facial recognition, sense of orientation

[curvymedstudent]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Hello,

I like path but I am not sure I have what it takes. Read somewhere that pathologists have excellent visual memory that is demonstrated by good facial recognition and sense of direction. I have a terrible sense of direction and I am not that good at recognizing people either.

When we did histology I was not especially good at it but maybe somewhere in the middle of my class.

What do you think? Do I have what it takes or should I aim for another specialty?

 

[KLPM]

I think this is kind of like saying "surgeons need good hands". You probably need some kind of baseline ability but the majority of your skills can be developed.

 

[TMZ2007]

Yeah, the visual skill can be learned, but only to a certain extent.

You say did only average in histology. Was that because you didn't apply yourself, or because you just didn't get it? I would flip through the pictures a few times before the histo exam and ended up within the top 1-3 scores every time. I really enjoy looking at slides and trying to figure out a diagnosis. I would imagine that many other practicing pathologists have similar experiences.

If you don't have a good eye, you can still be successful. It's just a lot harder and will often times frustrate the hell out of you. You will also be judged against your peers, many of whom do have a good eye. Considering that the vast majority (at least 75% if not more) pathologist jobs in general have a heavy microscopic component, you will be at a disadvantage.

 

[malchik]

I don't believe in the "good eye" concept, at least as it applies to the practice of pathology. Identifying diagnostic features of pathologic entities can be taught to anyone who is interested and tries. Like anything else, the more you like it the better you will get.

 

[deleted314957]

i firmly believe in the "good eye" concept.

 

[KCShaw]

Those with the magical "good eye" are in a better position to do well. Those without have to spend time developing it, and tend to lag -- they just don't SEE what others pick up on quickly. Something about the forest, trees, and such. Most people are probably in the middle. As with most things. And having a good eye only gets you so far, you still need to learn a crapload and be able to apply all the right labels to the right stuff and put it all together. Frankly, a good teacher can help one develop their eye pretty quickly, unfortunately there aren't that many really good/"natural" teachers -- you might never become a "natural," but still be proficient. I think the concept is real...but I wouldn't worry about it unless you have some reason to think you're really, really at the wrong end of the curve after some substantial exposure, or get sick every time you look down the microscope no matter who's driving, or that kind of thing. Med school histology grades don't carry much weight to me as far as that goes.

 

[dr.weiner]

Sense of orientation doesn't matter that much, except for some gross specimens. Histopathology is basically a 2-D field.

 

[KLPM]

What I have found for myself is that the subjects I have always been terrible initially ended up being my strong points. I started medical school having no knowledge of things such as anatomy or histology but ended up being the top of my class in those subjects probably because I spent so much time studying them. It definitely helps I enjoy those subjects.

I am definitely still an advocate for being able to excel in pathology with plenty of practice and dedication. Unless of course you are blind or get sick looking down microscopes.

 

[yaah]

Man, I have terrible facial recognition. Takes me awhile to match name to face. I have an unusual memory for other things though. I can be at tumor board and they bring up a patient from 2 years ago that I saw a biopsy on and often I remember the case. I don't necessarily think they're related. And I don't really think it impacts what kind of pathologist you are. I also do have a pretty good sense of direction. So I don't know how to reassure you other than the fact that there are all kinds of different people in the world who do pathology as a profession.

 

[KCShaw]

I suppose I should clarify that while I think there are those with a natural "good eye" when it comes to pathology, I haven't noticed that particularly correlates with having a "good eye" or sense of direction or style or whatever else outside of pathology. I loosely equate it to the observation that some people are just natural talents at certain things -- doesn't mean others can't be just as or more successful at it. Nor that natural introductory talent necessarily equates to Rosai'ness at the other end.