What questions to expect during interview

[sinnet]

Guys this is my first time post here. I want to know what questions to expect during an interview, although I'm still waiting for an invitation. I'm quite worried about this interview process because I'm not very articulate. The interviewers may not follow what I talk about or I may not answer their questions convincingly. I don't want to look like a below average candidate from the interviewer's standpoint.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deschutes]

Go over your CAF/CV and personal statement and be prepared to talk about interesting points in greater detail.

If there was anything "concerning" in your academic transcript then make sure you have a ready answer - not too long, not too short. You want to come across like you've done your best about it - and not dig your own grave.

Mostly they want to know about you, why pathology and what your career goals are. If you have any research background, be prepared to discuss that too.

Again, fit is what they are looking for.

Some might quiz you on actual pathology, or ask you what was the most interesting case you saw on your path electives. Don't freak out about this, they will not be expecting much of medical students. Certainly don't make this a reason to read Robbins cover-to-cover - you will have time during residency for that.

Those are a few things I can think of off the top of my head.

Also, you might consider a "practice" interview if you don't have much interview experience. It sounds a little obsessive-compulsive, but I was very glad I did two (with very different interviewers). I looked a complete ass but at least it helped me figure out what to expect.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

deschutes touched on this topic quite well.

pathology interviews tend to be quite lax. i've never been quizzed on pathology. most of the time, i was asked about career goals and my motivation to go into the field.

relax and be yourself...but be cautious and show your best face when you interview.

best of luck.

 

[yaah]

Know how to answer this question: "Do you have any questions for me?"

No fooling, you need many reponses to that question. In most of the interviews, at least half the time was spent with them asking me what questions I had.

 

[Pingu]

Always Always Always they will ask 'why pathology'. Have a good answer and when an interviewer shoots down your reasons why (as happened to me) have a decent rebuttal.

Where do you see yourself in ten years? What they are really asking is private practice or academia.

Tell me about the research you did on xxx. I got quizzed on an project I did in 1998. It was on my CV obviously, but I hadn't even thought about feline immunodeficiency virus since then and had to struggle to pull relevant data out of my memory. So even old stuff is not off limits.

Tell me about yourself. This question sucks, but prepare a nice rehearsed pat response. Example: "My name is pingu and I love polarizing lenses almost as much as I love shoes."

And always be prepared to ask them questions. Some of your interviews will be nothing but asking the stupid yahoo who lost your application packet in the 80 billion trays of slides he has in his office questions, because he knows nothing about you but wants to 'give you an opportunity to find out something about the program'. Try not to get pissed at the fact that you have spent 400 dollars to fly there and are wearing control top pantyhose in 90% humidity and someone doesn't even have the gumption to not lose your packet. You won't be bitter at the 400 you could have better spent on shoes.

 

[deschutes]

Another thing that came to me is unexpected questions.

Normally you'd expect a nice comfortable opener after some small talk, like "So, why pathology?"

Looking back now, the moments I remember most easily were the "different" ones - I was being shuttled around from office to office at one program, and I entered a room, shook the interviewer's hand, sat down and before I had even leaned back in my chair the interviewer asked quite abruptly "So what do you want to do?" (which when you think about it, is a wide open question.)

"Academics," I said, before I even knew what I was saying.

"Oh, so one of us, yeah?" she grinned.

Phew!

Another interviewer quoted the first line of my personal statement back to me as an open question the moment I sat down - I laughed and explained how it had come about.

 

[cytoborg]

Guys this is my first time post here. I want to know what questions to expect during an interview, although I'm still waiting for an invitation. I'm quite worried about this interview process because I'm not very articulate. The interviewers may not follow what I talk about or I may not answer their questions convincingly. I don't want to look like a below average candidate from the interviewer's standpoint.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

1. Why path?
2. What made you choose path?
3. How did you first get interested in path? (You should be sensing a theme here...there are many variations such as, "So you must have picked path because you want to do research, right?" and "Won't you miss patient care?")
4. What questions do you have for me? (They WILL ask this, so do be prepared. It can get painful at the last interview of the day when you have already asked all your questions and your mind goes completely blank...so just be ready.)

