California residency programs

[scott]

Hi everyone-

I'm applying in the 2005 match, and would be curious to hear impressions any of you have about the various programs in California. I'd like to have an academic career in pathology, and so far Stanford and UCSF look like good options.

Any thoughts?

Scott

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[yaah]

I probably shouldn't respond, since I actually prefer NEW YORK (and we all know how much I love NY) to California...

I haven't visited any of them. From what I have heard (hearsay, so take it for what it is worth), Stanford's program can be rough. They have had at least one and I think more residents transfer out in the past couple of years due to not liking it. If you are interested, by all means apply and interview, don't take my word for it, but I would ask questions there. Of course, I would ask the same questions anywhere! I do believe, as with the NY programs that it is one of the more expensive places to live, but I think Stanford at least gives you a sizable sum of money for moving, beyond the residency annual salary.

Have heard good things about the UC-davis program although I believe it is a smaller program.

Don't really know much about most others, but I'm sure they are all somewhat competitive - as hard as it is for me to believe, lots of people really do want to live there! I hope someone who likes it out there will also post their impressions, because obviously I don't want this to be the only things you hear...

No hard feelings:

 

[scott]

Thanks for the info, yaah.

Your dedication to this board is extremely encouraging to me, as an indication of the amount of free time a pathology resident can expect to have... There are some pretty funny posts on here.

I hope I'll have a fair chance at the California programs. I'm finishing MD at Harvard and did my PhD at MIT, with good scores and publications, and I really do want to do research in future, which seems to be an emphasis at both Stanford and UCSF.

Reading further back on this list, it seems like there are conflicting versions about the "residents leaving the Stanford program" story. Where did you learn about this? and does anyone have any idea what the purported problems were that these residents had?

The main difference I've heard between Stanford and UCSF is that Stanford has had a strong research focus within the Path dept. for longer, but that the new chairman Abbas has been working to make that true at UCSF as well.

Thanks for any input from any others on the list who have seen either place in person,

Scott

 

[yaah]

Thanks for the info, yaah.

Your dedication to this board is extremely encouraging to me, as an indication of the amount of free time a pathology resident can expect to have... There are some pretty funny posts on here.

Well, free time is a subjective term. The experience of clinical chem is not really that similar to other rotations. So I will have less free time, but I am amused by idle diversions and thus will often find my way back here.

Can't really give you more info on the Stanford thing. I heard this at a couple of different interview sites when I was on the interview trail. Don't really know specifics - something to ask when you go there. Given your academic record, I doubt you'll have any trouble getting your choice of interviews.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

UCLA, Stanford, and UCSF are all top tier programs that can line you for an academic career.

Stanford's surg path rotations are notorious and UCLA has specialy sign-out which means surg path there is a 7am-9pm (or later for new residents), while UCSF has free days for "previewing" which makes surg path more laid back. UCLA has the most volume as is by far the biggest of the three in terms of transplants and surgical procedures.

So I just received an interview offer from Stanford. I've been browsing more through their site and faculty research interests last night and today. I'm starting to get more impressed with Stanford the more I think about it. My PhD mentor seems to agree.

What I'm worried more about now is the bad stuff I've heard about the program...stuff about people leaving.

I was hoping that someone who is familiar with Stanford's program could expand on things that need to be improved and if the program has taken steps to make those improvements.

 

[SLUsagar]

regarding CA path programs...
what about UCSD???? where does it fit into the grand scheme of ranking CA programs?

From what i've heard, Stanford > UCSF > UCSD....in this order esp regarding academic positions...if priv practice, then maybe UCSF gets the nod over stanford, but i dunno....

any input???

 

[stormjen]

And what about Irvine? Are they at the bottom of the UC's?

 

[caffeinegirl]

Stanford's program isn't as bad as this board makes it out to be.

The Stanford surg path schedule has changed drastically this year, with one day to gross, one day to preview, and one day to sign out. This change took place this year, and its meeting with much success and happiness by the residents.

