NYC Programs: Comparison

[nmourtzi]

I know that there has been a thread on NYU (without response) and Einstein and Cornell, but can anyone offer comparative insight into all of these programs? I am more interested in the educational reputation, teaching, resident eval, etc., versus living in NYC. I have not heard too much about each program, other than the lifestyle component of living in NYC.

Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PathOne]

Generally speaking, I think NYC is better for fellowships than for residencies.
I wouldn't rate any of the programs you mention as exceptional, but perhaps generally lower tier 1. Of course NYC has the lifestyle, but if I was ranking, none would be my top pick.
My personal and subjective NYC ranking would probably have Columbia as the top pick, and the rest fairly close, with different strengths, e.g. NYU: Dermpath. Einstein: GI, Cornell: Hemepath.
Also, there's Mt. Sinai. HUGE volume, and if you can stand the pressure, I think they'd make a good pathologist out of you, so they would probably be my second pick.

 

[Zoloft]

Generally speaking, I think NYC is better for fellowships than for residencies.
I wouldn't rate any of the programs you mention as exceptional, but perhaps generally lower tier 1. Of course NYC has the lifestyle, but if I was ranking, none would be my top pick.
My personal and subjective NYC ranking would probably have Columbia as the top pick, and the rest fairly close, with different strengths, e.g. NYU: Dermpath. Einstein: GI, Cornell: Hemepath.
Also, there's Mt. Sinai. HUGE volume, and if you can stand the pressure, I think they'd make a good pathologist out of you, so they would probably be my second pick.

I think NYC is one of the best places for residency. Yeah the city is way too expensive, but most of the programs are very strong. Surgical pathology was literally invented at Columbia. Mt. Sinai's department has discovered more diseases than any other department in the world. Cornell's faculty are well published. Einstein invented cytology with most of the faculty still there. Of all these programs, I would say that Sinai has the largest number of prestigous fellowships. That being said, I think all of these programs have excellent academic reputations.

 

[nmourtzi]

Thank you both for your responses. Finally I have some guidance about each. If anyone else has anything to offer, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks.

 

[pathres2]

I would say that, as far as academic pathology training programs are concerned, Cornell and Columbia stand out among the rest of the NYC programs, both in terms of reputation and quality of training. But, of course, I am biased.

Between Cornell and Columbia the comparison is an ongoing debate: they are both very similar in terms of size of residency programs, volume of surgical specimens and academic vs. private practice aspirations of their graduates. They are both fairly visible in the publishing (journal articles, books, etc.), academic meeting (e.g USCAP) and consultation domains. Also, there is significant exchange in fellowships and junior attending positions (meaning they hire each other's graduates) and they are part of the same hospital!

Individual strengths, however, differ: Cornell is better known for breast (Dr. Rosen), hematopathology, cytology and dermatopathology and it is stronger in CP. Columbia is better known for renal pathology, neuropathology, soft tissue and autopsy and has stronger research support (if you don't count the Cornell-Rockefeller-Sloan Kettering connection). GI and GYN are probably similarly strong. Finally, the individual "feel" of each program might be different, but that is best experienced and evaluated when you physically visit, e.g. for an interview.

 

[PathOne]

...fully support the views of pathres2 (except that I would prob. rate NYU higher in dermpath than Cornell). Would, however, also mention that Mt. Sinai certainly has its strong points, as described by Zoloft, as does NYU and Einstein.

Perhaps my previous post was a bit harsh. I certainly don't want to imply that NYC programs are bad, or even mediocre. But whereas it might be expected that the biggest US city would have the standout best path programs, I find that there's highly competitive rivals to NYC.
However, NYC probably stands out if you look at the AVERAGE quality of the programs, which are probably the highest for any metro area. I.e.: If you want to be in NYC, all of them can make a fine pathologist out of you.

 

[pathres2]

... But whereas it might be expected that the biggest US city would have the standout best path programs, I find that there's highly competitive rivals to NYC.

I completely agree. Even though supposedly New York city is becoming a magnet for the health care industry (see recent article in the New York Times), there are, by most accounts, better hospitals, medical schools and pathology residency programs out there. By purely academic standards, I think that the trio of BWH, MGH and Hopkins is objectively the cream of the crop in anatomic pathology. The rest of the "tier 1" programs are much harder to agree on and will depend on individual preferences, lifestyle issues, historical considerations and specific subspecialties. The strength of New York city is probably diluted among the 5 big academic medical centers.

 

[PathOne]

Couldn't have put it better myself...
If I was going for a residency tomorrow, I'd put BWH first, MGH second. Love NYC - live here, and am happy. But those would top my list if I would start all over again....

 

[Zoloft]

I would say that, as far as academic pathology training programs are concerned, Cornell and Columbia stand out among the rest of the NYC programs, both in terms of reputation and quality of training. But, of course, I am biased.

