How many months before the end of your training did you find a job?

[exPCM]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I find it hard to believe that we are both talking to dozens of people and getting vastly different conclusions. It is not even close to "overwhelming majority" of residents. It has been a minority (albeit a fairly vocal minority, like the one who yelled at the CAP forum). I never said anyone was lying. Are you saying all the people I talk to have been lying? Am I lying? You can't have it both ways. All I have been saying is that things are not quite as black and white as you and others make it out to be. And I reiterate that current residents who are really interested in this topic (everyone should be somewhat interested in the job market, particularly if you are not academically inclined at all) should be very very cautious about lending too much weight to internet forum postings.

And I am not certain how my view of, "the job market is not great but it is reasonable for many candidates" is going to change. The pathology job market has always been stronger for those with better credentials and more experience - it's like a lot of other fields outside of medicine - you need the experience to get the job, but you need the job in order to get the experience. Pathology is and will remain a smaller field.

Look - here's more data for you to shoot down - it's even written by a resident and it uses the word "robust" to describe the job market for hemepath fellows. At some point you have to start recognizing that not everyone who disagrees with you is completely delusional or drinking whomever's Kool Aide.

http://www.ascp.org/MainMenu/residents/Hematopathology-Fellowship-Job-Market-Robust.aspx

This survey is for hemepath fellows and is quite interesting. Only 5 out of 61 got partnership track jobs - DISMAL. 30% of those with hemepath fellowships had starting salaries under 150K - DISMAL (I know two graduating CRNAs who are getting higher starting salaries). 25% of the hemepath fellows felt they needed to do another fellowship in order to get a job - WOW. IMO the ASCP resident council has not had any one willing to seriously analyze the job market or look at the situation critically since Dominique Coco left.

 

[yaah]

Yeah, see, when I was looking at that data a lot of words came to mind, but "robust" was not really one of them. I don't really understand the 5/61 partnership track jobs either, I wonder if there are simply a lot of people who don't understand what partnership is. Are there really that many community practice jobs that aren't partnership track jobs?

However, I would relate the 30% <$150k solely to the fact that there are also about 30% taking academic jobs - this is not surprising and is not new, nor should it be termed dismal. Only rare academic jobs, to my knowledge, would start you at >$150k.

Haha though, you mentioned CRNAs. You should go peruse the anesthesiology forum, there is some really interesting vitriole over there - you think job issues cause controversy in path, just spend 5 minutes over there.

 

[listeriaismfb]

I'd like to point something out, given my own experience and those of friends and colleagues. All of the people I know who have had protracted job hunts are those that were wed to a city/geographic area or were picky about offers they received (eg I don't want to take blood bank call, so I won't take that job).

It's tough but not impossible to find work; impossible = 0 jobs and this is just not true.

Flexibility is mandatory for success here - ie. you may not do what you want, where you want, at a salary to you want, but you can find work.

It's not ideal, but it is the current construct in the pathology job market and will remain as such until there is a demand for change from the affected parties. My signature line says it all...

 

[Gyric]

Oh good, another job market thread …

- Finding a job in pathology is a competitive experience, there are winners and losers. I think the market will only get more competitive in years to come, if this scares you it might be time to find an escape route.

- Good job offers are based on reputation and connections, I have been recruited by multiple groups, even before fellowship; they are not filling the spots as soon as they can, they target specific individuals and recruit over a longer time period. I sit on committees with some of these people, have even gone drinking with a few, there is no way you could compete with me for a job in their practice by just cold calling them. I also have a firm offer to stay in academics, again over a year in advance.

- You are not entitled to a high powered job just because you have an MD and completed pathology training, not sure where this sense comes from. If you want to practice in a specific location, figure out what it takes to compete, create your own opportunities.

- Pathology is an easy specialty to match into and so the job market separates the strong from the weak. I personally think it would be better if our specialty was more selective (ie had fewer spots) in the match, but that will not change until the quality of applicants suffers at top places (and that is not happening, my program gets very strong applicants every year). Some of us may be in a position to change this approach someday, but for now it is our reality.

 

[2121115]

I'd like to point something out, given my own experience and those of friends and colleagues. All of the people I know who have had protracted job hunts are those that were wed to a city/geographic area or were picky about offers they received (eg I don't want to take blood bank call, so I won't take that job).

