Decrease in Residency Applications?

[Grace82]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I've been to 4 pathology residency interviews so far this year and many of the program directors and other faculty members have mentioned a significant decrease in applications this year, particularly among AMGs. Has anyone else heard about this trend?

 

[MetroPath]

I wouldnt be surprised. There are a crapload of FMGs applying to pathology.

Here is another question: Has anyone interviewed FMG candidates who apply to pathology as a backup to internal medicine? I know this is prevalent and programs try to screen these folks out.

There are large reimbursement cuts in pathology and top that off with in office labs among other things.

 

[Substance]

I'm not surprised given the political weakness of pathology leadership combined with the specialty's inherent disregard for keeping up appearances.

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

Word is out about pathology thanks to the tireless effort of Thrombus

 

[malchik]

How do you know if they are applying in another specialty, is it somewhere in the eras application?

 

[rollwithit]

Word is out about pathology thanks to the tireless effort of Thrombus

Mission accomplished for you guys and gals. Successfully driving away the local talent and replacing them with foreign candidates with Path as Plan B.

*****s.

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

Yea, the looming cuts, bad job market, multiple fellowships, being forced to network and brown nose extensively, little job security, client billing, being a piggy bank bank for other specialists, and competing with every other pathologist in the race to the bottom had nothing to do with it.

It was all the work of Thrombus and a few others. 🙄

 

[longlakeboy]

How do you know if they are applying in another specialty, is it somewhere in the eras application?

Sometimes they make it easy for you, usually by having letters that either don't mention a specialty or actually do mention a non-pathology specialty.

 

[pathstudent]

I've been to 4 pathology residency interviews so far this year and many of the program directors and other faculty members have mentioned a significant decrease in applications this year, particularly among AMGs. Has anyone else heard about this trend?

I doubt it is as low as the late 90s when about 150AMGS applied (almost only 1 per program when averaged out)

 

[yaah]

I would wait for real data. Even if true, a one year decrease is not necessarily a trend, it could be an aberration. Or it could be a correction from one or more years of higher than normal numbers.

 

[Cellpathology]

I wouldnt be surprised. There are a crapload of FMGs applying to pathology.

Here is another question: Has anyone interviewed FMG candidates who apply to pathology as a backup to internal medicine? I know this is prevalent and programs try to screen these folks out.

There are large reimbursement cuts in pathology and top that off with in office labs among other things.

Yea, the looming cuts, bad job market, multiple fellowships, being forced to network and brown nose extensively, little job security, client billing, being a piggy bank bank for other specialists, and competing with every other pathologist in the race to the bottom had nothing to do with it.

It was all the work of Thrombus and a few others. 🙄

 

[BlondeDocteur]

PDs thus far have painted an understandably rosy picture of pathology as a specialty. It's kind of surprising they would be negative & candid like that with someone they're ostensibly attempting to hire.

 

[Sulfinator]

I've been to 4 pathology residency interviews so far this year and many of the program directors and other faculty members have mentioned a significant decrease in applications this year, particularly among AMGs. Has anyone else heard about this trend?

Actually, at our institution, it seems like we have a pretty good applicant pool this year (at least compared to the last 3 years). I don't think the number of AMGs applying to our program is down (or up). Interestingly, I've learned that our program tends to send out rejection letters/emails to applicants if there is any indication that they are applying to another specialty and using pathology as a back up. You can't always tell this of course.

 

[Johnny Sunshine]

Interestingly, I've learned that our program tends to send out rejection letters/emails to applicants if there is any indication that they are applying to another specialty and using pathology as a back up.

Wow. On one hand, I'm tempted to say it would make me happy if this was true. On the other hand, such a policy could wind up backfiring. Only accepting "path or bust" applicants may increase the chances you get residents with poor communication skills, personality defects, or aversion to work. Many such people seem to go into path, perhaps hoping that it will offer them an "out".

Many of the best residents in my program had hoped to go into another specialty, whereas many of my program's problem residents were path-only applicants. Pretty sad state of affairs.

 

[Glass Pusher]

Actually, at our institution, it seems like we have a pretty good applicant pool this year (at least compared to the last 3 years). I don't think the number of AMGs applying to our program is down (or up). Interestingly, I've learned that our program tends to send out rejection letters/emails to applicants if there is any indication that they are applying to another specialty and using pathology as a back up. You can't always tell this of course.

I really take issue with policies like this and it's one of the (many) things about medicine, in general, that makes it hard for me to ever recommend anyone ever going into this field. So what if you're applying to two different fields? Are you really expected to disregard every field of medicine for one without ever spending any significant time in any of them? I would imagine a great deal of people have a hard time narrowing down a choice of field and may not be able to make that decision until they actually have to submit their rank list. At the end of the day, these are jobs we are applying to and candidates coming out of the pseudo-reality of medical school shouldn't be expected to be 100% sure what they want to do with the next 30 years (or 50 if you're a pathologist, haha) of their life.

