UTSW vs Methodist-Houston

[yepmd]

Anyone have strong opinions on either of these two programs?

Especially in regards to training, fellowship opportunities, and work environment.

Thanks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Gene_]

I hate Houston, but would easily choose Methodist over UTSW. How often do you see something published by someone from UTSW these days?

 

[pathmaster]

How about Methodist vs UT Houston vs Baylor (Houston)? Any thoughts people?

 

[gbwillner]

How about Methodist vs UT Houston vs Baylor (Houston)? Any thoughts people?

Methodist>Baylor>>>UTHouston

 

[Alteran]

UT Houston wasn't on the top of my rank list a couple of years ago because I felt the department didn't inspire much confidence in me. However, Baylor Houston is an abyss by comparison. Their faculty are very weak and their program can't seem to consistently fill after every match. What really turned me off to Baylor was the resident's overall mood: everyone was utterly miserable and my entire interview felt like I was touring a prison with the prisoners as my tour guides for the day. Methodist is the strongest pathology program in Houston by far.

 

[Pathguy11]

METHODIST ALL THE WAY! I know the program well and the fellowships there well. They are all outstanding. PLUS there is MD Anderson, Baylor, UT Houston, Texas Childrens across the street if you want electives in ANYTHING you can think of. Plus MD Anderson has tons of fellowship, so if you are interested in any of those, being in Houston would be beneficial. I have NO RESERVATIONS about highly recommending Methodist residency. I wish I would have gone there actually. Great didactics also..plus free lunches every day and noon conference. Those are just a few extra perks in addition to great training. Plus the faculty at Methodist are very well connected in the Houston area so you have a better chance with fellowships and jobs. This connection helped me find a job.

Pathguy11

 

[Pathguy11]

Methodist is also very supportive of residents particpating in both research AND national organizations. You will likely not find this at UT-Southwestern. In fact take a look at the CAP Residents forum executive committee. There is no coincidence that there are currently 2 RFEC members from Methodist and last year's Chair of the RFEC was from Methodist, They offer the best of both worlds...academics and private since it is a private hospital with an academic twist. So the opportunity for research is defintely there but you also get facilty who are not afraid to talk about real life Pathology issues in private practice settings. I think it is the most well reounded program in the state of Texas even though I did NOT go there for residency since the program was started the same year I was applying. So I am NOT just speaking from personal bias about my old program.

Pathguy11

 

[pathmaster]

So what is so bad about UT-Houston? They have all of the same opportunities as Methodist in terms of taking advantage of the hospitals at the Texas Medical System. UT-Houston is affiliated with MD Anderson more so than Methodist. A lot of UT-Houston resident go to MD Anderson for fellowship.

Everyone says Methodist is so much better than UT-Houston, but I do not know why. Is it because Methodist is a private hospital and they have a bunch of money to buy top rankings?

What specifically separates these two?

 

[HerrTex]

I'm planning on staying in Houston so any advice/insight on the 3 programs would be great.

 

[HerrTex]

Any info on the UTMB program would be great

 

[Sulfinator]

Methodist is also very supportive of residents particpating in both research AND national organizations. You will likely not find this at UT-Southwestern.

Ummm, the fact that you even said/speculated that about UT Southwestern is strange. Why do you say that?

 

[cjw0918]

I hate Houston, but would easily choose Methodist over UTSW. How often do you see something published by someone from UTSW these days?

They are short staffed and everyone does a lot of service work. They are planning on expanding however and hopefully this will allow more time for research.

 

[Pathguy11]

Ummm, the fact that you even said/speculated that about UT Southwestern is strange. Why do you say that?

My speculation is only regarding the support for the national organizations I have been involved in the CAP for my entire residency and fellowship and met residents from many programs in Texas except Southwestern. Not to say they don't go and I just didn't meet them, but in 5 years of involvement with CAP, TSP, etc I have met few is any residents from Southwestern. I can say that I know Methodist supports their residents to go. Again I was asked my opinion and that is what I have noticed. The question would be best answered, of course, by someone in the UT-Southwestern program. I also assume they have the same policy to support research and attendance to national meetings the most programs would.

