Rankings for MD/PhD programs?

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

GlycoNE1

Junior Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2004
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Heya guys and gals,
Do rankings for MD/PhD programs matter? I'm considering University A, which is ranked highly (MD rankings), but isn't strong in my field of research (Cancer Immuno). I'm also considering University B, which is not ranked in the top 50 (MD rankings) but is stronger than Univ. A in my area of research (more variety and solid PIs). Univ. B is prominent for its biomedical research than for its medical school. I'm wondering if this will affect my future career choices (i.e. residency, fellowship opps., faculty appts., etc.) or quality of my medical scientist training. My pals have said medical school is medical school anywhere you go, do you peeps concur? I've also received advice that MD/PhDers choose their residency as long as they have solid research track record, acceptable board scores, etc.

Thanks in advance.

Members don't see this ad.
 
GlycoNE1 said:
Heya guys and gals,
Do rankings for MD/PhD programs matter? I'm considering University A, which is ranked highly (MD rankings), but isn't strong in my field of research (Cancer Immuno). I'm also considering University B, which is not ranked in the top 50 (MD rankings) but is stronger than Univ. A in my area of research (more variety and solid PIs). Univ. B is prominent for its biomedical research than for its medical school. I'm wondering if this will affect my future career choices (i.e. residency, fellowship opps., faculty appts., etc.) or quality of my medical scientist training. My pals have said medical school is medical school anywhere you go, do you peeps concur? I've also received advice that MD/PhDers choose their residency as long as they have solid research track record, acceptable board scores, etc.

Thanks in advance.

Are you looking to do basic science research? I don't know how students in MSTPs feel, but for straight PhDs, the PI is way more important than the university. A good mentor can make all the difference to you; make sure that wherever you end up going, you talk to several potential mentors (and their grad students!) before choosing a lab. (If you can rotate in different labs for a few weeks or months before picking one, even better.) On the other hand, if you want to do clinical practice, then maybe the medical school reputation will matter more.
 
This is a tough question Glyco. It really depends on what you want to do. If your intention is to concentrate on a research investigative based career, the PhD will be the defining years for you in your development during an MD/PhD program. The medical education is important too; however, the curricula at most medical schools are similar (the material is almost the same, the delivery of the info may be variable). I mean, let's face it, we all take the same USMLE board exams so we all gotta learn the same thing, right?

Now that I think about it, I think a similar question was addressed in a thread quite some time ago. Let's spin the question a bit differently...Are you willing to go to a medical school JUST because there is this one person you REALLY want to work with during the PhD phase? What if that person moves or retires? What if something happens? Do you have a backup adviser? Or will you be stuck with no options?

Now, going to a medical school just solely on reputation has its advantages but it is a superficial way of looking at things. You are correct in saying that ultimately, your performance at the institution is of more importance than just simply where you came from. However, from going on residency interviews, I can say that WHERE you did your schooling DOES matter. How much does it matter? Well that depends. I suspect it doesn't matter much in that where you went for med school will not compensate for a poor academic performance.

Anyways, my suggestion is the following--pick the institution based on the complete package. Does the curriculum delivery style at a school agree with your learning style? Do you have one, few, or many options regarding the possible PhD mentors' with whom you will have common research interests and with whom you could potentially work? How strong is the mentoring within the MD/PhD program? (I think this is underemphasized by some but you don't want to feel that you're alone during such a "long" training program). Do you like the area/geographical region? etc. etc. etc.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Thanks!
All of the above are good advice. I've also received advice that a PhD under your belt will make you way more desirable to residency programs, regardless of the name of the school. So, it's the "type of the program", not the name of the school that matters. What do you think?
 
As usual, Andy is dead on. I would reiterate that it is what you do in the program that will get you to the next step. I do not know where UT-Southwestern is in the med school rankings, but they are probably not in the top 10. Yet, they have MD-PhD grads getting into the medicine program at the Brigham, while individuals from some top 10 schools get shut out of the most prestigious residency programs.

Pick the MD-PhD program that fits you best, rankings and others' opinions be damned. Rankings mean nothing, zip, zilch, nada. A few MD-PhD programs at top-10 institutions have been gangsta-slapped by the NIH in recent years because they did not provide their trainees with adequate support and mentoring, or did not have a truly integrated program. A big reputation does not mean that the program will be right for you.

