Why does everyone say UCI is malignant? Everyone states it as fact but I've never actually heard why
(11-04-2017, 07:54 PM)Guest Wrote: Why does everyone say UCI is malignant? Everyone states it as fact but I've never actually heard why
"Everyone" is probably just one anonymous coward posting multiple times.
This tiers list is ridiculous and probably more wrong than random chance.
Who gives a shit about how "academic" or big name the program is. All I want out my 7 years is to learn how to do a lumbar lami and fusion. That's it, that's all. Then I'll go into my PP gig 3 days operating, and 1.5 days seeing in clinic. My PAs and NPs can manage the few issues I'll have, and I'll take my call from home. And make a shit ton more than you academic folks. Then I'll come in my Porsche 911 GTS to my blonde haired blue eyed babe of a wife in my multi million dollar house.
(11-04-2017, 07:45 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-03-2017, 11:00 PM)Guest Wrote: My impression of tiers based on nebulous stuff like resident opinions and on interview invites this season:
1. UCSF, Barrow, Pitt, UCLA, MGH, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, Penn, Duke, NYU, Brigham, Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Cornell, Stanford, Michigan, UVA
2. Northwestern, Emory, Jefferson, UT Southwestern, Vanderbilt, Utah, UC Irvine, Tufts, Utah, Carolinas, Baylor, USC, Miami, Rush, Wisconsin, Florida, Indiana, U Wash, OHSU
3. Rochester, Dartmouth, Brown, VCU, UNC, Beth Israel, Mayo Jacksonville, Mount Sinai, U Chicago, Buffalo, Minnesota, Georgetown, Yale, Penn State, Maryland, NIH, Wake Forest, Washington St. Louis
4. Albany, Kentucky, Inova, UT Houston, UCSD, Tenessee, UI Chicago, USF, Vermont, Rutgers, Hofstra, LSU, Henry Ford, Iowa, MUSC, Kentucky, George Washington
5. Temple, Nebraska, SUNY Upstate, Oklahoma, Einstein, Alabama, Mississippi, UI Peoria, Allegheny, New Mexico, Geisinger, West Virignia, Wayne State, Houston Methodist, St. Louis, NYMC Westchester
6. Tulane, Medical College of Wisconsin, LSU Shreveport, Scott and White, UT Galveston, Louisville, Arizona, Missouri, Cincinnati, Medical College of Georgia, Puerto Rico
I would be interested in hearing what other people think. Good luck on the rest of your interviews everyone.
1. Brigham and Cornell? Top tier programs? Both are in the shadow of far superior programs in close proximity and shouldn't be in the same category as their better counterparts. Why are Stanford and Duke up here? Top tier in terms of research yes, but the overall operative experience and volume at these places leave much to be desired.
2. Emory and UWash have exceptional reputations in the neurosurgical realm and should be higher. UCI might be the most malignant residency program in the country. Besides being in OC it has no upside. Carolinas has no academic output and is too young of a program. Don't know much about Tufts, but I doubt it's in the second tier of neurosurgical programs. Wisconsin, OHSU and Vandy are above average programs but I hesitate to say they belong in this tier.
3. This just seems like you saw the name brand places like Brown, Dartmouth and Chicago and ranked them highly. They are low volume places that are afloat because of a powerhouse institution to back them up and one or two academically well known faculty members. In reality there are places you put in tier 4 and 5 that are better programs.
4. Iowa and Tennessee should be higher. Not exactly flashy places but they are good training programs.
5 and 6 seem agreeable
Carolinas resident here. The notion that our academic output is 0 is false. I'm not sure how you would come to that conclusion yourself, perhaps it is based on the H index paper in the red journal from earlier this year. My guess is that data collection occurred prior to there being more than one resident at Carolinas. The fact is each of our residents has produced multiple publications per year so far.
In regard to the productivity of our faculty, that is falsely represented by the fact that our faculty are not going to be recognized as associated with Carolinas, (carolinad medical center) but will instead be associated with Carolina Neurosurgery & Spine Associates - the massive private group that encompasses all of the attendings of Carolinas. If you want a sense of the large academic productivity of that group you can do a PubMed search on a just a few of our attendings, try: Dom Coric, Matt McGirt, Tony Asher. The latter two are leaders of the N2QOD, and their Publications associated with that database are only a fraction of what they put out.
