(12-10-2017, 03:26 PM)Guest Wrote: (12-08-2017, 09:24 PM)Guest Wrote: (12-07-2017, 01:42 PM)Guest Wrote: (12-06-2017, 11:11 AM)NeuroGMC Wrote: Established Programs where you will get amazing training and have a bit more connections politically and maybe more publication ability --
UCSF, Barrow, Pitt, MGH, Hopkins, Mayo, UWash, Brigham, Northwestern, Emory, Jefferson, UT Southwestern, Vanderbilt, Baylor, USC, Miami, Penn, Duke, NYU, Cleveland Clinic, Case Western, UAB, Michigan, Columbia, Stanford, WashU, Florida, NYU, Cinci, UVA
Up and Coming Programs where you still will get amazing training and have to seek out those political connection and publications slightly more --
Maryland, Rochester, Mount Sinai, UCSD, OHSU, VCU, Yale, Wisconsin, MCW, USF, UNC, OU, UNM, Minnesota, Kansas, Colorado, Tufts, Rush, Penn State, Allegheny General
Many of these programs have changed dramatically in the past several years. There is no way you can argue Columbia is in the first category. Likewise, Cinci is having turmoil with the divorce between the university and Mayfield clinic. You mention stability, that is a sign of lack of stability.
As to your definition of up and coming, what are the criteria? Many of these (USF, Minnesota, Colorado, Rush, OHSU) are indeed up and coming. Many have major red flags, or established they are stagnant or on the decline, and I would be hesitant to rank them (UNM, MCW, OU, Tufts, Allegheny, Penn State)
Cinci is definitely not 100% stable, they have a brand new chairman but give it a few years and let the dust settle. They have all the resources to be a solid program.
I'd say OHSU and Colorado are established programs with bright futures as long as their big name faculty members don't leave.
In Penn State's case it depends on who takes over as chair. They have solid faculty and Ken Liu is coming over from UVA.
Second the Cinci statement. Recently recruited two new big name faculty members and are infusing something like $60M into the new neurosurgery Department. Give them a few years and then reevaluate tiers.
Who did they recruit?
Any updates on Cincinnati?
(10-04-2018, 05:01 PM)Guest Wrote: chirp chirp
Everyone good stayed at mayfield. Cheng hired a bunch of scrubs to make up numbers.
(10-04-2018, 06:17 PM)Guest Wrote: (10-04-2018, 05:01 PM)Guest Wrote: chirp chirp
Everyone good stayed at mayfield. Cheng hired a bunch of scrubs to make up numbers.
Like Prestigiacomo? Better than the vascular they had before.
(10-04-2018, 09:19 PM)Guest Wrote: (10-04-2018, 06:17 PM)Guest Wrote: (10-04-2018, 05:01 PM)Guest Wrote: chirp chirp
Everyone good stayed at mayfield. Cheng hired a bunch of scrubs to make up numbers.
Like Prestigiacomo? Better than the vascular they had before.
Ya Prestigiacomo will be a boon for Cinci
(10-05-2018, 08:07 AM)Guest Wrote: (10-04-2018, 09:19 PM)Guest Wrote: (10-04-2018, 06:17 PM)Guest Wrote: (10-04-2018, 05:01 PM)Guest Wrote: chirp chirp
Everyone good stayed at mayfield. Cheng hired a bunch of scrubs to make up numbers.
Like Prestigiacomo? Better than the vascular they had before.
Ya Prestigiacomo will be a boon for Cinci
I’m reading this as sarcastic. Even if he is a boon the others are goons.
(12-06-2017, 11:11 AM)NeuroGMC Wrote: Hello All,
This is my first post to this website but I thought I would interject my 2 cents. I am an outgoing chief resident at a large busy neurosurgery program in the country. I see that people are writing "tiers" and "program strength" and trying to bundle programs into places they think are where the top dogs get trained that go out into practice and are the bad boys of NSGY who get everything they want because they're the best.