Pathguy11

 

[MirkoCrocop]

My speculation is only regarding the support for the national organizations I have been involved in the CAP for my entire residency and fellowship and met residents from many programs in Texas except Southwestern. Not to say they don't go and I just didn't meet them, but in 5 years of involvement with CAP, TSP, etc I have met few is any residents from Southwestern. I can say that I know Methodist supports their residents to go. Again I was asked my opinion and that is what I have noticed. The question would be best answered, of course, by someone in the UT-Southwestern program. I also assume they have the same policy to support research and attendance to national meetings the most programs would.

Pathguy11

UTSW is elite and they don't tend to waste time in ineffectual, silly resident-clubs at national meetings. Having said that, I'm pretty sure they suck because they didn't interview me.

 

[Pathguy11]

UTSW is elite and they don't tend to waste time in ineffectual, silly resident-clubs at national meetings. Having said that, I'm pretty sure they suck because they didn't interview me.

I hate to tell you this but it was partially my leadership in "ineffectual, silly resident-clubs at national meetings" that landed me a job that over 40 people applied for. Being involved in more than just your day to day residency activites is not a waste of time. There is a lot to be said for connections you make and demonstrating that you have and will likely continue to be a leader in your future group, hospital, and community. That's part of what private groups are looking for when they are deciding if you are worthy of a partnership track position. it's not all about big named programs and good training. Sure those things can help you get a job but they are not going to seperate you from the next guy when it comes to moving up the ladder in a group. Just my two cents.

Pathguy11

 

[Sulfinator]

My speculation is only regarding the support for the national organizations I have been involved in the CAP for my entire residency and fellowship and met residents from many programs in Texas except Southwestern. Not to say they don't go and I just didn't meet them, but in 5 years of involvement with CAP, TSP, etc I have met few is any residents from Southwestern. I can say that I know Methodist supports their residents to go. Again I was asked my opinion and that is what I have noticed. The question would be best answered, of course, by someone in the UT-Southwestern program. I also assume they have the same policy to support research and attendance to national meetings the most programs would.

Pathguy11

I am at UTSW and I can attest that support for research is quite strong (it is one of the reasons I wanted to come to UTSW). Though resident research is not required at UTSW, I would venture to say that most of our residents take on some sort of research project during their time here. The department pays for any resident to attend any meeting to which they have an accepted poster or platform presentation.

As far as involvement in national and regional societies goes, UTSW also has quite a bit of activity. Fred Silva (of USCAP and renal pathology fame) has sent letters congratulating UTSW pathology on being among the top institutions for number of posters accepted at annual USCAP meetings. We have a lot of people going to the USCAP meeting in Vancouver next month. I don't know of a time when at least 2 or 3 UTSW residents didn't attend a CAP meeting (There were 10+ of us at the last CAP meeting, but, of course, it was held in the DFW metroplex area). I think maybe the issue with few UTSW being seen at Texas Society for Pathology (TSP) meetings can be explained by the fact that the North Texas Society for Pathology (NTSP, which is a 'chapter' of TSP) is so active and UTSW residents tend to "get their TSP fix" by being involved with NTSP and so feel less inclined, then, to make room for general TSP events (for better or for worse).

I didn't apply to or interview with the program at Methodist, so I obviously can't speak to it. I understand that it is a good program and have met a few of their current and former residents, who seemed to be good, collegial people. I don't want to start a 'UTSW Rulz and Methodist Droolz' rant (or the other way around). UTSW is a great program and, as far as I know, Methodist is a great program, too. I just wanted to take the time to give my first-hand perspective on UTSW in order to clarify or challenge any negative opinions that might arise from impression and hearsay.

UTSW is elite and they don't tend to waste time in ineffectual, silly resident-clubs at national meetings. Having said that, I'm pretty sure they suck because they didn't interview me.