(11-04-2017, 09:51 PM)Guest Wrote: Who gives a shit about how "academic" or big name the program is. All I want out my 7 years is to learn how to do a lumbar lami and fusion. That's it, that's all. Then I'll go into my PP gig 3 days operating, and 1.5 days seeing in clinic. My PAs and NPs can manage the few issues I'll have, and I'll take my call from home. And make a shit ton more than you academic folks. Then I'll come in my Porsche 911 GTS to my blonde haired blue eyed babe of a wife in my multi million dollar house.
Seriously. Subtract the academic masturbation for a minute. Paints a whole different picture.
(11-04-2017, 10:04 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-04-2017, 07:45 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-03-2017, 11:00 PM)Guest Wrote: My impression of tiers based on nebulous stuff like resident opinions and on interview invites this season:
1. UCSF, Barrow, Pitt, UCLA, MGH, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, Penn, Duke, NYU, Brigham, Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Cornell, Stanford, Michigan, UVA
2. Northwestern, Emory, Jefferson, UT Southwestern, Vanderbilt, Utah, UC Irvine, Tufts, Utah, Carolinas, Baylor, USC, Miami, Rush, Wisconsin, Florida, Indiana, U Wash, OHSU
3. Rochester, Dartmouth, Brown, VCU, UNC, Beth Israel, Mayo Jacksonville, Mount Sinai, U Chicago, Buffalo, Minnesota, Georgetown, Yale, Penn State, Maryland, NIH, Wake Forest, Washington St. Louis
4. Albany, Kentucky, Inova, UT Houston, UCSD, Tenessee, UI Chicago, USF, Vermont, Rutgers, Hofstra, LSU, Henry Ford, Iowa, MUSC, Kentucky, George Washington
5. Temple, Nebraska, SUNY Upstate, Oklahoma, Einstein, Alabama, Mississippi, UI Peoria, Allegheny, New Mexico, Geisinger, West Virignia, Wayne State, Houston Methodist, St. Louis, NYMC Westchester
6. Tulane, Medical College of Wisconsin, LSU Shreveport, Scott and White, UT Galveston, Louisville, Arizona, Missouri, Cincinnati, Medical College of Georgia, Puerto Rico
I would be interested in hearing what other people think. Good luck on the rest of your interviews everyone.
1. Brigham and Cornell? Top tier programs? Both are in the shadow of far superior programs in close proximity and shouldn't be in the same category as their better counterparts. Why are Stanford and Duke up here? Top tier in terms of research yes, but the overall operative experience and volume at these places leave much to be desired.
2. Emory and UWash have exceptional reputations in the neurosurgical realm and should be higher. UCI might be the most malignant residency program in the country. Besides being in OC it has no upside. Carolinas has no academic output and is too young of a program. Don't know much about Tufts, but I doubt it's in the second tier of neurosurgical programs. Wisconsin, OHSU and Vandy are above average programs but I hesitate to say they belong in this tier.
3. This just seems like you saw the name brand places like Brown, Dartmouth and Chicago and ranked them highly. They are low volume places that are afloat because of a powerhouse institution to back them up and one or two academically well known faculty members. In reality there are places you put in tier 4 and 5 that are better programs.
4. Iowa and Tennessee should be higher. Not exactly flashy places but they are good training programs.
5 and 6 seem agreeable
Carolinas resident here. The notion that our academic output is 0 is false. I'm not sure how you would come to that conclusion yourself, perhaps it is based on the H index paper in the red journal from earlier this year. My guess is that data collection occurred prior to there being more than one resident at Carolinas. The fact is each of our residents has produced multiple publications per year so far.
In regard to the productivity of our faculty, that is falsely represented by the fact that our faculty are not going to be recognized as associated with Carolinas, (carolinad medical center) but will instead be associated with Carolina Neurosurgery & Spine Associates - the massive private group that encompasses all of the attendings of Carolinas. If you want a sense of the large academic productivity of that group you can do a PubMed search on a just a few of our attendings, try: Dom Coric, Matt McGirt, Tony Asher. The latter two are leaders of the N2QOD, and their Publications associated with that database are only a fraction of what they put out.
I know you guys are a solid group. I apologize for not doing my own research on top of what that article stated about you guys.
