Survey Finds Pathology’s Visibility Varies Widely Across US Medical Schools

Pathology’s visibility within American medical education varies substantially from school to school, according to a cross-sectional study published in BMC Medical Education. Researchers systematically reviewed publicly available data from all 159 Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME)–accredited allopathic medical schools in the United States, collecting information between January 25 and April 14, 2025. Their aim was to map how pathology is taught, staffed, and presented to students at every accredited school, and to identify gaps in student exposure to the discipline.

The survey, which examined school websites and the Visiting Student Learning Opportunities (VSLO) platform, found a mean class size of 143 students per school and an average of 39.6 pathology faculty members with primary appointments at each institution. Pathologists held major institutional leadership roles at 58 schools, or 36.5 percent of the total. Pathology departments existed at 133 schools (83.6 percent), and 114 schools (72.0 percent) maintained pathology residency programs. The authors caution that because the data were drawn from publicly available institutional sources, the findings reflect the visibility and accessibility of pathology education rather than definitive availability or quality of instruction.

Curricular structure emerged as a central theme. A large majority of schools, 142 institutions or 89.3 percent, utilized integrated curricula, in which pathology content is woven into broader courses rather than taught as a standalone discipline. The authors note that the visibility and accessibility of pathology as a distinct discipline vary substantially across institutions, particularly within these integrated curricula. Student-led Pathology Interest Groups, which provide mentorship and career exposure, were present at 94 schools (59.1 percent), leaving a substantial fraction of institutions without an organized student pathway into the specialty.

Elective offerings revealed both strengths and gaps. Clinical pathology electives were available at 147 schools (92.5 percent), but 48 percent of these were not publicly listed, meaning students searching institutional catalogs might not discover them. Pre-clinical pathology electives were offered at 80 schools (50.3 percent), and post-sophomore fellowships were available at only 25 schools (18.6 percent). These figures indicate that even where pathology teaching exists, the opportunities students can readily find and pursue differ considerably across the national landscape.

The study also tracked interest in pathology careers over time. From 2021 to 2025, the number of US MD senior applicants to pathology rose from 212 to 295, and the proportion of US MD seniors among matched pathology applicants increased from 32.4 percent to 42.3 percent. The authors note, however, that this upward trend may partially reflect expansion of the overall MD applicant pool during the same period, so the increase should be interpreted with care rather than as proof of a specialty-specific surge in popularity.

Based on the variability they observed, the researchers propose several strategies warranting further investigation: expanding the visibility of pathology electives in public catalogs, strengthening mentorship infrastructure such as interest groups and faculty advising, and increasing pathologist representation in institutional leadership. The authors frame these as potential means to reinforce pathology’s role in undergraduate medical education, to be tested rather than assumed to work.

The practical significance of the findings lies in what students can see when they explore career options. At schools without publicly listed electives, active interest groups, or pathologists in visible leadership positions, the discipline is less accessible to students seeking exposure, regardless of the actual quality of teaching happening within the institution. The study’s systematic benchmarks, including faculty counts, elective listings, interest group presence, and fellowship availability, give educators and administrators a way to compare their institutions against national norms and identify specific gaps worth addressing.

The authors conclude that the visibility and accessibility of pathology as a distinct discipline vary substantially across institutions, particularly within integrated curricula. Rather than declaring a crisis, they present their results as a baseline measurement and a call for targeted follow-up: investigating whether the strategies they outline can reinforce pathology’s place in the formation of future physicians across the LCME-accredited school system.

Subject of Research: Pathology education in LCME-accredited allopathic medical schools

Article Title: Pathology education in LCME-accredited allopathic medical schools: challenges, gaps, emerging opportunities, and a practical toolkit

Article References: Herman, M. K., Menon, A., Larson, L., Gadasalli, S., Barzani, Y., Ullah, A. M., Simalchik, S., & Mirza, K. M. (2026). Pathology education in LCME-accredited allopathic medical schools: challenges, gaps, emerging opportunities, and a practical toolkit. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-10207-9

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12909-026-10207-9

Keywords: pathology, medical education, LCME, medical schools, curriculum, electives, mentorship, residency, BMC Medical Education, undergraduate medical education, education, LCME-accredited