1st job academic or private?

[elburrito]

I have trained in heme and molecular and just recently signed for my first job in a private practice.

I was a little surprised to see that many jobs either indicate they want someone with 2-3 years + experience or they want someone who is right out of fellowship. I had always been told getting the first job is the toughest but once you're out in the community after a few years without getting sued, you are a proven commodity and would be much more marketable after a few years of experience versus when you are fresh out of fellowship without any actual signout experience.

There is a high probability that my first job would not be my last job but if I decide to re-assess 5 years from now and apply to another job, some questions come to mind. Some employers value having young graduates because a) they are more malleable than someone who has been practicing many years and is relatively set in their ways, and b) the young graduates coming out of fellowships are presumably the most current and knowledgable about up to date techniques and testing methodologies (both of these points are debatable I think).

So 5 years from now if I decide to pursue something else, especially given how dynamic molecular pathology is right now, wouldn't I be at some disadvantage compared to new graduates when re-applying for my second job?

Question 2) If I were to apply to a private reference lab like quest diagnostics after a few years, would it have been better to have gone to an academic center for the first few years rather than a private practice? In the end, obviously I chose to go to a private practice...I felt that it would still give me experience in my disciplines and the pay was almost $85k greater than if I had gone to the academic institution I was considering. I felt the academic institution might have given only marginally greater experience in my chosen disciplines, and I'm not interested in being a clinical researcher as much as my goal has always been to pursue my interest in a primarily clinical service-oriented career.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[coroner]

1. I wouldn't think so. You are still have the same training as the new grads who might be competing for the same job plus experience which outweighs any recent discoveries that have been made to have a significant clinical impact on what that future job requires. Also, any new potential employer would expect you to keep up with whatever advances have been made in the field. They're not going to think, "Oh, he came out in 2015 vs. 2020…he's ancient!" You're talking about 5 years later, not 50.

2. First off, assuming you took a sweet private gig, why would you consider signing up with Quest? But maybe you're preparing for the worse. Anyway, I am not molecular trained, nor have ever been in academics, but I think the difference here is negligible. You have the subspecialty expertise that they already want which should be enough to qualify you. I don't know if Quest would prefer a job candidate who was previously utilizing their training as the director of a large molecular lab at a major academic center doing cutting edge research vs private practice, maybe. But, I wouldn't base that on what you do now especially if your private job is significantly more appealing than academics to you. You said it best though; you already made your bed and are going the private route. Why ruminate on what could've been because it can only cause regret?

 

[dr.weiner]

Private practices may not even be around in 5 years, so get in while you can. Hyperbole, but the sentiment is true.

 

[pathstudent]

I think an academic job is your best bet to start with if you are at all interested and a smart move if you want to improve your C.V. while waiting for a job to open up in your ideal location.

Once you go private it is hard to be accepted back in the academic fold but probably not impossible.

 

[yaah]

When ads say "2-3 years experience" they typically actually mean "at least 2-3 years experience." The exceptions are places that are looking to pay someone less and justify it with less experience.

Every job is different. Many avoid "fresh out of training" individuals because they have been burned before by inexperienced graduates or those who are lacking important things that make someone a good practicing pathologist (as opposed to just a good resident/fellow). But other groups like hiring new grads if they have enough manpower in the group to support the new hire until they figure it out.

Some groups probably do avoid pathologists who are many many years out of training. In part this might be because they are wary of hiring someone who is changing jobs mid career (because sometimes there is a problematic reason why the person is doing so). They may also want someone more connected to training, as once pathologists get into practice they start to lose skills that they don't use. If you were in private practice and never saw any GI path or cytopath or something and then looked for a new job where you had to do that, the group might be wary.

But back to the "5 years from now," thing. I wouldn't worry. If you're a good pathologist you'll be fine. No one is going to avoid you because of the five years. That might be a really good time actually, after five years you start to come into your own.

 

[Torsed]

I think an academic pathologist would struggle with private pathology. We all know what academic pathology entails from training. How many out of training really comprehend what private practice entails?

Never heard someone wanting to work for Quest. I guess it depends on life goals and geography. From what I've read about former pathologist employees it doesn't look good.