Article in PRO kind of addressing the tightening job market

[JonJonStick]

I recently came across this article. It might have been shared already, in which case sorry for the double post.

http://www.practicalradonc.org/article/S1879-8500(17)30125-X/pdf

Two interesting things about the article itself:

1. Our research is getting really crappy and now everyone's scraping the bottom of the barrel to find stuff to publish.

2. The last sentence in the abstract: "This finding is more common among more recent graduates, potentially a result of the perception of a tightening job market with too many radiation oncologists in training." They still can't admit that IT IS because the job market is tightened, it's not just our perception. But of course if it said that Zeitman would have rejected the whole thing probably.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[noobsauce]

It seems like the author ended up in a pretty nice private practice group in the east coast close to NYC. Bravo

 

[seper]

hold your praise for a 2-3 years, when it is time to make partner or pack up
agree, pretty uninformative paper

 

[Corgi4Prez]

I recently came across this article. It might have been shared already, in which case sorry for the double post.

Two interesting things about the article itself:

1. Our research is getting really crappy and now everyone's scraping the bottom of the barrel to find stuff to publish.

2. The last sentence in the abstract: "This finding is more common among more recent graduates, potentially a result of the perception of a tightening job market with too many radiation oncologists in training." They still can't admit that IT IS because the job market is tightened, it's not just our perception. But of course if it said that Zeitman would have rejected the whole thing probably.

I respectfully disagree (I am not one of the authors). This survey is actually well run and has a good response rate. It is important to note though the high rate of participants saying they are in academics (>50%). This is obviously not representative of all Rad Oncs. Regardless, it seems like many on SDN want an active discussion on these issues, and having objective data about resident opinions only helps the matter. They also spend an entire paragraph in the discussion talking about the job market. I agree they could have used more direct language, but it could be that this was rejected outright from Red Journal for unclear reasons (as you suggested), and then they softened the language to ensure it gets published in PRO. This kind of thing definitely happens.

 

[scarbrtj]

Our research is getting really crappy and now everyone's scraping the bottom of the barrel to find stuff to publish

/sarcasm
So glad our colleagues outside radiation oncology do not notice this, diminishing our credibility and relevance
/sarcasm

 

[RadOncMegatron]

I recently came across this article. It might have been shared already, in which case sorry for the double post.

http://www.practicalradonc.org/article/S1879-8500(17)30125-X/pdf

Two interesting things about the article itself:

1. Our research is getting really crappy and now everyone's scraping the bottom of the barrel to find stuff to publish.

Have you been reading my publications? lol

 

[JonJonStick]

I respectfully disagree (I am not one of the authors). This survey is actually well run and has a good response rate. It is important to note though the high rate of participants saying they are in academics (>50%). This is obviously not representative of all Rad Oncs. Regardless, it seems like many on SDN want an active discussion on these issues, and having objective data about resident opinions only helps the matter. They also spend an entire paragraph in the discussion talking about the job market. I agree they could have used more direct language, but it could be that this was rejected outright from Red Journal for unclear reasons (as you suggested), and then they softened the language to ensure it gets published in PRO. This kind of thing definitely happens.

I didn't say the survey itself was poorly done, it's actually well done and I agree with you on that. Kudos to the authors for getting it done, it's hard to get any kind of survey done and published. However, a survey in regards to and showing what is obvious to every single one of us out there does not qualify as groundbreaking research in my opinion and that's what I was taking issue to. A few years ago when I used to open the red journal (no PRO then) I used to see articles that would teach me something and be useful in my daily practice. Now I rarely see anything of value either in the red journal or PRO and that's the point I was trying to make.

 

[JonJonStick]

Have you been reading my publications? lol

Lol maybe

 

[Corgi4Prez]

I didn't say the survey itself was poorly done, it's actually well done and I agree with you on that. Kudos to the authors for getting it done, it's hard to get any kind of survey done and published. However, a survey in regards to and showing what is obvious to every single one of us out there does not qualify as groundbreaking research in my opinion and that's what I was taking issue to. A few years ago when I used to open the red journal (no PRO then) I used to see articles that would teach me something and be useful in my daily practice. Now I rarely see anything of value either in the red journal or PRO and that's the point I was trying to make.

I missed your points then. Agreed.

 

[evilbooyaa]

I didn't say the survey itself was poorly done, it's actually well done and I agree with you on that. Kudos to the authors for getting it done, it's hard to get any kind of survey done and published. However, a survey in regards to and showing what is obvious to every single one of us out there does not qualify as groundbreaking research in my opinion and that's what I was taking issue to. A few years ago when I used to open the red journal (no PRO then) I used to see articles that would teach me something and be useful in my daily practice. Now I rarely see anything of value either in the red journal or PRO and that's the point I was trying to make.