(11-04-2017, 10:22 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-04-2017, 09:51 PM)Guest Wrote: Who gives a shit about how "academic" or big name the program is. All I want out my 7 years is to learn how to do a lumbar lami and fusion. That's it, that's all. Then I'll go into my PP gig 3 days operating, and 1.5 days seeing in clinic. My PAs and NPs can manage the few issues I'll have, and I'll take my call from home. And make a shit ton more than you academic folks. Then I'll come in my Porsche 911 GTS to my blonde haired blue eyed babe of a wife in my multi million dollar house.
Seriously. Subtract the academic masturbation for a minute. Paints a whole different picture.
Academics does have a sanctimonious nature to it. I think PP guys are generally happier and have a better lifestyle overall in terms of compensation and practice structure. I bet 9/10 times the PP attending who went to a state school and trained at a place like Rush or Ohio State will be happier than the MD-PhD Columbia guy who's going to be an assistant professor for 8 years making a quarter mil.
mcgirt does have his name on a lot of papers, but he really isn't a ''leader" of N2QOD anymore.
(11-04-2017, 10:04 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-04-2017, 07:45 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-03-2017, 11:00 PM)Guest Wrote: My impression of tiers based on nebulous stuff like resident opinions and on interview invites this season:
1. UCSF, Barrow, Pitt, UCLA, MGH, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, Penn, Duke, NYU, Brigham, Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Cornell, Stanford, Michigan, UVA
2. Northwestern, Emory, Jefferson, UT Southwestern, Vanderbilt, Utah, UC Irvine, Tufts, Utah, Carolinas, Baylor, USC, Miami, Rush, Wisconsin, Florida, Indiana, U Wash, OHSU
3. Rochester, Dartmouth, Brown, VCU, UNC, Beth Israel, Mayo Jacksonville, Mount Sinai, U Chicago, Buffalo, Minnesota, Georgetown, Yale, Penn State, Maryland, NIH, Wake Forest, Washington St. Louis
4. Albany, Kentucky, Inova, UT Houston, UCSD, Tenessee, UI Chicago, USF, Vermont, Rutgers, Hofstra, LSU, Henry Ford, Iowa, MUSC, Kentucky, George Washington
5. Temple, Nebraska, SUNY Upstate, Oklahoma, Einstein, Alabama, Mississippi, UI Peoria, Allegheny, New Mexico, Geisinger, West Virignia, Wayne State, Houston Methodist, St. Louis, NYMC Westchester
6. Tulane, Medical College of Wisconsin, LSU Shreveport, Scott and White, UT Galveston, Louisville, Arizona, Missouri, Cincinnati, Medical College of Georgia, Puerto Rico
I would be interested in hearing what other people think. Good luck on the rest of your interviews everyone.
1. Brigham and Cornell? Top tier programs? Both are in the shadow of far superior programs in close proximity and shouldn't be in the same category as their better counterparts. Why are Stanford and Duke up here? Top tier in terms of research yes, but the overall operative experience and volume at these places leave much to be desired.
2. Emory and UWash have exceptional reputations in the neurosurgical realm and should be higher. UCI might be the most malignant residency program in the country. Besides being in OC it has no upside. Carolinas has no academic output and is too young of a program. Don't know much about Tufts, but I doubt it's in the second tier of neurosurgical programs. Wisconsin, OHSU and Vandy are above average programs but I hesitate to say they belong in this tier.
3. This just seems like you saw the name brand places like Brown, Dartmouth and Chicago and ranked them highly. They are low volume places that are afloat because of a powerhouse institution to back them up and one or two academically well known faculty members. In reality there are places you put in tier 4 and 5 that are better programs.
4. Iowa and Tennessee should be higher. Not exactly flashy places but they are good training programs.
5 and 6 seem agreeable
Carolinas resident here. The notion that our academic output is 0 is false. I'm not sure how you would come to that conclusion yourself, perhaps it is based on the H index paper in the red journal from earlier this year. My guess is that data collection occurred prior to there being more than one resident at Carolinas. The fact is each of our residents has produced multiple publications per year so far.
