gold diggers

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

psychforme

Mighty horse shoe
15+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
1,475
Reaction score
10
Members don't see this ad.
In all countries, except the US, radiology residency has difficulty attracting applicants.

Am I the only one who 🙄 when someone says they're "interested in radiology (usually interventional)" and say silently for myself: "No you are not interested in radiology. You are interested in money. You're a pathetic little gold digger who don't deserve radiology."

Usually they are torn between INTERVENTIONAL radiology and dermatology. Yeah, right! I see the connection between radiology and popping pimples. 🙄

How to spot someone who is really interested in radiology?
A) They don't fall asleep during radiology lectures. 🙄
B) They are torn between radiology and pathology.
C) They are interested in all of radiology, not just the interventional part.

Now I am going to read the "what are my chances thread" and 🙄 for 10 minutes.
 
theStrand said:
What the hell do you care why people pick a given specialty? BTW, money is important in the world that we live in.
Click to expand...
Did I step on your toe? I don't care per se. I just hope reimbursements drop so I can laugh in the face of the gold diggers. I guess I just don't like leeches.

If I choose radiology over pathology I would still be in my dream field even if reimbursements drop 50%.

And I don't like how people who are actually interested in radiology can't match because of gunning gold diggers.
 
Last edited:
To the OP, which countries do you specifically refer to? I know in some European countries radiology residency is very competitive. But even if it wasn't, you have to understand that competitiveness of residencies will definitely depend not only on the genuine interest of a student on a given field, but also on other various factors including the outlook for a given specialty. For example, let's say that as a med student you may be more or less interested in neurology, neuroradiology and neurosurgery... then you start factoring in other things such as the outlook of the job market, compensations, lifestyle, etc... and then once you get the full picture you can come up with a more informed decision about your future.

In terms of your question: "how to spot someone who is really interested in radiology?". Well, I don't fully understand it. All I can say is that many academic radiologists I know have a deep interest in technology, or moreover, the interface between technology and medicine. In rads, there's always a new technology coming out, or something new being developed.

About your IR comments, IR is definitely not a lifestyle subspecialty. In fact, you work more or less as a surgeon in terms of the hours.
 
Am I the only one who 🙄 every time I see a post from someone who feels the need to attempt an interpretation of other peoples motives in a sad attempt to stroke their ego.
 
psychforme said:
In all countries, except the US, radiology residency has difficulty attracting applicants.
.
Click to expand...

This is completely untrue. It is the MOST competitive field in some countries and is very competitive most other places.
 
psychforme said:
And I don't like how people who are actually interested in radiology can't match because of gunning gold diggers.
Click to expand...

Oh come on... they can't match because their applications are lacking. It's not because of gold diggers- give me a break. You sound like someone who is bummed out over their recent step 1 score setback.
 
fun8stuff said:
This is completely untrue. It is the MOST competitive field in some countries and is very competitive most other places.
Click to expand...
Bull****!!! I am related to a radiology PROFESSOR in Sweden and he says basically anyone can get into radiology there. Mostly because the med students think it lacks patient contact and they sure as hell don't get interested in INTERVENTIONAL radiology to get radiology "with the patient contact."



You think I believe an anonymous post on a forum over a relative?
 
.... must .... not .... feed .... troll ....

Yeah, very much sucks that top med students are going into a field that requires a lot of intelligence. Man, I'd hate that as a patient.
 
jake2 said:
.... must .... not .... feed .... troll ....

Yeah, very much sucks that top med students are going into a field that requires a lot of intelligence. Man, I'd hate that as a patient.
Click to expand...
Top med students with suspect gold-digger personality. You know the people wearing lab coat and stethoscope first day to class when there is cell biology lecture. 🙄

I'm not saying it's a shame really. Just saying, these people are not fooling me. If you're a gold digger, fine by me. Just don't pretend you were born with a passion for dermatology and interventional radiology. Be upfront with your agenda. Noone is really falling for it, that is what I am saying.
 
Why they want to do radiology?

1. Because it is an easier lifestyle with 8-10 hour shifts, easier residency if compared to surgery or medicine by far, you have to do a lot of reading but that is much better than waking up 5am in the morning checking labs, rounding on patients, getting your notes in, discharging, dictating loads of dc summaries, and after this staying up another 24 hours if you are an a long call doing cross cover, running codes and admitting.

2. Much better pay for the amount of work hours they put in. Radiology is not easy work but I am just writing in comparison to IM or surgery.

