Prep for USMLEPrep for USMLE
         Forum      |     Resources New Posts   |   Register   |   Login

 Pathology 2009  

Post Reply  
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Author91 Posts

Thanks kleila. might call a few programs tomorrow to ask whether applying on Wednesday or Thursday is too late. rolling eyes


Having a PhD from a US school means solid research training for at least 4 years. Let's say if an applicant owns a PhD from USC. Even though it's not ranked as top 30 by US News, would PDs think it makes very little impact on the application?

But on the other hands, I do hope that PDs love my school because I don't have that many publications like you guys. sticking out tongue

GRB07, are you applying for pathology as well?


Can someone tell me how much does an attempt affect CV for pathology.I have two attempts in CK .Thanks in anticipation.



you are wrong. actually only Phd from a good institution means solid research background, (top 20-25), and can be respected. So when people marked themselves as Us PhD , it is always good to indicate school name or ranking, otherwsie meanless.
(it is the same thing as you called yourself American, what does it mean ? the rich or the poor ?, maybe very rich ,maybe very very poor,)

Moreover, there are a lot of canadian or european PhDs entering this market, they also need to know where they stand. so it is really informative to state it clearly the ranking of your schools. ( for example, for oxford graduates, they will take top 10 US schools as reference, for Mcgill graduates, they will take top 25-30 american schools as reference. )

Simply Us PhD means nothing. you might know most of US schools are even not as good as some universities in develiping countries.



I don't want to start a fight but I don't completely agree with you.

The Science magazine gives a "GE Young Scientist Award" to the most outstanding graduate student of the year. I am talking about the superstars who hit Nature/Science twice in four years. There are winners who are from Cold Spring Harbor Lab (SUNY Stony Brooks) and UIUC. Do I consider their research backgrounds weaker than mine just because I graduated from a higher-ranked school? I don't think so. There are other factors which might better show a person's research potential: publications, which lab he is from (the Nobel Laureate Craig Mello is from U Mass which is not even top 30 according to the US News ranking), etc. School's name is not everything. Also I don't know how subjective the US News ranking is. It's not like election polls which are from multiple sources. For example, my school is much smaller (much fewer PIs) than Harvard, JHU, and Duke, so of course we don't get that much "overall NIH funding" compared to them. But funding is a fact US News use to evaluate a school.

By the way Cambridge/Oxford might have their names but we all know the graduate students in England get their degree in three years no matter what. There's no quality control like the thesis committee in the US. How can three years of training in those big-name schools be more solid than 5-8 years in a US school?

However, I do agree that the reputation of school carries some weight. I hope PDs are not blinded just by the glory of the names.


I don't want to fight with you. But I don't agree with what you are talking about.


hey, come on....don't fight...this thred suppose to be about support.....come on shake hands and hug...hard times are coming ....nod


I believe that the facts are very clear.

1, MOST of American schools are actually not good, I would say they are even not as good as many u. in the developing countries. (30 U. at most could be respected)
2, 5-8 years PhD training does not mean solid . (didn't you hear that lots of US PhD didn't have single publication)
3, I knew that many US PhDs actually were not looked at favorably by programs, if comparing with some foreign big name Universities (like Oxford, Cambridge, Karolinska etc.).

Of course, different people knew different stories, But I just present a general big picture here.


GRB07, you are making the same arguments as your previous post, which cherryho already responded. Saying the same thing over and over will not convince others. If you have stats, it would be better. The truth is, from NRMP match data, Ph.D. and research does not help much. If you are as young as cherryho, have a score as high as hers, you will get matched, simple as that.


what cherrho argued is "5-8 y training mean solid ". do you think it is funny ? lots of US PhD don't have single publication after 8 years. does it mean US PhD is more stupid ?

what he/she said sounds U mass is much stronger than oxford, do you think it is ridiculous?

I don't wish to argue more, people can judge the facts by themselves.


This is an excellent answer
(it is the same thing as you called yourself American, what does it mean ? the rich or the poor ?, maybe very rich ,maybe very very poor,)
do you agree ?


Whatever. No point to argue here. If I really want to know I can just email my boss or my Chair to ask them what kind of candidates they would like to take. sticking out tongue


again different people certainly have different opinions, just like you and me.
actually I have heard this situation that is why we discussed here.

of course clinical programs maybe care less about PhD and so no. but here we are talking about pathology.
Actually I knew several cases in our hospital. IMG with PhD from foreign big name schools can compete with AMG. But IMG with PhD from a less-well-knowned american schools lack of competition.

So cherryho, you graduate from columbia university and has good score, green card and so no, don't worry at all.

I just want to argue US PhD does not mean anything, it might be Harvard, Hopkins or could be University of Toledo, University of Houston, you must know that is huge huge difference.


I bet if u worked in Craig Mello lab at UMass you would have very very solid references.

But on the other hand you probably would not applying for Path match. If you look at stat from the match last year the funny thing is that for path match the non-matched candidates had mor pubblications on average than the matched ones. Isn't that surprising? Anyway pubblications will count only AFTER you get the interview, before then they won't even look at them. Scores are important because that's the way the usually do initial screening of candidates. So if you have low scores you'll get less interviews, and even if you have a lot of pubblications it won't matter. LORs might come in handy earlier in the processes but scores are the one that will keep you application on the table and not in the trashcan at the beginning.

That said, all fancy CV stuff is going to make a difference during the interview process.

Good luck to everybody



Welcome to the forum and good points! smiling face

Some initial screening might be done by PCs who can set a filter on the test scores.

Even on interview, scores might matter. My boss, an attending neurologist, told me that he cares quite a bit about the test scores. He usu looks at the scores on interview.



score must be most important. Morover, the number of publication means nothing. 1 Nature = 100 papers or more in lowly ranked journals.

I even heard some Chinese people also count their Chinese paper. The quality of publication mst be much more important than number.



thanks for the welcome! I think you have a great CV and you shouldn't have any problems matching in a good program. You are also a permanent resident which is a very good thing and will put you in a privileged position over other IMG that need visas. I wish you the best luck.


You're right, impact factor means a lot. But again it means nothing if you don't get interviews. Also it depends if you are the first author. Better a first authorship in a middle journal than your name in the middle of 50 authors paper in Nature (at least this is how I see it!). Also, it would be odd if your only publication is a Nature! (possible but unlikely)

Wish you the best!

I will apply for match 2010 (sadly!) but I hope you don't mind my intrusion in this discussion!



I believe that in most programs, they screen applicants with multiple factors rather than only score. Actually in most pathology programs, the score threshold is not as high as IM or surgery. almost most applicants can readily pass the score threshold.
LOR, your academic background etc are also very important screen factors.

I never saw anyone only have a single Nature paper. it is odd. in another hand, very few residency applicants have Nature paper. most of them only have some small papers. so if you have multiple cancer research papers should be outstanding in the aspect.


For pathology, step 1 score maybe more important for obvious reasons.

OK, it is a tired argument now, and it is not productive, so let's drop it.

Algernon, are you also applying path?


I will apply path next year for match 2010. I'm an IMG and I'm done with ECFMG but I still need to change my visa status and also I have some work to finish before abandoning my research job.

Bookmark and Share

Login or Register to post messages

show Similar forum topics

Pathology 2009 Rejections/Interview
kaplan pathology vs goljan pathology
Kaplan Pathology & PreTest Pathology
show Related resources

Rapid Review Pathology
Robbins Basic Pathology
Pathology cases - Univ of Pittsburg

Advertise | Support | Privacy | TOS | Premium | Contact