 

[b&ierstiefel]

5. I noticed you play ultimate frisbee...how do the rules work?
6. If you went into private practice instead of academics, and made more money, what would be your first big purchase?
7. One of your letter writers mentioned that you saw two very interesting patients. I don't know if he doesn't know you well and he's making this up or if this is for real. So what were those two interesting caases?
8. Do you still play the piano?
9. Electric guitar, huh? Kinda contrasts with piano and violin. How did you juggle that?
10. Who are your role model(s)?
11. What were your favorite clinical rotations? (my answer being, "that's an oxymoron.")

 

[deschutes]

6. If you went into private practice instead of academics, and made more money, what would be your first big purchase?

Oh DO tell...

I'm guessing 6 and 7 were asked by the same person?

11. What were your favorite clinical rotations? (my answer being, "that's an oxymoron.")

I'm sure the interviewer took that well...

 

[b&ierstiefel]

Oh DO tell...

I'm guessing 6 and 7 were asked by the same person?

I'm sure the interviewer took that well...

I was asked #5 by the dept chair at MGH. That took up 10 minutes of the conversation, a very fun conversation overall.

I was asked #6 at UNC. I told him I would buy a concert grand piano. Then he asked me, but you're gonna need a big house for that first. I said, "Oh right. That would be my second big purchase then."

I was asked #7-11 by the same interviewer at Chicago.

 

[beary]

I did a practice interview, and all of it was "typical" interview questions, like:
1) What are your strengths and weaknesses?
2) What was the most difficult thing in med school?
3) Tell me about a difficult interpersonal situation you had
4) Tell me about an ethical problem you've had
5) most interesting patient
6) what do you bring to this program

Things like that. I hadn't really prepared for this, and now I will think about it obviously, but was wondering how much you folks got questions like this during your interviews.

 

[deschutes]

Ah, those are the "formatted" questions. It was explained to me like this - with increases in the # of interviews, residency admissions committees need a standardized way of comparing Applicant A to Applicant X.

One way of doing that is to apply standard questions, such as those that you list.

They are not always easy to answer. I would definitely have prepared answers, because that is what they are looking for. The challenge is to be creative within the pigeon-holing

 

[Logos']

..

 

[beary]

I often had to defend the choice of AP/CP. I don’t know if that was because of my research background or if it was program dependent.

I think I will have to do this too. I've actually gotten some calls already from programs saying, "You really want to do AP/CP??" It is sort of hard to defend because I am not 100% committed to it - basically I didn't know what to do so I am planning on doing that to hopefully be more well rounded and have more opportunities.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

I often had to defend the choice of AP/CP. I don’t know if that was because of my research background or if it was program dependent.

I'd bank on the fact that it really was because of your research background and your desire to be an experimental pathologist. And it is program dependent too...programs that are accustomed to or geared towards grooming scientists will be more cognizant of this. Programs that aren't probably won't care one way or another.

----

I kind of got this treatment too. For example, when I applied to WashU, for some reason they thought I was applying AP/CP. The program director started this interview on this topic to establish what was going on from the beginning. I told him, "Oh I'm actually doing AP only." to which he responded, "Oh good...cuz I was wondering why..." A few other programs and I had this exact same conversation.

Oh, and I loved it when I was asked, "So what percentage of time do you plan to do research versus clinical work?" I was flat out honest and blatant about it when I said, "100% research." One interviewer asked me, "Really? No clinical work at all?" "Nope" I said. "Why?" he retorted. "It's a distraction." He then flat out told me, "I'm glad you said that because it seems nobody has the courage to admit this when they interview...but I know that is the truth when I read a CV like yours."

Why do AP/CP? Well, the advantage to doing this is mainly for safety net reasons. Yeah, it makes you well rounded and yah-dah-yah-dah-yah-dah and all that bullsh*t. But if you fail during your postdoc, you're not swimming up ****'s creek.

