If I choose a specialty based on what I enjoy doing, will I be happy with my...

[uncgrad2002]

---

Members do not see this ad.

decision regardless of any of the negative aspects of the specialty? (pay, hours, etc)

Or should I just go for the more lifestyle friendly specialties, even if they don't interest me as much?

Obviously I know you can't read my mind, just having a hard time with this.

 

[NightSwim]

Depends on your priorities in life. Everyone's gonna be different. Try to systematically consider the pros and cons of the specialties you are debating. Also, try asking people that know you for their input.

 

[Phyozo]

decision regardless of any of the negative aspects of the specialty? (pay, hours, etc)

Or should I just go for the more lifestyle friendly specialties, even if they don't interest me as much?

Obviously I know you can't read my mind, just having a hard time with this.

At some point in your training, you're going to have to pick something where you enjoy the good and can tolerate the bad. There's no perfect specialty. You'll have to weigh each component of the specialty and consider whether the whole is appealing.

I would caution against doing lifestyle friendly specialties if you really have absolutely no interest. The lifestyle is a nice perk, but should not be the primary reason you choose a specialty because you will still need to complete a very rigorous residency and be doing your specialty for the rest of your life.

 

[MilkmanAl]

I'm not sure how the answer to your question isn't obvious. There's always a way for the bad to outweigh the good of anything (and vice versa). As phyozo said, you have to find the specialty that, for you, has the most good with the least bad.

 

[45408]

Depends on your priorities in life. Everyone's gonna be different. Try to systematically consider the pros and cons of the specialties you are debating. Also, try asking people that know you for their input.

This, especially. Just because you enjoy something doesn't mean that it's ideal for your overall goals, but it might be.

 

[ArcGurren]

decision regardless of any of the negative aspects of the specialty? (pay, hours, etc)

Or should I just go for the more lifestyle friendly specialties, even if they don't interest me as much?

Obviously I know you can't read my mind, just having a hard time with this.

I have a family member who told me: "Never go into something you hate; if you go into something that you might like or are ambivalent to it, you can still eventually learn or grow to like it."

 

[bucks2010]

Every physician I've talked to has said to take lifestyle into account.

 

[drstupid]

I'd say go for what you like doing. It doesn't matter how much time you have off or what your lifestyle is like if you hate the work you are doing and don't want to be there.

 

[MilkmanAl]

It doesn't matter how much time you have off or what your lifestyle is like if you hate the work you are doing and don't want to be there.

Eh...I wouldn't say that. I'd be willing to do a job I hated if I had 5 days off a week or something. In general, it's better to do something you enjoy, obviously, but if you get one of those once-in-a-lifetime opportunities, it might be worth eating the crap job, depending on where your priorities lie.

 

[Rothbard]

nm

 

[Mr RADical]

I was always told in medical school by older physcians that "everything becomes a job at some point".

I don't necessarly think that lifestyle should be the number one atribute that causes you to pick one specialty over another but you should at least consider it. It differs for everyone. So people like to work for 80 hours or more a week and others don't. It depends what is important to you in life.

Personally, I think the patient type, disease processes, day-to-day, is a lot more important than if I can work a 40 hour week but thats not the same for everyone.

 

[Law2Doc]

Eh...I wouldn't say that. I'd be willing to do a job I hated if I had 5 days off a week or something. In general, it's better to do something you enjoy, obviously, but if you get one of those once-in-a-lifetime opportunities, it might be worth eating the crap job, depending on where your priorities lie.

Meh. You only get one life, and it's fleeting. If you are going to spend the majority of your awake hours doing something you have to like it. There are no lifestyle specialties where you get 5 days off a week -- most of the time the question is really whether you are going to spend 80 hous a week doing something you enjoy versus 55 hours a week in a lifestyle specialty you don't. Meaning you life is still going to be get up, go to work come home, eat dinner, watch some TV and then go to sleep again. You will have more weekend time in one field, maybe an extra TV show or dinner out, maybe get up an hour or two later each day, but by and large you will still be spending the bulk of your life at work whether you ate in a lifestyle or non lifestyle field. So yeah, you should pick something you enjoy. You only get to go around once (depending on your views in reincarnation). Take it from a career changer who had a good gig but am enjoying myself more now.

 

[Phyozo]

Meh. You only get one life, and it's fleeting. If you are going to spend the majority of your awake hours doing something you have to like it. There are no lifestyle specialties where you get 5 days off a week -- most of the time the question is really whether you are going to spend 80 hous a week doing something you enjoy versus 55 hours a week in a lifestyle specialty you don't. Meaning you life is still going to be get up, go to work come home, eat dinner, watch some TV and then go to sleep again. You will have more weekend time in one field, maybe an extra TV show or dinner out, maybe get up an hour or two later each day, but by and large you will still be spending the bulk of your life at work whether you ate in a lifestyle or non lifestyle field. So yeah, you should pick something you enjoy. You only get to go around once (depending on your views in reincarnation). Take it from a career changer who had a good gig but am enjoying myself more now.

