Radiology case volume for each hospital was then reviewed and compiled, along with the published residency size of each program. Radiology case volume per capita (resident) was then calculated for each program. Several programs did not publish their case volume and these residencies were given an average case volume. This affected the already established U.S. News rankings only minimally. This average per capita case volume was 12797 studies per resident. I am totally open and willing to add more case volume data as it becomes available or if anyone has any links to share--that would be much appreciated and useful for the community (if this type of list is desired by the community).

    IR departments were not included because no information was available. It is up to you to decide on your own the relative strength of the IR departments as its outside the bounds of this compilation.

    Several U.S. News department rankings were omitted for obvious reasons, such as:
    - Rheumatology (which orders a very low volume of plain bone films and once in a great while, an MRI of questionable clinical/learning experience, I would not judge Radiology residency by how many erosions of the 2nd and 3rd proximal phalanges you will be seeing)
    - Cardiology (which does and reads its own imaging)
    - Pulmonology (this was a tough one, but 90% of Chest imaging in my experience is from the Cancer and/or Adult IM departments, though I am open to include this if there is a loud outcry)
    - Endocrinology (unless you are really big on nuclear thyroid imaging, which is extremely low volume and complexity, this was a no brainer)
    - Opthalmology (in 3 years I have read a few MRI/CT's of the orbits, all of which were ordered by Neuro or the ER)
    - Nephrology (which orders a relatively very low volume, 90% of which are renal ultrasounds which you can learn to read in a couple weeks)
    - Psychiatry (do I really have to explain this one)
    - Rehabilitation (same)
    - Emergency Medicine (not ranked by U.S. News)

    I've made the data and references open source:

    Secondary source:

    As a disclaimer, some programs that I believe to be strong are not listed above, but I wanted to create this with as little bias as possible. Egos will be bruised, some boosted, but this is the most objective list I believe we can come up with, though the underlying U.S. News rankings are in themselves fairly subjective. In the end, what does it matter? Maybe a little bit, but not much, so don't get your pants in a tizzy. No matter what program you go to, the ACR looks at you equally and your income will be exactly the same.

    In the end, the most important thing that matters, however, is how happy you are with the program and the location. I know that sounds cliche but it is very true when you reach this stage in the game because in the end you all work together and are all equally Radiologists.
  2. SDN Members don't see this ad. About the ads.
  3. shark2000

    shark2000 2+ Year Member

    Dec 8, 2011
    This list is a complete crap. You either do not know what you are talking about or you are trolling.
    When it comes to residency and training many factors are involved. I don't want to argue about each and every program but there are a lot of funny rankings in your list:

    1- UCSD has one of the best MSK radiology departments in the country. In your list you put it number 48 in MSK ranking. What a joke? And the bigger joke is putting Cedar-Sinai number 22 and rush number 8 MSK.
    2- Putting Rush, Ohio state and casewestern above some much better programs is BS. For example in your list Ohio state is much higher than University of Wisconsin and Thomas Jefferson.
    3- Loyola and Henry ford has better Neuro programs than Thomas Jefferson and Utah.
    4- Columbia is better than UCSF..

    Bottom Line: Your post is a total BS.
  4. NYPD


    Mar 24, 2012
    I think you are over-reaching I don't think the OP's goal was fellowship rankings. No one believes UCSD is #48 in "MSK" its just that US News says that UCSD is #48 in ORTHO. UCSD's MSK fellowship, totally different, is very large and covers multiple hospitals. In defense of Case Western, holy sh*t look at that radiology volume. Any resident would be very lucky with that. And the hospital is very highly ranked so its no surprise. And Rush has an awesome rads department BTW (and yes ortho is ranked in the top 10 year over year).

