Bad job market

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Every other residency produces doctors that they will hire right out of residency.

Not really. Try getting a radiology job in a metro area without a fellowship. Not going to happen. Radiology residents do fellowships as the standard to compete in a competitive market. They don't need them to go to rural areas, but pathology residents don't need fellowships to go to rural areas either.

Members don't see this ad.
 
I do an internal medicine, fam, er, surgery, peds, rads...whatever. I can be hired out of residency and be on staff the next year teaching the residents below me. This doesn't happen in pathology.


change "hired out of residency" to "hired out of training" and you describe pathology.

fellowship replaced the 5th year of residency, and is now nearly universal.
 
Radiology is going to follow pathology when it comes to fellowships...not a good idea.

I would like to know where these rural jobs are...I would rather not do a fellowship.

Change "hired out of residency" to "hired out of training"...thats funny. Pass the Koolaid. Lets be honest...who hires residents...almost no one (except rural areas i guess, would like to know specifics).
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Radiology is going to follow pathology when it comes to fellowships...not a good idea.

I would like to know where these rural jobs are...I would rather not do a fellowship.

Change "hired out of residency" to "hired out of training"...thats funny. Pass the Koolaid. Lets be honest...who hires residents...almost no one (except rural areas i guess, would like to know specifics).

What? You haven't heard of those "rural" jobs hiring people right out of training? During residency, I was not able to keep the recruiters away!

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

That myth ranks right up there with the "many old pathologists getting ready to retire" line that has been out there for 30+ years.

Funny how posters want to take another medical profession that is going the way of a trainwreck and somehow justify pathology's course for that.

Bottom line: A fellowship is completely unnecessary if one works hard and reads (and has a certain amount of skill) in residency. In fact, it almost hurts you as your skills diminish somewhat in other areas.

Another myth starting to be perpetuated is that if you inform medical students of the situation, the good ones will leave the profession and that we will be left with the remnants. This is GOOD FOR US PEOPLE!!! The following is why:
1. Competition -- if you are competing against a reference lab who works on the cheap with unethical practices and they can only hire suboptimal pathologists -- they become unreliable and will lose their business back to you.

2. Residency -- many residency programs will NOT take suboptimal residents and thus will NOT fill. I know this for a FACT. Other residencies that do take them will be less inclined to expand and deal with more of them as they are a headache. Having great residents is incentive to expand in my view.

3. Other specialties -- why would you rather have a great candidate as a competing pathologist as opposed to a clinician who is great to work with and also giving you business?

Anyway, I say if you are a medical student and a bright one, you should see warning signs here -- I missed them and although I love pathology and have a good job -- I will be dealing with the consequences of OVERSUPPLY throughout my career -- of which I have outlined in numerous threads. You will have to make adjustments accordingly which I have done to minimize their impact. For some, those adjustments may be more painful than others. Fortunately for me, some of those adjustments are preferable (a less than ideal job location for most people -- I personally like to live in a rural, remote, conservative area and can't stand being around a bunch of leftist utopians).
 
What? You haven't heard of those "rural" jobs hiring people right out of training? During residency, I was not able to keep the recruiters away!

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

That myth ranks right up there with the "many old pathologists getting ready to retire" line that has been out there for 30+ years.


Well, I sense that you don't buy it. However, I know 3 young pathologists working in rural areas who did not do a fellowship. They were hired straight out of residency. 2 in communities of less than 50K people and not close to any large cities. 1 lives in a large city and commutes 45 minutes to a rural area. They are all making serious bank with loads of vacation time and use the vacation and money to travel and get their "cultural fix". Anecdotal evidence I suppose, but that is my experience.
 
Well, I sense that you don't buy it. However, I know 3 young pathologists working in rural areas who did not do a fellowship. They were hired straight out of residency. Anecdotal evidence I suppose, but that is my experience.


I know 3 who did it myself in the last few years -- all very fortunate -- all who had a connection. I tried it myself and was 100% unsuccessful even after aggressively pursuing it (I had no connections).

Some of these people were not as strong as a pathologist as those who have had extreme difficulty getting a job after a fellowship.