👍

 

[MilkmanAl]

Oh yeah, I definitely agree, especially since those crazy opportunities wouldn't pop up until after you'd already gotten into the field. On the other hand, there are obviously other things to consider than just how much you like your job. Just to use an extreme, a good friend of mine's dad is a cardiologist at a really busy local hospital and regularly works 90+ hour weeks. He loves his job passionately, but he hardly ever sees his family. It works for him, but for me, that's an unacceptable trade-off. I'd have to "downgrade" my job to something I liked less so I could spend more time with my family and friends and just generally have more of a life. Like I said earlier, it's all about whatever balance is best for you.

 

[ArcGurren]

Meh. You only get one life, and it's fleeting. If you are going to spend the majority of your awake hours doing something you have to like it. There are no lifestyle specialties where you get 5 days off a week -- most of the time the question is really whether you are going to spend 80 hous a week doing something you enjoy versus 55 hours a week in a lifestyle specialty you don't. Meaning you life is still going to be get up, go to work come home, eat dinner, watch some TV and then go to sleep again. You will have more weekend time in one field, maybe an extra TV show or dinner out, maybe get up an hour or two later each day, but by and large you will still be spending the bulk of your life at work whether you ate in a lifestyle or non lifestyle field. So yeah, you should pick something you enjoy. You only get to go around once (depending on your views in reincarnation). Take it from a career changer who had a good gig but am enjoying myself more now.

You're not really factoring in having a spouse or a family into the picture with your comparison there; having an 80 hour work week DOES take a toll when you have a family.

 

[SteinUmStein]

You're not really factoring in having a spouse or a family into the picture with your comparison there; having an 80 hour work week DOES take a toll when you have a family.

Right, and if we're going on about the one life to live theme, your kids get one childhood to spend with their parents. Will you be there? Or will you have to "finish up at the office" instead of making it to that game or play, every single time. Will you need to answer that page instead of tucking in your 2 year-old? There are only 24 hours in a day - use them as you will.

 

[crystalgreen]

to me, lifestyle is much more important bc being stressed out and having no life will eventually outweigh how much you like the specialty. i think having the time to do things you enjoy outside of medicine and spending time with the ppl you love is much more fullfilling and is what ultimately makes one happy...not being a workaholic

 

[deleted103644]

Don't choose based upon salary. Too hard to predict, and frankly, your lifestyle at $200k vs $400k won't be that different.

Other issues might be relevant, eg I would not recommend general surgery if you would like to have a healthy family life.

 

[MilkmanAl]

Too hard to predict, and frankly, your lifestyle at $200k vs $400k won't be that different.

I mean, I guess it'll be varying degrees of "really good," but the extra cash is still huge. With the latter, you'll be able to afford luxury items way sooner and can get more of them.

 

[deleted103644]

I mean, I guess it'll be varying degrees of "really good," but the extra cash is still huge. With the latter, you'll be able to afford luxury items way sooner and can get more of them.

The difference between $50k and $200k is much more than $200k to $400k.

The vast majority of physicians can earn somewhere in that range, where you fall doesn't matter all that much.

Maybe you get a slightly nicer house or car, but really those differences are insignificant. You'll be earning 6 figures, but you'll always need to work. The rest is just gravy.

 

[JackShephard MD]

Don't choose based upon salary. Too hard to predict, and frankly, your lifestyle at $200k vs $400k won't be that different.

Other issues might be relevant, eg I would not recommend general surgery if you would like to have a healthy family life.

It's really individual dependent, even in surgery. Some surgeons will be (or already are) doing shift work, just like an EM physician.

I agree with the sentiment in this thread that, at some point, losing more time for friends/family isn't worth liking your job more. I'm not sure if that's 50,60,80 or 100 hours a week but there's certainly a point where the job isn't worth it. Most professionals will work 60+ though, and looking at average physician work hours, ~60 is pretty typically.

 

[JP2740]

to me, lifestyle is much more important bc being stressed out and having no life will eventually outweigh how much you like the specialty. i think having the time to do things you enjoy outside of medicine and spending time with the ppl you love is much more fullfilling and is what ultimately makes one happy...not being a workaholic

I've been through this thought process in my head many times, but I keep coming back to the fact that many of the patients don't get to have luxuries like that. I don't want to choose my field purely based off a desire to have the most comfortable lifestyle ever for myself. Some med students like myself think we can help patients more in the fields we're interested in and also want to contribute to (through research). I don't know if the OP had this thought process or not, but that's the argument I size up against lifestyle (which is still a hard argument in my opinion)

 

[Postictal Raiden]

It's really individual dependent, even in surgery. Some surgeons will be (or already are) doing shift work, just like an EM physician.