The reality is that is absolutely a false and very misleading attitude to have about the programs around the country and the "tiers" they fall into.
Here's the actual truth of what you should be looking at for programs.
1. Does the program have stable leadership - Are the people in charge going to be there for your entire training. Nothing screws the pooch more than a drama filled training program where directors and chairman are retiring and political battles ensue during the meat of your training.
2. Does the program have the autonomy and case complex and volume to give YOU the opportunity to become a great surgeon - Well guess what? Any program that graduates residents with over 1200 cases logged is doing an outstanding job in training people on paper. But are they good surgeons? Do they know what they're doing? Can they choose the right patients to operate on? Will they be able to pass their oral boards? These are the questions that you should care about. It all begins with the attitude of the program, the style of the training -- is it autonomy or observer based as a junior resident? Do the senior residents do the critical aspects of cases? Are the chiefs clipping aneurysms or are they watching fellows? Who is doing what, when, and how the style of training is done at an institution is variable. Ask the each other on your interviews what the style and autonomy level was at the programs they rotated that is more important than anything else.
3. Does the program have the opportunities for me to be an academician? You can take a horse to water but you can't force them to drink. Not everyone will want to do academics and churn papers out. Not everyone will want to be on leadership committees and be involved in organized neurosurgery. It is ok to not want to be deeply involved in research and leadership, but a program has to have the ability to give you those opportunities if you want them.
4. Does the program have happy residents? Who the hell wants to go somewhere where you are on call literally every 3rd night for 4-5 years? Is there end in site for call? Do the residents have lives outside the hospital? Do residents see their families? How much night float do they do? I'll be frank and honest a program with less than 2 a year or a program with gaps in trainees is more demanding than a larger program due to the flexibility it creates in having more warm bodies in the call pool. This is so important for your sanity and out of hospital learning.
When you are building "tiers" you do nothing but bunch programs into an arbitrary system for you to split hairs.
I encourage you to think differently. If I were to tier programs I would simply put them as Established, Up and Coming, and Everyone Else.
For instance this list is ridiculous.
1. UCSF, Barrow, Pitt, MGH, Hopkins, Mayo, UWash
2. Brigham, Northwestern, Emory, Jefferson, UT Southwestern, Vanderbilt, Baylor, USC, Miami, UCSD, Penn, Duke, NYU, Cleveland Clinic, Michigan, Columbia, Stanford, Washu, Emory
3. Everyone else
It should look more like this:
Established Programs where you will get amazing training and have a bit more connections politically and maybe more publication ability --
UCSF, Barrow, Pitt, MGH, Hopkins, Mayo, UWash, Brigham, Northwestern, Emory, Jefferson, UT Southwestern, Vanderbilt, Baylor, USC, Miami, Penn, Duke, NYU, Cleveland Clinic, Case Western, UAB, Michigan, Columbia, Stanford, WashU, Florida, NYU, Cinci, UVA
Up and Coming Programs where you still will get amazing training and have to seek out those political connection and publications slightly more --
Maryland, Rochester, Mount Sinai, UCSD, OHSU, VCU, Yale, Wisconsin, MCW, USF, UNC, OU, UNM, Minnesota, Kansas, Colorado, Tufts, Rush, Penn State, Allegheny General
Everyone Else --
Still with ample opportunity to make an amazing surgeon and academician if YOU take every opportunity and challenge seriously and show the grit and dedication to be successful.
I cannot comment on the lifestyle of the residents in these programs and that is up to you as applicants and sub-Is to figure out where they fall in these lists.
I hope this thread is a little more helpful for how you should view programs than these silly lists put together elsewhere.
where is UCLA
(10-07-2018, 02:30 PM)Guest Wrote: (12-06-2017, 11:11 AM)NeuroGMC Wrote: Hello All,
This is my first post to this website but I thought I would interject my 2 cents. I am an outgoing chief resident at a large busy neurosurgery program in the country. I see that people are writing "tiers" and "program strength" and trying to bundle programs into places they think are where the top dogs get trained that go out into practice and are the bad boys of NSGY who get everything they want because they're the best.