I don't think we are elitist at all. And we are certainly not snobby (at least I don't know anyone in our program who acts that way). The interviewee selection process is probably far from perfect (I don't have any direct involvement in it) and I'm sure there are good candidates that UTSW doesn't invite for interview and there are mediocre candidates that it does interview. The same could probably be said of most programs that review hundreds of applications a year.

 

[MirkoCrocop]

I don't think we are elitist at all. And we are certainly not snobby (at least I don't know anyone in our program who acts that way). The interviewee selection process is probably far from perfect (I don't have any direct involvement in it) and I'm sure there are good candidates that UTSW doesn't invite for interview and there are mediocre candidates that it does interview. The same could probably be said of most programs that review hundreds of applications a year.

I wasn't trying to imply "elitist," just that UTSW is, in fact, a great program. I can confirm UTSW representation at the last USCAP meeting.

 

[gbwillner]

UTSW is elite and they don't tend to waste time in ineffectual, silly resident-clubs at national meetings. Having said that, I'm pretty sure they suck because they didn't interview me.

LOL.

Some people around here just don't have a sense of humor.

BTW, UTSW has an excellent reputation. Some person on some national comittee not coming across residents from that program should say virtually nothing about it.

 

[Sulfinator]

LOL.

Some people around here just don't have a sense of humor.

Oh, I got the sarcasm. Here's where I have to confess: It's just my compulsive side coming out that I feel the need to respond even to the remarks that aren't meant seriously.

 

[gbwillner]

I was referring more to Pathguy's comment....

 

[Sulfinator]

I was referring more to Pathguy's comment....

Oh, right, right . . . . . . . . .

 

[Pathguy11]

Glad to hear from someone at UT-Southwestern on here to tell their side. Amusing thread indeed.

Pathguy11

 

[twentyone]

Either one will give you good training in AP. There is probably better CP training at UTSW, especially in blood bank. If you have an interest in doing a fellowship, UTSW has more variety within their own institution, but there are more available just number--wise in the texas medical center. UTSW has a multiple hospital (public, private, childrens, VA, medical examiner) system, and is a large residency program, which makes for a good training experience. Methodist probably has better prepared and attended (esp by faculty who actually participate) didactic conferences, and the faculty may be more vocal about liking to teach, but the UTSW faculty may be on par teaching-wise during signout. There are some "stars" at Methodist who actually signout with residents, even first years, which some may see as a benefit. The surg path fellowship is very different between the two places- at TMH you do not have independent signout, but proably more one on one teaching from attendings, and at UTSW you have signout capabilities. The factuly at TMH are possibly more connected in the Houston area and nationally, and seem to be more involved/invested in getting their residents jobs. Be clear about the availability of "outside" rotations if you choose TMH- like are they well-ingrained in the residency or on a "one off" basis.

 

[JLC]

Although I am not a resident at UTSW, I am currently doing an away fellowship as a medical student at UTSW and am very close vicinity to the path department (just a few doors away). IMO, the path department at UTSW is nowhere as developed as many other places, especially Methodist or Baylor. If you check on NIH reporter, path deparment at utsw only obtained 3.3million of NIH funding vs. Baylor's 11.5million. Methodist should be comparable if not more than Baylor's NIH funding. However, the path department is only a few doors away from some of the strongest departments at UTSW so in some ways research opportunities are not lost.

I am at UTSW and I can attest that support for research is quite strong (it is one of the reasons I wanted to come to UTSW). Though resident research is not required at UTSW, I would venture to say that most of our residents take on some sort of research project during their time here. The department pays for any resident to attend any meeting to which they have an accepted poster or platform presentation.

As far as involvement in national and regional societies goes, UTSW also has quite a bit of activity. Fred Silva (of USCAP and renal pathology fame) has sent letters congratulating UTSW pathology on being among the top institutions for number of posters accepted at annual USCAP meetings. We have a lot of people going to the USCAP meeting in Vancouver next month. I don't know of a time when at least 2 or 3 UTSW residents didn't attend a CAP meeting (There were 10+ of us at the last CAP meeting, but, of course, it was held in the DFW metroplex area). I think maybe the issue with few UTSW being seen at Texas Society for Pathology (TSP) meetings can be explained by the fact that the North Texas Society for Pathology (NTSP, which is a 'chapter' of TSP) is so active and UTSW residents tend to "get their TSP fix" by being involved with NTSP and so feel less inclined, then, to make room for general TSP events (for better or for worse).

