How much do academic jobs in pathology pay?
Started by Towelie
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Anywhere from 100,000 to over 1,000,000.
I'd guess the median salary of seasoned career academics to be 200-300K, but I have no stats to base that on. That's not too bad considering you only "work" work about 1/2 the year with the other 1/2 consisting of time off and other academic responsibilities such as research and teaching.
I'd guess the median salary of seasoned career academics to be 200-300K, but I have no stats to base that on. That's not too bad considering you only "work" work about 1/2 the year with the other 1/2 consisting of time off and other academic responsibilities such as research and teaching.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
300K would be for a renowned chief of surgical pathology, go to the SFGATE website and use "UC compensation salary" or other such search string to pull up the list for 2005. Then go to different UC path departments and put in names of assistant, associate and full professors.
Also realize that the 2 UC dermpath guys are total anomalies. They earn 1.5million with the next closest academic pathologist all the way down at 300K (Noel Wiedner at UC San Diego). The rest of the crew who are FULL professors are in the mid 200s. The associates are in the upper 100, lower 200s. The assistant level clinical track is in the lower to mid 100s but some are even sub100.
What? Phil+sidekick are certainly not anomalies... ALL DP's make 1.5 mln. I thought you knew that? (ok, a few make 0.5 mln, but that's because they only work part-time) 😀
I just checked out the list. That is a huge drop-off between #1 and 2 UCSF dermpath and #3 Weidner. How are the two UCSFers able to do it?
It seems there are hundreds of physicians between Weidner and Leboit. It doesn't speak well for pathology. If pay is so meager in academics relative to other fields, it must be equally meager in all other sectors.
I just checked out the list. That is a huge drop-off between #1 and 2 UCSF dermpath and #3 Weidner. How are the two UCSFers able to do it?
It seems there are hundreds of physicians between Weidner and Leboit. It doesn't speak well for pathology. If pay is so meager in academics relative to other fields, it must be equally meager in all other sectors.
...but there are at least two other pathologists at UCSD that make more than NW...Dr. Gonias, the chair, and Dr. Bailey, who does toxicology and a lot of med school admin.
But, I would assume that there is a drop off between the 300k class of academic pathologists and the run of the mill academic pathologists, as I can find only a few others at UCSD that make enough to be included on the list. I don't know what the cut off for being on this list is, but the majority of the department falls below it.
But, I would assume that there is a drop off between the 300k class of academic pathologists and the run of the mill academic pathologists, as I can find only a few others at UCSD that make enough to be included on the list. I don't know what the cut off for being on this list is, but the majority of the department falls below it.
🙄
It never ceases to amaze me how people who seemingly hate pathology (based on disparaging comments) continue to come here and try to badmouth the field. What's your point? You are going to generalize on the entire field based on a report of salaries from the university of california system? If you can't make enough to satisfy yourself as a pathologist then go do something else. If you think you aren't being compensated appropriately then don't accept the contract.
There is a common theme: Academic pathologists, in general, make less than those in private practice. There are exceptions.
Not really the case. You can confirm that hypothesis is incorrect by using any management salary database like MGMA. When you take into account quality of life issues like no in-house call, limited liability exposure and lower overhead costs pathology will be near the top of the pack. An internist wrote a fairly popular book about 10+ years ago that broke all the areas of medicine down into different categories with well detailed spread sheet type analyses. He also had path in the top 3-4 fields, when you look at the big picture. I want to say he ranked 1. Radiology 2. Gas 3. Path 4. Ophtho but it has been like 10+ years since I read that.
The biggest challenge pathology faces is the massive overtraining that is going on. Something far worse in my mind than 5% drops in Medicare.
I've never really looked at (or for) numbers, but I'd wager that:
1. On average, academic positions will ALWAYS pay less than similar positions in private practise. This goes for ANY medical specialty, not only pathology. We academic types are simply not that much into the payola-thing ;-)
2. If you look at pay, adjusted for insurance stuff and working hours, i.e. pay per hour after insurance, I'm sure that pathology will come out quite nicely, along with fields such as radiology and dermatology.
3. If you include dermpath in pathology, which is entirely possible, as path is one of the two paths (har har) into DP, you've got yourself what will likely be the single highest average pay per hour after insurance. Yes, you can find others, like plastic and ortho people who make more, but they're likely to work a lot more, especially, but not only, during residency.
So all in all, I don't really buy the financial counterargument to pathology. That would more accurately be said of FP, peds and psych, although those professions obviously also has their share of high earners, and still make significantly more than the average wageearner...
1. On average, academic positions will ALWAYS pay less than similar positions in private practise. This goes for ANY medical specialty, not only pathology. We academic types are simply not that much into the payola-thing ;-)
2. If you look at pay, adjusted for insurance stuff and working hours, i.e. pay per hour after insurance, I'm sure that pathology will come out quite nicely, along with fields such as radiology and dermatology.
3. If you include dermpath in pathology, which is entirely possible, as path is one of the two paths (har har) into DP, you've got yourself what will likely be the single highest average pay per hour after insurance. Yes, you can find others, like plastic and ortho people who make more, but they're likely to work a lot more, especially, but not only, during residency.
So all in all, I don't really buy the financial counterargument to pathology. That would more accurately be said of FP, peds and psych, although those professions obviously also has their share of high earners, and still make significantly more than the average wageearner...
