Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Being PM&R Research Inclined in addition to being an outgoing person, I have been balancing name cache vs gut feeling about many quality programs. I have done a significant amount of research and tried to uncover any weak-points to aid me in my rank list, but the challenge is making sure I have the proper perspective.
When one's advisers (who are the passionate but open/sincere people you dream of working with) are only known from which program they came from instead of what research they are doing and should be nationally known for, it concerns me. This came across numerous times during my interview, "yes so and so is from {insert cache name}, and he/she does {blah} when that is actually a neighboring chairman's research work that is completely different from what your adviser/chairman does.
I went to an ivy league school in a top degree program for that specialty and a top 25 research school, but thought in both cases that their reputations were completely undeserved when I was there, which made me indignant to name cache. I worked my arse off doing ungodly hours for people who could not or would not teach, insisted on a system of hierarchy and being proven wrong by experimentation when it was obvious their theory was ill-informed, and saw that there was minimal cooperation between department members as they positioned themselves for tenure in a top national program. I was treated absurdly well on the interview trail not because of my publications but because of where I published them!! Having read 2 papers that muscled their way into publication b/c of the names on them despite the poor power and poor design, it frustrates me to think that where I trained will determine people's view of me rather than the substance of my work.
But as my incredibly happy and productive stint at the Nerds-in-Heaven (NIH) was the antithesis of this, I kept my love of tinkering and implementing new ideas and stayed hopeful.
My experiences were well ingrained in my mind when I worked through medical school and I ended up loving PM&R people and loved that your opinion was evaluated upon how you posited your argument, not the name attached to the degree. The one challenge that I found along the interview trail was evaluating the research environment by other means than Pubmed and the subjectivity of attending opinions that have short half-lives.
Some big name programs have ample funding, but only funding for what the hospital CEO is interested in or for what the chairman is interested in with attending support varying. Others have little to no funding, but complete support and the flexibility to perform research in any area of interest.
Things I am considering in no particular order:
1- Resident camaraderie/ gaining the perspective to find your calling: Are the residents there to support each other or are they there to pursue their own interests completely. Do they teach each other and get involved in each others research projects so they can see what each field is truly about and not harbor some narrow view acquired from their medical school experiences. Some program residents looked as though name cache was being used to get pain fellowships and jobs with orthopods later. If you liked the people and get along, you will probably work harder and get more done to further your career while being very happy!
2-Research funding- how much money are they getting from private grants, public sector- RO1's, donations, etc. Some chairman spend all their time assisting this machine. Read the research on pubmed prior to interviewing to get a true idea of what's going on.
3-Chairman's Vision: Is the Chairman happy with the administration of his department. Is the CEO a narrow minded git who is focused on money or would allow the department to wither to expand ENT or ortho. A chairman at one program told me that he had been asked to list research as "an outside interest" by the CEO when asking for a partnered private rehab hospital to provide more funds to their department. C/C is going towards stem cell research as the programs focus, but that's 5 years off minimum. UPenn is focused on research as their interview day attests.
4-Partnership with outside hospitals- met another researcher interested in cancer rehab, he liked MSKCC's affiliation with C/C and Spaulding's Dana Farber. HSS and Mayo Clinic were sold to me as the place to learn how to do U/S guided injections. One expression I heard was "Upenn PM&R is definitely not Upenn in its efficiency or quality"..this may be dated though.
5- Faculty and Student Opinions: Thankfully attendings were ready and willing to dish dirt even when not queried. This gave me many avenues to pursue in subsequent interviews. If the Med Student comes from a supposedly top 25 PM&R program and eviscerates it, it would have been better for me not to go to see it for myself!
6-Faculty Teaching: #1. For me, I need someone to engage in conversation who expects a lot from me and who also returns an equal level of respect and inquisition/challenge. To teach is to learn twice, a mantra that all PM&R residents and attendings should be able to take to heart. Any program that takes time to have quality didactics and who nurtures resident lead teaching as a supplement to the program curriculum is interested in developing "excellent" physiatrists. Dr. Zafonte used "excellent" too many times to make me comfortable but I saw his zeal and drive to make Spaulding a great program and enjoyed it thoroughly.
7-Resident AAPM&R Committee involvement and publication #. SUNY Downstate has gotten knocked around but the gent who matched into Pittsburgh's pain fellowship had 14 abstracts/papers. Some programs dominate the committees as Kessler controls just by sheer # of people voting during elections that happen to be from their program.
