List of Crappy Gross-horse programs

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

This list is more than overdue.

If you know of a program that is known to be a glorified gross tech training program, list it here so people will know to avoid it and to scrutinize its trainees as being unprepared for practice. If you don't want to come right out and say it, PM me and I will list it anonymously.

If you can, add the estimated percentage of FMG/IMG residents.

Listed as avoid (probably should be shut down):

UMDNJ-RWJMS in New Brunswick, NJ (residents don't do diagnostic work, only grossing)
Albany Medical College - Albany NY (Insufficient PA staff, so residents do most of the grossing)
Stony Brook - LI (too much grossing and no preview time, though some people deny this)
Roosevelt-St. Luke - NY (on probation)
Mount Sinai - NYC (malignant)

Listed as with reservations (the jury is still out on these ones, but beware):

Virginia Commonwealth (conflicting reports about grossing burden, ?resident sign-out responsibilities)
George Washington
Brown
Howard (low case volume)
Henry Ford - Detroit Michigan
George Washington University - Washington D.C.
Baystate Medical Center - Springfield MA
Case Western Reserve University - Cleveland Ohio
Brown University - Providence RI
DMC - Wayne State - Detroit, Michigan

Originally Posted by Substance

This list is more than overdue.

If you know of a program that is known to be a glorified gross tech training program, list it here so people will know to avoid it and to scrutinize its trainees as being unprepared for practice.

If you can, add the estimated percentage of FMG/IMG residents.

I heard there are programs where you dont gross. Dont know if this is true.

Originally Posted by KeratinPearls

I heard there are programs where you dont gross. Dont know if this is true.

Doubt it, but its possible.

Regardless, the gross-horse programs are bad programs because the residents are being used as cheap alternatives to gross techs instead of being trained to do a good service for patients in need. These programs are therefore doing a disservice to patients.

These programs should be outed and avoided, and graduates from these programs should be regarded as low caliber.

holding my tongue

Or how about all programs just agree to 'fire' any second year resident that scores less than the 25th percentile overall among 2nd years on their RISE? That way we ultimately cut spots while promoting the survivial of the fitest.

The exam would have to be tighly and uniformly administered. It could be kind of like "Hunger Games," with a message from the ABP that is broadcast just before the start of the exam. One of the ABP officers could end a brief monologue with the phrase, " May the odds be ever in your favor!" And it would begin . . .

Originally Posted by Sulfinator

Or how about all programs just agree to 'fire' any second year resident that scores less than the 25th percentile overall among 2nd years on their RISE? That way we ultimately cut spots while promoting the survivial of the fitest.

The exam would have to be tighly and uniformly administered. It could be kind of like "Hunger Games," with a message from the ABP that is broadcast just before the start of the exam. One of the ABP officers could end a brief monologue with the phrase, " May the odds be ever in your favor!" And it would begin . . .

All joking aside, that would breed some un-freakin-believable pathologists...

If the match results from this past year made anything clear, its truly a buyer's market out there when shopping for pathology residency programs. The dedicated applicant pool, as in those doing pathology because they really, really like it, is much smaller than the number of spots to fill. And I don't think its going to grow anytime soon for whatever reason you'd like to attribute to it (i.e. crappy job market, perceived uninteresting work, bad training conditions, etc.)

So with that said, if you are a future applicant and are on the interview trail and catch wind of any of the following, you should interpret these as very big red flags:

1. No PA: means you're going to be the PA at half price

2. More than 50% of your physical time will be spent grossing

3. Few, if any, residents in the program are able to get fellowships

4. Board pass rates are in the toilet

5. Faculty turnover rate is high; that usually means that junior faculty don't last more than 2-3 years

6. Sign-out consists of you staring through the scope in a sleepless induced daze as the attending flies through cases you either didn't preview or gross yourself. Along with this, if you aren't allowed to work up and/or write up cases independently towards the terminal end of your training, you should also interpret that as a huge red flag and tacit admission on how little faith the dept/faculty have on the training they are supposed to be giving you.