This is a problem in my view.
 
Through the Mosley article, the only point I wanted to make was how A GOOD JOB MARKET SHOULD LOOK LIKE

IN PATHOLOGY WORSE THAN UNEMPLOYMENT WE HAVE PATHOLOGISTS (DUE TO LACK OF JOBS) WILLING TO GIVE 2/3 OF THEIR INCOME TO UROLOGISTS IN ORDER TO PUT BREAD ON THE TABLE.

IT IS TERRIBLE AND A SHAME!!!!

UNLIKE OTHERS WHO HAVE CALLED THESE PATHOLOGISTS ****** ETC., I HAVE FULL SYMPATHY FOR THEM. THEY ARE FORCED TO STOOP TO SUCH LOW LEVELS BECAUSE OF UNEMPLOYMENT CAUSED BY A SURPLUS MANPOWER.

One has to realize that most people who "work" for these GI or Uro groups are doing this as a "side" job, usually in the evenings or weekends. They treat these as "easy" extra money. For some, this amounts to about 200K a year. So why not? Most of these people are in NY/NJ area, where salary is low (but obviously workload low as well, otherwise they won't have the extra time and energy). The GI and uro doctors are doing this because they don't want the big labs to take all the profit and they want share part of the dough. Now you have the clinical group and individual pathologists teamed together, cutting out the "middleman" (aka: people who own or manage the big commercial labs, or the owners of pathology groups). In essence, the pathologist is putting in the time and earning his or her share of the money; nothing changes for hims. You have to realize that whatever the setting is, you don't get 100% of the fee you billed. There is always someone who want to take a cut.
 
Last edited:
One has to realize that for most people who "work" for these GI or Uro groups are doing this as a "side" job, usually in the evenings or weekends. They treat these as "easy" extra money. For some, this amounts to about 200K a year. So why not? Most of these people are in NY/NJ area, where salary is low (but obviously workload low as well, otherwise they won't have the extra time and energy).


As you show in your post -- this is another symptom of low workload/low salary -- directly caused by oversupply of pathologists which forces pathologists to fight over specimens.

All jobs have work that is undercompensated and work that is overcompensated. Because of these people working for "easy money" they are putting other pathologists in the position of doing increased undercompensated work while businesses take advantage (who really wins here?). Their own low-paying job already has too much undercompensated work as you describe.

Hmmmm.....more red flags.
 
Another myth starting to be perpetuated is that if you inform medical students of the situation, the good ones will leave the profession and that we will be left with the remnants. This is GOOD FOR US PEOPLE!!! The following is why:
1. Competition -- if you are competing against a reference lab who works on the cheap with unethical practices and they can only hire suboptimal pathologists -- they become unreliable and will lose their business back to you.

This is incredibly short-sighted. It is most definitely NOT good for us, unless of course you are a pathologist who exists on exploiting other less competent or savvy pathologists. Having good pathologists in the field helps everyone except the exploiters. Having more bad pathologists in the field is BAD for everyone. Because it increases the pool of people who are willing to work for any salary and any type of job. When groups can't find a good candidate to hire (which is not uncommon, even today) they often do not hire one of the weaker candidates. Your definition of "suboptimal" pathologist is different from that of the real world. In real life an incompetent pathologist is going to be discharged from whatever job they manage to get. I have met some of these individuals. People keep hiring them but they keep getting fired. There are lots of poorer pathologists out there who are not great to work with but do a borderline competent job. These are great candidates for reference labs. A lot of your assumptions are not valid.

Fellowships are not unnecessary. Sure, if you are a strong pathologist you can accumulate the experience and skills necesssary to approach the experience you gain in a fellowship, but this takes several years. On the first week of my job, right out of residency, people were coming to me with cases related to my fellowship, unsure what to do with them. Fellowship gives you focus and study and expertise. It augments your training, it doesn't replace it. And why do you think clinicians and hospitals decide to contract with certain pathology groups? Part of it, a lot of it actually, is about money, but part of it is also expertise. If a GI group knows that the local pathology group has a GI pathologist, they are more likely to use the group.