I didn't apply to or interview with the program at Methodist, so I obviously can't speak to it. I understand that it is a good program and have met a few of their current and former residents, who seemed to be good, collegial people. I don't want to start a 'UTSW Rulz and Methodist Droolz' rant (or the other way around). UTSW is a great program and, as far as I know, Methodist is a great program, too. I just wanted to take the time to give my first-hand perspective on UTSW in order to clarify or challenge any negative opinions that might arise from impression and hearsay.



I don't think we are elitist at all. And we are certainly not snobby (at least I don't know anyone in our program who acts that way). The interviewee selection process is probably far from perfect (I don't have any direct involvement in it) and I'm sure there are good candidates that UTSW doesn't invite for interview and there are mediocre candidates that it does interview. The same could probably be said of most programs that review hundreds of applications a year.

 

[cjw0918]

Although I am not a resident at UTSW, I am currently doing an away fellowship as a medical student at UTSW and am very close vicinity to the path department (just a few doors away). IMO, the path department at UTSW is nowhere as developed as many other places, especially Methodist or Baylor. If you check on NIH reporter, path deparment at utsw only obtained 3.3million of NIH funding vs. Baylor's 11.5million. Methodist should be comparable if not more than Baylor's NIH funding. However, the path department is only a few doors away from some of the strongest departments at UTSW so in some ways research opportunities are not lost.

So you are not even rotating in the path department?? These are your conclusions from being next door in some other specialty? I work next to Anesthesia, but I would not dare to pretend I know what their dept. is like. I'm sorry, but I just don't get how you are coming to these conclusions.

 

[Tiki]

Although I am not a resident at UTSW, I am currently doing an away fellowship as a medical student at UTSW and am very close vicinity to the path department (just a few doors away). IMO, the path department at UTSW is nowhere as developed as many other places, especially Methodist or Baylor. If you check on NIH reporter, path deparment at utsw only obtained 3.3million of NIH funding vs. Baylor's 11.5million. Methodist should be comparable if not more than Baylor's NIH funding. However, the path department is only a few doors away from some of the strongest departments at UTSW so in some ways research opportunities are not lost.

And this matters because????

I don't care about either of these programs but NIH funding means squat to most path applicants. The majority of applicants, even a good chunk that want to do academics, tend to focus on more translational type research, which has nothing to do with NIH grants. I'm sure the place I'm doing residency at has a sizable portion of basic scientists with NIH grants, but I have zero exposure to them. Publications is AJSP or modern path or other journals would mean more then how much the basic scientists are bringing in.

 

[JLC]

Wow, don't you know? NIH is the primary funder of all medical research, clinical, translational, and basic science....how you don't know this is beyond me. That is a reason why MGH and Hopkins and Penn are powerhouse pathology departments...because they are able to get lots of NIH funding for any research done in the department.

And this matters because????

I don't care about either of these programs but NIH funding means squat to most path applicants. The majority of applicants, even a good chunk that want to do academics, tend to focus on more translational type research, which has nothing to do with NIH grants. I'm sure the place I'm doing residency at has a sizable portion of basic scientists with NIH grants, but I have zero exposure to them. Publications is AJSP or modern path or other journals would mean more then how much the basic scientists are bringing in.

 

[JLC]

I don't need to rotate in the department to know how much research is going on. I'm not evaluating the quality of the path department. Just saying its weak on research which greatly limits your opportunities. You can simply just look at the number of labs in the path department to answer that. NIH funding is an even more obvious criteria to look at that.

So you are not even rotating in the path department?? These are your conclusions from being next door in some other specialty? I work next to Anesthesia, but I would not dare to pretend I know what their dept. is like. I'm sorry, but I just don't get how you are coming to these conclusions.

