SDN members see fewer ads and full resolution images. Join our non-profit community!

Age distribution of practicing pathologist

Discussion in 'Pathology' started by qlin, Mar 26, 2007.

  1. qlin

    qlin New Member

    Mar 16, 2006
    I am always wondering the job market of Pathology. Anybody knows about the age distribution of currently practicing pathologist?
  2. SDN Members don't see this ad. About the ads.
  3. LADoc00

    LADoc00 There is no substitute for victory. 10+ Year Member

    Sep 9, 2004
    meaningless for path as many can continue leeching off younger junior staff well into their 70s. Path is so different than many other fields that the age-out they predicted when they gave an excuse to drastically increase the number of training slots wont occur.

    There is only one profession, and not just medical mind you, where the number one most likely cause of discontinuation of working is DEATH and that is path. Meaning, a majority of prac. paths practice (in some form) literally until the moment of seeing the Reaper (Insert Mony Python's Meaning of Life skit).
  4. fun8stuff

    fun8stuff *hiding from patients* 10+ Year Member

    Apr 9, 2003
    Is this a sign of job satisfaction? Average personality? Low job stress?
  5. Farles

    Farles 2+ Year Member

    Jan 19, 2007
    The only rule to retirement in pathology is that your age at retirement is directly proportional to how obnoxious you are to your residents and colleagues.
  6. LADoc00

    LADoc00 There is no substitute for victory. 10+ Year Member

    Sep 9, 2004
    partly that, partly because the field is so overtrained that you can continously hire employee junior pathologists and turn them over indefinitely. There is also the aspect that pathology is a exclusive contract speciality, meaning you need a contract with the hospital to even get on staff at most places, who controls that? the old people. I would invoke the famous Gray Dawn South Park episode.
  7. yaah

    yaah Boring Administrator Physician 10+ Year Member

    Average age of practicing pathologists is apparently 50 or so. Agree with above that it is essentially meaningless.

    The argument that there are too many pathologists is a debatable one. I don't really have any evidence either way, nor have I seen any evidence other than having people tell me both.

Share This Page