Strong academic pathology programs

[Playmate2002]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi,

I want to transfer out of my current program because I am looking for a program geared towards a career in academic pathology. My medical school program did not provide that information. I was hoping with this thread I could get the impression of what people think are the top 20 programs 😍that would best prepare me for my career interest.

Thank you!

 

[Euchromatin]

You are honestly trying to claim that you didn't realize that your own medical school's pathology program, which you presumably matched into after researching it and other programs online, going through the interview process and possibly even a student rotation, was not geared toward academic medicine...? How could they not "provide that information"? I could see this becoming a problem if you initially thought you wanted to stick to general/community practice and later changed your mind, but you make it sound like you were headed toward academics the entire time...

Also, there are TONS of threads concerning which programs various posters think are the "best" and frankly I don't think we need another thread listing all the big name east and west coast programs.

 

[Playmate2002]

For a point of clarification, I did not rank my medical school program because it was a community based practice. And so, advice on academic medicine could not be provided.

Not all programs state the career path that their graduates choose during interviews nor on their websites.

Moreover, the TONs of threads that you are referring to specify the top programs in pathology in general.

I don't see your reason to complain about this post. Sorry to offend anyone.

 

[Freak]

Academics <=> grant funding, so follow the money.

http://www.brimr.org/NIH_Awards/2009/Pathology2009R.xls

There are obviously discrepencies depending on department structure, but this should give you roughly the info you desire. You should probably also normalize by the size of the department (to give you an assessment of the "grant-fundability" of the staff).

The smarter way in my opinion would be to find people who are where you want to be eventually and see where they trained.

As Euchromatin pointed out, the top programs in pathology are also going to be the top programs in academic pathology (none of them are community hospitals, all are in major AMCs). Cross-referenced to the above grant list, most of the same characters appear pretty highly.

 

[djmd]

Academics <=> grant funding, so follow the money.

http://www.brimr.org/NIH_Awards/2009/Pathology2009R.xls

Even if research dollars was the best way of figuring this... just using this single source (NIH awards) has got to stilt the list oddly

If there was nothing else out there it might be useful (except the have been dozens of topics on it).

Quick examples include: Where is Mayo? Why would the Cleveland Clinic be at the bottom of that list? Why is UT Galveston in the top 8?

Moreover, the TONs of threads that you are referring to specify the top programs in pathology in general.

There are very few (some might say no) programs that are top programs in general that wouldn't be top for producing academic pathologists.

 

[pathstudent]

I find this question overly naive for a current pathology resident.

 

[Freak]

Even if research dollars was the best way of figuring this... just using this single source (NIH awards) has got to stilt the list oddly

If there was nothing else out there it might be useful (except the have been dozens of topics on it).

Quick examples include: Where is Mayo? Why would the Cleveland Clinic be at the bottom of that list? Why is UT Galveston in the top 8?

I totally agree the list is flawed, for example, the Harvards (BWH/MGH) are lower than most people would rank them, ditto with Stanford. The r2 with the "general" ranking is probably still pretty reasonable (most of the top 20 schools should be at the top of the list), so that you should be seriously considering most of the top 20 programs on that list. The prior posts in this forum are basically just a poll of popularity in a way (basically like US N&WR for med school), very much he-said, she-said.

The OPs question would require a much longer debate where eventually the real answer is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Whether, Hopkins > WashU; Stanford > UCSF; BWH >> Universe is really up to the individual and their goals in training/life.

I actually was trying to provide a semblance of an answer to nix the thread, rather than referring back to prior posts 🙂

In terms of NIH funding, I thought that was generally the gold standard for "academic" institutions. BUPath can feel free to jump in and correct me if I am wrong. I know that HHMI funds people and basically "buys space" at their home institution, so that might be skewing the results as well.

As per Mayo, it appears that on RePORT (NIH's new CRISP), the PI's do not self-identify with Pathology, which is probably another issue with that spreadsheet (I am guessing they just aggregated data from it). This is another issue ... how do you define the department (only primary appts, joint appts, etc, etc).

I think if these kinks were worked out, the normalized values would actually answer the OP's question accurately and unbiasedly. And would be an excellent academic/research endeavour.

 

[KCShaw]

What do you really mean when you say "a career in academic pathology"?

Academics really isn't a one-size-fits-all category. There's research, which breaks further into clinical and basic science. Within the broad realm of research, there's people who want to get heavily involved in funded research, and there's those who would rather tag onto someone else's projects or do largely unfunded research/reviews. Then there's teaching, which can be more medical students or more residents & fellows. Then of course there's conference lectures. And even writing or assisting with books, case reviews, etc. Although most "academic" jobs imply publishing something at some point, the real weight on research varies quite widely, and many academic institutions offer positions in which your "academic" requirements are almost solely teaching related.

