Using Residency Match Data to Decide Amongst Top Schools

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

nowitspartytime

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
when deciding amongst highly ranked schools (top 5), how useful/appropriate is it to look at their residency matches?

this link does a great job summarizing: http://anastomosed.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/match-lists-in-top-5-schools/

so does it mean that Stanford is really the best place to go if you wanna pursue a highly competitive surgical field?

Members don't see this ad.
 
The analysis is interesting, but two issues: 1) No data on the proportion of students who matched into their most desired specialties/residencies. 2) Small samples -- if five students match into surgery at one school and seven at another, is that really a significant difference?

If you are deciding between two or more "top schools," I don't think these data provide any compelling information towards your decision.

ETA: Not to say there aren't differences in training across schools; I have heard Columbia has a tendency to produce surgeons.
 
You know, if you go to a top 5 school, I doubt you have to worry much about residency opportunities.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Those poor Harvard Med grads are just at such a disadvantage :smuggrin:
 
Stanford has two advantages in this...

1) Small Class Size

2) 2/3 or more of their classes take a year off for research.

If you compared only people who did a research year from top programs I think the results would be similar between schools.
 
when deciding amongst highly ranked schools (top 5), how useful/appropriate is it to look at their residency matches?

this link does a great job summarizing: http://anastomosed.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/match-lists-in-top-5-schools/

so does it mean that Stanford is really the best place to go if you wanna pursue a highly competitive surgical field?

It's absolutely useless to look at match lists even when the schools are distantly ranked. It's even more useless than that when they are the numeric equivalent on the US News list. There are several problems with match lists. First, it only tells you where people are ending up, not what they wanted. Something might seem like a fantastic match to you but be low on that individuals list, and vice versa. How are you to know if the guy who chooses a middle of the road pediatrics residency isn't ecstatic that he ended up doing what he wanted exactly where he wanted to be geographically, while the guy at the top ranked plastics residency is miserable that he didn't get the neurosurgery spot he really wanted. It also tells you more about what people select rather than what they could get. Meaning a program that didn't send anyone into optho two years in a row doesn't mean people couldn't get optho, it often means people didn't want optho. Unlike undergrad, where there's a lot of prestige hunting, when choosing a residency, you are going to choose what you are going to be doing for the next 40 years. So you often see the top folks picking, say, IM over derm because they don't have an interest in derm, even though they could get it. Second, as a premed, you generally have no insight as to which places are good in which programs, which are known to be malignant, etc. Every hospital has some residencies that are better than others, and there are quite a few places that are top notch in one specialty, yet one of the worst ranked programs in another. As a premed you rarely know this, this all comes from word of mouth talking to mentors in your desired field. So basically match lists are a big waste of time because you are going to draw conclusions but don't have the context. Did folks get what they wanted, settle, etc. Did folks choose for geographic or family reasons, etc. Your conclusions will usually be wrong. Don't waste your time on this. I too looked at them when I was a premed, and now that I'm at the other end of the process, I'm telling you it's a waste of time. You can't usefully put yourself into the shoes of the folks applying for the match at this juncture. A lot will happen in 4 years, and your decisions will be shaped in different ways you can't anticipate, both by your school and externally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Why is "inbreeding" a bad thing? We're talking about all top 5-10 programs.
 
Why is "inbreeding" a bad thing? We're talking about all top 5-10 programs.

I am also baffled by this. I even tried googling 'residency match inbreeding' to see why it could be considered a bad thing, but most results seemed to actually consider it to be a sign of a good school (because students don't want to leave).

I did find one discussion ( http://uncleharvey.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/110/ ) that explains why it might be viewed as a negative. I'm not really buying the argument, though.
 
wait no one said its a bad thing! its a good thing!!!

I think the confusion arose because the original website you posted says:

I recently took an in-depth look at match lists at a subset of top 10 schools because one disgruntled student from WashU complained on SDN about two things: 1) high inbreeding (where students stay at their home institution for residency) and 2) low numbers matching to “competitive” specialties.

I'm not sure, but on first reading it sounds like that means they complained about how high inbreeding is a bad thing... but maybe I'm interpreting it wrong? :confused:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Why is "inbreeding" a bad thing? We're talking about all top 5-10 programs.

It can theoretically be a good or bad thing. It might mean nobody wants to leave, or it might mean no one else will have them. So you can't really draw any conclusions without more info.

Top 5-10 programs for med school doesn't translate to top 5-10 programs for every residency. Even the most prestigious med school is going to have multiple specialties for residency where it simply isn't very good, if not outright malignant. You can't go by name, you have to talk to clinicians in the specialty. This is the reason mentors in med school are so critical. There is no shortage of lousy residencies at even some of the top named med schools/hospitals. Just because someplace is known for IM doesn't mean it would be a good or prestigious place to train for eg OB. And the surgery powerhouse might simply be a bad place to do residency in neurology, etc. So there is no single top 5-10 program. There are top 5-10 programs in each specialty, and are FREQUENTLY very different and barely overlapping lists. You simply cant say, hospital X is top notch and good at everything. Its never true. They may be great at some hings, but usually suck at at least one specialty, nd it might end up being the only specialty important to you.

