What Every Pathologist Needs to Know About the Job Market

[NuckingFuts]

Hi all, I was forwarded the following info by a colleague, the subject matter caught my attention, therefore I thought to share it with ya'll.

Lecture Announcement:
"What Every Pathologist Needs to Know About the Job Market: Hiring and Compensation Trends"

Mr. Richard Cornell
President, Sante Consulting, LLC.

Date: September 15, 2012, Time: 9:00 to 10:15 EST USA

Richard Cornell is founder and president of Santé Consulting, LLC, a national pathologist recruitment and laboratory consulting company located in St. Louis, Missouri. He has over 20 years of accomplished experience in the healthcare recruiting and consulting field.

Mr. Cornell has published numerous articles on the “Art of Recruiting” and is a nationally recognized for speaking on topics ranging from pathologist recruitment and retention, pathologist compensation, pathology hiring trends and recruitment. Additionally, Rich served as President of the National Association of Physician Recruiters (NAPR), where he founded their School of Healthcare Recruiting.

In this informative lecture, Rich will cover pathologist hiring trends; he will discuss which sub-specialties are in demand and provide insight on key interviewing tips. Attendees will walk away with a clearer understanding of job market trends and demand, from the nation’s leading expert on this topic!

Gopathdx.com is pleased to have Mr. Cornell speak on this topic, as every pathologist should know exactly what they are up against in the job market. We encourage all to register early for this lecture at 9:00AM EST, on Saturday, September 15, 2012.

We look forward to seeing you there!

Best Regards,

Brandon Cornell
GoPath Webinar Coordinator
http://www.gopathdx.com/
​

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[KeratinPearls]

Hi all, I was forwarded the following info by a colleague, the subject matter caught my attention, therefore I thought to share it with ya'll.

Thanks for letting us know.

 

[TMZ2007]

While I try to keep up with the GoPath lectures, thanks for letting us know.

 

[KeratinPearls]

While I try to keep up with the GoPath lectures, thanks for letting us know.

What did you guys think of the talk other than the baby in the background? Hearing that the job market will get even tighter in the next two years was depressing. Hemepath + Molecular and dermpath seem to be the hottest areas currently.

 

[Tissue issue]

What did you guys think of the talk other than the baby in the background? Hearing that the job market will get even tighter in the next two years was depressing. Hemepath + Molecular and dermpath seem to be the hottest areas currently.

Did he give reasons why he thought the market will be tighter in the next 2 years?
Agree with heme+molecular being advantageous; not on board with dermpath- have heard from 2 experienced dermpaths recently job market has deteriorated significantly.

 

[KeratinPearls]

Did he give reasons why he thought the market will be tighter in the next 2 years?
Agree with heme+molecular being advantageous; not on board with dermpath- have heard from 2 experienced dermpaths recently job market has deteriorated significantly.

Decreasing reimbursements I think is what he said. Average salary for dermpath has also dropped from a few years ago as well. Starting salaries will also drop.

He said combining hemepath with molecular is a "home-run" scenario.

 

[pathstudent]

Decreasing reimbursements I think is what he said. Average salary for dermpath has also dropped from a few years ago as well. Starting salaries will also drop.

He said combining hemepath with molecular is a "home-run" scenario.

Kind of depressing being in a field where today is as good as it is ever going to get in terms of earnings.

Read that the average Chicago teacher makes almost 80k a year and their contract will give them 16% raise over the next four years. At some point the average school teacher salary will equal average pathology salary. And they only work 8 months a year.

 

[KeratinPearls]

Kind of depressing being in a field where today is as good as it is ever going to get in terms of earnings.

Read that the average Chicago teacher makes almost 80k a year and their contract will give them 16% raise over the next four years. At some point the average school teacher salary will equal average pathology salary. And they only work 8 months a year.

I dont think the average pathology salary will go that low. However, I noticed in his presentation, salaries he cited for pathologists dropped considerably from his presentation last year. If you want to live in a desirable city like NYC, LA or Chicago, expect to get paid below market value. There is no adjustment to income based on the higher cost of living.

 

[scienceguy19]

tighter job market and lower salaries

It doesn't seem like a smart and competitive medical student would want to go into pathology...