I do have to say though that AP or CP only are sh*tty backup plans. AP/CP is a decent backup plan to failed research (but honestly, looking at the big picture, I think clinical medicine fields such as IM or Peds represent even better backup plans). If you do AP only, and end up wanting to do some kind of community practice, your options are severely limited and you may have to do more than one fellowship to be more marketable and compete with the AP/CP folk who can get away with doing zero fellowships. That's what a few people here are facing since we have quite a few AP only people. Do CP only and you're pigeonholed into a specific subdepartment in academics.

 

[drPLUM]

I was wondering...
Is it appropriate to ask a question like "Why did you (this institution not a particular interviewer) decide to interview me?" For instance, if an applicant has no research and is interviewing at a research oriented institution; or vice versa.
This could provide insight as to which of your strengths to emphasize not only during that particular interview but also the rest of the day. On the flip side, it could come accross as unconfident and "why little-ol'-me?".
Any thoughts?

 

[yaah]

I was wondering...
Is it appropriate to ask a question like "Why did you (this institution not a particular interviewer) decide to interview me?" For instance, if an applicant has no research and is interviewing at a research oriented institution; or vice versa.
This could provide insight as to which of your strengths to emphasize not only during that particular interview but also the rest of the day. On the flip side, it could come accross as unconfident and "why little-ol'-me?".
Any thoughts?

Very interesting...I think it could give you an interesting set of answers and see what about your application is appealing. It could lead to some awkward moments if that sort of thing bothers you. I highly doubt it would be seen as a negative - you could also ask it as "what do you think are the strengths of my application," but then again, shouldn't you already know that?

6) what do you bring to this program

I like this question, I was asked it a couple of times, if I was interviewing I would ask it of everyone, along with

-What are your weaknesses or things you are working on?
-What would you do if you didn't do medicine (or pathology)?
-What do you enjoy the most about medicine?

 

[deschutes]

I agree - it is an interesting question. You do learn what are the strengths of your application as the season progresses in a variety of ways, e.g. through the things in your app that your interviewers highlight, or the things that they try to sell you - but asking this question might speed things up.

Would you save it for a program director? Or would you just ask any of the interviewers. I don't know. Interesting thought.

 

[drPLUM]

I agree - it is an interesting question...Would you save it for a program director? Or would you just ask any of the interviewers. I don't know. Interesting thought.

It might be most useful for the first interview of the day. If you got a good answer then you could stress those points the rest of the day wihout asking- unless of course every interviewer thinks something different makes a strong applicant.

It would induce awkwardness though and might force a program to "show their hand" a little.

 

[deschutes]

I've actually gotten some calls already from programs saying, "You really want to do AP/CP??" It is sort of hard to defend because I am not 100% committed to it - basically I didn't know what to do so I am planning on doing that to hopefully be more well rounded and have more opportunities.

I'm guessing "I want to have time to study for Step 3" is probably not what they want to hear

 

[deschutes]

It might be most useful for the first interview of the day. If you got a good answer then you could stress those points the rest of the day wihout asking- unless of course every interviewer thinks something different makes a strong applicant.

It would induce awkwardness though and might force a program to "show their hand" a little.

Yes. I was thinking that I would save it for the last interview of the day actually, as a sort of wrap-up It might be a little confrontational for 8am! (Just commiserating with all the non-larks...)

But that's my thinking.

 

[Logos']

...

 

[yaah]

I dislike that tenure track is almost always associated with research success - many academic centers are referral centers, places where patients go for definitive treatment and get difficult diagnoses and treatment decisions made. It dismays me to think that good diagnosticians who are not that interested in research are going to be shunned from academia. Academia needs good diagnosticians too! There are many, obviously, who are fantastic diagnosticians and also publish a lot, but it seems to me as though the opportunities for this are not as great as they once were - academia is becoming more and more subspecialized. If you want to be a good diagnostician you often have to focus on a specific area, given the requirements for extracurricular activities. We have one attending here who is a soft tissue expert but also signs out on every service except GI, and people go to him with their tough cases even when they are not soft tissue cases. I think he is perhaps my hero.

