Name and Academics

[Anitsirhc]

I know everyone says that the prestige of a program shouldn't really factor into one's decision when ranking programs, but does name matter if you are considering going into academics? By academics, I don't mean 100% research, but some combination of signing out cases, teaching and research.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[yaah]

I would say almost certainly yes, although where you would do a fellowship would be equally or more important depending on the circumstances. A lot of academics involves connections.

 

[pathstudent]

I don't think it matters too much. Of course it can't hurt, but you can rise to the creme de la creme no matter where you are from.

Take for example the PD from Brigham, she trained at Loyola in Chicago for residency and fellowship. That's probably only the 4-5th best program in Chicago and far from the top 20 in the US, yet she has rose to the top of academia. Moreover, she only did a surgical path fellowship. She is a cardiac pathologist, and yet she never did a cardiac fellowship.

What that proves is that it just matters how hard you are willing to work. It doesn't matter where you are from.

 

[docbiohazard]

I think it helps, but a lot of academics is about connections, as Yaah said. A lot of it has to do with you, too, and your drive and ability to network.

Personally, I think you have to weigh name in with a lot of other factors. If it's a "big name" program but you feel like you might be miserable there, I have to think you're better off somewhere else. Also if you go to a "big name" place but don't distinguish yourself, I'm not sure you're doing yourself much good.

It seemed like all the people I met when interviewing trained at MGH, the Brigham, or Penn... but I also met attendings at top tier programs who trained at definitely "mid-tier" traditionally non-academic places. I also know of a few people who trained at top tier places and wound up sort of shuffling along in jr faculty type positions. I think some of it is due to the fact that historically a few programs trained most of the academicians while most pathologists go into private practice. I think its better to find the place with the best opportunities where you feel like you'll be happiest, and thus most productive, and go from there.

Thats at least the peace I've arrived at after months of struggling with it.

BH

 

[DarksideAllstar]

... but I also met attendings at top tier programs who trained at definitely "mid-tier" traditionally non-academic places.

The best is some of the looks from these particular attendings when we discussed where I went to medical school. It was ironic that these same people who did not have Harvard-Yale-Hopkins pedigrees made comments about my no-name state medical school. The hypocrisy in academia is overwhelming.

 

[pathstudent]

^Heck many of the biggest names in pathology are FMGs.

Take Abbas, Kumar, Cotran and Fausto for instance. All have their name on the cover of the Bible for US medical students and all were FMGs.

 

[pathstudent]

In fact isn't it ironic that the "creme de la creme" in terms of board scores, AOA, class rank, # of publications, brand name medical school as a percentage are far over represented in derm, ent, radiology, and ortho while true intellectual FMGs dedicate themselves to pathology and write the bible for all US medical students, and all medical students worldwide for that matter. When in medical schoold did a demartologist or radiologist or orthopedic surgeon or ENT surgeon ever teach you **** about anything? Yet virtually every medical student has his education profoundly impacted by FMGs.

Name doesn't mean crap. You can have gone to the University of the Moon and still be a leader in academic path and US medical education.

 

[schrute]

In fact isn't it ironic that the "creme de la creme" in terms of board scores, AOA, class rank, # of publications, brand name medical school as a percentage are far over represented in derm, ent, radiology, and ortho while true intellectual FMGs dedicate themselves to pathology and write the bible for all US medical students, and all medical students worldwide for that matter. When in medical schoold did a demartologist or radiologist or orthopedic surgeon or ENT surgeon ever teach you **** about anything? Yet virtually every medical student has his education profoundly impacted by FMGs.

Name doesn't mean crap. You can have gone to the University of the Moon and still be a leader in academic path and US medical education.

Good, I ranked the Moon #1.

 

[malchik]

It seemed like all the people I met when interviewing trained at MGH, the Brigham, or Penn...

BH

Interesting, I interviewed at most of the research-oriented places, and I didn't really get this impression. What struck me was how many of the faculty at each place had trained at that place and stayed on as faculty or were recruited back after doing a fellowship elsewhere. I interpreted this as evidence for the importance of connections in academics.

 

[docbiohazard]

Interesting, I interviewed at most of the research-oriented places, and I didn't really get this impression. What struck me was how many of the faculty at each place had trained at that place and stayed on as faculty or were recruited back after doing a fellowship elsewhere. I interpreted this as evidence for the importance of connections in academics.

I also think that speaks to simple geography and the fact that it's tough to leave an area once you've established roots in that area, especially if you have family.

When I was at UW, I was told "You're from Texas, you know people from Texas never leave Texas. We've ranked people from Texas but never matched anyone from there ever." When I looked at a lot of the schools in the northeast, it seemed like a lot of their residents came from that general vicinity. Emory takes a lot of people from the South but then also a disproprionate number of people from Ohio, I think it was? I don't know if data exists, but I'd be curious to know the stats on how far people move from where they did med school to where they do residency, especially with regards to family demographics. At several far flung places I was introduced to upper level residents from Texas who were in the process of finishing residencies/fellowships and returning back to Texas ASAP...

