Accepting Applications for Dermpath Fellowship In 2014-2015

[exPCM]

---

Members do not see this ad.

A colleague sent me a link to this page:

We are now taking applications for:


Anatomic Pathology Fellowship for the 2010 - 2011 academic year
*

Dermatopathology Fellowship for the 2014-2015 academic year
*

Hematopathology Fellowship for the 2011-2012 academic year
*

Pediatric Pathology Fellowship for the 2010-2011 academic year

http://www.uthsc.edu/pathology/ResidencyInformation/residencytraining.html

Comment: Anyone see anything wrong with this picture? Those who have just matched into pathology and who begin residency this July and who do four year AP/CP residencies will finish residency in 2014. It looks like they might need to start fellowship applications ASAP depending on their subspecialty interests.

 

[Parts Unknown]

Comment: Anyone see anything wrong with this picture?

No, since this page is not targeted at PGY-1s.

 

[zao275]

I have some friends who trained in Memphis. I believe they said that the dermpath spots there had been filled mostly internally for the next few years. When I applied less than 2 years ago, I didn't find very many programs that were filled multiple years ahead. Just my experience.

 

[xanthines]

What about the AP or CP only crowd? Should they send in an app along with the Match? When they sign up for Step 2?

-X

Comment: Anyone see anything wrong with this picture? Those who have just matched into pathology and who begin residency this July and who do four year AP/CP residencies will finish residency in 2014. It looks like they might need to start fellowship applications ASAP depending on their subspecialty interests.

 

[Parts Unknown]

What about the AP or CP only crowd? Should they send in an app along with the Match? When they sign up for Step 2?

-X

A colleague in my program (AP/CP) locked down a PGY-6 dermpath spot as a PGY-3 resident. She simultaneously locked down a PGY-5 surg path fellowship as an interim year.

I'm still having a difficult time getting alarmed about one program accepting applications for a 2014-2015 fellowship. Perhaps if they told us when they will stop taking applications it would help get my blood pressure up.

 

[green mantis]

This information is nothing new. We all know that you need to apply for DP fellowship before you apply for residency. 😛


----- Antony

 

[zao275]

We all know that you need to apply for DP fellowship before you apply for residency. 😛

I agree. It really is getting ridiculous, and I don't think it helps either the applicants or the program directors. Everyone just keeps pushing the timeline forward because they are afraid that all the "good" applicants will get picked up by other programs. So it is a vicious cycle.

On that note, what do you guys think about the Fellowship Match that the APC is trying to organize? It seems like it would solve many of these problems (although perhaps it will bring some new problems as well).

 

[path24]

2014-2015 for a fellowship....only in pathology baby, only in pathology.

 

[2121115]

2014-2015 for a fellowship....only in pathology baby, only in pathology.

Actually, no. Not only in pathology. Ask an internal medicine resident that wants to do a gastroenterology fellowship. They are doing research and kissing ass from day #1 of internship. If you don't find out you like GI until 2nd year you are screwed.

 

[yaah]

2014-2015 for a fellowship....only in pathology baby, only in pathology.

Yeah, that's not true at all. But it's also not true of every dermpath fellowship. Most of them play more fairly, in that the timeline is roughly 2 years prior to the start of the fellowship. Ideally it would be closer to start date, but this happens in every specialty of medicine until they get a match which has happened with some IM specialties.

 

[zao275]

Yeah, that's not true at all. But it's also not true of every dermpath fellowship. Most of them play more fairly, in that the timeline is roughly 2 years prior to the start of the fellowship.

My experience has been that most of the dermpath programs I am familiar with take applications about 2 years ahead. So not too far off from other path fellowships. Ron Rapini at UT Houston dermpath often waits to choose a fellow until later than most so applying late to that program could actually help an applicant out (and he is awesome...even better than his book!).

Yaah, do you think pathology fellowships will ever get a Match up and running? Do you think we should?

 

[icpshootyz]

My experience has been that most of the dermpath programs I am familiar with take applications about 2 years ahead. So not too far off from other path fellowships. Ron Rapini at UT Houston dermpath often waits to choose a fellow until later than most so applying late to that program could actually help an applicant out (and he is awesome...even better than his book!).

Yaah, do you think pathology fellowships will ever get a Match up and running? Do you think we should?

I definitely think we should. Sure, I enjoy the fact that I have first dibs on my program's internal fellowships. But really why is applying for fellowship any different than applying for residency? Why shouldn't programs select the best candidate from a pool of candidates, instead of just their convenient in-house candidate? It would also eliminate the ability of programs to line up their fellows numerous years in advance, and would create a much more realistic application time-table for residents. In fact, it might make it so you don't have to submit your application until the fall of your last year of residency, which would give every resident more time to fully decide what they were interested in. I'm all for a fellowship match program. I think it's ridiculous not to have one.

