Do top tier pathology residencies take osteopathic medical students?

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

Percivall

New Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2013
Messages
5
Reaction score
1
Members don't see this ad.
Hi all,

I am a 3rd year DO student and I am interested in doing a pathology residency, preferably at a top tier program. I got a 259 on my USMLE step 1, thus far I have only undergraduate research in histology. I am aware that, for the most part, pathology residencies are not known for their competitiveness. However, I also see that ALL, as in every freaking one, of the residents at top tier programs such as Mass General and Hopkins are MDs. This is somewhat distressing since I can bet that my score is likely higher than many of the current residents but it gives the impression that the program will disregard my application as a result of my status as a DO.

Also, Hopkins path specifically says "we take MD graduates".

Any advice or information is appreciated. Thank you very much!
 
Also, I am not sure if they even look at and/or understand how the COMLEX is scored but I got an 812, which may very well be the highest score in the country this year. Thus, you can see why I would be angry to be rejected simply because I am a DO.
 
Give it a whirl, but short answer, is "probably not." You may not like it, and it may not be fair, but these guys can take who they want, and in general the top tier programs are looking for MD grads with huge numbers and publishing backgrounds.

My question to you is: why do you want to go to a top tier program?
 
To be honest, and I know this might not be the greatest reason but it's because I feel like I kind of deserve to. I've worked hard and I have proved that I understand the basic sciences. Also, these are large research centers that have a high volume of cases that I simply might not see at other places. I also want to be surrounded by people doing groundbreaking research, and I want to be involved in it. I have path electives coming up and I'm planning on doing research in path as well. Frankly, I think any MD student with a 259 USMLE and some path research would likely be golden with respect to getting into one of the top tier programs.

So to answer the "why" question it's because 1) Why aim lower than what you deserve/are capable of? And 2) I truly believe that being the same person that I am, knowing the same amount of information, and having the same level of clinical skill, that if my DO was swapped with MD, that I would easily be able to get into one of those spots.

Also, thanks I appreciate the reply.
 
I am sure you can match if you are strong in your usmle, letters, path rotations and interview. Top residencies take people that graduated from China and Eastern Europe. A strong DO from the states would be an easier match if you ask me.
 
pathstudent said:
I am sure you can match if you are strong in your usmle, letters, path rotations and interview. Top residencies take people that graduated from China and Eastern Europe. A strong DO from the states would be an easier match if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I'd take a DO from a known school over a Chinese or Eastern European MD from an unknown one.

I like the OP's attitude. I say go for it.
 
One of my co-residents at a top tier residency program was a DO. It is certainly possible but you probably start with a bit of a disadvantage, fair or not. So the interview will be very important. You should try to not give the impression of high test score entitlement or chip on your shoulder that your posts kind of evoke.
 
Percivall said:
To be honest, and I know this might not be the greatest reason but it's because I feel like I kind of deserve to. I've worked hard and I have proved that I understand the basic sciences. Also, these are large research centers that have a high volume of cases that I simply might not see at other places. I also want to be surrounded by people doing groundbreaking research, and I want to be involved in it. I have path electives coming up and I'm planning on doing research in path as well. Frankly, I think any MD student with a 259 USMLE and some path research would likely be golden with respect to getting into one of the top tier programs.

So to answer the "why" question it's because 1) Why aim lower than what you deserve/are capable of? And 2) I truly believe that being the same person that I am, knowing the same amount of information, and having the same level of clinical skill, that if my DO was swapped with MD, that I would easily be able to get into one of those spots.

Also, thanks I appreciate the reply.
Click to expand...
Good answer, and I agree with the others. You come across as confident, not cocky, and if that's really who you are, that will play well in an interview. Just have an honest answer ready for "why are you in a DO program?", whatever that answer may be. The only thing I'll disagree with is your statement about the 259 and research being golden... at the top tier programs, there are no sure things. I'd also suggest you think about your long term goals - do you want to be in academia? Private practice? Do you want to be a general signout person, or an expert in an organ system? When you do your interview in due time, keep your long term goals in mind and find the place that will help you best reach those goals, whether that's MGH or UMass. I'm just saying, don't be seduced by a name, and focus on the educational experience. Some of the top tier places provide great training, while some may not. Do your homework.
 
