MGH vs Brigham

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

DoctorFood

New Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I've heard conflicting opinions on which is the better training program. Do fellowship committees prefer one over of the other? I've heard from some people MGH is more impressive, since they supposedly work harder. My main concern with MGH was the happiness of the residents. They seemed to be very overworked.

However, I've heard Brigham is historically the better program.

Any thoughts?
 
I've heard conflicting opinions on which is the better training program. Do fellowship committees prefer one over of the other? I've heard from some people MGH is more impressive, since they supposedly work harder. My main concern with MGH was the happiness of the residents. They seemed to be very overworked.

However, I've heard Brigham is historically the better program.

Any thoughts?

Both would suit you well so rank both. It's only for a few years and it will pay off strongly in the long run. Pathology is very pretentious as you will soon see. There's nothing like hearing an old piker brag continuously about how he trained at xyz 20 years. Notwithstanding that all of the classification schemes and diagnostic terminology have changed in the last 20 years as new crews keep rotating into academics and rewriting all the textbooks...
 
I've heard conflicting opinions on which is the better training program. Do fellowship committees prefer one over of the other? I've heard from some people MGH is more impressive, since they supposedly work harder. My main concern with MGH was the happiness of the residents. They seemed to be very overworked.

However, I've heard Brigham is historically the better program.

Any thoughts?

The traditional mythology is that MGH is more clinically oriented and BWH is more research oriented, and that MGH has insane hours. This myth is now largely outdated. Both programs work very hard, probably about the same. Both programs have research-oriented people and research tracks; Brigham probably has a few more though. The culture/ feel is somewhat different between the two, with the scheduling, subspecialty signout, etc. I would choose based on which fellowships you will likely want. Both are great training.
 
I agree with Malchik. Both programs are similar in workload and in post-residency opportunities. I would recommend a second look at both programs to help you make your decision. I did second looks at both programs and this really helped me.

On a side note...saw the job posting for BWH chair position...that would be something to ask about during interviews, and how that may change the department.
 
Last edited:
On a side note...saw the job posting for BWH chair position...

gorillastare.jpg
 
On a side note...saw the job posting for BWH chair position...that would be something to ask about during interviews, and how that may change the department.

Yeah, I applied for that job and was turned down. Apparently you need at least 2 fellowships. 🙂
 
They are both certainly excellent programs, and you sould see both to compare. I found that what I heard about those programs and what I thought about them after my visits varied to some degree, and it will all be about how well you think you'd "fit" into the culture of those places.

Re: the chairman search at BWH, as a resident I'm not sure how much that will impact you. If you see lots of other openings because faculty are bailing for some reason, that would be a different story. But I'm not sure a place like BWH will be that affected.
 
I kinda agree that Chairpersons (especially at larger institutions where that job is almost exclusively administrative and political) generally have little direct impact on a residency, though it's still worth asking about and feeling out. Changes in the Director of AP, or residency program director, can have a much more significant and immediate impact on the residency. It's not automatically a bad thing, but can add an amount of uncertainty to the equation.

I certainly agree on the concerns with any general bailing of faculty. Or residents, which occasionally occurs.

I've never heard of fellowship programs particularly separating any of the top-tier brand-name residency programs to a significant degree when considering applicants. While you'll hear a lot that being boarded and a cool person gets you further than anything else in the general job hunt, and I think this is basically true, I also still remember as a junior resident working with a private pathology group how they seemed to hunt down fellows from top-tier brand-name fellowships for their partner track positions ("they just finished cytopath with DeMay, it's gonna be great!"). Not saying that's the end-all be-all -- just an observation at the time.
 
Hey everyone,

I am trying to make the difficult decision between which one of these programs to rank #1. I am applying for AP/NP specifically. Does anyone have any insight into opinions regarding the NP programs? I know they are both great training programs, but I was more looking for insight into interactions with faculty, amount of non-educational administrative work that needlessly increases time spent at the hospital? I honestly felt like Brigham was a better fit from the AP side, but MGH from the NP side. Any guidance to help aid in my decision? Thanks!
 
I've heard conflicting opinions on which is the better training program. Do fellowship committees prefer one over of the other? I've heard from some people MGH is more impressive, since they supposedly work harder. My main concern with MGH was the happiness of the residents. They seemed to be very overworked.

