Are "Ivory Tower" academic pathology programs actually accessible to regular MD students?

[PathNeuroIMorFM]

I was looking at this table (below) for stats of the "test scores and experiences of first year residents" published by the AAMC. I was a little blown away by the number of publications in the upper 75th and 90th percentile, as these rival or surpass other specialties like IM, general surgery, vascular surgery, etc.

I'm doing a research year in path right now, but it feels like I would need to do a PhDs worth of work to get into the higher level academic residencies. Looking at the "Current Residents" pages of many programs, they are fairly stacked with MD/PhD and DO/PhD residents. But it is also confusing as many residents at these programs are IMGs.

I'm currently only sitting on 1 manuscript, 3 posters, and 2 abstracts (all completed/published), with at least 1-2 more manuscripts being written before returning to 3rd year and 1-2 more posters before returning to 3rd year.

Link to the full table (includes all specialties) here: https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/s...nd-experiences-first-year-residents-specialty

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SunBakedTrash]

The number of publications and other academic work is artificially inflated by the high number of IMGs with PhDs. You have far more research experience and academic accomplishments than most medical students entering pathology. The single most helpful variable for getting into a “top” residency is being an American medical graduate.

 

[Guest8]

The single most helpful variable for getting into a “top” residency is being an American medical graduate.

Yep. I went to a "top" residency, and prior to applying my adviser had said that I'm American and speak English and will likely be able to go wherever I wanted. I had zero publications - a few abstracts and posters only. I did have decent grades and step scores.

 

[M&L]

Yep. I went to a "top" residency, and prior to applying my adviser had said that I'm American and speak English and will likely be able to go wherever I wanted. I had zero publications - a few abstracts and posters only. I did have decent grades and step scores.

applying now, - interview reason just started, so do not know where i will match, but my advisor said exact same thing. "You are a USMD without red flags, with publications and you speak english. You can go ANYWHERE in path"

 

[PathNeuroIMorFM]

applying now, - interview reason just started, so do not know where i will match, but my advisor said exact same thing. "You are a USMD without red flags, with publications and you speak english. You can go ANYWHERE in path"

Please keep me updated on the interviews!

I'm just a little worried that the "American, speaks English, and has a pulse can go anywhere" saying is just a bit dated, because almost a quarter of applicants have a PhD and a third come from "top 40" medical schools, of which I am neither.

Most of my neuroticism comes from the fact that my program of choice has about 40% of their residents with a PhD and 10% with an MS/MA.

 

[M&L]

Please keep me updated on the interviews!

I'm just a little worried that the "American, speaks English, and has a pulse can go anywhere" saying is just a bit dated, because almost a quarter of applicants have a PhD and a third come from "top 40" medical schools, of which I am neither.

Most of my neuroticism comes from the fact that my program of choice has about 40% of their residents with a PhD and 10% with an MS/MA.

which year are you?

 

[LADoc00]

Im missing something, you want to go to a top academic research pathology program WHY exactly?

A career in government funded academic research is a bad idea right now. All government funding is going to be squeezed down immensely for the next decade due to massive prior spending and deficits.

Its the equivalent of saying you want to work for Carvana or Peloton...or perhaps Lehman Brothers in 2006.

 

[gbwillner]

Im missing something, you want to go to a top academic research pathology program WHY exactly?

A career in government funded academic research is a bad idea right now. All government funding is going to be squeezed down immensely for the next decade due to massive prior spending and deficits.

Its the equivalent of saying you want to work for Carvana or Peloton...or perhaps Lehman Brothers in 2006.

Not everyone's motivation is a career that generates revenue. It is totally acceptable to want a research heavy career, even if you know you leave a lot of $$ on the table.

 

[KeratinPearls]

Yeah I knew a dude who was in his PhD program for 10 years before he graduated.

Some people truly do it for the love of science.

 

[PathNeuroIMorFM]

which year are you?

Research year between 2nd year (preclinical) and 3rd (clinical)

Im missing something, you want to go to a top academic research pathology program WHY exactly?