3. Nobody hates to just sit in a room and read one film after another drinking coffee and getting paid in gold.

4. Competitiveness is defined by lifestyle and money and not by how many candidates are actually interested in that specialty. By saying that radiology at the moment is a winner.


Okay so inorder to find candidates actually interested in radiology we should try paying IM and surgery docs more as they are ones enduring all the pain. My guess is that if we increase IM or surg salaries a lot of candidates would think twice before saying rads is their dream specialty.

Despite of all this I think radiology is the best field in medicine. And I hope I get it someday.
 
psychforme said:
Top med students with suspect gold-digger personality. You know the people wearing lab coat and stethoscope first day to class when there is cell biology lecture. 🙄

I'm not saying it's a shame really. Just saying, these people are not fooling me. If you're a gold digger, fine by me. Just don't pretend you were born with a passion for dermatology and interventional radiology. Be upfront with your agenda. Noone is really falling for it, that is what I am saying.
Click to expand...

Yeah okay. You be upfront with it on your interviews. 🙄
 
I've talked to people from both Europe and India. They both told me that radiology is highly sought after in those countries. When I mentioned derm, they both couldn't believe that it is so competitive here. Seems like derm is very easy to match in those countries. Derms in India treat a lot of leprosy.
 
Nah, its good karma...

I remember reading somewhere that the fee structure for radiologists assumed that they'd read CTs and MRIs for 25 hours per week on average. But actually, theyve been reading and billing for 45 hours per week in reads. So, that just might decrease.

but OP... I do understand where you're coming from...

In many countries dermatology worst field one can go into. All of those horrible diseases in any Atlas of Dermatology are probably seen in those countries. They get dumped on by OB/Gyn, and have to manage STDs as well.
But here in the US... dermatologists help people feel beautiful, and make a fortune doing it.
 
although i agree with others that the OP is a troll, i nevertheless see a glimmer of truth in the observation about "derm + rads" choice with which some applicants seemed to be faced.

i'm doing rads starting next year and derm was never even remotely interesting. the skin, the guts, and the mouth were all areas that i feel are gross :laugh: . path was a distant second but rads was far and away my preferred choice.
 
Just to add some actual data to this thread. Note the following:

http://www.mmc.nhs.uk/default.aspx?page=348

If you click ST1 position by specialty competition ratios, you'll see radiology has more applications per post than any other specialty in Great Britain. This is despite radiologist having salaries comparable to general practitioners in that country.
 
fun8stuff said:
This is completely untrue. It is the MOST competitive field in some countries and is very competitive most other places.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Radiology in Germany e.g. isn't very competitive...and Radiation Oncology is extremely easy to get into here. In my class of ca. 60 students, I know of 2 people who are "thinking" of perhaps entering the field of Radiology while the great majority would never even consider the field for a minute.

It is pretty obvious that competitiveness of specialties in the US is directly proportional to potential income or income/workload ratio...why deny it ? I don't blame people for basing their career decisions on monetary and lifestyle aspects, that's just the way most people are. In Europe, differences in income aren't that great or are even nonexistent , depending on the country and its health care system, so competitiveness of specialties is often totally different over here. Want to become a general surgeon or an anesthesiologist e.g. ? Just send out a few applications and a residency spot is nearly 100 % guaranteed.


I have done a radiology rotation just recently and have thought about a rads residency, as it offers a better work/life balance than other specialties, but I feel that I'm probably just not "geeky" enough to look at CT and MRI scans for the rest of my life, even if they are fascinating in the beginning.
 
jake2 said:
.... must .... not .... feed .... troll ....

Yeah, very much sucks that top med students are going into a field that requires a lot of intelligence. Man, I'd hate that as a patient.
Click to expand...

Medicine is relatively easy compared to physics, chemistry, maths etc. You first and foremost need to be diligent rather than be intelligent.

Why radiology should be intellectually more demanding than e.g. internal medicine or neurology, I cannot see.
 
Marsupilami said:
Medicine is relatively easy compared to physics, chemistry, maths etc. You first and foremost need to be diligent rather than be intelligent.

Why radiology should be intellectually more demanding than e.g. internal medicine or neurology, I cannot see.
Click to expand...

Eh, serves me right for reviving a troll thread...

