What are the top academic radiology programs?

[dpwsxw]

For those of us who are third years and looking to a research oriented radiology program, do any of you have an opinion on this list of top academic programs that one of the radiology faculty at my school put together...

Top Tier (in no order) - UCSF, WashU, Penn, MGH
Next Tier - Stanford, UCSD, UMich, Duke, Hopkins, Brigham, NYU
Next Tier - UCLA, UWash, Northwestern, Emory, UNC, Wake Forest, Cornell, Columbia, BID

Any thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Docxter]

The first two tiers are pretty accurate. I guess a few more programs could be put in your third tier.

 

[amnesia]

Wow this is great... I will be applying to college within the next year...

Thanks

 

[dpwsxw]

Docxter - Do you have any familiarity with NYU? I was suprised to hear that it is regarded among the elite research programs...Is this something recent that has happened with the program? I know their chairman is a big neurorads guy from Penn, but that's about all I know.

Just curious.

 

[russellb]

Originally posted by dpwsxw
Docxter - Do you have any familiarity with NYU? I was suprised to hear that it is regarded among the elite research programs...Is this something recent that has happened with the program? I know their chairman is a big neurorads guy from Penn, but that's about all I know.

Just curious.

If memory serves me correct, their body imaging program is anchored by a group of defectors from Penn (Bernie Birnbaum, Jill Jacobs)

 

[Docxter]

.

 

[Docxter]

Originally posted by dpwsxw
Docxter - Do you have any familiarity with NYU? I was suprised to hear that it is regarded among the elite research programs...Is this something recent that has happened with the program? I know their chairman is a big neurorads guy from Penn, but that's about all I know.

Just curious.

Yes, the new chairman Robert Grossman has hired a lot of new faculty, revamped the department equipment-wise, and modelled the department like Penn, including the department clinical and research structure, and even the residency applicant interview structure. These are all new developments in the past four years and I would dare to say it is now the best program in NYC. I am not a resident in NY by the way.

 

[arrogance]

..BID?

its probably something really common which is just not occuring to me right now

-a

 

[arrogance]

this is a link to a radiology nih research funding..

it may help fill some gaps in the above posted rankings.. although i do think going directly by this list may misrepresent some programs like ucsf which may have more prestige or notoriety than straight research dollars coming in.. its also from 2002..

http://www.residentphysician.com/Radiology_rankings.htm

 

[Docxter]

Originally posted by arrogance
this is a link to a radiology nih research funding..

it may help fill some gaps in the above posted rankings.. although i do think going directly by this list may misrepresent some programs like ucsf which may have more prestige or notoriety than straight research dollars coming in.. its also from 2002..

http://www.residentphysician.com/Radiology_rankings.htm

Good point. You also shouldn't be looking at only one or two years worth of NIH dollars either. Grants come and go and so the total dollars fluctuate. You should look at the last 5-7 years to get a better feel for the research oriented programs.

 

[kg37]

BID= Beth Israel Deaconess

 

[bosky]

Not a resident anywhere, but a near-complete MD/PhD having attended the last 4 ISMRMs and other radiology meetings - I just thought I'd add some information I know (especially re: MRI)...

I recently saw that NYU is getting a new 7 or 8T human scanner (either has it or very soon). I imagine placing a magnet this large in Manhattan is a real rectalgia! Also, I think David Alsop (perfusion MRI) and some others from Penn defected with Grossman. This group used to do some pretty good TBI-MRI research and Grossman is know for MS research. I know some very competitive MD/PhDs that have recently started residencies there too.

Alternative perspective - instead of using the quasi- US News and World Report popularity contest to choose research-oriented residencies...If you have a particular area of interest, there may be some programs that are more likely to help you develop as scientist? i.e. U Minnesota and UT SW probably have the best magnets for driving C13 spectroscopy research, but Yale has the most well-known PhD in the field... or JHopkins has the best-known DTI research, etc... There are also some institutions not as well-ranked that have better research than some on your list (at least for MRI) - for example, Vanderbilt gives excellent training and just got a few top-notch diffusion MRI researchers from Yale to build a program.