I would also say connections are important in private practice, as well, and virtually any job market. They say its not what you know, its who you know. LADoc might be able to speak to this...

BH

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

I have always heard that is it more about who you know and who you work with than where you go.

If you go to a mid-tier school with a superb path program and a well-known network of people, that is a lot better than going to a "top tier" school with a mediocre path program. Whether academia as a whole agrees with me, I don't know, but that seems to be the consensus of most of the specialists (both path and not) whom I know.

 

[LADoc00]

^Heck many of the biggest names in pathology are FMGs.

Take Abbas, Kumar, Cotran and Fausto for instance. All have their name on the cover of the Bible for US medical students and all were FMGs.

Thats a fallacy of logic akin to saying since lotto winners are poor working class immigrants/blue collar types, that being a line worker in an auto plant and playing the lottery every week is a surefire career path to success...

Yes some FMGs have suceeded but by and large people like Rosai were already quite well known in their home country. You cant make the jump from say a Russian tennis star who came to US to play professionally and some dude from Mexico who slips over the border.

Also none of the FMGs you mention above had significant issues with English/communication which is HUGE.

 

[gbwillner]

I also think that speaks to simple geography and the fact that it's tough to leave an area once you've established roots in that area, especially if you have family.

When I was at UW, I was told "You're from Texas, you know people from Texas never leave Texas. We've ranked people from Texas but never matched anyone from there ever." When I looked at a lot of the schools in the northeast, it seemed like a lot of their residents came from that general vicinity. Emory takes a lot of people from the South but then also a disproprionate number of people from Ohio, I think it was? I don't know if data exists, but I'd be curious to know the stats on how far people move from where they did med school to where they do residency, especially with regards to family demographics. At several far flung places I was introduced to upper level residents from Texas who were in the process of finishing residencies/fellowships and returning back to Texas ASAP...

I would also say connections are important in private practice, as well, and virtually any job market. They say its not what you know, its who you know. LADoc might be able to speak to this...

BH

I heard the same exact thing from UW and it sounded like "You people never come here"... which was kind of creepy.

 

[Master Chief]

I have always heard that is it more about who you know and who you work with than where you go.

If you go to a mid-tier school with a superb path program and a well-known network of people, that is a lot better than going to a "top tier" school with a mediocre path program.

I would agree that making connections is an important part of training. However, programs get the big name because they are good at what they do. Not only do you have to know people, but they have to know you are well trained. You can get good training at alot of places, but you are not going to go wrong at a well-respected program. I would argue that the "cache" of a good pathology program goes a long way. That said, make sure it is a program known for its pathology, and not its ophthamology.

 

[MasterThespian]

That business about Texans is interesting. I wonder if it had anything to do with why I got interviews some places and not others. I was offered interviews at a few top-tier schools in the East, but other mid-tier programs I applied to outside of Texas turned me down. I'm not so conceited to think there aren't other reasons why they may have preferred other applicants, but after I received the rejections I did think maybe I should have written specific personal statements for each program explaining why I wanted to go to their program in particular- as in why I might be willing to move myself across the country to go to their mid-tier program after living, working, and educating myself in Texas for the last 25 years of my life. Because I also had someone say to me during an interview in the southeast that people never leave Texas- they actually asked me "Why is that?" And they weren't talking just about people who grew up in Texas- they were referring to all their friends who ever went to Texas for residency/fellowships or academic jobs and then never left. Weird.

 

[djmd]

That business about Texans is interesting. I wonder if it had anything to do with why I got interviews some places and not others. I was offered interviews at a few top-tier schools in the East, but other mid-tier programs I applied to outside of Texas turned me down.

They are afraid of messin' with Texas...

 

[MasterThespian]

I'm wondering what people's opinions are regarding the Methodist Hospital program in this regard. This is a unique situation, in that they have excellent well-known faculty (mostly ex-Baylor but also recruits from MD Anderson, etc), good caseload and consults, and the residents speak highly of the didactics and scope training they are receiving and their general experience. However, they have no alumni out there as the program is only 2 years old. Suppose the training really is great and the faculty are willing to write letters/use their connections to help grads get jobs, how much do you think the lack of an alumni network and longstanding program name would limit you in looking for a job? This alumni business didn't really occur to me until at one program, a recent grad told me he posted his resume online and got about a dozen interview offers, mostly from PP groups with alumni from his residency program. LADoc and others out there in the PP world, what's your opinion?

 

[gbwillner]

I'm wondering what people's opinions are regarding the Methodist Hospital program in this regard. This is a unique situation, in that they have excellent well-known faculty (mostly ex-Baylor but also recruits from MD Anderson, etc), good caseload and consults, and the residents speak highly of the didactics and scope training they are receiving and their general experience. However, they have no alumni out there as the program is only 2 years old. Suppose the training really is great and the faculty are willing to write letters/use their connections to help grads get jobs, how much do you think the lack of an alumni network and longstanding program name would limit you in looking for a job? This alumni business didn't really occur to me until at one program, a recent grad told me he posted his resume online and got about a dozen interview offers, mostly from PP groups with alumni from his residency program. LADoc and others out there in the PP world, what's your opinion?