This stream of consciousness/research-interested scaffolding was to help those interested in pushing the field forward as publishing our research is how we educate those ignorant of our importance to health care. cheers
When one's advisers (who are the passionate but open/sincere people you dream of working with) are only known from which program they came from instead of what research they are doing and should be nationally known for, it concerns me. This came across numerous times during my interview, "yes so and so is from {insert cache name}, and he/she does {blah} when that is actually a neighboring chairman's research work that is completely different from what your adviser/chairman does.
I went to an ivy league school in a top degree program for that specialty and a top 25 research school, but thought in both cases that their reputations were completely undeserved when I was there, which made me indignant to name cache. I worked my arse off doing ungodly hours for people who could not or would not teach, insisted on a system of hierarchy and being proven wrong by experimentation when it was obvious their theory was ill-informed, and saw that there was minimal cooperation between department members as they positioned themselves for tenure in a top national program. I was treated absurdly well on the interview trail not because of my publications but because of where I published them!! Having read 2 papers that muscled their way into publication b/c of the names on them despite the poor power and poor design, it frustrates me to think that where I trained will determine people's view of me rather than the substance of my work.
But as my incredibly happy and productive stint at the Nerds-in-Heaven (NIH) was the antithesis of this, I kept my love of tinkering and implementing new ideas and stayed hopeful.
My experiences were well ingrained in my mind when I worked through medical school and I ended up loving PM&R people and loved that your opinion was evaluated upon how you posited your argument, not the name attached to the degree. The one challenge that I found along the interview trail was evaluating the research environment by other means than Pubmed and the subjectivity of attending opinions that have short half-lives.
Some big name programs have ample funding, but only funding for what the hospital CEO is interested in or for what the chairman is interested in with attending support varying. Others have little to no funding, but complete support and the flexibility to perform research in any area of interest.
Things I am considering in no particular order:
1- Resident camaraderie/ gaining the perspective to find your calling: Are the residents there to support each other or are they there to pursue their own interests completely. Do they teach each other and get involved in each others research projects so they can see what each field is truly about and not harbor some narrow view acquired from their medical school experiences. Some program residents looked as though name cache was being used to get pain fellowships and jobs with orthopods later. If you liked the people and get along, you will probably work harder and get more done to further your career while being very happy!
2-Research funding- how much money are they getting from private grants, public sector- RO1's, donations, etc. Some chairman spend all their time assisting this machine. Read the research on pubmed prior to interviewing to get a true idea of what's going on.
3-Chairman's Vision: Is the Chairman happy with the administration of his department. Is the CEO a narrow minded git who is focused on money or would allow the department to wither to expand ENT or ortho. A chairman at one program told me that he had been asked to list research as "an outside interest" by the CEO when asking for a partnered private rehab hospital to provide more funds to their department. C/C is going towards stem cell research as the programs focus, but that's 5 years off minimum. UPenn is focused on research as their interview day attests.
4-Partnership with outside hospitals- met another researcher interested in cancer rehab, he liked MSKCC's affiliation with C/C and Spaulding's Dana Farber. HSS and Mayo Clinic were sold to me as the place to learn how to do U/S guided injections. One expression I heard was "Upenn PM&R is definitely not Upenn in its efficiency or quality"..this may be dated though.
5- Faculty and Student Opinions: Thankfully attendings were ready and willing to dish dirt even when not queried. This gave me many avenues to pursue in subsequent interviews. If the Med Student comes from a supposedly top 25 PM&R program and eviscerates it, it would have been better for me not to go to see it for myself!
6-Faculty Teaching: #1. For me, I need someone to engage in conversation who expects a lot from me and who also returns an equal level of respect and inquisition/challenge. To teach is to learn twice, a mantra that all PM&R residents and attendings should be able to take to heart. Any program that takes time to have quality didactics and who nurtures resident lead teaching as a supplement to the program curriculum is interested in developing "excellent" physiatrists. Dr. Zafonte used "excellent" too many times to make me comfortable but I saw his zeal and drive to make Spaulding a great program and enjoyed it thoroughly.
7-Resident AAPM&R Committee involvement and publication #. SUNY Downstate has gotten knocked around but the gent who matched into Pittsburgh's pain fellowship had 14 abstracts/papers. Some programs dominate the committees as Kessler controls just by sheer # of people voting during elections that happen to be from their program.
This stream of consciousness/research-interested scaffolding was to help those interested in pushing the field forward as publishing our research is how we educate those ignorant of our importance to health care. cheers