FYI - I didn't even mention my home institution, but hope this helps?

 

[Docxter]

Originally posted by bosky
Also, I think David Alsop (perfusion MRI) and some others from Penn defected with Grossman.

Dave Alsop is not at NYU. He and Bob Lenkinski left Penn for BID a few years before Grossman went from Penn to NYU.

 

[bosky]

Yes, you're right. For some reason I always confuse him with Helpern - hard to explain really. Anyway, here's a version of the article I read...

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-10/nyum-nyu100703.php

 

[dpwsxw]

Bosky - You bring up lots of good points. However, I cannot say that I have specific research interests in radiology yet, so my best bet would be to look at a program's overall research areas, and make decision's accordingly.

As far as NYU goes, with this new deal with Siemens, do you think that the insititution will continue to grow from a research perspective (grant money, attracting faculty, etc?)...In other words, do you consider it to be a program that is moving in the right direction?

Also, do any of you have any opinions on the program at Hopkins?

 

[doepug]

Originally posted by dpwsxw
Also, do any of you have any opinions on the program at Hopkins?

I'm a 4th year who just matched at Hopkins... I've had good experiences with the dept as a medical student. I am thrilled to stay here for radiology. What questions do you have?

 

[russellb]

Originally posted by dpwsxw
Also, do any of you have any opinions on the program at Hopkins?

I did my fellowship there.

Strong program, overall. MSK and chest were the weaknesses that I saw. They also lost a couple of mammo people at the time that I was leaving. I don't know if they've been replaced.

 

[bosky]

Sorry, I don't know much more about NYU than that, but it's a good guess that a program getting a 7T magnet is building a research program. I need to see it for myself, but I imagine it will be on my rank list. I'm not sure how involved one can get during residency (unless perhaps through the Holman pathway), but for research magnets, the other concern I have is whether you can get time on them. This could be someone's pet magnet and they could be unlikely to share. We have problems like that at my home institution. So, for you, reputation, trends and mentors in your likely area of interest would probably be the best guides to selecting a program. Since I'm not finished myself, some of these people above probably give more informed advice.

Doepug, I think I have a similar background and perspective, but not quite so accomplished. I saw your stats on AM the other day - congratualtions on the number of papers! That's quite an accomplishment - were they all 1st author, basic or clinical science, case reports? It would be helpful to know as I'm trying to determine if I can be competitive and JH is very high on my list of potential programs to apply to. How much interaction is there between the MDs and PhDs for research? Do you have time for research or just chart-review research? Who would be the best neuroradiology research mentors for residents? Did you look at MGH or Duke? If so, from your perspective, why did you choose JH over them?

 

[dpwsxw]

Thanks Bosky.

Some more questions for you doepug -

1) Has Hopkins decided on its new department chair? Last I heard they were close, but were still searching.

2) For an institution with such a research emphasis, what percentage of grads actually do stay in academics, esp in recent years?

3) Are residents at Hopkins allowed to moonlight?

4) Is there protected research time built into the 4 year program?

Thanks in advance...

 

[doepug]

Originally posted by bosky
Doepug, I think I have a similar background and perspective, but not quite so accomplished. I saw your stats on AM the other day - congratualtions on the number of papers! That's quite an accomplishment - were they all 1st author, basic or clinical science, case reports? It would be helpful to know as I'm trying to determine if I can be competitive and JH is very high on my list of potential programs to apply to. How much interaction is there between the MDs and PhDs for research? Do you have time for research or just chart-review research? Who would be the best neuroradiology research mentors for residents? Did you look at MGH or Duke? If so, from your perspective, why did you choose JH over them?

Thanks for the compliments.

My papers are mostly clinical research, although one is basic science (hopefully another soon). I haven't written any case reports.

Hopkins is a fantastic place for anyone interested in research. You'll have plenty of opportunities to work with people in the department, and there is no shortage of great projects that could really use an eager volunteer. Some residents choose to set aside 6-12 months of research time, although this requires careful planning with the PD. You will have time for real research, but if you're into chart reviews, go for it... someone's gotta do it.