GlycoNE1, the "PhD under your belt" helps if you plan to do research in your career. If you are applying to a purely patient-care oriented residency program, the PhD will not do much for you. You should do the MD-PhD option only if you truly want to have a research component in your career. Otherwise, it is not worth the time, energy and frustration. If your goal is to get into a hotshot residency program and you have no real desire to be a researcher, put your energies elsewhere: become an uber-gunner, take a year off after the clinical clerkships and start a medical mission in Angola, sleep with the residency program director, whatever. These will all be easier and less time-consuming than spending 4 or 5 years doing something that you are not really interested in. (Well, maybe not easier than sleeping with a residency program director; some of those dudes are way crusty.) Leave the MD-PhD spot for someone who really wants to have a career as a physician-scientist.
 
Maeba,
I don't appreciate you assuming my motive for undertaking a MD/PhD. Ranking isn't the ONLY factor in choosing a program..I'm gathering advice whether it even should be a factor, as I've received several opposing ideas (i.e. you and Andy on the relevance of Rankings/Reputation). I'm simply throwing out some opinons out there; doesn't mean I subscribe to them! These are all legitimate and reasonable concerns before starting a life-changing, life-consuming program.

I've pondered and worked long and hard in shaping my career goal as a physician-scientist so I and many others believe I deserve a spot in the MD/PhD program. As for sleeping with residents, umm... I don't plan on it, but thanks for the advice anyways!

Maebea said:
As usual, Andy is dead on. I would reiterate that it is what you do in the program that will get you to the next step. I do not know where UT-Southwestern is in the med school rankings, but they are probably not in the top 10. Yet, they have MD-PhD grads getting into the medicine program at the Brigham, while individuals from some top 10 schools get shut out of the most prestigious residency programs.

Pick the MD-PhD program that fits you best, rankings and others' opinions be damned. Rankings mean nothing, zip, zilch, nada. A few MD-PhD programs at top-10 institutions have been gangsta-slapped by the NIH in recent years because they did not provide their trainees with adequate support and mentoring, or did not have a truly integrated program. A big reputation does not mean that the program will be right for you.

GlycoNE1, the "PhD under your belt" helps if you plan to do research in your career. If you are applying to a purely patient-care oriented residency program, the PhD will not do much for you. You should do the MD-PhD option only if you truly want to have a research component in your career. Otherwise, it is not worth the time, energy and frustration. If your goal is to get into a hotshot residency program and you have no real desire to be a researcher, put your energies elsewhere: become an uber-gunner, take a year off after the clinical clerkships and start a medical mission in Angola, sleep with the residency program director, whatever. These will all be easier and less time-consuming than spending 4 or 5 years doing something that you are not really interested in. (Well, maybe not easier than sleeping with a residency program director; some of those dudes are way crusty.) Leave the MD-PhD spot for someone who really wants to have a career as a physician-scientist.
 
Allright GlycoNE1, I'm sure Maebea was speaking generally rather than about you. Anyway, Andy, you mentioned that rankings do matter. I would be very interested to know of some of your personal experiences that make you believe that this is the case. Also, do rankings matter if one is considering between schools in the top ten (med rankings wise)? Let's say that somehow someone is fortunate enough to be considering schools like Michigan, WashU, and JHU at the end of the day. Do you think the slight rankings disparity would matter in this case? Thanks for the insight.

-tt
 
treetrunk said:
Allright GlycoNE1, I'm sure Maebea was speaking generally rather than about you. Anyway, Andy, you mentioned that rankings do matter. I would be very interested to know of some of your personal experiences that make you believe that this is the case. Also, do rankings matter if one is considering between schools in the top ten (med rankings wise)? Let's say that somehow someone is fortunate enough to be considering schools like Michigan, WashU, and JHU at the end of the day. Do you think the slight rankings disparity would matter in this case? Thanks for the insight.