Thanks everyone! I appreciate the reassuring answers. And regarding any tones of test entitlement etc. those are purely me venting to a group of fellow students/residents and absolutely not something that I would convey during an interview. Also I agree that there is no such thing as "golden" at the top tier level, I suppose I just mean that for an MD student, a 259 would be permissive for being accepted given that the other factors played out in the applicant's favor.
 
Just my 2c...
Apply broadly. Yes, you can get into a good program. But top? Well, it depends on your definition. Yes, many good programs take IMGs, but often they have PhDs and are interested in research, or have already completed a path residency and are acquired to push the meat.... It may not be appropriate to compare yourself to them. There are also many stellar IMGs so don't think their presence signifies desperation by any means.

I agree about having a good explanation for why you did DO. If you don't match a top place, don't be too discouraged... If you continue to do well you can land a good fellowship which of course will help you down the road.
 
Firstly, welcome to pathology!

1) 1 resident from Touro at UCSF:
http://labmed.ucsf.edu/education/residency/residents.html

While your scores are excellent-- honestly, probably higher than the majority of pathology residents at any of those places-- the big thing against you is your lack of research and publications. Pathology is a highly academic, cerebral field, especially at the most famous institutions, and honestly they aren't looking to train bright competent generalists. They're looking for people who will be 90% research and get K awards after residency, or world authorities on some small niche. So while your intelligence and ability are a great match, maybe your background and interests-- at least the way they appear on paper-- are not. It's very hard at DO schools where essentially none of the faculty conduct any serious research, but if you could possibly attempt to get something published that would help enormously.

If you're seriously invested in this, you might also consider a Post-Sophomore Fellowship (which despite its name you can do after 3rd year, too). That will be a golden ticket in.

Also you simply must, in your 4th year, do a series of away rotations at big-name places (try three: two top-tier and one more realistic) and apply with letters solely from people who have worked with you there.
 
I was an IMG with 276/99 on Step 1 but no research experience in medical school. Interviewed at MGH and ranked it number one. At the end I matched at the program 2nd on my rank list. (It's probably the best thing that happened to me in my life though.) I did interview at many other "top tier" path programs; at the same time, many programs I applied to did not even invite me for an interview, presumably because of my IMG status and visa requirement. Many of these research heavy places actually do prefer taking foreign MD/PhD with strong research background over average MDs with no research experience.

I just wanted to say, work as hard as you can, but don't be discouraged if things don't work out as well as you planned. I do believe that it worked out best for me.
 
BlondeDocteur said:
Firstly, welcome to pathology!

1) 1 resident from Touro at UCSF:
http://labmed.ucsf.edu/education/residency/residents.html

While your scores are excellent-- honestly, probably higher than the majority of pathology residents at any of those places-- the big thing against you is your lack of research and publications. Pathology is a highly academic, cerebral field, especially at the most famous institutions, and honestly they aren't looking to train bright competent generalists. They're looking for people who will be 90% research and get K awards after residency, or world authorities on some small niche. So while your intelligence and ability are a great match, maybe your background and interests-- at least the way they appear on paper-- are not. It's very hard at DO schools where essentially none of the faculty conduct any serious research, but if you could possibly attempt to get something published that would help enormously.

If you're seriously invested in this, you might also consider a Post-Sophomore Fellowship (which despite its name you can do after 3rd year, too). That will be a golden ticket in.

Also you simply must, in your 4th year, do a series of away rotations at big-name places (try three: two top-tier and one more realistic) and apply with letters solely from people who have worked with you there.
Click to expand...
Mostly good advice. Except I disagree with they are only looking for people who want to do 90% research and plan on getting nih grants. No prominent pathologist does 90% research because if they did they wouldn't be any good at pathology. All top programs would like a mix of residents, ones that want to do research and ones whose first love is pathology. Pathology is work. Residency is work. And if you are just biding your time until you get to into your lab and play with you mice, you won't be a very helpful resident nor will you help with the primary mission of your hospital which is to provide excellent patient care.
 
