Hopkins/Brigham/MGH

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
stickyshift said:
No one cares about your pedigree, and the quicker you can get over that, the better off you'll be in private practice.
Click to expand...

New procedures, new drugs, new therapies, new techologies, and new doctors come from medical academia. After you've made your money, feel free to use your top tier pedigree and give back.
 
Pedigree is important if you are able to maximize the opportunities that were offered from it. Getting academic positions is one of the opportunities that open up by going to top programs. Probably less meaningful in private practice. It definitely does not dictate what kind of doctor you become, but does indicate the training you have gone through. There's a reason why residency directors are most impressed by graduates from top schools.

stickyshift said:
I went to top-tier colleges, medical schools, and residency programs. Even did my surgical pathology fellowship at Wash. U. My partner (who recruited me out of training) went to 4th-tier colleges and medical school (and no-name residency) and is a top-notch pathologist. She likes to look at my degrees on the wall and say, "Hm, and we're both making the same amount of money."

No one cares about your pedigree, and the quicker you can get over that, the better off you'll be in private practice. Just do your job as well as you can, get along with everybody, and realize that nothing succeeds like success.
Click to expand...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
stickyshift said:
I went to top-tier colleges, medical schools, and residency programs. Even did my surgical pathology fellowship at Wash. U. My partner (who recruited me out of training) went to 4th-tier colleges and medical school (and no-name residency) and is a top-notch pathologist. She likes to look at my degrees on the wall and say, "Hm, and we're both making the same amount of money."
Click to expand...

The important things in life. She's got them covered.
 
stickyshift said:
I went to top-tier colleges, medical schools, and residency programs. Even did my surgical pathology fellowship at Wash. U. My partner (who recruited me out of training) went to 4th-tier colleges and medical school (and no-name residency) and is a top-notch pathologist. She likes to look at my degrees on the wall and say, "Hm, and we're both making the same amount of money."

No one cares about your pedigree, and the quicker you can get over that, the better off you'll be in private practice. Just do your job as well as you can, get along with everybody, and realize that nothing succeeds like success.
Click to expand...

...as we all know, the amount of money we make in this world is an absolute and uncontrovertible measure of our success, is something we all strive to maximize, and directly correlates with how intelligent, accomplished, and useful we are as human beings.
 
stickyshift said:
I went to top-tier colleges, medical schools, and residency programs. Even did my surgical pathology fellowship at Wash. U. My partner (who recruited me out of training) went to 4th-tier colleges and medical school (and no-name residency) and is a top-notch pathologist. She likes to look at my degrees on the wall and say, "Hm, and we're both making the same amount of money."

No one cares about your pedigree, and the quicker you can get over that, the better off you'll be in private practice. Just do your job as well as you can, get along with everybody, and realize that nothing succeeds like success.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree with this. This sort of situation may have been the case with someone that graduated a long time ago, but I sort of bought into this recently and am regretting it as the worst decision for my career.

I ranked a lower-tier residency #1 when I matched several years ago because that idea of going to a pleasant, laid-back residency was appealing at the time, and I thought I could make myself a great pathologist simply by working hard and being diligent with my studies and putting in time with study sets at the scope. I've done all those things and feel like I know as much as the guy who went to a well-known program, however the effects of my particular residency's name on my CV is woefully career-damaging, in my opinion.

While we can mostly agree that a particular name isn't going to make you a great or bad pathologist, the doors that open up as a result of certain names on your CV are more important than ever. Fellowships are so important these days that half of the spots are going to internal candidates, leaving half of the spots for outside candidates to scratch and claw for.

I have been proactive in research (multiple abstracts, a first-author publication) and have average/slightly above average test scores. During about half of my fellowship interviews, interviewers were surprised to find out that I went to program X and not the well-known University program in the same city (they had not read my CV carefully enough). Who knows if I would have even gotten an interview had they noticed I was not from the University program?

Also, if you go to a lower-tier program, people automatically assume you "couldn't get into a better program." I don't care how confident you are, you will always be walking around with a chip on your shoulder.

My advice: go to the program you can tolerate with the best name. It's only 4 years and worth it, IMO.
 
gbwillner said:
No offense, but this is ******ed. I should know better than to respond to this tired argument you've made before lots of times, but I will anyway.