However, I've heard Brigham is historically the better program.

Any thoughts?

There was a top performer from my school that went to MGH and disliked path so much after the experience, he quit and did internal medicine afterwards. That was just one person's experience years ago though.
 
I've heard conflicting opinions on which is the better training program. Do fellowship committees prefer one over of the other? I've heard from some people MGH is more impressive, since they supposedly work harder. My main concern with MGH was the happiness of the residents. They seemed to be very overworked.

However, I've heard Brigham is historically the better program.

Any thoughts?
When I interviewed at mgh, the residents proudly stated that they would work from 3am until 10 or 11 pm while on surg path. The bwh residents stated they would work from 7am until 6 or 7 pm while on surg path. They both produce the guiding lights of pathology so I am not sure how the extra hours and mgh help.

I didn't rank either ones because Boston sucks.
 
Do grads of these institutions (or other top 5) have the same difficulty in finding jobs as has been described ad nauseum on this forum? I like path but am concerned about job prospects. Respond here or PM me please and thanks.
 
Do grads of these institutions (or other top 5) have the same difficulty in finding jobs as has been described ad nauseum on this forum? I like path but am concerned about job prospects. Respond here or PM me please and thanks.

They would fare better at the beginning, however, after awhile, the initial shine will wear off and be overwhelmed by the market macro forces. We have been suffering, for decades, from a totally incompetent leadership, oversupply, "ancillary to appendageal" field transformation (I speak of bundled payments), etc.

Abstracting market stress, lifestyle in pathology is good, however, if you are a top candidate in Pathology, you could be top at other fields, and life at the top in any specialty should be good, and absolutely much less emotionally stressful than in Pathology.

The phenomenon of MS being attracted to Pathology is, in some instances, akin to a starving artist innately driven to Arts, and, in others, the inability (of outsiders, i.e., MSs) to fathom how bad Pathology has become.

In choosing Medicine, many of us must have repressed their natural desire to choose some other more fun and easier life careers, and have rather opted for Medicine because we could and because we looked forward to its rewards. By choosing Pathology, you will be reversing your noble and fortunate selection, except that, the rewards and fun will be skimpy.

Yeah, I have known many excellent pathologists who were professionally happy in spite of their tribulations. In my opinion, they were happy mostly by their good nature, idealism and by learned repression of their past dreams and by ignoring what they could have become.

Read other posters many of whom appear to be from Top programs. Judge for yourself whether doing 1-3 post-residency fellowships just to get any job is OK. Judge whether a CEO, 10 years from now, will view you as someone deserving of higher pay just because you are from a Top program. Does it sound right to you that , as someone recently posted, within 5-6 years post residency, one guy had 3 jobs?

I do not personally enjoy critiquing my own specialty, however, I can not stand idly by seeing an MS making a lifelong choice that is very likely to be a grave error. Remember, likely, you are a "jewel" of your family. Do not throw yourself at the mercy of PDs and Chairmen (I absolutely disdain most of them, feel they are pigs) singing their siren songs to lure helpless and hapless MS to their serfdom.

I have spoken in honesty, from my 30 years in the field, and not out of malice or professional difficulties.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I applied for that job and was turned down. Apparently you need at least 2 fellowships. 🙂

Actually, you probably need zero fellowships because you have to have your own funding and such, i.e. not be a practicing pathologist.

Historically MGH was the program for diagnosticians and BWH for researchers, but that is blurred now. It doesn't really matter which one is "better" because it's an irrelevant question. Both have the resources to provide you with adequate training and mentorship. It depends on what you want to do with it and such. One program can be great for a certain person but bad for another.
 
When I interviewed at mgh, the residents proudly stated that they would work from 3am until 10 or 11 pm while on surg path. The bwh residents stated they would work from 7am until 6 or 7 pm while on surg path. They both produce the guiding lights of pathology so I am not sure how the extra hours and mgh help.

I didn't rank either ones because Boston sucks.

Either things have changed or the BWH residents weren't being honest with you. I rotated at BWH this past year and witnessed residents working very long hours - 8am until midnight or later during first year and some saturdays (depending on where you are in the grossing cycle). Conversely, when I interviewed at MGH, they emphasized changes in the workload and better enforcement of work hours so that hours now are typically 8am to 9pm with no weekends.
 
Top