In regard to the productivity of our faculty, that is falsely represented by the fact that our faculty are not going to be recognized as associated with Carolinas, (carolinad medical center) but will instead be associated with Carolina Neurosurgery & Spine Associates - the massive private group that encompasses all of the attendings of Carolinas. If you want a sense of the large academic productivity of that group you can do a PubMed search on a just a few of our attendings, try: Dom Coric, Matt McGirt, Tony Asher. The latter two are leaders of the N2QOD, and their Publications associated with that database are only a fraction of what they put out.
Real academic program resident here.
What university are you affiliated with again? How many basic science labs are in the department? Anyone can jerk off on to a napkin, send it to the red or white journal, and call it clinical research. Also, the N2QOD is a garbage attempt at a program. I agree, you guys are more academic than these jokers are giving you credit for, but let's be real here. You are far from an academic program.
(11-04-2017, 10:53 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-04-2017, 10:04 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-04-2017, 07:45 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-03-2017, 11:00 PM)Guest Wrote: My impression of tiers based on nebulous stuff like resident opinions and on interview invites this season:
1. UCSF, Barrow, Pitt, UCLA, MGH, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, Penn, Duke, NYU, Brigham, Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Cornell, Stanford, Michigan, UVA
2. Northwestern, Emory, Jefferson, UT Southwestern, Vanderbilt, Utah, UC Irvine, Tufts, Utah, Carolinas, Baylor, USC, Miami, Rush, Wisconsin, Florida, Indiana, U Wash, OHSU
3. Rochester, Dartmouth, Brown, VCU, UNC, Beth Israel, Mayo Jacksonville, Mount Sinai, U Chicago, Buffalo, Minnesota, Georgetown, Yale, Penn State, Maryland, NIH, Wake Forest, Washington St. Louis
4. Albany, Kentucky, Inova, UT Houston, UCSD, Tenessee, UI Chicago, USF, Vermont, Rutgers, Hofstra, LSU, Henry Ford, Iowa, MUSC, Kentucky, George Washington
5. Temple, Nebraska, SUNY Upstate, Oklahoma, Einstein, Alabama, Mississippi, UI Peoria, Allegheny, New Mexico, Geisinger, West Virignia, Wayne State, Houston Methodist, St. Louis, NYMC Westchester
6. Tulane, Medical College of Wisconsin, LSU Shreveport, Scott and White, UT Galveston, Louisville, Arizona, Missouri, Cincinnati, Medical College of Georgia, Puerto Rico
I would be interested in hearing what other people think. Good luck on the rest of your interviews everyone.
1. Brigham and Cornell? Top tier programs? Both are in the shadow of far superior programs in close proximity and shouldn't be in the same category as their better counterparts. Why are Stanford and Duke up here? Top tier in terms of research yes, but the overall operative experience and volume at these places leave much to be desired.
2. Emory and UWash have exceptional reputations in the neurosurgical realm and should be higher. UCI might be the most malignant residency program in the country. Besides being in OC it has no upside. Carolinas has no academic output and is too young of a program. Don't know much about Tufts, but I doubt it's in the second tier of neurosurgical programs. Wisconsin, OHSU and Vandy are above average programs but I hesitate to say they belong in this tier.
3. This just seems like you saw the name brand places like Brown, Dartmouth and Chicago and ranked them highly. They are low volume places that are afloat because of a powerhouse institution to back them up and one or two academically well known faculty members. In reality there are places you put in tier 4 and 5 that are better programs.
4. Iowa and Tennessee should be higher. Not exactly flashy places but they are good training programs.
5 and 6 seem agreeable
Carolinas resident here. The notion that our academic output is 0 is false. I'm not sure how you would come to that conclusion yourself, perhaps it is based on the H index paper in the red journal from earlier this year. My guess is that data collection occurred prior to there being more than one resident at Carolinas. The fact is each of our residents has produced multiple publications per year so far.
In regard to the productivity of our faculty, that is falsely represented by the fact that our faculty are not going to be recognized as associated with Carolinas, (carolinad medical center) but will instead be associated with Carolina Neurosurgery & Spine Associates - the massive private group that encompasses all of the attendings of Carolinas. If you want a sense of the large academic productivity of that group you can do a PubMed search on a just a few of our attendings, try: Dom Coric, Matt McGirt, Tony Asher. The latter two are leaders of the N2QOD, and their Publications associated with that database are only a fraction of what they put out.
Real academic program resident here.
