rad vs ortho?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

blindpass

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
Which should you gun for if you just want to be happy?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Members don't see this ad :)

This is the big issue with derm. People don't really have any interest in it and just do it to work 20 hours a week and make a buttload of money. They should've just dropped out of med school as an M2 when they first realized they hated their jobs.

;)
 
This is the big issue with derm. People don't really have any interest in it and just do it to work 20 hours a week and make a buttload of money. They should've just dropped out of med school as an M2 when they first realized they hated their jobs.

;)

Obvi.
 
Would never make it into derm. Can ortho do carpal tunnels all day long or theyll never get enough pts for such nice procedures?how about the future o
 
Future of telerafs and reading from your dream vacation home?
 
Which should you gun for if you just want to be happy?

Define happy...

I don't find any appeal in rads. No patients to interact with. And I don't see myself as being able to call the shots on images for those rare things. Granted, I can see the obv things. Which is why I don't want rads - I can still look at the images myself and consult if need be. Sure, you could work from home. Sure, the hours can be great. Sure, the pay is great. But none of those work for me. I can't study at home, so how would I work? I'd be a horrible doctor at my house. Hours don't mean much atm. And pay? Really?

Ortho - I can't say much. I haven't experienced it. I wouldn't miss it if I didn't and it doesn't appeal to me. Gen Surg appeals to me a lot more than Ortho.

Happiness would be directly dealing with patients in a field I find interesting in a department with co-workers I'd love to be with in a city I'd love to live in. This is why I keep my options open at this time. If I had to make a decision right now - I'd say that Ped Surg and Hospitalist would be winning. Inpatient Peds loses because of my horrible experience. Outpatient is meh. I have to say that who your preceptor/residents/etc are DOES make a difference in what you do. The teams I dealt with in inpatient Peds made me hate things. The residents were awful, lacking in personality, unhelpful and never helped me. I don't know if it's the same elsewhere, but my inpatient superiors refused to discuss issues of a patient if it was outside their scope of focus (renal) and told me "That's GI/Pulm/Cardio's issue, not ours". Meanwhile, my FM preceptor worked as a hospitalist and was TOTALLY different. He ordered labs I thought were important and loved talking about things. I get that specialist need to focus on X organ, but I'd be damned if I didn't discuss other issues of a patient with someone because I was tunnel-visioned.

Man...I type a lot.

Happiness is what you want. Don't choose a specialty because of what others tell you.
 
So I am happy when I do not work.. In the company of close people in a nice city (or resort). I need a trophy wife. Understand?

Now some of the replies on here imply that rads make a lot of $$ and can work from home and have lots of vacation. But I have serious doubts that's a possibility. Just read up on auntminnie. Based on some of the posts it seems that it's not realistic to even get a primary care amount of $$ and work from home from a resort. They can hire foreign people for "prereads" instead. So in fact I would actually have to come into the hospital and still get paid like primary care but do more work. And possibly wouldn't even find a job in a desirable area in the u.s. Not to mention 6yrs of grueling residency/fellowship vs 3. And it's still a competitive match. But no, I don't think it's so awesome to see patients. I can tell that doctors and even I (as a medical student) feel really good about ourselves when interacting with patients (with rare exceptions). But a patient is not my friend, not my wife. Just because you have a pleasant interaction doesn't mean that it's anything more than a job. But it certainly helps with job stability.
If I could get derm, I would enjoy it. They do those quick procedures and people have very good reasons to get their precancerous moles removed or even to do a cosmetic procedure. They are useful in a quantifiable way. It's not like some specialties where you just push useless pills. Basically a derm can maintain an outpatient practice even if he has no business skills.

But since derm is too competitive and rads is in decline, I think I should gun for DO ortho. But then what if DO ortho is out of reach? I don't really know what else. I find the subject of PMR or FM sports med interesting. But that's 4-5yrs and at the end you still cannot do any definitive treatment, it's not ortho. Maybe my alternative should just be "hospitalist". It does not require business acumen like outpatient nonsurgical fields. But of course it would suck to prescribe useless meds for people who cannot even clearly say which of their 5 problems bothers them the most. It would really suck if the market for hospitalists too became oversaturated.