 

[deschutes]

I agree Andy, in retrospect fast-track IM/subspecialty is the way to go if you want 100% research and a decent back-up … but then again you have to like IM at least a little bit, so that option was never on the table for me.

Pardon my ignorance in the role of the interested observer - but why is IM/subspecialty more conducive for 100% research?

 

[beary]

Pardon my ignorance in the role of the interested observer - but why is IM/subspecialty more conducive for 100% research?

I was wondering this too.

Also, IM/subspecialty involves the dreaded CLINICAL MEDICINE.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

I agree Andy, in retrospect fast-track IM/subspecialty is the way to go if you want 100% research and a decent back-up … but then again you have to like IM at least a little bit, so that option was never on the table for me.

I met a few surg path folks while interviewing who had R01s and who uniformly told me how incredibly difficult it was to compete scientifically and keep their head above water diagnostically.

And I will quote the above to segue into answering the "Why fast-track IM/subspecialty?" Doing surgical pathology as a researcher is a BIG distraction. Sure, there are the challenges of keeping your diagnostic acumen in tip-top shape. But let's look at the early career of a scientist in pathology because this is the make-or-break time for these folks...let's say you are hired as junior research faculty...rest assured, you will still be doing a fair share of signout responsibilities. Why? Because you're the department's bitch. Now, you don't have 20 years of experience at this so you're not all that great to begin with...and imagine not being able to sign out cases immediately due to the fact that you're hedging on a diagnosis and you need impox to help you out. Then you have to wait another day. What if more sections need to be submitted? Extra levels? Even more impox? It could take days to sign out these cases and you have to keep going back to revisit these issues. When you're a lab investigator, these things become very distracting. Some of our junior faculty in our department, who have research interests, cannot pursue them because they are slammed with signout responsibilities. Imagine trying to run a lab when you have to sign out one week (or god forbid, two weeks) every month. And when you have cases that drag out...the clinical issues become very distracting. Then you get emails or pages from the clinicians and have to answer to them. Again, another distraction.

Now, my PhD thesis adviser was a nephrologist. He only had to do clinic one half day per week. He said that it's pretty easy to see 10-15 patients in one morning. Appointments frequently involve tweaking doses of meds or whatever. Then, you have to dictate the H&P's or progress notes but then you're done (unless you have to consult people). But this is the key issue. When you consult someone, you're basically turfing your problem issues to someone else. Then the consulted person will get back to you. That's not a distraction. In pathology, YOU as the attending have to keep the gears moving. The specimens and slides go nowhere without your constant supervision. Having to be anally retentive about signing out cases quickly and efficiently (so that clinicians don't pester you and that you can put these cases behind you) is distracting.

Basically, for a person who is wholeheartedly interested in research (and wants to make more money cuz PhD's get paid **** compared to MDs), clinical duties are a distraction. IM/subspecialty does allow you to better minimize these distractions. (CP only too though )

Plus, there are more research jobs in IM departments than pathology departments. IM departments just tend to be bigger.

Also, the backup job options in pathology are harder to get than in internal medicine. Let's say you absolutely fail in your postdoc and you are board certified in medicine. Well f*ck, you can drop all of it and just open up your clinic in some podunk town...and make good money! In pathology, it's not like you can just simply open up your own lab. You have to go somewhere that is already established and is willing to hire or has an opening!

I was always cognizant of these IM versus pathology issues from talking to my thesis adviser. He strongly suggested that I go into fast track IM. And that was my plan until I got a Pass in my medicine rotation and realized that my alma mater would be the best place I would be able to match at (and I would rather be caught dead rather than matching at Michigan for IM). Hence, I settled for pathology where I could write my own ticket and go wherever I wanted to go. There, I've said it. And I am completely sober now.

One mentioned that he relied significantly on his colleagues who specialized in diagnostics and all of them supported the AP/CP route if you have any interest in surg path. AP only, with subspecialty training, imo is more of a path toward diagnostics in an academic setting with collaborative “translational” research projects.