I looked at a number of similar programs, but ultimately decided that Hopkins had the best mix of great residents and great opportunities. Duke just didn't sit well with me, and although I thought I'd like the Boston programs, they simply weren't a good fit.

In my opinion, Hopkins has a fantastic group of faculty members with awesome residents and excellent opportunities for research. Conferences here are spectacular, and the PD is a legendary teacher. Call is reasonable. Perhaps the biggest difference is that Hopkins *could* be a much larger program, but they limit the class to 6-7 so that residents are there to learn -- they're not indentured servants. If the residents all stayed home, the work would still get done.

Good luck! I hope that you'll have a chance to visit Hopkins during the interview season.

 

[doepug]

1) Has Hopkins decided on its new department chair? Last I heard they were close, but were still searching.

The new chair (Dr. Lewin) was formally announced last week. My understanding is that he is moving in already.

2) For an institution with such a research emphasis, what percentage of grads actually do stay in academics, esp in recent years?

In recent years, it's been about 50/50, which is about the highest in the country. As you may know, the program is especially trying to recruit people who are interested in academic radiology, so this number is likely to rise.

3) Are residents at Hopkins allowed to moonlight?

Officially, no. I'm not sure how strictly this policy is enforced.

4) Is there protected research time built into the 4 year program?

It's there if you want it. Interested residents work with the program director to negotiate an appropriate amount of research time, and it will be built into the schedule. Residents who dedicate time for research remain on the call schedule.

Hope this helps --
doepug

 

[bluebottle]

Based on my experience during the previous interview season, I am not sure if I would completely agree with the tier system stated earlier in this post. I realize that this tier system is really subjective and so I am not arguing about the details but rather sharing my perspective. The way I ranked academic radiology program had to do with 1) Their NIH funding in the last 5-10 years, which is available on the web, 2) The diversity and volume of clinical cases, which is provided at the interviews, and 3) the general feel of the program, which included qualities like the turnover rate of faculty members and the general happiness of the residents. My top ten programs are listed below. I think programs in each tier are pretty much comparable and that this list may and probably will change every 4-5 years.

Tier 1 : Wash U, U Penn, MGH, and UCSF
Tier 2 : B&W, Johns Hopkins, Duke and Stanford
Tier 3 : U Michigan, U Washington.

I would not include NYU in the top ten programs for numerous reasons, including 1) This program?s NIH funding is not that impressive and is not likely to change tremendously as compared to the other programs in the next five years, 2) The residents don?t get to do a lot of hands on work (e.g. procedures, MR readings, etc.), and 3) Their pediatric program is not that strong, especially as compared to the one in Columbia. I did not include San Diego mostly because of the infancy of their research program. Lastly, I would include U of Washington because 1) Their NIH funding has been in the top 10 for at least the last 8 years, 2) Having their own trauma center, children?s hospital and serving as the main referral center in NW, the clinical cases are excellent, and 3) The department has for the most part recovered from the turnovers they experienced several years ago. They have a new chairman who seems to be in the process of rebuilding the program.

 

[RADRULES]

Geez.... what I mind numbing thread. I am very happy there are people out there who are such hardcore researchers.... discussing 7 Tesla magnets is really reaching a new level of dorkdom.

But, more power to you guys. I respect you all, probably because I could never do it.

I think I am the kind of rad most academics dislike... only interested in speed/efficiency so I can cash my fat check and take my vacation in Hawaii.

 

[amnesia]

Geez.... what I mind numbing thread. I am very happy there are people out there who are such hardcore researchers.... discussing 7 Tesla magnets is really reaching a new level of dorkdom.

But, more power to you guys. I respect you all, probably because I could never do it.

I think I am the kind of rad most academics dislike... only interested in speed/efficiency so I can cash my fat check and take my vacation in Hawaii.

hell yeah

 

[bosky]

Radrules,

I guess that makes me a superbig dork - where I work 7T is considered low field...unless we're talking strictly humans.

 

[juicyfruit]

I've talked to several faculty at my radiology department and they seem to agree that the difference between top ten programs are pretty small. So I thought I would post their opinions on the top tier programs.

