DrRobert said:
It is obvious that Mumpu has a chip on his/her shoulder when it comes to WashU and also has the attitude that NW can do no wrong. Therefore, I would take his/her opinions with a grain of salt.
In defense of Mumpu, as I said in another thread I was similarly disappointed with WashU. They really do a poor job of putting their best face forward on the interview day, and despite talking to a number of their students and graduates on the interview trail, I'm still left with a similarly negative impression of the place and have decided to not even rank it! As with Mumpu, my only contact with the program director was at the morning breakfast when he stood up to introduce himself in a very non-caring and non-personable way, and commented about how WashU was NOT on probation, and was not to be confused with UW. I guess that's his standard comment for the day, as it was mentioned above too.
Intern morning report was embarassing, and I heard from numerous interns/residents that the computer system is abysmal, and that despite the claim about changes on the horizon it'll actually be quite some time before they're fully in place (meaning don't expect it to be done until at least your 2nd or 3rd year there if you're matching this March). I haven't looked at Northwestern, but I did see Michigan, and I would agree that the UMich facilities had a much nicer feel to them. While WashU is absolutely enormous, I found it to all be rather strangely laid out and very old-feeling, despite the fact that much of it had been redone. It was always extremely difficult to get an elevator (and residents said this is a big problem), and the wards were in various states of disrepair. This is potentially good since it means they're constantly renovating individual wards, but I still didn't like the overall feel of them. Sure, the work areas were spacious, but the layout didn't make much sense to me, nor did the carpeting. I think that part of the problem is that they're limited by the physical shape and original layout, and are forced to work with what they've got. That said, the new unit we saw was quite nice, especially with its fancy lighting and fake wood flooring. But it wasn't really much nicer than other places, and I wouldn't choose the place for its nice unit. Michigan, on the other hand, had a much more intuitive feel to me, and seemed much less dated overall (probably because it's a newer hospital in its layout and construction).
In defense of the PD at WashU, I've heard some good things about him from residents. But I remain concerned about the WashU match list. It seemed to me like a great majority of the residents stay there for fellowship, and it's unclear whether that's because they really love the place or because they have more difficulty going elsewhere. Overall it's a very "inbred" place, as many students stay for residency, many residents stay for fellowship, and many fellows become attendings/hospitalists there. This can be great for teaching, but was a red flag for me, as I wouldn't intend to stay there after residency. I was also put off by the fact that the majority of the printed information they provided to us was a huge book full of research opportunities and past projects. Much of WashU's reputation is built upon it's status as a research powerhorse, but it almost felt as if this was being emphasized in order to cover up the actual training shortcomings of the program.
Regarding the private patients issue, this fear was genearlly brushed off by all the residents I spoke to. They said that although there are technically about 1/3 private patients on a typical ward, the "private" attendings are allowed to admit as a privilege, due to receiving great evals regarding their teaching, and are often hospitalists who trained at WashU and are dedicated to education. However, some interns did mention that this limits their autonomy, as they basically call or meet with these attendings each day and often just get told what to do. They tried to spin this positively, saying it allowed them more time to spend with the other patients, but I'm not sure I really buy into it as a good way to do things.
Overall I was much more impressed with Michigan as compared to WashU. I really dislike the lack of subspecialty services at WashU; I think it's best to be able to focus on one big topic per rotation, and actually be taught cardiology from cardiologists, etc. Though you surely get to interact with subspecialists at WashU, my impression was that it's mostly through the chart notes, and that there isn't much didactic teaching from the subspecialists.
Although Mumpu and I are the only ones who've posted our negative experiences with WashU here, I met a number of applicants on the trail who felt similarly unimpressed with the place. WashU really needs to re-evaluate its interview day, for they truly put on a particularly poor show, aside from the dinner. In that setting the residents were all quite likeable and seemed happy, but I can't say there was really anything in particular that really jumped out to me about the place like Michigan or other programs. I was very disappointed, and won't be ranking WashU. I'd rather be at a "less reputable" place than spend 3 years there potentially unhappy. Perhaps some of this isn't a fair assessment, but it's tough to get more of a feel from a two day visit. In the end I think you must stick with your gut feeling, and for me it's definitely saying to avoid WashU. I had high hopes, but left disappointed.
