How heavily does education influence employment opportunities?

<p>It's been well stated on these boards that the prestige or ranking of one's medical school will only be very influential if the student is going to go into academic medicine. Therefore, one would arrive at the conclusion that, for a private practitioner, an M.D. is an M.D. and you're good to go.</p>

<p>However, what about students who plan on working in hospitals? What factors are most important or influential in a doctor's job application to a hospital? I'm most interested in the weight of the medical school and the place of residency. Does it make a difference if the hospital is a teaching hospital, or would that be considered academic medicine?</p>

<p>I am especially interested in hearing what any doctors currently or previously employed by hospitals have to say about this. Thank you.</p>

<p>Coming from a good undergraduate or medical school can help in a competitive situation. Most practicing physicians look more at residency programs than UG or med schools. That all being said, the thing that most often makes or breaks a deal is personal feedback from someone who has seen the physician work. In anesthesia recruiting, a positive or negative opinion from an OR charge nurse carries much more weight than academic alma mater.</p>

<p>Red flags for recruiting include foreign medical school for U.S. citizens, failure to become board certified within a reasonable time, residency training at a program known to be weak, extensive locum tenems practice or job hopping without a really good reason.</p>

<p>"Working in a hospital" is often still private practice. Teaching hospitals are generally academic positions.</p>

<p>I find "teaching hospitals" a pretty vague descriptor. Keep in mind that there are many, many residency programs at community based hospitals that aren't affiliated with an academic medical center. And there are plenty of medical schools which utilize community medical centers as place for training residents and teaching medical students. In my city, which has two medical schools, most of the public would only consider the university based hospitals "teaching hospitals" even though the VA and the local Children's are very prominent places for the residents and students of BOTH schools. Each school also has several other community hospitals in which they place students, residents, and fellows.</p>

<p>^ Forget my answer. Use this one.</p>

<p>Sorry I wasn't more specific when I said "teaching hospitals." I was referring to university-based hospitals that serve as the institutions' primary facility for teaching medical school students and offer residencies. I'm very unfamiliar with the hiring practices of these hospitals, but I assume that the attending physicians are considered to be in academic medicine, right?</p>

<p>For the most part yes. As I spend more and more time in my clinical clerkships I'm coming to find that our classic definition of "academic medicine" position - an MD who combines research, clinical teaching and patient care - is, at least at my medical school, a lot less common than I originally thought while in my first and second years. This seems particularly true in primary care areas - peds, internal medicine (as opposed to surgery or the surgical subspecialties, although again, classic academians are fewer than I originally estimated)- where the professors are much more focused on clinical teaching and patient care. For these positions, where research is not a major job component, where you received your MD isn't as important as it might be for this board's usual description of "Academic Medicine".</p>

<p>Where you got your MD matters only indirectly, but this can be important. Once you finish training, very few physicians will care, at all, where you went to medical school. You will be defined by where you trained, at least until you have established your own professional reputation. </p>

<p>Where you go to medical school CAN have a major influence on your ability to get highly oversubscribed residency positions. Coming from Hopkins med is a huge advantage if you want to train at Hopkins, and a less important, but still useful, leg up if you want to train at some other top place.</p>

<p>However, the advantage of training at a top place matters much more if you want to subspecialize, get work in a highly competitive city-like NY or SF, or build an academic career. If you want to do primary care private practice, your success will depend much much more on your people skills and business acumen than on where you trained, and not at all on where you went to med school.</p>

<p>Thanks a lot for the info everyone.</p>

<p>Afan: Currently, my goal is to eventually work in a large hospital in Boston or Manhattan. I realize that this goal certainly can, and is fairly likely to, change in the future, but as of right now that is where I'm at. Additionally, I may eventually want to try for a career in academic medicine. So, I guess the question I really should be asking is...</p>

<p>Outside of the "ROAD" specialties (Radiology, Opthalmology, Anesthesiology and Dermatology), how heavily does one's medical school influence where they can get their residency from? I'm especially interested in how this pertains to surgical specialties.</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

<p>If you want to work at a large hospital in Boston or New York, and perhaps in academics, then where you train makes a lot of difference. Since where you go to medical school helps with where you train, then your medical school will matter. You can get into top residencies without attending one of the more prestigious medical schools, it is just harder.</p>

<p>People overdue this ROAD stuff. The most competitive residencies rotate with changes in medical economics. Right now Radiology is declining- worries about future income, oversupply, and outsourcing. Anesthesiology has been undersubscribed in the past when people expected reductions in the amount of surgery. Some of the surgical specialties are perpetually highly sought after (neurosurgery, cardicac...). </p>

<p>If you train in primary care, family practice or pediatrics, then you have lots of choices of where to work, but your income will be much lower than your classmates who become spine surgeons.</p>

<p>My impression was that cardiothoracic, right now, is actually desperate for fellows rather than its usual position at the top of the totem pole. Gossip around my school is that fellowships couldn't even fill last year.</p>

<p>No need for gossip. See the match results for 2007: NRMP</a> Fellowship Matches: Thoracic Surgery</p>

<p>Interventional Cardiology is taking a lot of thunder away from CT surgery - mainly because those interested in CT surg usually are interested in the Cardiac portion. If you're more interested in the thoracic portion, then you'll likely still apply. </p>

<p>Diagnostic Radiology is certainly. Rad Onc was up there with Derm, ENT, Plastics, and Ortho in the regular match as the few specialties in which there were actually more US Senior applicants than available positions. As more students work in situations in which Interventional Radiology is used more frequently, I suspect that there will be more interest in IR. That wave is coming and I'll attest that IR can do some really cool things.</p>

<p>Anesthesia seems to be one of those specialties that is really, really, really cyclical. Ten to twelve years ago, you couldn't get anyone to go that direction and now it's a pretty popular choice (though still doesn't reach that 1:1 ratio of US applicants to positions range).</p>

<p>"If you want to work at a large hospital in Boston or New York, and perhaps in academics, then where you train makes a lot of difference."</p>

<p>Though this is about what I expected, the term "a lot" still kind of bothers me. :p</p>

<p>One of the specialties/sub specialties that (currently) interests me is Cardiothoracic Surgery, so it's a bit comforting to know that hospitals want more fellows in that area than they have.</p>

<p>Family Practice and Pediatrics don't really interest me too much, and I think I want to work at a hospital anyway. On that note, sorry to hijack my own thread, but how do most hospitals handle malpractice? Full coverage, no coverage, somewhere in between? Thanks.</p>

<p>Malpractice at hospitals runs from the complete spectrum. Hospital employed physicians are often, but not always, covered by the hospital policy. Private practice physicians almost always maintain their own policies.</p>

<p>While having someone else pay your malpractice sounds like a good idea, it may have the disadvantage of giving up control of whether a settlement or vigorous defense will be pursued. Another disadvantage of hospital determined malpractice coverage is that most malpractice carriers provide coverage in limited geographic area -- not a big deal for a hospital, but it can limit options or increase cost for a potentially mobile physician.</p>