First Tier: MIR, MGH, Penn, Duke, Stanford, UCSF, Hopkins, BWH, Michigan

(These nine will show up unanimously on everyone's "top 10" list and there really isn't a huge difference between them.)

Second Tier: UCLA, University of Washington, University of Chicago, Northwestern, Cornell, Columbia, NYU, Mayo

(These eight will show up on some people's "top 10" list and are still amazing programs)

Third Tier: BID, UNC, Indiana, Minnesota, Emory, Vanderbilt, UTSW, Wake Forest, Jefferson, Iowa, UVA, UCSD (I know I'll get a lot of flack for putting this as third tier, but it is a rising program. It is still small and while recognized on the West Coast, hasn't gained a "National" reputation that the programs in the first two tiers has. Also they did not fill last year, which is something that would rarely happen to programs in the first two tiers)

(Collectively, these programs are known to be very strong programs within their region, tend to attract candidates from their geographical region. They may in fact be better or equivalent to some of the second tier programs, but do not have the "National" reputation of the first or second tier programs.)

 

[alianwaar4]

how is university of california, irvines residency program compared to others? would you consider it competative and respectable?

 

[Danala55]

1

 

[matwags]

 

[matwags]

Let me preface this by saying I completed my residency and fellowship at Duke. So, I am biased. That being said, there is no program in the country that is better. There are several programs that are equal in caliber, but none better.

To be honest, I think that you would get an awesome education in radiology at 30 or so programs in the country. Let's face it, being a good radiologist really depends on reading alot of books, journals, etc. and seeing a ton of cases. Its great if you have great side by side teaching with the best minds in the country, and are exposed to the latest techniques, but it really comes down to you. I have seen brilliant people go to great programs and waste their time.

Currently, Radiology is hot and it is very hard to get into. My suggestion is to interview at a ton of places of all types. Rank them in order of where you think you would fit in, rather than a name. Remember, you have to spend 4 years there (at least). Hope this helps.

 

[amnesia]

How is radiology "hot" - or for that matter, any position being a physician or nurse?

Just the other week the WSJ had YET another article on how doctors and nurses are being imported because of a crisis. AFAIK, there will always be slots to fill in any field... I don't think it's hard to get into at all... All the hospitals in my area (wuestoff or holmes) are always hiring and the starting wages for rads is like $150K... which isn't bad. At least this is what I read in a local mag

 

[Docxter]

How is radiology "hot" - or for that matter, any position being a physician or nurse?

Just the other week the WSJ had YET another article on how doctors and nurses are being imported because of a crisis. AFAIK, there will always be slots to fill in any field... I don't think it's hard to get into at all... All the hospitals in my area (wuestoff or holmes) are always hiring and the starting wages for rads is like $150K... which isn't bad. At least this is what I read in a local mag

He's talking about residency slots.

 

[chronicidal]

I think programs in each tier are pretty much comparable and that this list may and probably will change every 4-5 years.

Tier 1 : Wash U, U Penn, MGH, and UCSF
Tier 2 : B&W, Johns Hopkins, Duke and Stanford
Tier 3 : U Michigan, U Washington.

What has changed, 12 years later?

 

[deleted564680]

About the institutions? Mostly nothing. About the applicants? A lot.
More people care about lifestyle/geography now and subsequently those programs get "ranked" higher.

 

[chronicidal]

2014 Doximity survey, raw data, top 10 by specialist nominations
Weighing specialists and program directors equally:

Tier 1a: UCSF, MGH, MIR
Tier 1b: Hopkins, Duke, Stanford
Tier 1c: Penn, Mayo, Michigan, BWH

 

[deleted564680]

Yawn....doximity... lol
Some guy tried to do a meta ranking in another thread. That seemed more legit to me.

 

[Gadofosveset]

"Tier 1b"? That is pure med student right there.

 

[Gadofosveset]

Ranking programs hierarchically is a joke.