Your point about some residency programs deciding not to fill instead of taking poor candidates is valid, but this is really a minor number of programs and individuals. Decreasing the good candidates to spread out the weaker candidates is most definitely NOT a solution to this, unless you are someone like Caris or Bostwick labs who wants to exploit the field of pathology.

The fact that any pathologist would suggest that having fewer excellent students enter pathology is good for the field is quite astounding to me and implies a complete lack of thought and analysis of the situation. Things are not nearly as simple as some people on these forums would have us all believe.
 
The fact that any pathologist would suggest that having fewer excellent students enter pathology is good for the field is quite astounding to me and implies a complete lack of thought and analysis of the situation. Things are not nearly as simple as some people on these forums would have us all believe.

Sorry, but you are flat out wrong.

I can compete and smash any reference labs that hire people who are suboptimal/poor pathologists which is what would happen IF there are fewer excellent/good and some average paths who are in the workplace == no oversupply. Long term effect ==BIG CORPORATE PATH CANNOT COMPETE AND MORE PATH'S WORK IN PRIVATE PRACTICE.

I cannot compete and smash reference labs that hire people who are average pathologists which is what is happening WHEN many excellent/good and some average paths are in the private market == oversupply. Long term effect == BIG CORPORATE PATH DOMINATES AND GROWS.

A group needing a fellowship trained pathologist for marketing purposes is a SYMPTOM OF OVERSUPPLY!!!!! It is amazing how some of you people cannot comprehend this!!!! A GI fellowship is completely unnecessary if one puts time in and learns pathology!!!! Only a handful of cases/year need anything more than group consultation and require send out in most practices.
 
Last edited:
Joining the Field: A Guide for the New Dermatologist

Graeme Lipper, MD
As dermatologists-in-training, my colleagues and I marveled over the sheer volume of dermatology jobs. Judging by our mail, it seemed that practices in every corner of the country -- if not the planet -- were screaming for another "BC/BE" dermatologist. Was there truly such a shortage of Board Certified/Board Eligible dermatologists? Every day, piles of enticing postcards and flyers seemed to confirm this impression, promising us the world. Everywhere we turned, "thriving" practices were eager to expand, and the hunger for bright new graduates seemed almost palpable. Whether you wanted to join a huge practice or buy one out to start off on your own, opportunities appeared to be limitless. It was a buyer's market.


LOOKS AT "CLUELESS *****S" TRYING TO DEFEND THE PATHOLOGY JOB MARKET AND NOT THRASHING IT :mad:
 
Last edited:
A physician’s purchasing power is dictated by such things as the supply of physicians in the industry, early retirement and its effects on the job market, the increased need for health care services, compensation and malpractice trends, increased volume of patients needing care
 
These short-term changes presage the long-term trends extrapolated from health maintenance organization staffing patterns to the general population. These models assume that the managed care demand ratio for pathologists is approximately 1.7 to 3.1 per 100000 covered lives.The 1995 supply of pathologists in the United States was 4.2 pathologists per 100 000.7 Depending on the assumptions undergirding the extrapolation model, one can argue that there could be anywhere from a shortage of 400 pathologists to a surplus of more than 5600 pathologists in the year 2010. Significant uncertainty remains in any longterm projection.Just the publication of the projections can change behavior and thereby invalidate the projections. Yet these extrapolations, coupled with the more recent benchmarked information from Goodman et al, indicate that if reductions along the lines of current HMO staffing patterns are seen, a significant surplus of pathologists will almost certainly result in the next decade.
If these models are accurate, only draconian changes in graduate medical education could prevent the surpluses. For example, it would be necessary under the most constrictive model for all pathology training programs to simply end recruiting in July 1997 if the pathology workforce is to be in balance nationally in the year 2010. Clearly, such apocalyptic measures are unlikely. For that reason, pathologists for the foreseeable future are almost certainly going to work in a much more competitive market.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
"A third opportunity is to move beyond traditional pathology activities and to take advantage of emerging opportunities in health care as a whole."

This is where job security lies. You need to broaden your skills and be prepared to accept and embrace new technologies and new roles for pathologists.

You can't sit and post on SDN about the crappy job market and expect anything to change.

