>10% increase in PGY-1 Pathology positions offered in 2013

[Path or bust]

---

Members do not see this ad.

NRMP results for 2013 Residency match:
Pathology
Positions offered 2013: 583 %US seniors 263 (45.1%)
Positions offered 2012: 521
Positions offered 2011: 518
Positions offered 2010: 503



http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddata2013.pdf
Page 12

 

[Tiki]

NRMP results for 2013 Residency match:
Pathology
Positions offered 2013: 583 %US seniors 263 (45.1%)
Positions offered 2012: 521
Positions offered 2011: 518
Positions offered 2010: 503



http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddata2013.pdf
Page 12

Didn't they get rid of prematching this year with the new SOAP system? If so, it's not really an increase in positions.

 

[Path or bust]

Didn't they get rid of prematching this year with the new SOAP system? If so, it's not really an increase in positions.

That's interesting, anyone know more about this?

 

[DaSein77]

This was already discussed and we basically figured out what was mentioned above. The was no prematch, therefore many IMG's who would have prematched in the past, had to enter the match this year. Therefore, no real increase(maybe plus or minus a few spots, I didnt check). The past match stats are actually lower than the amount of filled slots, due to prematch.

Its a shame, this would have made for some great doom and gloom discussion.

 

[Path or bust]

This was already discussed and we basically figured out what was mentioned above. The was no prematch, therefore many IMG's who would have prematched in the past, had to enter the match this year. Therefore, no real increase(maybe plus or minus a few spots, I didnt check). The past match stats are actually lower than the amount of filled slots, due to prematch.

Its a shame, this would have made for some great doom and gloom discussion.

Wrong. 🙄

If the applicant can begin training prior to February 1, the position can be filled outside The Match

http://www.nrmp.org/allinpolicyexception.pdf

 

[DaSein77]

Wrong. 🙄

If the applicant can begin training prior to February 1, the position can be filled outside The Match

http://www.nrmp.org/allinpolicyexception.pdf

So, there is an fairly exclusive exception. That's great, but how does this change the conclusion that the increase in numbers is due to less prematching?

 

[coroner]

What’s been mentioned earlier is accurate as the prematch positions of years past were subtracted from the total of PGY-1 pathology spots e.g. in 2010, let’s say there were 600 (rough guess) total PGY-1 postions available; however, 97 prematched, therefore only 503 were listed as ‘positions offered’. Most residency programs have now done away with the prematch (not all), those former prematch spots which were “hidden” on the stat sheet now appear as a huge increase in total number of spots. So now, there are still 600 total PGY-1 spots as in 2010, but 583 are listed as 'positions offered' because only 17 prematched this year vs 97 in 2010.

Total positions have actually decreased, at least in the last six years. There were 152 pathology programs in 2007, there are now 141. There’s no way there could be more PGY-1 pathology positions now unless class sizes per program have increased nationwide which I’m pretty sure is not the case. Just stating the facts; hopefully, without turning this into another supply/demand thread about the market.

 

[Path or bust]

So, there is an fairly exclusive exception. That's great, but how does this change the conclusion that the increase in numbers is due to less prematching?

Ahem, you are wrong. You stated there is no more prematch, I showed you that there can be prematch and exceptions to the numbers that are presented.

I am done with you.

 

[Path or bust]

What’s been mentioned earlier is accurate as the prematch positions of years past were subtracted from the total of PGY-1 pathology spots e.g. in 2010, let’s say there were 600 (rough guess) total PGY-1 postions available; however, 97 prematched, therefore only 503 were listed as ‘positions offered’. Most residency programs have now done away with the prematch (not all), those former prematch spots which were “hidden” on the stat sheet now appear as a huge increase in total number of spots. So now, there are still 600 total PGY-1 spots as in 2010, but 583 are listed as 'positions offered' because only 17 prematched this year vs 97 in 2010.

Total positions have actually decreased, at least in the last six years. There were 152 pathology programs in 2007, there are now 141. There’s no way there could be more PGY-1 pathology positions now unless class sizes per program have increased nationwide which I’m pretty sure is not the case. Just stating the facts; hopefully, without turning this into another supply/demand thread about the market.

I agree completely, I find this topic interesting. I don't see though where we can get the info for prematched positions offerred on in prior years. Am I missing those numbers? Are you just assuming there were 97 prematch offers? How can we accurately know this information?

 

[coroner]

I agree completely, I find this topic interesting. I don't see though where we can get the info for prematched positions offerred on in prior years. Am I missing those numbers? Are you just assuming there were 97 prematch offers? How can we accurately know this information?

97 was the number calculated by subtracting 503 positions offered from the 600 total PGY-1 positions which I stated was a rough guess. I just used it to make the math easy. Therefore, 97 is an arbitrary number.

I don't think you could find out total prematches given per year per specialty easily. But what you could do is look at a program and see how many positions were matched and how many were unfilled in a given year. e.g. if a certain program has 4 total spots in a given year for PGY-1 path residents, 2 matched and 1 went unfilled then that means 1 prematch was given that year and the unfilled spot was either post-matched or possibly stayed unfilled. Figuring this out on a year-by-year basis seems somewhat time consuming though...

 

[DaSein77]

Ahem, you are wrong. You stated there is no more prematch, I showed you that there can be prematch and exceptions to the numbers that are presented.

I am done with you.