7. The program uses the RISE as a mechanism to determine promotion/retention within the program...even more worrisome if any of the above are also present in the program

8. You have no electives, or if you do they're at the end of the program, well after the fellowship application process

9. Your book fund is unbelievably measly and you get no support to go to conferences to network or present research...assuming any happens at said program

10. And the biggest one of them all: The residents generally look dissatisfied. Tired doesn't count, but tired and dissatisfied does. Most people are poor actors, so this should be readily apparent in the interview day. Also along this line, if you don't get to meet any residents or its a very hurried interaction, that's another big red flag.

This is what I can think of off the top of my head. I don't think making a list of programs would be as productive as knowing what the red flags are. Programs often change for the better, but bad education is universal irrespective of the institution.

Originally Posted by Alteran

If the match results from this past year made anything clear, its truly a buyer's market out there when shopping for pathology residency programs. The dedicated applicant pool, as in those doing pathology because they really, really like it, is much smaller than the number of spots to fill. And I don't think its going to grow anytime soon for whatever reason you'd like to attribute to it (i.e. crappy job market, perceived uninteresting work, bad training conditions, etc.)

So with that said, if you are a future applicant and are on the interview trail and catch wind of any of the following, you should interpret these as very big red flags:

1. No PA: means you're going to be the PA at half price

2. More than 50% of your physical time will be spent grossing

3. Few, if any, residents in the program are able to get fellowships

4. Board pass rates are in the toilet

5. Faculty turnover rate is high; that usually means that junior faculty don't last more than 2-3 years

6. Sign-out consists of you staring through the scope in a sleepless induced daze as the attending flies through cases you either didn't preview or gross yourself. Along with this, if you aren't allowed to work up and/or write up cases independently towards the terminal end of your training, you should also interpret that as a huge red flag and tacit admission on how little faith the dept/faculty have on the training they are supposed to be giving you.

7. The program uses the RISE as a mechanism to determine promotion/retention within the program...even more worrisome if any of the above are also present in the program

8. You have no electives, or if you do they're at the end of the program, well after the fellowship application process

9. Your book fund is unbelievably measly and you get no support to go to conferences to network or present research...assuming any happens at said program

10. And the biggest one of them all: The residents generally look dissatisfied. Tired doesn't count, but tired and dissatisfied does. Most people are poor actors, so this should be readily apparent in the interview day. Also along this line, if you don't get to meet any residents or its a very hurried interaction, that's another big red flag.

This is what I can think of off the top of my head. I don't think making a list of programs would be as productive as knowing what the red flags are. Programs often change for the better, but bad education is universal irrespective of the institution.

Thanks!

This is great! Thanks for compiling these!

Originally Posted by Alteran

If the match results from this past year made anything clear, its truly a buyer's market out there when shopping for pathology residency programs. The dedicated applicant pool, as in those doing pathology because they really, really like it, is much smaller than the number of spots to fill. And I don't think its going to grow anytime soon for whatever reason you'd like to attribute to it (i.e. crappy job market, perceived uninteresting work, bad training conditions, etc.)

So with that said, if you are a future applicant and are on the interview trail and catch wind of any of the following, you should interpret these as very big red flags:

1. No PA: means you're going to be the PA at half price

2. More than 50% of your physical time will be spent grossing

3. Few, if any, residents in the program are able to get fellowships

4. Board pass rates are in the toilet

5. Faculty turnover rate is high; that usually means that junior faculty don't last more than 2-3 years

6. Sign-out consists of you staring through the scope in a sleepless induced daze as the attending flies through cases you either didn't preview or gross yourself. Along with this, if you aren't allowed to work up and/or write up cases independently towards the terminal end of your training, you should also interpret that as a huge red flag and tacit admission on how little faith the dept/faculty have on the training they are supposed to be giving you.

