(03-12-2022, 02:05 AM)Guest Wrote: (03-11-2022, 02:12 PM)Guest Wrote: doesnt matter at all. neurosurgery is pseudo academic with politics taking precedence over real research. just look at the journals and AANS CNS to see that.
What do you mean by this? Can you go into more detail? Thank you
i didnt write this comment but it is pretty self explanatory. look at who is in charge of journals and organizations. they are not necessarily the most published or funded researchers. its all poltiics.
(03-13-2022, 03:44 PM)Guest Wrote: (03-12-2022, 02:05 AM)Guest Wrote: (03-11-2022, 02:12 PM)Guest Wrote: doesnt matter at all. neurosurgery is pseudo academic with politics taking precedence over real research. just look at the journals and AANS CNS to see that.
What do you mean by this? Can you go into more detail? Thank you
i didnt write this comment but it is pretty self explanatory. look at who is in charge of journals and organizations. they are not necessarily the most published or funded researchers. its all poltiics.
Or they are completely different skill sets? Being a leading researcher does not been you are suitable to lead an organization? How is this difficult for people to comprehend?
(03-13-2022, 05:35 PM)Guest Wrote: (03-13-2022, 03:44 PM)Guest Wrote: (03-12-2022, 02:05 AM)Guest Wrote: (03-11-2022, 02:12 PM)Guest Wrote: doesnt matter at all. neurosurgery is pseudo academic with politics taking precedence over real research. just look at the journals and AANS CNS to see that.
What do you mean by this? Can you go into more detail? Thank you
i didnt write this comment but it is pretty self explanatory. look at who is in charge of journals and organizations. they are not necessarily the most published or funded researchers. its all poltiics.
Or they are completely different skill sets? Being a leading researcher does not been you are suitable to lead an organization? How is this difficult for people to comprehend?
Because this is a group of people so used to achievement that they feel entitled to every brand of it. Academic medicine and leadership require entirely different skill sets, and often personalities, than being a good bench researcher.
(03-13-2022, 07:33 PM)Guest Wrote: (03-13-2022, 05:35 PM)Guest Wrote: (03-13-2022, 03:44 PM)Guest Wrote: (03-12-2022, 02:05 AM)Guest Wrote: (03-11-2022, 02:12 PM)Guest Wrote: doesnt matter at all. neurosurgery is pseudo academic with politics taking precedence over real research. just look at the journals and AANS CNS to see that.
What do you mean by this? Can you go into more detail? Thank you
i didnt write this comment but it is pretty self explanatory. look at who is in charge of journals and organizations. they are not necessarily the most published or funded researchers. its all poltiics.
Or they are completely different skill sets? Being a leading researcher does not been you are suitable to lead an organization? How is this difficult for people to comprehend?
Because this is a group of people so used to achievement that they feel entitled to every brand of it. Academic medicine and leadership require entirely different skill sets, and often personalities, than being a good bench researcher.
Bench research is respected because it is difficult. There are no shortcuts.
(03-13-2022, 10:05 PM)Guest Wrote: (03-13-2022, 07:33 PM)Guest Wrote: (03-13-2022, 05:35 PM)Guest Wrote: (03-13-2022, 03:44 PM)Guest Wrote: (03-12-2022, 02:05 AM)Guest Wrote: What do you mean by this? Can you go into more detail? Thank you
i didnt write this comment but it is pretty self explanatory. look at who is in charge of journals and organizations. they are not necessarily the most published or funded researchers. its all poltiics.
Or they are completely different skill sets? Being a leading researcher does not been you are suitable to lead an organization? How is this difficult for people to comprehend?
Because this is a group of people so used to achievement that they feel entitled to every brand of it. Academic medicine and leadership require entirely different skill sets, and often personalities, than being a good bench researcher.
Bench research is respected because it is difficult. There are no shortcuts.
Okay? Thanks for contributing nothing of value to the conversation. X is hard, therefore I should be entitled to Y. What? Morons seriously.
I love the completely misguided belief that bench research is the only thing that is hard and have no shortcuts. I’m sure the translational and clinical guys running national and international protocols are just sitting around shooting the shit, short-cutting their way through FDA approvals.
(03-14-2022, 08:17 AM)Guest Wrote: I love the completely misguided belief that bench research is the only thing that is hard and have no shortcuts. I’m sure the translational and clinical guys running national and international protocols are just sitting around shooting the shit, short-cutting their way through FDA approvals.