Radiologists serve as consultants to every specialty. The knowledge base you need to do so effectively is incredibly large. Everyone from ob/gyns to neurosurgeons to medical geneticists come down to the dark room to get help from you, and thus you need to know a whole hell of lot, from the angles that orthopedic surgeons use as operating crieteria to all the congenital syndromes. Arguably, you need to know more than in any other field than perhaps pathology, which serves a similar consultant function.

As somebody who trained in mathematical physics and used to be quite arrogant about the relative complexity of the "real" sciences to medicine, I think I can safely say that while medical diagnosis definitely requires significantly less analytical skill, it is trickier than it seems. The difficulty of it should not be underplayed.

As far as being too cool for radiology... well... hope that works out for you. In your honor, let me reflect for a minute about all the cool things Germany has brought to popular culture: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001327/
 
Marsupilami said:
I disagree. Radiology in Germany e.g. isn't very competitive...and Radiation Oncology is extremely easy to get into here. In my class of ca. 60 students, I know of 2 people who are "thinking" of perhaps entering the field of Radiology while the great majority would never even consider the field for a minute.

It is pretty obvious that competitiveness of specialties in the US is directly proportional to potential income or income/workload ratio...why deny it ? I don't blame people for basing their career decisions on monetary and lifestyle aspects, that's just the way most people are. In Europe, differences in income aren't that great or are even nonexistent , depending on the country and its health care system, so competitiveness of specialties is often totally different over here. Want to become a general surgeon or an anesthesiologist e.g. ? Just send out a few applications and a residency spot is nearly 100 % guaranteed.


I have done a radiology rotation just recently and have thought about a rads residency, as it offers a better work/life balance than other specialties, but I feel that I'm probably just not "geeky" enough to look at CT and MRI scans for the rest of my life, even if they are fascinating in the beginning.
Click to expand...

i don't know how it is in germany. i was referring to the middle east, india, pakistan, england... i have heard first hand from people from those countries who told me it was also very competitive there (which made the OPs assertion that it was not competitive anywhere else, false).

sure, money plays a part in why people pick any profession... medicine in general. no one is denying that.... but i think some of the best things about radiology is that 1) no social work, 2) less wasted time- more time dedicated to "thinking"/diagnosis/broad knowledge base, 3) no notes- less paperwork, 4) no rounds, 5) no long hours on your feet, 6) controllable lifestyle, 7) controllable work environment. While I don't know a heck of a lot of people personally doing radiology other than myself, but the handful i know do like radiology for those reasons.
 
Last edited:
But after a while, does radiology become less thinking and more pattern recognition... especially in a small community hospital?

On the topic of "thinking", the reverse is often true for medicine.... A good gastroenterologist knows "everything" about internal medicine, as well as everything about abdominal pathology and surgery that a general surgeon knows (without knowing all of the technical aspects of the surgeries themselves)... and on top of that, they have to be decent with their hands to do procedures....

So, its what you make of it, I suppose.



And what about Dermatology? I'm 100% certain that in India it is a bottom-of-the-barrel specialty... and over there, they see a lot more pathology than we see in the US. I can't see any way around the gold-digging in that field.
 
When you become a radiologist and make skrilla you can let all the gold diggers count your spokes on that benz.
 
howelljolly said:
And what about Dermatology? I'm 100% certain that in India it is a bottom-of-the-barrel specialty... and over there, they see a lot more pathology than we see in the US. I can't see any way around the gold-digging in that field.
Click to expand...

This is going to be a losing battle seeing as I'm in a radiology forum. But I'll give it the ole college try. 😛

Yes, for those folks who were at the top of their class, obtained a coveted derm residency, and then turned around to use their training as a stepping stone to a 100% cosmetic practice, they are gold diggers. But I suspect many (if not a majority) of dermatologists actually incorporate medicine into their practice. (In truth, I have yet to see a dermatologist who engages in 100% cosmetics.)

Slash the reimbursement (possible in this new age of health care) and eliminate the lifestyle perks (this I don't see happening) and dermatology would still remain a premier field in medicine.

There's an enviable level of flexibility there. Want to see patients until you're blue in the face? Welcome to clinic. Want to be involved with procedures? Welcome to excisions or MOHS. Decided you hate human contact and would rather interact with a microscope? Welcome to dermpath.

Combine that with opportunities to participate in international medicine, opportunities to be groundbreakers in research (derm is still not caught up with other fields as far as evidence-based medicine goes), opportunities to treat patients of all ages, opportunities to engage in short-term and long-term patient care, and you have a field that really does entice top-flight medical students that are more than mere "gold diggers".
 