 

[moonraker]

Problems:

1) The applicant pool for pathology could be a lot better. Instead, the strong AMGs are not going into pathology. This forum contributes to this.
2) Residency programs need to fill their positions to get money from the government. When the applicant pool is suboptimal, these programs fill anyway with warm bodies to just do the work. Some of these warm bodies end up not belonging into pathology but applying for jobs anyway.
3) The weak pathologists in training, who would make poor colleagues, apply for jobs and can't get jobs. Some of them, I suspect, are the ones bitching and moaning on this forum thereby compounding the problem.
4) We have gone past the point of no return in this vicious cycle.

We need to accept that a substantial proportion of those seeking jobs straight out of training will not be employable. Not everyone should be getting jobs for the overall welfare of our patients.

Some have proposed cutting down on the number of residency positions. The topic of the "retirement boom" is debatable. This solution may help but is simplistic.

The field needs to only let in the good people. Not the weak. A proportion (not all) of IMG postdocs compound the problem. These individuals publish lots of papers and look desirable to the academic residency programs by selling themselves as being interested in academics. However, once they succeed in joining a residency program in the states (i.e., getting their foot in the door), it is clear that these disingenuous people were just pulling the wool over the academics' eyes. Furthermore, a lot of these disingenuous people end up not making great residents further contaminating the job applicant pool. Academics ejaculate over these applicants because the applicant pool is not that great to begin with. This contributes to the vicious cycle.

 

[leu345]

R U serious?
Blame IMGs for poor job market?
I suppose you know a lot of "good" pathologists including Rosai are IMGs, right?
Internal medicine are filled with 50% IMGs, do you think they have a weak job market?

Problems:

1) The applicant pool for pathology could be a lot better. Instead, the strong AMGs are not going into pathology. This forum contributes to this.
2) Residency programs need to fill their positions to get money from the government. When the applicant pool is suboptimal, these programs fill anyway with warm bodies to just do the work. Some of these warm bodies end up not belonging into pathology but applying for jobs anyway.
3) The weak pathologists in training, who would make poor colleagues, apply for jobs and can't get jobs. Some of them, I suspect, are the ones bitching and moaning on this forum thereby compounding the problem.
4) We have gone past the point of no return in this vicious cycle.

We need to accept that a substantial proportion of those seeking jobs straight out of training will not be employable. Not everyone should be getting jobs for the overall welfare of our patients.

Some have proposed cutting down on the number of residency positions. The topic of the "retirement boom" is debatable. This solution may help but is simplistic.

The field needs to only let in the good people. Not the weak. A proportion (not all) of IMG postdocs compound the problem. These individuals publish lots of papers and look desirable to the academic residency programs by selling themselves as being interested in academics. However, once they succeed in joining a residency program in the states (i.e., getting their foot in the door), it is clear that these disingenuous people were just pulling the wool over the academics' eyes. Furthermore, a lot of these disingenuous people end up not making great residents further contaminating the job applicant pool. Academics ejaculate over these applicants because the applicant pool is not that great to begin with. This contributes to the vicious cycle.

 

[yaah]

tighter job market and lower salaries

It doesn't seem like a smart and competitive medical student would want to go into pathology...

What should they go into then?

"lower salaries" is going to describe every physician.

"tighter job market" can be open to interpretation, depending on how flexible your career goals are and what your demands are (I am talking about non-pathology fields here).

 

[pathstudent]

I dont think the average pathology salary will go that low. However, I noticed in his presentation, salaries he cited for pathologists dropped considerably from his presentation last year. If you want to live in a desirable city like NYC, LA or Chicago, expect to get paid below market value. There is no adjustment to income based on the higher cost of living.

Right. The average physician salary will likely never equal or be within a few percentage points of an average teacher salaries. But they will get closer and closer over the years

Reading comments in the nyt and wsj the Chicago teachers average salary extrapolates to 120-140k a year full time job. Now extrapolate it to a pathologists schedule of 10 hours a day.

There are newly minted faculty pathologists working 48 out of 52 for 80k a year. We start our jobs ten years after a teacher starts working and many of us have an additional 100-200k in debt. Plus the Chicago teachers will get a 16-20% increase in pay over four years. And now money for pathologists will be cut by the government to increase revenue for primary care and we will be looking at additional cuts over the years and increase in taxes as part of an overall goal of wealth redistribution. There was an article about 2 years ago about left wing economics prof from Columbia who did a study for the Obama administration and her conclusion was that physicians make too much money. That's who is advising the president. The article was in the nytimes.


But no matter, it is a little demoralizing knowing that whether love your job or hate your job, today is as good as it is likely ever going to be.