I don't think there's a single pathology residency program in the US that isn't IMG-friendly. As everyone has noted, there are stellar IMGs with PhDs, extensive research, attending jobs in their home countries, etc who blow all of us out of the water.

DOs are a different breed. Very few have these kinds of credentials. So to claim that a program being theoretically open to the former means they're open to the latter is, IMO, not true.
 
I don't want to sound mean, but Europeans who came here most likely graduated from the best school in their country. And from what I heard, DO's and Caribbean graduates couldn't get in medical schools in U.S.

European Graduate 🙂
 
Last edited:
BlondeDocteur said:
I don't think there's a single pathology residency program in the US that isn't IMG-friendly.
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem like Stanford has been that friendly in the past four years...

http://pathology.stanford.edu/education/APCPTrainees.html

bps said:
I don't want to sound mean, but Europeans who came here most likely graduated from the best school in their country. And from what I heard, DO's and Caribbean graduates couldn't get in medical schools in U.S.

European Graduate 🙂
Click to expand...

Dang, girlfriend...you went to med school in Europe!!! :wideyed: You must be....

HOT%20TO%20TROT%20NEW%20FINAL%20LOGO.jpg
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't exactly call having a token IMG in CP only and none in AP/CP exactly counts as IMG "friendly", haha... She does seem to have plenty of pubs/reasearch giving her street creds. And good pickup on the lone IMG on their CP roster, I didn't think you would catch that... :smuggrin: You have the makings of a good pathologist to be!
 
Last edited:
Yes.

On my interview trails (>10 years ago now though!) there were DOs there also at a couple of the programs, including bigger name programs. Couple of places also had DOs on faculty. The program I trained interviewed DOs. It is not a barrier. No doubt it may be "tougher" but that could be for any number of reasons, DO bias is probably the least of them.
 
My understanding from attendings in my program who did residency elsewhere is that some programs have a policy that they do not interview any DO applicants. Period.

They just set up ERAS to filter the applicants however they want. They can take only applicants who were born in the month of June if they so choose.

Most places filter along step scores, US grad, finished medical school within a certain number of years ago, etc. A spot might be reserved for a person with very strong research credentials, and that person might be FMG.

In my opinion, US DO is better than FMG, or US IMG if went to offshore med school.

As was pointed out, Americans who went to med school in Europe or Europeans themselves are another deal altogether.

In my program our non negeotiable factors are passing all steps on first try, plus getting above a certain score, plus graduating from med school within the last few years. Unless MD/PHD. I guess we are ageist.

We get almost 400 applications per year for 3 spots. If a person doesn't meet the above, their application is ignored. This gets rid of probably at least half the applications. There are a ton of international practicing pathologists who want to move, and they are willing to pay to apply everywhere.

Of what's left, we interview about 10 people per spot. Priority to those who rotated with us. Residents get to blackball anyone we interview for any reason each year, and we do. Including those who rotate with us, if weirdos.

So I recommend you rotate where you want to go, be a nice hardworking person, and apply widely. Everything will be fine.
 
Last edited:
Another thing I would add is that these trends do tend it change depending on who the program director is. Sure, there's a committee, but PD is boss. If boss lady or boss man is a DO themselves, they are highly unlikely to cut out DOs.

If boss is MD/PhD, they're more likely to be dazzled by research. And a change can happen very quickly. I've seen programs go from DO PD to MD/PHD PD and who got interviewed and ranked changed quickly.

So some friendly online investigation of the decision makers in a program might help narrow your focus too. If they take DOs but they're all 4th years, maybe they have a new PD or something...
 