 

[Tiki]

I don't need to rotate in the department to know how much research is going on. I'm not evaluating the quality of the path department. Just saying its weak on research which greatly limits your opportunities. You can simply just look at the number of labs in the path department to answer that. NIH funding is an even more obvious criteria to look at that.

I have no nice way of saying this...but you are an idiot. Of course I know what NIH funding is, you missed my point entirely. What I am saying is that in no way impacts pathology training. I go to a great program and guess what...I have zero interaction with the basic scientists who get the majority of the NIH funds. Most of the research I am exposed to is translational type research done by pathologists who actually sign out cases and are at the top of their fields. So how much NIH funding (unless you plan on having a career in the lab, which the majority of path applicants won't) means squat to 95% of applicants and has absolutely no impact on their future career trajectory.

 

[JLC]

You honestly don't know anything about the NIH. Again, stop assuming that only basic scientists get the majority of NIH funding. You are completely ignorant of the fact that NIH spends a third of all their funding on strictly clinical research, and almost a quarter on prevention research. And I venture a guess that translational research also eats a third out of the NIH budget. So in essence NIH spends the majority of their funds on clinical/translational research. You did just say : " The majority of applicants, even a good chunk that want to do academics, tend to focus on more translational type research, which has nothing to do with NIH grants." and also I quote "basic scientists who get the majority of the NIH funds".

Both statements are completely WRONG. I may be an idiot, but so far I have not yet made any false statements.

Again, I reiterate that I never said that the amount of research done in pathology was a reflection of the training you may get there. That said there is a definite reflection between programs that are research powerhouses as being the top programs for path training.

I have no nice way of saying this...but you are an idiot. Of course I know what NIH funding is, you missed my point entirely. What I am saying is that in no way impacts pathology training. I go to a great program and guess what...I have zero interaction with the basic scientists who get the majority of the NIH funds. Most of the research I am exposed to is translational type research done by pathologists who actually sign out cases and are at the top of their fields. So how much NIH funding (unless you plan on having a career in the lab, which the majority of path applicants won't) means squat to 95% of applicants and has absolutely no impact on their future career trajectory.

 

[KCShaw]

Pathology research funding does not automatically equal good training in pathology. I think that's the point.

They might, or might not, be correlated. Some institutions happen to have most of their research faculty, projects, and grant funds separate and apart from anything that residents see or do -- literally another building on possibly a different campus. So just because an institution has a lot of research money doesn't necessarily mean anything to the residency program or its training. It might -- it just doesn't have to.

 

[Pathguy11]

Pathology research funding does not automatically equal good training in pathology. I think that's the point.

They might, or might not, be correlated. Some institutions happen to have most of their research faculty, projects, and grant funds separate and apart from anything that residents see or do -- literally another building on possibly a different campus. So just because an institution has a lot of research money doesn't necessarily mean anything to the residency program or its training. It might -- it just doesn't have to.

I agree. I think we all understand NIH funding and also that it is NOT the final word on how "good" a residency training program is.

Pathguy11

 

[cjw0918]

I don't need to rotate in the department to know how much research is going on. I'm not evaluating the quality of the path department. Just saying its weak on research which greatly limits your opportunities. You can simply just look at the number of labs in the path department to answer that. NIH funding is an even more obvious criteria to look at that.

You do realize there is another entire campus devoted to research and path has a huge presence over there. The hospital based offices without labs are mainly for the pathologists with heavy sign out and teaching responsibilities. I'm wondering if this is the path dept you are seeing.

 

[Ruination]

You honestly don't know anything about the NIH. Again, stop assuming that only basic scientists get the majority of NIH funding. You are completely ignorant of the fact that NIH spends a third of all their funding on strictly clinical research, and almost a quarter on prevention research. And I venture a guess that translational research also eats a third out of the NIH budget. So in essence NIH spends the majority of their funds on clinical/translational research. You did just say : " The majority of applicants, even a good chunk that want to do academics, tend to focus on more translational type research, which has nothing to do with NIH grants." and also I quote "basic scientists who get the majority of the NIH funds".

