Programs in midwest

[magician]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Yaah, you seem to know most of programs in MW and NE. How do you rank following programs? thanks.

1. U of MIN
2. U of Wisc
3. U of Iowa
4. Indian U
5. U Mich
6. Ohio State
7. CWRU
8. UPMC

 

[yaah]

UMich
Iowa
Indiana
UPMC
U MN
OSU
CWRU
Wisconsin

Sorry, in every list, someone has to be last.

Note of course that my list is my personal opinion and if you use my opinion to rank your own preferences that would be ill advised, especially because I have not personally seen the path departments at 75% of these choices. All of these programs, however, are good programs which will train you to be a good pathologist. It is mostly up to you in how you use their training.

 

[beary]

UMich
Iowa
Indiana
UPMC
U MN
OSU
CWRU
Wisconsin

Sorry, in every list, someone has to be last.

Note of course that my list is my personal opinion and if you use my opinion to rank your own preferences that would be ill advised, especially because I have not personally seen the path departments at 75% of these choices. All of these programs, however, are good programs which will train you to be a good pathologist. It is mostly up to you in how you use their training.

Somehow I could have predicted this. 😉

 

[magician]

yaah, beary.

i will rank in your way. if i cannot get good training, it will be your fault.

 

[quant]

Somehow I could have predicted this. 😉

LOL!

 

[b&ierstiefel]

UMich
Iowa
Indiana
UPMC
U MN
OSU
CWRU
Wisconsin

Sorry, in every list, someone has to be last.

Note of course that my list is my personal opinion and if you use my opinion to rank your own preferences that would be ill advised, especially because I have not personally seen the path departments at 75% of these choices. All of these programs, however, are good programs which will train you to be a good pathologist. It is mostly up to you in how you use their training.

I am in agreement with yaah with Michigan being way ahead of the pack. But I have experience with that department and know that it's quite strong. The others are hard for me to rank in any specific order since I haven't had exposure to those programs and my knowledge of some of them rests solely based on stuff said on this forum.

 

[yaah]

I am in agreement with yaah with Michigan being way ahead of the pack. But I have experience with that department and know that it's quite strong. The others are hard for me to rank in any specific order since I haven't had exposure to those programs and my knowledge of some of them rests solely based on stuff said on this forum.

Iowa and Indiana are both very strong in education especially when it comes to diagnostics. There are a number of well known and respected faculty. Indiana is pretty much the center of testicle pathology, or at least it seems to be. Indiana would rank #1 for testicles. UPMC is a large program and seems to be growing extraordinarily fast, and they have a lot of experts in many fields and have one of the highest volumes in the country. UPMC would be top of this list for head and neck. Hence why I rank them 1-4.

 

[anencephalic]

Iowa and Indiana are both very strong in education especially when it comes to diagnostics. There are a number of well known and respected faculty. Indiana is pretty much the center of testicle pathology, or at least it seems to be. Indiana would rank #1 for testicles.

Wouldn't that be Ball U in Muncie? 😀

 

[b&ierstiefel]

Iowa and Indiana are both very strong in education especially when it comes to diagnostics. There are a number of well known and respected faculty. Indiana is pretty much the center of testicle pathology, or at least it seems to be. Indiana would rank #1 for testicles. UPMC is a large program and seems to be growing extraordinarily fast, and they have a lot of experts in many fields and have one of the highest volumes in the country. UPMC would be top of this list for head and neck. Hence why I rank them 1-4.

I'll defer to your opinions on that one. You probably know much more about Iowa than I would ever know since you interviewed there and I didn't apply there. Indiana, I know little about, except for the fact that they have the king on testicle-pathology. Although, I don't know how the rest of their surgical pathology training is there (remember, testicle pathology constitutes a very small portion of pathology in general).

Now, UPMC...I'm at a loss for opinions there too. I know they're big into breast FNAs...this topic I find quite laughable...plus one of those attendings applied for a faculty position here and a lot of us thought he was a pretentious little _____. Never knew about their expertise about H&N though...that's news to me.

