Easiest fields

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

CaymanIslander

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
So for somebody who has struggled in med school academically, what are the easiest fields to be proficient in that require the least amount of memorization.

Members don't see this ad.
 
I'm sure you didn't intend it but this question will result in insults against whatever specialty anyone throws up to meet your requirements. You'd probably do better to list what types of things you're looking for in a specialty and go from there.
 
In general, it seems like the fields that may be easier in however you define it (better hours, narrower scope of work, etc), are usually those that require higher board scores, better grades, and published research to match into.

You don't get something for nothing in this world.
 
In general, it seems like the fields that may be easier in however you define it (better hours, narrower scope of work, etc), are usually those that require higher board scores, better grades, and published research to match into.

You don't get something for nothing in this world.
I think he was referring to easiest fields in terms of least competitive, least amount of knowledge required, etc.

However, all fields of medicine require a large amount of knowledge in their own specialty area.
 
In general, it seems like the fields that may be easier in however you define it (better hours, narrower scope of work, etc), are usually those that require higher board scores, better grades, and published research to match into.

You don't get something for nothing in this world.

Very true!:thumbup:

I am not going to name names, but yes... "the easiest fields to be proficient in that require the least amount of memorization" are specialties that have a narrow scope, good work hours, higher pay, ect. Ironicly these specialties are the hardest to get into (very competetive). We all know what these specialties are...just do not say it out loud - It is a dangerous road to take.;)

But however "narrow" or "easy" a specialty may seem, that speciatist is the best at his narrow speciaty...and is a lifesaver when I need his expert opinion.
 
Awe come on guys - this will be fun! I'll start.

1. Dermatology - you can see exactly what the problem is. Plus treatment options include: 1) Topical steroids and 2) biopsy.

2. Somewhat surprising: Anesthesia. Its definitely easier to get into, especially compared with Derm. There aren't that many drugs to know but you do need to know when to use them. You have to be good at airways - that is not so much knowledge as it is skill. I think it requires a lot of skill but less knowledge.
 
Awe come on guys - this will be fun! I'll start.

1. Dermatology - you can see exactly what the problem is. Plus treatment options include: 1) Topical steroids and 2) biopsy.

2. Somewhat surprising: Anesthesia. Its definitely easier to get into, especially compared with Derm. There aren't that many drugs to know but you do need to know when to use them. You have to be good at airways - that is not so much knowledge as it is skill. I think it requires a lot of skill but less knowledge.

Whether these fields are easier or not is debatable (and I'm not even going to touch that topic), but if the OP is talking about a student that has struggled academically, there's no way that student is going to get anywhere near these fields.
 
I'm sure you didn't intend it but this question will result in insults against whatever specialty anyone throws up to meet your requirements. You'd probably do better to list what types of things you're looking for in a specialty and go from there.


Let me rephrase my badly phrased original thread....

Of the fields the fields that are the easiest to get into....Psychiatry, Family Medicine, Neurology, PMR, OB-Gyn and IM....which would require me to memorize the least and achieve a 100k per yr salary working 40 hrs a wk. I'm thinking it would be Psychiatry. I think their job is an important one but requires less memorization than some of the other fields and a cusher lifestyle.
 
I think i'm going to cut my losses, i quit....i think i'm going to find a job selling bananas in St. Maarten.
 
I think i'm going to cut my losses, i quit....i think i'm going to find a job selling bananas in St. Maarten.

It was stormy when I went to St. Maarten. St. Thomas was quite nice. If you do end up selling bananas at either of those places, you still stand to be a lot happier than the rest of us :D
 
Somewhat surprising: Anesthesia. Its definitely easier to get into, especially compared with Derm. There aren't that many drugs to know but you do need to know when to use them. You have to be good at airways - that is not so much knowledge as it is skill. I think it requires a lot of skill but less knowledge.

I would love to see the type of response you would get if you posted this in the anesthesia forum
 
Let me rephrase my badly phrased original thread....