Turning down an otherwise decent job because of blood bank call is really weak, IMO.

 

[BierstiefelAndy]

Most of the folks I know and myself have been able to find jobs out of fellowship. However, those who were geographically restricted seem to have had a harder time. Those who applied broadly, from a geographical standpoint, seemed to have an easier time with multiple interviews and offers (I fell into this category and my gut feeling is that I feel lucky and grateful). Also, I concur with the comment about connections helping to get people jobs...the connections I had and the phone calls/emails that were made on my behalf certainly helped. Does the need for connections to land a job in pathology necessarily mean that job market is bad? Who knows...I can't comment on how that happens in other specialties but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that connections always help in landing that good job, regardless of the specialty. What I can conclude is that it only helps you to do your residency training at a reputable place and to work hard. That way, you don't have to try to go to a reputable place for fellowship to help your odds...those fellowship spots tend to go to in-house people anyway. Yes, it's not fair sometimes but that's the fact of life.

I know one person who was very geographically restricted and failed to get a job. This person was very well qualified and makes me wonder if this is a commonly encountered scenario for trainees in other specialties.

I think correlating geographical restrictions vs. flexibility to the ability to find jobs would be a good indicator as to the strength of the job market. I wonder how the data compares between pathology and other specialties.

I can only speak anecdotally (with limited numbers) as I have not followed up with many people who were in this very position in other specialties. I know two folks in IM, one person in OB/GYN, and one person in Anesthesiology who targeted a specific location for their job out of training. They all got jobs. They did not have to search hard. This leads me to think that there are more job opportunities in fields other than pathology and maybe the job market in pathology is relatively worse...but my n=4 (only) for folks outside of pathology.

 

[Nilf]

Oh good, another job market thread &#8230;

- Finding a job in pathology is a competitive experience, there are winners and losers. I think the market will only get more competitive in years to come, if this scares you it might be time to find an escape route.

- Good job offers are based on reputation and connections, I have been recruited by multiple groups, even before fellowship; they are not filling the spots as soon as they can, they target specific individuals and recruit over a longer time period. I sit on committees with some of these people, have even gone drinking with a few, there is no way you could compete with me for a job in their practice by just cold calling them. I also have a firm offer to stay in academics, again over a year in advance.

- You are not entitled to a high powered job just because you have an MD and completed pathology training, not sure where this sense comes from. If you want to practice in a specific location, figure out what it takes to compete, create your own opportunities.

- Pathology is an easy specialty to match into and so the job market separates the strong from the weak. I personally think it would be better if our specialty was more selective (ie had fewer spots) in the match, but that will not change until the quality of applicants suffers at top places (and that is not happening, my program gets very strong applicants every year). Some of us may be in a position to change this approach someday, but for now it is our reality.

Grats, sounds like you got a good deal. However, what you describe as 'high powered job' in pathology, in other specialties is commonplace occurence, normal progression. And I'm not talking about competitive specialties here. Anesthesiologist, IM, peds etc are all able to work wherever they want to. On the other hand, I know a STAR pathology graduate with TWO fellowships from top-notch institutions who cannot find a job in a big metro area.

Two last job fairs I went to had zero (0) pathology jobs

Indeed, pathology is easy to match. And I agree that number of residency spots should be cut down, thus making it more competitive and decreasing the workforce surplus.

 

[2121115]

Grats, sounds like you got a good deal. However, what you describe as 'high powered job' in pathology, in other specialties is commonplace occurence, normal progression. And I'm not talking about competitive specialties here. Anesthesiologist, IM, peds etc are all able to work wherever they want to.

Actually, I know of an ENT and an ophthalmology resident who couldn't find a job in their metropolitan area of choice. Those are small fields like pathology and even though they are a competitive match, getting a sweet job in the location of choice is not always a lock. In fact, there are predatory ophthalmology practices out there in larger cities that churn young hires and reap the profits, just like pathology. Also, there are plenty of primary care jobs everywhere, but who cares? Anyway, primary care docs can just go "hang up a shingle" and start seeing patients anyway, so for some there isn't a "job market" like we think of it.

That is not to say the pathology job market isn't so bad. I don't know if it is or not, since I'm not in it yet.

