UPitt

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

Bombesin

Awesomeness Embodied
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Members don't see this ad.
I recently interviewed at UPitt and was really impressed with the program. However, I am just curious as to what people think keeps UPitt from being mentioned as a top program. We always hear about RIC, Baylor, Kessler, UWash, and Spaulding as being top programs, and having interviewed at most of these, I can't help but agree. But to me, UPitt is right up there with them. Maybe I'm wrong and UPitt is regarded as a top program, but I've never heard that opinion expressed. Ultimately, the "fit" is what is important to me, not whether it's a "top" program. I'm merely curious as to people's thoughts on what it could be potentially lacking. If you'd rather not write it here, don't hesitate to PM me!
 
Hey. Went to kessler for residency. Doing fellowship at pitt with anes. i have worked with at least 4 of the PMR pitt attendings and have to say they are really really good. Haven't heard anything bad about the program, but the problem may lie in the fact that the program like the city is kinda' not as well known as other big cities or programs, so people can't judge it either way. nevertheless, seems great to me. The little interaction that I have had with the pitt residents in PMR has been great as well. hope this helps.
would consider it a TOP program.
 
I think Pitt's a pretty clear top 5 program

My biases- I did residency at Kessler, fellowship at RIC, and am currently on the faculty at Pitt.


I feel very comfortable that Pitt belongs in the same discussion as Kessler, RIC, Washington, and Mayo (or whoever else you have as your top 5. Perhaps Baylor). My goal isn't to argue the specifics of the top 5, just that Pitt merits to be part of the discussion.

If I were a medical student again knowing what I know, I would rank Pitt #1, although I could see cases made for the other programs mentioned above

The reason it is not mentioned as often is that Pitt only recently became a top 5 program. Pitt has a new chair, merged with another program (Mercy), and recruited lots of young star faculty. In the past 4 years, they've brought in top fellowship trained faculty in Pain, Sports & Spine, TBI, SCI, multiple NIH funded researchers, etc

Just as in all walks of life, there is reputational lag between when something becomes great and when it is universally recognized as such. It's similar to, for example, how Boise State is in college football. They've been great for a decade now, but are still just on the verge of being recognized as a top program.

The main flaw with the Boise State analogy is that Pitt PM&R is not a mid-major school. While Pittsburgh is a mid-size city, the UPMC hospital system is gigantic, easily one of the biggest (if not the biggest in the US). We just built a new inpatient rehab center and remodeled the main outpatient pain/spine center. The Department is #1 in NIH funding, and it's a large residency program. So a better college football analogy would be like Florida in the Urban Meyer era- a sleeping giant realizing it's full potential.
 
rehab_sports_dr said:
I feel very comfortable that Pitt belongs in the same discussion as Kessler, RIC, Washington, and Mayo (or whoever else you have as your top 5. Perhaps Baylor). My goal isn't to argue the specifics of the top 5, just that Pitt merits to be part of the discussion.
.
Click to expand...

Pitt will enter the discussion when they get a chairman who stays for 10 years. The real top programs have chairmen who are able to negotiate the pitfalls of academic practice. They were on their way when RZ left to go to Harvard. Programs like Kessler, Baylor, RIC, UWash, and Mayo are entrenched in their large medical schools. The other dept chairs respect them which gets recognition in their own schools first. BCM is a massive medical complex, and Marty Grabois gets whatever he needs for his program (within reason). I would agree with you if Zafonte had stayed. Now they are set back a few years.

Pitt trains very good physicians. Definitely above average, but not yet "top". To use your football analogy. They are a Utah or Cincinatti. Stepping stone programs.
 
Thanks for the input. I assumed it would be something to that effect. I really was thoroughly impressed with the program and couldn't for the life of me figure out why they were not getting more attention. In my humble and limited opinion, I think the new leadership is really going in the right direction and hope that it gets its due recognition soon. For now, I like that it's more of an undiscovered jewel. 😀
 
I agree that is room for variations in opinion

I will note, though, that Pitt's chair is probably the strongest aspect of the program. I think Mike Boninger is the strongest chairman in the country.

First, there are many top programs with new chairs- Esselman has only been at UW for a few years, and Zafonte just joined Harvard (from Pitt).

Losing a chair as strong as Ross Zafonte is always a challenge, but Mike Boninger has been exceptional, and has built on Ross's strengths and taken things to another level.