Of the fields the fields that are the easiest to get into....Psychiatry, Family Medicine, Neurology, PMR, OB-Gyn and IM....which would require me to memorize the least and achieve a 100k per yr salary working 40 hrs a wk. I'm thinking it would be Psychiatry. I think their job is an important one but requires less memorization than some of the other fields and a cusher lifestyle.

Better. Well if you're looking for ~40 hours per week and assuming you're not planning on doing some part time/shared time kind of thing GYN won't work and you're very likely to work more than that in IM, FM, and Neuro. Psych and PM&R might be good places to start looking at although neither are "easy" and everything requires some memorization.
 
Let me rephrase my badly phrased original thread....

Of the fields the fields that are the easiest to get into....Psychiatry, Family Medicine, Neurology, PMR, OB-Gyn and IM....which would require me to memorize the least and achieve a 100k per yr salary working 40 hrs a wk. I'm thinking it would be Psychiatry. I think their job is an important one but requires less memorization than some of the other fields and a cusher lifestyle.


Psychiatry is a great choice!! I don't know what all needs to be memorized yet, but I'm sure it's manageable. I think 40 hrs/wk is possible as well.

I think psych is a calling though.
 
Somewhat surprising: Anesthesia. Its definitely easier to get into, especially compared with Derm. There aren't that many drugs to know but you do need to know when to use them. You have to be good at airways - that is not so much knowledge as it is skill. I think it requires a lot of skill but less knowledge.

That actually would be the opposite of the conventional wisdom. Most people can intubate; there are some more difficult ones, including fiberoptics, which are much more challenging and really require practice. Many of the regional blocks require a fair bit of skill, skills that aren't taught very well in other fields.

However, most anesthesiologists are excellent critical care physicians which requires a huge database of knowledge. I was perfectly comfortable with the SICU rounds run by anesthesia attendings; they knew their stuff, AND could do procedures.
 
I was perfectly comfortable with the SICU rounds run by anesthesia attendings;

Does this still exist? I never saw an anesthisiologist round on patients in a SICU. I always thought that this is now a legend.
 
Does this still exist? I never saw an anesthisiologist round on patients in a SICU. I always thought that this is now a legend.

Sure it's true. There are some damn fine gas guys running ICU's. Our unit splits time with either surgical attendings or anesthesia folks running the show. The gas guys tend to be very thorough and excellent at what they do.
 
2. Somewhat surprising: Anesthesia. Its definitely easier to get into, especially compared with Derm. There aren't that many drugs to know but you do need to know when to use them. You have to be good at airways - that is not so much knowledge as it is skill. I think it requires a lot of skill but less knowledge.

I disagree on both counts...I'm not a derm resident or a dermatologist, but the derm residents i know got 250+ on their USMLEs and both said that the knowledge base that had to be mastered in residency was vast..

As far as anesthesia, I dont know how a medical student judges the anesthesia knowledge base, but it is intimiately related to critical care and complex. All fields of medicine have pretty deep knowledge bases. I wouldn choose a field based on what I thought was "simplest". Go with your natural interests.
 
Haha. I disagree on both counts...I'm not a derm resident or a dermatologist, but the derm residents i know got 250+ on their USMLEs and both said that the knowledge base that had to be mastered in residency was vast..

As far as anesthesia, I dont know how a medical student judges the anesthesia knowledge base, but it is intimiately related to critical care and complex. All fields of medicine have pretty deep knowledge bases. I wouldn choose a field based on what I thought was "simplest", because its very hard for a medical student to judge.

Go with what interests you.
Anesthesia isn't as simple as it seems judging by my anesthesia rotation during residency.

Yes, there are plenty of times that anesthesiologists sit around reading a magazine. However, when the crap hits the fan, the crap can really go flying. They have to think quickly when patients start crumping during surgery. I disagree with their limited amount of medicines they have to know. They have to know a lot of medicines actually, not only to give the medicines, but also to judge any interactions with what the patient will receive during surgery.
 
Does this still exist? I never saw an anesthisiologist round on patients in a SICU. I always thought that this is now a legend.

Yup.

Critical care guys with Anesthesia, Pulmonology and General Surgery backgrounds here.
 
Anesthesia isn't as simple as it seems judging by my anesthesia rotation during residency.