Again, your rankings sound good to me...and I think Michigan is at the top of the list by far.

 

[yaah]

Never knew about their expertise about H&N though...that's news to me.

Leon Barnes.

 

[Adrian Cocot]

Leon Barnes.

His fellowship is massively popular, but he'll be retiring soon, and his protege (Jennifer Hunt) is at the Cleveland Clinic now.

I'm still surprised how many people gloss over the CCF. It's got to be one of the most underrated programs out there.

 

[deleted113029]

I'm still surprised how many people gloss over the CCF. It's got to be one of the most underrated programs out there.

I think you're in the minority on CCF being underrated. When I found out they interviewed a total slacker from my school my view of them sunk even lower!

 

[CameronFrye]

His fellowship is massively popular, but he'll be retiring soon, and his protege (Jennifer Hunt) is at the Cleveland Clinic now.

I'm still surprised how many people gloss over the CCF. It's got to be one of the most underrated programs out there.

I got a very bad vibe from the residents when I interviewed there. They just didn't seem happy (a feeling I didn't get at other places, including JHU). The musical chairs sign-out system seemed pretty crummy too.

That being said, they have several big names, a high volume, and I'm sure you'll be adequately trained when you leave there.

 

[yaah]

His fellowship is massively popular, but he'll be retiring soon, and his protege (Jennifer Hunt) is at the Cleveland Clinic now.

I'm still surprised how many people gloss over the CCF. It's got to be one of the most underrated programs out there.

Most people don't poo-poo it, especially for diagnostics. But the residency program does get a bit looked down on. Not sure why. Perhaps because they don't have many fellowships, or because the residents are less important to day to day work than at other programs (rumor, not sure if it's that true). They definitely have some great staff their, Goldblum I hear is a great teacher and strongly interested in resident education, and he runs AP.

It's probably not underrated though by most in the know.

 

[roach]

His fellowship is massively popular, but he'll be retiring soon, and his protege (Jennifer Hunt) is at the Cleveland Clinic now.

I'm still surprised how many people gloss over the CCF. It's got to be one of the most underrated programs out there.

absolutely underrated program, at least among path applicants and residents. as far as interviewing "slackers", there aren't strict cutoffs here for inviting people. i've seen people interview with <220 on boards, but they're in the minority. part of the reason for interviewing a broad range of people is that the program is in cleveland- not in sf, nyc. not many people dying to come to a faded industrial city with crappy weather.

the advantage of this program for me was the opportunity to push a lot of glass with "names" in pathology but not get scutted out- i gross sitting down, only a few days a month. there's also no pressure to do research if you don't want to.

i'm not sure what that person meant by "musical chairs signout"??

 

[simonsays]

Hi Roach!

"Musical chairs" probably refers to moving from sign out to sign out each day. It sounds more turbulent than it actually is. The advantage is that we have a subspecialized system and see each subspecialty 6 times (minimum) during the course of our training. So you can look at the cases with the experts and still get a lot of repetition.

I have been very happy with my training here and think that if you got a bad vibe from the residents (sorry that you did, cameron) it was just an off day. There are 30+ residents and you may have just had a bad mix. Generally we are a pretty relaxed group and get along well. We really are minimally scutted while not being shortchanged on important things like grossing. As Roach said, one of the best parts of this program is that you can make of it what you want. If you want to be a hard core academic, the opportunities are available to do research with some very accomplished pathologists. But if you are like many of us and just want to push glass for the rest of your life and be really good at it, you just say no to doing projects. The staff are really accessible and we get great training. I think we are underrated, but it's good because it keeps the psycho gunners away!

 

[djmd]

I think you're in the minority on CCF being underrated. When I found out they interviewed a total slacker from my school my view of them sunk even lower!

How pathology has changed....

While pathology is now a more competative field it didn't used to be that way, many programs don't have hard cut offs for interviews. They have a large resident population and like to take a mix of residents.