 

[yaah]

Anesthesia has its share of problems with the job market - similar to emergency medicine. The challenge is not always FINDING a job, but finding a job that is a good one that you would want to keep. Lots of anesthesia and EM partnerships, from what I have heard, are run or owned by large corporations who do not treat new hires very well (a source of labor, basically). So this part of the story is surely NOT limited to path. Where path is different is that it is a smaller field, so there just isn't going to be the same amount of position turnover or job creation - because an existing pathology group can absorb an increase in caseload easier than other specialties can without resorting to hiring new people.

A lot of you are comparing the pathology job market to other medical specialties (like radiology) - obviously it looks bad in comparison. But still, if you compare the path job market to the job market for other professions? Yikes. It's like paradise. An irrelevant comparison, perhaps, but still perspective.

 

[trent05]

Anesthesia has its share of problems with the job market - similar to emergency medicine. The challenge is not always FINDING a job, but finding a job that is a good one that you would want to keep. Lots of anesthesia and EM partnerships, from what I have heard, are run or owned by large corporations who do not treat new hires very well (a source of labor, basically). So this part of the story is surely NOT limited to path. Where path is different is that it is a smaller field, so there just isn't going to be the same amount of position turnover or job creation - because an existing pathology group can absorb an increase in caseload easier than other specialties can without resorting to hiring new people.

A lot of you are comparing the pathology job market to other medical specialties (like radiology) - obviously it looks bad in comparison. But still, if you compare the path job market to the job market for other professions? Yikes. It's like paradise. An irrelevant comparison, perhaps, but still perspective.

There is really no comparison between the job market of Path and Gas.

 

[KeratinPearls]

There is really no comparison between the job market of Path and Gas.

Yes, especially after hearing your anesth friend tell you his buddy just bought a 1.4 mil dollar house in Bev Hills on top of 250K of renovations.

 

[yaah]

There is really no comparison between the job market of Path and Gas.

Sigh. I don't think anyone actually reads what I write anymore.

 

[pathchick09]

Sigh. I don't think anyone actually reads what I write anymore.

You have at least one person listening. You seem like the only person on here who can make a decent argument. Commenting on other people's posts, you never know the full story behind "STAR" applicants. They might be good at pathology but completely socially inept. It behooves practices to hire normal people and let's face it, some pathologists are a little weird.
I'm in a Chicago program, and although the job market here is tight, the fellows that want to stay in Chicago have found jobs. I don't know of anybody that is still looking. We're in a recession people and even though we're in medicine, it still affects us! Realize that and get over it.

 

[112641]

This survey is for hemepath fellows and is quite interesting. Only 5 out of 61 got partnership track jobs - DISMAL. 30% of those with hemepath fellowships had starting salaries under 150K - DISMAL (I know two graduating CRNAs who are getting higher starting salaries). 25% of the hemepath fellows felt they needed to do another fellowship in order to get a job - WOW. IMO the ASCP resident council has not had any one willing to seriously analyze the job market or look at the situation critically since Dominique Coco left.

I work with Thom, and I know he wouldn't say "robust" if only 5 or 27 community based jobs were partnership track. So I spoke with him today. There are several edits in these articles and some of them are done by people who don't understand the stats or the survey. The sentence that is causing all the panic should have actually read that 22 of 27 community practice new hires are partnership track positions.

I wish I could actually see the raw data, 39 of 61 leaves 22. I have no idea where the number 27 in the 22 of 27 comes from. They didn't provide Thom with the raw data either, just a summary... lame in my opinion but sometimes you have to work with what you have. Thom also confirmed that the breakdown of jobs and starting salary included academic positions so it does make sense that most of the <150k a year were a good chunk of the academic positions.

So you get a summary of data from a survey, write what you think of the summary, (of course we don't get to see what the questions actually asked), send it in, it gets edited several times, you don't get to see a final version.. and this is what you have left. (Just as an aside - I also know one of the fellows who have NOT been hired as of yet. In fact the two people I know who haven't gotten offers who have graduated from my program haven't bothered to take their boards yet... I wouldn't hire them either in that situation)

I don't know if that's "robust," and I don't know if that still means that pathology as a profession is on life support. I do know that coming from a small community residency he got on a few committees, spent a good chunk of his residency networking, published articles and posters, and had several offers for fellowship, ultimately deciding on Minnesota, and has leads for jobs after that. I also know his co-chief followed the same formula and had two interviews at Mayo and UCLA, got offers from both and choose UCLA, and also has leads for after fellowship.