-tt
Ranking matter but is not the "be all end all"...that was the point I was trying to get across. Wherever one ends up going for MD/PhD training, he/she must still do good work there to be competitive when it comes to academic advancement. To answer your final question, I don't think slight ranking disparities matter much at all. My verdict on this whole ranking matter is in the last paragraph of this post so feel free to skip down and ignore all the crap in the middle. :laugh:

Let's spin the ranking issue slightly differently with the "rare" scenario:

Candidate A - straight honors, 250 Step 1, AOA, 5 publications in top-tier journals, strong letters of recommendation. Student at Hopkins.
Candidate B - straight honors, 250 Step 1, AOA, 5 publications in top-tier journals, strong letters of recommendation. Student at "pick some school that's not in the top tier based on USNews&World Report."

Residency program has one spot to fill. Who they gonna pick? This is a rhetorical question. Now this is clearly a simplistic, less realistic scenario because what residency program only has one spot right? But you catch my drift hopefully.

Let's spin this even a different way. And this deals with the letters of recommendation issue. When you go to residency interviews, your interviewers will look at mainly two things. Obviously, they will look at the content of the letter and how strong it is. THEN, they will look at WHO wrote the letter. Is it somebody famous and well-known? Is it somebody who the interviewer knows? I will venture to say that schools in the top 25 have better representation when it comes down to world-renowned faculty. And these, hopefully, will be the folks that write you letters when you apply for residencies. Again, this is a simplistic scenario...clearly wherever you go, there will be SOME folks who are well-renowned. However, if you train at an institution that have more of these folks, the training will be perceived well by outside individuals and as the applicant, this can only help you.

These are the thoughts I will throw out there for general consumption. If you agree with me, fine. If you disagree, fine. Let me say once again that to judge a person based on the ranking of his/her school is just like looking at the tip of the iceberg or reading a book by it's cover. There is so much more to a person ... like one's personal and intellectual development. So I don't put all my marbles on rankings by any means. But I think it has some value.

In summary, I do think that going to a "top-tier" institution can only help you. If you don't go to one of these institutions, it does NOT necessarily hurt you. Irregardless...wherever you go, you MUST be excellent.
 
AndyMilonakis said:
Residency program has one spot to fill. Who they gonna pick? This is a rhetorical question. Now this is clearly a simplistic, less realistic scenario because what residency program only has one spot right?

Here's the devil's advocate position. As an MD/PhD from a small school I could use some start power right now, and would chose the big name school. And by the way here are several Radiation Oncology programs with ONLY ONE SPACE for 2006:

University of Arizona
Drexel
Fox Chase
Howard
Kentucky
Loyola
Mayo-Jacksonville
Univeristy of Miami
University of Minnesota
NYU
Univeristy of Michigan
Univeristy of Maryland
University of Utah
Uiversity of Iowa
University of Rochester
California Pacific
Northwestern

17 of approximately 77 programs
 
Thanks for the example and advice! What are good board scores/credentials/publications for such tightly competitive programs?


Ursus Martimus said:
Here's the devil's advocate position. As an MD/PhD from a small school I could use some start power right now, and would chose the big name school. And by the way here are several Radiation Oncology programs with ONLY ONE SPACE for 2006:

University of Arizona
Drexel
Fox Chase
Howard
Kentucky
Loyola
Mayo-Jacksonville
Univeristy of Miami
University of Minnesota
NYU
Univeristy of Michigan
Univeristy of Maryland
University of Utah
Uiversity of Iowa
University of Rochester
California Pacific
Northwestern

17 of approximately 77 programs
 
This is a tough call. Your PI is important. Very, very important.

On the other hand, you have to think about what this is important *for*. If you decide to head straight to postdoc with no residency, or if you do no research in your residency but then head for a basic science postdoc, the most important factors in getting a good position will be your publication record and the clout of your PI, in that order. But for residency, I get the feeling that residency directors are a lot less picky about the quality of your research. I don't even think they can necessarily identify whether a basic science paper is middle-of-the-road or a cut above, and more likely than not they won't ever have heard of your PI unless he is a Nobelist. It seems like having done research at all is the major boost, and the rest is icing unless you have your own Cell paper. And if you do a research-heavy residency, it's what you do in your residency that will count most for the next step (basic science postdoc or faculty appointment), not what you did in grad school. Also, many people change research fields between undergrad and PhD. Unless you are 100% committed to your field, it's generally better to go somewhere where there is a broad range of good people working on things that are interesting to you, rather than a narrow focus on a very specific subfield.