With the state of pathology as it is, program directors really shouldn't be turning away any good applicants just because they aren't "all in" for pathology.

 

[rollwithit]

I really take issue with policies like this and it's one of the (many) things about medicine, in general, that makes it hard for me to ever recommend anyone ever going into this field. So what if you're applying to two different fields? Are you really expected to disregard every field of medicine for one without ever spending any significant time in any of them? I would imagine a great deal of people have a hard time narrowing down a choice of field and may not be able to make that decision until they actually have to submit their rank list. At the end of the day, these are jobs we are applying to and candidates coming out of the pseudo-reality of medical school shouldn't be expected to be 100% sure what they want to do with the next 30 years (or 50 if you're a pathologist, haha) of their life.

With the state of pathology as it is, program directors really shouldn't be turning away any good applicants just because they aren't "all in" for pathology.

Mostly agree, but there is a line between being honestly conflicted and having a fallback plan that you put little effort into. Fallback plans are smart, but don't submit your internal medicine letters of rec to the pathology program directors. It's lazy and disrespectful. If you show no effort, I have no problems with someone getting cut early because of it.

 

[pathstudent]

Mostly agree, but there is a line between being honestly conflicted and having a fallback plan that you put little effort into. Fallback plans are smart, but don't submit your internal medicine letters of rec to the pathology program directors. It's lazy and disrespectful. If you show no effort, I have no problems with someone getting cut early because of it.

The most common scenario I have seen is people that use pathology as a fallback for derm. It seems reasonable. Of course as a PD I would like at least 1-2 letters from path and would hope to see enthusiasm for the subject in the personal statement and at an interview.

 

[LADoc00]

Yawn. I think it will be like it has been for since the 90s crash: the 5 or so top programs will have solid AMG candidates from top medical schools and the rest of the mish mash will have FMGs diluted with AMGs of varying types and quality dependent on the location.

If indeed Thrombus has actually moved the needle on this ie Bent the Spoon, then I will call him Neo.

Signed,
Morpheus.

 

[pathololology]

Wow. On one hand, I'm tempted to say it would make me happy if this was true. On the other hand, such a policy could wind up backfiring. Only accepting "path or bust" applicants may increase the chances you get residents with poor communication skills, personality defects, or aversion to work. Many such people seem to go into path, perhaps hoping that it will offer them an "out".

Many of the best residents in my program had hoped to go into another specialty, whereas many of my program's problem residents were path-only applicants. Pretty sad state of affairs.

I would second this. A lot of our best residents at my old program either strongly considered another specialty or applied to path and one other. The path only ones were not as hard of workers IMO. So people are saying they don't want a person who almost went into a surgery or internal medicine residency vs. someone who just kind of "existed" during med school until they could finally find a residency where they could sit in a chair all day and drink coffee for 4 years?

 

[Sulfinator]

I would second this. A lot of our best residents at my old program either strongly considered another specialty or applied to path and one other. The path only ones were not as hard of workers IMO. So people are saying they don't want a person who almost went into a surgery or internal medicine residency vs. someone who just kind of "existed" during med school until they could finally find a residency where they could sit in a chair all day and drink coffee for 4 years?

Are you stating an opinion that, on average, a resident who only applied to path programs is less of a hard worker or weaker resident (however you want to define that) than a resident who applied to path and another specialty (or multiple other specialties)? Or are you saying that a resident who applied to only path programs may sometimes be less of a hard worker, etc. than a resident who had applications out for multiple specialties? I think you mean the latter, but just want to clarify.

 

[yaah]

Yawn. I think it will be like it has been for since the 90s crash: the 5 or so top programs will have solid AMG candidates from top medical schools and the rest of the mish mash will have FMGs diluted with AMGs of varying types and quality dependent on the location.

If indeed Thrombus has actually moved the needle on this ie Bent the Spoon, then I will call him Neo.

Signed,
Morpheus.

Internet forums don't bend the needle. Reality bends the needle. Perception counts but only for people at the margins who can be swayed by any number of things.

 

[Johnny Sunshine]

Are you stating an opinion that, on average, a resident who only applied to path programs is less of a hard worker or weaker resident (however you want to define that) than a resident who applied to path and another specialty (or multiple other specialties)? Or are you saying that a resident who applied to only path programs may sometimes be less of a hard worker, etc. than a resident who had applications out for multiple specialties? I think you mean the latter, but just want to clarify.