I hated general surgery. But ortho is different.
 
Whatever field interest you the most and does not feel like a job. :idea:

That is not possible in any service profession. I think that people who behave like whatever they are doing does not feel like a job are the type that spend their vacation watching tv or checking their cellphones. I have more respect for those doctors who are honest and tell you how they cannot wait to go on vacation.
 
first of all i applaud you for your honesty... you say what a lot of people are afraid to even think about.

I think you should look into anaesthetics or ophthalm. Ortho residency is up there in terms of workload.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
So I am happy when I do not work.. In the company of close people in a nice city (or resort). I need a trophy wife. Understand?

Now some of the replies on here imply that rads make a lot of $$ and can work from home and have lots of vacation. But I have serious doubts that's a possibility. Just read up on auntminnie. Based on some of the posts it seems that it's not realistic to even get a primary care amount of $$ and work from home from a resort. They can hire foreign people for "prereads" instead. So in fact I would actually have to come into the hospital and still get paid like primary care but do more work. And possibly wouldn't even find a job in a desirable area in the u.s. Not to mention 6yrs of grueling residency/fellowship vs 3. And it's still a competitive match. But no, I don't think it's so awesome to see patients. I can tell that doctors and even I (as a medical student) feel really good about ourselves when interacting with patients (with rare exceptions). But a patient is not my friend, not my wife. Just because you have a pleasant interaction doesn't mean that it's anything more than a job. But it certainly helps with job stability.
If I could get derm, I would enjoy it. They do those quick procedures and people have very good reasons to get their precancerous moles removed or even to do a cosmetic procedure. They are useful in a quantifiable way. It's not like some specialties where you just push useless pills. Basically a derm can maintain an outpatient practice even if he has no business skills.

But since derm is too competitive and rads is in decline, I think I should gun for DO ortho. But then what if DO ortho is out of reach? I don't really know what else. I find the subject of PMR or FM sports med interesting. But that's 4-5yrs and at the end you still cannot do any definitive treatment, it's not ortho. Maybe my alternative should just be "hospitalist". It does not require business acumen like outpatient nonsurgical fields. But of course it would suck to prescribe useless meds for people who cannot even clearly say which of their 5 problems bothers them the most. It would really suck if the market for hospitalists too became oversaturated.

I hated general surgery. But ortho is different.

No one can truly predict where the field of rads is going. But if you believe that they're going to end up making the same amount as a primary care physician then you're incredibly naive.
 
As someone going into ortho, I'd say if you'd be equally happy in rads or ortho, go with rads. Rads (especially IR) does have more income potential, particularly if you're into consulting and innovation. I know some IR docs who pull in $300K per annum passively ON TOP of their base salary, based on steady consulting gigs that have netted marketable products. Ortho on the other hand is beyond its golden age regarding income potential. They work really hard, and very efficiently, but dramatic innovation and expansion into other turf won't happen. Unlike rads/IR, which is having new procedures and efficiencies (=new revenue streams) added each year. Also, CT screening getting a nod from USPSTF this yr is a big plus.

There's a lot of doom and gloom about the job market in rads, but thats mostly because the current generation of job-seekers signed up for a career in rads when the market & lifestyle was close to its best. By the time you get to the market, not only will your expectations be appropriately tempered but the market will have improved as the crusty old guys retire. It may not be the best it's ever been at that point, but the sky isn't really falling.
 
As someone going into ortho, I'd say if you'd be equally happy in rads or ortho, go with rads. Rads (especially IR) does have more income potential, particularly if you're into consulting and innovation. I know some IR docs who pull in $300K per annum passively ON TOP of their base salary, based on steady consulting gigs that have netted marketable products. Ortho on the other hand is beyond its golden age regarding income potential. They work really hard, and very efficiently, but dramatic innovation and expansion into other turf won't happen. Unlike rads/IR, which is having new procedures and efficiencies (=new revenue streams) added each year. Also, CT screening getting a nod from USPSTF this yr is a big plus.

