How does residency program prestige affect a pathologist's employability?

[Selectin-Man]

There has been a lot of talk about the fact that too many pathologists are being trained per number of available jobs.

Is someone who goes to Hopkins residency program for AP/CP much more employable than someone who goes to a mid or lower tier program???

How much does residency program reputation affect one's employability?

I'm also interested in this question as it applies to both private practice and academia.

 

[pathstudent]

There has been a lot of talk about the fact that too many pathologists are being trained per number of available jobs.

Is someone who goes to Hopkins residency program for AP/CP much more employable than someone who goes to a mid or lower tier program???

How much does residency program reputation affect one's employability?

I'm also interested in this question as it applies to both private practice and academia.

I think it can make some difference, especailly if you are trying to land a job out of your residency's local influence. Any group in the country would try to land a HMS grad who trained at Hopkins and did a surg path fellow at Stanford over a guy from a local anonymous programs assuming all else was equal. Of course it matters.

 

[yaah]

I don't think it makes a ton of difference in overall employability. Employers will still be looking for people who will do a good job, doesn't necessarily matter where they train. But they want someone without "issues." It definitely would affect your job seeking if you were looking for an academic job though.

If you are a hard worker and a good resident, you can train anywhere and get a good job and be successful. The talk about there being too many residents relates to the proliferation of crap jobs.

As far as, "Any group in the country would try to land a HMS grad who trained at Hopkins and did a surg path fellow at Stanford over a guy from a local anonymous programs assuming all else was equal" this is just wishful thinking, it's not true. All things are never equal. A group in Texas is probably more likely to take someone who trained in Texas and has local connections over someone who did Hopkins/Stanford and is trying to find a job in Texas.

 

[mmed]

Residency training is only one factor in your CV among others. The reputation of the program will have effect but not that much on employability. Because, usually the already competitive applicants land in higher tier programs, so, their chance in good job is high. If those competitive candidates start to seek programs in middle or even low class group due to any reason (which will not happen, unless those programs improve themselves), the chance of those graduates will stay higher over others wherever the training was. Hard working resident doing good job will not start from residency; usually he/she is hard working early in his/her carrier (for sure with exceptions).

 

[pathstudent]

I don't think it makes a ton of difference in overall employability. Employers will still be looking for people who will do a good job, doesn't necessarily matter where they train. But they want someone without "issues." It definitely would affect your job seeking if you were looking for an academic job though.

If you are a hard worker and a good resident, you can train anywhere and get a good job and be successful. The talk about there being too many residents relates to the proliferation of crap jobs.

As far as, "Any group in the country would try to land a HMS grad who trained at Hopkins and did a surg path fellow at Stanford over a guy from a local anonymous programs assuming all else was equal" this is just wishful thinking, it's not true. All things are never equal. A group in Texas is probably more likely to take someone who trained in Texas and has local connections over someone who did Hopkins/Stanford and is trying to find a job in Texas.

I would favor that to not be true. Community pathologists want the best people they can get assuming they can get along. And in general the Harvads/Hopkins/Stanfords are able to skim the cream and have the people who have a proven track record of working the hardest. Pathology isn't like physics or cosmology where you do have to be smart to be good. The people at the elite programs have proven themselves to be the hardest workers. I think community pathologists would find it appealing to hire people who have studied at the forefront of pathology. Yes, they don't have a lot of experience and are dangerous because of that (like all new hires), but they can help "update" the group regarding the latest terms making the diagnostic circuit. Plus in terms of P.R., keeping old clients and wooing new clients...saying your new guy is from Harvard or JHU or Stanford has a lot more cachet than saying he is from Penrose (no offense to those that are).

But yes, you can get a good job no matter where you train.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

Kinda along the lines of what yaah said, your job marketability depends on YOU. How well you learn pathology and how hard you work in residency is the ultimate indicator. The reputation of your institution is not unimportant since reputable places have powerful people who can serve as invaluable resources and connections. The reputation of your institution also indirectly impacts a resident's learning of pathology too. Big name centers have big name clinicians who have interesting patients referred to them. When you see challenging and difficult cases because of this, this can have an impact on what you see as a resident and ultimately what you learn.

 

[LADoc00]

I agree but everyone is oversimplifying a tad.

There are 2 distinct stages to getting a position, just like getting into medical school or residency.

1.) Stage 1 is the paper test, how good you look on paper compared to the other candidates. Does Harvard and Stanford impress? Yes. No question. There are a select group of places that have national/international appeal and another group of places that have more regional appeal. I would say Hopkins vs. Baylor would be a example, but there are plenty.

Of candidates for a position, maybe 10-20% get interviewed, sometimes far less. I have gotten interviews for positions where 150 applications were received and they interviewed 3-4 people with 'national appeal' papers.

Stage 1 CAN be skipped though if you have cultivated personal connections to group or location. You grew up in Cedar Rapids, you belong to a church that owns/operates the hospital where the group practices, you have a relative/spouse working in the area or at the hospital or you are simply drinking buddies with the other pathologists.

2.) Stage 2 is the interview process where your personality is paramount. Here the paper stuff from Stage 1 is often no longer under consideration, meaning stage 2 effectively creates a level playing field to move towards final selection.

here is example of how this might work:
Pathology Diagnostics Inc advertises an open position due to retirement and sends flyers to 10 local residency programs. They also advertise on the web. They get 100 applications/letters of interest. They dont know any of these people so they begin chopping it down. Immediately they dump 80+ from less than stellar programs or people with questionable histories (they transferred out of residencies, had large gaps of unexplained time, criminal issues etc). The last 20 or so are from national/regional type names. They cut that down dependant on what they are looking for: GI, heme, derm specialists etc. Maybe they have 5 at the final cut, always a couple of star paper types (JHU, HMS etc). Then they get a call about one of the 80+ they cut in round one and it appears one guy is the son of a local GI doc. He gets an interview guaranteed as a courtesy.

 

[pathstudent]

^Exactly, If I want to interview for jobs in Miami, SF and NYC, a lot more people will be interested in me if I did residency at Hopkins, a cytopath fellowship at MGH and then a surg path fellow at Stanford than if I am from a small university based program or some community based program and did fellowships there no matter how hard I worked in residency.

Of course it matters and can help open doors for you.

 

[mcfaddens]

^Exactly, If I want to interview for jobs in Miami, SF and NYC, a lot more people will be interested in me if I did residency at Hopkins, a cytopath fellowship at MGH and then a surg path fellow at Stanford than if I am from a small university based program or some community based program and did fellowships there no matter how hard I worked in residency.

Of course it matters and can help open doors for you.

It matters kind of. I feel that LOR's tell someone more about you than anything else. LOR's all the way, Put yourself in an employers position I would personally want to have someone back a potential collegue rather than an institution name as the only point of refrence.

 

[PathOne]

Training (and thus "names") matter, but as you move up through the career ladder, connections matter more. If you do e.g. Fellowship, I'll doubt that there'll be huge statistical variance, if you look at board pass rates, from one place to another over time. However, a few places will simply allow you to build a fairly large network, even as a Fellow. And, additionally, if the guy/gal doing the hiring trained at the same place, then obviously chances of at least an interview just increases.

So, in conclusion, I agree with what I think most of the other posters are really saying: Top "names" on your CV can get your foot in the door at a lot more places than less top "names". But at the end of the day, it comes down to yourself and a bit of chance.