And regarding the importance of school name, here is what I heard from my med school class (who are now mostly in their intern years):

The name of your medical school seems to play a non-negligible role in the residency match. Excellent students from no-name schools will get top residencies, no question. But the catch is that mid-level students from top-tier schools can *still* get top residencies that would have been out of their reach had they attended less well-known medical schools. Not to insinuate that the OP isn't brilliant, but in case you have a cold that day and don't break 240 on your boards, it's good to have a little cushion. I think this only works for schools that are very well known, though. If the 'name' school is in, say, the top 50 but not the top 10, the push you get may be negligible.

Also, bear in mind that if your 'research' school is very good in cancer immuno research, its reputation among oncologists may also be higher than its reputation among physicians in general. Good research and good academic medicine often go hand in hand. You might want to ask some faculty about this.

So I guess the answer to this depends on your personal goals, as well as on the difference between the two schools. Were I you, things that would tip me toward the name-brand school would be: if I were leaning toward an academic-medicine rather than a basic science career, if I were less than 100% sure of cancer immuno, and/or if the 'name' school were a top-ten. I would lean towards the cancer-immuno school if I were more focused on basic science, or if I knew I wouldn't change my mind about my graduate field.
 
thanks for the example bit there ursus...i didn't appreciate the sheer competitiveness of rad onc...each of those places only got one spot? Must make for a lonely residency :laugh:

Ursus Martimus said:
Here's the devil's advocate position. As an MD/PhD from a small school I could use some start power right now, and would chose the big name school. And by the way here are several Radiation Oncology programs with ONLY ONE SPACE for 2006:

University of Arizona
Drexel
Fox Chase
Howard
Kentucky
Loyola
Mayo-Jacksonville
Univeristy of Miami
University of Minnesota
NYU
Univeristy of Michigan
Univeristy of Maryland
University of Utah
Uiversity of Iowa
University of Rochester
California Pacific
Northwestern

17 of approximately 77 programs
 
Just FYI: here are 2004 matching MD/PhD applicants to Radiation Oncology from data I've gathered over the web.
(http://www.dpo.uab.edu/~paik/match.html)

Yale --> Harvard
Baylor --> MDAnderson
Northwestern --> MDAnderson
Colorado --> MDAnderson
MCV --> Michigan
Indiana --> Rush
Stanford --> Stanford
Stanford --> Stanford
Harvard --> Thomas Jefferson
Albert Einstein --> UCLA
NYU --> Vanderbilt
WashU --> WashU

Best of luck.

Ursus Martimus said:
Here's the devil's advocate position. As an MD/PhD from a small school I could use some start power right now, and would chose the big name school. And by the way here are several Radiation Oncology programs with ONLY ONE SPACE for 2006:

University of Arizona
Drexel
Fox Chase
Howard
Kentucky
Loyola
Mayo-Jacksonville
Univeristy of Miami
University of Minnesota
NYU
Univeristy of Michigan
Univeristy of Maryland
University of Utah
Uiversity of Iowa
University of Rochester
California Pacific
Northwestern

17 of approximately 77 programs
 
Members don't see this ad :)
GlycoNE1 said:
What are good board scores/credentials/publications for such tightly competitive programs?

Since I haven't matched yet, it would be a bit presumptious for me to say. However, I have seem people on the interview trail with less qualifications and I am sure a large part of it, as with most of life, is also about who you know. If you are interested in a field like RADONC, it really helps to start preparing early and getting to know people in the field. Again, there numerous competitive fields that the same holds true for. In internal medicine their are some really competitive programs, but there are like 40 spaces/program so it easier to crack into them.
 
Ursus Martimus said:
Since I haven't matched yet, it would be a bit presumptious for me to say. However, I have seem people on the interview trail with less qualifications and I am sure a large part of it, as with most of life, is also about who you know. If you are interested in a field like RADONC, it really helps to start preparing early and getting to know people in the field. Again, there numerous competitive fields that the same holds true for. In internal medicine their are some really competitive programs, but there are like 40 spaces/program so it easier to crack into them.
In any top program, irrespective of the specialty, the competition to match there will be fierce. For instance, pathology is considered a relatively non-competitive specialty. However, when you look at programs like the Brigham and Hopkins, you probably have 70-100 MD/PhDs applying!
 
AndyMilonakis said:
In any top program, irrespective of the specialty, the competition to match there will be fierce. For instance, pathology is considered a relatively non-competitive specialty. However, when you look at programs like the Brigham and Hopkins, you probably have 70-100 MD/PhDs applying!