    It's interesting how low the volume at UCSF is, I'd be more wary than the mindless worship some people give to it on here especially given that that radiology volume is the lowest in the top 20. Volume is EVERYTHING in rads. It is the only thing we really respect in the end. In fact I think that list should be sorted by volume if you really want to know what a PP guy thinks. The only thing I really disagree with is NYU, looks like it got screwed because of Peds.
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2012
  5. 2012Ranking


    Mar 23, 2012
    I realize some will think this list is BS, but I hope others find it useful. I'm not going to shove it down your throat like gospel like p53 or others have in the past. I'm also not going to argue for or against certain tiers/programs or even defend the numbers because, in a sense, I really don't consider it "my" list. This was constructed over many months and evolved with feedback from the some in the community at Auntminnie, and none of the numbers are my own, they come from US News and an exhaustive search of the programs themselves, per the request of others. It may be a poor man's attempt at some objectivity but it is an attempt nonetheless. There is some hard data in here I hope some find useful.

  6. rem6775

    rem6775 2+ Year Member

    Mar 7, 2010
    I'm not sure this list is particularly helpful. It simply doesn't capture the strength of particular radiology programs well in many different cases. As far as I'm concerned, that makes this list relatively useless.
  7. shark2000

    shark2000 2+ Year Member

    Dec 8, 2011
    1-I did not give any rank list that you are calling it BS.
    2-We all make same RVUs is true, but is a different story. It does not have anything to do with the quality. From now on do not study radiology anymore, because at the end all of us will make the same RVU. What is the point in learning and having a better quality? Just hedge. IT will give you the same RVU or even more.
    3- Who talked about we all work together or not? It is about the opinion of OP on programs.
    4- Who thinks radiology can be mastered in a few short years is either non-radiologists or do not know what he is talking about. It is one of the hardest medical fields to get master at (or even impossible if you do not focus on one or two subspecialties).
  8. shark2000

    shark2000 2+ Year Member

    Dec 8, 2011
    And I agree this list is useless. Generally speaking P53's list makes more sense, though it has its own problems.
    Putting Cedar Siana, Rush and case in the top 20 programs is not reasonable while you put some stellar programs like Wisconsin, Virginia and UCSD down on the list. No matter whom you talk to, UVA or UW or UCSD are better than Rush or Cedar Siana.

    Volume is important, but it is a double edged sword. It should be high enough but should not be overwhelming to the point that you do not have dedicated discussion time with the subspecialist attending on the case. Also the variety of cases are really important. 20 Chest CTs can be just 20 normal ones from ED with chest pain or can be a variety of referrals from oncology clinic for Mets, ED for PE, HRCT for ILD, CF, Trauma, .... The same for Neuro or MSK. It can be 20 normal and bone fractures or can be 20 Xray with a combination of bone tumors, mets, fractures, congenital abnormalities, ...

    Usually being at a tertiary referral center with variety of cases and sub-specialty staff will provide you with better education than a smaller community setting.
  9. NYPD


    Mar 24, 2012
    Hmmm, I really disagree. I'm not saying this list is accurate but what list is. First, I vehemently disagree with the rational of using "no matter who you talk to" as some measure, it reminds me of bogus political arguments. At least the OP gave some methods to the madness. Yours is just "well my opinion and everyone I know" and that's your backup.

    Reputation is SO different depending on the region you are in. Some people out east have very low opinions on rep of great Texas programs for instance. At my medical school there was a general "consensus" that anything in the South or Midwest, yes including Wisconsin, were considered low tier. It took me years to shake that regional group think mentality.

    I think all programs on that list are very strong programs and someone would be lucky to match at any of them. By the way, Cedar Sinai and Rush are, by your definition, "tertiary referral centers with a variety of cases and sub-speciality staff." That's what they are, perhaps Rush moreso than Cedar.
  10. DrRads101

    DrRads101 Senior Member 10+ Year Member

    May 6, 2004
    Sure you did. You said this program is better than that program, and this program is not as good as that, etc. That's a rank list, albeit a small one
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2012
  11. BrewCity


    Mar 25, 2012
    It's no Mayo, but Rush is a large academic subspecialty center shark2000. I can't speak for the quality of the radiologists/residents but I was there late in the season and outside of UVA it was physically the most impressive rads department I saw. The interventional floor alone was larger than most rads departments. I only ranked it lower because of location and call schedule.
  12. NYPD


    Mar 24, 2012
    The reality is none of us know how these programs really are relative to one another which is why true rankings don't exist and probably never will. And departments and chairmans, and funding and revenue, are always in flux.