7. The program uses the RISE as a mechanism to determine promotion/retention within the program...even more worrisome if any of the above are also present in the program

8. You have no electives, or if you do they're at the end of the program, well after the fellowship application process

9. Your book fund is unbelievably measly and you get no support to go to conferences to network or present research...assuming any happens at said program

10. And the biggest one of them all: The residents generally look dissatisfied. Tired doesn't count, but tired and dissatisfied does. Most people are poor actors, so this should be readily apparent in the interview day. Also along this line, if you don't get to meet any residents or its a very hurried interaction, that's another big red flag.

This is what I can think of off the top of my head. I don't think making a list of programs would be as productive as knowing what the red flags are. Programs often change for the better, but bad education is universal irrespective of the institution.

#6 IS VERY IMPORTANT. YOU WANT TO GIVE YOUR OPINION FOR ALL THE CASES YOU GROSS OR YOU ARE TRULY CHEAP LABOR. Also, not having a PA is NOT always a bad thing. Depends on the surgical volume. If you are at a very busy program with no PA-bad thing. If you are at a smaller program with 20,000 surgicals and 2 residents per year, not a bad thing. It would be nice to be at a program where you aren't there til midnight. Grossing is not a bad thing and is very important...excessive slave labor grossing while not being able to sign out the cases you gross is a bad thing.

You also do not want to be in a program that has you grossing small biopsies...that is another sign that you are cheap labor because histotechs can do that. That is a very good question to ask. If you will be grossing small biopsies, do not go there.

That sounds like a great list, but I still think you need to name names. Things won't change by themselves.

For instance, on auntminnie, everyone knows that Wayne State and Drexel are terrible radiology residency programs. Yet I can't find a good list of crap path programs anywhere. That should change and would be the first step to holding programs accountable for their continued existence.

Originally Posted by Alteran

If the match results from this past year made anything clear, its truly a buyer's market out there when shopping for pathology residency programs. The dedicated applicant pool, as in those doing pathology because they really, really like it, is much smaller than the number of spots to fill. And I don't think its going to grow anytime soon for whatever reason you'd like to attribute to it (i.e. crappy job market, perceived uninteresting work, bad training conditions, etc.)

So with that said, if you are a future applicant and are on the interview trail and catch wind of any of the following, you should interpret these as very big red flags:

1. No PA: means you're going to be the PA at half price

2. More than 50% of your physical time will be spent grossing

3. Few, if any, residents in the program are able to get fellowships

4. Board pass rates are in the toilet

5. Faculty turnover rate is high; that usually means that junior faculty don't last more than 2-3 years

6. Sign-out consists of you staring through the scope in a sleepless induced daze as the attending flies through cases you either didn't preview or gross yourself. Along with this, if you aren't allowed to work up and/or write up cases independently towards the terminal end of your training, you should also interpret that as a huge red flag and tacit admission on how little faith the dept/faculty have on the training they are supposed to be giving you.

7. The program uses the RISE as a mechanism to determine promotion/retention within the program...even more worrisome if any of the above are also present in the program

8. You have no electives, or if you do they're at the end of the program, well after the fellowship application process

9. Your book fund is unbelievably measly and you get no support to go to conferences to network or present research...assuming any happens at said program

10. And the biggest one of them all: The residents generally look dissatisfied. Tired doesn't count, but tired and dissatisfied does. Most people are poor actors, so this should be readily apparent in the interview day. Also along this line, if you don't get to meet any residents or its a very hurried interaction, that's another big red flag.

This is what I can think of off the top of my head. I don't think making a list of programs would be as productive as knowing what the red flags are. Programs often change for the better, but bad education is universal irrespective of the institution.

Thanks

Originally Posted by Sulfinator

Or how about all programs just agree to 'fire' any second year resident that scores less than the 25th percentile overall among 2nd years on their RISE? That way we ultimately cut spots while promoting the survivial of the fitest.