Haha! Slow down there big guy! Don't get your feathers all ruffled. There is is no traditional prematch as discussed already. You are right that there is still a way to prematch, however, this exception is quite an exclusive way to fill a spot. I was wrong to say there was "no" prematch, but there essentially is none.

 

[2121115]

NRMP results for 2013 Residency match:
Pathology
Positions offered 2013: 583 %US seniors 263 (45.1%)
Positions offered 2012: 521
Positions offered 2011: 518
Positions offered 2010: 503



http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddata2013.pdf
Page 12

I laugh at the fact that there are 500 pathology residency spots per year. No wonder people cannot find jobs easily. That means there are 500 people finishing training every year. Which means that there needs to be at least 10 open good jobs per state every year. LOL! There are many states where there are 2 or 3 quality openings in a good year.

 

[rollwithit]

I laugh at the fact that there are 500 pathology residency spots per year. No wonder people cannot find jobs easily. That means there are 500 people finishing training every year. Which means that there needs to be at least 10 open good jobs per state every year. LOL! There are many states where there are 2 or 3 quality openings in a good year.

Are there any groups of unemployed pathologists (or brave employed pathologists) that have submitted evidence to Congressional Committees in some fashion that document the alleged current state of over-training? Seems like GME funding could be cut or reallocated to primary care if it's that obvious that that there are too many pathologists being trained to meet real current or medium range demand.

If letters like this

http://www.ascp.org/PDF/Advocacy/GME-Funding-Coalition-Letter.pdf

are wrong or contain faulty assumptions, then why aren't pathologists submitting the counter arguments with supporting facts and their real names? Are they scared? Are there not really facts to counter the arguments? Do they become less passionate when they obtain a job? Are their facts less persuasive when they have to attach their real name along side them or when they are compared to the facts submitted in support of the opposite argument?

SDN is a great forum for casual debates on the market, but spinning wheels here doesn't really do anything. I don't hold an opinion one way or the other. I'm just curious if the "we are training too many pathologists" position is ever being communicated to the people that actually make decisions which influence the money available for training? If not, why?

 

[yaah]

are wrong or contain faulty assumptions, then why aren't pathologists submitting the counter arguments with supporting facts and their real names? Are they scared? Are there not really facts to counter the arguments? Do they become less passionate when they obtain a job? Are their facts less persuasive when they have to attach their real name along side them or when they are compared to the facts submitted in support of the opposite argument?

SDN is a great forum for casual debates on the market, but spinning wheels here doesn't really do anything. I don't hold an opinion one way or the other. I'm just curious if the "we are training too many pathologists" position is ever being communicated to the people that actually make decisions which influence the money available for training? If not, why?

Because it's much easier to complain about it on the internet and hope other people do things about it.

And yes, you are right, the facts and evidence are lacking. A lot of the evidence on "the other side" is lacking as well or exaggerated however it is still real data. The fact remains that there are very few truly unemployed pathologists.

 

[Path or bust]

Are there any groups of unemployed pathologists (or brave employed pathologists) that have submitted evidence to Congressional Committees in some fashion that document the alleged current state of over-training? Seems like GME funding could be cut or reallocated to primary care if it's that obvious that that there are too many pathologists being trained to meet real current or medium range demand.

If letters like this

http://www.ascp.org/PDF/Advocacy/GME-Funding-Coalition-Letter.pdf

are wrong or contain faulty assumptions, then why aren't pathologists submitting the counter arguments with supporting facts and their real names? Are they scared? Are there not really facts to counter the arguments? Do they become less passionate when they obtain a job? Are their facts less persuasive when they have to attach their real name along side them or when they are compared to the facts submitted in support of the opposite argument?

SDN is a great forum for casual debates on the market, but spinning wheels here doesn't really do anything. I don't hold an opinion one way or the other. I'm just curious if the "we are training too many pathologists" position is ever being communicated to the people that actually make decisions which influence the money available for training? If not, why?

"The current number of residency and fellowship positions in pathology must not be further reduced; rather we must work on ways to increase the number of positions, as well..."

 

[pathstudent]

Again.

Don't freak out about requests for more training spots. It is obligatory in the turf battle for training dollars.

There will be no expansion of pathology positions. The current dogma is that us healthcare is too expensive because of too many specialists and not enough primary care. Pathology is in the "specialists" group. If anything they will cut our numbers to create more pediatrician, internists and family docs.

 

[Substance]

Because it's much easier to complain about it on the internet and hope other people do things about it.

And yes, you are right, the facts and evidence are lacking. A lot of the evidence on "the other side" is lacking as well or exaggerated however it is still real data. The fact remains that there are very few truly unemployed pathologists.

You're right about this. There are very few unemployed pathologists. But are the employment opportunities appropriate for the skill and training of pathologists, as medical specialists, in relation to other similar medical specialists? Though one might dismiss this question as being an unnecessary comparison, It's an important question, since it partially determines recruitment, which leads me to my next point.

A question that hasn't been asked is if the right people are being recruited into pathology. It's one thing to put butts in seats, but another to put the right butts in the right seats. Just because positions are filled and a "shortage" is averted does not mean that the quality of care provided will be adequate.

From what I've read on this board, there are plenty of programs that want post-graduate training money and will recruit anyone with a pulse into the field. That doesn't reflect well.

In Canada we have had problems with pathologist recruitment, primarily due to income(they were paid less than family doctors), which has harmed patients, partially due to unqualified pathologists performing substandard work.