As for the rumors of residents leaving the program, sure, residents have left the program, but not necessarily because of the program (ie. health, career change, etc). This is true for many other programs out there, be they presitigious or not. So keep that in mind. As far as I can tell, the residents are happy, especially with the change in the surg path schedule.

Also, Stanford does have a research focus, but not as much as Abbas has made UCSF's research focus. At UCSF, they usually like to have half of their residents go into a research track, and half a clinical/academic track, as far as I've heard.

 

[governaitor]

regarding CA path programs...
what about UCSD???? where does it fit into the grand scheme of ranking CA programs?

From what i've heard, Stanford > UCSF > UCSD....in this order esp regarding academic positions...if priv practice, then maybe UCSF gets the nod over stanford, but i dunno....

any input???

Stanford, UCSF and UCLA are all the "cream" of Cali path programs. I didn't know about Stanford's change to a three day sign out. If that is true than UCLA is the most brutal of the programs as their residents spend typically 14 hours a day on surg path (of course no program is "tough" in CP or cytopath or bone marrow or autopsy). Residents from all three go into private practice, academics or pure research. It is totally up to you.

UCSD is a great program, kinda small but maybe that is what is best for some. I heard they are only taking 2 residents next year with a large number of their own students wanting to go into path. you gotta figure at least one will end up staying at UCSD, leaving only one spot for outside applicants.

 

[caffeinegirl]

Hey again
Doing a little bit of googling goes a long way
For info on west coast programs and rankings from Dr. Linda Ferrell at UCSF

What programs would you consider to be in the 1st tier, 2nd tier, and 3rd tier?

1st include for the west coast : UCSF, Stanford, Univ Washington in Seattle. For east coast, U Penn and Harvard Brigham and Women's in Boston. 2nd include for the west coast: UCLA, Univ Colorado, Univ Utah, Univ Ariz. In east, perhaps Harvard's Beth Israel and Mass General programs in boston. 3rd include UC Davis, UC San Diego


http://medschool.ucsf.edu/careermed/phase3/career_advisors/anatomic_path_ferrell.html

 

[b&ierstiefel]

Thanks so much for the information and insight. Cheers.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

I had another question specifically regarding UCSF. In the interview invite email, I was encouraged to apply for the Molecular Medicine Program in conjunction with my application to the pathology program. This was news to me...an option I wasn't considering until now.

Has anyone heard anything about this program? Strengths, weaknesses, pros/cons?

My gut feeling is that this program is good for a person like me. However, I can see that if I were to join such a program, I would be limited to do post-doc research at UCSF after short-tracking a pathology residency. Honestly, this does raise my eyebrows but the research at UCSF is quite exceptional.

Any advice or information would be very much appreciated. Thanks.

Also if you have any strong opinions that are not expressed best in a public forum, please feel free to PM me. Again, I know very little about this program at UCSF.

 

[desmangt]

I think all of this ranking really reminds me of high school. People being ranked for popularity or "best hair". The fact that pathology isn't ranked makes it one of the most interesting fields of medicine in my opnion. Pathology programs are only going to provide you with the ingredients, but YOU have to bake a the cake. Also pathology has so many different ways to be successful. At my department, some pathologists are very famous because they are editors of alot of different journals, or written text books, or just known for being a bad-a$$ at the microscope. Hell, one has been even on national TV. Who is the more successful between these people? Who knows? I think tier is just like med school tiers. 1 through 50 probably doesn't have a life shattering difference between them. The way to become successful in pathology is to know your material, be able to teach it via lectures or writing texts, and research. All of these things can be done successfully at programs like MGH to WVU. It's all about what YOU do with the time given to you within the 3 to 4 years of your program.