I think that most top programs do not accept DOs as residents, and for many, DOs are considered inferior to IMGs. For example, the program director at Hopkins told us categorically that he will never accept a DO as a resident, period. Hopkins does accept IMGs with research backgrounds though. For the original poster, you can learn a lot about programs' selection criteria by looking at their current residents. This information is easy enough to find online using a Google search.
 
jp123ok said:
I think that most top programs do not accept DOs as residents, and for many, DOs are considered inferior to IMGs. For example, the program director at Hopkins told us categorically that he will never accept a DO as a resident, period. Hopkins does accept IMGs with research backgrounds though. For the original poster, you can learn a lot about programs' selection criteria by looking at their current residents. This information is easy enough to find online using a Google search.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. DO is a big NO to my program and many top/mid programs. Look at program websites to get an idea of what they accept. Not a lot out there accept DO. Further, most DO path go into Forensic, which is the least competitive.
 
BornToCut said:
I completely agree. DO is a big NO to my program and many top/mid programs. Look at program websites to get an idea of what they accept. Not a lot out there accept DO. Further, most DO path go into Forensic, which is the least competitive.
Click to expand...

That last part seems like you might--just might-- have pulled it out of your arse. But instead of just reiterating his inferiority to the OP, I think it's helpful to break down the reasons underpinning the prejudice and see what s/he can do to overcome them. Just to be clear-- I'm not endorsing the reasons behind these prejudices, just laying them out.

1) DOs "failed" in the medical admissions game in the sense that, almost uniformly, they weren't admitted to allopathic schools. Therefore there is something about their college performance and/or test scores that is inferior to MD applicants (and also to FMGs). They have not demonstrated the lifelong continuous pattern of achievement that the standard MD applicant is expected to have.

2) DO schools are significantly less 'academic' in the sense that they are almost never attached to large, quaternary medical centers; the case mix that the average student sees is inferior; the quality of faculty mentorship is inferior; and they can almost never participate in significant, high-level research since the faculty simply doesn't conduct it.

3) Since-- again, not my view-- the student body is comprised of mediocre students, mentored and evaluated by mediocre faculty, rotating through mediocre small community hospitals in a piecemeal fashion, the grades a particular student achieves relative to these mediocre colleagues and from these mediocre attendings are not worth much.

OK, again I'll reiterate my position: the very top echelon of pathology programs (not more than 5-7 places) are looking *solely* for highly academic applicants. They want people who are MD/PhD and will become researchers OR they want people who will stay in academia and become subspecialty experts. They want people with significant, productive research in addition to good grades and scores. They do NOT want people who are aiming for community practice. This is true in basically every specialty out there, but I think it's especially true in pathology.

OK, breaking it down:

1) there's nothing much you can do about your undergraduate record, choice of college, etc. In your applications try to emphasize anything particularly outstanding about your pre-med record.

2) This is by far your biggest hurdle. Like I suggested above, you have to a) rotate at big famous hospitals in your 4th year to prove you can hack it and b) get some serious, significant research. If you're very serious about wanting to match in the top 5-7 programs, you should take a year off either doing a PSF or getting serious research at a big famous institution like MSKCC or the NIH or something.

3) No one will care about your academic record, though it had better be perfect. But luckily you have awesome test scores which will go a long way to eliminate this particular prejudice.

Good luck! And remember, the next group of programs down (in which I would include my own) tends to be more DO-friendly, especially for great applicants.
 
jp123ok said:
I think that most top programs do not accept DOs as residents, and for many, DOs are considered inferior to IMGs.

For example, the program director at Hopkins told us categorically that he will never accept a DO as a resident, period.

Hopkins does accept IMGs with research backgrounds though.
Click to expand...


BornToCut said:
DO is a big NO to my program and many top/mid programs.
Click to expand...

Very clear and loud declaration of a wholesale prejudgment and blatant discrimination against DOs.

Where are those hypocrites who criticized me for stating that there is a negative bias/prejudice against IMGs in Pathology?
 
BlondeDocteur said:
OK, again I'll reiterate my position: the very top echelon of pathology programs (not more than 5-7 places) are looking *solely* for highly academic applicants. They want people who are MD/PhD and will become researchers OR they want people who will stay in academia and become subspecialty experts.
Click to expand...