As someone who is debating between the two specialties, I just had a few questions:
- do you feel that non-interventional radiology might be one day commonly outsourced to cheaper doctors in foreign countries like India?
- don't procedures usually pay more than non-procedural specialties, eg. orthopedic SURGERY vs. NON-interventional radiology? some doctors have said that ortho will always be one of the highest-paid because it's surgery and it's hard work.
- I hear that radiologists still work longish hours and interventional radiologists work very long hours like a surgeon does?
 
That is not possible in any service profession. I think that people who behave like whatever they are doing does not feel like a job are the type that spend their vacation watching tv or checking their cellphones. I have more respect for those doctors who are honest and tell you how they cannot wait to go on vacation.

It may still be a job, but it can be a fun job. Maybe the poster above should have stated, "do which one feels less like grueling work that you have to psych yourself up for 30 minutes just to get out of bed every day you have to go into."

If you think that every doctor who says they enjoy their field and their job is lying, and the ones who say they hate it and can't wait to retire are the ones who are being honest, then you live in a very cynical world and you're probably not gonna be happy in any field.
 
As someone who is debating between the two specialties, I just had a few questions:
- do you feel that non-interventional radiology might be one day commonly outsourced to cheaper doctors in foreign countries like India?
- don't procedures usually pay more than non-procedural specialties, eg. orthopedic SURGERY vs. NON-interventional radiology? some doctors have said that ortho will always be one of the highest-paid because it's surgery and it's hard work.
- I hear that radiologists still work longish hours and interventional radiologists work very long hours like a surgeon does?

1- I personally find it highly doubtful that all or even most radiology will ever be outsourced for two reasons: 1) medicolegal posturing makes complete outsourcing a litigation nightmare for hospitals and 2) I think most clinicians/surgeons would agree that having a good radiologist IN THE BUILDING increases quality of care. Having someone who can walk you through an unusual imaging finding that impacts your decision-making is very helpful. Also, radiologists do procedures pretty frequently.

2- First, even non-interventional radiologists do procedures like I&D, biopsies, etc... Second, its true that rads makes less (and probably always will) per billable item than surgeons do. But radiology is always finding new things to bill for and is also becoming more efficient at their bread and butter. As a result, they will always be paid well because they add a lot of value.

3- It's true, lifestyle has taken a big hit in rads. It's probably a 55-60 hr/wk gig now. But compared to other fields of medicine, they have a decent amount of control over their schedules and take a lot of vacation. Its not a bad career at all, in fact I kinda wish I liked the day-to-day enough to consider going into it myself :shrug:
 
As someone who is debating between the two specialties, I just had a few questions:
- do you feel that non-interventional radiology might be one day commonly outsourced to cheaper doctors in foreign countries like India?
- don't procedures usually pay more than non-procedural specialties, eg. orthopedic SURGERY vs. NON-interventional radiology? some doctors have said that ortho will always be one of the highest-paid because it's surgery and it's hard work.
- I hear that radiologists still work longish hours and interventional radiologists work very long hours like a surgeon does?

Non-interventional radiology is all procedures. Insurance companies look at every imaging study as a procedure code, not an E M code. Ortho kills radiology in compensation though in general. Yeah rads does fairly well, but for every year since 2005 there have been large cuts to diagnostic imaging. So a lot of those big starting and even bigger partner deals people talked about during the early and mid 2000's have dried up.

No, radiology will not be outsourced. Besides the medical legal issues described above, radiology is not a low skill job like a call center. You can train anyone to work at a call center, you cannot train anyone to correctly interpret diagnostic imaging. It is a high skill job and there is a relative global shortage of radiologists. There are not enough radiologists in India to take over USA diagnostic imaging.
 