The exam would have to be tighly and uniformly administered. It could be kind of like "Hunger Games," with a message from the ABP that is broadcast just before the start of the exam. One of the ABP officers could end a brief monologue with the phrase, " May the odds be ever in your favor!" And it would begin . . .

I wouldn't trust a resident with a nerf bow and arrow. People put too much stock in the RISE, the only one that really predicts anything will probably be the one in 4th year.

As far as Surg Path fellowships, go somewhere were you can sign out and be junior faculty, otherwise its just a 5th year.

www.mekentosj.com

Originally Posted by Brett Snodgrass

The programs that I have seen are very balanced in terms of grossing.

Any information about these programs would be appreciated.

I have visited their websites and I see mostly IMG, I wonder if they fall in this "Crappy gross horse programs"

Henry Ford - Detroit Michigan
Albany Medical College - Albany NY
George Washington University - Washington D.C.
Baystate Medical Center - Springfield MA
Case Western Reserve University - Cleveland Ohio
Brown University - Providence RI

#6 is pretty much right on about horrible programs.

Originally Posted by isaishere

Any information about these programs would be appreciated.

I have visited their websites and I see mostly IMG, I wonder if they fall in this "Crappy gross horse programs"

Henry Ford - Detroit Michigan
Albany Medical College - Albany NY
George Washington University - Washington D.C.
Baystate Medical Center - Springfield MA
Case Western Reserve University - Cleveland Ohio
Brown University - Providence RI

Isn't Juan Rosai an IMG?

I've heard bad things from people at non-University/non-famous NYC area programs.

Originally Posted by Torsed

Isn't Juan Rosai an IMG?

Who cares? Different time period, different medical politics. Irrelevant to discussion.

Back to the topic: if you have the names of any programs that fit the description in the subject heading, list them here. Isaishere threw down a pretty good list of programs that have the potential to be bad. In my opinion I would assume that they are bad unless someone can come in here and defend them.

Originally Posted by Substance

Who cares? Different time period, different medical politics. Irrelevant to discussion.

Back to the topic: if you have the names of any programs that fit the description in the subject heading, list them here. Isaishere threw down a pretty good list of programs that have the potential to be bad. In my opinion I would assume that they are bad unless someone can come in here and defend them.

Eh, not really. I suspect it's actually easier in general for an IMG to come/return to the U.S. All the same, there are outliers of all kinds of origins who don't independently support or refute a general point.

As far as landing on an assumption based on another assumption, that just sounds like modern journalism.

RE: Henry Ford

From what I remember when I rotated there as a medical student, I think their surg path schedule involved grossing every morning (I think mostly bigs), then signing out with the attending in the afternoon. I don't remember when slides would come out or how much time residents had to preview. They definitely have a lot of FMGs/IMGs, but from what I recall, the majority of their residents had already done a pathology residency/were practicing pathologists in their home country and/or were individuals with a PhD (or tons of research) in a pathology-related field (i.e. micro, molecular, etc.). They were not the bottom-of-the-barrel type FMG/IMG candidates that were desperate to get into any residency program at all. I think they usually have 4 residents per year and prematch all the spots but one.

I ranked them fairly low for a variety of reasons, even though Michigan was geographically desirable to me. They have to gross more than I thought was necessary for educational purposes, I didn't think the atmosphere there suited my personality and learning style, and I thought it would be awkward being the only resident without tons of prior path experience. But, having said that, I think the residents there do get pretty decent training overall and I would NOT consider it to be a "garbage" program. Not sure if any of their residents haunt SDN, but they could probably provide more up-to-date info.

In fact, if I had to pick a "worst" program out of those that I have some personal experience with (either rotated at, interviewed at, or have lots of detailed, second-hand info from co-residents that rotated/interviewed there) - it would be the Detroit Medical Center/Wayne State program (I'm not even 100% sure if it is affiliated with Wayne anymore - many of the DMC residencies lost their Wayne affiliation during some arguments between Wayne physician groups and the DMC). Apparently it used to be pretty good, but many of the more talented people left a while ago (i.e. Grignon went to IU, Lucas went to UM), they changed PDs recently, and it seems like things are pretty rough there at the moment.

