How many Pathologists leave the field per year?

[coroner]

There are few things here:
1.) There has been for last 20+ years WAYYYY too many pathologists trained. There is simply no arguing with this, the data is clear.

By the way this is 100% accurate. I never argue this point.

I thought this deserved it's own thread rather than tack on to the last one. I agree with the above that there are too many programs/trainees. There is readily available data from the NRMP that we get roughly around 500-600 newly minted pathologists per year which is too many for a healthy job market to absorb as most here conclude.

But, I have yet to see actual numbers on how many pathologists leave the field per year due to retirement, etc. Up to this point, I've only heard of anecdotal evidence i.e. "It's tough finding a job", "We got 50-100 applicants for an advertised position", "I'm on my second or third fellowship because there's nothing out there", "I called the recruiting firm and they don't have any permanent positions, only locums", etc.

These are certainly true experiences, but let's compare apples to apples. The only way to provide accurate data that supply is outpacing demand is to determine what current demand is. This would be based on new positions created via expansion/growth or thru attrition. To support the general consensus about the job market, it should theoretically show: X pathology grads/yr > Y pathologists leaving/yr. Again, I also think there's too many trainees also and that the job market is weak; but, it's based on personal experience from myself and other colleagues as well as hearsay, and anecdotes. But does anyone have any hard numbers as to how many actually exit the field on a yearly basis? And I'm talking real numbers, not CAP retirement cliff b.s. or other projections.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[jp123ok]

It would be relatively easy to track the number of job advertisements per year on popular websites like the CAP website and Pathology outlines and compare this to the number of new graduates per year. Having done this myself for brief periods I can tell you that the number of job advertisements does not seem anywhere near enough to absorb all the new graduates each year. The problem is that some people here will claim that "many pathology jobs are not listed" and, short of conducting widespread surveys of pathology practices, I'm not sure how you'd determine whether this is true. You would need to do the same thing to determine the number of retiring pathologists.

If someone needs a topic for a journal article please consider tracking the number of job ads for an extended period (e.g. a year) versus the number of new graduates. It would be easy to do and you'd be doing yourself and every other pathologist a favor by publishing real data about the job market.

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

Many jobs in this field aren't posted. A connection calls you. My last two jobs weren't advertised and only through connections was I able to get them. Make as many friends as you can if you are planning to stay in this field. You can't be a lone wolf and expect to survive. Go out and make as many buddies as you can.

 

[yaah]

Given that the boards now recertifies everyone who has certified since, what, 2006, the boards would seemingly be the best place to actually gauge practicing pathologist numbers and new entries and such. Wouldn't work as well for charting retirements though. Pathology does have a very high average age of practitioner though, at some point the retirements will actually become noticeable. Particularly because many older pathologists have varied skills and can cover everything, and many newer grads cannot or will not.

I can't really say I disagree that over a longer horizon (like 20 years maybe?) there may very well be a shortage of pathologists. The question is whether the current training system is adequate to provide an appropriate future workforce, not necessarily in actual numbers but in matching numbers with workable skills. Smaller hospital jobs are likely to become scarcer and scarcer, not only because of hospital consolidation but because fewer pathologists are willing or able to actually cover everything. That is probably a bad thing for the field. Reference labs serve an important function but a future where they run everything does not sound great to me. One option is that hospitals start taking over more of the day to day admin stuff that pathologists do, also not an optimal situation.

But yes, many (most?) jobs are not posted. Academic jobs often are because they have to be, but not private jobs. And if they are posted they can be posted in areas that are targeted (like selective emails and reaching out to contacts) so they are not as noticeable to everyone.

 

[jp123ok]

But yes, many (most?) jobs are not posted. Academic jobs often are because they have to be, but not private jobs. And if they are posted they can be posted in areas that are targeted (like selective emails and reaching out to contacts) so they are not as noticeable to everyone.

The claim that many/most jobs are not posted seems entirely anecdotal. Do you have any evidence to support this?

 

[Thrombus]

Number of job postings is a poor metric to assess need. Many jobs are taken by experienced pathologists. If this happens, you will see another job posting (the one he left).