If so, THEY are not selecting well. I have seen TOO many money-hungry graduates of theirs in my lifetime.

Same thing could be said of selection for Medical Schools.
 
turtle1966 said:
Very clear and loud declaration of a wholesale prejudgment and blatant discrimination against DOs.
Click to expand...

To be clear, I do not support discrimination against IMGs or DOs, but there is no denying that it occurs at "top-tier" programs. As a resident I remember one year that there was a candidate who we rejected because of low USMLE scores. This woman failed step 1 on the first attempt and subsequently passed with a score of 75 on the second attempt. Nevertheless, she matched at Yale that year. There is no way on earth that Yale could not have matched an IMG or DO with far better scores if they had wanted. I'm sure that if you asked them their excuse would be that she was the "best fit" for the program, whatever that means.

skramer3786 said:
http://pathology.duke.edu/academic-programs/residency-program/current-residents
We don't care where you went to school or what your degree is.
We want people who will be a good fit within the program and who want to be at Duke 🙂 Steven
Click to expand...

Steven, The fact that Duke accepts IMGs and DOs is not surprising. Like other mid-tier programs they have to (but probably would prefer not to). It is the "top-tier" programs, by and large, which have enough AMG residency candidates in order to fully exclude IMGs and DOs, as evidenced by their resident lists. Having said that, even some of the top-tier programs have had to accept IMGs and DOs in the last couple of years because of the lousy job market and the resulting lack of interest in pathology among AMGs.

For the original poster, you will have to accept that despite being one of the best DO students in the USA you will still be considered less desirable than an AMG with average scores at most, if not all, top-tier residency programs.
 
Last edited:
BlondeDocteur said:
That last part seems like you might--just might-- have pulled it out of your arse.
Click to expand...

A lot of that going on here. A lot of people operate on the assumption that "because I don't see it, it will never happen." But like at my program, for example, I don't actually recall there being a DO, yet every year there were a couple who got interviewed. And no program is going to interview anyone that they have no intention of taking. So while I have no doubt that there are programs who would "refuse" to take a DO applicant, I suspect these programs are rare.

If anyone actually knows the % of DOs who actually go into pathology, that would be helpful information.
 
jp123ok said:
Steven, The fact that Duke accepts IMGs and DOs is not surprising. Like other mid-tier programs they have to (but probably would prefer not to). It is the "top-tier" programs, by and large, which have enough AMG residency candidates in order to fully exclude IMGs and DOs, as evidenced by their resident lists. Having said that, even some of the top-tier programs have had to accept IMGs and DOs in the last couple of years because of the lousy job market and the resulting lack of interest in pathology among AMGs.
Click to expand...

Sheesh this board is pathetic sometimes. It's like every time there's a little ray of human kindness someone has to come stomp on it. The guy's a resident at Duke for crying out loud, not BFE Community Hospital. It's a great program, as we all know. It's frankly bizarre because in my limited experience this is not remotely how pathologists behave in real life-- I've found everyone to be pleasantly less competitive with each other.

Yaah, this past year 51 DOs matched to pathology, out of 546 total matches-- around 9%. This is in contrast to 193 foreign grads (which of course includes Americans educated abroad), or 35%. Since only 42% of the newly matched were American MS4s, I assume the rest were people like me-- previous grads (14%).

I think the most interesting table is #13-- it shows what a huge proportion of FMGs/DOs who *matched* to pathology actually wanted something else (about 35% of them), in sharp contrast to the AMGs applying in path.

http://www.nrmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Main-Match-Results-and-Data-2014.pdf
 
I can't believe there are 600 spots a year now. That's way too many. When I graduated a few years ago there were about 500 and I was part of the four year program. Since less than 50% fill with amgs, they should slash it to like 300. We would get a better crop of applicants.

The idea that there weren't be enough pathologists and patients lumpectomies and lymph node biopsies would be going into the garbage because there are too few pathologists is absurd.