I totally absolutely agree with you. This is what I have concluded during my first several months here. And I have absolutely no desire to do these "translational" research projects. Hence, there lies the problem...now I am half-heartedly entertaining the option of doing the basic minimum AP training and running to postdoc and putting all my eggs in one basket and forgoing any back-up plans.

One of the nice things about UCSF is that you can switch between any combination of AP, CP or AP/CP with little difficulty.

Yeah, this was one thing I really liked about your institution. This switch business really isn't easy at many places. Here at the Brigham, everyone does two years of AP so basically you have 1-2 years to decide whether you want to tack on CP training or not.

Hope all is well for you Logos'. Glad you stopped by and I hope you're enjoying SF!

 

[deschutes]

Thanks Andy.

I had wondered if it might be due to the changing "hot" content/object of basic science-oriented research, i.e. treatment-focused in IM instead of disease-focused in Path.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

Thanks Andy.

I had wondered if it might be due to the changing "hot" content/object of basic science-oriented research, i.e. treatment-focused in IM instead of disease-focused in Path.

Although this difference does exist, it's not a big deal because you can pretty much do either type of research regardless of the field you did your training in.

 

[quant]

I think that was an awesomely fab post Andy. I was also curious to know of your opinions regarding being able to do full time research going into a more CP oriented fellowship.....If you get a faculty position, Are you still everybody s bitch in the CP department? Or is it tad better than AP only folks?
I think many would love to know what you think about that...
Regards
Quant

 

[drPLUM]

Is it feasible to be in academia but be mainly involved in sign-out and teaching as opposed to research? Sort of a 'clinician-educator'? I have heard stories of departments using the clinical oriented folks to generate income that is siphoned off to recruit and retain researchers, leaving the clinical oriented folks working for 1/3 the revenue they generate. Any thoughts?

PS- sorry to hijack the thread.

 

[beary]

Is it feasible to be in academia but be mainly involved in sign-out and teaching as opposed to research? Sort of a 'clinician-educator'?

Yes. There are several pathologists here who fit that model. We actually also have a "clinical track" tenure track with totally different criteria than the traditional tenure track - emphasis on clinical duties instead of on publications.

 

[yaah]

Is it feasible to be in academia but be mainly involved in sign-out and teaching as opposed to research? Sort of a 'clinician-educator'? I have heard stories of departments using the clinical oriented folks to generate income that is siphoned off to recruit and retain researchers, leaving the clinical oriented folks working for 1/3 the revenue they generate. Any thoughts?

PS- sorry to hijack the thread.

Yes, they definitely do exist, but most will also publish translational research studies or collaborate with researchers. One who does not publish will not see promotion, and I think that is a pretty definite statement to make. Of course, to some promotions don't matter, even though they would come with a salary increase. I think to do something like this you have to be prepared to take your lumps.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

I think that was an awesomely fab post Andy. I was also curious to know of your opinions regarding being able to do full time research going into a more CP oriented fellowship.....If you get a faculty position, Are you still everybody s bitch in the CP department? Or is it tad better than AP only folks?
I think many would love to know what you think about that...
Regards
Quant

Haven't really researched enough into CP honestly. But here are my rough impressions. In CP, you are more of a lab manager and you oversee the basic operations. People work under you. People are your bitches. Unless your employees suck ass, the lab will run whether you're there or not.

When I talk to people who are dead set on a research career, I encourage them to do CP only nowadays....or short track medicine if they can swing it.

Yes. There are several pathologists here who fit that model. We actually also have a "clinical track" tenure track with totally different criteria than the traditional tenure track - emphasis on clinical duties instead of on publications.

Generally, as a diagnostically oriented academic pathologist, you mainly do clinical duties but you still need to publish. But there is not as much pressure to publish...you don't need to publish big papers in the premier journals to maintain your job. You can publish more "translational" studies in journals like Mod Path or Am J Surg Path...it's kinda like your JBC in the biological sciences...it's not hard to get your papers accepted here. And you don't have to be at the bench for many hours to get the data. The advantage here is that you as the pathologist have access to the tumor bank so you can easily get your hands on specimens and address a wide array of research questions. Remember, you're not the one doing the impox staining...the lab does all the grunt work for you...all you do is read the slides and tabulate the data. It's really a perfect setup if that kind of research is your kind of thing!