Ortho kills radiology in compensation though in general.

Not really. Medians of 405K (ortho) vs 349k (rads) via medscape 2013. If you corrected for hours & call the medians would be much closer.
 
Looks about right. A lot of overlapping means btw the two and a higher ceiling in rads.

According to that data, it is true, only because of a single outlier. If you throw out the outlier and then look at the range, ortho is 75-100K more in general. Plus they can do spine and make a cool mill a year. Ceiling is higher for ortho.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
According to that data, it is true, only because of a single outlier. If you throw out the outlier and then look at the range, ortho is 75-100K more in general. Plus they can do spine and make a cool mill a year. Ceiling is higher for ortho.

That single outlier is a 750 physician survey over 205 organizations, likely including million dollar earners in both fields. That's not a data point you can just put your thumb over and re-draw the curve. Don't kid yourself, rads earning potential is epic as the data clearly demonstrates. This doesn't even include consulting, which from what I've seen anecdotally is more of a cash cow in IR than ortho.
 
Last edited:
That single outlier is a 750 physician survey over 205 organizations, likely including million dollar earners in both fields. That's not a data point you can just put your thumb over and re-draw the curve. Don't kid yourself, rads earning potential is epic as the data clearly demonstrates. This doesn't even include consulting, which from what I've seen anecdotally is more of a cash cow in IR than ortho.

Compared to the Hay group survey of 205 organizations and 28,818 physicians that shows a 100K difference between rads and ortho (in favor of ortho), the Delta group is an outlier. Starting radiology salaries have dropped significantly since 2009. Ortho has increased. Look at the annual medscape reports, see slide titled "Who's up and who's down". Couple that with new Medicare reimbursement reductions for imaging that now pays 50% for any additonal imaging per inpatient stay, you have even lower salaries in the future.
 
Compared to the Hay group survey of 205 organizations and 28,818 physicians that shows a 100K difference between rads and ortho (in favor of ortho), the Delta group is an outlier. Starting radiology salaries have dropped significantly since 2009. Ortho has increased. Look at the annual medscape reports, see slide titled "Who's up and who's down". Couple that with new Medicare reimbursement reductions for imaging that now pays 50% for any additonal imaging per inpatient stay, you have even lower salaries in the future.

Sure, and Martin (1,600 physicians) shows only +25K for ortho, and MGMA (60,146 physicians) shows only +43K for ortho. Nothing contradicts my comments: they earn a similar amount, which is likely accounted for by hours worked and call. Who knows what will happen in the future, but rads pays very well now and the ceiling is high even without considering consult gigs. Reimbursement cuts will spare no one, and ortho has been wearing a bullseye for a long time now. It will probably be hit harder than rads in the coming yrs since rads has already been cut so much.
 
Would never make it into derm. Can ortho do carpal tunnels all day long or theyll never get enough pts for such nice procedures?how about the future o

that's interesting given that 18.5% of us seniors went unmatched in ortho and only 6.8% went unmatched in derm last year.
 
that's interesting given that 18.5% of us seniors went unmatched in ortho and only 6.8% went unmatched in derm last year.

I think you're grossly misinterpreting statistics.
 
That is not possible in any service profession. I think that people who behave like whatever they are doing does not feel like a job are the type that spend their vacation watching tv or checking their cellphones. I have more respect for those doctors who are honest and tell you how they cannot wait to go on vacation.

let me clarify..........find something you dont hate. I dont care what you do. IF you hate it, it is not worth it.
 
I didn't interpret anything. I just posted data.

Next time post sources.

If you go here: http://www.nrmp.org/match-data/main-residency-match-data/
and click the first link, you'll see that last year, 442 US seniors applied for Derm and 316 matched (316/442=71.4%). That's for PGY-2 spots (the vast majority of Derm spots). If you look at PGY-1 spots, 174 people applied for them and 21 matched. But most of those applicants are also applying PGY2 so it muddies those stats.