Between Cornell and Columbia the comparison is an ongoing debate: they are both very similar in terms of size of residency programs, volume of surgical specimens and academic vs. private practice aspirations of their graduates. They are both fairly visible in the publishing (journal articles, books, etc.), academic meeting (e.g USCAP) and consultation domains. Also, there is significant exchange in fellowships and junior attending positions (meaning they hire each other's graduates) and they are part of the same hospital!

Individual strengths, however, differ: Cornell is better known for breast (Dr. Rosen), hematopathology, cytology and dermatopathology and it is stronger in CP. Columbia is better known for renal pathology, neuropathology, soft tissue and autopsy and has stronger research support (if you don't count the Cornell-Rockefeller-Sloan Kettering connection). GI and GYN are probably similarly strong. Finally, the individual "feel" of each program might be different, but that is best experienced and evaluated when you physically visit, e.g. for an interview.

The one thing I noticed on the interview trail throughout the NYC area is that I was surprised by my pre-interview and post-interview impressions of the programs. Columbia and Cornell are both Ivy league schools with great reputations, however I didn't know how big the name "Mt. Sinai" was in pathology until after the interview. Most of the "Big Name" positions at all of the "Big Name" divisions of NYC programs are Mt. Sinai grads: Director of NYU Dermpath (Hideko Kamino ), Chairman of Memorial Sloan Kettering (Marc Rosenblum), and most of the faculty at the NYME. Alot of their own grads are now Division Directors and they currently have some of the biggest names in liver (Swan Thung), GI (Noam Harpaz), OB/GYN (L. Deligdisch), hemepath (J. Strauchen), and derm (Robert Phelps).

Einstein, even though in the Bronx, has produced some of the biggest names in cytology. If you check the cytology websites of alot of different programs, you will see that their cytology directors are Einstein grads.

Of all the NYC programs, I would say NYU needs the most work. This a program that is better for fellowships.

The fact that these programs produce these people doesn't mean that every resident from there will be as successful. Maybe it was just something in the water, but I think being at one of these places is a better way to start than just from scratch.

 

[pathres2]

Couldn't have put it better myself...
If I was going for a residency tomorrow, I'd put BWH first, MGH second. Love NYC - live here, and am happy. But those would top my list if I would start all over again....

Actually, if I were to do it all again, I would still come to NYC for residency. The training is not so much inferior to the top three and the bonus of living in NYC (again, that is a personal choice) for me is unmatched. Now, fellowship is another matter; but one can sacrifice a single year away from New York...

 

[Zoloft]

Actually, if I were to do it all again, I would still come to NYC for residency. The training is not so much inferior to the top three and the bonus of living in NYC (again, that is a personal choice) for me is unmatched. Now, fellowship is another matter; but one can sacrifice a single year away from New York...

Not good for fellowships? Memorial Sloan Ketteriing is about as good as you can get!

 

[desmangt]

I completely agree. Even though supposedly New York city is becoming a magnet for the health care industry (see recent article in the New York Times), there are, by most accounts, better hospitals, medical schools and pathology residency programs out there. By purely academic standards, I think that the trio of BWH, MGH and Hopkins is objectively the cream of the crop in anatomic pathology. The rest of the "tier 1" programs are much harder to agree on and will depend on individual preferences, lifestyle issues, historical considerations and specific subspecialties. The strength of New York city is probably diluted among the 5 big academic medical centers.

I agree that the strengths of the NYC programs may be diluted amongst the 5 big academic programs, however look at Boston. It's the same thing. In comparison with the strenghts of the Boston programs; BWH known for research (NIH funds), MGH for diagnostics (huge department with huge surg volume), and BID for average of both (big name authors of texts, i.e. Antonioli, etc.). I would say Columbia is the research program (highest NIH funding in the city), Mt. Sinai is the diagnostics program (huge department with biggest volume in the country), and Cornell is a good mix of both (big name authors, i.e. Rosen, etc.).
I just think that the faculty at NYC departments tends to be more inbread with NYC grads than other cities.

 

[PathOne]

For what it's worth, agree with above post... However, it is somewhat of a moot discussion. ALL the big institutions in NYC and Boston can and do train excellent pathologists, and I really don't think ANY of them can claim to be vastly superior to the others.

They have different strengths and few weaknesses, are all known across the country and across the world and I would advise anybody who's interviewed at all or some of them to pick the one that fits best as seen from the level of personality and/or gut feeling. Don't worry. They're all good.

This becomes very apparent when looking at fellowships. I can't think of a single institution which would be #1 for all fellowships.
Dermpath = go to Ackerman (or UCSF if you're into molec dp)
Neuro = go to MSKCC
Soft Tissue = BWH
etc. etc.
However, residency is longer, so think about where you'd want to live for an extended period, and the program should provide you with a wide and deep variance, which all of the above does.