How is BIDMC pathology residency?

[pathresident2]

Is it comparable to MGH and BWH? Will you be competitive for fellowships/jobs once you graduate from there?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[smellycat]

I would try and PM GIguy. Looks like he is doing/done his training there and would probably be able to give you the information you are looking for.
A recent post is here.

 

[pathdoubled]

Unrelated to the topic here, I have heard that all Harvard programs can get residents from the top 10 to 15 candidates in their rank lists. The same principle applies to a lot of other top-notch programs, such as Hopkins, UPenn, Wash U, Duke, U Chicago, etc. Is this true? If so, the tiers of programs can be classified by this standard.

 

[malchik]

Unrelated to the topic here, I have heard that all Harvard programs can get residents from the top 10 to 15 candidates in their rank lists. The same principle applies to a lot of other top-notch programs, such as Hopkins, UPenn, Wash U, Duke, U Chicago, etc. Is this true? If so, the tiers of programs can be classified by this standard.

This would just tell you something about popularity, which varies significantly year to year. A few years ago at least two of the programs you just mentioned did not fill. What does that mean? Not very much IMO.

The tiers of programs can also be classified by how expensive their location, the quality of nearby restaurants, or the records of their undergrad football teams. Applicants should decide what criteria they personally care about, do their best to rank accordingly, and ignore what everyone else is doing.

 

[pathdoubled]

This would just tell you something about popularity, which varies significantly year to year. A few years ago at least two of the programs you just mentioned did not fill. What does that mean? Not very much IMO.

Really? I have heard Wash U had some problems once, but no idea about others. I don't think it is Duke, either. Is it UC? That is surprising.

 

[JSI124]

Is it comparable to MGH and BWH? Will you be competitive for fellowships/jobs once you graduate from there?

My wife interviewed there last year and was very disappointed. Very "dull" program when compared to other Harvard locales. Being an MD/PhD, she was unpleasantly surprised by program's non commitment to research, although that was in the process of change with the new chair.

 

[icpshootyz]

My wife interviewed there last year and was very disappointed. Very "dull" program when compared to other Harvard locales. Being an MD/PhD, she was unpleasantly surprised by program's non commitment to research, although that was in the process of change with the new chair.

Yet that's why I chose to come to BIDMC. I felt BWH was far too "PhD-y" and put too much emphasis on research. Plus the people I met there were all too stuffy and formal. I will say I liked MGH about as much as I liked BI, but from the sound of it MGH is killer on your life outside the hospital. Don't get me wrong, I want good training, but I didn't want to be all work and no play, either. So in the end BWH never made my cut, and MGH was ranked #2 behind BIDMC. I find the people I work with to be great at BI. It's more of a "chill" place where you can go by first names with your attendings and still get excellent training. There's certainly plenty of research available, it's just that the resident will have to go looking for it, it isn't forced on you. Everyone with a research interest has certainly been able to find it here, and people like myself who have little interest in it can do as little as we like. Plus BI is general surg path training which is my personal preference as opposed to subspecialty. But, to each his own. That's why you have to ask the right questions at places!

 

[HbyHA]

The tiers of programs can also be classified by how expensive their location, the quality of nearby restaurants, or the records of their undergrad football teams. Applicants should decide what criteria they personally care about, do their best to rank accordingly, and ignore what everyone else is doing.

 

[djmd]

The tiers of programs can also be classified by how expensive their location, the quality of nearby restaurants, or the records of their undergrad football teams. Applicants should decide what criteria they personally care about, do their best to rank accordingly, and ignore what everyone else is doing.

If people start using this, Dr. Remick at Boston University is either going to be very happy or very sad....

BU hasn't lost a game in in over 10 years...

because they haven't had a football team since 1997.

But their Hockey team is wicked good... 👍

 

[pathstudent]

Unrelated to the topic here, I have heard that all Harvard programs can get residents from the top 10 to 15 candidates in their rank lists. The same principle applies to a lot of other top-notch programs, such as Hopkins, UPenn, Wash U, Duke, U Chicago, etc. Is this true? If so, the tiers of programs can be classified by this standard.