You make your own job opportunities. If they want a molecular guy, learn to do the molecular stuff. Know how to blood bank. Be AP/CP.

Microscopes should be only one aspect of our contributions to medicine.

That's what you all don't seem to get. Times change! You had better be able to as well.

:idea:
 
Sorry, but you are flat out wrong.

I can compete and smash any reference labs that hire people who are suboptimal/poor pathologists which is what would happen IF there are fewer excellent/good and some average paths who are in the workplace == no oversupply. Long term effect ==BIG CORPORATE PATH CANNOT COMPETE AND MORE PATH'S WORK IN PRIVATE PRACTICE.

I cannot compete and smash reference labs that hire people who are average pathologists which is what is happening WHEN many excellent/good and some average paths are in the private market == oversupply. Long term effect == BIG CORPORATE PATH DOMINATES AND GROWS.

A group needing a fellowship trained pathologist for marketing purposes is a SYMPTOM OF OVERSUPPLY!!!!! It is amazing how some of you people cannot comprehend this!!!! A GI fellowship is completely unnecessary if one puts time in and learns pathology!!!! Only a handful of cases/year need anything more than group consultation and require send out in most practices.

I don't think he is wrong. You are equating things that should not be equated. The oversupply issue is a problem - the solution is not to reduce pathologists that are good. The solution is to reduce pathologists that are not good. Needing a fellowship-trained pathologist for marketing purposes is not a symptom of oversupply - it is a symptom of our current medical environment of specialization and legal issues. While it is true that only a handful of cases need more than group consultation, numerous cases benefit from specialist-trained expertise. I wonder if you have ever seen routine cases with well-trained subspecialty pathologists? Because they provide tons of information that clinicians appreciate, even if some of it doesn't go into the report.

Clinicians these days want more than just "is it cancer or not." We are moving in medicine towards more and more subspecialization - this is not just a pathology issue. Pathology is responding to clinical subspecialization by having pathologists that can speak the same language as these specialists. I agree that your opinions on this are quite a bit short sighted and lack a little insight into true business practices.

Your first statement says it all, "I can compete and smash any reference labs that hire poor pathologists." How? How can you do this if all the good people don't go into pathology? You won't be able to hire colleagues who are any better than what the reference lab offers. Why would they go to you? You discount the benefit of a GI fellowship to clinicians who did their own GI fellowships. How does that make sense? You have to look at this from a more complex level than what you are currently. Yes, oversupply is a huge problem. Reference labs are a huge problem for private practices. But your analysis of the situation really doesn't hold water from a practical standpoint.
 
Sorry, but you are flat out wrong.

I can compete and smash any reference labs that hire people who are suboptimal/poor pathologists which is what would happen IF there are fewer excellent/good and some average paths who are in the workplace == no oversupply. Long term effect ==BIG CORPORATE PATH CANNOT COMPETE AND MORE PATH'S WORK IN PRIVATE PRACTICE.

I'm flat out wrong, eh? And you're clearly correct? How do you figure? Good luck with your theories. And good luck competing with an attitude that shows not only a lack of business sense but shows arrogance and dismissal of others' concerns. That is sure to work. Your posts have shown a bit of naivety and ignorance about actual daily practice, especially as it pertains to business. You may be a good diagnostician, I have no idea. There are lots of good diagnosticians. But just because you assume you're better than the reference lab doesn't make it so. Wishful thinking does not make something a sound and actionable theory. One must actually analyze things and use real life as an example. Can you actually define what a suboptimal pathologist is? Do you do it by CV? Do you do it by references? Do you just take someone's word for it? And if so, whose?

Your argument that reducing quality pathologists at the expense of bad ones is good for the field because it helps you compete with reference labs is perhaps the worst argument I have ever seen on these forums, and that is saying a lot. Note that nowhere in here have I said reducing the stream of all pathology trainees would be a bad thing.
 