I think to the saying "there are lies, damn lies and statistics", Twain would have added "and internet forums" if they had existed at the time.

 

[BierstiefelAndy]

I work with Thom, and I know he wouldn't say "robust" if only 5 or 27 community based jobs were partnership track. So I spoke with him today. There are several edits in these articles and some of them are done by people who don't understand the stats or the survey. The sentence that is causing all the panic should have actually read that 22 of 27 community practice new hires are partnership track positions.

I wish I could actually see the raw data, 39 of 61 leaves 22. I have no idea where the number 27 in the 22 of 27 comes from. They didn't provide Thom with the raw data either, just a summary... lame in my opinion but sometimes you have to work with what you have. Thom also confirmed that the breakdown of jobs and starting salary included academic positions so it does make sense that most of the <150k a year were a good chunk of the academic positions.

So you get a summary of data from a survey, write what you think of the summary, (of course we don't get to see what the questions actually asked), send it in, it gets edited several times, you don't get to see a final version.. and this is what you have left. (Just as an aside - I also know one of the fellows who have NOT been hired as of yet. In fact the two people I know who haven't gotten offers who have graduated from my program haven't bothered to take their boards yet... I wouldn't hire them either in that situation)

I don't know if that's "robust," and I don't know if that still means that pathology as a profession is on life support. I do know that coming from a small community residency he got on a few committees, spent a good chunk of his residency networking, published articles and posters, and had several offers for fellowship, ultimately deciding on Minnesota, and has leads for jobs after that. I also know his co-chief followed the same formula and had two interviews at Mayo and UCLA, got offers from both and choose UCLA, and also has leads for after fellowship.

I think to the saying "there are lies, damn lies and statistics", Twain would have added "and internet forums" if they had existed at the time.

Thom? Or are you talking about Dom (referring to Dom Coco?). It's too bad that nobody has critically looked at the job market since him. I have talked to him about the job market in the past when I was looking for jobs. There were no surprises. Thankfully, for him, he found himself a sweet job. I'm happy for him because he's a good guy.

BTW, where can I get a hold of this data? It's just really a matter of curiosity for me and I'd like to see it for myself. People should make firm judgments about the job market based on data rather than hearsay...even though hearsay can be quite intruiging.

 

[deschutes]

Thom(as) Bollinger, who wrote the ASCP Fellow In-Service Hemepath Job Market Survey report that yaah referenced about 15 posts ago.

...coming from a small community residency he got on a few committees, spent a good chunk of his residency networking, published articles and posters, and had several offers for fellowship, ultimately deciding on Minnesota, and has leads for jobs after that. I also know his co-chief followed the same formula and had two interviews at Mayo and UCLA, got offers from both and choose UCLA, and also has leads for after fellowship.

I've said something similar before, but it bears repeating. I'm not from a small community residency and not from a big name Top 10 whatever place, yet my approach to residency was almost identical (there's the part where I wriggled out of being chief). I vouch for this being the most sensible way to go about laying the foundation for a career in pathology. Path mudphuds can ignore this 😉

 

[112641]

Thom? Or are you talking about Dom (referring to Dom Coco?). It's too bad that nobody has critically looked at the job market since him. I have talked to him about the job market in the past when I was looking for jobs. There were no surprises. Thankfully, for him, he found himself a sweet job. I'm happy for him because he's a good guy.

BTW, where can I get a hold of this data? It's just really a matter of curiosity for me and I'd like to see it for myself. People should make firm judgments about the job market based on data rather than hearsay...even though hearsay can be quite intruiging.

Thom as in Thom Bollinger, the author of the article, the resident Yaah mentioned when the article was first mentioned and has been cited in several of the last few posts. His name and some of his info is at the bottom of the article.

 

[yaah]

let's face it, some pathologists are a little weird.

Some?

Although to be fair, there are all kinds of weirdness. Some kinds are quite compatible with being a good pathologist and a good colleague - some with only one of the two, and some with neither.