Global Disrobal
Along for the ride
Moderator Emeritus
Volunteer Staff
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Alright Mindy,
You asketh, you geteth!
West Coast!
You asketh, you geteth!
West Coast!
-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
West Coast Program Poll
Started by Global Disrobal
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Last time I checked, UCSD was also on the West Coast.
-mrp
-mrp
Global Disrobal
Along for the ride
Moderator Emeritus
Volunteer Staff
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
I do agree that UCSD is in the west coast, as are UCI, USC, Oregon, and so forth...but would you rank them anywhere at the top? They are a good, solid program but I have never heard of them as anything spectacular@
GD
PS You wouldn't be at UCSD now, would you? 🙂
GD
PS You wouldn't be at UCSD now, would you? 🙂
Guilty as charged. 🙂
And I'm ranking UCSD ahead of all of the programs you have on your list with 2 exceptions. But that's just my opinion. And the faculty have had a "home field advantage" in convincing me that they're a really good, up and coming program.
-mrp
And I'm ranking UCSD ahead of all of the programs you have on your list with 2 exceptions. But that's just my opinion. And the faculty have had a "home field advantage" in convincing me that they're a really good, up and coming program.
-mrp
Dragging this a little off-topic but...
I was looking through the Freida database and noticed that the program completion rate for UCSD is only 69%-can anyone (especially mrpeters714) comment? What's happening to 31% of the residents?
I'm not trying to pick on UCSD, there are actually several other strong programs I saw with similar rates (including my own "top-20" med school), I just know there's someone from UCSD reading this forum. However there are also many programs with the 95%+ rates I had expected.
I was looking through the Freida database and noticed that the program completion rate for UCSD is only 69%-can anyone (especially mrpeters714) comment? What's happening to 31% of the residents?
I'm not trying to pick on UCSD, there are actually several other strong programs I saw with similar rates (including my own "top-20" med school), I just know there's someone from UCSD reading this forum. However there are also many programs with the 95%+ rates I had expected.
I was told that they had two or three IMG's whom had some problems passing Step 3 (English wasn't their first language), and left the program. I may be mistaken, but I don't think they've had any IMG's in the past couple of years.
Yes, the program had some problems as of a few years ago. In response to this, they imported Noel Weidner from UCSF to be the director of surg path. He has made some changes to the program, including the addition of a surg path fellowship, a daily "the most interesting cases of the day" conference, and of course exposure to his extensive consult service. Supposedly, he's a bit of a football coach--he has no problem yelling at residents who are unprepared. However, once you rectify the problem, he does not bear grudges and is happy to work with you. He is an amazing surgical pathologist, and just completed a new surgical path bible, "Modern Surgical Pathology", which will be a competitor with Sternberg and Ackerman. If you work hard, he can teach you alot.
Resident morale is extremely high--everyone loves the program and will talk your ear off to that effect. This is the thing that attracted me the most to the program. One objective index that I recorded during my interviews was the number of residents that came to lunch--UCSD was the highest of the programs that I interviewed at, with about 8 very enthusiastic residents present at lunch. Also, I like san diego, but that's another story.
Anyway, enough UCSD boosterism. I'm not even ranking it first. I knew i shouldn't have posted my first comment in this thread. These kind of arguments are somewhat pointless. Choosing "The Best" program is a very personal decision, and everyone's list will be different, for a million different reasons. Not that I didn't vote in the above poll.
cheers and good luck to everyone. less than a week left.
-mrp
Yes, the program had some problems as of a few years ago. In response to this, they imported Noel Weidner from UCSF to be the director of surg path. He has made some changes to the program, including the addition of a surg path fellowship, a daily "the most interesting cases of the day" conference, and of course exposure to his extensive consult service. Supposedly, he's a bit of a football coach--he has no problem yelling at residents who are unprepared. However, once you rectify the problem, he does not bear grudges and is happy to work with you. He is an amazing surgical pathologist, and just completed a new surgical path bible, "Modern Surgical Pathology", which will be a competitor with Sternberg and Ackerman. If you work hard, he can teach you alot.
Resident morale is extremely high--everyone loves the program and will talk your ear off to that effect. This is the thing that attracted me the most to the program. One objective index that I recorded during my interviews was the number of residents that came to lunch--UCSD was the highest of the programs that I interviewed at, with about 8 very enthusiastic residents present at lunch. Also, I like san diego, but that's another story.
Anyway, enough UCSD boosterism. I'm not even ranking it first. I knew i shouldn't have posted my first comment in this thread. These kind of arguments are somewhat pointless. Choosing "The Best" program is a very personal decision, and everyone's list will be different, for a million different reasons. Not that I didn't vote in the above poll.
cheers and good luck to everyone. less than a week left.
-mrp
Global Disrobal
Along for the ride
Moderator Emeritus
Volunteer Staff
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Now if the program was in Coronado Island....(kidding)
All joking aside, you make a valid point. You have to go w/the program that suits you best rather than the one with the biggest name or reputation.
The graduation rate issue with the program did arise from the IMG's leaving along with the program losing a couple of people who transferred across the Southland to other programs, but that was a good while ago. All and all its a good program and if I recall there is good Autopsy experience w/a chance to even moonlight at the ME office (this may be outdated as I haven't been there a while)
Lastly, I think Great Pumpkin made this comment ages ago (not implying that he is old 🙂), but the program is what you make of it and how much work you put into it in becoming a good pathologist.