There are eight kinds of programs -- only the first and last are obvious for your rank list:

1) Large city referral center / good resident and fellow teaching / a place you want to live

2) Large city referral center / good resident and fellow teaching / a place you don't want to live
3) Large city referral center / poor resident and fellow teaching / a place you want to live
4) Large city referral center / poor resident and fellow teaching / a place you don't want to live
5) Small city or community, non-referral / good resident and fellow teaching / a place you want to live
6) Small city or community, non-referral / good resident and fellow teaching / a place you don't want to live
7) Small city or community, non-referral / poor resident and fellow teaching / a place you want to live

8) Small city or community, non-referral / poor resident and fellow teaching / a place you don't want to live

If you're talking about ranking academic programs in terms of ability of pure radiology research, like qualifying for RSNA seed grants, R1s, etc.... and you're debating a rank list of the top 10-12 programs. Lord help you.

 

[elektroshok]

UTSW

 

[deleted564680]

Cleveland Clinic

 

[Radiologyreviews2015]

Yawn....doximity... lol
Some guy tried to do a meta ranking in another thread. That seemed more legit to me.

Combining rankings does not make a ranking more legitimate. This isn't a systematic review we're talking about. Malcolm Gladwell has written about the problem with rankings before. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/02/14/the-order-of-things The major issue is the heterogeneity and arbitrary weightings of complex rating systems. Doximity ranks programs on one dimension: reputation survey. It's clear what that represents. One of the meta rankings I've seen includes a 50% weight on location, as evaluated by this one anonymous ranking maker. How can you trust that as more legitimate???

 

[Fab5Hill33]

I am an attending radiologist at an academic center.

The medical school dean emailed all the faculty to participate in the Doximity survey to "bump" up the rankings in various specialities (including Radiology).

Here's the catch that you have to understand: Doximity only allows you to vote in the survey if you create an account and provide some amount of personal information.
Many faculty at my institution refused to do this for the sake of privacy. Consequently, I would argue that we are "under-ranked" on the survey. And I bet other universities, where there was a stronger push for faculty voting, got "over-ranked."

Doximity rankings are pure hogwash.

 

[deleted564680]

I am an attending radiologist at an academic center.

The medical school dean emailed all the faculty to participate in the Doximity survey to "bump" up the rankings in various specialities (including Radiology).

Here's the catch that you have to understand: Doximity only allows you to vote in the survey if you create an account and provide some amount of personal information.
Many faculty at my institution refused to do this for the sake of privacy. Consequently, I would argue that we are "under-ranked" on the survey. And I bet other universities, where there was a stronger push for faculty voting, got "over-ranked."

Doximity rankings are pure hogwash.

Also places with more faculty and more alumni will be higher

 

[chronicidal]

Also places with more faculty and more alumni will be higher

Doximity adjusts for alumni number.

"To account for “self-votes”, raw votes were divided into alumni-votes and non-alumni votes. Alumni votes were weighted according to the % of the eligible physician population that a particular program accounts for within that specialty (number of alumni divided by total eligible within the specialty)."

But it's certainly true that programs with more faculty will have an advantage over smaller programs or over programs that hate Doximity.

 

[chronicidal]

Doximity only allows you to vote in the survey if you create an account and provide some amount of personal information

You do not need to provide any information that Doximity doesn't already have. When you register, you are only verifying that their information is correct (name, office contact, specialty, training institutions).

 

[Fab5Hill33]

In order to vote, Doximity required that you download the mobile app which, in turn, takes a lot of your personal data.

I actually tried convincing some of my colleagues to download the app because I wanted our program to get ranked higher, but the pushback due to annoyances with the app or giving away personal data was very high at my institution.

Again, the bottom line is this: Doximity rankings are completely useless.

You do not need to provide any information that Doximity doesn't already have. When you register, you are only verifying that their information is correct (name, office contact, specialty, training institutions).

 

[chronicidal]

In order to vote, Doximity required that you download the mobile app which, in turn, takes a lot of your personal data.

I actually tried convincing some of my colleagues to download the app because I wanted our program to get ranked higher, but the pushback due to annoyances with the app or giving away personal data was very high at my institution.

Again, the bottom line is this: Doximity rankings are completely useless.

Wow. If that's true, that's really a dick move on their part. I don't even have the app.