Yes, there are plenty of times that anesthesiologists sit around reading a magazine. However, when the crap hits the fan, the crap can really go flying. They have to think quickly when patients start crumping during surgery. I disagree with their limited amount of medicines they have to know. They have to know a lot of medicines actually, not only to give the medicines, but also to judge any interactions with what the patient will receive during surgery.

Yeah. Its not so much the medicines, but the physiology. Anesthesiologists view the body as a machine, albeit complex one. The normal body has the ability to maintain its own homeostasis, but under conditions of disease (e.g., abnormal metabolic state or abnormal anatomy) or external insult (e.g., trauma, surgical insult, or the anesthetic itself), homeostatic mechanisms are altered or broken. The role of the anesthesiologist is then to take over this function and maintain the body as close to a normal state as possible.

So much of the knowledge base is tacit, and an observer can only watch us pushing syringes and turning knobs and often cannot see the reasons behind each action. Its no surprise then that a student would view this field as "easy" from a knowledge standpoint...

I remember once actively trying to resuscitate an unstable ortho patient in the OR who was bleeding out...My mind was definitely on full alert, but I must have looked very calm, since my med student was there chirping out cheery questions, clearly not recognizing the urgency of the situation.

I think with all specialties of medicine, its really hard to appreciate the complexity and the underlying knowledge base unless you actually do it. Again, to the OP, I think you should choose your specialty based on what interests you most, not based on your (possibly mistaken) perception of what is hard and what is not. Plus, even the "simplest" things will become difficult if you absolutely hate doing it. Good luck!
 
I disagree on both counts...I'm not a derm resident or a dermatologist, but the derm residents i know got 250+ on their USMLEs and both said that the knowledge base that had to be mastered in residency was vast..

As far as anesthesia, I dont know how a medical student judges the anesthesia knowledge base, but it is intimiately related to critical care and complex. All fields of medicine have pretty deep knowledge bases. I wouldn choose a field based on what I thought was "simplest". Go with your natural interests.

I stick by my Dermatology opinion.

One of the things I really enjoyed about my anesthesia rotation (it was a month long) was the focus on physiology. I just didn't feel like there was a ton of memorization (once you got passed the drugs). It was more understanding physiology and making appropriate decisions based on what is happening. I was close to going into anesthesia. I'm actually going into a field that gets ridiculed constantly for a variety of reasons.
 
Does this still exist? I never saw an anesthisiologist round on patients in a SICU. I always thought that this is now a legend.

Moot point since others have responded...but yes, ours in residency and fellowship were run by Anesthesiologist and General Surgeons with CC fellowship training.
 
Does this still exist? I never saw an anesthisiologist round on patients in a SICU. I always thought that this is now a legend.

http://ascca.org/

Yup. Multiple academic units run by anesthesia. In the real world they typically run CV-ICU or SICU. Somewhat different management set than MICU because most acute issues are related to the surgery. Although the underlying condition obviously plays a major role....I mean they had surgery for a reason right? Hopefully a good reason....but I digress.
 
I stick by my Dermatology opinion.

One of the things I really enjoyed about my anesthesia rotation (it was a month long) was the focus on physiology. I just didn't feel like there was a ton of memorization (once you got passed the drugs). It was more understanding physiology and making appropriate decisions based on what is happening. I was close to going into anesthesia. I'm actually going into a field that gets ridiculed constantly for a variety of reasons.

Those derm folks read as much as the radiology guys.
 
The easiest specialty is the one you enjoy the most.

Seriously, you won't be able to motivate yourself to do the hard work in residency if you don't love what you are doing. 40 hours per week doing something you don't like will feel 100. And yes, even 40 hours per week as a resident in (insert your idea of easy residency here) can be hard work.

Speaking of academic performance . . . I'm curious where you are in medical school. If you're stuggling through the pre-clincal years then I wouldn't worry about it. Your grades in the 3rd year are much more important and are based on an entirely different skill set.

