What's more important?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

smokeycat

Original Puss-N-Boots
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
May 20, 2004
Messages
257
Reaction score
0
This is just a general question that I'm throwing out there...

What's more important....where you go to medical school or where you do your residency?

I'm trying to decide on which medical schools I want to apply and I've done some research on pathology residency programs, too. (pathology suits my personality and interests). No one has given me a straight answer about this.

Need some advice on this one.
 
IMO, I would say where you do your residency is more important once you are out as an attending. Of course, where you go to school may heavily dictate where you train. Once you are an attending, nobody will really care about what medical school you attended.
One great thing about pathology is that residencies are not real competitive. If you are good, you can (more or less) choose where you want to train.
 
Where you do residency is definitely more important, although where you do med school often occurs during some defining years and you end up mapping out your life based on this.

But, residency is where you make your connections, learn about the field, and start exploring actual career options. In med school, to be honest, you are always just a student. Nobody cares if you are a harvard med student or a hollywood upstairs medical college student. Everyone starts residency at the same point, and you go from there. The only time your med school makes much of a difference is if you happen to meet someone who went to the same school. Nobody is really impressed by the name of the med school you attended, because frankly they are all tough to get into.

Of course, the ratings ****** (can I say that word? Guess I'll find out soon!) will claim that where you go to med school makes a big difference in where you go to residency, and thus since it is the first step, it is obviously one of critical importance. This, in my opinion, is a bunch of hooey (I know I can say that word). Go to the med school you want to, in a place you want to attend, to a place where you like what they offer, and preferably a place that has a lower tuition. As I have said before, "med school attended" is probably about 10th on the list of important factors that residency programs consider.

This is because almost everyone in the medical field knows of someone from a "superior" med school who is not only a stellar pain in the rear but also someone they would never trust their own personal diagnosis to, and they also know people that went to med schools they may have never heard of who they would send their children to.

Anyway, I guess it's pretty obvious how I feel about this...don't listen to the premeds who want you to believe that anyone who goes to a top ten (on whatever list you choose) med school will forever have their wishes in life granted.
 
This may be true, but are there any schools that consider pathology more important than others might?

I'm pretty sure that most state schools trying to produce primary care docs "discourage" pathology by either not admitting those who express such interests (or anyone who they think might become a pathologist) or poo-poo pathology once you're in (you know... "Pathologists aren't real doctors").

Perhaps these are the places the OP might want to avoid.

Just opining...

-X

yaah said:
Where you do residency is definitely more important, although where you do med school often occurs during some defining years and you end up mapping out your life based on this.
 
You raise an interesting point. I know there are some med schools (like iowa for one) that do a wonderful job of teaching path during the first couple of years, and wind up with a higher # of grads going into it as a career. At UMass, I am the only one in my class in the last 3 years to choose path as a career. I don't necessarily think this is for any reasons in particular. They do a good job of teaching it at umass as well, which is part of the reason I ended up getting interested in it. There are more people at my school who have a primary care mindset, however. The school really doesn't discourage any one career in particular at all. They do provide some encouragements towards primary care fields (more opportunities, vocal support, loans) but it is all optional. I didn't feel hindered at all by the school. In fact, they were pleased.

I also don't think that med schools would decide not to admit someone based on their expressed preference of a certain field. They know that most people change their minds many times during the course of med school in terms of which field they want to enter, and they would be pretty silly to not admit someone just because they expressed an interest in pathology. More likely, they would be ranking someone lower if they expressed only an interest in pathology, refused to consider other fields, and perhaps badmouthed internists during the interview. But they would also reject a potential pediatrician who did the same thing.