The normal concern you would have for a new chair is the potential instability. However, Boninger has been well-entrenched in Pitt. Prior to becoming chair, he already had a position as an Associate Dean in the medical school, and was being avidly recruited for chair positions at other universities. He is a national leader, both as a researcher, running the MSTP program, being in the SCI hall of fame, etc.

Pitt, like many programs, is not quite perfect. But Mike Boninger is about as close to perfect a chair as is possible.
 
rehab_sports_dr said:
I agree that is room for variations in opinion

I will note, though, that Pitt's chair is probably the strongest aspect of the program. I think Mike Boninger is the strongest chairman in the country.

First, there are many top programs with new chairs- Esselman has only been at UW for a few years, and Zafonte just joined Harvard (from Pitt).

Losing a chair as strong as Ross Zafonte is always a challenge, but Mike Boninger has been exceptional, and has built on Ross's strengths and taken things to another level.

The normal concern you would have for a new chair is the potential instability. However, Boninger has been well-entrenched in Pitt. Prior to becoming chair, he already had a position as an Associate Dean in the medical school, and was being avidly recruited for chair positions at other universities. He is a national leader, both as a researcher, running the MSTP program, being in the SCI hall of fame, etc.

Pitt, like many programs, is not quite perfect. But Mike Boninger is about as close to perfect a chair as is possible.
Click to expand...

Given that Dr. Boninger is your boss, just wondering… you wouldn’t be up for promotion, would you? :laugh:

j/k
 
I do not mean to disparage Dr. Boninger at all. Only that in 3 years you can not establish a lot of power. That comes with time. I have heard from others that he is doing a great job. Hopefully he will be there to stay, and not just to leap to the next "big name".
 
RUOkie said:
I do not mean to disparage Dr. Boninger at all. Only that in 3 years you can not establish a lot of power. That comes with time. I have heard from others that he is doing a great job. Hopefully he will be there to stay, and not just to leap to the next "big name".
Click to expand...

I think you pretty clearly were NOT trying to say anything negative- just open friendly discourse

In the specific case of Boninger, he is well-entrenched as an Associate Dean prior to becoming chair


As a matter of general principle, there are pros and cons of new chairs:

Cons- as RUOkie noted, a new chair may not be well-entrenched and have trouble pushing his agenda

Pros- new chairs get new chair packages, which helps in securing new resources for a department. This is actually a pretty big deal, and I've heard one well entrenched chair mention that he's considered stepping down because he would like for a new chair to come in and get the new chair package to bring in resources to the department. This is particularly true for highly recruited chairs, who have more leverage to bring in more resources.

As best I can tell, this really helped certain department- at Miami with Diana Cardenas, Pitt with Boninger, and Harvard with Zafonte

I am obviously biased, but my sense is that if you are bringing in star chairperson, like a Boninger, Zafonte, or Cardenas, the upside of getting a new chair package can outweigh the cons. This is especially true if the chair is an internal candidate, since the negative of not being entrenched is not as present.
 
^^^
And this is why I hated academic medicine! 😀
 
rehab_sports_dr said:
As is the case of everyone on these forums, I feel it is appropriate to speak highly of a program you are affiliated with. I mentioned the quality of mentorship and teaching associated with UAMS in the context of many other programs that also are known for their teaching and mentorship, and if anything, I made an effort not to overstate the virtues of UAMS.

Objectively speaking, though, the quality of teaching at UAMS is truly excellent. For example, they are one of the only institutions in the country to have a program designed specifically for improving the teaching qualities of their attendings. This program, the Teaching Scholars program (http://www.uams.edu/teachingscholars/) is an example of Arkansas putting its money where its mouth is, and actually rewarding the faculty for being excellent teachers.

UAMS has been a leader in actively developing new teaching methodologies. They currently have one of only 2 residents in the country representing the field of PM+R at the Association of American Medical Colleges, with the goal of improving the quality of medical education, and the have faculty who are alumni of that program.

So from an objective basis, I think it is completely appropriate to consider Arkansas one of the leaders in terms of quality teaching.