Point being, if you really know what you want to be doing down the line, be clear about it during your search. And if you only think you know, be sure you take time to experience it as well as the alternatives.

 

[Freak]

So is there such a career as a "consultant" research pathologist, where you basically help others with their research without having funding of your own (or is it that your day job is clinical and you dabble in your spare time)?

 

[malchik]

So is there such a career as a "consultant" research pathologist, where you basically help others with their research without having funding of your own (or is it that your day job is clinical and you dabble in your spare time)?

That is a very common model. The majority of attendings at most academic departments do not have significant funding of their own, yet they still get promoted and publish and stuff. They are often collaborators on others' grants, which can sometimes bring in some money to the department, but they also often sign out a fair amount to justify their salary. Not a bad gig if you ask me; I like the idea of not having my entire livelihood dependent on the whims of NIH study sections. And this is why some very respected departments are also not on that list, because many of their attendings are very good, very academic, publish clinically oriented work and textbooks, but don't have a lot of grants.

 

[Enkidu]

So is there such a career as a "consultant" research pathologist, where you basically help others with their research without having funding of your own (or is it that your day job is clinical and you dabble in your spare time)?

That's an interesting thought. I think that any paper can be improved by including a figure analyzing the histology of whatever tissue you're working with, so a pathologist should be able to get his name on a lot of papers... But unless the pathologist uses this currency to apply for his own grant, it's not clear how it could buy him any time away from general pathology work.

I imagine that if he were inclined, though, a resident might have time to look at some histology for a basic science lab. Is that right? How competent are pathologists at looking at the histology of a rat brain?

 

[Freak]

I imagine that if he were inclined, though, a resident might have time to look at some histology for a basic science lab. Is that right? How competent are pathologists at looking at the histology of a rat brain?

Usually, the labs that I know to work with mouse models have in-house knowledge of the histology of their tissue of interest. Also, they are generally looking for simple things like "inflammation" or "necrosis". It is probably biased by the fact that they are immuno/devbio labs though (no idea about the inherent capacity of neuro labs).

 

[zao275]

Why is UT Galveston in the top 8?

UTMB in Galveston has a large research center with a Biosafety Level 4 lab (the kind of lab that can deal with Ebola, for instance). I imagine that brings in some research dollars...

(They even have a picture of that lab on Wikipedia, to my surprise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosafety_level#Biosafety_level_4)

 

[KCShaw]

I'm extremely wary of publications including comments/interpretations of animal histology not read by a veterinary pathologist. It appears to me that a woeful amount of basic science/animal model publications which use a component of animal histology have it read by non-medical "pathologists" or grad students. Even those MD/DO/MBBS/etc pathologists trained in looking at human tissue walk a dangerous line interpreting animal slides. Any time someone without specific training decides what they can and can't interpret, even if that's as "simple" as inflammation or necrosis, the study becomes invalid.

 

[Circumflex]

That is a very common model. The majority of attendings at most academic departments do not have significant funding of their own, yet they still get promoted and publish and stuff. They are often collaborators on others' grants, which can sometimes bring in some money to the department, but they also often sign out a fair amount to justify their salary. Not a bad gig if you ask me; I like the idea of not having my entire livelihood dependent on the whims of NIH study sections. And this is why some very respected departments are also not on that list, because many of their attendings are very good, very academic, publish clinically oriented work and textbooks, but don't have a lot of grants.

I agree that collaborative research is a cool way to scratch the research itch without having to bring in your own grant money, but these activities are usually in addition to your full-time service requirements. As a faculty member, you have to justify your salary either by doing service work (cases), teaching, administrative duties, or bringing in research dollars. There is usually no protected time for collaborative research in my experience.

 

[mrp]

"Consultant" research pathologist" pretty well describes me. I sign out surg path and cyto (general, not subspecialized) at an academic center which pays my salary, but I also do a fair amount of collaborative research. I have no grants of my own, and publish only the occasional poster or case report as the senior author.

However, everyone and their brother seems to need a pathologist for their grant/paper/case report/whatever. I have projects with radiologists, hepatologists, surgeons, gastroenterologists, etc, even one with a private company. I actually lose track of everything I have agreed to collaborate on (some projects seem to mysteriously evaporate after time). I don't do it primarily it for the money, but I also occasionally get put on people's grants at 3-10% effort which bumps my salary a bit. Overall, this currently appears to be a workable situation. We'll see if I get the boot in 10 years or so when I go for full professor and the committee dings me for not doing my own research. It should help that I'm in a clinical track.