I have rambled on enough. Best of luck to you all!
All joking aside, you make a valid point. You have to go w/the program that suits you best rather than the one with the biggest name or reputation.
The graduation rate issue with the program did arise from the IMG's leaving along with the program losing a couple of people who transferred across the Southland to other programs, but that was a good while ago. All and all its a good program and if I recall there is good Autopsy experience w/a chance to even moonlight at the ME office (this may be outdated as I haven't been there a while)
Lastly, I think Great Pumpkin made this comment ages ago (not implying that he is old 🙂), but the program is what you make of it and how much work you put into it in becoming a good pathologist.
I have rambled on enough. Best of luck to you all!
Hehe, I resemble that remark, DOH.
😀
Take all those statistics with a grain of salt. Path programs are so small generally one person leaving for family reason or other can really skew the numbers. And, some programs do not even update their Freida info.
My idea of the best program is the one I will have the most fun at. Because if I am having fun I will learn more, regardless of the number of publications the chairman has or the number of radical big toe amputations they receive per year. Be careful of thinking the big names will be best. 4 years of misery will not be conducive to learning.
Getting close to match..
Can't wait till we get the new recruits and I can quit taking clinical call, hehe.
Wow! You guys really liked UW that much huh? I know it's the most highly funded path progam in the country but what'd you think about the facilities?....I wasn't all that impressed. I think UW is an awesome program if your planning on doing some basic science research ('cause they have so much money) and Seattle is a really cool town. It is also a very popular program with my classmates as three of them are ranking it #1 for path.
As for me I have to go with Stanford as #1 out west...though they really don't have great facilities either. I think most programs fit into two groups...MGH-like (more clinical, high volume, surg path is king) or Brigham-like (more basic science, research is king). Stanford fits the MGH mold and UCSF and UW fit the Brigham mold. I prefer the MGH-like programs.
As for me I have to go with Stanford as #1 out west...though they really don't have great facilities either. I think most programs fit into two groups...MGH-like (more clinical, high volume, surg path is king) or Brigham-like (more basic science, research is king). Stanford fits the MGH mold and UCSF and UW fit the Brigham mold. I prefer the MGH-like programs.
that is an interesting thought, brougham, at least to someone like me who hasn't seen these programs in person. which camp would you place the other west coast programs in (at least the ones you know about?) i'm especially curious about oregon, nm, and ucsd. i think i'd prefer the more clinically oriented places myself. if i wanted to just do research i would have saved myself some money and gray hairs and gone to grad school.
Hey Augmel,
I agree with GP too. Poll's really don't mean much at the end of the day. All that really matters is that a particular program is a good fit for you. That being said, I still think it's interesting to see how different people precieve the different programs.
Anyway, I can't claim that I came up with the whole Brigham and MGH comparisons. A PD at a west coast school actually broke prorams down for me like that during an interview. I thought it made some sense too. But, it is a bit simplistic as some prorams really are a combo of the two styles. I would say UCSD is more as MGH-like proram and will continue to head in that direction now that Dr. Widner is there. Even though he spent some time at the Brigham and at UCSF he definitely favors a more high volume, clinically oriented deparment.
OHSU is more clinically oriented but they do a lot of basic science research there. The volume isn't that high though (which has it's pluses and minuses). I really liked OHSU and Portland. I would say it is a combo of MGH and Brigham.
I can't comment on New Mexico 'cause I didn't interview there. But I have heard good things about the program. They have a really well known hematopathologist there (I believe her name is Kathy Foucar ? [sic]). So if your into hemepath it would be good place to do a fellowship.
As for other west coast prorams... I think UCLA is more like MGH than the Brigham, Colorado seemed more like the Brigham to me. I can't really comment on UCI, UCD, USC, Utah, or U. of Arizona 'cause I didn't interview at any of 'em. Hope that helps some.
I agree with GP too. Poll's really don't mean much at the end of the day. All that really matters is that a particular program is a good fit for you. That being said, I still think it's interesting to see how different people precieve the different programs.
Anyway, I can't claim that I came up with the whole Brigham and MGH comparisons. A PD at a west coast school actually broke prorams down for me like that during an interview. I thought it made some sense too. But, it is a bit simplistic as some prorams really are a combo of the two styles. I would say UCSD is more as MGH-like proram and will continue to head in that direction now that Dr. Widner is there. Even though he spent some time at the Brigham and at UCSF he definitely favors a more high volume, clinically oriented deparment.
OHSU is more clinically oriented but they do a lot of basic science research there. The volume isn't that high though (which has it's pluses and minuses). I really liked OHSU and Portland. I would say it is a combo of MGH and Brigham.
I can't comment on New Mexico 'cause I didn't interview there. But I have heard good things about the program. They have a really well known hematopathologist there (I believe her name is Kathy Foucar ? [sic]). So if your into hemepath it would be good place to do a fellowship.
As for other west coast prorams... I think UCLA is more like MGH than the Brigham, Colorado seemed more like the Brigham to me. I can't really comment on UCI, UCD, USC, Utah, or U. of Arizona 'cause I didn't interview at any of 'em. Hope that helps some.
thanks brougham,
i think the rankings are fun too. and important too in that your own reputation will be based somewhat on your programs reputation. i just know that when it comes down to it, it should not be your first criteria for ranking.
i think the rankings are fun too. and important too in that your own reputation will be based somewhat on your programs reputation. i just know that when it comes down to it, it should not be your first criteria for ranking.