Find what you enjoy. Otherwise you will be miserable.
 
psychiatry

Not true at all. Sorry. :) It involves a lot of memorization . . . Though why I need to know all of Erikson's developmental stages is beyond me . . . That's always my downfall on those exams, everyone and his brother has their own theory of child development and I'm supposed to know all of them. Not to mention all the psychopharm that we have to know, we also have to know a ton about psychotherapy and neuropsych testing (because even if we don't do it, we need to know when to get it and why). And in addition to that, the psychiatry boards are 30% neurology.

So I don't think any field is "easy". I anticipate working at least 50 hours/week as a private practice psychiatrist. Less than some specialties, I guess. Though more than others. And being a doctor requires a knowledge base no matter what field you're in. I think the difference is that it becomes easier when you're genuinely interested and invested in what you're learning. And that's a personal thing rather than a specialty thing.
 
I will give my 2 cents here about "easier" specialties:

Competitive: Derm, Rad Onc

Non-Competitive: Allergy/Immunology, Endocrinology, Occupational Medicine, PM&R, Psych

I would not say anesthesia. There is a lot of cush work in anesthesiology but it can get really hairy, really fast.
 
The easiest specialty is the one you enjoy the most.

Seriously, you won't be able to motivate yourself to do the hard work in residency if you don't love what you are doing. 40 hours per week doing something you don't like will feel 100. And yes, even 40 hours per week as a resident in (insert your idea of easy residency here) can be hard work.

Speaking of academic performance . . . I'm curious where you are in medical school. If you're stuggling through the pre-clincal years then I wouldn't worry about it. Your grades in the 3rd year are much more important and are based on an entirely different skill set.

Find what you enjoy. Otherwise you will be miserable.

This is so true. If you are interested in the subject matter, you will actually WANT to read on your own time, and what you learn will make more sense to you and be easier to remember. If you don't find the subject interesting, it will feel like you're memorizing 100,000 random factoids that don't relate to each other or anything else. And 99,983 of them will fail to stick to your brain.
 
I would not say anesthesia. There is a lot of cush work in anesthesiology but it can get really hairy, really fast.

Hmmm, are we trying to be PC?;) Well, you can say that about almost ANY medical specialty.....even Psychiatry!

Sorry Anesthesiologists. I may have my own (mostly negative) personal views about general anesthesiology as a field, BUT as a fellow MD, I will fight with you till the end against those CRNAs.
 
I will give my 2 cents here about "easier" specialties:

Competitive: Derm, Rad Onc

Non-Competitive: Allergy/Immunology, Endocrinology, Occupational Medicine, PM&R, Psych

Allergy fellowships are actually quite competitive. And both allergy and endocrine are fellowships requiring "non-easy" residencies first.

Though I stand by saying that none of them are easy. Just the ones you personally like will be easier for you. :)
 
Hmmm, are we trying to be PC?;) Well, you can say that about almost ANY medical specialty.....even Psychiatry!

Sorry Anesthesiologists. I may have my own (mostly negative) personal views about general anesthesiology as a field, BUT as a fellow MD, I will fight with you till the end against those CRNAs.

There are MANY specialties where it would be rather rare to non-existent to have someone die whilst under your direct care. This happens in anesthesiology.
 
Allergy fellowships are actually quite competitive. And both allergy and endocrine are fellowships requiring "non-easy" residencies first.

Though I stand by saying that none of them are easy. Just the ones you personally like will be easier for you. :)

My mistake. There aren't very many allergy fellowships either and jobs are hard to find I hear.
 
Why is everyone always obsessed on these forums with "which specialty is easiest" or "which specialty is hardest" or "which specialty has the most intelligent people" or "which specialty saves the most lives" or whatever. Silly, pointless arguments. You can make any specialty very challenging as well as rewarding. You can also basically skate through doing the minimum (which of course varies as well). They always go the same way - someone posts an opinion, then someone else argues the contrary, then person A posts an anecdotal "fact" which "proves" their view. Then person C comes in, angry, and goes in a different direction. Who cares? As said above, the best specialty for you is the one you enjoy - if you force the specialty to conform to what you want out of medicine, it is unlikely to work well and you'll always be disappointed.
 