I'm flat out wrong, eh? And you're clearly correct? How do you figure? Good luck with your theories. And good luck competing with an attitude that shows not only a lack of business sense but shows arrogance and dismissal of others' concerns. That is sure to work. Your posts have shown a bit of naivety and ignorance about actual daily practice, especially as it pertains to business. You may be a good diagnostician, I have no idea. There are lots of good diagnosticians. But just because you assume you're better than the reference lab doesn't make it so. Wishful thinking does not make something a sound and actionable theory. One must actually analyze things and use real life as an example. Can you actually define what a suboptimal pathologist is? Do you do it by CV? Do you do it by references? Do you just take someone's word for it? And if so, whose?

Your argument that reducing quality pathologists at the expense of bad ones is good for the field because it helps you compete with reference labs is perhaps the worst argument I have ever seen on these forums, and that is saying a lot. Note that nowhere in here have I said reducing the stream of all pathology trainees would be a bad thing.

Who can argue with a guy who shows little ability for comprehension? Certainly not me!!!

Of course you can compete with reference labs that employ suboptimal pathologists as they provide inconsistency to clinicians, something that is intolerable.
 
Who can argue with a guy who shows little ability for comprehension? Certainly not me!!!

Of course you can compete with reference labs that employ suboptimal pathologists as they provide inconsistency to clinicians, something that is intolerable.

Thrombus, where are you a resident or physician or student at? You are one of the biggest board bitches that I could possibly imagine.
 
If you have a problem with what thrombus says, I am guessing you are also in for a rude awakening when you see how pathology is practiced in the real world.

Oversupply of pathologists, fighting to keep your specimens, undercutting the other guy's prices, reference labs, countrywide competition among pathologists, constant customer service....etc.
 
It is time to split the forum between those of us who are academics and others who LOVE pathology no matter what and RAIDER, Thrombus, LADOC00 and path24 and other j-offs who hate pathology and only complain, even though they are probably earning a better living that 60% of total americans.
 
It is time to split the forum between those of us who are academics and others who LOVE pathology no matter what and RAIDER, Thrombus, LADOC00 and path24 and other j-offs who hate pathology and only complain, even though they are probably earning a better living that 60% of total americans.

actually agreeing with pathstudent on this one.
 
Oversupply of pathologists, fighting to keep your specimens, undercutting the other guy's prices, reference labs, countrywide competition among pathologists, constant customer service....etc.

Funny how we all pray to the altar of capitalism until the altar of monopoly looks a little more attractive.
 
It is time to split the forum between those of us who are academics and others who LOVE pathology no matter what and RAIDER, Thrombus, LADOC00 and path24 and other j-offs who hate pathology and only complain, even though they are probably earning a better living that 60% of total americans.


It is easy for medical students and residents who are not paying their students loans to suggest working pathologists should be happy with whatever their pay is (because it sounds like so much more than they have ever made)...

But the realities of real world (loans, mortgage, etc etc..) come knocking pretty quick.

Complaining about the state of pathology does not mean someone doesn't like it...
To rephrase Sen Schurz "Pathology wrong or right, if right to be kept right, if wrong to be set right"

Over supply of pathologist affects the job market. While someone who was a medical student might worry that talk of cutting pathology residency programs would mean they can't get it, I would suggest that if they really want to do pathology they would be able to convince a program to take them...

Most other residencies are limited, and not limiting the residency spots in pathology is doing a disservice to pathologists everywhere...
 
It is time to split the forum between those of us who are academics and others who LOVE pathology no matter what and RAIDER, Thrombus, LADOC00 and path24 and other j-offs who hate pathology and only complain, even though they are probably earning a better living that 60% of total americans.


Agreed! Those people must HATE pathology since they do not whisper words soothing to the ear!

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Funny how we all pray to the altar of capitalism until the altar of monopoly looks a little more attractive.

Medicine is so far removed from capitalism with regulation, mandate, gov't controlled pricing, etc. that the only feasible solutions are to altar the rules of socialism.
 
Medicine is so far removed from capitalism with regulation, mandate, gov't controlled pricing, etc. that the only feasible solutions are to altar the rules of socialism.

But ours is not the only heavily regulated industry trying to operate in an undeniably capitalist framework: multiple providers competing over a limited customer base for the purpose of making a buck.