Originally Posted by Euchromatin

. I think they usually have 4 residents per year and prematch all the spots but one.

.

Excessive prematching sounds like a red flag to me.

Thank you for being the first person on this board to name a name! Let's keep it up!

Originally Posted by Alteran

...So with that said, if you are a future applicant and are on the interview trail and catch wind of any of the following, you should interpret these as very big red flags:

3. Few, if any, residents in the program are able to get fellowships

Most residents, regardless of their program get some sort of fellowship because of simple supply and demand: there are more fellowship positions than graduating residents and every year there are many unfilled fellowship positions (somebody's gonna be willing to fill that thoracic pathology spot). I would say a more accurate indicator of the quality of a place would be if a lot of the graduating residents do multiple fellowships because they are unable to find a job indicating either they can't pass boards or private groups deem them "unemployable." Good list though.

Originally Posted by isaishere

Any information about these programs would be appreciated.

I have visited their websites and I see mostly IMG, I wonder if they fall in this "Crappy gross horse programs"

Henry Ford - Detroit Michigan
Albany Medical College - Albany NY
George Washington University - Washington D.C.
Baystate Medical Center - Springfield MA
Case Western Reserve University - Cleveland Ohio
Brown University - Providence RI

A lot of programs have IMGs, as path is a pretty IMG heavy specialty. So it's a stretch to say that a program where they make up the majority equals a lot of grossing. If it makes it a "bad" program I would consider other factors mentioned in this post and others previously.

Not having the "opportunity" to see the cases that you have grossed is actually a violation of ACGME rules. I know this because the program at which I trained had a problem with placentas being grossed by the resident on GYN and signed out by the placental pathologist without said resident. This has since been corrected.

If you have this problem and no remedy has been offered by your program, please report it to the ACGME. Most decent programs want to stay in the good graces of their accrediting body.

Originally Posted by BamaAlum

Not having the "opportunity" to see the cases that you have grossed is actually a violation of ACGME rules. I know this because the program at which I trained had a problem with placentas being grossed by the resident on GYN and signed out by the placental pathologist without said resident. This has since been corrected.

If you have this problem and no remedy has been offered by your program, please report it to the ACGME. Most decent programs want to stay in the good graces of their accrediting body.

I agree. If you have any issues and the PD is not willing to correct it, bring it up with ACGME when they come for the site visit or in the survey.

Originally Posted by MetroPath

I agree. If you have any issues and the PD is not willing to correct it, bring it up with ACGME when they come for the site visit or in the survey.

If anyone can name a program that is like this, then it should be well avoided.

Originally Posted by BamaAlum

the program at which I trained had a problem with placentas being grossed by the resident on GYN and signed out by the placental pathologist without said resident.

Someone blew the whistle about placentas? LOL

Originally Posted by TMZ2007

Someone blew the whistle about placentas? LOL

That's like someone blowing the whistle on a hernia sac or pannus.

Foreign medical grads don't necessarily mean a program is bad in path. I thought that too until I went through interview season.

Originally Posted by TMZ2007

Someone blew the whistle about placentas? LOL

No one really blew the whistle. I don't think the residents were too upset about not having to sign out placentas. It was brought to the PD's attention during some sort of program review and he recognized that it was a violation. It was never intentional, it was just how the workflow went at that time.

It was a little concerning to have seen very few placenta slides during my 4 year residency though. You never want to get through your program having almost never seen a routine specimen no matter what it is. In her defense, she did sit down with us once a week when we were on GYN to go over some teaching cases. However, the teaching was very, very detailed and way beyond what most practicing pathologists would put in a placenta report. That in and of itself was the issue. We needed more routine sign out of the placenta specimens. They have this now.