Both statements are completely WRONG. I may be an idiot, but so far I have not yet made any false statements.

Again, I reiterate that I never said that the amount of research done in pathology was a reflection of the training you may get there. That said there is a definite reflection between programs that are research powerhouses as being the top programs for path training.

I worked on projects all throughout residency. They were all paid for by pathology department funds acquired from clinical revenue (i.e. the money the department gets for signing out cases). The NIH didn't fund a single project of mine.

 

[Schmetterling]

How about I liven up the mood in this thread. Why don't we expand the topic into the other programs in Texas? What are the strengths and weaknesses for some of the others like UT Houston, A&M Scott&White, and Baylor Dallas and Baylor Houston? Frankly from what I have heard all Texas programs provide a great education and good pathologists, but I like to hear more details.

 

[trichrome]

UT-Houston is a very strong pathology program and should be in everyone's consideration. It may not have the name recognition of the other Texas programs, and can therefore be under-rated by some. But make no mistake, ask any of the current or past residents from the program and you will find a very strong group of pathologists, who are good at their trade, and good people on top of that Hermann-Memorial / LBJ County Hospital / MD Anderson (it's actually Univ. of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center) / St. Lukes Episcopal --- all excellent teaching facilities. I know several Methodist faculty members and believe that to be a very strong program as well. So in my mind, UT-Houston = Methodist, and both > Baylor > UTMB, imho.

 

[earthworm]

UT Houston and Methodist share some conferences and rotations, so if you go to one, you will also get some benefits of the other. UT Houston's main hospital, Herman, is not the greatest in terms of the types of specimens you get. Herman is good at trauma surgery, heart surgery and neurosurgery- generally not specialties that give you good pathology. They do have a strong transplant service and a children's hospital, so you will see a fair share of transplant and pediatric cases. The county hospital, LBJ, however, is a great place to learn pathology. From my understanding, most of the tumor cases go to LBJ rather than Ben Taub, the other county hospital which is affiliated with Baylor. The residents also rotate through St. Lukes, which has great material, and MD Anderson, which speaks for itself. The biggest advantage of UT is that the residents have an advantage when applying to MD Anderson for fellowships and generally 2-4 residents get accepted each year. Herman is undergoing some changes as far as the clinical pathology goes, with the labs being consolidated with other Herman hospitals. I'm not sure how this will affect CP training.

Methodist is a very strong program with renowned faculty and excellent material. They have money so the benefits are great. They have a lot of conferences, which tend to be interactive. The residents also rotate at MD Anderson. The neuropathology and cytopathlogy are particularly strong. Some residents go to MD Anderson for fellowships, though not as many as do UT residents. However, Methodist has its own fellowships in cytology, hemepath, blood bank, and others, which are also great.

UTMB used to be a good program several years ago and Dr. Eltorky was proactive in continually making improvements. Unfortunately, hurricane Ike caused a lot of damage and their volume dropped significantly. I don't know how much they've recovered since then.

Baylor used to be good when they had Methodist. When they split, the Baylor pathology program lost their main hospital, along with all the great material Methodist had to offer. On top of that, many of the good Baylor faculty became Methodist faculty. The residents primarily work at Ben Taub hospital now and also rotate at St. Luke's and Texas Children's hospital. They also offer a few fellowships. I'm not sure how strong the program is as I don't know much else about it.

Scott & White Hospital in Temple is more of a network, covering a huge area of central Texas. With that comes over 50,000 surgicals a year. There is a lot of good material from which to learn. Although it is a teaching hospital, the pathology program runs much like a private practice with residents. I would imagine Baylor Dallas to be similar. There are only 12 residents or so, very low given the number of surgical cases they have. The schedule is not as structured with regard to dedicated preview time and dedicated sign out time, and much of it depends on the particular resident or attending. I think to really succeed at Scott & White you need to have a lot of self motivation, but if you have that, there's a lot of potential. They offer surg path, heme path and cytopath fellowships.