But back to the O.P. I used to think like the Blondedocteur and thought that the only people that belong in top programs were academic and research lifers from A list medical schools. But having been down that road, I realize there there is room for all sorts of people with all sorts of backgrounds and aspirations. It is hard to change your demeanor, but my suggestion to you is to do as many rotations as possible at top places, b be outgoing, be pleasant to have around, exude but don't fake a love for pathology, when they say it is time to go home stay longer, go in on Saturdays. All it takes is to get a couple people to go to bat for you when it comes time for the programs to set their rank lists.
 
pathstudent said:
I can't believe there are 600 spots a year now. That's way too many. When I graduated a few years ago there were about 500 and I was part of the four year program. Since less than 50% fill with amgs, they should slash it to like 300. We would get a better crop of applicants.
Click to expand...

The number of positions hasn't changed much. Two match cycles ago the NRMP started the "all-in/all-out" rule, which put an end to pre-matches. All the pre-match spots were suddenly back in the match, which is why pathology's stats look worse all of a sudden-- including the %age of AMGs. (Since AMGs can *only* use the match, all pre-matches went to other people. When the pre-matchers had to use the match it diluted the pool).

Also I think at the top programs the gestalt is what I said, at least in terms of recruitment. Of course people play the game and swear on a stack of bibles, Qurans or otherwise that all they want to do in life is play with mice as an R01 researcher, or be the world's expert on non-neoplastic lung diseases, and either genuinely or disingenuously their aspirations change as they go through residency.
 
jp123ok said:
Steven, The fact that Duke accepts IMGs and DOs is not surprising. Like other mid-tier programs they have to (but probably would prefer not to). It is the "top-tier" programs, by and large, which have enough AMG residency candidates in order to fully exclude IMGs and DOs, as evidenced by their resident lists. Having said that, even some of the top-tier programs have had to accept IMGs and DOs in the last couple of years because of the lousy job market and the resulting lack of interest in pathology among AMGs.
Click to expand...
I would agree with that except for the last part. The top-tier programs have still maintained their admission criteria the last few years. They usually have the token IMG or DO, but that's because they are stellar candidates, not as a reflection of the job market or waning popularity from AMGs. Besides, it's not like they're taking graduates from Western State A&M Technical Community College...otherwise, I would've gotten in :prof:

BlondeDocteur said:
Sheesh this board is pathetic sometimes. It's like every time there's a little ray of human kindness someone has to come stomp on it. The guy's a resident at Duke for crying out loud, not BFE Community Hospital. It's a great program, as we all know....
Click to expand...
Oh, come on, saying he was "stomping on someone's sunshine" :bigtears: is a little overboard. The OP specifically inquired about "top tier" programs. Not, 'What are my chances at Cleveland Clinic, University of Virginia, University of Michigan, etc?' All of which are solid programs like Duke. But, there's only a handful of "top tier" programs. Even you said the top echelon is not more than 5-7 programs. Duke is not one of them. jp123 didn't really slam the program, he just addressed what the OP asked about.
 
Last edited:
BornToCut said:
I completely agree. DO is a big NO to my program and many top/mid programs. Look at program websites to get an idea of what they accept. Not a lot out there accept DO. Further, most DO path go into Forensic, which is the least competitive.
Click to expand...

What a dumb-arse comment... what are you basing any of the assumptions in this statement on? There are a handful of DO forensic pathologists, but I don't think the percentage is any higher (or lower) than the percentage of DO diagnostic pathologists. As to FP being the least competitive, that's just silly as well. The top programs get far more applicants than they can accept, and I am sure it's easier to match into cytology at a mid-tier midwest program or **** east coast program than forensic path at Miami or NYC.
 
Well, for a time the director of the path residency program at Dartmouth was a DO. Not sure if she still is. I saw DOs either in training or interviewing during my interview travels at MGH, Northwestern, Michigan, Mayo, U Chicago, Iowa, can't remember where else.
 
