Strongly considering pathology

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

Tortaspie

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
93
Reaction score
11
I am graduating in a year with a bachelors in medical lab science. I will probably work as an MLS while I take some additional classes. I plan on going the DO route because my gpa isn't the best. I really want to be a pathologist because I enjoy studying disease and examining slides (plus pathology is seems similar to medical lab science). I really would want to move up as a laboratory scientist but that's not really possible to do as an MLS unless you take management positions (which I'm not interested in). I've also heard that getting a masters or phD in MLS isn't very beneficial and isn't worth the time and money.

So this is why I want to go the pathologist route. The only thing that concerns me is not being able to find a job where I want after I graduate. I'm not really open to moving somewhere where I don't want to live after I graduate. Also, is it difficult to get PATH residencies as a DO?

I would get along with coworkers just fine but I don't really like lots of patient interaction (like many pathologists). The other field I think is cool is radiology.

So basically I just want some opinions from pathologists or those trying to become pathogists. Do you think I should go for it? There really aren't any other things that interest me as much (except maybe radiology)

Members don't see this ad.
 
If you do not have geographic flexibility, going into pathology is a risky move. We could get into a longer discussion on this topic, but that's the blunt reality. Pathology is not general pediatrics, where you can move to near any city in North America and either find work or hang a shingle and make a living.

So to sum up, no, I do not think you should become a pathologist. Aside from the above, your reasons aren't really accurate - while CP is a lot of lab work, bread and butter AP for most pathologists is surgical pathology, which is pattern recognition and interpretation. If I were you, I'd consider an MBA or MPH, and then try to move up the ladder of laboratory management/administration.
 
I can't strongly enough recommend sub-specialty surgery.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
If you do not have geographic flexibility, going into pathology is a risky move. We could get into a longer discussion on this topic, but that's the blunt reality. Pathology is not general pediatrics, where you can move to near any city in North America and either find work or hang a shingle and make a living.

So to sum up, no, I do not think you should become a pathologist. Aside from the above, your reasons aren't really accurate - while CP is a lot of lab work, bread and butter AP for most pathologists is surgical pathology, which is pattern recognition and interpretation. If I were you, I'd consider an MBA or MPH, and then try to move up the ladder of laboratory management/administration.
Yeah I see what you mean. It sucks that there's not a lot of info out there about the phD and doctorate of CLS degrees. I can't seem to find any information about the potential salary increases with these degrees. If I knew more I would consider this path but I don't know if it's worth it to do if I'd be making the same amount of money. Pathology just seems really interesting to me plus it's an opportunity to move up the ladder.
 
Yeah I see what you mean. It sucks that there's not a lot of info out there about the phD and doctorate of CLS degrees. I can't seem to find any information about the potential salary increases with these degrees. If I knew more I would consider this path but I don't know if it's worth it to do if I'd be making the same amount of money. Pathology just seems really interesting to me plus it's an opportunity to move up the ladder.
I get what you're saying, but you said above geographic flexibility is important. I cannot overstate how geographically inflexible pathology may be. Some folks get lucky and find jobs where they want, but many of us have to move for work. That may mean a spouse has to move too. It's a tough spot to be in as a late 20-something. Yes, pathology is a chance to move up the ladder and make decent money. DO pathologists can do just fine. You came on here for advice, and no one on here knows your exact situation but you. I'm telling you the same thing I tell med students I work with - path is a satisfying job (which in Canada pays nicely), but you better be willing to move. You may be able to find something in a geographic region (Gulf coast, upper Midwest, etc), but to say, 'I must work in Salt Lake City'.... that's a dicey call.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
OP I know where you're coming from. I was a medical technologist for 3 years. I loved the clinical lab principles but became rapidly disinterested in performing instrument maintenance, QA, and praying the nursing staff was in a decent mood when I had to call for a redraw. I felt like I was in a dead-end job with only instrument "motherhood" or management to look forward to. I had kicked around the idea of a Master's or PhD program, but I felt the career which best matched my goals was a pathologist. It took 2 application cycles, but I got into an MD program, rocked the pre-clinical years, destroyed boards, did well on rotations, and this March matched into a strong pathology program.