I merely find it amusing how collectively we tend to demand competition among others to improve our own lives. We want the car companies to compete, the phone companies to compete, the computer manufacturers to compete, etc. etc. etc., all to provide better products with superior service at lower cost.

And yet in our own field we want the opposite for ourselves. We don't want to compete with others for jobs, we don't want to compete with other groups for business, we don't want to compete with pod labs, and we don't want to compete with megalabs. We want little fiefdoms where we have a built in customer base, fat reimbusement, and no outside incentive to improve our business.

Don't get me wrong, I'm human, and this is what I want, too. And I do support the reduction of pathology training spots to make the practice environment a little friendlier.
 
But ours is not the only heavily regulated industry trying to operate in an undeniably capitalist framework: multiple providers competing over a limited customer base for the purpose of making a buck.

I merely find it amusing how collectively we tend to demand competition among others to improve our own lives. We want the car companies to compete, the phone companies to compete, the computer manufacturers to compete, etc. etc. etc., all to provide better products with superior service at lower cost.

And yet in our own field we want the opposite for ourselves. We don't want to compete with others for jobs, we don't want to compete with other groups for business, we don't want to compete with pod labs, and we don't want to compete with megalabs. We want little fiefdoms where we have a built in customer base, fat reimbusement, and no outside incentive to improve our business.

Don't get me wrong, I'm human, and this is what I want, too. And I do support the reduction of pathology training spots to make the practice environment a little friendlier.

I definitely see your point and to some degree I agree with it -- However -- the oversupply of pathologists has resulted in unenforceable/unethical practices that are unconscionable for most of us. As a result we cannot compete and our only power is to appeal to regulate .

At the same time, we can provide some point of reality to the conversation.

I remember when I was a medical student who was stubborn enough to realize that any negative things about the field would not apply to me, because I am different/smarter/(insert your choice of word for false-bravado). So I get the idealism most medical students feel. I heard a few naysayers but instead chose to listen to the soothsayers who either are clueless or dishonest. As soon as I began to figure out how I was going to go about getting a good job I began to obtain a more realistic view of pathology.
 
It is time to split the forum between those of us who are academics and others who LOVE pathology no matter what and RAIDER, Thrombus, LADOC00 and path24 and other j-offs who hate pathology and only complain, even though they are probably earning a better living that 60% of total americans.

LADOC00 provides valuable information in a humorous way and certainly should not be lumped in the j-off category. You (PATHSTUDENT), on the other hand, would certainly fit in.
 
Well, I sense that you don't buy it. However, I know 3 young pathologists working in rural areas who did not do a fellowship. They were hired straight out of residency. 2 in communities of less than 50K people and not close to any large cities. 1 lives in a large city and commutes 45 minutes to a rural area. They are all making serious bank with loads of vacation time and use the vacation and money to travel and get their "cultural fix". Anecdotal evidence I suppose, but that is my experience.


That's exactly the sort of job my husband (about to graduate from surg path fellowship) is looking for. How do you go about finding these rural jobs - we love the country, but who has connections there???

I have to add, I read these job forums regularly. It seems it would be helpful for people to post their own honest, recent, job search experiences (ie: what were their connections, or lack thereof, what area of the country they were looking in, how the job search was approached, how many interviews they got, what sorts of offers they got...)

There are pathologists who do not find jobs, I'm sure all would wish this different... but many DO find jobs... I guess it just seems it would be helpful if those who did would share their experiences.
 
As soon as I began to figure out how I was going to go about getting a good job I began to obtain a more realistic view of pathology.


And how is your job? Do you feel like you have a 'bad job' (however you define it) because of the current market?
 
That's exactly the sort of job my husband (about to graduate from surg path fellowship) is looking for. How do you go about finding these rural jobs - we love the country, but who has connections there???

I have to add, I read these job forums regularly. It seems it would be helpful for people to post their own honest, recent, job search experiences (ie: what were their connections, or lack thereof, what area of the country they were looking in, how the job search was approached, how many interviews they got, what sorts of offers they got...)

There are pathologists who do not find jobs, I'm sure all would wish this different... but many DO find jobs... I guess it just seems it would be helpful if those who did would share their experiences.