The OP is a well known troll to those of us familiar with him/her. It is best to ignore this thread, the person only seeks to piss others off.

Just a heads up to those of you getting angry, it is not worth it.
 
jake2 said:
As far as being too cool for radiology... well... hope that works out for you. In your honor, let me reflect for a minute about all the cool things Germany has brought to popular culture: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001327/
Click to expand...

Hey, my very first CD was from David Hasselhoff, he was HUGE in Germany when I was a child, I mean HUUGE ! 😱

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ot_katYYiU


But staying on topic, I have often heard the claim that the necessary knowledge base in radiology is supposed to be so much more vast than that of other specialties, but I strongly doubt it. Sure, radiologists have a good overview over medical disorders from all kinds of specialties, but imho it is just that, an overview.

Furthermore, there exists a whole universe of medical disorders which do not manifest themselves morphologically, at least not detectable by conventional imaging techniques of the radiologist.
 
Marsupilami said:
...Sure, radiologists have a good overview over medical disorders from all kinds of specialties, but imho it is just that, an overview.
It requires much more than a simple overview. A good radiologist will not only tell you that, for example, a uterine fibroid is present but also whether it is subserous, intramural or submucosal (knowing that this information will be useful to the Ob/Gyn in that submucosal fibroids are more likely to be responsible for bleeding). Multiply that x every area of medicine and it does become very complex.

That's what I love about radiology. You get to think like a clinician without all the BS that most clinicians deal with day-to-day in other fields.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
See Radiology is great and you should do it because you really like it and not because there is so much BS in other specialties.
In a layman's world you are not even a doctor unless you tell him.
 
Hysty said:
See Radiology is great and you should do it because you really like it and not because there is so much BS in other specialties.
In a layman's world you are not even a doctor unless you tell him.
Click to expand...


The things I disliked about other fields of medicine definitely played a role in my choice of specialty, as I think they should for everyone. Rads is great because it offers everything I want without the things I dislike.

You'll learn to appreciate people not realizing your a doc... I actually prefer it that way.
 
Hysty said:
See Radiology is great and you should do it because you really like it and not because there is so much BS in other specialties.
In a layman's world you are not even a doctor unless you tell him.
Click to expand...

Agree, many people don't even know you need to go to med school to become a radiologist. But so what, even so, it's one of the most competitive fields to go into, and attracts the best students.
 
gonogo said:
Agree, many people don't even know you need to go to med school to become a radiologist. But so what, even so, it's one of the most competitive fields to go into, and attracts the best students.
Click to expand...

At my sister's wedding last spring I ran into an old family friend whose daughter is just finishing up a radiology tech program. She graduated high school a few years after I did. He was really incredulous when I told him I was going to be a radiologist, but had to train for five more years. "What's taking you so long? What's the difference?" "Well," I told him, "It's the difference between making $50,000 per year and $500,000 per year."

"Oh..."
 
Amxcvbcv said:
At my sister's wedding last spring I ran into an old family friend whose daughter is just finishing up a radiology tech program. She graduated high school a few years after I did. He was really incredulous when I told him I was going to be a radiologist, but had to train for five more years. "What's taking you so long? What's the difference?" "Well," I told him, "It's the difference between making $50,000 per year and $500,000 per year."

"Oh..."
Click to expand...

I actually think this confusion is in the best interest of our field. Who wouldn't want to cut the salary of somebody making 500k? But why cut the poor rad tech's aka "radiologist's" salary. 50k sounds about right for operating those complicated machines. I smile a little every time somebody asks which community college I went to and I proudly answer local town tech. ;-)
 
MrBruxist said:
Marsupilami said:
...Sure, radiologists have a good overview over medical disorders from all kinds of specialties, but imho it is just that, an overview.
It requires much more than a simple overview. A good radiologist will not only tell you that, for example, a uterine fibroid is present but also whether it is subserous, intramural or submucosal (knowing that this information will be useful to the Ob/Gyn in that submucosal fibroids are more likely to be responsible for bleeding). Multiply that x every area of medicine and it does become very complex.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that radiologists have to know an awful lot, but they are not the only ones...it just bothers me when I hear all that "radiologists are the brightest" talk because it's laughable. I know several radiologists who like to look down upon clinicians but I bet they would not survive one single day on a clinical ward.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Marsupilami said:
MrBruxist said:
Marsupilami said:
I'm pretty sure that radiologists have to know an awful lot, but they are not the only ones...it just bothers me when I hear all that "radiologists are the brightest" talk because it's laughable. I know several radiologists who like to look down upon clinicians but I bet they would not survive one single day on a clinical ward.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I really don't get your point. You come to this radiology board to rant about the field... it seems to me you either have too much time on your hands and just want to flare up some discussions, or you're somehow frustrated with some aspects of the field.