Are u sreious? 70-100 Md-PhDs applying to one residency program. How many spots do these programs have?
 
huseyin said:
Are u sreious? 70-100 Md-PhDs applying to one residency program. How many spots do these programs have?
nationwide, way more than this. but we are all targeting the top research oriented residency programs (Brigham, Penn, UCSF, WAshU, etc) and these programs don't take all MD/PhDs so many of us are bound to get screwed if these are the places where we want to go. I'm sure all of us have interviewed at all these schools. And if we're all really serious about doing basic science research, many of us will put one of these programs as #1.
 
AndyMilonakis said:
nationwide, way more than this. but we are all targeting the top research oriented residency programs (Brigham, Penn, UCSF, WAshU, etc) and these programs don't take all MD/PhDs so many of us are bound to get screwed if these are the places where we want to go. .

So from this is it safe to assume that the best way to get into a top residency program is to already be there, as in their MD/PhD program? :confused:
 
To place some perspective, from my count, out of 235 graduates from 37 MD/PhD programs in 2004, only 25 students matched into pathology as a specialty. From some old powerpoints, I gather that liberally, at most 400 (80% graduation rate out of 500 spots each year) students graduate each year from MD/PhD programs, meaning that perhaps only about 50 students this past year matched into pathology.

Granted I have no data including foreign MD/PhDs or students who obtained dual degrees outside of MD/PhD programs, from the data it appears that the number of graduates entering pathology residencies is far lower than assumed above.
 
1Path said:
So from this is it safe to assume that the best way to get into a top residency program is to already be there, as in their MD/PhD program? :confused:
I'm not saying this at all. I'm just saying that things are become more competitive. When I said that these programs "don't take all MD/PhD's", what I meant was that if a program has x # of spots, even the research oriented residency program will not rank all MD/PhD applicants high. For example, at Hopkins, the PD told me that they don't want all their residents to be MD/PhD's. It is their intention, instead, that maybe half of the resident class will be MD/PhDs. So let's say, simplistically speaking, that you have the top three research oriented residency programs...and each program has 10 spots of which only half will go to MD/PhDs...that's only 15 spots total. And the # of highly qualified MD/PhD's that apply to pathology exceed this number. Again, this is simplistically speaking...clearly, there are several other factors that figure into how people order their rank lists and where people end up matching. I just state this since you asked about top residency programs.
JPaikman said:
To place some perspective, from my count, out of 235 graduates from 37 MD/PhD programs in 2004, only 25 students matched into pathology as a specialty. From some old powerpoints, I gather that liberally, at most 400 (80% graduation rate out of 500 spots each year) students graduate each year from MD/PhD programs, meaning that perhaps only about 50 students this past year matched into pathology.

Granted I have no data including foreign MD/PhDs or students who obtained dual degrees outside of MD/PhD programs, from the data it appears that the number of graduates entering pathology residencies is far lower than assumed above.
I saw these numbers too and I owe it to you for posting the compiled stats on a previous thread :thumbup:. When I quoted my number of 70-100, it was a guesstimate on my part, I must admit. In my calculation though, I was considering every MD/PhD program and not just the 37 MSTP programs. Pathology is one specialty which really caters to future basic scientists. Hence, let's say there are 120 (?) medical schools each of which has an MD/PhD student body (I think)...and one person from each school applies to pathology...we're talking up to 120 applicants right? Now clearly some MD/PhD programs are bigger than others and some have a heavier representation of pathology applicants; conversely, some schools will have no MD/PhD graduates applying to pathology in a given year.

When I went on interviews, all the PD's seemed to agree that pathology application #'s are way up this year and the applicants are of high quality...this seems to be the most competitive year for pathology. One PD said that he saw around 70 applications from MD/PhDs. Another PD at a program which recieved significantly more applications said that he had seen a "little under 100" (this program received close to 300 applications total). I don't know how much of this is really true or if this is magical handwaving and bullsh*tting by the PDs but that's why I said 70-100. I suspect that many of these MD/PhD applicants may come from non-MSTP programs (just by the virtue that there are only 37 MSTP programs) so I don't think these #'s will be accounted for in the MSTP Match 2005 stats.
 