Moral of the story is that while efficient and competent gross skills are vital you should ALWAYS have the opportunity to see the cases that you grossed.

Originally Posted by isaishere

Any information about these programs would be appreciated.

I have visited their websites and I see mostly IMG, I wonder if they fall in this "Crappy gross horse programs"

Henry Ford - Detroit Michigan
Albany Medical College - Albany NY
George Washington University - Washington D.C.
Baystate Medical Center - Springfield MA
Case Western Reserve University - Cleveland Ohio
Brown University - Providence RI

OK this is hearsay, rumor and innuendo - but I have not heard good things about the GWU path program. And, based on an N of 1, the most malignant person I have ever met came from Baystate.

I would have to reiterate the same sentiment that a program consisting of FMGs does not mean that a program is bad. Most places have everything you need to learn and be competent. You just need to work hard and have to be able to sign out/preview your own cases. It also helps to have teachers who are knowledgeable/experts in their fields because they will teach you things you can never find in a book. Furthermore, you can't expect to be spoonfed everything. You need to look at a lot of slides and read a lot as well.

LIST OF GOOD PROGRAMS:

After hearing (in person, not reading anonymous reviews on the net) so many horror stories from so many different programs, it might be that most programs qualify as gross-horse programs while a small minority are adequate to good. I don't think people are apt to say negative things because of fear of retribution, being discovered for who they are (vs remaining anonymous on here), concern that things might have changed since their training (and the bad label is no longer accurate), and the obvious desire to avoid saying, "program X is crap, and oh yeah, program X is on my CV, oops, my job prospects are doomed."

It might be more likely for people to reply in positive terms to programs that are clearly NOT "gross-horse, don't write reports, don't do what the attending does, etc" type programs. I think people would be very reticent about saying, "yeah, this program is/was crap when I was there," but I think people would gladly say, "my program is/was a real apprenticeship program where all residents wrote reports, got called first rather than the attending/fellow, etc."

Please correct me if you have other information, but based on reports from individuals who have worked and/or trained at these places, it appears that these residency programs are (or recently were) examples of good (not necessarily perfect) programs with real resident pathologist-level responsibility in most to all rotations: MGH, Yale, Hopkins, WashU, Iowa, Vanderbilt, Mayo, Columbia.

Originally Posted by BamaAlum

No one really blew the whistle. I don't think the residents were too upset about not having to sign out placentas. It was brought to the PD's attention during some sort of program review and he recognized that it was a violation. It was never intentional, it was just how the workflow went at that time.

It was a little concerning to have seen very few placenta slides during my 4 year residency though. You never want to get through your program having almost never seen a routine specimen no matter what it is. In her defense, she did sit down with us once a week when we were on GYN to go over some teaching cases. However, the teaching was very, very detailed and way beyond what most practicing pathologists would put in a placenta report. That in and of itself was the issue. We needed more routine sign out of the placenta specimens. They have this now.

Moral of the story is that while efficient and competent gross skills are vital you should ALWAYS have the opportunity to see the cases that you grossed.

You can always pull cases in the evening or on Saturday and review them on your own and then take selected cases with targeted questions to your faculty for clarification. Too many residents think Pathology residency is like pre-school and expect to do minimal/ no work and be spoon fed a lifetime of knowledge and experience each day and leave at 5:05. If your attendings aren't willing to sit with you with look-back cases I would call that malignant, but often during a busy day getting cases released so clinicians can treat their patients takes priority over letting a resident d$%^ around with slides in between their multiple conferences and two hour lunch breaks.

33 posts into this thread and there isn't a list of "Crappy Gross-horse" programs yet?

Originally Posted by sirenomelia

If your attendings aren't willing to sit with you with look-back cases I would call that malignant, but often during a busy day getting cases released so clinicians can treat their patients takes priority over letting a resident d$%^ around with slides in between their multiple conferences and two hour lunch breaks.

