Thread Rating:
  • 6 Vote(s) - 2.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Programs by Strength
#31
(05-15-2017, 12:32 AM)Guest Wrote: Vandy and Cleveland Clinic >> Iowa and Memphis > Cincinnati > Indiana.

If anyone tells a different order, then he is either a highschooler or an Indiana resident

Vandy isn't even the best residency program in its state. Give me UT/Semmes-Murphey over being trained by a program that has lost all of its notable faculty in the last 5 years. If Vandy still had Cheng, Mocco and Neimat then you could make a case for it being on par with Cleveland Clinic.

My opinion of these midwest programs:

Cleveland Clinic > OSU > UT = IU > Vandy > Iowa > Cinci

OSU creeping up to CCF in the state of Ohio. Steadily improving program over there in Columbus
Reply
#32
(05-15-2017, 10:56 PM)Guest Wrote:
(05-15-2017, 10:16 PM)Guest Wrote:
(05-15-2017, 12:32 AM)Guest Wrote: Vandy and Cleveland Clinic >> Iowa and Memphis > Cincinnati > Indiana.

If anyone tells a different order, then he is either a highschooler or an Indiana resident

I'm not even going to try to re-arrange this above list so as not to feed the troll. But just in case any who are reading this can't smell the troll, the above poster is most likely the same person endlessly blasting IU on this thread. The above list is baseless, take it from someone with both direct experience on Sub I at these places as well as conversation with many others who have either done subI or are current residents at all of these programs

This list, and unfortunately many others like it was not made for any educational benefit, but is made for the entertainment of the list maker... that or it is made by some person who has absolutely no direct knowledge about what they speak... or probably both

Actually I am certain that you are the Indiana kid who tries to sell his program. I completely agree with the above list. Vanderbilt and CCF have tons of cases plus a good research infrastructure. Iowa and Memphis are very close to each other with high level of autonomy and operative exposure. Although Iowa has 2 years dedicated of research, they don't have infrastructure for this and they are more a clinical program for bread and butter cases. Cincinnati is solid in volume and faculty. They have a long history and despite the recent changes, they should continue to do well under Joe Cheng. Indiana started to make it to forums recently but they lack history and stability. You should understand that a new chair for 10 years won't make a big difference (Barbaro won't stay for 10 years). To build a name and have a stable program, you need an active chair as well as very cooperative faculty whose goal is to build a program on the long term. This requires at least 20 years of dedication. Simply said, I don't see this happening at IU. End of story

You're placing all your value in a program on non clinical/surgical training aspects: "research infrastructure" "long history" "build a name" and focusing on the specific name and recognition of the chair. I did a Sub I at a program that definitively checks all those boxes thinking it would be my top choice in a program, but it ended up falling way down my rank list because I saw the chief resident falling asleep against the scope while he did nothing for over an hour, and where every case was double scrubbed with excessively hands-attendings.

Sure, all the aspects you're using to give your judgments are key to calling a program a "major academic perennial powerhouse", but based on why each individual wants to be a neurosurgeon and what you want out of a training environment doesn't make these features desirable to everyone. The history or a program and the name of its chairmen may will likely helps someone land an academic job after residency, but it does not guarantee someone will be good surgeon when they leave there
Reply
#33
Tennessee is in the Midwest? Nuh-uh.
Reply
#34
shut the F up
Reply
#35
dude barrow or bust
Reply
#36
Why does Hopkins seem less popular this year?
Reply
#37
it's never popular. it's a dump of malignancy
Reply
#38
Insightful...

IMO, 2/2 mass departure of faculty over past 2-3 years. Some, but certainly not all, took promotions. Concerning.
Reply
#39
I was a medical student at Hopkins.
It is not malignant.
There were a couple weird residents years ago but they’ve since graduated.
The faculty that left almost all were recruited to bigger positions, like chairmanships.
Reply
#40
speaking of malignant. whats going on at emory? heard they are good for vascular but not spine and tumor?
Reply


[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Image Verification
Please enter the text contained within the image into the text box below it. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.
Image Verification
(case insensitive)

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)