I think the Methodist program is pretty awesome and you will be set for life coming out of there, at least in Texas. As you mention, they DO have a large alumni network- only they are from Baylor. All the top brass are Baylor's creme from before the split- and I certainly got the feeling there that they take care of their own there.

 

[mlw03]

I heard the same exact thing from UW and it sounded like "You people never come here"... which was kind of creepy.

then why do they keep inviting them to interview? in any event, i think you can end up in academia without a super pedigree. plenty of mid-tier places i interviewed at had faculty that were either home-grown or were themselves from other mid-tier programs.

 

[docbiohazard]

I think the Methodist program is pretty awesome and you will be set for life coming out of there, at least in Texas. As you mention, they DO have a large alumni network- only they are from Baylor. All the top brass are Baylor's creme from before the split- and I certainly got the feeling there that they take care of their own there.

I'd second what gbwillner is saying. While there aren't many Methodist alumni yet, it is a significant proportion of the old Baylor faculty, and on top of that many of them are well known and respected. The current president of the American Society for Cytopathology as well as the editor-in-chief of Archives of Pathology. They're very active at USCAP, and the place is rapidly expanding...

If you have reasons to want to be in the Houston area or plan on staying in Texas to practice, I think it can't be beat. If you want to run off and practice in the northeast or somewhere else, then you might look up there to train, that's my two cents.

BH

 

[docbiohazard]

then why do they keep inviting them to interview? in any event, i think you can end up in academia without a super pedigree. plenty of mid-tier places i interviewed at had faculty that were either home-grown or were themselves from other mid-tier programs.

I think it also depends on what sort of academician you see yourself being, primarily service work or primarily research. If its service work, then you need to be looking at strength of AP or CP training, fellowships in your area of interest, big names in your area of interest, etc. If its research, then you need to consider the research track if available, the amount of support you get, the package you get for your transitional position, the research environment at the institution, etc, because its not going to matter if you went to someplace thats a surg path powerhouse if you haven't been in a lab in 5 years and haven't published anything in 7 or 8. Took me awhile to figure this out.

BH

 

[gbwillner]

then why do they keep inviting them to interview? in any event, i think you can end up in academia without a super pedigree. plenty of mid-tier places i interviewed at had faculty that were either home-grown or were themselves from other mid-tier programs.

Of course you can end up in academia without a "super pedigree". It's just much more difficult. Most institutions I visited had people from BWH or WashU at the top of the food chain. They seem to often end up as dept. chairmen or directors. I don't think that's a coincidence.

 

[docbiohazard]

Of course you can end up in academia without a "super pedigree". It's just much more difficult. Most institutions I visited had people from BWH or WashU at the top of the food chain. They seem to often end up as dept. chairmen or directors. I don't think that's a coincidence.

True. I also think it's partially a self fufilling prophecy - ie. people who want to go to academics go to the places that traditionally have trained most of the people in academics.

At the same time, I tend to believe its somewhat like "Ivy league" schools. An attending explained it to us thusly: Everyone knows/thinks that ivy league grads are the best and brightest, destined for success, etc, and studies have shown this. However, a more recent study was done of people who were accepted to places like Harvard but didn't attend for various reasons, and found that down the road they were doing just as well as the people who graduated from those schools. Take home message: its more about the people than the institution. As long as you're getting solid training and you're managing your career and striving after your goals, you should be in good shape. Unfortunately, I don't have any actual citation for you...

It is definitely a tough call, but if a solid mid-tier program feels like a better fit and maybe is offering you some opportunities, I wouldn't turn it down just to go for a "name"...

Heh, how many PMs did we trade about this topic Gb?

BH

 

[gbwillner]

True. I also think it's partially a self fufilling prophecy - ie. people who want to go to academics go to the places that traditionally have trained most of the people in academics.

At the same time, I tend to believe its somewhat like "Ivy league" schools. An attending explained it to us thusly: Everyone knows/thinks that ivy league grads are the best and brightest, destined for success, etc, and studies have shown this. However, a more recent study was done of people who were accepted to places like Harvard but didn't attend for various reasons, and found that down the road they were doing just as well as the people who graduated from those schools. Take home message: its more about the people than the institution. As long as you're getting solid training and you're managing your career and striving after your goals, you should be in good shape. Unfortunately, I don't have any actual citation for you...

It is definitely a tough call, but if a solid mid-tier program feels like a better fit and maybe is offering you some opportunities, I wouldn't turn it down just to go for a "name"...

Heh, how many PMs did we trade about this topic Gb?

BH

Heh heh....

I completely concur with everything you just said.

 

[malchik]

I discussed this with an academic star type guy in our department (himself from BWH), and he said I couldn't go wrong with any of the places I am considering, which include a couple that some would say are mid-tier. And on my interviews, when (famous) faculty ask where I am looking, they all seem to agree that they are all great places to train. To some extent they are being courteous but I tend to believe them. So, I think a big name is sufficient but not necessary to get good academic jobs. Although if you do a crappy job at a big name place it may not even be sufficient.

 

[Arctic Char]

Good, I ranked the Moon #1.