    It's hard to break out of the rankings mindset though when we are all used to doing it in college, but it all seems kind of pointless for Radiology when you find out that in the end, the guy that went to podunk state U and practices in Texas is making two or three times more money, LOL.
  13. shark2000

    shark2000 2+ Year Member

    Dec 8, 2011
    Great. I think we have to close all radiology programs. Why do we need radiologists? All Neurosurgeons know anatomy. All orthopods know anatomy. All ENT docs know anatomy. And it is no brainer for them to look at the image, find a high T2 lesion somewhere and look it up in statdx.
    I am a senior resident. And still I do not understand why there ENT docs and orthopods constantly come to our reading room and consult us. Why don't they just look it up on statdx?
    And why people do fellowship? By the end of third year residents are so competent that nothing is left for them to learn, so they waste their forth year. Probably I did not try my best in my first two years that still there are tons of things I do not know.
    One of my stellar attending once told me that he learned most of his radiology in the first 5 years after he finished his fellowship. And he was one of the best residents and fellows according to many.
    I don't know what kind of program are you going to. Probably it is one of those "all about volume" ones that you do not see any pathology other than stroke on brain MR and nothing other than ACL tear on Knee MR.

    Good Luck.
  14. johnnydrama

    johnnydrama I'm no Superman 10+ Year Member

    Jun 13, 2006
    This list is just a simplistic rehashing of the US News report values combined with some not fully accurate volume numbers. The weighting of the different departments is arbitrary, and the validity of the assumption that the US News rankings in a specialty translates into effectiveness of training for that subspecialty is also very much in doubt.

    While I applaud the effort for something somewhat systematic, there are too many invalid assumptions behind this list and too many things left out... That said, people should calm down - the person who made the list states clearly what went into it, so just because a given program is left out shouldn't be an issue (that has more to do with US News than the OP).
  15. shark2000

    shark2000 2+ Year Member

    Dec 8, 2011
    This specialty deserves to go down the drain.
    Who talked about money on this post. It was about the ranking or quality of the programs and all of a sudden you started to talk about who makes how much where.
    Money is great. Everybody is seeking it. But at least try to respect some aspects of your specialty.
    If other sepcialists claim that this is a "parasite specialty" as happened a few months ago by an ER doctor, they are right in a sense. The problem is not radiology itself, the problem is the people who are in. We are destroying ourselves.
    It is very sad and yet disappointing that whatever you talk and whenever you talk about will result in money.
    Go and put the same post on orthopedics, Cardiology or ENT forum and see their responses. They are at least as money hungry or more than radiologists, but at least they have some respect for the education and "quality" of their field. You can train a monkey to do colonoscopy in one to two years, still GI docs talk a lot about quality and then when it comes to us we call are specialty easy to master, piece of cake and more and more commoditize it by ignoring the quality and talking about some *****hole who is making a bank in texas.

    You are entitled to express your opinion. You may be right. But in a few years when you see you are losing turf to other specialists because they have done a weekend course of chest CT or brain MR do not complain. If you do not respect what you do, others won't at all.

    Good Luck
  16. DrRads101

    DrRads101 Senior Member 10+ Year Member

    May 6, 2004
    Perhaps I should have been more clear. Parts of radiology, and most fields in medicine for that matter, can be somewhat, I repeat somewhat mastered in a few years. No where did I imply that you could master even one single modality over a weekend or through part time courses. It takes dedicated full time training. I think you were reading way too much into what I was saying which may have been my fault.
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2012
  17. 2012Ranking


    Mar 23, 2012
    Though I agree it is mostly rehashing already published US News rankings, the weighting changes the rankings only equivocally. I used the weighting that seemed to have the most agreement on Aunt Minnie. The first set did not include Peds but I added that per request of a few members for instance. I have made the source data available for download so people can play around with the numbers if they feel like it.