 

[BierstiefelAndy]

"Consultant" research pathologist" pretty well describes me. I sign out surg path and cyto (general, not subspecialized) at an academic center which pays my salary, but I also do a fair amount of collaborative research. I have no grants of my own, and publish only the occasional poster or case report as the senior author.

However, everyone and their brother seems to need a pathologist for their grant/paper/case report/whatever. I have projects with radiologists, hepatologists, surgeons, gastroenterologists, etc, even one with a private company. I actually lose track of everything I have agreed to collaborate on (some projects seem to mysteriously evaporate after time). I don't do it primarily it for the money, but I also occasionally get put on people's grants at 3-10% effort which bumps my salary a bit. Overall, this currently appears to be a workable situation. We'll see if I get the boot in 10 years or so when I go for full professor and the committee dings me for not doing my own research. It should help that I'm in a clinical track.

Many places seem to not boot you for not doing your own research or publishing your own papers. You'll keep your job; you just won't get promoted. Few exceptions exist...such as some elitist institutions where you are easily replaceable by someone else who wants to take a shot at being faculty. This is not common though.

On the other hand, chances of promotion are good if you've established a niche of interest, published in that area, and gained recognition in the community. That being said, one could always wonder how tight or loosely the word "niche" is defined.

 

[djmd]

UTMB in Galveston has a large research center with a Biosafety Level 4 lab (the kind of lab that can deal with Ebola, for instance). I imagine that brings in some research dollars...

(They even have a picture of that lab on Wikipedia, to my surprise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosafety_level#Biosafety_level_4)

But this is going to be zero use to a pathologist who isn't doing micro as an academic career (and may not be all that helpful even if one was going to do micro academically.)

Also illustrates why using funding = good academic training is flawed.

 

[zao275]

But this is going to be zero use to a pathologist who isn't doing micro as an academic career (and may not be all that helpful even if one was going to do micro academically.)

Also illustrates why using funding = good academic training is flawed.

Oh, I agree with you completely. It seems very flawed to me, as well. But I was just answering the question as to why UTMB might be so high on the list.

 

[yaah]

Many places seem to not boot you for not doing your own research or publishing your own papers. You'll keep your job; you just won't get promoted. Few exceptions exist...such as some elitist institutions where you are easily replaceable by someone else who wants to take a shot at being faculty. This is not common though.

Do people at these institutions ever really get fired from academic jobs for low publication #s? Or is it more like they are made to feel unwelcome so they just leave on their own?

 

[LADoc00]

Hi,

I want to transfer out of my current program because I am looking for a program geared towards a career in academic pathology. My medical school program did not provide that information. I was hoping with this thread I could get the impression of what people think are the top 20 programs 😍that would best prepare me for my career interest.

Thank you!

"Playmate2002"?! WTH. seriously? no, seriously??


yeah it must be tough now that Craigslist shut down their..."services"... gotta get the back up plan rolling...


Just do a fellowship somewhere like Brigham in Boston, Im sure the faculty will smile upon former playmates if you put that gem on your resume.

 

[BierstiefelAndy]

Do people at these institutions ever really get fired from academic jobs for low publication #s? Or is it more like they are made to feel unwelcome so they just leave on their own?

Good question. I always wondered how bad it could be.

At a certain institution in the state of Maryland, I asked someone that very first question...the best answer I got is, "but if you were here, you wouldn't have to worry because I'm sure you would do well given your record of academic productivity".

Yeah, not necessarily the words I want to hear...I asked that question because I want to know what happens in the WORST CASE scenario (i.e., are you gonna dump my ass on the street if I don't publish a minimum quota of papers on a yearly basis?)

In that vein, I don't think any academic institution will flat out tell you, "you won't get fired for not publishing" because that's like a "get out of jail free card"; then there will be even less motivation for publishing and that is against the academic institution's interest.

Overall, how one does in academics likely depends on where you want to fall in the Maslow's hierarchy of needs:

1. Do you want to become famous (self-actualization**)?
2. Or do you want to do just enough to keep one's job (basic needs; steady paycheck)?
3. Or somewhere in the middle?

It depends on the person, of course, but many would argue that if you fall into category #2, perhaps private practice would be better for you than academics.

**Disclaimer: Self-actualization is not only achieved by pursuing an academic career. I only present this in this context just for convenience; but a vantage point that may be held by the egotistical, self-absorbed academician 🙂