AndyMilonakis said:
I saw these numbers too and I owe it to you for posting the compiled stats on a previous thread :thumbup:. When I quoted my number of 70-100, it was a guesstimate on my part, I must admit. In my calculation though, I was considering every MD/PhD program and not just the 37 MSTP programs. Pathology is one specialty which really caters to future basic scientists. Hence, let's say there are 120 (?) medical schools each of which has an MD/PhD student body (I think)...and one person from each school applies to pathology...we're talking up to 120 applicants right? Now clearly some MD/PhD programs are bigger than others and some have a heavier representation of pathology applicants; conversely, some schools will have no MD/PhD graduates applying to pathology in a given year.

When I went on interviews, all the PD's seemed to agree that pathology application #'s are way up this year and the applicants are of high quality...this seems to be the most competitive year for pathology. One PD said that he saw around 70 applications from MD/PhDs. Another PD at a program which recieved significantly more applications said that he had seen a "little under 100" (this program received close to 300 applications total). I don't know how much of this is really true or if this is magical handwaving and bullsh*tting by the PDs but that's why I said 70-100. I suspect that many of these MD/PhD applicants may come from non-MSTP programs (just by the virtue that there are only 37 MSTP programs) so I don't think these #'s will be accounted for in the MSTP Match 2005 stats.

According to:

http://www.aamc.org/research/dbr/mdphd/appsurvey.pdf

which is an applicant survey of 67 programs, including nearly all of the NIH MSTPs, 500 students actually matriculated. Assuming that 4 out of every 5 students complete the program, 400 students graduate. From the statistics I gathered earlier, 25 out of 237 graduates entered into pathology residency, leading to the assumption that only about 50 students graduating from MD/PhD programs (not just MSTPs), even including graduates from the the other 50 programs not included in the applicant survey (of which the numbers of graduates are likely to be very small). Indeed out of 17 of the top 25 ranked medical schools and 153 graduates, 7 didn't have even one pathology matcher, while only 4 schools had more than one pathology matcher.

This statistic is in line with this study as well:

http://www.aamc.org/research/dbr/mdphd/outcomedata.pdf

which is an outcomes study from Harvard/MIT, Penn, WashU, and Tri-I. 8% of Harvard/MIT grads, 16% of recent Penn grads, 8% of recent Tri-I grads, and 5% (!) of recent WashU grads entered into pathology.

Again, a lot of estimation, and of course there is the deficiency of only having one time point. But in general, I think the statistics as a whole show the decreasing popularity of pathology (and other traditionally MD/PhD professions like internal medicine) in favor of radiology, dermatology, or other highly competitive fields.
 
Good info there. I do agree that many MD/PhDs are flocking towards the more competitive specialties and we are well qualified applicants. A strong MD/PhD candidate should get a spot over an equally qualified MD candidate, in my opinion, because the former has achieved more and has just that much more to pad the CV. The MD/PhD is better trained to connect the bench to the bedside (what a cliche this is :laugh: ) and in this age of rapid scientific advancement and acquisition of new knowledge, the physician-scientist is now needed more than ever...and residency programs realize this. Perhaps, this is why MD/PhDs tend to match very well year in and year out. In my class of graduating MD/PhDs, half of us are trying to match into either Radiology or Rad/Onc, two very fiercely competitive specialties. Once in a while we have people matching into ENT, Opthy, and Derm. Oh yeah, 3 people going into path, one of whom has already pre-matched.

Since I'm going through the application process this year, I would be very curious to know the exact number going into pathology. I do know that # of applications to pathology have increased significantly this year. Perhaps it is still not that attractive to MD/PhDs this year and maybe the increased applications are from the MD pool. How long does it take for the data to get released? How long did you wait to get the 2004 match data for MD/PhDs.

Happy New Year everyone. :D

JPaikman said:
According to:

http://www.aamc.org/research/dbr/mdphd/appsurvey.pdf

which is an applicant survey of 67 programs, including nearly of the NIH MSTPs, 500 students actually matriculated. Assuming that 4 out of every 5 students complete the program, 400 students graduate. From the statistics I gathered earlier, 25 out of 237 graduates entered into pathology residency, leading to the assumption that only about 50 students graduating from MD/PhD programs (not just MSTPs), even including graduates from the the other 50 programs not included in the applicant survey (of which the numbers of graduates are likely to be very small). Indeed out of 17 of the top 25 ranked medical schools and 153 graduates, 7 didn't have even one pathology matcher, while only 4 schools had more than one pathology matcher.