And while CCF may not be top 3 programs in pathology it generally concidered be a strong program, nationally known. Their AP is very strong and they have a good CP program too. As Simonsays says, you can make what you want out of it. Want an academic career ok, rather go for private practice lots of people do that too...

 

[Adrian Cocot]

Most people don't poo-poo it, especially for diagnostics. But the residency program does get a bit looked down on. Not sure why. Perhaps because they don't have many fellowships, or because the residents are less important to day to day work than at other programs (rumor, not sure if it's that true). They definitely have some great staff their, Goldblum I hear is a great teacher and strongly interested in resident education, and he runs AP.

It's probably not underrated though by most in the know.

I was referring to applicants whom I highly doubt are 'in the know.' As you yourself allude to, there's no objective reason to discount the residency*, other than rumors or gut feelings. Or based on who they interview, which has got to be one of the silliest reasons I've heard so far.


*well, living in Cleveland maybe. Damn snowbelt.

 

[yaah]

I think the fellowship thing is a little weird. Why not have a lot of fellows? Or do they? I would think it would be a fantastic place for a general surg path fellowship but there isn't one.

 

[deleted113029]

Or based on who they interview, which has got to be one of the silliest reasons I've heard so far.


*well, living in Cleveland maybe. Damn snowbelt.

Who they interview is a silly reason to dismiss a program? Hmmm...I want my coworkers to be hardworking and intelligent. I guess I MUST be crazy to want that.

good response 👍

 

[djmd]

I think the fellowship thing is a little weird. Why not have a lot of fellows? Or do they? I would think it would be a fantastic place for a general surg path fellowship but there isn't one.

They used to have one (actually they called it something else... and it payed a lot better than a fellowship, clinical associate or some such).

They have been expanding their fellowship offerings slowly, and might either add surgical path fellow back or add a subspeciality (non boarded) fellowship.

They do have GI, Heme, Derm, Cyto, Micro, and blood bank fellowships...

CCF aims to keep the number of fellows down to allow for direct resident-staff interactions...

 

[djmd]

Who they interview is a silly reason to dismiss a program? Hmmm...I want my coworkers to be hardworking and intelligent. I guess I MUST be crazy to want that.

good response 👍

Just because they interview them doesn't mean they get in, and there is not a 1:1 correlation between strong medical student and good pathologist (and path resident)
👎
And if you need more proof, get the USMLE scores of strong well know pathologist... I bet the average is below the 190-220 that is concidered a path cut off score, or whatever it is...

 

[CameronFrye]

Hi Roach!

"Musical chairs" probably refers to moving from sign out to sign out each day. It sounds more turbulent than it actually is. The advantage is that we have a subspecialized system and see each subspecialty 6 times (minimum) during the course of our training. So you can look at the cases with the experts and still get a lot of repetition.

I have been very happy with my training here and think that if you got a bad vibe from the residents (sorry that you did, cameron) it was just an off day. There are 30+ residents and you may have just had a bad mix. Generally we are a pretty relaxed group and get along well. We really are minimally scutted while not being shortchanged on important things like grossing. As Roach said, one of the best parts of this program is that you can make of it what you want. If you want to be a hard core academic, the opportunities are available to do research with some very accomplished pathologists. But if you are like many of us and just want to push glass for the rest of your life and be really good at it, you just say no to doing projects. The staff are really accessible and we get great training. I think we are underrated, but it's good because it keeps the psycho gunners away!

Yeah, I was referring to the rotating sign out. It just didn't sound like my cup of tea. I don't have anything against a subspecialty signout system and it certainly has its benefits, but I would prefer a place that breaks down your subspecialties by the week (or two weeks). I also didn't like that once your allotted time for a signout was up, you left the rest of your cases with that attending and moved to the next signout. I know people said it didn't matter b/c of the high volume, but after coming from a place where the residents own their cases (for better or worse), it just didn't seem ideal for me (others may have a completely different opinion).

