governaitor said:
Having just been through the process and having looked at all Manhattan progrmas and rotated at Columbia, it is my opinion that there are only two strong programs (although you can learn pathology well anywhere). But relative to the best programs on east coast, midwest, bay area, LA, Columbia and Cornell do not stack up.
Hopkins, BWH, UCSF, Stanford, UCLA, Univ of Wash all seemed far more dynamic.
Still if you gotta be in NYC, then Cornell and Columbia will be great. And an average applicant would have no problem matching in one of the four Manhattan programs (that is nearly 20 spots and path just is not that competitive).
Love NYC, but would have to agree. Attendings in NYC see some really amazing stuff, because they and their institutions are so well known, and they get referred tons of cases. But resident-wise, I'd have to agree that places like Hopkins, UCSF, UWash, Duke are better.
My observations on the manhattan progs:
Sloan-Kettering: Nice new offices, killer reputation, esp. internationally, but you'd have to be a fellow..
Mt. Sinai: Prob. heavies caseload in the country. Not too much scutwork, but while you get to see a lot of stuff it can prob. stress you out.
NYU: Pretty much ok. Diverse caseload, but not top of it's class.
Einstein: Actually don't know their path. dept., but research facilities really sux.
Presbytarian: Cornell campus is pretty cool, esp. good in haematopath. Columbia seems second tier to me.
Don't know the rest.
So if I was you, I'd do my residency somewhere else, and go to NYC to have a good time after the boards.