 

[Zoloft]

I think all of this ranking really reminds me of high school. People being ranked for popularity or "best hair". The fact that pathology isn't ranked makes it one of the most interesting fields of medicine in my opnion. Pathology programs are only going to provide you with the ingredients, but YOU have to bake a the cake. Also pathology has so many different ways to be successful. At my department, some pathologists are very famous because they are editors of alot of different journals, or written text books, or just known for being a bad-a$$ at the microscope. Hell, one is even on TV. Who is the more successful between these people? Who knows? I think tier is just like med school tiers. 1 through 50 probably doesn't have a life shattering difference between them. The way to become successful in pathology is to know your material, be able to teach it via lectures or writing texts, and research. All of these things can be done successfully at programs like MGH to WVU. It's all about what YOU do with the time given to you within the 3 to 4 years of your program.

I agree with desmangt! The aspect of pathology that I liked the most was the opportunity to be successful in many different aspects. However, I think if you are interested in research, it is important to get into a research focused program. I guess this only matters if you know what area of research you are interested in and what institution is currently making great strides in that area. This is not likely to be closely aligned with the quality of the AP/CP training of a program though, so I think that as long as the program feels right to you and it has at least a "top 50" reputation it probably doesn't matter that much. I was fussing earlier because I hadn't heard from Cornell or Mt. Sinai yet for interviews, but I'm sure Columbia, Einstein, or NYU will be more than a big enough platform for me to launch a career.

 

[mobmw325i]

My credentials are nowhere near yours nor do I have a prayer of getting anything at some of the elite CA programs.

But since most of Pathology is geared towards academia (especially in CA) are there programs that cater more towards clinical pathology?

What about Harbor-UCLA or Loma Linda? Is the Harbor program on par with the UCLA program?


I'd much rather have a California spot, but apparently I'll be stuck in NY ( 😡 )

 

[LADoc00]

Stanford's program isn't as bad as this board makes it out to be.

Hello, you guys are med students bagging on Stanford?? Gimme a break, Kempson, Dorfman and Warnke are giants of pathology. Those three alone can tool of the rest of California in general surg path. Im gonna stop laughing now and go back to my 130 slide breast case.

Woohoo!

 

[caffeinegirl]

LA DOC

Just to clarify...I was trying to disspell rumors about the Stanford program. I agree with you that the program has amazing faculty, and the Kempson consult service has got to be one of the best experiences in pathology, hands down. If I gave a wrongful impression of the program in my previous post, that was definitely not what I meant to portray....
my apologies.

 

[LADoc00]

Kempson consult service has got to be one of the best experiences in pathology

Not so sure on this one, maybe, kinda. The hot seat rotation is overall better IMO. Things are changing alot, but I still think for general surg path Stanford is probably your best bet on the west coast.

 

[NKcells]

My credentials are nowhere near yours nor do I have a prayer of getting anything at some of the elite CA programs.

But since most of Pathology is geared towards academia (especially in CA) are there programs that cater more towards clinical pathology?

What about Harbor-UCLA or Loma Linda? Is the Harbor program on par with the UCLA program?


I'd much rather have a California spot, but apparently I'll be stuck in NY ( 😡 )

From what I hear from many top academic pathologists in california. Harbor is on par or in some circles, even better than UCLA. THe residents at Harbor are well knowledgable and the attendings can't be beat!

 

[LADoc00]

From what I hear from many top academic pathologists in california. Harbor is on par or in some circles, even better than UCLA. THe residents at Harbor are well knowledgable and the attendings can't be beat!

Troll Alert!

Like a mountain troll from LOTR, this one's so big! My neighbor's cat told me Loma Linda residents get paid 300K starting right of training too.

 

[yaah]

Well, I may know nothing about either of these programs, but I do know that there are all kinds of opinions out there, and just because they don't agree with the majority doesn't necessarily make them wrong. If someone (or multiple people) has a good opinion of Harbor, I doubt it is unfounded. Perhaps they are focusing on different aspects of the program and its training.