I don't know what makes you think a radiologist wouldn't survive a single day on a clinical ward. That statement's rather laughable. Remember that before we become radiologists, we do a year of internship. And as far as I know I haven't heard the first rads resident say "oh, that year was so complex, you had to know an awful lot of medicine". In all specialties the majority of daily life work is fairly "simple". Come on, let's take neurology as an example, the bread and butter will be headaches, TIAs, etc... what about peds: asthma, rash, etc... any med student can treat these diseases. So obviously we don't do a residency or subspecialize to be able to treat the most obvious stuff, it's to be able to do the more complicated ones. So really, it all depends how deep you go into any field that will make it more complicated than the other one.

As a final note, I do understand how many med students/residents are sometimes frustrated with radiologists... It's obviously very tough to get in rads residency, and only few can make it. And also, the compensation is way above most other specialties.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Not just internship, but two years of clinical rotations just like every other med student in the country. The same charts, prescriptions, physical exams, histories, and endless rounding that we all go through. And remember, in all likelihood the radiologist did very well in those clinical rotations to garner the grades and recommendations to land them that residency spot.

It isn't that radiologists somehow "couldn't cut it" in the clinics and wards and settled for a desk job, but rather that they chose that path after many years of hard work and demonstrating excellence to earn that option.
 
Marsupilami said:
I'm pretty sure that radiologists have to know an awful lot, but they are not the only ones...it just bothers me when I hear all that "radiologists are the brightest" talk because it's laughable. I know several radiologists who like to look down upon clinicians but I bet they would not survive one single day on a clinical ward.
Click to expand...

He's just a troll. I can tell by his posts that he doesn't have a clue how much medicine radiologists actually know and how they fit into pt care. He's just pulling things out of his ass.
 
Marsupilami said:
I'm pretty sure that radiologists have to know an awful lot, but they are not the only ones...it just bothers me when I hear all that "radiologists are the brightest" talk because it's laughable. I know several radiologists who like to look down upon clinicians but I bet they would not survive one single day on a clinical ward.
Click to expand...

It's the nature of specialization. Stick a family doc in the trauma OR and he'll be lost. Stick an ob/gyn in the heme/onc wards and she'll be lost. Stick a surgeon in the reading room and he'll be lost. I don't think that argument holds water if you're trying to make the case that one specialist "knows more" than another.

The point trying to be made is that as a consultation centered specialty, radiologists have to be able to competently and coherently discuss diagnoses and differentials with specialists across all spectrums (even the pathologists who come look at core/FNA biopsies, for instance).

To me it's a matter of work smarter not harder. I feel like I've earned the right, to some degree, to be able to work 9 to 5 and wear comfortable clothes all day in a cool, climate controlled environment without having to deal with the undeniably inane banter of daily patient interaction.
 
Amxcvbcv said:
It's the nature of specialization. Stick a family doc in the trauma OR and he'll be lost. Stick an ob/gyn in the heme/onc wards and she'll be lost. Stick a surgeon in the reading room and he'll be lost. I don't think that argument holds water if you're trying to make the case that one specialist "knows more" than another.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I am criticizing. There is imho no such a thing as a superior specialty. Sure radiologists cover a very broad spectrum but there is also so much that radiologists have no clue of. So, no justification for feelings of superiority over other specialists.



Amxcvbcv said:
To me it's a matter of work smarter not harder. I feel like I've earned the right, to some degree, to be able to work 9 to 5 and wear comfortable clothes all day in a cool, climate controlled environment without having to deal with the undeniably inane banter of daily patient interaction.
Click to expand...

The thing is that working in a clinical setup could be much more agreeable if work conditions were improved. You can be an internist, cardiologist etc. AND come home after work without feeling like s*i*, it's possible ! Unfortunately, it's not like that in my home country (Germany) and I assume the situation in the US is similar if not worse. 🙁
 
Marsupilami said:
The thing is that working in a clinical setup could be much more agreeable if work conditions were improved. You can be an internist, cardiologist etc. AND come home after work without feeling like s*i*, it's possible ! Unfortunately, it's not like that in my home country (Germany) and I assume the situation in the US is similar if not worse. 🙁
Click to expand...