I seriously doubt this can be true. The top tier programs have so much overlap in the candidates they interview, unless all the top residents tell their #1 program that it is #1 and all the top programs communicate with each other.

If you look at the resident rosters for even solid programs like Wash U in STL and Pitt, they are numerous Foreign Medical Grads which goes to show you that they probably would have unfilled slots if they only relied on AMGs to fill the program. It doesn't mean they are not great residents/pathologists or won't be great pathologists. Some of the brightest lights in pathology are from abroad, but elite programs in radiology, derm and surgical subspecialties fill entirely with AMGs mostly from elite medical schools.

A good measure for how desirable a moderate to large pathology program can roughly be made by how large a percentage it fills with AMGs. For example UCSF is almost entirely AMGs, many from elite medical schools, same with Stanford, Same with MGH, same with University of Washington, same with Hopkins with the exception of an occasional basic scientist type.

 

[GooseIsland52]

Regarding BIDMC - I interviewed there this year, and the like the wife of JSI above, I felt a certain "dullness" to the place. For me, the dull factor didnt arise from the laid-back approach to research (for me, this is a positive, like icpshooty points out), but rather from the fact that I was told that BIDMC was behind the times technologically and that it could get frustrating at times. Also, I was told straight up (probably because I go to med school in the midwest), that I would have to get used to an "east coast type culture." Maybe these two things contributed to the overall dull feeling, but I wouldnt consider it a negative.

I think the program has a lot of positives: large program, non-malignant atmosphere, research laxity, and the dedicated preview day with a generalized sign out. I plan on ranking it very highly.

Any BIDMC folks care to comment?

Anyone with thoughts on BIDMC/Methodist-Houston/UTSW/UCSF/UCLA (my personal dilemma at this point as I attempt to create ROL)

Thanks!

 

[gbwillner]

If you look at the resident rosters for even solid programs like Wash U in STL and Pitt, they are numerous Foreign Medical Grads which goes to show you that they probably would have unfilled slots if they only relied on AMGs to fill the program. It doesn't mean they are not great residents/pathologists or won't be great pathologists. Some of the brightest lights in pathology are from abroad, but elite programs in radiology, derm and surgical subspecialties fill entirely with AMGs mostly from elite medical schools.

A good measure for how desirable a moderate to large pathology program can roughly be made by how large a percentage it fills with AMGs. For example UCSF is almost entirely AMGs, many from elite medical schools, same with Stanford, Same with MGH, same with University of Washington, same with Hopkins with the exception of an occasional basic scientist type.

This is really, really wrong. You will find FMGs at MGH and probably every single great path program out there. To say WashU would go unfilled if they didn't take FMGs is just stupid. Some FMGs are excellent applicants with near perfect board scores and PhDs. It's not that they won't take AMGs, its that they take the best applicants. When I was at MGH interviewing the chief resident was a FMG fer christsakes. And the second paragraph above is equally stupid. When I interviewed, I thought that the best program would take the people from the best schools. I looked at the rosters to those programs and saw no significant correlation, other than people in those programs tend to be over-represented by people from their own medical school.

 

[pathstudent]

Regarding BIDMC - I interviewed there this year, and the like the wife of JSI above, I felt a certain "dullness" to the place. For me, the dull factor didnt arise from the laid-back approach to research (for me, this is a positive, like icpshooty points out), but rather from the fact that I was told that BIDMC was behind the times technologically and that it could get frustrating at times. Also, I was told straight up (probably because I go to med school in the midwest), that I would have to get used to an "east coast type culture." Maybe these two things contributed to the overall dull feeling, but I wouldnt consider it a negative.

I think the program has a lot of positives: large program, non-malignant atmosphere, research laxity, and the dedicated preview day with a generalized sign out. I plan on ranking it very highly.

Any BIDMC folks care to comment?

Anyone with thoughts on BIDMC/Methodist-Houston/UTSW/UCSF/UCLA (my personal dilemma at this point as I attempt to create ROL)

Thanks!

five words.

UCSF there is no substitute.

 

[malchik]

five words.

UCSF there is no substitute.