 

[deschutes]

When I talk to people who are dead set on a research career, I encourage them to do CP only nowadays....or short track medicine if they can swing it.

Hell, why do medicine?

 

[b&ierstiefel]

Hell, why do medicine?

We've talked about this.

OK back to the original topic...if you are a research minded individual you will come across a questions related to experimental science. Some of my individuals have brought up a topic and asked me for my thoughts regarding hypothesis. Then they would always ask, "so if you had to write a proposal, how would you outline it." Be prepared for this.

 

[beary]

When I talk to people who are dead set on a research career, I encourage them to do CP only nowadays....or short track medicine if they can swing it.

Andy - thanks for another thoughtful post.

What do you think about research + autopsy path? Or research + subspecialized surgical path? I have figured from the beginning that it would be impossible to be a general surgical pathologist and scientist, but was thinking one of the other two may work out. Or CP of course.

 

[beary]

OK back to the original topic...if you are a research minded individual you will come across a questions related to experimental science. Some of my individuals have brought up a topic and asked me for my thoughts regarding hypothesis. Then they would always ask, "so if you had to write a proposal, how would you outline it." Be prepared for this.

I've got to dig out some of my old results and go over them...

I used to live and breathe, and literally dream, cilia. Now I feel like that part of my brain has died.

 

[drPLUM]

Generally, as a diagnostically oriented academic pathologist, you mainly do clinical duties but you still need to publish. But there is not as much pressure to publish...you don't need to publish big papers in the premier journals to maintain your job. You can publish more "translational" studies in journals like Mod Path or Am J Surg Path...it's kinda like your JBC in the biological sciences...it's not hard to get your papers accepted here. And you don't have to be at the bench for many hours to get the data. The advantage here is that you as the pathologist have access to the tumor bank so you can easily get your hands on specimens and address a wide array of research questions. Remember, you're not the one doing the impox staining...the lab does all the grunt work for you...all you do is read the slides and tabulate the data. It's really a perfect setup if that kind of research is your kind of thing!

This is good to hear because this is kinda where I see myself going. People always ask 'do you want to do academics or PP'. When I say academics they assume I mean lab research. But I imagine myself as an "academic" diagnostician-educator. I have done some successful translational research and enjoyed it also. I just don't want to be the 'permanent department beeeotch' because if it comes to that I will hit the door and do PP in a heartbeat ya know?

 

[b&ierstiefel]

Andy - thanks for another thoughtful post.
What do you think about research + autopsy path?

You could definitely swing it. Unfortunately, not many of these kind of jobs exist. Who knows though...maybe I'm underestimating this. This is a very attractive pathway for me...minimal and occasional clinical work and I can devote myself almost fully to writing grants, publishing papers, and running my lab and guiding/teaching those in my lab.

research + subspecialized surgical path?

A bit easier than research + general surg pathology. However, you can mainly swing this at places that are somewhat or fully sub-specialized. Many institutions have predominantly general signout. You could pull this off at MGH for example, where everything is subspecialized.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

This is good to hear because this is kinda where I see myself going. People always ask 'do you want to do academics or PP'. When I say academics they assume I mean lab research. But I imagine myself as an "academic" diagnostician-educator. I have done some successful translational research and enjoyed it also. I just don't want to be the 'permanent department beeeotch' because if it comes to that I will hit the door and do PP in a heartbeat ya know?

Yeah...we have quite a few residents who aren't hardcore lab-bound folks but who are definitely interested in academics. And that's totally cool. In fact, the emphasis in our department is shifting more from basic science to clinical. You see a lot more MD/PhD trained folks who are doing mainly diagnostics. Yeah, it kinda sucks for people like me who see that the number of basic science role models dwindle but this is awesome for folks with your specific interests

 

[beary]

Yeah, it kinda sucks for people like me who see that the number of basic science role models dwindle

Sorry Andy.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

Sorry Andy.