Every med school is going to have certain members of the community who have axes to grind about other specialties. So you will nearly always find someone who disagrees with your choice of specialty, whatever that may be, as well as finding those who support it. I really don't think you are going to be hurt by not going to a school with a great path reputation. This is more important, I would think, for students who wouldn't have realized that path could be a great career, and would just automatically dismiss it. These people might benefit from being at a school like Iowa with great teaching and more exposure to the field as a potential career. They might simply get lost in the shuffle of "which branch of IM do I choose?" If you start med school with an interest in finding out about path and pursuing it as a potential career, you should do alright at almost any competent med school. You're unlikely to get that much of a legup on the competition, because as I said, you're still just a med student. Even if you work with the world's expert, you're still just a med student. Your research experience in the world expert's lab is not really going to be "counted" for more than someone who had an equal level of research in a relative unknown's lab.
 
How does attending a school in the Caribbean affect residency matching? I was considering Ross (a teacher informed me about Ross), but have heard that Caribbean schools have a stigma attached to them.

Also, what's the deal with medical schools that do not give grades (like Yale) or schools that just give pass/fail grades? How do residency programs judge a student when the student doesn't have regular grades?
 
Attending a caribbean school will label you an "FMG" but this doesn't really mean doors will be closed to you. You will probably have to work harder to get into a top program but in the end, if you have a solid application, you should land a path spot somewhere. That being said, who knows what the "hot field" will be in four years. More and more people are discovering path because lifestyle is becoming an increasingly more important factor in residency selection. My advice, go to US Allopathic or Osteopathic (or different kind of stigma, but becoming less of one...) if you can. If not, check out the carib schools, they do produce good qualified physicians.
 
smokeycat said:
Also, what's the deal with medical schools that do not give grades (like Yale) or schools that just give pass/fail grades? How do residency programs judge a student when the student doesn't have regular grades?

Many medical schools give grades on exams, but the transcript will only indicate fail/pass/honors for the individual modules or courses. The theory is this method emphasizes the importance of learning the material for the sake of learning, not just for the grade. In the end, if you only cram it into your short term memory for the grade, you may have some difficulty with Step 1 and later with actually applying knowledge in practice. Although it's frustrating for a conscientious Med I or II to hear, the first two years of medical school are usually compressed into one or two sentences in your dean's letter that summarize whether you failed any courses or received honors. The other indicator of your first two years is your Step 1 score. You are not completely doomed if you do poorly on Step 1, nor are you automatically guaranteed a spot at the best residency program in the country if you score in the 99th percentile. However, it may help you get an interview. The absence of grades is not a reason to blow off Med I-II, either - it's essentially the last time your only job will be to study, so take advantage of it. The more you learn in the first two years, the better off you'll be in Med III-IV, and beyond.

As for the residency programs, they also look at how you did in Med III and place quite a lot of importance on your interview and your letters of recommendation (which are more likely to come from your Med III attendings, not your Med I-II professors - although there are always exceptions.) Test scores/grades do not necessarily indicate how you will perform as a physician - (strangely enough, most patients do not present with a multiple choice test pasted to their foreheads) - that's why more weight is placed on how you apply your knowledge and interact with people in the clinics.
 
smokeycat said:
Also, what's the deal with medical schools that do not give grades (like Yale) or schools that just give pass/fail grades? How do residency programs judge a student when the student doesn't have regular grades?

Didn't you read some of those other threads in other subjects? Apparently, if you go to Yale, you are guaranteed a spot at any residency you want, and obviously everyone who goes there is an intellectual stud, and everyone is considered an honor student. We folks at non top-ten institutions can only hope to pick up the scraps from their leftovers. 🙄 :laugh: 😛 :meanie: (all the smilies I could think to represent sarcasm).

In actuality, I think the other posters are correct, although I should say that during some of my interviews my grades from the first 2 years came up as a "positive factor." But I think that residency directors are savvy enough to know how to evaluate someone. Grades the first two years are pretty much unimportant (unless you fail), and grades from 3rd and 4th year are somewhat more important, but these are also widely acknowledged to be somewhat subjective. USMLE step I score kind of acts as a proxy for the first two years, so perhaps it becomes more important for the Yale kids.

But yes, LORs and previous experience in the field are very important, especially for path, which as a field is somewhat collegial and respectful.
 
Top