So, approximately 30% of US Seniors didn't match Derm last year. No clue where you got 6.8%.

By comparison, 636/833 US seniors matched in Ortho, or 76.4%. So, about 24% didn't match vs 30% in Derm. Pretty similar.
 
Next time post sources.

If you go here: http://www.nrmp.org/match-data/main-residency-match-data/
and click the first link, you'll see that last year, 442 US seniors applied for Derm and 316 matched (316/442=71.4%). That's for PGY-2 spots (the vast majority of Derm spots). If you look at PGY-1 spots, 174 people applied for them and 21 matched. But most of those applicants are also applying PGY2 so it muddies those stats.

So, approximately 30% of US Seniors didn't match Derm last year. No clue where you got 6.8%.

By comparison, 636/833 US seniors matched in Ortho, or 76.4%. So, about 24% didn't match vs 30% in Derm. Pretty similar.

Yeah, inep doesn't know what he's talking about.
 
Next time post sources.

If you go here: http://www.nrmp.org/match-data/main-residency-match-data/
and click the first link, you'll see that last year, 442 US seniors applied for Derm and 316 matched (316/442=71.4%). That's for PGY-2 spots (the vast majority of Derm spots). If you look at PGY-1 spots, 174 people applied for them and 21 matched. But most of those applicants are also applying PGY2 so it muddies those stats.

So, approximately 30% of US Seniors didn't match Derm last year. No clue where you got 6.8%.

By comparison, 636/833 US seniors matched in Ortho, or 76.4%. So, about 24% didn't match vs 30% in Derm. Pretty similar.

My source is the exact same one you linked. The data I mentioned is clearly stated there. How exactly could I misinterpret the data when I did not offer any intepretation? How is posting data the same as intepreting it? I will be glad to give you my interpretation of why more people who only ranked ortho failed to match that more people who only ranked derm, but you sounds like you already know my intepretation using telepathy.

What's your agenda? Just another derm guy trying to scare away the 230 students? 230 students do match into derm. You probably think they probably don't belong there. I don't think the people who want to work 1 or 2 days a week belong there. But that's just my opinion.
 
Yeah, inep doesn't know what he's talking about.

Thanks for clarifying that for everyone. Pretty clear that when I post data in response to a student's claim that he is automatically unqualified for derm but somehow qualified for ortho that calls this into question and someone posts data and states that derm and ortho are about equal on competitiveness, which you agree with (and I do too), that I don't know what I'm talking about. Because I could see how that could easily be misunderstood.

Or are you just trying to say I made those numbers up? Because I did not. They are in the same document that was tossed back in my face.
 
Wha? Of course they belong there. If they can score awesome plus want to work two days a week - I can't think of another specialty they'd belong in more.

It would be amusing to find out how many people would be going into derm if all medical specialties made exactly the same amount of money, though. I've heard 25 years ago derm was the equivalent of family medicine or pediatrics.

You heard wrong according to an older derm I know (he was an average student and says he was very very lucky to get in that many years ago -- He also has money problems keeping his practice afloat -- it's not always peachy like everyone says). Derm has always been coveted if for nothing else it's ability to work 2 days a week (can you really stay at the top of your game doing this -- what the hell are you doing the other 5 days exactly? Watching TV? Sipping cocktails at the country club's pool? I digress...). It's also always been looked down upon by the diehard medicine guys because of the very same reason it's competitive.
 
Thanks for clarifying that for everyone. Pretty clear that when I post data in response to a student's claim that he is automatically unqualified for derm but somehow qualified for ortho that calls this into question and someone posts data and states that derm and ortho are about equal on competitiveness, which you agree with (and I do too), that I don't know what I'm talking about. Because I could see how that could easily be misunderstood.

Or are you just trying to say I made those numbers up? Because I did not. They are in the same document that was tossed back in my face.