I think most people talk about "top" programs in term of quality of training. If you want to argue WashU is not a top program in terms of training, fine. But to judge it based on your perceptions of the city are way off-base. Actually, it's funny that you talk about your "top 5" as meccas of awesome cities, and yet you have Hopkins there, where you risk your life just walking through the parking lot. Really, do most people think that Baltimore is somehow better than St. Louis? Also, not everyone is looking for residency in a place where you can party till 5AM on a Monday. In St. Louis your $ goes more than twice as far as in San Fran, and you can easily buy a nice house in a nice neighborhood on a resident salary. If you really hate St. Louis and think it has nothing to offer- you've probably never been there. Fact is, all these cities have things about them that are attractive to some people and a burden to others. To think all students or residents think as you do is pretty narrow-minded.

Lastly, the reason that the population of Stl went from 1M to 300K is only that people moved to the suburbs. The metro area has roughly 3M people in it. For all the reasons you mention that "no one from Boston, sf, NYC would make Stl their first choice" the same arguments could be made about NYC (It's too expensive and you live in a shoebox), SF (It's too expensive, you can't get a job in California, pay sucks in California, Taxes suck in California, California is bankrupt), and Boston (It's too cold, too expensive, too many students), etc. Do I even have to bring up Baltimore?
Click to expand...
I'm not a pathologist but this thread caught my eye because it mentions Baltimore.

I was happy you defended St. Louis (one of my favorite cities that I know well), but then you railed on Baltimore. So I have mixed feelings about your post. Not to mention who says "this is ******ed" anymore?

On my end-- these city debates really get annoying-- just like programs, cities/locations are all dependent on the person's taste. I can tell you friend, that St. Louis and Baltimore are VERY similar. not so big cities with lots of character, lots to do, some stereotypes that turn people off. Big difference is Bmore is within 45 minutes of DC and 2 hours of Philly, 3 hours of NYC. St. Louis is 4+boring drive hours from Chicago...and well...that's it. Wash U Med/Barnes is in the Central West End, a little nicer than Hopkins location, but also a good trek on the interstate to get downtown. Forest Park is a HUGE plus for Wash. U. I trained to run two marathons there.

But if you don't know Bmore, don't knock it.

I loved St. Louis. I love Baltimore. so apparently I'm a fan of "undesirable" cities. so be it. more room for me! also, I'm not a pathologist, but I interact with the path department/residents/faculty all the time at JHH and they are phenomenal from an outside perspective.

Good luck to all of you, and thanks for listening to the visitor.
 
michigangirl said:
I'm not a pathologist but this thread caught my eye because it mentions Baltimore.

I was happy you defended St. Louis (one of my favorite cities that I know well), but then you railed on Baltimore. So I have mixed feelings about your post. Not to mention who says "this is ******ed" anymore?

On my end-- these city debates really get annoying-- just like programs, cities/locations are all dependent on the person's taste. I can tell you friend, that St. Louis and Baltimore are VERY similar. not so big cities with lots of character, lots to do, some stereotypes that turn people off. Big difference is Bmore is within 45 minutes of DC and 2 hours of Philly, 3 hours of NYC. St. Louis is 4+boring drive hours from Chicago...and well...that's it. Wash U Med/Barnes is in the Central West End, a little nicer than Hopkins location, but also a good trek on the interstate to get downtown. Forest Park is a HUGE plus for Wash. U. I trained to run two marathons there.

But if you don't know Bmore, don't knock it.

I loved St. Louis. I love Baltimore. so apparently I'm a fan of "undesirable" cities. so be it. more room for me! also, I'm not a pathologist, but I interact with the path department/residents/faculty all the time at JHH and they are phenomenal from an outside perspective.

Good luck to all of you, and thanks for listening to the visitor.
Click to expand...

My point was not to offend Baltimore. I have been there and have got to know the city (I used to live in DC and had collaborations there). My point was only to point out the hypocracy of Pathstudent's post, and he clearly placed Hopkins in a "elite" group of programs and mentioned that one of, if not the most important criteria, was the location the program was in. My point was that Baltimore has a reputation as a city that would have eliminated Hopkins from Pathstudent's list, based on his own b*ll**** factors. I similarly state that all these cities have their pros and cons, and that people have different preferences in what they want out of a city. Again, I was simply suggesting that the adverse perceptions people have about St. Louis are just as present about Baltimore. Furthermore, all cities (even the "great" ones) have things many don't like about them. It's all personal preference and not everyone will see all attributes in the same light.

Not sure why you follow up attacking St. Louis again. I guess you mean that you dislike Baltimore and drive away every weekend. :laugh:
 
JLC said:
There's a reason why residency directors are most impressed by graduates from top schools.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the reason has nothing to do with any magical training experience that "top" schools have. The reason is that kids at fancy schools are on average smarter and more talented than lesser name schools. They self select. Similar thing is loosely true of residency programs. There is nothing special about training at top programs that any number of average programs don't provide.