A good metric is how many people apply for job. That is the best metric we have for job supply and demand.

 

[jupiterianvibe]

The claim that many/most jobs are not posted seems entirely anecdotal. Do you have any evidence to support this?

It makes sense that the number of job postings listed would correlate with the desirability of the job market, irrespective of most jobs being filled by word-of-mouth candidates.
If the job market was favorable, there would not be enough word-of-mouth candidates to fill these jobs. They would have to be listed as a result. It is simple math.

Can one assume that jobs, particularly desirable ones, will go to a word-of-mouth candidate first, never being listed? Can one also assume that the listed positions are either undesirable or demand a specific skill set that known internal candidates did not possess?

I do believe that pathology did not manage its supply/demand economics as well as it could have as a field.

 

[yaah]

The claim that many/most jobs are not posted seems entirely anecdotal. Do you have any evidence to support this?

Well, two of the three jobs I applied for were not posted. And since I have started my job, 2 of our 4 hires have been from non-posted jobs. And I know many people (at least 10 in the last 3-4 years) who have jobs that they got that were not advertised.

 

[icpshootyz]

My group has not posted a job opening in years. We have found people through local connections or using head hunters, but no formal postings.

 

[coroner]

The claim that many/most jobs are not posted seems entirely anecdotal. Do you have any evidence to support this?

• Well, two of the three jobs I applied for were not posted. And since I have started my job, 2 of our 4 hires have been from non-posted jobs. And I know many people (at least 10 in the last 3-4 years) who have jobs that they got that were not advertised.

• My group has not posted a job opening in years. We have found people through local connections or using head hunters, but no formal postings.

You're correct that others' claims of most jobs being unadvertised were anecdotal and instead of documented statistics, you got...well, more anecdotes. But there's a reason for this: Based on the claim/presumption that most jobs are not posted, then there wouldn't really be a reliable way of tracking and tabulating the data of how many such positions are out there because they're through the grapevine to begin with. On top of that, if someone knows they have a qualified candidate(s) for a position, that would obviate the need to expend the time and resources to advertise for it and sift through countless applicants. Therefore, this couldn't accurately be determined with a large enough sample size unless someone surveyed every pathology practice out there (academic or private) inquiring how many positions they've had that were filled via word of mouth vs advertisements.

Ok, so all we've hashed out is a lot of pathology jobs aren't advertised which most of us already know. This is slightly derailed from the original question i.e. Is the total # of pathologists leaving the field per year > # of new grads? That along with # new positions created for pathologists per year (not due to attrition) would be the best metric we have of the job market. Which is essentially calculating supply vs demand. Otherwise, stating that there's too many trainees and the job market is bad is, well...anecdotal.

 

[Mace1370]

coroner, I think your focus on # of new grads compared to # leaving the field is an important question, but I think there are other factors worth considering. yaah touched on these above. For example, you could have the # of graduates equal the # leaving the field, but if it takes more than one graduate to fill the shoes of a person leaving then that will result in a better job market. Additionally, if reimbursement falls and pathologists on the whole try to work more to make up for lost revenue then you would have the opposite effect. I think this is a very difficult question to answer, but I appreciate you bringing the discussion to the table.

 

[yaah]

It's a total quagmire to predict what the "appropriate" number of pathologists in the future will be. There are so many variables, and one doesn't know which is more important than the other. I mean, our group is between 15-20 pathologists. I have no idea in 10 years how many we will have or should have. I know we are pretty much right-sized right now. We could have fewer numbers if we had more people who did more things, but that's impossible to adjust perfectly. But in 10 years time, we might have too many, or we might have too few.

Thus, in contrast to this question, the question of how many pathologists enter/leave the US job market every year should be easier to answer. The fact that it isn't shows how much difficulty there is in try to answer the first question.

Part of the problem is that "new positions" are not always predictable. Existing positions can disappear due to attrition. New positions can be created where one did not exist before. Two positions can be created to replace one that disappears. One can replace two.