It is all connections. One called practices in the area where he grew up (rural area) and they hired him without a fellowship. He trained at a "name" program that also got him in the door. Another got his job by the practice calling his program. His program was located in a large city and the practice is in a town 45 minutes away. He saw the potential there and took the job and has city life without the hassles of city pathology (i.e. multiple groups undercutting you, etc).

It is much harder to do now that residency is 4 years rather than 5. I would think though that your husband having a surgpath fellowship he would be able to find a job like this. You definitely have to cold call them though, because rural practices are unlikely to post a position somewhere like pathologyoutlines and usually they just call the programs where they trained.
 
And how is your job? Do you feel like you have a 'bad job' (however you define it) because of the current market?

No -- actually I have an ideal job for me and was able to choose from among some great choices. For some of my friends and colleagues though, it is a much tougher go.

I also will have to deal with some of the outside forces that are the direct result of the pathologist oversuppy as will all pathologists during our career. They are headaches that one does not need in my opinion and create problems at the expense of quality, efficient, timely, and patient care. In addition they indirectly raise the cost of doing medicine/pathology.
 
If you have a problem with what thrombus says, I am guessing you are also in for a rude awakening when you see how pathology is practiced in the real world.

Oversupply of pathologists, fighting to keep your specimens, undercutting the other guy's prices, reference labs, countrywide competition among pathologists, constant customer service....etc.

What? This makes no sense if you read his comments! All the things you mention are important points. His comments about "smashing the inferior quality reference labs" and trivializing informatics are really out of touch with the real world. I am in the real world - does my opinion not count too? Or do people only listen to opinions from those saying what they want to hear? I know this is becoming more popular these days in peoples' choice of media, talk radio, cable news, etc. But in real life and real practice you have to listen to people that you disagree with!

Thrombus, your arguments about how reference labs are magically going to become irrelevant to your practice if good people leave pathology and reference labs get stuck with increasingly bad pathologists is so incredibly ignorant and short sighted of the real world that if you don't get this, I don't really know what else to say. It is one thing to have an opinion but it is quite another to stick with this opinion against all rational logic and theory.
 
I would rather compete against a reference lab with a poor pathologist vs a reference lab with a good pathologist. Just seems like common sense.
 
I would rather compete against a reference lab with a poor pathologist vs a reference lab with a good pathologist. Just seems like common sense.

Where do you draw the line between "good" and "poor"? Where do clinicians who send specimens draw the line? Even great pathologists make mistakes, after all. So if it's just by diagnostic errors then how many is too many?
 
LADOC00 provides valuable information in a humorous way and certainly should not be lumped in the j-off category. You (PATHSTUDENT), on the other hand, would certainly fit in.

I didn't mean ladoc. I meant to say raider. And no one is a j off. Except maybe me so say shosie
 
a horrible job market (compared to other specialities) has been as issue for a couple of decades now, one wonders why the pathology organizations haven't even deemed it worthy of discussion???(when they have addressed all sorts of nonsensical stuff, like "telepathology " blah blah?)

i think the academic departments have figured out that the easiest way to get pathologists to do nonsense research projects and sign out a lot of cases at the same time is to create such an oversupply that pathologists will agree to do anything for peanuts.

in this way our enslavement to universities, other specialities, hosp adminstrators will be ensured.
 
why wasnt last years ascp job market anaylsis ever published which showed a terrible job market (i am sure many were interested in viewing it, mor so than the rubbish that come out as pseudoresearch articles every month?) why? Why? Why?

 
Why hasnt CAP ever done a market analysis?

Why don't the PDS or ABP do a market analysis?

WHY? WHY? WHY?
 
So the ASCP job market analysis was never published? If it was, anyone have it?
 
ASCP always has more optimistic surveys than the real market conditions. In 2009, it was probably so bad they never published the full study (how would you feel publishing something which is in complete contradiction to what your association president is trying to sell viz. a pathologist shortage) and just squeezed in this abstract below, probably hoping noone noticed.