That said, there are lots of people, especially in academics, that buy into the brand name nonsense. These people can offer you fellowships and academic jobs. To the extent that one wants specific fellowships or academic jobs, one must play this silly game.
 
gbwillner said:
My point was not to offend Baltimore. I have been there and have got to know the city (I used to live in DC and had collaborations there). My point was only to point out the hypocracy of Pathstudent's post, and he clearly placed Hopkins in a "elite" group of programs and mentioned that one of, if not the most important criteria, was the location the program was in. My point was that Baltimore has a reputation as a city that would have eliminated Hopkins from Pathstudent's list, based on his own b*ll**** factors. I similarly state that all these cities have their pros and cons, and that people have different preferences in what they want out of a city. Again, I was simply suggesting that the adverse perceptions people have about St. Louis are just as present about Baltimore. Furthermore, all cities (even the "great" ones) have things many don't like about them. It's all personal preference and not everyone will see all attributes in the same light.

Not sure why you follow up attacking St. Louis again. I guess you mean that you dislike Baltimore and drive away every weekend. :laugh:
Click to expand...
I am not attacking stl. I am stating a fact. Stl city population has decreased 2/3 over the last 50 years.

NYC, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Miami, and Portland are at historical highs. The majority of elite 20-something medical students would rather live in a vibrant bustling culturally relevant city like sf over stl. To state this is not controversial. It is patently obvious.

It doesn't mean wash u can't be a solid program. But there is no way in hell wash u can draw as elite of talent as ucsf both in terms of faculty and residents. If it could lebron would have stayed in Cleveland. Apple, Facebook, google and twitter would be located in the rust belt.
 
Ombret said:
Everyone wants to train at the perfect program (and before that, get into the med school, college, etc.) that will guarantee them the life of their dreams. But look at the golden ones around you who HAVE gotten it all and you will see that there are no guarantees. I have been lucky to have always been associated with extremely prestigious institutions, some mentioned in this thread, and yet I see many people around me whose path is not strewn with roses--they don't get the job or fellowship anyway, or their marriage is falling apart, or despite their academic promise they realize they actually just want a regular job.

I can't, without being a hypocrite, advise anyone not to go for a fancy program, because I always did, but I'll bet in fifty years we will all agree that it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Pedigree CAN matter but is not the end all, be all. As an employer, one can at the very least stratify people based on two variables: pedigree and accomplishments. Accomplishments can be defined by various factors such as strengths of references, publications, anything that attests to superior diagnostic skills, etc. Those seeking jobs can thus fall into one of the following categories:

1) Strong training pedigree and strong accomplishments - rare cohort that all employers are competing to hire.
2) OK training pedigree and strong accomplishments.
3) Strong training pedigree and weak accomplishments*.
4) OK training pedigree and weak accomplishments*.
5) Weak pedigree and strong accomplishments.
6) Weak pedigree and weak accomplishments* - don't waste my time, OK?

*For the sake of simplicity, I don't list "OK accomplishments" as a variable. Plus, in my mind, you're either strong or you're not.

Of course I'm going to try recruiting from Pool #1 but realize that people in Pool #1 are going to have multiple offers.

I would be happy with Pool #2 because strong accomplishments testify to ability AND motivation.

I'm happy to pass on Pool #3--although they got to where they are because they have ability, they have done nothing recently which calls into doubt, their current (and future) state of motivation. I don't care for those who have a chip on their shoulder just due to pedigree; I want to know what you will do for our group and the patients we serve now and in the future.

I am also happy to pass on Pool #4 and $6.

Pool #5, I'll consider as well but I still feel uneasy about this cohort. Sure, these people have exhibited great motivation in accomplishing strong things but their weak pedigree calls into question their overall ability. On the other hand, there is something to be said for "late bloomers."

Pool #1 is a no-brainer. Pool #2 vs. #5, I'll look first to Pool #2.

Overall, pedigree can serve as a useful tie-breaker. Ultimately, accomplishments mean more to me than pedigree when I look to recruit. So if you go to one of these big-shot programs, you better have thick skin and still have to do well. A person who loves to rest on his/her own laurels and become lazy is not a person I want to hire. Period.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pathstudent said:
I am not attacking stl. I am stating a fact. Stl city population has decreased 2/3 over the last 50 years.