    As for the case volume data, it is as accurate as what each program has published. Individual direct links are provided for each source in the spreadsheet, so anyone can double check the numbers.

    It's by no means perfect but the numbers should be accurate. If anyone has additional case volume data to share that would helpful.
  18. johnnydrama

    johnnydrama I'm no Superman 10+ Year Member

    Jun 13, 2006
    On Aunt Minnie you mentioned that several of those values are just the average values because you couldn't find the information - these should instead be omitted.

    You should also post the total volume numbers separately from the number of residents, even if you use the ratio in your final scoring method.

    You also may want to dig deeper into the US News numbers - only some aspects of the things they rank are relevant to radiology, e.g. technology scores matter more than whether the place is a nursing magnet center.
  19. colbgw02

    colbgw02 Delightfully Tacky 10+ Year Member

    Edited per ctwickman's request.
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2012
  20. blaise77

    blaise77 2+ Year Member

    Mar 7, 2008
    i totally disagree with leaving out the subspecialities mentioned in the ranking process.

    Rhem: at my institution they order quite a bit of MSK plain films
    Cards: are you forgetting that there is a separate cards section that we are always tested on in inservce and boards exams, regardless of the fact that most rads dont read cards in the real world it is still a component of residency training.
    Pulm: no brainer that this is a huge component for Chest training, who manages all the COPD and ILD that we see on chest?
    Endo: this isnt just nucs here but also alot of US imaging and biopsies for thyroid
    Nephro: they make lots of referrels for nuc renal scans as well as image guided kidney biopsies

    Otherwise you should be commended for an attempt to objectively rank programs, reputations will always exist independantly
  21. radiologyguy


    Oct 12, 2010
    Someone posted the "Minnies 2011" on auntminne, which I think was pretty similar to the list above. You can search for it on AM
  22. DrRads101

    DrRads101 Senior Member 10+ Year Member

    May 6, 2004
    Albeit flawed and not perfect (like every rank list), this was the most transparent Radiology ranking list I remember. I thought of this list after seeing the last one. Both a good attempt at some objectivity.

    Some real advice from someone with a good partnership job in a large metropolitan group: The reality is there is no true ranking list in this business, and bias is heavily local/regional. And fellowships are not that competitive and, as funny as it sounds, groups like my own look far more at where you went to fellowship than where you went to residency. We all went to residency and are equals on that front. Any "residency ranking" NORMALIZES. The only thing that makes you stand out initially for jobs in this business is your fellowship. And not where you did it, but what you did it in (MSK, IR, Breast, Neuro, etc.) AND just as importantly what did the people in your fellowship think of you. We don't care where you went to residency, as long as you have a good attitude, passed your boards, and YOU DON'T HAVE A REPUTATION FOR BEING SLOW OR ARROGANT. I'm telling you, these are the things that actually matter (at least for PP) in order to take the very long term step of hiring and partnering up with you for the long haul.
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2017
  23. Gadofosveset

    Gadofosveset 2+ Year Member

    Oct 3, 2014
    Overall rankings like this are a waste of time. The only reason I waste my time commenting on them is because I remember various rankings influenced me at important moments.

    Why are they a waste?
    1) anyone can roughly divide a list of programs into three or so groups/tiers: "top", "middle", and "bottom". There's no real skill or controversy here.
    2) the real value of a ranking list is to (a) rank within a tier or (b) decide which borderline ranks move up or down a tier. There are too many variables and too much noise to do this with any genuine accuracy. You can rank within a tier and rank borderline cases any old way you want with any kind of pseudoscientific justification. What criteria separate the top "bottom" programs from the bottom "middle" programs? Is it the same criteria for "elite" programs (whatever that is defined as)? The attempt at fine splitting is subjective nonsense even despite attempts to mask it with supposedly objective data.