Ok so then blame the system, why blame radiologists?
 
psychforme said:
Did I step on your toe? I don't care per se. I just hope reimbursements drop so I can laugh in the face of the gold diggers. I guess I just don't like leeches.

If I choose radiology over pathology I would still be in my dream field even if reimbursements drop 50%.

And I don't like how people who are actually interested in radiology can't match because of gunning gold diggers.
Click to expand...

hehehe, this is funny. I honestly see both sides have a point. The only thing I would ask you guys if the gold diggers are "smarter" (whatever that means or how you measure that is another topic of itself) or had a tougher time building a competitive profile, then is it their fault they get the spot?, rather than a not so qualified person? or more correctly, a person that put half the effort?

I believe there might not be a right or wrong answer, and we must make a balance. The best question to ask when deciding a specialty and trying to leave out any distracting factors is "If all physicians earned identical salaries, what kind of physician would I be?"

I hope that helps a bit. 🙂
 
gonogo said:
To the OP, which countries do you specifically refer to? I know in some European countries radiology residency is very competitive. But even if it wasn't, you have to understand that competitiveness of residencies will definitely depend not only on the genuine interest of a student on a given field, but also on other various factors including the outlook for a given specialty. For example, let's say that as a med student you may be more or less interested in neurology, neuroradiology and neurosurgery... then you start factoring in other things such as the outlook of the job market, compensations, lifestyle, etc... and then once you get the full picture you can come up with a more informed decision about your future.

In terms of your question: "how to spot someone who is really interested in radiology?". Well, I don't fully understand it. All I can say is that many academic radiologists I know have a deep interest in technology, or moreover, the interface between technology and medicine. In rads, there's always a new technology coming out, or something new being developed.

About your IR comments, IR is definitely not a lifestyle subspecialty. In fact, you work more or less as a surgeon in terms of the hours.
Click to expand...


Nice comment. Very eloquent.
 
Amxcvbcv said:
It's the nature of specialization. Stick a family doc in the trauma OR and he'll be lost. Stick an ob/gyn in the heme/onc wards and she'll be lost. Stick a surgeon in the reading room and he'll be lost. I don't think that argument holds water if you're trying to make the case that one specialist "knows more" than another.

The point trying to be made is that as a consultation centered specialty, radiologists have to be able to competently and coherently discuss diagnoses and differentials with specialists across all spectrums (even the pathologists who come look at core/FNA biopsies, for instance).

To me it's a matter of work smarter not harder. I feel like I've earned the right, to some degree, to be able to work 9 to 5 and wear comfortable clothes all day in a cool, climate controlled environment without having to deal with the undeniably inane banter of daily patient interaction.
Click to expand...



I feel like every physician should strive to be competent in all areas of medicine. Obviously starting by your specialty choice, but dont let the learning stop. Keep learning about different topics, in and out of your specialty, as well as in and out of medicine.
 
They should retitle this thread to

People who failed to match into radiology and are bitter about it​

😀
 
Hysty said:
Why they want to do radiology?

1. Because it is an easier lifestyle with 8-10 hour shifts, easier residency if compared to surgery or medicine by far, you have to do a lot of reading but that is much better than waking up 5am in the morning checking labs, rounding on patients, getting your notes in, discharging, dictating loads of dc summaries, and after this staying up another 24 hours if you are an a long call doing cross cover, running codes and admitting.

2. Much better pay for the amount of work hours they put in. Radiology is not easy work but I am just writing in comparison to IM or surgery.

3. Nobody hates to just sit in a room and read one film after another drinking coffee and getting paid in gold.

4. Competitiveness is defined by lifestyle and money and not by how many candidates are actually interested in that specialty. By saying that radiology at the moment is a winner.


Okay so inorder to find candidates actually interested in radiology we should try paying IM and surgery docs more as they are ones enduring all the pain. My guess is that if we increase IM or surg salaries a lot of candidates would think twice before saying rads is their dream specialty.

Despite of all this I think radiology is the best field in medicine. And I hope I get it someday.
Click to expand...

wont this change though when that 5 year IR residency starts? it will be seperate from DR and IR wont be able to board in DR with this new program.
 
what about when the reimbursement structure changes because CTs and MRIs are more routine than they used to be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top