From a subjective level, for me its a no brainer that Arkansas is one of the best teaching programs in the country. I had a choice of many places where I could join faculty, and the biggest determinant for me was where I would be able to help the residents the most through teaching and mentorship. I spent an exhaustive amount of time and effort seeking out the best place, and I came to conclusion that Arkansas was the best place in the country to do this. So, for this sample size of one person, I thought Arkansas was the #1 place in the country to be.

I realize that this may not seem obvious to many people, so here are some of the assetts that make Arkansas a great place to be, especially for a medical student whose goal is a great teaching experience, and particularly for sports medicine, musculoskeletal medicine, and spine medicine.

#1: the Jackson T. Stephens spine Center. I have been to the infrastructure of many, if not most, of the top institutions in the country, and I think it is fair to say that the Stephens Spine center is one of the nicest centers in the country. Many bigger name programs have nothing that compares to it. For more details, please check: http://www.uams.edu/stephensinstitute/default.asp

#2: the teaching scholars program. As mentioned before, Arkansas is one of the few programs in the country that has mechanisms in the place to ensure that the faculty are excellent teachers.

#3: Contracts that reward teaching. You can tell what the priorities of an institution are by what they pay for. While I won't divulge the specifics of my contract, I will note that faculty are financially renumerated for their teaching. Again, an example of UAMS putting their money where their mouth is in terms of the quality of teaching

#4: Understanding the importance of outpatient MSK. The chair and program director made his name in falls research. The associate program director is an outpatient MSK/sports/spine physician. This is different than many other institutions, where the people in leadership of the residents have their primary clinical appointments in inpatient medicine. I think that is an important pro factor for people who are interested in outpatient MSK sports

#5: Lack of competition. UAMS is the only teaching institution in the state of Arkansas. That is a fairly unusual situation, and presents a world of opportunity for residents. They are affiliated with the University of Arkansas-Little Rock, which is a Division I sports program. Again, that is an unusual opportunity for residents in PM+R
Click to expand...
I also hold Pitt in high regard, and think they have some of the best young staff in the nation. That being said, as the above quote from rehab_sports_dr (5-17-2007) indicates, we all are biased by our current circumstances - I doubt the author would reach a similar conclusion today
 
ampaphb said:
I also hold Pitt in high regard, and think they have some of the best young staff in the nation. That being said, as the above quote from rehab_sports_dr (5-17-2007) indicates, we all are biased by our current circumstances - I doubt the author would reach a similar conclusion today
Click to expand...

Damn you ampaphb ....

In fairness, the comments from my days at UAMS were actually before I took the position, and are a fair representation of what UAMS could be under the optimal circumstances

Alas, the quality of an organization is a function both of potential and how close it comes to reaching its potential.

I think what makes the great programs great (the Pitt, RICs, Baylors, Harvards, Michigans, UW, Ohio States, etc) is that they both have potential, and come close to becoming all that they could be. From the perspective of a still young faculty member, I am realizing that much of this is related to things that weren't apparent to me when I was younger- the quality of the chair, the health care climate in the city and state, the % share of market in that city, etc
 
Wow, haha. I didn't think my question would have turned into all this! Although I have to say that the chatter has answered my question more thoroughly than anticipated. Rehab_sports_dr, if you haven't already seen/heard Dr. Boninger's presentation (read: "sales pitch") to the residency applicants, I encourage you to ask him. It really is that good, haha.
 
what's funny is that Zafonte's "sales pitch" was pretty good when I interviewed there and one of the reasons I ended up at pitt.
 
db36jp78 said:
what's funny is that Zafonte's "sales pitch" was pretty good when I interviewed there and one of the reasons I ended up at pitt.
Click to expand...
It was similar at Spaulding last year.....though a little too much of the "we piss excellence here at the big H" type for me
 
with "sales pitches"- you would hope that those in any given program think they are the best. You want to be with people who are proud of their organizations and think they are part of something special.

Reminds me a bit of Charles Barkley in 1993 when he was first on the Phoenix Suns. He won the MVP and sincerely thought he was the best player in the NBA. Even though Jordan and Olajuwon were better, what made Chuck the 3rd best player in the league is that he thought he was the best.

With the residency programs, there aren't many metrics to judge programs by. RIC may be #1 in US News, Pitt #1 by NIH funding, Kessler #1 by Elkins winners, Washington #1 by number of chairs, etc- these are all imperfect metrics. But there is something to be said for programs that feel enough pride to make their case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top