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

Problems:

1) The applicant pool for pathology could be a lot better. Instead, the strong AMGs are not going into pathology. This forum contributes to this.
2) Residency programs need to fill their positions to get money from the government. When the applicant pool is suboptimal, these programs fill anyway with warm bodies to just do the work. Some of these warm bodies end up not belonging into pathology but applying for jobs anyway.
3) The weak pathologists in training, who would make poor colleagues, apply for jobs and can't get jobs. Some of them, I suspect, are the ones bitching and moaning on this forum thereby compounding the problem.
4) We have gone past the point of no return in this vicious cycle.

We need to accept that a substantial proportion of those seeking jobs straight out of training will not be employable. Not everyone should be getting jobs for the overall welfare of our patients.

Some have proposed cutting down on the number of residency positions. The topic of the "retirement boom" is debatable. This solution may help but is simplistic.

The field needs to only let in the good people. Not the weak. A proportion (not all) of IMG postdocs compound the problem. These individuals publish lots of papers and look desirable to the academic residency programs by selling themselves as being interested in academics. However, once they succeed in joining a residency program in the states (i.e., getting their foot in the door), it is clear that these disingenuous people were just pulling the wool over the academics' eyes. Furthermore, a lot of these disingenuous people end up not making great residents further contaminating the job applicant pool. Academics ejaculate over these applicants because the applicant pool is not that great to begin with. This contributes to the vicious cycle.

The weak job market is coming from many sources. Increased productivity, too many programs, lab mergers, the recession, screening tests (prostate, breast, cervical) changing etc. The list is long.
If I were gonna fix pathology, first thing I would do is get rid of client billing. Its the most urgent issue. Long term the field needs to go interventional or it will turn into a very niche profession. I am glad ASCP is acknowledging that.

http://www.ascp.org/Newsroom/ASCP-A...Ever-Changing-Needs-of-Medical-Education.html

“These imaging techniques bring the possibility of moving the pathologist from the laboratory to the bedside (or endoscopy suite).”
—David N. B. Lewin, MD, FASCP

 

[KeratinPearls]

The weak job market is coming from many sources. Increased productivity, too many programs, lab mergers, the recession, screening tests (prostate, breast, cervical) changing etc. The list is long.
If I were gonna fix pathology, first thing I would do is get rid of client billing. Its the most urgent issue. Long term the field needs to go interventional or it will turn into a very niche profession. I am glad ASCP is acknowledging that.

http://www.ascp.org/Newsroom/ASCP-A...Ever-Changing-Needs-of-Medical-Education.html

"These imaging techniques bring the possibility of moving the pathologist from the laboratory to the bedside (or endoscopy suite)."
—David N. B. Lewin, MD, FASCP

That sounds pretty darn cool.

 

[lipomas]

Problems:

1) The applicant pool for pathology could be a lot better. Instead, the strong AMGs are not going into pathology. This forum contributes to this.
2) Residency programs need to fill their positions to get money from the government. When the applicant pool is suboptimal, these programs fill anyway with warm bodies to just do the work. Some of these warm bodies end up not belonging into pathology but applying for jobs anyway.
3) The weak pathologists in training, who would make poor colleagues, apply for jobs and can't get jobs. Some of them, I suspect, are the ones bitching and moaning on this forum thereby compounding the problem.
4) We have gone past the point of no return in this vicious cycle.

We need to accept that a substantial proportion of those seeking jobs straight out of training will not be employable. Not everyone should be getting jobs for the overall welfare of our patients.

Some have proposed cutting down on the number of residency positions. The topic of the "retirement boom" is debatable. This solution may help but is simplistic.

The field needs to only let in the good people. Not the weak. A proportion (not all) of IMG postdocs compound the problem. These individuals publish lots of papers and look desirable to the academic residency programs by selling themselves as being interested in academics. However, once they succeed in joining a residency program in the states (i.e., getting their foot in the door), it is clear that these disingenuous people were just pulling the wool over the academics' eyes. Furthermore, a lot of these disingenuous people end up not making great residents further contaminating the job applicant pool. Academics ejaculate over these applicants because the applicant pool is not that great to begin with. This contributes to the vicious cycle.

I know you got slammed by one or two people in reply but I support what you're saying.

This is my experience - I am a partner in an excellent group and yes, we have had trouble finding qualified candidates who are people that we want to work with. Programs keep churning out mediocre pathologists but we don't want to hire mediocre pathologists. And yes, a lot of them are IMGs.