The reality is that is absolutely a false and very misleading attitude to have about the programs around the country and the "tiers" they fall into.
Here's the actual truth of what you should be looking at for programs.
1. Does the program have stable leadership - Are the people in charge going to be there for your entire training. Nothing screws the pooch more than a drama filled training program where directors and chairman are retiring and political battles ensue during the meat of your training.
2. Does the program have the autonomy and case complex and volume to give YOU the opportunity to become a great surgeon - Well guess what? Any program that graduates residents with over 1200 cases logged is doing an outstanding job in training people on paper. But are they good surgeons? Do they know what they're doing? Can they choose the right patients to operate on? Will they be able to pass their oral boards? These are the questions that you should care about. It all begins with the attitude of the program, the style of the training -- is it autonomy or observer based as a junior resident? Do the senior residents do the critical aspects of cases? Are the chiefs clipping aneurysms or are they watching fellows? Who is doing what, when, and how the style of training is done at an institution is variable. Ask the each other on your interviews what the style and autonomy level was at the programs they rotated that is more important than anything else.
3. Does the program have the opportunities for me to be an academician? You can take a horse to water but you can't force them to drink. Not everyone will want to do academics and churn papers out. Not everyone will want to be on leadership committees and be involved in organized neurosurgery. It is ok to not want to be deeply involved in research and leadership, but a program has to have the ability to give you those opportunities if you want them.
4. Does the program have happy residents? Who the hell wants to go somewhere where you are on call literally every 3rd night for 4-5 years? Is there end in site for call? Do the residents have lives outside the hospital? Do residents see their families? How much night float do they do? I'll be frank and honest a program with less than 2 a year or a program with gaps in trainees is more demanding than a larger program due to the flexibility it creates in having more warm bodies in the call pool. This is so important for your sanity and out of hospital learning.
When you are building "tiers" you do nothing but bunch programs into an arbitrary system for you to split hairs.
I encourage you to think differently. If I were to tier programs I would simply put them as Established, Up and Coming, and Everyone Else.
For instance this list is ridiculous.
1. UCSF, Barrow, Pitt, MGH, Hopkins, Mayo, UWash
2. Brigham, Northwestern, Emory, Jefferson, UT Southwestern, Vanderbilt, Baylor, USC, Miami, UCSD, Penn, Duke, NYU, Cleveland Clinic, Michigan, Columbia, Stanford, Washu, Emory
3. Everyone else
It should look more like this:
Established Programs where you will get amazing training and have a bit more connections politically and maybe more publication ability --
UCSF, Barrow, Pitt, MGH, Hopkins, Mayo, UWash, Brigham, Northwestern, Emory, Jefferson, UT Southwestern, Vanderbilt, Baylor, USC, Miami, Penn, Duke, NYU, Cleveland Clinic, Case Western, UAB, Michigan, Columbia, Stanford, WashU, Florida, NYU, Cinci, UVA
Up and Coming Programs where you still will get amazing training and have to seek out those political connection and publications slightly more --
Maryland, Rochester, Mount Sinai, UCSD, OHSU, VCU, Yale, Wisconsin, MCW, USF, UNC, OU, UNM, Minnesota, Kansas, Colorado, Tufts, Rush, Penn State, Allegheny General
Everyone Else --
Still with ample opportunity to make an amazing surgeon and academician if YOU take every opportunity and challenge seriously and show the grit and dedication to be successful.
I cannot comment on the lifestyle of the residents in these programs and that is up to you as applicants and sub-Is to figure out where they fall in these lists.
I hope this thread is a little more helpful for how you should view programs than these silly lists put together elsewhere.
where is UCLA
In Los Angeles.
(10-07-2018, 03:44 PM)Guest Wrote: (10-07-2018, 02:30 PM)Guest Wrote: (12-06-2017, 11:11 AM)NeuroGMC Wrote: Hello All,
This is my first post to this website but I thought I would interject my 2 cents. I am an outgoing chief resident at a large busy neurosurgery program in the country. I see that people are writing "tiers" and "program strength" and trying to bundle programs into places they think are where the top dogs get trained that go out into practice and are the bad boys of NSGY who get everything they want because they're the best.