LOL. Two hour lunch breaks!

Originally Posted by rollwithit

33 posts into this thread and there isn't a list of "Crappy Gross-horse" programs yet?

The general passivity of pathologists regarding naming programs that probably should be closed down makes it look like the field is composed of generally spineless, self-preserving hammerheads who don't have much of a leg to stand on professionally, who lack pride in their craft.

Radiologists, on the other hand, have no problems naming bad programs.

Originally Posted by Substance

This list is more than overdue.

If you know of a program that is known to be a glorified gross tech training program, list it here so people will know to avoid it and to scrutinize its trainees as being unprepared for practice.

If you can, add the estimated percentage of FMG/IMG residents.

Listed as with reservations:

Henry Ford - Detroit Michigan
Albany Medical College - Albany NY
George Washington University - Washington D.C.
Baystate Medical Center - Springfield MA
Case Western Reserve University - Cleveland Ohio
Brown University - Providence RI
DMC - Wayne State - Detroit, Michigan

I PM'ed the OP in regards to this list. She/he stated that these programs were the one that had a large number of FMGs, not necessarily they were bad programs.

Originally Posted by Substance

The general passivity of pathologists regarding naming programs that probably should be closed down makes it look like the field is composed of generally spineless, self-preserving hammerheads who don't have much of a leg to stand on professionally, who lack pride in their craft.

Radiologists, on the other hand, have no problems naming bad programs.

I'm applying this coming application cycle and I have NO IDEA how to find out where not to apply other than by talking to some of the residents at my school.

Originally Posted by Substance

The general passivity of pathologists... makes it look like the field is composed of generally spineless, self-preserving hammerheads who don't have much of a leg to stand on professionally, who lack pride in their craft.

Maybe it's because some of them are just plain lazy and any amount of grossing with them equates to scut?!

Having gone through a "gross-horse"-and-then-some residency program (though IMHO it didn't fall under the rubric of "crappy") and on to a fellowship at another program, which was super cushy in comparison, it was amusing to hear the residents there complain about how much grossing (and other stuff) they had to do. It's all relative. Good grossing skills are important, even long after you don't have to do it yourself, may be even more so.

In my experience, those who complain the most about how much they have to gross are the ones who suck at it, and paradoxically should be required to do more of it.

Originally Posted by Substance

The general passivity of pathologists regarding naming programs that probably should be closed down makes it look like the field is composed of generally spineless, self-preserving hammerheads who don't have much of a leg to stand on professionally, who lack pride in their craft.

Radiologists, on the other hand, have no problems naming bad programs.

Hmm, while I do agree with you. I think in general pathology is a small enough field where people will seek to ruin your career if you trample on them. I have seen this, therefore I stay out of things like these.

Originally Posted by bauber

I'm applying this coming application cycle and I have NO IDEA how to find out where not to apply other than by talking to some of the residents at my school.

Yeah, I'm in the same boat. It would be nice if you guys could list some good programs besides the obvious, like upenn and mgh.

Originally Posted by MetroPath

I PM'ed the OP in regards to this list. She/he stated that these programs were the one that had a large number of FMGs, not necessarily they were bad programs.

That's why I said they were listed "with reservations", not that they were outright known to be bad. But, given the high FMG/AMG ratio, one could assume wrongly or rightly that the programs could not attract the AMGs for whatever reasons and are therefore undesirable.

I said nothing about high levels of grossing being bad. I said that programs that use residents as PAs are bad. There are a lot of programs like that.

What would be a more telling sign of a bad program is a program that accepts FMG residents on prematch contracts. These programs probably need warm bodies to be PAs and know they will not match AMGs who have a clue.

Nonetheless, its disappointing that nobody aside from two people on this board have named names. Is this generally reflective of the practitioners of pathology? Given the terrible job market and how your ilk have become lapdogs for urologists, I would have to say that it is. Shameful.Your individual self interest is killing your field as a whole, and you all lose in the end.