But before the "Rosai was an IMG!!!!" *****s reply to me with that too, note that I am NOT saying BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION that this applies to all IMGs, nor am I saying that AMGs can't also be incompetent. We have a couple of IMGs in our group.

That being said, I also suspect that most of the people bitching about the job market are not the IMGs, they are the subpar AMGs.

Pathologist income is less than what it used to be but still higher than most other fields (in private practice, anyway).

I also think there are too many pathologists, but I think there are not enough good pathologists. Whose fault is it? Who knows.

 

[leu345]

Read his post carefully before you support what he is saying.

If your statment is that we have a lot of suboptimal or "mediocre" pathologists, I am OK with that. But if you support the idea that the weak job market is because of IMGs, I beg to disagree.

My suggestion to you is that before you call anyone "*****", also be careful. Anything you say has a reflection of yourself.

I know you got slammed by one or two people in reply but I support what you're saying.

This is my experience - I am a partner in an excellent group and yes, we have had trouble finding qualified candidates who are people that we want to work with. Programs keep churning out mediocre pathologists but we don't want to hire mediocre pathologists. And yes, a lot of them are IMGs.

But before the "Rosai was an IMG!!!!" *****s reply to me with that too, note that I am NOT saying BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION that this applies to all IMGs, nor am I saying that AMGs can't also be incompetent. We have a couple of IMGs in our group.

That being said, I also suspect that most of the people bitching about the job market are not the IMGs, they are the subpar AMGs.

Pathologist income is less than what it used to be but still higher than most other fields (in private practice, anyway).

I also think there are too many pathologists, but I think there are not enough good pathologists. Whose fault is it? Who knows.

 

[moonraker]

Read his post carefully before you support what he is saying.

If your statment is that we have a lot of suboptimal or "mediocre" pathologists, I am OK with that. But if you support the idea that the weak job market is because of IMGs, I beg to disagree.

My suggestion to you is that before you call anyone "*****", also be careful. Anything you say has a reflection of yourself.

Yes, please read my post carefully. I never place sole blame or predominant blame on IMGs. That is why I was careful with my words by saying that "a proportion (not all) of IMGs compound the problem." Some IMGs are strong and make valuable contributions to pathology. Weak residency candidates who don't belong in pathology and who should not be accepted into our field simply because of the need to fill residency positions originate from both the AMG and IMG pool. Strong AMGs not entering our field also contribute to the problem.

Lipomas - we are in a similar boat as we are in practice and look at the job market from the employer's perspective. Our group too has also experienced difficulty in finding qualified candidates. We may or may not be training too many residents but, from my POV, a significant proportion of them are not of sufficient caliber to work in my group.

 

[KeratinPearls]

Yes, please read my post carefully. I never place sole blame or predominant blame on IMGs. That is why I was careful with my words by saying that "a proportion (not all) of IMGs compound the problem." Some IMGs are strong and make valuable contributions to pathology. Weak residency candidates who don't belong in pathology and who should not be accepted into our field simply because of the need to fill residency positions originate from both the AMG and IMG pool. Strong AMGs not entering our field also contribute to the problem.

Lipomas - we are in a similar boat as we are in practice and look at the job market from the employer's perspective. Our group too has also experienced difficulty in finding qualified candidates. We may or may not be training too many residents but, from my POV, a significant proportion of them are not of sufficient caliber to work in my group.

There are strong AMGs who apply to pathology. There are those who don't for numerous reasons. I would bet $$$ being one of them. If average salaries of Pathology were similar to those in derm or ortho, I would bet Pathology would become instantly popular. Also, Pathology is not for everyone, just like derm or ortho isnt for everyone. Path has never been considered a "sexy" field among medical students.

I agree that there are too many programs producing subpar candidates. As you know, being a good pathologist comes with experience and practice.

 

[malchik]

Lipomas - we are in a similar boat as we are in practice and look at the job market from the employer's perspective. Our group too has also experienced difficulty in finding qualified candidates. We may or may not be training too many residents but, from my POV, a significant proportion of them are not of sufficient caliber to work in my group.

How have your searches been difficult?
Do you advertise? Do you call up programs that you respect and see if they have candidates? Maybe your recruitment methods are the problem.

 

[scienceguy19]

There are probably more mediocre AMG than mediocre IMG in my experience. Many IMG are harder working and even had other degrees (PHDs) or residencies before beginning pathology. But I'm pretty sure they have a hard time getting jobs, which probably wouldn't be the case had they chosen another field in medicine.