BlondeDocteur said:
The number of positions hasn't changed much. Two match cycles ago the NRMP started the "all-in/all-out" rule, which put an end to pre-matches. All the pre-match spots were suddenly back in the match, which is why pathology's stats look worse all of a sudden-- including the %age of AMGs. (Since AMGs can *only* use the match, all pre-matches went to other people. When the pre-matchers had to use the match it diluted the pool).

Also I think at the top programs the gestalt is what I said, at least in terms of recruitment. Of course people play the game and swear on a stack of bibles, Qurans or otherwise that all they want to do in life is play with mice as an R01 researcher, or be the world's expert on non-neoplastic lung diseases, and either genuinely or disingenuously their aspirations change as they go through residency.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the possible explanation about the increase in slots.

I interviewed at all the "top 5" programs and was called by a few PDs telling me to rank them #1, but instead I went with a "top 10" program that was in a very desirable location. During an interview with my future PD, he told me they didn't rank, interview or consider any IMGs because as he put it with an AMG, they were getting a known quantity and with an IMG in the past they had found that oftentimes there was a knowledge gap that they couldn't fill. And it was true. The entire time at my program I didn't see one IMG matriculate as a resident or as one of the 20 fellows we would take every year. But I do remember one D.O. matching.

And I do agree with the BD that most of my attendings and PD would prefer people that wanted to stay in academics, but as the most hardcore elite academic of academic attendings explained to me is that most of those just wanted to have the residents follow their same path to justify the decisions they made kind of like a parent does with his or her children.
And at my program, across the board the most outstanding, most brilliant of residents pretty much all went community practice, like I am even talking MD PhDs from Harvard or univ of cal or Stanford who were rock star human beings. A few awesome people did go the academic route but often times they were women who were married to patent lawyers or investment bankers or neurosurgeons, or they were single men or women who weren't having kids in the near future or in a few cases they were weird.
 
Last edited:
It's late or I'm a little thick today but I don't get it. Why does going into academia mean a person is interested in being childless? You're too poor to afford kids, or only unattractive people do it so no potential mates? Or the hours are too long? Can't be from what I've seen..

I agree path academia has more weirdos. It's not you, it's them. Trust me...they give everyone that freaky stare....

I do think if a DO candidate takes all the step exams it shows a more direct comparison. Not required and expensive, but will shut down the whole thing about how DO step 3 is only one day whereas MD step 3 is 2 days. A 2 day exam does seem like a bigger challenge than a 1 day exam....
 
pathperson said:
It's late or I'm a little thick today but I don't get it. Why does going into academia mean a person is interested in being childless? You're too poor to afford kids, or only unattractive people do it so no potential mates? ...
Click to expand...

The childless thing isn't true in my experience. But the perception that you can't support a family on a single salary of 180k in academics seems to be widely accepted these days, which is of course ridiculous.
 
malchik said:
The childless thing isn't true in my experience. But the perception that you can't support a family on a single salary of 180k in academics seems to be widely accepted these days, which is of course ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Isn't $180K kind of on the high end? There are brand-new academics starting--mostly in instructor positions--making in the low 100s, I think.

Physicians do have a (justified, in my opinion) sense of entitlement to an upper middle-class lifestyle, but of course, you're right--it is entirely possible to live comfortably, with a family, on $100K. Most families live on less.
 
In my opinion, unless you're the top dog in academics or have a chance at such, there's no point staying in, or entering, that rat race. Taking a massive pay cut to perform questionable IHC studies, fraternize with other very socially inept colleagues and to teach residents who share such ineptitude, to me, makes no logical sense.

Put another way: being an associate professor of pathology at a no-name institution is not worth paying six-figures-a-year for.

The problem with pathology is that the starting incomes (and for many, final) are very low relative to other specialty fields, so people who have other career options exercise them.
 
LoaLoa said:
Isn't $180K kind of on the high end? There are brand-new academics starting--mostly in instructor positions--making in the low 100s, I think.