Maybe some/many of us haven't "named names" because we don't think our training programs were crappy gross-horse programs. I don't like being called out by med students who want a list of bad programs. If I thought my program sucked, I'd put it out there. I'll answer any question about where I trained honestly, or just won't answer if not comfortable. I trained at OSU (Ohio, not other "O"s) and know it wasn't a grossing scut program. But OSU isn't a big, sexy name, so it's not often discussed on here. And that's fine. This is a voluntary internet discussion group - you get who chooses to participate. My training prepared me for boards and didn't hinder my getting my fellowship of choice.

These aren't the droids you're looking for..

Originally Posted by Substance

That's why I said they were listed "with reservations", not that they were outright known to be bad. But, given the high FMG/AMG ratio, one could assume wrongly or rightly that the programs could not attract the AMGs for whatever reasons and are therefore undesirable.

I said nothing about high levels of grossing being bad. I said that programs that use residents as PAs are bad. There are a lot of programs like that.

What would be a more telling sign of a bad program is a program that accepts FMG residents on prematch contracts. These programs probably need warm bodies to be PAs and know they will not match AMGs who have a clue.

Nonetheless, its disappointing that nobody aside from two people on this board have named names. Is this generally reflective of the practitioners of pathology? Given the terrible job market and how your ilk have become lapdogs for urologists, I would have to say that it is. Shameful.Your individual self interest is killing your field as a whole, and you all lose in the end.

I believe there are too many path programs out there. There are programs that aren't bad but cannot attract AMGs because they go to the big name places/university programs. Smaller programs tend to attract FMGs because all the American grads like I said go to the big name/university hospitals because they can (FMGs can also land at these places). Just because a program has a lot of FMGs does not mean it is a bad program. There are not many American grads in pathology to begin with.

There are many reasons why a program can be considered "bad."

A bad program is one where you gross your cases and you dont get to signout or give an opinion about your case before showing it to the attending. I've heard of a university program where you gross your cases and sit in at a multiheaded scope with other residents to signout your case. A bad program is one where you gross your case and the next day your case is taken away and signed out by the attending with another resident. I think this is an ACGME violation (I remember this was on the survey).

If you are not signing out your own cases that YOU GROSSED then I will say that you are at a bad program. It is so important for residents to have their own opinion in regards to cases because when you go out in the real world and you are so used to having the attending tell you what the diagnosis is, you are going to struggle. On top of that, you have to READ, READ and READ. I know there are residents out there who barely read and go through their rotations passively. Reading is so important in pathology. You have to know differentials, why you are using a particular stain, etc.

You also have to look at a lot of cases after hours and on weekends as well. A lot also has to come from you (putting in your time). Don't expect to be spoonfed. The best training in my opinion are those in which you have attendings who are experts in their field and LOVE to teach. Access to their consults, on top of teaching, self study and handling your own cases is key.

Originally Posted by mlw03

Maybe some/many of us haven't "named names" because we don't think our training programs were crappy gross-horse programs.

Agreed.

I love my program, it is the only one I've ever trained it. How the heck do I know whether a program I've never trained at is good or not? I'm not going to be an idiot and list places that have FMGs and automatically assume it's a sucky residency. The only way I would know if it was sucky is if I trained there for at least a few days.

Originally Posted by Tiki

Agreed.

I love my program, it is the only one I've ever trained it. How the heck do I know whether a program I've never trained at is good or not? I'm not going to be an idiot and list places that have FMGs and automatically assume it's a sucky residency. The only way I would know if it was sucky is if I trained there for at least a few days.

Well said, Tiki. FMGs do not equal sucky. There are plenty of sucky AMG pathologists too.

Does anyone know of a completely anonymous forum elsewhere? Then we'd see some names.

Originally Posted by Tiki

Agreed.

I love my program, it is the only one I've ever trained it. .

It is called stockholm syndrome.