With just one more word you could make it a semi-coherent sentence.
You'd have to do more than that, though, to make it a true statement. UCSF is a great place; so are the others he listed.

 

[gottamatch]

Just went on a few interviews. I also don't think Wash U would go unfilled if they didn't take FMG (or IMGs). Met a couple of IMG residents who are very fluent in English there, and I believe they are MD-PhDs. It's one of the top programs that I think AMGs would love to go there, so I doubt taking away the IMGs in the program would make them go unfilled. Same is true for MGH, Hopkins, etc. Keeping a rank list that is too short is more likely to cause a program to go unfilled than anything else.

Hopkins has quite a few IMGs in the program as well (impression was that they are all PhDs). MGH also has a few in the program. I believe many IMG residents at top tier programs have made it there because of top tier papers and board scores in the range of 265-270 😱 ! And of course decent personality). I wouldn't single out Wash U😀. Different programs have their own approach of selecting their type of top applicants. That's all.

This is really, really wrong. You will find FMGs at MGH and probably every single great path program out there. To say WashU would go unfilled if they didn't take FMGs is just stupid. Some FMGs are excellent applicants with near perfect board scores and PhDs. It's not that they won't take AMGs, its that they take the best applicants. When I was at MGH interviewing the chief resident was a FMG fer christsakes. And the second paragraph above is equally stupid. When I interviewed, I thought that the best program would take the people from the best schools. I looked at the rosters to those programs and saw no significant correlation, other than people in those programs tend to be over-represented by people from their own medical school.

 

[gottamatch]

I am also having a big headache putting together a not very long ROL. I especially have difficulty with #2-#5. When do programs submit their ROL? Have they done so already? Or are programs deciding as we decide too? Maybe we should have a ROL thread😛?

I also had the same feeling about BIDMC, so in the end, I didn't rank it highly. Just personal decision, though. Even though BIDMC is a Harvard program, I thought it paled compared to the other 2 in the area.

Regarding BIDMC - I interviewed there this year, and the like the wife of JSI above, I felt a certain "dullness" to the place. For me, the dull factor didnt arise from the laid-back approach to research (for me, this is a positive, like icpshooty points out), but rather from the fact that I was told that BIDMC was behind the times technologically and that it could get frustrating at times. Also, I was told straight up (probably because I go to med school in the midwest), that I would have to get used to an "east coast type culture." Maybe these two things contributed to the overall dull feeling, but I wouldnt consider it a negative.

I think the program has a lot of positives: large program, non-malignant atmosphere, research laxity, and the dedicated preview day with a generalized sign out. I plan on ranking it very highly.

Any BIDMC folks care to comment?

Anyone with thoughts on BIDMC/Methodist-Houston/UTSW/UCSF/UCLA (my personal dilemma at this point as I attempt to create ROL)

Thanks!

 

[GooseIsland52]

I also had the same feeling about BIDMC, so in the end, I didn't rank it highly.

Hmm....was there anything in particular that gave you that dull feeling? in my post i kind of put it in a positive light, and i think i might rank it highly. but would like to know your thoughts.

 

[pathstudent]

I am also having a big headache putting together a not very long ROL. I especially have difficulty with #2-#5. When do programs submit their ROL? Have they done so already? Or are programs deciding as we decide too? Maybe we should have a ROL thread😛?

I also had the same feeling about BIDMC, so in the end, I didn't rank it highly. Just personal decision, though. Even though BIDMC is a Harvard program, I thought it paled compared to the other 2 in the area.

Program committees are probably meeting around now to finalize their lists. Lists are submitted generally around the last week of February. I have sat on residency selection committees for three years and the final ranking is fun. It is when individual faculty and residents lobby for individual candidates to be ranked higher than they were scored and also sometimes people that scored very highly are knocked to the bottom or off the list if they turned off the wrong person such as the chair of the department or the program director. I remember one person that had rockstar academic researcher potential that was given a perfect 10 out of 10 by everyone that interviewed him but the chair gave him a 0 and said he didn't want to see him train there as he was very arrogant. So the guy wan't even ranked our of respect to the chair.