    It would probably be more worthwhile to make regional rank lists, because at least those programs have something in common and the differences between programs may be wide enough to actually rank them, especially if you only bring a few variables to the table.

    It's most important to find what few factors are most important for *you* and then rank accordingly. Resident benefits? Cost of living? Size of program / call schedule? Location? Reputation of a particular department? A few key variables are more important than some abstract ranking. What do you do if between two programs you're looking at, one is great at neuro and poor at msk and the other vice versa? You've got to weight the variables according to your needs. If you don't know what your needs are, then figure them out.

    As the person above pointed out (accurately, I believe) training all tends to even out, and your career success will depend a lot on your own effort rather than a blessing from an elite program. Honestly, the most important thing for your training is an engaged teacher and they are spread out among different programs. Personally, I don't believe all good teachers are clustered in elite programs.

    As for this particular ranking, I have to agree with Shark2000.
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2017
    PneumonicSonic likes this.
  24. Radology


    Jun 3, 2017
    Good luck convincing Med students and residents of this. it's a long, long haul to train to be a radiologist, and with hundreds of thousands in debt and a mediocre salary, the name of their program is really all they have to show for all the work they've done. I agree these rankings are meaningless, but many Med students and young trainees will do whatever they can to thump their chests, even it means going against their best interests, just because an arbitrary "ranking" from an online forum told them the cross country program is a touch better
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2017
    radnonymous likes this.
  25. DrfluffyMD


    Dec 15, 2016
    There are two things, in my opinion, that contributes to the strength of a program.

    1. Location to where you would like to practice in the future
    2. Name

    Location in general is far more important than name. Personally, I caution against going to a supposed big name while sacrificing location.

    For example, say an applicant grew up in Socal and wants to be in SoCal.

    He is faced with the choice between going to MIR/Wash U vs. Cedars. The prevailing med student thought would have him to go MIR. However, if he wanted to do say private practice, he should actually go to Cedars. Not only he can probably get a big name neuro or MSK fellowship just fine in California from Cedars vs Wash U (probably more likely to get Cali fellowship from Cedars even), he will have built relationship with the local practices and attendings local folks know.

    In the situation above, going to MIR would actually be less favorable for the student's goal than to go to cedars.

    I think another thing to look at is location. Though some of programs in the midwest are very strong (like MIR or UPMC), the chance of being stuck in a location where you aren't from is very real. You may meet a spouse here who don't want to live, build relationship here, etc

    Just today I spoke with an attending who cautioned me about returning to the midwest after fellowship and instead told me to go back to my home state on the coasts.
  26. Radology


    Jun 3, 2017
    You will be a lot wealthier as a radiologist in the Midwest.

    There are many sacrifices in terms of lifestyle, though
  27. DrfluffyMD


    Dec 15, 2016
    You can't put a price on proximity with family and friends.
    vm26 likes this.
  28. vm26

    vm26 Member 10+ Year Member

    Oct 4, 2002
    West coast
    So true...have a great job, beautiful house, and great weather here in CA but really miss friends/family back in the northeast. Would not be surprised if I eventually downgrade the job, house, and weather in order to be back home
  29. DrRads101

    DrRads101 Senior Member 10+ Year Member

    May 6, 2004
    This is really great advice. There is a huge proximity advantage/bias.
  30. DrfluffyMD


    Dec 15, 2016
    The only exception I've noticed is California IR market, as far as this year goes, the secondary IR fellowships in the local market (i.e not UCSF, Stanford, UCLA, USC or UCSD) seem to have a hard time placing its graduates into their desired socal job, while people from Brigham, MGH or Columbia are able to find job in those location. California seem to be big on names. It is not surprising as a lot of local practioners left California for med school and then came back, bringing network with them.

Share This Page