2+ Year Member
- Aug 20, 2018
There is something that I fundamentally do not understand when it comes to the discussion of the pathology job market. Over and over again I've heard the statement that 50% of pathology programs need to be shut down in order to reduce the oversupply and the recruitment of sub-par trainees into the field. This leads me to the following questions:
- If it is widely known that there are programs training subpar pathologists, would hiring managers not avoid hiring pathologists trained at these programs?
- If the above is true, then would it not also be true that pathologists trained at more "reputable" programs do not face the same challenges in the job market as the trainees of "subpar" programs?
- If the above two are true, then could one make the leap that those who complain the loudest about the poor pathology job market are ones who trained at one of those "subpar" programs? And if that is true, wouldn't the obvious conclusion for a prospective trainee to draw be that your best shot at shielding yourself from the difficult job market would be to go to a "good" program, and if you can't get into one, don't go into pathology?
Basically my question boils down to, does it even matter that the job market is poor for, say, half of all pathology trainees if the half who go to "good" programs do not face the same difficulties in the job market? Or does the overall surplus of trainees make it difficult for even those graduating from strong programs to find a good job?
I trained at a program everyone would put in the top 3 in the country and many would say is # 1. Did well, was a chief resident, had good references. My program director at the time was very upfront with trainees. He flat out told us not everyone would be able to stay locally from day 1 of residency.
I felt the struggles to get a good job initially, b/c the local market was so flooded with good pathologists by basically my huge training program.
there are many markets like this apparently.