What university are you affiliated with again? How many basic science labs are in the department? Anyone can jerk off on to a napkin, send it to the red or white journal, and call it clinical research. Also, the N2QOD is a garbage attempt at a program. I agree, you guys are more academic than these jokers are giving you credit for, but let's be real here. You are far from an academic program.
Not a Carolina resident, but I've heard nothing by good things about that program.
On the other hand, I rotated at a "real academic program" as a med student. By a "real academic program" I mean one attached to a university with a fantastically regarded Cultural Anthropology Department.
I think there were maybe 5-6 cases a day for a 3-a-year program. Two of the chiefs double-scrubbed a straight-forward three-level lumbar fusion case to get their numbers. One of the chiefs opened. The other closed. The case took 8 hours and was complicated by a durotomy. True story.
I'm sure your residents' immunohistochemistry skills are almost as tip-top at the Biology BA who runs my lab though.
(11-05-2017, 12:05 AM)Guest Wrote: (11-04-2017, 10:53 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-04-2017, 10:04 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-04-2017, 07:45 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-03-2017, 11:00 PM)Guest Wrote: My impression of tiers based on nebulous stuff like resident opinions and on interview invites this season:
1. UCSF, Barrow, Pitt, UCLA, MGH, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, Penn, Duke, NYU, Brigham, Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Cornell, Stanford, Michigan, UVA
2. Northwestern, Emory, Jefferson, UT Southwestern, Vanderbilt, Utah, UC Irvine, Tufts, Utah, Carolinas, Baylor, USC, Miami, Rush, Wisconsin, Florida, Indiana, U Wash, OHSU
3. Rochester, Dartmouth, Brown, VCU, UNC, Beth Israel, Mayo Jacksonville, Mount Sinai, U Chicago, Buffalo, Minnesota, Georgetown, Yale, Penn State, Maryland, NIH, Wake Forest, Washington St. Louis
4. Albany, Kentucky, Inova, UT Houston, UCSD, Tenessee, UI Chicago, USF, Vermont, Rutgers, Hofstra, LSU, Henry Ford, Iowa, MUSC, Kentucky, George Washington
5. Temple, Nebraska, SUNY Upstate, Oklahoma, Einstein, Alabama, Mississippi, UI Peoria, Allegheny, New Mexico, Geisinger, West Virignia, Wayne State, Houston Methodist, St. Louis, NYMC Westchester
6. Tulane, Medical College of Wisconsin, LSU Shreveport, Scott and White, UT Galveston, Louisville, Arizona, Missouri, Cincinnati, Medical College of Georgia, Puerto Rico
I would be interested in hearing what other people think. Good luck on the rest of your interviews everyone.
1. Brigham and Cornell? Top tier programs? Both are in the shadow of far superior programs in close proximity and shouldn't be in the same category as their better counterparts. Why are Stanford and Duke up here? Top tier in terms of research yes, but the overall operative experience and volume at these places leave much to be desired.
2. Emory and UWash have exceptional reputations in the neurosurgical realm and should be higher. UCI might be the most malignant residency program in the country. Besides being in OC it has no upside. Carolinas has no academic output and is too young of a program. Don't know much about Tufts, but I doubt it's in the second tier of neurosurgical programs. Wisconsin, OHSU and Vandy are above average programs but I hesitate to say they belong in this tier.
3. This just seems like you saw the name brand places like Brown, Dartmouth and Chicago and ranked them highly. They are low volume places that are afloat because of a powerhouse institution to back them up and one or two academically well known faculty members. In reality there are places you put in tier 4 and 5 that are better programs.
4. Iowa and Tennessee should be higher. Not exactly flashy places but they are good training programs.
5 and 6 seem agreeable
Carolinas resident here. The notion that our academic output is 0 is false. I'm not sure how you would come to that conclusion yourself, perhaps it is based on the H index paper in the red journal from earlier this year. My guess is that data collection occurred prior to there being more than one resident at Carolinas. The fact is each of our residents has produced multiple publications per year so far.
In regard to the productivity of our faculty, that is falsely represented by the fact that our faculty are not going to be recognized as associated with Carolinas, (carolinad medical center) but will instead be associated with Carolina Neurosurgery & Spine Associates - the massive private group that encompasses all of the attendings of Carolinas. If you want a sense of the large academic productivity of that group you can do a PubMed search on a just a few of our attendings, try: Dom Coric, Matt McGirt, Tony Asher. The latter two are leaders of the N2QOD, and their Publications associated with that database are only a fraction of what they put out.