Even if the average pathology resident is a hard worker (let's just assume), if you take the average lazy resident they are more likely to be in pathology. How's that? 🙂

 

[LADoc00]

Internet forums don't bend the needle. Reality bends the needle. Perception counts but only for people at the margins who can be swayed by any number of things.

Yaah is the traffic through SDN enough to actually sway opinion?? i.e. do a majority of med students come here? or like 5% or less?

I assumed we have had like the same core group on the path forums for like almost a decade with a few random posters here and there, but maybe there are thousands upon thousands of lurkers?

 

[Sulfinator]

Even if the average pathology resident is a hard worker (let's just assume), if you take the average lazy resident they are more likely to be in pathology. How's that? 🙂

That is a possibility. In my personal experience, though, as a med student who saw residents functioning in other specialties and as a current pathology resident, I honestly can't say that the average lazy resident that I've encountered has more often been a pathology resident rather than a resident in some other specialty. Experiences, no doubt, will vary. Obviously, your experience has been different.

 

[Sulfinator]

Interestingly, I've learned that our program tends to send out rejection letters/emails to applicants if there is any indication that they are applying to another specialty and using pathology as a back up. You can't always tell this of course.

I will update this statement by saying that, as I've discovered, in the majority of cases, these applicants are submitting letters of recommendation that make zero mention of an interest in pathology, or even an intent to apply to pathology programs. Basically, a lot of these letters indicate that the resident is interested in a transitional year, etc. . . . no mention of pathology whatsoever in the letters of recommendation.

 

[gbwillner]

Just to address the OP- I just spoke with my program's PD, who stated they've seen an INCREASE of quality applicants this cycle. So perhaps this "decrease" is not universal.

 

[gbwillner]

Just to address the OP- I just spoke with my program's PD, who stated they've seen an INCREASE of quality applicants this cycle. So perhaps this "decrease" is not universal.

 

[yaah]

Yaah is the traffic through SDN enough to actually sway opinion?? i.e. do a majority of med students come here? or like 5% or less?

I assumed we have had like the same core group on the path forums for like almost a decade with a few random posters here and there, but maybe there are thousands upon thousands of lurkers?

I do not know the numbers. Hard to say how many "lurkers" there are and how often they show up. I doubt it is a majority of med students though that visit. It's hard to get a majority of med students to do anything except skip class and panic about step I. I have no doubt there are some people who are swayed by the internet, I just don't think it's that many, and they are typically easily-swayable people (if that's word).

 

[pathololology]

Are you stating an opinion that, on average, a resident who only applied to path programs is less of a hard worker or weaker resident (however you want to define that) than a resident who applied to path and another specialty (or multiple other specialties)? Or are you saying that a resident who applied to only path programs may sometimes be less of a hard worker, etc. than a resident who had applications out for multiple specialties? I think you mean the latter, but just want to clarify.

Well my average is quite low (I only have experience with one program), and I don't know how many people by and large applied to two specialties, but our stronger residents were ones that either a) did another specialty first or b) strongly considered and applied to another specialty as well. Again my N is quite low. Just an opinion. I don't think rejecting someone b/c they are applying to general surgery and pathology is a good idea. How many people that only wanted to go into pathology from early on in medical school ever really considered a significantly more demanding specialty (like general surgery).

 

[pathololology]

Yaah is the traffic through SDN enough to actually sway opinion?? i.e. do a majority of med students come here? or like 5% or less?

I assumed we have had like the same core group on the path forums for like almost a decade with a few random posters here and there, but maybe there are thousands upon thousands of lurkers?

Its actually billions upon billions that we sway on here . . . . (sinister laugh . . . . )

 

[Sulfinator]

Well my average is quite low (I only have experience with one program), and I don't know how many people by and large applied to two specialties, but our stronger residents were ones that either a) did another specialty first or b) strongly considered and applied to another specialty as well. Again my N is quite low. Just an opinion. I don't think rejecting someone b/c they are applying to general surgery and pathology is a good idea. How many people that only wanted to go into pathology from early on in medical school ever really considered a significantly more demanding specialty (like general surgery).

Like I said, though, most of these applicants aren't just applying to multiple specialties . . . . . . . . . most of these applicants are submitting letters of recommendation that make zero mention of an interest in pathology, or even an intent to apply to pathology programs. Basically, a lot of these letters indicate that the resident is interested in a transitional year, etc. . . . no mention of pathology whatsoever in the letters of recommendation.

 

[Johnny Sunshine]

That is a possibility. In my personal experience, though, as a med student who saw residents functioning in other specialties and as a current pathology resident, I honestly can't say that the average lazy resident that I've encountered has more often been a pathology resident rather than a resident in some other specialty. Experiences, no doubt, will vary. Obviously, your experience has been different.