 

[2121115]

How have your searches been difficult?
Do you advertise? Do you call up programs that you respect and see if they have candidates? Maybe your recruitment methods are the problem.

It is almost certainly due to location.

Location is likely the top factor influencing the polarization of the job market threads on this site.

 

[lipomas]

Read his post carefully before you support what he is saying.

If your statment is that we have a lot of suboptimal or "mediocre" pathologists, I am OK with that. But if you support the idea that the weak job market is because of IMGs, I beg to disagree.

My suggestion to you is that before you call anyone "*****", also be careful. Anything you say has a reflection of yourself.

lol whut? Who's not reading carefully?

I think the OP said what I was going to say but I will say it too - the job market is not weak because of IMGs. I have IMGs in my group, but it is true that there are a lot of subpar IMG candidates out there. Some of them it is purely communication related which can be improved. But others it's just a matter of being a poor pathologist. I have no real idea whether it is as hard to get into foreign med schools as it is to get into US med schools, but I suspect it is not as hard.

There are probably more mediocre AMG than mediocre IMG in my experience. Many IMG are harder working and even had other degrees (PHDs) or residencies before beginning pathology. But I'm pretty sure they have a hard time getting jobs, which probably wouldn't be the case had they chosen another field in medicine.

I am really tired of the "IMGs are harder working, IMGs have to work harder." Bull****. I know lots of IMGs work hard but guess what, so did I and so do a lot of my american friends. I also know a ****load of IMGs who don''t work hard. Just because you have an additional degree like a PhD doesn't mean you're smarter or more hard working. It may mean you put in more time but getting a PhD or putting in more time does not imply you "worked harder" or worked longer hours. It implies that you worked 4-6 years and did a thesis. that could have been relatively easy from a time and lifestyle perspective. I think a lot of IMGs like to tell themselves they are working harder because they see a slacker AMG and stretch that to include everyone else. Guess what - that stereotype is just as invalid as the "all IMGs make bad physicians" stereotype. But it's just not true. If I go through the list of residents from my training program IMG/AMG status has essentially no bearing on whether they were a hard worker or not. The most hard working people in my program were AMGs. The biggest two slackers were one AMG and one IMG with a PhD. So there.

 

[lipomas]

How have your searches been difficult?
Do you advertise? Do you call up programs that you respect and see if they have candidates? Maybe your recruitment methods are the problem.

The best candidates ALWAYS come through non-advertised methods. They come through word of mouth or personal knowledge.

We advertised for a couple of positions in the last 5 years, we got a few good candidates (although the ones we hired ended up being the ones we found through other methods).

It really depends also on what you need. If you are looking for someone just out of training then it is a lot easier to call up programs and ask them. But that might not get you too many experienced or in-practice-currently people. Advertising can get some of them but only if they are actively looking.

2121115 makes a good point (I think) that location is important. I think it is too, although I am not certain. I know there are some candidates who don't care at all whether the job they are applying for is in duluth or new orleans or Santa Fe. Those candidates tend to be less attractive, to be honest, because you feel like they might not stick with your group if they get a job offer from the city they really want to in 5 years. Our group only wants to hire people who are planning to be here for their careers. We don't want to hire the Los Angeleno who wants a job in LA, but couldn't find a good one right now so wants ours instead because it pays well and is a respected group, then he has a good springboard to the LA job. NO.

A lot of the best candidates have issues with spouses. The worst is when they are married to other pathologists. You can't hire both but want one, so you have to try to find another place that will hire the spouse. That can be a nightmare. Or the spouse has a niche job and doesn't really want to move to your town but "is willing to try." That usually means the new hire will bail in a couple years.

 

[Torsed]

Whats everyone complaining about? There are always VA jobs in South Dakota.

The key to a good job is connections. If you don't make connections (go to meetings as a resident....sit at the bar and have a drink with real pathologists) then it may not go ideal when it comes time to look. I think residents should start forming a plan from day one, since from the discussion above everyone seems to agree on how competitive it can be. Everyone I know with a decent job made it happen for themselves.

 

[2121115]

I think residents should start forming a plan from day one, since from the discussion above everyone seems to agree on how competitive it can be. Everyone I know with a decent job made it happen for themselves.

I started job hunting and laying down connections the day I started residency. Mainly because I was warned ahead of time about the job market by residents when I was a rotating medical student. If you just "wait and see what happens" when you are a 4th year/fellow you are already behind the 8 ball.