 

[2121115]

I definitely think we should. Sure, I enjoy the fact that I have first dibs on my program's internal fellowships. But really why is applying for fellowship any different than applying for residency? Why shouldn't programs select the best candidate from a pool of candidates, instead of just their convenient in-house candidate? It would also eliminate the ability of programs to line up their fellows numerous years in advance, and would create a much more realistic application time-table for residents. In fact, it might make it so you don't have to submit your application until the fall of your last year of residency, which would give every resident more time to fully decide what they were interested in. I'm all for a fellowship match program. I think it's ridiculous not to have one.

Unfortunately I don't think a fellowship match will really do much to address some of these issues. In house candidates will still get the internal fellowships. Those who express interest early on will still have the upper hand. There will still be backdoor deals and people going on interviews where the spot is already promised to an internal candidate. I think the match will be just for show in most cases.

 

[zao275]

Unfortunately I don't think a fellowship match will really do much to address some of these issues. In house candidates will still get the internal fellowships. Those who express interest early on will still have the upper hand. There will still be backdoor deals and people going on interviews where the spot is already promised to an internal candidate. I think the match will be just for show in most cases.

Yes, the Match discussed at the Residents Forum meeting at USCAP this spring plans to openly allow program directors to still pick internal candidates. They felt that it was essential to allow that or no one would agree to it. But even with an internal pick, the director would have to wait until Match day to officially Match the internal candidate.

I think the main goal is to standardize the process and the timeline. If they could just accomplish that it would be hugely helpful to everyone, even PD's.

 

[Pathwrath]

It looks like they might need to start fellowship applications ASAP depending on their subspecialty interests.

Instead, I think what you'll see is residents willingly filling their time after residency with several filler fellowships of dubious value before starting that magical fellowship. That also means there's no obvious limit to how far in advance desired fellowships will be filled. Should be interesting to see how far it goes.

 

[lipomas]

Instead, I think what you'll see is residents willingly filling their time after residency with several filler fellowships of dubious value before starting that magical fellowship. That also means there's no obvious limit to how far in advance desired fellowships will be filled. Should be interesting to see how far it goes.

I think that happened in radiology a few years back, so they thought about trying a fellowship match. Then they decided not to. I think part of the problem was ACGME accredited fellowships vs non-accredited fellowships. And now the problem is getting bad again there too. See here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20522398

To me, sounds like the timeline is similar to that in path.

When I was in residency, I heard of several outlier programs that were filling spots many years ahead of time. Sometimes this was a fluky thing because they had someone they knew they wanted to take who wouldn't be available for another 2-3 years so they slotted them in later on. But other times there were programs who would routinely fill more than 2 years prior to start date.

I too am wondering where the end point is. I would suspect people would freak out if there was a pathology fellowship match because it wouldn't include non-accredited fellowships like surg path, GI, GU.

 

[yaah]

Yaah, do you think pathology fellowships will ever get a Match up and running? Do you think we should?

No. I think the best hope is for a streamlined application process with a timeline that the majority of programs stick to. Most residents like the idea of standard timelines but they are uncomfortable with a straight-out match, because they worry it might force their hand. I suspect most quality program directors would also like a standard timeline - because many residents (increasing every year) back out of fellowships they have already accepted because they got one they wanted more. PDs would hesitate to accept a match in part because of the fear of going unfilled. They would have to interview more candidates, most likely, as well. If you talk to program directors, they really dislike candidates who back out of fellowship spots - but most candidates don't really see this as a problem. It's a huge disconnect.

The other problem is enforcement, which is why a match is not really possible or feasible. You likely would only have sway over accredited fellowships which eliminates the majority of the surg path subspecialties. And since some people consider accredited and non-accredited ones, that leaves a lot of issues.

What there really needs to be is more agreed upon behavior. Do programs have to open up their fellowship to outside candidates? If they do, what if they have a great internal candidate that they want to take, is the whole process just a farce? The timeline I think is the most important thing to agree upon, both for candidates and programs.

 

[green mantis]

I think a timeline would be a good start. I'm sure fellowship directors can meet & come up w/ something where everyone would abide by. Having a timeline may also discourage people from backing out.

If there were a match, I'm not sure why programs would worry about going unfilled. Unmatched candidates would know of these positions & just scramble for them.

Something else that would be extremely helpful is a listing of each fellowship, which hospitals have openings for each year & how many positions are available. I don't have a problem w/ programs reserving a position for an internal candidate, but they shouldn't be listed.

While I'm on the topic of internal candidates, I think programs should also have a deadline for them. If someone can't make up his/her mind, it should be open to the public. Give people who are interested from outside a chance.


