Stanford Anesthesia and My Interview Experience

[Airway81]

Hello:

I interviewed at Stanford a few weeks ago and it seemed to me that the residents were overworked, and generally not happy. I also got a bit pimped by one or two interviewers, but the PD and Chairman were amazingly nice people...so I feel conflicted.

Stanford has no CRNAs, so the residents work a lot harder. Also it seemed there wasn't much teaching other than within the OR--much learning had to be done by the resident on their own time...that worried me...the residents said more or less 'we're all smart people and can just figure it [anesthesia] out--'...i dunno if I am that bright...i feel i need more direction...

Since my interview they've contacted me and appear quite interested, but I am a bit concerned about ranking them high on my list now. However Stanford has a great name, and I want to rank it high...any suggestions?

Thanks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[cchoukal]

I think there's a guy on here once in awhile (skrubz?) who's at Stanford and could tell you about the didactics. The do work hard AND they have a great reputation. I don't know if the hours are any worse than any other top program, though. I rotated there as a medical student and the days seemed 10-14-ish on the hours, which isn't that different from my program (U of C) which is often described on here as a program with aggressive didactics and lower clinical volume.

So the marketing tactics are important to recognize here. Programs with "high clinical volume" and minimal didactics will market their philosophy with the following speech:

we're smart enough and self-motivated to learn it on our own and in the OR. The more cases you do, the better you'll be, and CRNAs dilute the training/profession (incidentally, when I interviewed at Stanford 2 cycles ago, they were in the process of hiring "a few" CRNAs).

Programs with lower clinical volume and a focus on didactics will give this speech:

we believe anethesia should be taught and that residents should have time to read and do research, and there's a diminishing return on education after a certain number of cases.

My opinion is that both of these are totally valid training models and that both speeches are deliberate parts of the marketing to emphasize the positives and downplay the negatives of each respective program. Again, this is my opinion, but I think the differences between these types of programs in the top tier is less important in terms of outcomes of training than is your personal fit with a program. By that I mean, if you're uncomfortable with the idea of lower volumes but more didactics, it doesn't really matter what the prestige of the program is, you're not going to do as well, and vice versa.

So, my advice, not that you really asked for it, is to interview at the best places your numbers allow and then follow your gut to where you "feel" the best fit.