Few people are going to know the top programs outside of their specialty, as this is an ever changing landscape, and good versus malignant is usually more reflective of changing personnel than the programs underlying hospital. Fellowships happen because well plugged in chairmen and PDs make phone calls, so personalities and change in personnel will gave huge impact on academic futures, and those same personnel set the tone in terms of malignancy.
 
Of the schools listed, there are certainly a few not spectacular residency programs (Columbia rads, for example) but for the most part, their residency programs are at worst above average and many are the best programs in any field. How many times have you heard of a residency applicant complaining that they didn't get any interviews except at Harvard, Columbia, UCSF, Stanford, or wash u?

It can theoretically be a good or bad thing. It might mean nobody wants to leave, or it might mean no one else will have them. So you can't really draw any conclusions without more info.

Top 5-10 programs for med school doesn't translate to top 5-10 programs for every residency. Even the most prestigious med school is going to have multiple specialties for residency where it simply isn't very good, if not outright malignant. You can't go by name, you have to talk to clinicians in the specialty. This is the reason mentors in med school are so critical. There is no shortage of lousy residencies at even some of the top named med schools/hospitals. Just because someplace is known for IM doesn't mean it would be a good or prestigious place to train for eg OB. And the surgery powerhouse might simply be a bad place to do residency in neurology, etc. So there is no single top 5-10 program. There are top 5-10 programs in each specialty, and are FREQUENTLY very different and barely overlapping lists. You simply cant say, hospital X is top notch and good at everything. Its never true. They may be great at some hings, but usually suck at at least one specialty, nd it might end up being the only specialty important to you.

Few people are going to know the top programs outside of their specialty, as this is an ever changing landscape, and good versus malignant is usually more reflective of changing personnel than the programs underlying hospital. Fellowships happen because well plugged in chairmen and PDs make phone calls, so personalities and change in personnel will gave huge impact on academic futures, and those same personnel set the tone in terms of malignancy.
 
I am also baffled by this. I even tried googling 'residency match inbreeding' to see why it could be considered a bad thing, but most results seemed to actually consider it to be a sign of a good school (because students don't want to leave).

I did find one discussion ( http://uncleharvey.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/110/ ) that explains why it might be viewed as a negative. I'm not really buying the argument, though.

Inbreeding is a problem, but it doesn't apply to med students. Inbreeding is when residency graduates do a fellowship at the same program and then get on faculty at the same program. If a program has a majority of faculty from one place, there are few new ideas or differences in thought - this hinders learning for new residents. Rarely in medicine is there only 1 correct way to do something. The more diverse the faculty - the better.

When med students in-breed to residency, it is fine. It is easier to match to your home program, do many people do it.
 
Of the schools listed, there are certainly a few not spectacular residency programs (Columbia rads, for example) but for the most part, their residency programs are at worst above average and many are the best programs in any field. How many times have you heard of a residency applicant complaining that they didn't get any interviews except at Harvard, Columbia, UCSF, Stanford, or wash u?
That doesn't negate his point that some of these places could be very malignant.

There are also specialties in which excellent programs are at places most people have never heard of (supposedly Barrow Neurological Institute is a very competitive place to do neurosurgery).
 
That doesn't negate his point that some of these places could be very malignant.

There are also specialties in which excellent programs are at places most people have never heard of (supposedly Barrow Neurological Institute is a very competitive place to do neurosurgery).

Sure, but that doesn't mean it's bad to match at those institutions, or that their students are "forced" to match there bc no one else will take them, that's simply crazy talk.
 
I think the point the washu student made about inbreeding is precisely that it is easier to match into the home institution. If on aggregate the percentage is too high then one might get suspicious that everyone is drinking the kool aid.
 
It's absolutely useless to look at match lists even when the schools are distantly ranked. It's even more useless than that when they are the numeric equivalent on the US News list. There are several problems with match lists. First, it only tells you where people are ending up, not what they wanted. Something might seem like a fantastic match to you but be low on that individuals list, and vice versa. How are you to know if the guy who chooses a middle of the road pediatrics residency isn't ecstatic that he ended up doing what he wanted exactly where he wanted to be geographically, while the guy at the top ranked plastics residency is miserable that he didn't get the neurosurgery spot he really wanted. It also tells you more about what people select rather than what they could get. Meaning a program that didn't send anyone into optho two years in a row doesn't mean people couldn't get optho, it often means people didn't want optho. Unlike undergrad, where there's a lot of prestige hunting, when choosing a residency, you are going to choose what you are going to be doing for the next 40 years. So you often see the top folks picking, say, IM over derm because they don't have an interest in derm, even though they could get it. Second, as a premed, you generally have no insight as to which places are good in which programs, which are known to be malignant, etc. Every hospital has some residencies that are better than others, and there are quite a few places that are top notch in one specialty, yet one of the worst ranked programs in another. As a premed you rarely know this, this all comes from word of mouth talking to mentors in your desired field. So basically match lists are a big waste of time because you are going to draw conclusions but don't have the context. Did folks get what they wanted, settle, etc. Did folks choose for geographic or family reasons, etc. Your conclusions will usually be wrong. Don't waste your time on this. I too looked at them when I was a premed, and now that I'm at the other end of the process, I'm telling you it's a waste of time. You can't usefully put yourself into the shoes of the folks applying for the match at this juncture. A lot will happen in 4 years, and your decisions will be shaped in different ways you can't anticipate, both by your school and externally.