Things are proceeding the way I want them to right now. I don't see why they can't also work out for you if you're dedicated, hard working, and willing to be flexible with regards to the location of medical school, residency, and employment. There's a lot of doom and gloom on this board as far as the field of pathology is concerned. And there are certainly reasons to be more worried than optimistic right now given an overall weak job market, difficulties advocating for the field, and pathologists being driven from partners to employees. But, for you specifically, I would counter that no one knows what the field will look like in 10 or more years (senior undergrad + ? years working/applying + 4 years of medical school + 4 years of residency + fellowship). And you certainly have time to change your plans along the way.

FWIW I hated diagnostic radiology. It was dark and lonely.
 
I would not recommend going into pathology, I admire your reasons for wanting to do so and we all felt that way once.

My observations:
1. Volume is what pays you and if you are in a smaller group I feel the larger labs will eventually overwhelm and outbid you to the point of non-existence. Clinicians do not care about loyalty and quality of work. If they can get it for a penny cheaper or client bill for their own profit you will be forgotten. Specialist physicians like derm and GI have already scalped the volume heavy anatomic specimens and have left the scraps to the surgical pathologists.
2. Working where you want. That's a distant dream for most. In my experience, even with well wired connections it can be tough. Some may be groomed for an academic pathology job and that's fine, but when I came out there were only 3 jobs, even by word of mouth, in a multi-state area. The comment above certainly is true about geographic flexibility. No matter what you hear the job situation is less than ideal. You will find some who just luck out and get a great high paid position in downtown SF, but these are rare IMO.
3. Personally I despise how there is no intelligent professional representation of our field. CAP and ASCP, they have their own agendas and half the pathologists involved have conflicting directions for which they wish the field to go (i.e. examine pods labs if you will). National and state medical societies pretty much ostracize pathologists because we are small enough not to matter in the scheme of things (I left my state medical society because they couldn't help us against the organized insurance machine that was abusing us).
4. Professional isolation. I never imagined being a pathologist would be like a dentist, not many want to hear from you when you call and its a pretty lonely existence. Other than other laboratorians, we don't see much of patients and mostly when I do its to explain why they have a bill from me. I don't think many graduates think about this as there are usually many residents, but when one is out in the field its just you and your slides. It is certainly a rare event when a fellow physician comes into my office.

But since you are interested I'll give you the plus side of my job.
1. I do enjoy making the diagnosis and having a major roll in healthcare delivery and outcomes. When this dies for me I think I'll retire or just teach residents.
2. Good hours, generally from about 7 to 5 or so. Depends on surgical volume. The calls I get at night are rare and usually can be handled over the phone.
3. Problem solving, every so often a major clinical dilemma comes up that only you have the key to the solution, this is a good feeling. Business problems are less entertaining but always a good experience.

Hope you the best in your endeavors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
There are lots of great options within pathology. I was able to develop my own practice within two years of finishing residency and was able to join the 90th percentile (MGMA) in pathology earners after just four. Location matters as well as having decent interpersonal relationship skills. A bit of business knowledge and the ability to really connect with people are the MOST important things. Pathology (IMO) is far and a away the best field in medicine from both a satisfaction in what you do and the ability to control your own destiny. Get involved and demonstrate to the hospital administrators and fellow clinicians how valuable your skills are. No one else in the hospital has the knowledge set that you do and there are no mid-level providers who can provide anything close to what you provide. I get tired of hearing all of the passive attitudes and the "whoa is me" sentiments coming from this website. You need to be proactive as a pathologist (or any other profession) and take charge by integrating yourself into the system and becoming a valuable and irreplaceable member of your medical community. If you do that, the sky is the limit.
All that said... of course the environment would be better with fewer graduating trainees.
 
@Tortaspie Another MLS here. Agree that I'm not sure of the benefits of getting a PhD in CLS or the like, it seems most of the masters and PhD's in CLS are either geared for management or education type roles.

There are, however, other options for advanced training that you might want to consider. For instance, I work a lot with clinical chemists. They are PhDs in biochemistry or other related fields who do an advanced fellowship in clinical chemistry to be come lab directors on the clinical chemistry side. You can also do this with clinical micro fellowships too. Our directors do a mix of acting as lab directors, teaching residents and fellows, and doing some research as well. The advantage over a CLS PhD is it gives you a bit broader employment options after.

Another thing would be looking into pathology assistant programs, but I'm not sure what the outlook for that field is right now either.

Finally, you might be able to find your niche or work your way up the ladder without getting an advanced degree if you pick the right institution to work at. Smaller hospitals might be more tech or management tracks only. At huge academic type centers you might find more options. Here we have some different advancement tracks such as education, quality, management, development/technical specialists, etc.