Those spearheading major clinical trials are the minority. Many neurosurgeons find tremendous professional success with retrospective work, case series, surveys, perspective pieces, etc. Doing NIH funded research is just a completely different bar to clear and is where the real innovation that pushes the field forward is going to come from. This should be valued and promoted by the community.
(03-14-2022, 10:52 AM)Guest Wrote: (03-14-2022, 08:17 AM)Guest Wrote: I love the completely misguided belief that bench research is the only thing that is hard and have no shortcuts. I’m sure the translational and clinical guys running national and international protocols are just sitting around shooting the shit, short-cutting their way through FDA approvals.
Those spearheading major clinical trials are the minority. Many neurosurgeons find tremendous professional success with retrospective work, case series, surveys, perspective pieces, etc. Doing NIH funded research is just a completely different bar to clear and is where the real innovation that pushes the field forward is going to come from. This should be valued and promoted by the community.
And leadership positions aren’t the minority? I’m not really understanding your point here. The question wasn’t about how many. Guy said bench work is hard, as though other things aren’t, whether it’s 20 guys doing it or 200 is not the point.
Secondly, the NIH piece, you do realize the NIH funds community research, clinical work, public health work, etc etc. and again, the bar is high for all of those. So bench work once again is not the only thing to look to in measuring academic prowess or success.
Posts: 43
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2018
Reputation:
0
03-14-2022, 03:21 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2022, 03:22 PM by drstrange.)
At some point, we are, as a field, going to have to grapple with the true use of spamming out low-quality work that few people read and even fewer remember. This is not isolated to neurosurgery - this is omnipresent in science.
I care less and less about seeing CVs filled with this kind of stuff. If an applicant is unable to sum up their work's lasting impact in an elevator pitch, then the reality is that there isn't one. Until more people adopt critical appraisal of applicants' contributions we will only get what we optimize for - which is just a numbers game.
It is cool that some people have high numbers of publications and some even have respectable numbers of citations. I encourage you to look at what happens to them longer-term. When a chairman/woman has to make a hiring decision, they will go over your CV with a much more focused evaluation. Every. Single. Person. that gets talked about here as a big-time faculty hiring has at least a few high-impact publications in amongst the fluff.
And don't tell me that you can only do basic science or high-impact clinical work once you're a resident/attending - every year there are a handful of people applying with worthwhile stuff on their CV. Maybe think about how they accomplished that and try and emulate it.
(01-23-2022, 04:47 PM)Guest Wrote: (01-23-2022, 04:02 PM)drstrange Wrote: The reality is that you're trying to hit a moving target with this type of discussion. When you are looking at people who are currently leaders in the field and track where they did residency, you're already using a lagging indicator. UVA was the "program of chairmen" a long time ago. It's not the same place, but looking at how many chairmen or PDs or big names have come out of there will not reflect the current state. Seven years is a long time at a place and the character of it can change significantly. Neurosurgery departments are small. Even at larger programs, the loss of a couple of important faculty can have a huge impact.
A comically large number of people want to hear that "you matched in X program, you're set". If you rely on that you're going to have a bad time. If your marker for a successful career is chairman or bust, re-evaluate what your goals are.
I will also say that these lists that continually circulate here never correlate with what the senior faculty I know say are the "top programs". None of the medical students on this board want to hear what those places are. They just want to talk about the same 5-10 places.
If you don't mind me asking, what are the top places that senior faculty recommend? I only know the top places from this forum, and then putting together information from Doximiety and US news and publication authors. What places to the senior faculty recommend?
Thank you
Agree with most of what you said. I think that going to a program in the hopes that it will lead to a Chair position is grasping at straws. When you look at the turnover in Chairs, you have to wonder if it is the aspirational job that it used to be. However, I do think that the culture of a TRAINING program is important, irregardless of who comes and goes. If you pick a program soley because the presence of a faculty member, I think that it is a setup for disappointment given the transitory nature of academic medicine. Barrow, Wash U, Penn, Columbia and UCSF are still top programs despite very notable Chair turnovers. UVA still seems to be producing Chairs (UTSW, Tulane) but I would argue the fact that reflects more that the program produces a large number of academic neurosurgeons culturally rather than it is the place to go if you want to be a Chair.
|