There are MANY specialties where it would be rather rare to non-existent to have someone die whilst under your direct care. This happens in anesthesiology.

Interesting, what are some of those "many" specialties?

Even Pathologists (were most of their patients are dead anyway) can "have someone die whilst under their direct care". For example, I scrubed on a Whipple case were the patient was diagnosed (via bx prior to sx) with pancreatic ca. After the case, the resected pancrease was sent to pathology for examination...turns out it is completely normal! Well, the patient died few weeks after the sx from complications of a sx he did not need in the first place. All thanks to that pathologist who sent him to the OR.
 
Interesting, what are some of those "many" specialties?

Even Pathologists (were most of their patients are dead anyway) can "have someone die whilst under their direct care". For example, I scrubed on a Whipple case were the patient was diagnosed (via bx prior to sx) with pancreatic ca. After the case, the resected pancrease was sent to pathology for examination...turns out it is completely normal! Well, the patient died few weeks after the sx from complications of a sx he did not need in the first place. All thanks to that pathologist who sent him to the OR.

That's quite a stretch dude.

We are talking about more acute, dynamic situations. All anesthesiologists have been in situations where, if they stopped paying attention for a few minutes, or even a few seconds at the wrong time, there would be a dead patient. For example:

Cardiac arrests and life-threatening dysrhytmias
Emergent intubations and difficult airways
Laryngospasm
Hemodynamically unstable patients
Patients who have bled out more blood than their regular circulating volume.
Induction of anesthesia in patients with lesions like aortic stenosis or pulmonary hypotension.
OB emergencies like amniotic fluid emboli, proplapsed cord, fetal decels

Not that these are all disaster scenarios. Far from it, as we train to handle them in a very controlled manner...but they are not at all uncommon! We see them regularly, and even standard inductions of general anesthesia can bring the patient to the brink.
 
I too find leukocyte's explanation perhaps a bit uninformed.

Patients with pancreatic masses are assumed to have an oncologic process and are very often taken to the operating room for a surgical procedure (Whipple, distal panc +/- spleen, choledocho-j or other bypass) without a preceding pathological diagnosis. Accurate differentiation between benign and malignant pancreatic masses is notoriously difficult. Resection is usually required to make the diagnosis.

Most pancreatic masses are worked up with CT, EUS and ERCP (depending on location). Even given the current state of imaging modalities, it is very difficult to distinguish benign from malignant with these. Occasionally an FNA will be performed but the technique is limited and you cannot blame a pathologist when you supply him/her with inadequate cells and no tissue. The diagnostic yield of FNA cytology is also notoriously low, inaccurate and a good cytopathologist hard to find.

Since most patients with pancreatic masses are symptomatic at time of diagnosis (unless he was diagnosed serrendipitously with a CT done for other problems), even with a benign or equivocal FNA, the patient needs surgery to relieve the probable obstruction. Even benign pancreatic masses can cause problems. Thus, a tissue diagnosis is not required for surgical intervention and a benign or equivocal one is not necessarily cause to abandon planned surgery.

When patients are consented for pancreatic surgery, they must be told that there is the possibility of a benign process as well as widely metastatic disease not seen on pre-operative imaging. This is standard accepted practice.

Admittedly, we don't know much about leukocyte's patient and I agree that it it unfortunate to have a death after a Whipple for a benign process, it is a known complication and to blame the pathologist does seem like a bit of stretch. Why not blame the radiologist or the surgeon or the gastroenterologist as well?

A major clinical advance in surgical oncology would be the ability to accurately diagnose these lesions prior to surgery but in many cases patients would still require surgical intervention to relieve obstructive symptoms.
 
I scrubed on a Whipple case were the patient was diagnosed (via bx prior to sx) with pancreatic ca. After the case, the resected pancrease was sent to pathology for examination...turns out it is completely normal! Well, the patient died few weeks after the sx from complications of a sx he did not need in the first place. All thanks to that pathologist who sent him to the OR.

The pathologist simply looked at some slides. The surgeon is the one who made the decision to take the patient to the OR.

And with a morbidity of 30% and a mortality of 5%, it's not unexpected the patient would have developed something bad postop.
 