So you might like heme and are good at it. Then with enough experience you get specialist certification, you help oversee other techs not as a manager but more a troubleshooting consultant. You get more interesting and more independent work, probably work more closely with the pathologists etc.

Or you could be development tech like me. Our lab is pretty automated so I'm really not developing anything new, more tweaking existing stuff, but in other labs here the development techs are doing actual research and development of new and improved assays to offer. My brain is constantly engaged in problem solving and I work closely with our lab directors. I get to do some education stuff with students, residents, and fellows. I get the opportunity to publish. It's pretty fun actually, and a large improvement over feeling largely like an analyzer mechanic.

In summary, my advice would be to work for a couple of years, keep your options open and explore a wide range of possibilities. They're out there if you look.
 
@Tortaspie Another MLS here. Agree that I'm not sure of the benefits of getting a PhD in CLS or the like, it seems most of the masters and PhD's in CLS are either geared for management or education type roles.

There are, however, other options for advanced training that you might want to consider. For instance, I work a lot with clinical chemists. They are PhDs in biochemistry or other related fields who do an advanced fellowship in clinical chemistry to be come lab directors on the clinical chemistry side. You can also do this with clinical micro fellowships too. Our directors do a mix of acting as lab directors, teaching residents and fellows, and doing some research as well. The advantage over a CLS PhD is it gives you a bit broader employment options after.

Another thing would be looking into pathology assistant programs, but I'm not sure what the outlook for that field is right now either.

Finally, you might be able to find your niche or work your way up the ladder without getting an advanced degree if you pick the right institution to work at. Smaller hospitals might be more tech or management tracks only. At huge academic type centers you might find more options. Here we have some different advancement tracks such as education, quality, management, development/technical specialists, etc.

So you might like heme and are good at it. Then with enough experience you get specialist certification, you help oversee other techs not as a manager but more a troubleshooting consultant. You get more interesting and more independent work, probably work more closely with the pathologists etc.

Or you could be development tech like me. Our lab is pretty automated so I'm really not developing anything new, more tweaking existing stuff, but in other labs here the development techs are doing actual research and development of new and improved assays to offer. My brain is constantly engaged in problem solving and I work closely with our lab directors. I get to do some education stuff with students, residents, and fellows. I get the opportunity to publish. It's pretty fun actually, and a large improvement over feeling largely like an analyzer mechanic.

In summary, my advice would be to work for a couple of years, keep your options open and explore a wide range of possibilities. They're out there if you look.
Thanks for the info. I'm actually really interested in the microbiology aspect of CLS. I was thinking about eventually trying to become a specialist in micro because I absolutely love it. One thing I was wondering about is if it's possible to jump into a masters degree of microbiology. I had a professor who got a degree in CLS but eventually got a phD in micro. I just wonder if you could do this or if you have to start from scratch by getting a bachelors again first.
 
Thanks for the info. I'm actually really interested in the microbiology aspect of CLS. I was thinking about eventually trying to become a specialist in micro because I absolutely love it. One thing I was wondering about is if it's possible to jump into a masters degree of microbiology. I had a professor who got a degree in CLS but eventually got a phD in micro. I just wonder if you could do this or if you have to start from scratch by getting a bachelors again first.

Not likely that you'd need another bachelors, especially with a CLS background. Specific reqs Depend on the program, just check out masters and PhD programs websites. They should list their requirements to give you an idea. Usually you'll need to have taken some coursework in the subject area and done well. You'd need some research experience for PhD, masters is a little more variable with respect to how much research is required if any. Also keep in mind there are some atypical routes too, like MPH or MS in epidemiology focussing on ID. There are a few PhD programs in emerging infectious diseases and similar things.
 
Not likely that you'd need another bachelors, especially with a CLS background. Specific reqs Depend on the program, just check out masters and PhD programs websites. They should list their requirements to give you an idea. Usually you'll need to have taken some coursework in the subject area and done well. You'd need some research experience for PhD, masters is a little more variable with respect to how much research is required if any. Also keep in mind there are some atypical routes too, like MPH or MS in epidemiology focussing on ID. There are a few PhD programs in emerging infectious diseases and similar things.
I'll have to look into it. I'm very interested in infectious disease. Researching diseases on the web is my idea of a good time :)
 
Top