ASCP Surveys

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]: The American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP) reported results from their annual survey. The survey reported 239 job seekers in 2009 compared to 268 in 2008. There was a 5% increase in applicants seeking more than 10 jobs and 5% decrease in those seeking academic jobs. In 2009, there was a 9% increase in job seekers who received .no [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]job offers. In the 2009 fellowship survey, 1446 responders sought a fellowship positions, almost 10% more than the previous year. Surgical Pathology, Hematopathology, and Cytopathology were the top three fellowships applied to. 61% of people sought one fellowship, 38% sought two fellowships, and 31% rated fellowships "necessary to a secure job" as the principle driving force behind doing a fellowship..​

SO LESS PEOPLE ARE ENTERING THE JOB MARKET (OTHERS SO AFRAID OF NOT GETTING ONE THAT THEY JUST OPT FOR A FELLOWSHIP), APPLYING TO MORE PLACES BUT STILL NOT FINDING JOBS.


AND REMEMBER THE 9 % IS OVER AND BEYOND THE ALREADY HORRIBLE JOB MARKET. IT IS A DISGRACE AND OUR ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES. I DO NOT KNOW WHOES INTERESTS THEY ARE REPRESENTING, CERTAINLY NOT OURS.
 
Last edited:
Why is there a decrease in applicants to academic jobs? Does that translate to more positions open currently in academics? I know you have to spend time publishing and teaching residents, and have a much lower pay for academic jobs, but the trade off is that one has "off-service" time. So if you can't get a private practice job, why wouldn't you just get an academic job, to accumulate some experience, instead of doing a second fellowship which pays even less?
 
Why is there a decrease in applicants to academic jobs? Does that translate to more positions open currently in academics? I know you have to spend time publishing and teaching residents, and have a much lower pay for academic jobs, but the trade off is that one has "off-service" time. So if you can't get a private practice job, why wouldn't you just get an academic job, to accumulate some experience, instead of doing a second fellowship which pays even less?
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:oops:ffice:oops:ffice" /><o:p>If you think that competition for academic jobs is not fierce, think twice; I know numerous people with research experience, multiple published papers, still not able to lend a job, any job, academics included. Pick up the phone and call academic path departments yourself; you’re going to have hard time believing how many applications they receive too; people are desperate to find a job; unless you're trained at JHU, MGH and other really big, big names, unless you're DP-GI-GU, nothing is guarantied; don't forget, pathologists with significant sign-out experience are also looking to change jobs; applicants fresh out of training are not the only one looking;
</o:p>
 
Everyone should email here and tell him that there needs to be something done to impriove todays dismal job market!
[email protected]

Currently, Dr. Bauer is the director of Laboratories at Mercy San Juan Medical Center and Woodland Community Hospital near Sacramento, CA. He also is the chief financial officer of Path Labs in Carmichael, CA.

Cmon the guy is a community pathologist. He must have some clue about the job market and how clinicians are exploiting us.
 
Last edited:
Why is there a decrease in applicants to academic jobs? Does that translate to more positions open currently in academics? I know you have to spend time publishing and teaching residents, and have a much lower pay for academic jobs, but the trade off is that one has "off-service" time. So if you can't get a private practice job, why wouldn't you just get an academic job, to accumulate some experience, instead of doing a second fellowship which pays even less?

Speaking from our experience, these jobs are not easy to get, either. Especially if you are only applying to them as a second choice, and your CV does not really reflect an academic tract interest.

Everyone should email here and tell him that there needs to be something done to impriove todays dismal job market!
[email protected]

Currently, Dr. Bauer is the director of Laboratories at Mercy San Juan Medical Center and Woodland Community Hospital near Sacramento, CA. He also is the chief financial officer of Path Labs in Carmichael, CA.

Cmon the guy is a community pathologist. He must have some clue about the job market and how clinicians are exploiting us.

Thank you, KeratinPearls, for posting this.
 
Serious question: when does/did this ASCP job market survey take/took place? Was it attached to the RISE? Was it a mail-in?
 
There is fierce competition for every job in pathology, including good fellowships. The earlier in your training you realize this, the better. It should be enough to learn pathology well, but the reality is that you must go beyond that to position yourself to be competitive in the pathology job market.
 
Top