Physicians do have a (justified, in my opinion) sense of entitlement to an upper middle-class lifestyle, but of course, you're right--it is entirely possible to live comfortably, with a family, on $100K. Most families live on less.
Click to expand...

The instructor position is highly institution specific. At places like MGH all Jr faculty start there, and it pays OK. At other top academic places, the instructor position is reserved for people focused on research doing little to no clinical work or are just temporary clinicians, and get paid like a glorified fellow. At lower tier places it doesn't seem to even exist.

180K is close to the median salary for an assistant professor across the board. At most places, this is someone right out of training.
 
Over9000 said:
In my opinion, unless you're the top dog in academics or have a chance at such, there's no point staying in, or entering, that rat race. Taking a massive pay cut to perform questionable IHC studies, fraternize with other very socially inept colleagues and to teach residents who share such ineptitude, to me, makes no logical sense.

Put another way: being an associate professor of pathology at a no-name institution is not worth paying six-figures-a-year for.

The problem with pathology is that the starting incomes (and for many, final) are very low relative to other specialty fields, so people who have other career options exercise them.
Click to expand...


Pathologists make more money than most physicians, not less. Yes, we make a lot less than spine surgeons or rad onc. So what? Given quality of life issues, I think most of us are pretty happy with our specialty selection.
 
gbwillner said:
180K is close to the median salary for an assistant professor across the board. At most places, this is someone right out of training.
Click to expand...

That's not as bad as I thought. I was making around $160K as an Assistant Professor just out of training and I thought I was doing well. My decision to ditch my institution and jump ship to the private world is further justified, then :cigar:
 
gbwillner said:
Pathologists make more money than most physicians, not less. Yes, we make a lot less than spine surgeons or rad onc. So what? Given quality of life issues, I think most of us are pretty happy with our specialty selection.
Click to expand...

In the private world I would agree. In academia, it seems pathology gets short shrift.
 
Not really. My friends who took junior instructor gigs in general surgery make about $150,000 out of training, and I assure your their patient load, call schedule and case mix are bottom-of-the-barrel and much worse than a newly-minted pathologist would enjoy. And I have a very good friend who took an attending job in cardiology a MGH right out of training (HMS med school, MGH IM, MGH cards); he makes $90K.
 
Over9000 said:
In the private world I would agree. In academia, it seems pathology gets short shrift.
Click to expand...

I think this is heavily region and institution dependent. At my former institution, Asst. Prof salaries in anatomic pathology are the same as for Oncologists and Cardiologists. We make more than Peds, family, Psych, Neuro, IM. We make the same as OB/GYN, Cards, gas, oncology. We make less than optho, Rads, Rad Onc, surgery. Given that a vast majority of practitioners are on the left of that list, we are doing pretty good, relatively. I do know that salaries at some prominent west coast institutions are about $140K. I also know other less prestigious midwestern institutions pay $250K starting. This was also the starting salary at another top place in the east coast.

So it's not so simple and there will be a lot of variance. I think, overall, we should be pretty happy where we are relative to other specialties.
 
Last edited:
Medscape released a report about physician compensation, that surveyed 21,878 physicians.
http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2013/public

Some highlights
Pathology is about in the middle for compensation, at $242,000 (Slide 2)
Pathology had a 12% increase in income compared to the previous year (Slide 3)
Northeast had the lowest physician compensation (Slide 5)
Academics make less money than private practice (Slide 6)
Pathology has high overall satisfaction (52%) and feel fairly compensated (64%) (Slide 20)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

WEBB PINKERTON
pathology resident turned cowardly vigilante
Replies
2
Views
2K
octopusprime
octopusprime
EnDOHmetrial
Need advice for 2025 Match (DO student)
Replies
10
Views
3K
KeratinPearls
KeratinPearls
WildWing
FAQ - Pathology
Replies
2
Views
2K
mike-sheree
mike-sheree
H
Pathology assistant arrangement
Replies
2
Views
2K
octopusprime
octopusprime
C
2024 Pathology boards pass rates
Replies
17
Views
4K
coroner
coroner
Top