This statistic is in line with this study as well:

http://www.aamc.org/research/dbr/mdphd/outcomedata.pdf

which is an outcomes study from Harvard/MIT, Penn, WashU, and Tri-I. 8% of Harvard/MIT grads, 16% of recent Penn grads, 8% of recent Tri-I grads, and 5% (!) of recent WashU grads entered into pathology.

Again, a lot of estimation, and of course there is the deficiency of only having one time point. But in general, I think the statistics as a whole show the decreasing popularity of pathology (and other traditionally MD/PhD professions like internal medicine) in favor of radiology, dermatology, or other highly competitive fields.
 
Data collection was simple: ply MD/PhD websites after Match Day. Many programs announce their grad's appointments. Many matches were announced right here on this forum. If the school releases a schoolwide match list, match up names with the MD/PhD programs student roll. If worse comes to worse, google names of alumni after interns start at work.

So, 2005 data-gathering begins this St. Patrick's Day :luck:.
 
JPaikman said:
Data collection was simple: ply MD/PhD websites after Match Day. Many programs announce their grad's appointments. If the school releases a schoolwide match list, match up names with the MD/PhD programs student roll. If worse comes to worse, google names of alumni after interns start at work.
But that seems like a lotta work? But after match day, graduating seniors tend to have a lot of time on their hands :laugh:
 
JPaikman said:
So, you're a CHOBO? ;)
I wouldn't go that far...I'm a hasu...nothing more, nothing less.

you a gamer? (or should I say G4M3R?)
 
JPaikman said:
I'm Korean. Of course all Korean young men partake in one of the national pastimes - Starcraft :D.
:thumbup: STARCRAFT
I heard that you guys have very good STARCRAFT teams. Man, I do not understand. Korean guys in my lab are especially talented in Starcraft. I can not not survive against them :( . Is it in their genes?
 
AndyMilonakis said:
I ain't no gosu :D
Gosu:
A sub-human who sacrifices his or her social and sex life in exchange for ungodly Starcraft or Warcraft abilities. There have been actual cases where many 'gosu' players had starved to death because of playing Starcraft for too long.
 
I played Starcraft but got into it pretty late since its inception. Then Warcraft came out and I dedicated 2 years to that damn game. My clinical grades suffered but I did compete in tournaments. Didn't win any money though.

Then there was WCG qualifiers...somehow I made it to the initial tourney but I got my ass whooped by some of the veterans who play this game 24/7.
 
Gosus are adored and worshiped by women in Korea. Take "Nada" for instance - you should hear the shrieks in the crowd everytime he shows for a match. It's hilarity.

Some crazy parents of Korean chilldren beg top players to train their child so that they can become "pro-gamers".

Andy, you played at the WCG quals? Warcraft 3 sucks, BTW :D. Starcraft forever!
 
A testament that there IS life outside the lab and clinic for MD/PhD students! Where do you find time to play video games and actually do well in your classes/lab/etc.? Are you in the PhD portion? MS3ers? MS4ers? "In limbo"?
 
GlycoNE1 said:
A testament that there IS life outside the lab and clinic for MD/PhD students! Where do you find time to play video games and actually do well in your classes/lab/etc.? Are you in the PhD portion? MS3ers? MS4ers? "In limbo"?
I did most of my gaming during my last year of grad school. I could've returned to the clinics a year early but I decided to take an extra year to wrap up projects, write more manuscripts, and spend "months" "writing" my thesis. I also gamed a lot during the ensuing MS3 year...perhaps that's why my clinical grades are average at best. I blame no one but myself :laugh: .
 
JPaikman,
What the heck is that for your icon? Looks like a transformer on crack!
 
JPaikman said:
OK, so my laptop got Starcraft while I played at home. :cool:
oh come on man. just come out and admit that you play on battlenet in the lab while the gel is running!
 
JPaikman said:
Playing games in lab = big no-no.
yeah..it was a big no-no in our lab too...but when the boss left, we fired it up!

warcraft
starcraft
unreal tournament
etc etc.
 
Top