2005 NIH Rankings for Pathology Research

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
D

deleted113029

Just couldn't get over the rankings and how certain schools were absent in the top 10 even though they are touted as research schools.

UCSF, Harvard (BWH)

Does this kinda prove that names are difficult to remove from our perceptions. Can someone enlighten my ignorant a$$? So what am I missing?This is just for discussion, not bashing me :oops: /or programs.
Members don't see this ad.
 
Can you link us to that NIH list?
I haven't seen it.
 
NIH ranking in NIH grants: hospital grants of Harvard and Stanford are not included in the total (med sch + hospital)
 
Members don't see this ad :)
:sleep:
magician said:
NIH ranking in NIH grants: hospital grants of Harvard and Stanford are not included in the total (med sch + hospital)
Click to expand...


Magician hit it right on.
Harvard has MGH, BW, and Beth Israel. (which happen to be numbers 1, 2, 3 on the independent hopsital awards. Don't have break down for Pathology) Which if you figured that their path gets about ~8% of their total (which works for U Penn and JHU.) Then those hospitals get 54 mil not including Harvard (which gets 12 mil) vs U Penn and JHUs 35mil and 34mil each.

:sleep:

I don't know about UCSF they have a medical school and so does Stanford.... both not very high on the grant list.
 
Before jumping to conclusions, one would have to standardize things. One thing to consider is this...Overall, what percentage of grant funding is awarded to pathology? Is the raw amount of money awarded to pathology departments indicative of the true overall strength of research in any given institution (perhaps this is a rhetorical question)?
 
WTF, who cares about NIH dollars. What does that translate into? How ******ed a program is? Plus like half of the researchers in most pathology departments are PhDs you would never interact with anyway during residency.

frodohasfailed.jpg
 
harvard hosptials and med school have seperate path departments. but for most of other path departments in other Universities, the total grants include the grants from both basic scientists and physicians'.

another example is CWRU. it had two path depts: one in med sch and the other in hospital. now they are trying to integrate them.

2nd reason is: some hopitals (particularly VAs) with close relationship with a university. they may apply NIH grants through the university. in that case, NIH considers the grants as a part of the University. for example, VA path in Pittsburgh is considered a part of UPMC path. but most of other VAs are seperate entities.
 
harvard hosptials and med school have seperate path departments. but for most of other path departments in other Universities, the total grants include the grants from both basic scientists and physicians'.

another example is CWRU. it had two path depts: one in med sch and the other in hospital. now they are trying to integrate them.

2nd reason is: some hopitals (particularly VAs) with close relationship with a university. they may apply NIH grants through the university. in that case, NIH considers the grants as a part of the University. for example, VA path in Pittsburgh is considered a part of UPMC path. but most of other VAs are seperate entities.
 
LADoc00 said:
WTF, who cares about NIH dollars. What does that translate into? How ******ed a program is? Plus like half of the researchers in most pathology departments are PhDs you would never interact with anyway during residency.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with that (except for the ******ed part)- the people that bring in the most research $ at our program we never see in any kind of educational fashion, for the most part. They are 100% lab or 95% lab and 5% autopsy. This isn't universal, and many faculty do have grant money, but the ones with a LOT are irrelevant to our training. I always get annoyed when I see people get promoted to full professor who never teach one class, while fantastic teachers are stuck at Assistant professor. I mean, it isn't as if these professors' job functions really translate into teaching anyway, so it isn't their fault, but it still burns me. The purpose of an academic institution is to do research and foster advancement, yes, but it is also to train the next generation and inspire. For some reason that second part is too often ignored or marginalized.
 
I just brought this up because the majority of chairs that I have met with bring up the NIH stats (and as a reason to come to the institution). All the PDs have not mentioned it.
 
Villin said:
I just brought this up because the majority of chairs that I have met with bring up the NIH stats (and as a reason to come to the institution). All the PDs have not mentioned it.
Click to expand...

That's because PDs are charged with training residents, and chairs are charged with recruiting more money and prestige to the department. To the chairman, this $ amount is worth its weight in gold because it can be used to persuade and impress others. But it makes very little difference to the average resident.

At many programs, the most contact you will ever have with the chairman is at your interview for residency. Of course this varies depending on the program and the chairman, some are clearly more resident oriented than others.

Personally, I thought it was an interesting stat that they mentioned and indicated the program was on solid footing, but it didn't sway my choice at all. Some will say that when the program brings in more research $$ it means that they have more money to devote to teaching, resident travel, etc etc.
 
yaah said:
I tend to agree with that (except for the ******ed part)- the people that bring in the most research $ at our program we never see in any kind of educational fashion, for the most part. They are 100% lab or 95% lab and 5% autopsy. This isn't universal, and many faculty do have grant money, but the ones with a LOT are irrelevant to our training. I always get annoyed when I see people get promoted to full professor who never teach one class, while fantastic teachers are stuck at Assistant professor. I mean, it isn't as if these professors' job functions really translate into teaching anyway, so it isn't their fault, but it still burns me. The purpose of an academic institution is to do research and foster advancement, yes, but it is also to train the next generation and inspire. For some reason that second part is too often ignored or marginalized.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Grant money is important for only one reason. Every researcher who gets a grant has a significant proportion of that money go to the department. That money helps to partially fund the clinical aspects of the department and cover financial losses which is important. But in terms of resident education, it means hardly anything.
 
thanks for the link, good info
 
Coming from an institution ranked #10 on that list, I echo the sentiments about NIH grant moolah having absolutely nothing to do with residency training.

Often the research arm of a department is distinct from the clinical service/teaching arm of a department. As for having more $$ available to spend on residents, well, that is another variable dependent on how well your PD and chiefs lobby for residents' interests.

Which comes back down to the million-dollar question - "are the residents happy there?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

figeon
Pathology Summer Research Programs
Replies
5
Views
1K
microbiology_madness
M
Sarah-20
Pathology program
Replies
9
Views
1K
KeratinPearls
KeratinPearls
Fluffyone
Reviewing for pathology residency
Replies
9
Views
1K
ScubaV
S
L
Please help me rank pathology residency programs
2
Replies
79
Views
6K
RoachUSMLE
RoachUSMLE
N
Pathology LIS system
Replies
2
Views
864
caffeinegirl
caffeinegirl
Top