Real academic program resident here.
What university are you affiliated with again? How many basic science labs are in the department? Anyone can jerk off on to a napkin, send it to the red or white journal, and call it clinical research. Also, the N2QOD is a garbage attempt at a program. I agree, you guys are more academic than these jokers are giving you credit for, but let's be real here. You are far from an academic program.
Not a Carolina resident, but I've heard nothing by good things about that program.
On the other hand, I rotated at a "real academic program" as a med student. By a "real academic program" I mean one attached to a university with a fantastically regarded Cultural Anthropology Department.
I think there were maybe 5-6 cases a day for a 3-a-year program. Two of the chiefs double-scrubbed a straight-forward three-level lumbar fusion case to get their numbers. One of the chiefs opened. The other closed. The case took 8 hours and was complicated by a durotomy. True story.
I'm sure your residents' immunohistochemistry skills are almost as tip-top at the Biology BA who runs my lab though.
That should say nothing *but* good things about Carolinas.
Clearly my Neurosurgery Residency Program needs to work on it's English Department's US News and World Report Ranking if it wants to make 3rd tier.
(11-04-2017, 07:45 PM)Guest Wrote: (11-03-2017, 11:00 PM)Guest Wrote: My impression of tiers based on nebulous stuff like resident opinions and on interview invites this season:
1. UCSF, Barrow, Pitt, UCLA, MGH, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, Penn, Duke, NYU, Brigham, Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Cornell, Stanford, Michigan, UVA
2. Northwestern, Emory, Jefferson, UT Southwestern, Vanderbilt, Utah, UC Irvine, Tufts, Utah, Carolinas, Baylor, USC, Miami, Rush, Wisconsin, Florida, Indiana, U Wash, OHSU
3. Rochester, Dartmouth, Brown, VCU, UNC, Beth Israel, Mayo Jacksonville, Mount Sinai, U Chicago, Buffalo, Minnesota, Georgetown, Yale, Penn State, Maryland, NIH, Wake Forest, Washington St. Louis
4. Albany, Kentucky, Inova, UT Houston, UCSD, Tenessee, UI Chicago, USF, Vermont, Rutgers, Hofstra, LSU, Henry Ford, Iowa, MUSC, Kentucky, George Washington
5. Temple, Nebraska, SUNY Upstate, Oklahoma, Einstein, Alabama, Mississippi, UI Peoria, Allegheny, New Mexico, Geisinger, West Virignia, Wayne State, Houston Methodist, St. Louis, NYMC Westchester
6. Tulane, Medical College of Wisconsin, LSU Shreveport, Scott and White, UT Galveston, Louisville, Arizona, Missouri, Cincinnati, Medical College of Georgia, Puerto Rico
I would be interested in hearing what other people think. Good luck on the rest of your interviews everyone.
1. Brigham and Cornell? Top tier programs? Both are in the shadow of far superior programs in close proximity and shouldn't be in the same category as their better counterparts. Why are Stanford and Duke up here? Top tier in terms of research yes, but the overall operative experience and volume at these places leave much to be desired.
2. Emory and UWash have exceptional reputations in the neurosurgical realm and should be higher. UCI might be the most malignant residency program in the country. Besides being in OC it has no upside. Carolinas has no academic output and is too young of a program. Don't know much about Tufts, but I doubt it's in the second tier of neurosurgical programs. Wisconsin, OHSU and Vandy are above average programs but I hesitate to say they belong in this tier.
3. This just seems like you saw the name brand places like Brown, Dartmouth and Chicago and ranked them highly. They are low volume places that are afloat because of a powerhouse institution to back them up and one or two academically well known faculty members. In reality there are places you put in tier 4 and 5 that are better programs.
4. Iowa and Tennessee should be higher. Not exactly flashy places but they are good training programs.
5 and 6 seem agreeable
Thank you for the feedback. The reason I placed name brand programs higher is that these programs still seem to be more competitive to get into. This was a major factor in the rankings, and the main purpose of making a list (for an M1, M2, or M3 to understand which programs are more difficult, generally speaking, to match into).
|