Oh I'm totally fine about it...it just means I have to put more effort into finding role models...and ****'s not gonna be handed to me on a silver platter...I never expected or felt entitled to this even at an institution like mine.

When you really want something, you have to make double the effort and just go for it!

 

[deschutes]

We've talked about this.

OH I see why you asked if your answer was adequate.

I meant "medicine" in the broadest sense, my budding basic scientist

 

[b&ierstiefel]

OH I see why you asked if your answer was adequate.

I meant "medicine" in the broadest sense, my budding basic scientist

Yeah you got me on this!

In science, you are trained to always doubt your findings. And I am starting to doubt my decision. Hell, I could've spent two more years in my undergrad lab and gotten a PhD by the time I took step 1...and if everything worked out, I could be applying for faculty jobs now. But hindsight's a bitch isn't it?

 

[beary]

I meant "medicine" in the broadest sense, my budding basic scientist

I know this was directed at Andy, but I'll take a stab as another budding basic scientist:
1) knowledge and skills that will help me in the lab
2) opportunity to be in a clinical department = better pay
3) ultimately a backup if I completely fail at research

This sounds cynical now that I look at it but I am genuinely excited about learning pathology. Heck, that is the only thing getting me through this year. There are so many questions out there about pathophysiology that I think I will be introduced to during pathology training.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

I know this was directed at Andy, but I'll take a stab as another budding basic scientist:
1) knowledge and skills that will help me in the lab
2) opportunity to be in a clinical department = better pay
3) ultimately a backup if I completely fail at research

4) access to K08 grants which represents a great first step in a science career.

But anyways, beary, I'm hanging my hat on the reasons you list above. But I hear arguments from the other side (PhD only folks) that this isn't a huge advantage...is it worth 4 years of med school and additional clinical training for more years?

 

[beary]

But anyways, beary, I'm hanging my hat on the reasons you list above. But I hear arguments from the other side (PhD only folks) that this isn't a huge advantage...is it worth 4 years of med school and additional clinical training for more years?

I don't know. I am finding this year so painful that my gut says no, it's not worth it. But I am genuinely excited about pathology (but I am a naive M4 with a grand total of one month of path experience), and I know you have seen some of the real world of pathology.

I was not nearly as successful in grad school as I would have liked. I have thought about it a lot and still don't really know why - some of it was bad luck, some of it was I approached things wrong at the beginning. But as much as I want to be a researcher I don't have a tremendous amount of confidence that I will make it in science. I sort of lie awake at night now worrying about the match, but I think if I were in a postdoc trying to make it I would lie awake EVERY night.

Also, at this point, I'm so far along in my medical career that I may as well just "finish" (meaning do a residency and get board certified). Hopefully later things will become more clear - I will get a better sense of where my interests and talents lie, either in the lab or as a pathologist.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

I don't know. I am finding this year so painful that my gut says no, it's not worth it. But I am genuinely excited about pathology (but I am a naive M4 with a grand total of one month of path experience), and I know you have seen some of the real world of pathology.

I was not nearly as successful in grad school as I would have liked. I have thought about it a lot and still don't really know why - some of it was bad luck, some of it was I approached things wrong at the beginning. But as much as I want to be a researcher I don't have a tremendous amount of confidence that I will make it in science. I sort of lie awake at night now worrying about the match, but I think if I were in a postdoc trying to make it I would lie awake EVERY night.

Also, at this point, I'm so far along in my medical career that I may as well just "finish" (meaning do a residency and get board certified). Hopefully later things will become more clear - I will get a better sense of where my interests and talents lie, either in the lab or as a pathologist.

Medicine is a trap that way. What can I say?

 

[deschutes]

Yeah you got me on this!

It was one of those questions that was meant to raise a point and wasn't meant to be answered

 

[beary]

It was one of those questions that was meant to raise a point and wasn't meant to be answered

Are you asking me and Andy to stop our ramblings about our future careers as basic scientists?