The reality is that is absolutely a false and very misleading attitude to have about the programs around the country and the "tiers" they fall into.
Here's the actual truth of what you should be looking at for programs.
1. Does the program have stable leadership - Are the people in charge going to be there for your entire training. Nothing screws the pooch more than a drama filled training program where directors and chairman are retiring and political battles ensue during the meat of your training.
2. Does the program have the autonomy and case complex and volume to give YOU the opportunity to become a great surgeon - Well guess what? Any program that graduates residents with over 1200 cases logged is doing an outstanding job in training people on paper. But are they good surgeons? Do they know what they're doing? Can they choose the right patients to operate on? Will they be able to pass their oral boards? These are the questions that you should care about. It all begins with the attitude of the program, the style of the training -- is it autonomy or observer based as a junior resident? Do the senior residents do the critical aspects of cases? Are the chiefs clipping aneurysms or are they watching fellows? Who is doing what, when, and how the style of training is done at an institution is variable. Ask the each other on your interviews what the style and autonomy level was at the programs they rotated that is more important than anything else.
3. Does the program have the opportunities for me to be an academician? You can take a horse to water but you can't force them to drink. Not everyone will want to do academics and churn papers out. Not everyone will want to be on leadership committees and be involved in organized neurosurgery. It is ok to not want to be deeply involved in research and leadership, but a program has to have the ability to give you those opportunities if you want them.
4. Does the program have happy residents? Who the hell wants to go somewhere where you are on call literally every 3rd night for 4-5 years? Is there end in site for call? Do the residents have lives outside the hospital? Do residents see their families? How much night float do they do? I'll be frank and honest a program with less than 2 a year or a program with gaps in trainees is more demanding than a larger program due to the flexibility it creates in having more warm bodies in the call pool. This is so important for your sanity and out of hospital learning.
When you are building "tiers" you do nothing but bunch programs into an arbitrary system for you to split hairs.
I encourage you to think differently. If I were to tier programs I would simply put them as Established, Up and Coming, and Everyone Else.
For instance this list is ridiculous.
1. UCSF, Barrow, Pitt, MGH, Hopkins, Mayo, UWash
2. Brigham, Northwestern, Emory, Jefferson, UT Southwestern, Vanderbilt, Baylor, USC, Miami, UCSD, Penn, Duke, NYU, Cleveland Clinic, Michigan, Columbia, Stanford, Washu, Emory
3. Everyone else
It should look more like this:
Established Programs where you will get amazing training and have a bit more connections politically and maybe more publication ability --
UCSF, Barrow, Pitt, MGH, Hopkins, Mayo, UWash, Brigham, Northwestern, Emory, Jefferson, UT Southwestern, Vanderbilt, Baylor, USC, Miami, Penn, Duke, NYU, Cleveland Clinic, Case Western, UAB, Michigan, Columbia, Stanford, WashU, Florida, NYU, Cinci, UVA
Up and Coming Programs where you still will get amazing training and have to seek out those political connection and publications slightly more --
Maryland, Rochester, Mount Sinai, UCSD, OHSU, VCU, Yale, Wisconsin, MCW, USF, UNC, OU, UNM, Minnesota, Kansas, Colorado, Tufts, Rush, Penn State, Allegheny General
Everyone Else --
Still with ample opportunity to make an amazing surgeon and academician if YOU take every opportunity and challenge seriously and show the grit and dedication to be successful.
I cannot comment on the lifestyle of the residents in these programs and that is up to you as applicants and sub-Is to figure out where they fall in these lists.
I hope this thread is a little more helpful for how you should view programs than these silly lists put together elsewhere.
where is UCLA
In Los Angeles.
This would be witty if not for the large block of quoted text that you missed. At least be more precise.
|