You're confusing competitiveness for all comers versus competitiveness for those that apply to those given specialties. There is a high degree of self-selection that occurs for both of their specialties; however, in general the statistics for people applying to and matching into Derm are higher. There is no way to adequately compare the two specialties directly unless you had the same people apply for both ortho and Derm. The best we can do right now is try to make interpretations from statistics that we have. The percentage of matched students is one data point that we can use. But there are quite a few others.

Suffice it to say that both specialties are very competitive. However, it is not totally unreasonable to assume that somebody may be more competitive for ortho than for Derm. Derm tends to more highly value things like AOA status and class rank, but the significance of that difference is debatable even.

Just as a thought exercise, I'm picturing a student with a 225 step I, a little bit of research, in the class rank a little above average. Just on the surface, that kind of student would struggle mightily to make it into Derm. They may have an easier shot at orthopedics. Obviously many more factors go into the equation though.

Please excuse any major errors in this post, I'm using my iPhone's talk to text feature.
 
Wha? Of course they belong there. If they can score awesome plus want to work two days a week - I can't think of another specialty they'd belong in more.

It would be amusing to find out how many people would be going into derm if all medical specialties made exactly the same amount of money, though. I've heard 25 years ago derm was the equivalent of family medicine or pediatrics.

Who gives a ****? There's plenty of bright, hardworking medical students with top scores who work themselves to death in neurosurgery, orthopedics, general surgery, urology, ENT, internal medicine, etc. There's also some that go into derm.

There's also many that go into family medicine and pediatrics. Grow up.
 
My source is the exact same one you linked. The data I mentioned is clearly stated there. How exactly could I misinterpret the data when I did not offer any intepretation? How is posting data the same as intepreting it? I will be glad to give you my interpretation of why more people who only ranked ortho failed to match that more people who only ranked derm, but you sounds like you already know my intepretation using telepathy.

What's your agenda? Just another derm guy trying to scare away the 230 students? 230 students do match into derm. You probably think they probably don't belong there. I don't think the people who want to work 1 or 2 days a week belong there. But that's just my opinion.

I missed this gem of a post. It's hilariously defensive.

I posted what the actual percentages were of US Seniors applying in Ortho and in Derm that didn't match. I'm not sure what numbers you're posting, although I don't doubt that you found numbers in that document (there are a lot of numbers on a lot of pages!) That doesn't mean your brief interpretation (and yes, stating that they are the percentage of students who didn't match is your [apparently incorrect] interpretation) is correct.

My "agenda" is to correct false information (and if what I've posted is somehow incorrect, I'm open to people correcting me). Why the hell would I want to "scare away the 230 students"? I think anyone and everyone who likes Derm and has the aptitude for it should belong there.

How big is that chip on your shoulder?

Edit: I see where you got your numbers. Page 37's graph gives 6.9 (not 6.8) for Derm vs 18.5 for ortho, in US Seniors who ONLY RANKED those specialties. Those data are misleading and not representative of the actual number of people applying in each field and number of people matching. Anecdotally, most people I know who applied in Derm applied to a backup specialty, while the few who didn't tended to be the really super-stellar applicants. I'm sure it's similar to people applying to gen surg in addition to ortho, but as you can see from the raw data I posted, the effect that has on Derm is greater.

Regardless, it's pointless to argue against the fact that both specialties are very competitive.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for clarifying that for everyone. Pretty clear that when I post data in response to a student's claim that he is automatically unqualified for derm but somehow qualified for ortho that calls this into question and someone posts data and states that derm and ortho are about equal on competitiveness, which you agree with (and I do too), that I don't know what I'm talking about. Because I could see how that could easily be misunderstood.

Or are you just trying to say I made those numbers up? Because I did not. They are in the same document that was tossed back in my face.

It's clear that you are new and clueless.

I will go with GuyWhoDoesStuff's assessment.
 