 

[LADoc00]

Well, I may know nothing about either of these programs, but I do know that there are all kinds of opinions out there, and just because they don't agree with the majority doesn't necessarily make them wrong. If someone (or multiple people) has a good opinion of Harbor, I doubt it is unfounded. Perhaps they are focusing on different aspects of the program and its training.

I was kidding, but I do like how everyone and their mom has an idea about what the good programs in LA are.

 

[JulianDelphiki]

From what I hear from many top academic pathologists in california. Harbor is on par or in some circles, even better than UCLA. THe residents at Harbor are well knowledgable and the attendings can't be beat!

Ooh! Something I can offer my unsolicited opinion on (which I suppose is the whole spirit of the forum, right?)

I did a surg path rotation at Harbor and really liked it. However, I would tend to disagree that it is better than UCLA or in some way more prestigious than other CA programs. I had attendings who spoke highly of some attendings at Harbor, but....

It did not seem to me that one-on-one teaching or resident education conferences were emphasized highly. Most attendings seemed to have very minimal interaction with residents. I think one would have to be highly motivated to take full advantage of the program (as is true with all programs, but you could definitely fall through the cracks). I think that big names can make a program better primarily by becoming intimately involved with the education of the residents.

Residents there would be definitely be fun to work with, and I wouldn't worry about back-stabbing or people never willing to lend a hand. I would NOT say that they seemed more or less knowledgeable as a group than residents at other programs I have worked with or had a chance to meet. One of the brightest had actually done his first year or two at Cedars-Sinai. I think that the quality of residents exiting a program means little if you don't compare it with what went in--individual skills are likely to vary widely, but consistent improvement of all residents demonstrates success.

Coming soon....unsolicited opinions on UCSD.
Also available by request: (solicited, by definition) opinions on UC Irvine, University of AZ

 

[governaitor]

Hello, you guys are med students bagging on Stanford?? Gimme a break, Kempson, Dorfman and Warnke are giants of pathology. Those three alone can tool of the rest of California in general surg path. Im gonna stop laughing now and go back to my 130 slide breast case.

Woohoo!

I think she means it had a mild rep for being malignant due to anecdotal stories of a couple residents leaving due to unhappiness with the program. It seems to me just that, anecdotal, and not at all true in general.

 

[mrp]

Okay, I almost never post, and I will probably regret posting this, but...

If you want to talk bad-ass surgical pathologists on the west coast--we have Noel Weidner here at UCSD. It's kind of depressing to see him at work, because I know that I will probably never be as good as he is. Plus, he is INTIMATELY involved in the education of the residents.

And, as far as I have heard, Dorfman is retired, and Kempson is semi-retired.

-mrp

 

[b&ierstiefel]

I think she means it had a mild rep for being malignant due to anecdotal stories of a couple residents leaving due to unhappiness with the program. It seems to me just that, anecdotal, and not at all true in general.

From several sources outside of the SDN community here have hinted that the program has changed for the better. But yeah, when I go visit Stanford, I'm not gonna leave this stone uncovered. And hopefully I'll be able to meet enough residents there to get some sense of resident dynamic.

 

[caffeinegirl]

Although Kempson's sort of retired, he still has a consult service, with a conference held every Monday morning, as well as a conference covering the South Bay slides. He knows all the residents by name, and is still active in resident education.

As for the other Stanford stuff... I thought I'd made my post clear about mentioning that it was anecdotal information, and I was just trying to assuage the situation, given the previous info on the boards that has been posted earlier. You can't make generalizations about a program based on rumors/anecdotes, unless they constitute a significant trend, IMO. Guess I wasn't that clear??? The fact that they changed their surg path schedule around means that they're listening to the residents' feedback and doing something about it. Something good, doncha think?

And, as far as I have heard, Dorfman is retired, and Kempson is semi-retired.

-mrp

 

[LADoc00]

Noel Weidner is elite, I think I would trade him for all of UCLA if this was fantasy baseball.