And I definitely understand that it's hard to get a real good impression of the residents over one lunch. Here, each resident class has a completely different personality, so each candidate probably comes away from lunch with a completely different impression of the residents depending on if they ate lunch with a 1st year, a 2nd year, a 5th year, etc....

And in defense of the CCF residents that day, the other guy interviewing was kind of an ass-clown, so I think everyone was feeling awkward.

I'll sum up with my usual advice on these forums: everyone should check these places out for themselves and don't base your future residency on some anonymous douchebag who is hanging out on the internet.

 

[deleted113029]

Just because they interview them doesn't mean they get in, and there is not a 1:1 correlation between strong medical student and good pathologist (and path resident)
👎
And if you need more proof, get the USMLE scores of strong well know pathologist... I bet the average is below the 190-220 that is concidered a path cut off score, or whatever it is...

your whole response is pure conjecture. at least throw in some facts.

 

[djmd]

your whole response is pure conjecture. at least throw in some facts.

No your premise is based on a single random fact. (they interviewed a slacker)

I know multiple pathology attendings who are excellent pathologist who say "I wouldn't be able to get into pathology with these cut offs"

I'm not naming names and no I don't have their USMLE scores on hand.

 

[djmd]

And I definitely understand that it's hard to get a real good impression of the residents over one lunch. Here, each resident class has a completely different personality, so each candidate probably comes away from lunch with a completely different impression of the residents depending on if they ate lunch with a 1st year, a 2nd year, a 5th year, etc....

And in defense of the CCF residents that day, the other guy interviewing was kind of an ass-clown, so I think everyone was feeling awkward.

CCF residents used to go to lunch en-mass and the interview lunches were no different... At least you saw the resident interaction.

The two+ people interviewing on a single day is less than ideal. But how else do you deal with a 9 slots to fill or whatever they take now, you need to interview at least 5xslots... if not more... which generally leads to multiple people on some days...

 

[simonsays]

I agree that judging a place by who they interview is a poor criterion. There is a big difference between interviewing someone and ranking/matching them. There are a number of people who come through each year who send up the red flag and end up not getting ranked at all. Some of them have amazing board scores but they are just scary people. Some of them just ooze insincerity and have a slacker mentality that they can't keep hidden during the interview. In my experience, personality and willingness to work hard are the most important things to look for in a residency candidate. Can Will they do their work and not pawn it off on other people? Are they someone I will want to sit down and look at cases with or will I run in the other direction when I hear their voice? Will they carefully gross specimens or rush through it so they can get back to their research? Of the people I've enjoyed working with the most and learned the most from, their board scores have run the gamut. Some of them wouldn't even get interviews today with the higher board cutoffs some people use.

That being said, if the person you know (Villin) that we interviewed is truly worthless and we match them, I won't argue with you if you think we are "less than" other places. But in a place with this many residents, there are always going to be a couple of questionable people (some of them looked great on paper, I'm sure), I just happen to think most of them are great to work with.

DJMD, (yes, I know who you are) can you try spellcheck or something? You are a native English speaker (no, Montana is not a foreign country) and you can't spell considered among other things.

 

[deleted113029]

That being said, if the person you know (Villin) that we interviewed is truly worthless and we match them, I won't argue with you if you think we are "less than" other places. But in a place with this many residents, there are always going to be a couple of questionable people (some of them looked great on paper, I'm sure), I just happen to think most of them are great to work with.

i think my statement may have been made prematurely and rashly. the person who was interviewed was someone who rubbed me and most everyone in my class the wrong way...so i guess i displaced my opinion of her onto your program which is an immature defense mechanism 😳

 

[yaah]

No your premise is based on a single random fact. (they interviewed a slacker)

I know multiple pathology attendings who are excellent pathologist who say "I wouldn't be able to get into pathology with these cut offs"

I'm not naming names and no I don't have their USMLE scores on hand.

I have heard plenty of excellent pathologists say the same thing - that as well as that they couldn't have qualified these days for the fellowship that they run or are a part of.