A career in government funded academic research is a bad idea right now. All government funding is going to be squeezed down immensely for the next decade due to massive prior spending and deficits.

Its the equivalent of saying you want to work for Carvana or Peloton...or perhaps Lehman Brothers in 2006.

Half of it is I really like doing path research, the other half is I am heavily preferential to the West after graduation which hardly has any non-acdemic programs. WA, OR, UT, HI, and CO all only have a single academic program each. ID (my home state), AK, NV, MT, WY all don't have a single program at all. Only Cali has a mix of programs.

My wife and I are also DINK and never wanted for the finer luxuries, so money isn't a huge issue. My largest financial concern will be purchasing decent housing if we end up in Seattle, Cali, or other high COL area.

 

[caffeinegirl]

Do you want to do basic science research (ie. be a PI of your own lab), or be a clinical faculty (ie. mostly teaching, clinical work and clinicopathological style research). Those are two very different tracks, suited to different types of training (basic science most suited to MD/PhDs).

 

[PathNeuroIMorFM]

Do you want to do basic science research (ie. be a PI of your own lab), or be a clinical faculty (ie. mostly teaching, clinical work and clinicopathological style research). Those are two very different tracks, suited to different types of training (basic science most suited to MD/PhDs).

It's probably a bit early to say. The kind of research I'm doing now (and the kind I enjoy) is basic lab research.

I think it would be wise to keep doors open to both paths, if possible.

 

[caffeinegirl]

There is quite a difference in bench vs. non bench research - both in professional/career track and environment. If you enjoy basic lab research, then go to a large academic institution that will give you elective time to do bench research (a lot of AP only and AP/NP tracks offer this). Start networking once you get there to get a good PI/mentor to help you get the skills necessary to start your own lab. It's not unheard of being an MD - I know many of my colleagues from residency who have done this and succeeded. But being in the right academic environment with a Chair and Program Director who will help you develop is crucial for success - and this is the "big name" institutions (I favor the Boston programs). Also, don't discount industry - many of my colleagues went into biotech/pharma and are doing really well.
As for your preference to stay in the West, I would recommend Stanford and UCSF- especially if you're interested in genomics/personalized medicine - and they do have graduates who stay on in the institution or who go into industry (there are lots more industry opportunities in the Bay Area). If you're up front during the application process, and have already reached out to faculty in those institutions, that's a big plus. Or if you currently have connections with your current PI, that helps too.

 

[LADoc00]

Not everyone's motivation is a career that generates revenue. It is totally acceptable to want a research heavy career, even if you know you leave a lot of $$ on the table.

Yah but also realize some of the best research is now in industry. Less politics, less BS, more results etc. Also I am the archetype of the physician who never in a million years would have thought I would be working in community medicine. I was "Ride or Die" research at one point and was talked out of it by several legendary academics in my field. It was one of the biggest shocks of my life to meet my scientific aspirational "hero" and have him tell you "you can do better."

 

[HeyDalaron]

There is quite a difference in bench vs. non bench research - both in professional/career track and environment. If you enjoy basic lab research, then go to a large academic institution that will give you elective time to do bench research (a lot of AP only and AP/NP tracks offer this). Start networking once you get there to get a good PI/mentor to help you get the skills necessary to start your own lab. It's not unheard of being an MD - I know many of my colleagues from residency who have done this and succeeded. But being in the right academic environment with a Chair and Program Director who will help you develop is crucial for success - and this is the "big name" institutions (I favor the Boston programs). Also, don't discount industry - many of my colleagues went into biotech/pharma and are doing really well.
As for your preference to stay in the West, I would recommend Stanford and UCSF- especially if you're interested in genomics/personalized medicine - and they do have graduates who stay on in the institution or who go into industry (there are lots more industry opportunities in the Bay Area). If you're up front during the application process, and have already reached out to faculty in those institutions, that's a big plus. Or if you currently have connections with your current PI, that helps too.

This has been my impression as well: the best, cutting edge stuff is being done in private industry. Academics is where high level, high pressure and high stakes clinical work is done on the cheap.