Certainly agree with you on that. Maybe 2-5 articles a month are even somewhat relevant, rest just seems a bunch of fluff.

 

[yeasterbunny]

Maybe an unpopular post, but just to take a step back and ask a good-faith question; is all this talk of a tightening job market supported by good evidence or is it primarily anecdotal? Not that anecdotal evidence is to be discounted, mind you, often better evidence is hard to come by.

Follow up question: are we talking about jobs in desirable locations or jobs anywhere? I know the other long thread really gets into these weeds. Maybe I've just been in a comfortable job long enough to be disconnected to what applicants are experiencing, but I am still getting emails from recruiters almost daily with jobs in decent (albeit not coastal) places.

Full disclosure; I'm settled down with kids and work at an academic satellite in a small/medium inland city, have never lived in these high-demand coastal places, and it works for me.

 

[nkmiami]

Maybe an unpopular post, but just to take a step back and ask a good-faith question; is all this talk of a tightening job market supported by good evidence or is it primarily anecdotal? Not that anecdotal evidence is to be discounted, mind you, often better evidence is hard to come by.

Follow up question: are we talking about jobs in desirable locations or jobs anywhere? I know the other long thread really gets into these weeds. Maybe I've just been in a comfortable job long enough to be disconnected to what applicants are experiencing, but I am still getting emails from recruiters almost daily with jobs in decent (albeit not coastal) places.

Full disclosure; I'm settled down with kids and work at an academic satellite in a small/medium inland city, have never lived in these high-demand coastal places, and it works for me.

Residency slots have more than doubled in the past 15 years, and there is something called "hypofractionation": How does that not qualify as Level I evidence of increasing supply?
(and isnt ASTRO choose wisely is a campaign for lessening demand)

 

[yeasterbunny]

Residency slots have more than doubled in the past 15 years, and there is something called "hypofractionation": How does that not qualify as Level I evidence of increasing supply?
(and isnt ASTRO choose wisely is a campaign for lessening demand)

Again, I'm not taking sides either way, just curious what other data are out there. Some of your examples are a little problematic; according to the NRMP, there has been a 40% increase in residency slots across the board since 2002. Baby-boomers are aging and perhaps there was a shortage to begin with. Devil's-advocating here.

Hypofractionation certainly has the potential to decrease treatments delivered, of course, most notably in breast and palliation. I don't get the sense that prostate has fully picked up but probably will. You could make the argument that prostate pushed in the other direction for years, of course, during dose escalation.

Oh and "Choosing Wisely" is not an ASTRO initiative. It was started by the ABIM and has been signed onto by dozens of specialty societies now.

 

[Sheldor]

Maybe an unpopular post, but just to take a step back and ask a good-faith question; is all this talk of a tightening job market supported by good evidence or is it primarily anecdotal? Not that anecdotal evidence is to be discounted, mind you, often better evidence is hard to come by.

Follow up question: are we talking about jobs in desirable locations or jobs anywhere? I know the other long thread really gets into these weeds. Maybe I've just been in a comfortable job long enough to be disconnected to what applicants are experiencing, but I am still getting emails from recruiters almost daily with jobs in decent (albeit not coastal) places.

Full disclosure; I'm settled down with kids and work at an academic satellite in a small/medium inland city, have never lived in these high-demand coastal places, and it works for me.

My experience in job searching was actually more in line with what you talk about here. Hard to get jobs on the coasts with plenty of great jobs in the middle (to over simplify.) I got the impression that if I was willing to live in any decent sized town (100k people+) I could have started at a very high salary, and had a good life. However, without going through the whole process with each position it can be hard to get a truly accurate feel.

My big gripe with the survey is just the clear sampling bias with >50% going into academics. Clearly its a result of who chose to respond to the survey, but thats also going to color the results.

 

[medgator]

In terms of supply, it is up over 200% in around a 10 year period. While residency slots overall have increased by 40%, from what I understand most of the growth is in primary care specialties (where it was needed), and even then our growth has been double that rate. . I havent looked into this extensively, but I was told for instance that there are only about 300 urology residency spots.

And urology is much more in demand than rad onc in the US as a whole

 

[nkmiami]

and around 100 neurosurgery residents slots (we now are doubling them) When I was in training, we had fewer I believe.