----- Antony

 

[yaah]

I think a timeline would be a good start. I'm sure fellowship directors can meet & come up w/ something where everyone would abide by. Having a timeline may also discourage people from backing out.

If there were a match, I'm not sure why programs would worry about going unfilled. Unmatched candidates would know of these positions & just scramble for them.

Something else that would be extremely helpful is a listing of each fellowship, which hospitals have openings for each year & how many positions are available. I don't have a problem w/ programs reserving a position for an internal candidate, but they shouldn't be listed.

While I'm on the topic of internal candidates, I think programs should also have a deadline for them. If someone can't make up his/her mind, it should be open to the public. Give people who are interested from outside a chance.


----- Antony

These are all good ideas - if I was "running" the overall fellowship program coordination (which is an unrealistic idea anyway since so much of it is unregulated) I would insist on:

1) A standard timeline which is not too early. Something like starting to accept applications no more than 2 years ahead of time, not interviewing until about 18 months prior, and sending out offers soon thereafter.

2) A centralized access point which lists all fellowships, who to contact for information or application, and what is or is not available. In addition, each fellowship should be required to keep track of their graduates and what they end up doing.

3) Fellowships should be allowed to take internal candidates without interviewing outside people, but agree this has to be on an earlier timeline.

4) Applicants should be informed of their application status. If they are not going to be interviewed, tell them. If they go into the "we might interview later but aren't going to now" pile, tell them.

5) Ideally, a common application form or online submission system which simplifies things. Kind of like the CAP common app form but more inclusive of what programs actually request.

6) Ethical behavior from all involved. If we agree to this timeline and these requirements, there is to be no withdrawing fellowship offers and candidates should also not be allowed to bail on a fellowship for a "better" one if they accept. You can't have the first without the latter.

 

[pathstudent]

How would you prevent applicants from bailing for a more desirable fellowship would you sue them like a guy bailing for a better job Offer.

These are all good ideas - if I was "running" the overall fellowship program coordination (which is an unrealistic idea anyway since so much of it is unregulated) I would insist on:

1) A standard timeline which is not too early. Something like starting to accept applications no more than 2 years ahead of time, not interviewing until about 18 months prior, and sending out offers soon thereafter.

2) A centralized access point which lists all fellowships, who to contact for information or application, and what is or is not available. In addition, each fellowship should be required to keep track of their graduates and what they end up doing.

3) Fellowships should be allowed to take internal candidates without interviewing outside people, but agree this has to be on an earlier timeline.

4) Applicants should be informed of their application status. If they are not going to be interviewed, tell them. If they go into the "we might interview later but aren't going to now" pile, tell them.

5) Ideally, a common application form or online submission system which simplifies things. Kind of like the CAP common app form but more inclusive of what programs actually request.

6) Ethical behavior from all involved. If we agree to this timeline and these requirements, there is to be no withdrawing fellowship offers and candidates should also not be allowed to bail on a fellowship for a "better" one if they accept. You can't have the first without the latter.

 

[zao275]

Something else that would be extremely helpful is a listing of each fellowship, which hospitals have openings for each year & how many positions are available. I don't have a problem w/ programs reserving a position for an internal candidate, but they shouldn't be listed.

Anthony, That is exactly why I started the Pathology Resident Wiki. The main purpose of the site is to have a list of all available fellowships that can be easily changed or edited by anyone. This way, PD's could add info about when spots are open or filled, past residents and fellows can add comments about the pros/cons of their training programs, and applicants can easily find the majority of the info they need. In case you have not seen the site, here is the link: http://pathinfo.wikia.com/wiki/Pathology_Fellowship_and_Residency_Directory. It is still missing a handful of fellowships, but I plan to correct that after I finish the boards. Most programs are currently listed there. I would like to see this become a useful resource for all path residents applying for fellowship. This is a difficult process and I want to contribute to improving it. By the way, the wiki is a free public site, and I make no money or financial benefit of any sort from it. It is just something I thought should be done and so I am doing it. Hopefully it helps some people.

Yaah, I know that along with the CAP Standardized Application, there was a standardized timeline. But CAP had a pretty tough time of getting people to take the app let alone accept the timeline. I think Pathstudent's point is reasonable: how can we enforce a timeline? But for that matter, Yaah's point is also reasonable: how can we enforce a match? I personally like the idea of publicly announcing which programs or which residents backed out of contracts or cheated etc, like public shaming, but somehow I think this won't sit well with people! 😉

 

[yaah]

How would you prevent applicants from bailing for a more desirable fellowship would you sue them like a guy bailing for a better job Offer.

I do not know. Since that proposal is never going to happen it probably doesn't matter!