You heard wrong according to an older derm I know (he was an average student and says he was very very lucky to get in that many years ago -- He also has money problems keeping his practice afloat -- it's not always peachy like everyone says). Derm has always been coveted if for nothing else it's ability to work 2 days a week (can you really stay at the top of your game doing this -- what the hell are you doing the other 5 days exactly? Watching TV? Sipping cocktails at the country club's pool? I digress...). It's also always been looked down upon by the diehard medicine guys because of the very same reason it's competitive.

I'm actually working on trying to get things set up so that I only have to work 2 hours a week.

You can't live your life worrying about what other people think of you. Live for you.
 
Who gives a ****? There's plenty of bright, hardworking medical students with top scores who work themselves to death in neurosurgery, orthopedics, general surgery, urology, ENT, internal medicine, etc. There's also some that go into derm.

There's also many that go into family medicine and pediatrics. Grow up.

Sorry, could you explain wtf you're on about?
 
How big is that chip on your shoulder?

Pretty big considering that a large percentage of derm applicants also stink up the applicant pool secretly applying for rad onc and ent as backups and have no real interest in treating cancer patients and are only there because of the lifestyle.

Edit: I see where you got your numbers. Page 37's graph gives 6.9 (not 6.8) for Derm vs 18.5 for ortho, in US Seniors who ONLY RANKED those specialties. Those data are misleading and not representative of the actual number of people applying in each field and number of people matching. Anecdotally, most people I know who applied in Derm applied to a backup specialty, while the few who didn't tended to be the really super-stellar applicants.

Yes, I clearly stated that above. Your argument makes zero sense. If what you are implying is true, somebody should drop the ortho guys a hint and tell them they need to apply to a backup because their specialty is too competitive. Apparently derm kids are the only ones smart enough to have figured this out. In reality, this does nothing to prove that people who apply for derm aren't committed to it and don't have an interest in it beyond money and lifestyle, thus explaining the backup choices in other lifestyle fields.

Regardless, it's pointless to argue against the fact that both specialties are very competitive.

Well then why are you arguing that derm is more competitive?

I'm actually working on trying to get things set up so that I only have to work 2 hours a week.

So you will work the same amount in a year that other doctors work in a week? I am sure you will be highly skilled and patients will seek out your great experience and be able to relate to you on a personal level.

Seesh...
 
Pretty big considering that a large percentage of derm applicants also stink up the applicant pool secretly applying for rad onc and ent as backups and have no real interest in treating cancer patients and are only there because of the lifestyle.



Yes, I clearly stated that above. Your argument makes zero sense. If what you are implying is true, somebody should drop the ortho guys a hint and tell them they need to apply to a backup because their specialty is too competitive. Apparently derm kids are the only ones smart enough to have figured this out. In reality, this does nothing to prove that people who apply for derm aren't committed to it and don't have an interest in it beyond money and lifestyle, thus explaining the backup choices in other lifestyle fields.



Well then why are you arguing that derm is more competitive?



So you will work the same amount in a year that other doctors work in a week? I am sure you will be highly skilled and patients will seek out your great experience and be able to relate to you on a personal level.

Seesh...


After coming across a few of your whiny posts elsewhere, it's become quite clear that the chip is huge, and that you have some enormous inferiority complex going on. Seek help to work through those issues. It's not healthy to hold such contempt for those who "match ahead of" you.

FYI, please stop making absurd claims such as suggesting that "a large percentage" of Derm applicants are also applying in Rad Onc/ENT. This is simply not true (every person I know who applied to Derm+another specialty was applying in either IM or Peds), and I'm sure not even you believe this to be true. At least, I hope you're smarter than that.

Did some Derm resident beat you up and take your lunch money or something? You have some real issues.
 
I love threads like this because:

~30 years ago ortho was not competitive; do a search for docs who matched into Ortho because they were in the bottom of their class (not at the top!)

-likewise for Derm. To add insult to injury, I'm sure nurses and FM docs will be doing "fellowships" in Derm.

*sitting back eating popcorn*

WITH butter... :)
 
Top