The pathologist simply looked at some slides. The surgeon is the one who made the decision to take the patient to the OR.

And with a morbidity of 30% and a mortality of 5%, it's not unexpected the patient would have developed something bad postop.


Yep. Agree 100%.
 
I would say Family Medicine in an institutional setting, or in a group with other doctors (Not family medicine in a rural setting)
You can probably handle 99% of the patients straight out of med school.
If you want, you can go get more knowledge in procedures and ob-gyn.
If you don't want to deal with it, ship it off.
 
I would say Family Medicine in an institutional setting, or in a group with other doctors (Not family medicine in a rural setting)
You can probably mis-handle 99% of the patients straight out of med school.

I corrected your typo. You're welcome.
 
Fixed.

Interesting, what are some of those "many" specialties?

Even Pathologists (were most of their patients are not dead anyway) ....

I defer to Winged Scapula's eloquent post regarding the remainder of your quite naive assesment. Diagnosing pancreatic lesions by cytology can be very difficult. Next time think before you post. I'm not running around here saying that a Whipple is a piece of cake cause I saw one as a 3rd year med student (or any kind of surgery, for that matter).
 
Interesting, what are some of those "many" specialties?

Even Pathologists (were most of their patients are dead anyway) can "have someone die whilst under their direct care". For example, I scrubed on a Whipple case were the patient was diagnosed (via bx prior to sx) with pancreatic ca. After the case, the resected pancrease was sent to pathology for examination...turns out it is completely normal! Well, the patient died few weeks after the sx from complications of a sx he did not need in the first place. All thanks to that pathologist who sent him to the OR.

Some of the specialties where are MUCH less likely to have a patient die under your care than anesthesiology:

Allergy/Immunology
Dermatology
Endocrinology
Neurology
Occupational Medicine
PM&R
Psychiatry
Rheumatology

Sure all of these specialties will have people die but not usually while they are in your physical presence and you are not usually the one that is expected to acutely prevent their death.

I would go as far as to say that ER, OB/GYN, Neonatology, Cardiology, Pulm/Crit Care and many of the surgical specialties are with Anesthesiology in the top tier of most acute and critical (i.e. they could be dead in 5 minutes) patient care.

There were several very excellent responses to the rest of your rather silly post.
 
CaymanIslander. I think the people on these forums get a little focused on the competitive ones (anesthesia is competitive).

PM&R - Or as my friends call it "plenty of money and relaxation"

Seriously dude. Sounds fun, laid back, easy to get into, and very little chance of killing anyone. Psych is a good choice too.
 
I would do psych while selling bananas on the street! Serious, since most psych docs (in my limited experience) have such good hours!
 
Interesting, what are some of those "many" specialties?

Even Pathologists (were most of their patients are dead anyway) can "have someone die whilst under their direct care". For example, I scrubed on a Whipple case were the patient was diagnosed (via bx prior to sx) with pancreatic ca. After the case, the resected pancrease was sent to pathology for examination...turns out it is completely normal! Well, the patient died few weeks after the sx from complications of a sx he did not need in the first place. All thanks to that pathologist who sent him to the OR.

You don't seem to have any clue what a pathologist actually does (given the tired and cliched "dead people" reference) but another thing to add is that no one makes diagnoses in isolation. A pancreatic biopsy was likely prompted by clinical and radiologic evidence of neoplasm. The case was likely reviewed by multiple people and tumor boards prior to surgery. There is a known fairly high rate of whipple resections for benign conditions clinically thought to be malignant (autoimmune or other type of pancreatitis). If a clinician has a high risk of malignancy preoperatively or there are significant symptoms, oftentimes they will operate even with a benign (or inadequate) pathology diagnosis. If they have a lower risk of malignancy, they are unlikely to operate on iffy pathology results, given that FNA has a small but real and acknowledged risk of false positive dx.
 
...

I would not say anesthesia. There is a lot of cush work in anesthesiology but it can get really hairy, really fast.

This reminds me of a line from a buddy of mine who is an anesthesiologist:

Anesthesia is mostly intense boredom interspersed with moments of shear panic
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top