NYC, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Miami, and Portland are at historical highs. The majority of elite 20-something medical students would rather live in a vibrant bustling culturally relevant city like sf over stl. To state this is not controversial. It is patently obvious.

It doesn't mean wash u can't be a solid program. But there is no way in hell wash u can draw as elite of talent as ucsf both in terms of faculty and residents. If it could lebron would have stayed in Cleveland. Apple, Facebook, google and twitter would be located in the rust belt.
Click to expand...



Manhattan's population DROPPED from 1.9 Mil in 1950 to 1.4 Mil in 1980 (almost 1/2 mil people)
Washington DC's population dropped from 900K in 1950 to under 600K in 2007. Maybe Washington DC doesn't count as a "vibrant bustling culturally relevant city". Stating that about St. Louis only shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. St. Louis is in the top 20 in terms of US metro areas population wise. And there are plently of "larger" cities that you could argue have significantly less culture. Did you know San Franscisco has fewer people living in it than Indianapolis? Would you consider that among your "elite" locals? You just come off as a giant uninformed, elitist douchbag.

In terms of faculty, I think only 1 other program in the country has produced as many departmental chairs of pathology as WashU. In terms of residents, WashU took almost half of all the awards at last year's USCAP.

If you are an "elite" person seeking a residency or faculty position but need to live in NYC or live on a beach, that's fine. Clearly your priorities are not necessarily getting the best training possible. Maybe that's OK. But to "rank" programs in terms of quality of training by factors it cannot control is a foolish way to compare programs.
 
AFAIK, WashU invented modern Surgical Path AND Clin Path training...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
gbwillner said:
Are you done making an ass of yourself?
Click to expand...

If stating the obvious fact that if you took 100 of the best pathology resident and faculty applicants, tha majority would rather live in a dynamic globally cultural relevant city like San Francisco over a declining one of dubious regional importance like saint Louis and therefore over years a pathology program in San Francisco/ bay area will eventually transcend one in stl is making an ass of myself, then I am an ass and so is every reasonable person.

When I was interviewing at a top notch program in a global Midwest city (Aka Chicago). The pd flat out stated that the best kids on the coasts don't want to go to the Midwest but the best kids in the Midwest are interested in going to the coasts.
 
pathstudent said:
If stating the obvious fact that if you took 100 of the best pathology resident and faculty applicants, tha majority would rather live in a dynamic globally cultural relevant city like San Francisco over a declining one of dubious regional importance like saint Louis and therefore over years a pathology program in San Francisco/ bay area will eventually transcend one in stl is making an ass of myself, then I am an ass and so is every reasonable person.

When I was interviewing at a top notch program in a global Midwest city (Aka Chicago). The pd flat out stated that the best kids on the coasts don't want to go to the Midwest but the best kids in the Midwest are interested in going to the coasts.
Click to expand...

San Francisco doesn't have a hockey team. I'm sold on St. Louis.
 
pathstudent said:
When I was interviewing at a top notch program in a global Midwest city (Aka Chicago). The pd flat out stated that the best kids on the coasts don't want to go to the Midwest but the best kids in the Midwest are interested in going to the coasts.
Click to expand...

While it may be true (to some degree) there is a bias of applicants from the coasts to overlook the midwest (perhaps for the same douchbag reasons you seem to look down on it), it is false to assume there are no people from the coasts in the midwest or WashU, or even a few. Both the PD and Chairman trained at BWH (that other program I alluded to in a previous post). I know of several residents/fellows from NYC who went there. And even if we pretend your assertion were 100% true (which it is not, and is entirely an assumption by you), that would NOT preclude top applicants from attending WashU, unless you're such a douchbag that you assume all the top resident applicants come from the east coast. The continued success of the WashU program and its trainees has verified that you simply are not correct.

Oh, don't beleive it? Last year's USCAP meeting, the most relevant and well-attended pathology meeting in the world, saw WashU trainees and faculty pick up 6 awards in 12 categories. The next best was Hopkins with 2. My point is the training at WashU is top notch, and research opportunities are top notch. The fact that someone from NYC may not want to attend because MO is flyover territory in no way affects the quality of WashU's training.

here's a link: http://www.uscap.org/index.htm?100th/vmeetingr.htm

pathstudent said:
If stating the obvious fact that if you took 100 of the best pathology resident and faculty applicants, tha majority would rather live in a dynamic globally cultural relevant city like San Francisco...therefore over years a pathology program in San Francisco/ bay area will eventually transcend [WashU]...
Click to expand...

