Holy cow, you didn't even read my posts. Where in that post was I defending the study? I was defending the purpose of such a study because it is quite important to try to get a handle on these things. In actually I was criticizing it (part of it, anyway) because projecting workforce needs is quite difficult. I have said this more in other posts. Like I said, projecting workforce needs should rely MORE on things like anticipated workload, actual job duties and time commitments, as opposed to pure numbers. Pure numbers are only helpful if the actual future job is identical to current practice, but at the same time pure numbers do provide some useful data. You know, people on these forums really need to do a better job of not jumping to conclusions about what people post. And it really isn't in dispute that the actuarial data does show an marked reduction in future # of pathologists. Note that I am NOT saying current numbers are appropriate.