This post (and several that you have done before) need to be stickied. :thumbup::thumbup:

This question is raised every week and the same argument ensues.
 
Except that didn't at all address what the OP was asking.

1) Would they be better off going to Stanford over other top schools?

No, I don't think the evidence proves that point for several reasons, some of which I've written above.

2) Does going to a top school such as the above give you an advantage over going to a non-top school?

Yes, I think there is lots of objective, subjective, and anecdotal information to show that it gives am advantage.
 
match lists aren't data, they're collections of anecdotes
 
da·ta /ˈdatə/



Noun:
1. Facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis
datum (plural data or datums)

  1. (plural: data) A measurement of something on a scale understood by both the recorder (a person or device) and the reader (another person or device). The scale is arbitrarily defined, such as from 1 to 10 by ones, 1 to 100 by 0.1, or simply true or false, on or off, yes, no, or maybe, etc.
 
datum (plural data or datums)

  1. (plural: data) A measurement of something on a scale understood by both the recorder (a person or device) and the reader (another person or device). The scale is arbitrarily defined, such as from 1 to 10 by ones, 1 to 100 by 0.1, or simply true or false, on or off, yes, no, or maybe, etc.

Datum
Pronunciation: /ˈdeɪtəm/
Forms: Pl. data /ˈdeɪtə/ .
Etymology: < Latin datum given, that which is given, neuter past participle of dare to give. >
1.
a. A thing given or granted; something known or assumed as fact, and made the basis of reasoning or calculation; an assumption or premiss from which inferences are drawn.
 
I think that if you know you want to be a specialized surgeon, it may make most sense to go to Stanford/Harvard where most of the students share this interest (as per the match data) vs Hopkins/UCSF where most are inclined towards primary care/internal medicine.

Now this difference in students'' interests could either be due to their pre-existing ambitions, or the school's focus/influence. (I think its the latter from personal experience)

So anyways, I think match data could be helpful in this respect--finding a community of students with similar long-term interests as you
 
I think that if you know you want to be a specialized surgeon, it may make most sense to go to Stanford/Harvard where most of the students share this interest (as per the match data) vs Hopkins/UCSF where most are inclined towards primary care/internal medicine.

Now this difference in students'' interests could either be due to their pre-existing ambitions, or the school's focus/influence. (I think its the latter from personal experience)

So anyways, I think match data could be helpful in this respect--finding a community of students with similar long-term interests as you

Honestly, that's pretty silly. You have no idea what people want to go into, and even if they go into internal medicine, they could specialize into GI or whatever. When choosing between these schools you should primarily be considering personal factors, such as where you think you'd be most comfortable, cost, and proximity to family. You'll be equally likely to match into a top surgical subspecialty from any of these schools.
 
Of the schools listed, there are certainly a few not spectacular residency programs (Columbia rads, for example) but for the most part, their residency programs are at worst above average and many are the best programs in any field. How many times have you heard of a residency applicant complaining that they didn't get any interviews except at Harvard, Columbia, UCSF, Stanford, or wash u?

Plenty. All of the programs you listed are mediocre in at least one specialty, whether they think it or not. They are also top notch in others. The name itself is thus pretty meaningless, and won't serve you well. Talking to a mentor is the only approach. Very few people know the hierarchy if programs in specialties outside of their own.
 
Plenty. All of the programs you listed are mediocre in at least one specialty, whether they think it or not. They are also top notch in others. The name itself is thus pretty meaningless, and won't serve you well. Talking to a mentor is the only approach. Very few people know the hierarchy if programs in specialties outside of their own.

I think this is all relative. The thing is, major research institutions such as these generally have well-funded residency programs that are quite good. If you think about it, that really has to be the case. Would NYP be ranked as a top 5 hospital without a decent radiology department? Sure it's in turmoil and not as good as those of its aboveformentioned peers but it's certainly not mediocre when compared to every other radiology residency program.

I think that's generally true for almost every department at these schools. Sure they may be malignant and you may have better options, but in almost every case there are top faculty there and you'll get good training, whether or not if its as cush as other institutions. If you don't agree with this, name one program at these 5 institutions that's below average when compared to all other residency programs in their field.

If what you're trying to say is that you may have better choices at programs that aren't considered top tier, than I agree, but saying theyre mediocre (I.e. Below average) IMO just isn't true.
 
Can someone please provide, or help me locate, the "Match Rate into First Choice, and/or Top 3 Choices" for these med schools: Stanford, Harvard, UCSF, Hopkins, Penn?

Please!
 
It's also useless, because it totally depends on their preferences.
 
*facepalm*

We should be spending our time on how to manage our money being in medicine rather than debating about match lists...somehow the match list won't make the tuition costs at the schools I'm comparing go any lower. poo.
 
Top