 

[gbwillner]

Baylor used to be good when they had Methodist. When they split, the Baylor pathology program lost their main hospital, along with all the great material Methodist had to offer. On top of that, many of the good Baylor faculty became Methodist faculty. The residents primarily work at Ben Taub hospital now and also rotate at St. Luke's and Texas Children's hospital. They also offer a few fellowships. I'm not sure how strong the program is as I don't know much else about it.

I thought Baylor also rotated through the VA (DeBakey medical center). Plus they have their own outpatient center now.

Baylor also has the most research $ and opportunities of any program in TX, with the only competition really being UTSW (IMHO).

 

[texpath]

Any info on the UTMB program would be great

Being a resident, I have insider info I'll share (unbiased, of course). Everyone always mentions the storm, Ike, that hit the Gulf some years ago. UTMB was hit hard and unfortunately many people were laid off. Residents were shipped off to other programs and the patient population decreased for some time afterwards. As of now, UTMB is back. I'll highlight some of the strengths of AP. Faculty, faculty, facultry. Dr. Campbell is director of AP and is one of the nicest guys you will meet. Outstanding neuropathologist. Surgpath is back to pre-Ike numbers. Faculty are strong and personable, have diverse cases, faculty have ties to UTMB and trained at institutions such as Sloan Kettering and MD Anderson, ample time to read, nice equipment (flat screens, scopes, etc). Autopsy, one of the best in the nation.

Current residents wanted UTMB. I know for a fact some residents chose UTMB over institutions such as Stanford, Southwestern, Baylor, Methodist, etc (not saying they aren't good programs, they are very good). The program doesn't have the big name recognition and island living is not for everyone (even then, commuting from south Houston is a 30 minute drive).

All in all the strengths include strong faculty, fellowship placement, research opportunity, friendly/fun atmosphere, island living (to most).

UTMB is expanding, new hospitals are being built on campus as I type.

 

[gbwillner]

Current residents wanted UTMB. I know for a fact some residents chose UTMB over institutions such as Stanford, Southwestern, Baylor, Methodist, etc (not saying they aren't good programs, they are very good). The program doesn't have the big name recognition and island living is not for everyone (even then, commuting from south Houston is a 30 minute drive)****.

All in all the strengths include strong faculty, fellowship placement, research opportunity, friendly/fun atmosphere, island living (to most).

UTMB is expanding, new hospitals are being built on campus as I type.

**** at 3AM on a Sunday


FTFY

 

[Pathguy11]

Being a resident, I have insider info I'll share (unbiased, of course). Everyone always mentions the storm, Ike, that hit the Gulf some years ago. UTMB was hit hard and unfortunately many people were laid off. Residents were shipped off to other programs and the patient population decreased for some time afterwards. As of now, UTMB is back. I'll highlight some of the strengths of AP. Faculty, faculty, facultry. Dr. Campbell is director of AP and is one of the nicest guys you will meet. Outstanding neuropathologist. Surgpath is back to pre-Ike numbers. Faculty are strong and personable, have diverse cases, faculty have ties to UTMB and trained at institutions such as Sloan Kettering and MD Anderson, ample time to read, nice equipment (flat screens, scopes, etc). Autopsy, one of the best in the nation.

Current residents wanted UTMB. I know for a fact some residents chose UTMB over institutions such as Stanford, Southwestern, Baylor, Methodist, etc (not saying they aren't good programs, they are very good). The program doesn't have the big name recognition and island living is not for everyone (even then, commuting from south Houston is a 30 minute drive).

All in all the strengths include strong faculty, fellowship placement, research opportunity, friendly/fun atmosphere, island living (to most).

UTMB is expanding, new hospitals are being built on campus as I type.

I would have to agree with all of these statements. I know several residents and fellows who trained at UTMB and know many of the faculty well. Like I mentioned before I think UTMB is a solid program and I have heard encouraging information concerning the post-Ike program.

Pathguy11