No, I did not mean a random lazy resident, when asked their specialty, would be more likely to answer pathology versus any other specialty. No, not by a long shot.

But say you did a poll and discovered X% of all residents are in pathology. Then you somehow polled just the "lazy residents", and discovered that Y% of all lazy residents are in pathology. I suspect Y>X. However, both numbers are still likely to be quite small compared to other specialties.

 

[LADoc00]

After the CMS cuts and ensuing unemployment, I predict applications to residency programs to completely bottom out even lower than the 1998 figures (where some 50ish AMGs TOTAL went into Path I think).

Of course does this mean they will lower the residency spots? No of course not. They will just fill it up with more foreigners with poor English skills who are doomed to work as sub100k/year minions harming the rest of us...

this crap never changes.

 

[pathstudent]

After the CMS cuts and ensuing unemployment, I predict applications to residency programs to completely bottom out even lower than the 1998 figures (where some 50ish AMGs TOTAL went into Path I think).

Of course does this mean they will lower the residency spots? No of course not. They will just fill it up with more foreigners with poor English skills who are doomed to work as sub100k/year minions harming the rest of us...

this crap never changes.

I knew the 98 figure exactly at one point. It was somewhere between 120-150 and on average less than 1 student per medical school and probably about 1 per program averaged out.

 

[Sulfinator]

say you did a poll and discovered X% of all residents are in pathology. Then you somehow polled just the "lazy residents", and discovered that Y% of all lazy residents are in pathology. I suspect Y>X. However, both numbers are still likely to be quite small compared to other specialties.

There is probably considerable variation by program. There is only one resident in our program that I would label as 'lazy' (which would be 1 out of 32 or so). I'm sure other specialties at our institution would have similar or worse statistics.

 

[Johnny Sunshine]

Of course, it varies. And I don't mean to make the problem sound all that prevalent.

But I feel part of the issue is that path residencies are more forgiving (or shy to discipline). If you slack off in a clinical program you either shape up or they ship you out. In path, not so much. They often just isolate the problem resident from any true responsibility, and allow them to "coast" through. I wonder if they think this is preferred to the stress/hassle/shame the program would suffer from kicking a resident out. If so, they may regret that stance later when those residents go out into the working world and wreck havoc on the program's reputation.

 

[2121115]

Of course, it varies. And I don't mean to make the problem sound all that prevalent.

But I feel part of the issue is that path residencies are more forgiving (or shy to discipline). If you slack off in a clinical program you either shape up or they ship you out. In path, not so much. They often just isolate the problem resident from any true responsibility, and allow them to "coast" through. I wonder if they think this is preferred to the stress/hassle/shame the program would suffer from kicking a resident out. If so, they may regret that stance later when those residents go out into the working world and wreck havoc on the program's reputation.

They isolate all residents from this.

 

[Inez2000]

There are WAY too many residents being trained every year...I have jumped through all the hoops including board certification, and every job I apply has like 50 applicants.

 

[yaah]

There are WAY too many residents being trained every year...I have jumped through all the hoops including board certification, and every job I apply has like 50 applicants.

One of the difficult aspects of this is that I would suspect that of those 50 applicants, 30-40 are probably the same applicants at every position (spamming their applications). And many (including many of the above group) are currently in practice and looking for a different job. People who do the hiring are fairly good at screening out application spammers, and as many have stated before, many jobs are not advertised. This is part of what makes studying the job market issue so difficult. It seems obvious to so many people but the real data is (apparently) hard to gather because no one has really been successful in doing a study which communicates significant difficulty in getting a good job.

I think maybe some organization should consider doing a study in which they survey practice heads or department chairs and look at # of applicants, quality of applicants, how often they hire, things like that. That would be far more informative than surveying fellows in august of their fellowship year and asking how many jobs they applied to and such.

 

[Thrombus]

One of the difficult aspects of this is that I would suspect that of those 50 applicants, 30-40 are probably the same applicants at every position (spamming their applications). And many (including many of the above group) are currently in practice and looking for a different job.

Do you have evidence for this claim? This may be, but I hear you ask for evidence for other claims on this board. I have yet to meet a guy who spams every job opening.

 

[yaah]

Do you have evidence for this claim? This may be, but I hear you ask for evidence for other claims on this board. I have yet to meet a guy who spams every job opening.

I said I would suspect, I don't know for sure. Because I know when our group advertised a few years ago we got quite a few applications from people who had very clearly not read the advertisement. And they were from all over with no connection to our area or anyone in our group. And I have talked to people who apply to nearly every job ad they see.

The other part about people currently in practice looking to change jobs is also true from my experience as well - most of our applicants were currently employed. And again, most had no connection to our area.