Even if this were true, it would in no way preclude WashU from getting top residents or preclude them from having excellent training. Only 12-14 of them need to decide to go to WashU. Not everyone can go (or will want to go) to MGH. YOUR ENTIRE HYPOTHESIS IS flawed beyond repair. By your reasoning, UNLV will soon be the best pathology training program in the country because EVERYONE LOVES VEGAS and soon everyone will go there, over the millenia they will be stacked with all the top faculty too. Haven't you noticed Nevada's growth rate over the last decade? What about AZ- everyone is moving to Phoenix! in 50 years the state of Conneticut will be vacant.

pathstudent said:
I am an ass
Click to expand...

The only reasonable thing you've said in a while.
 
pathstudent said:
If stating the obvious fact that if you took 100 of the best pathology resident and faculty applicants, tha majority would rather live in a dynamic globally cultural relevant city like San Francisco over a declining one of dubious regional importance like saint Louis and therefore over years a pathology program in San Francisco/ bay area will eventually transcend one in stl is making an ass of myself, then I am an ass and so is every reasonable person.

When I was interviewing at a top notch program in a global Midwest city (Aka Chicago). The pd flat out stated that the best kids on the coasts don't want to go to the Midwest but the best kids in the Midwest are interested in going to the coasts.
Click to expand...

I'm from a coast and I chose to go to the midwest. And I still live here.
 
Pathstudent is correct. Lenox Hill Hospital in the upper east side is a better program than Johns Hopkins because NYC >> Baltimore.
Very convincing logic. NEXT.
 
Pointless post. No further point to make
 
Last edited:
pathstudent said:
It doesn't mean wash u can't be a solid program. But there is no way in hell wash u can draw as elite of talent as ucsf both in terms of faculty and residents. If it could lebron would have stayed in Cleveland. Apple, Facebook, google and twitter would be located in the rust belt.
Click to expand...

Can't speak for Zuckerberg or Steve Jobs, but let's get one thing straight: LeBron left Cleveland because Delonte West was shtuppin' his mom...:laugh:
 
yaah said:
I'm from a coast and I chose to go to the midwest. And I still live here.
Click to expand...

I'm from a coast and I'm going midwest for fellowship.

And I happened to choose my midwest fellowship over the same fellowship at Penn.
 
Does gulf coast count? How about one of the 'Great' Lakes? India and Australia have coasts too. Oh, and Greece! Not sure about anywhere else though, got my geography training in the U.S.
 
tco said:
San Jose = San Francisco????:eek:
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: I thought people from the midwest loved to drive? Its not right around the corner, but if you want to watch hockey its not that far away, particularly if you already live on the peninsula.
 
mlw03 said:
what the heck was the point of this thread anyway?
Click to expand...

Obviously to display how quickly we can get off track of a topic when a schmuck starts slamming the midwest.
 
I turned down a top east coast program (one of the three in this thread title, actually) for residency and went to the midwest. I didn't even consider the west coast since I think I think the LA/Orange county region and the SF Bay region are pretty much two of the worst four places in the country to live. So far, pathstudent, you have gotten a bunch of replies and almost all of them disagree with you.

In case any of you care, the other two worst places are the Miami beach/"South Florida" region and the Atlanta metro area. What distinguishes these four places?

Well, the first three have multiple things in common. 1) Traffic. 2) ****ty people 3) Full of New Yorkers outside of their native habitat. New Yorkers are far more tolerable in their native habitat. 4) Much more expensive.

Atlanta has the traffic. People are not so ****ty but they are also not that distinguishable or interesting. Plus the Atlanta sprawl is horrid. Almost as bad as Houston.
 
The best part :oops: of going to medical school in Houston is that both schools are next to each other right there in the Texas Medical Center; with housing, shopping, amenities, Rice U. all close by, and Downtown just up Main Street. I went to UT-H, and there would be many weeks in which I never needed to use my car.

The main factor for me in choosing a medical school (and residency) was that was in the same state where I wanted to live and practice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

KeratinPearls
Johns Hopkins pathologist Jonathan Epstein has been on leave since May - The Washington Post
Replies
43
Views
5K
coroner
coroner
L
New In Vivo Microscopy Fellowship at MGH
Replies
10
Views
2K
Dral
Dral
K
MGH vs BWH hours 2016
Replies
10
Views
7K
Torsed
Torsed
K
GU at Hopkins
Replies
15
Views
3K
the alchemist
the alchemist
D
MGH vs Brigham
Replies
15
Views
12K
xlilangel713x
X
Top