I agree with the sentiment in this thread that, at some point, losing more time for friends/family isn't worth liking your job more. I'm not sure if that's 50,60,80 or 100 hours a week but there's certainly a point where the job isn't worth it. Most professionals will work 60+ though, and looking at average physician work hours, ~60 is pretty typically.

This. My wife's uncle is a successful mechanic and owns a body shop. He works at least 50% more hours than your average mechanic. He gets to his shot at 7am and leaves at 6pm Mon-Friday, plus he works every other Saturday. That's 55-60 hrs/week, not including time spend at home doing accounting and bookkeeping.

Bottom line, if you want to be successful in any field, you need to put the hours. One ENT surgeon SDNer wrote "you can't expect to live in the 95th percentile and invest at the 50th percentile to get there".

 

[SteinUmStein]

This. My wife's uncle is a successful mechanic and owns a body shop. He works at least 50% more hours than your average mechanic. He gets to his shot at 7am and leaves at 6pm Mon-Friday, plus he works every other Saturday. That's 55-60 hrs/week, not including time spend at home doing accounting and bookkeeping.

Bottom line, if you want to be successful in any field, you need to put the hours. One ENT surgeon SDNer wrote "you can't expect to live in the 95th percentile and invest at the 50th percentile to get there".

Really good point. Also important to note that there are physicians and other professionals who work 60 hrs/wk and live balanced, happy home lives and spend plenty of time with their families. There are also docs that work 40-50 hrs/week and have terrible home lives because they don't prioritize their family above hanging out at the bar, etc.

I think there's a pretty significant range of hours that are conducive to living a "normal" healthy life, probably all the way up to 60+ if you manage your time well. There is definitely an upper limit though, and I would challenge you to find a well-balanced person who works 80+ hours every single week.

 

[shantster]

This. My wife's uncle is a successful mechanic and owns a body shop. He works at least 50% more hours than your average mechanic. He gets to his shot at 7am and leaves at 6pm Mon-Friday, plus he works every other Saturday. That's 55-60 hrs/week, not including time spend at home doing accounting and bookkeeping.

That sounds just like my mechanic, though I've definitely gotten my car at 6:30. A lot of it is because the guy spends time BSing with people and teaching them about their cars. There's a reason why it takes close to a month to get an appointment for a general maintenance with him.

I totally agree that no matter what you are in, the top money makers in the field will be putting in the hours, even in a "lifestyle" profession.

 

[Sheldor]

Meh. You only get one life, and it's fleeting. If you are going to spend the majority of your awake hours doing something you have to like it. There are no lifestyle specialties where you get 5 days off a week -- most of the time the question is really whether you are going to spend 80 hous a week doing something you enjoy versus 55 hours a week in a lifestyle specialty you don't. Meaning you life is still going to be get up, go to work come home, eat dinner, watch some TV and then go to sleep again. You will have more weekend time in one field, maybe an extra TV show or dinner out, maybe get up an hour or two later each day, but by and large you will still be spending the bulk of your life at work whether you ate in a lifestyle or non lifestyle field. So yeah, you should pick something you enjoy. You only get to go around once (depending on your views in reincarnation). Take it from a career changer who had a good gig but am enjoying myself more now.

I generally agree with most of your stuff, but I'm not sure I agree with this. Personally, 3 hours less per day and weekends off is a huge deal and it is not just one extra dinner or TV show. Having worked both hours, and a career I didn't enjoy, I'd vote that the time is a very important consideration.

 

[auburnO5]

I generally agree with most of your stuff, but I'm not sure I agree with this. Personally, 3 hours less per day and weekends off is a huge deal and it is not just one extra dinner or TV show. Having worked both hours, and a career I didn't enjoy, I'd vote that the time is a very important consideration.

I generally disagree with everything Law2Doc says (no offense).

 

[JackShephard MD]

I generally disagree with everything Law2Doc says (no offense).

lol.

 

[pupster]

Don't choose based upon salary. Too hard to predict, and frankly, your lifestyle at $200k vs $400k won't be that different.

Other issues might be relevant, eg I would not recommend general surgery if you would like to have a healthy family life.

I'll agree w/ you on that point. 20 years ago, the best people went into internal medicine, and it paid well relative to other specialties. Dermatology was an afterthought, and nobody really went into it because it was just the province of rashes...

Of course, 20 years later, the tables have turned. Who's to say in another 20 years that ROAD specialties will be relegated to the bottom of the field? I bet PM&R is the next up and coming specialty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/fashion/19beauty.html?pagewanted=all

That said, I did work my ass off to get into my specialty and really enjoy it, and I'll admit, financial and lifestyle considerations did factor into my choice, but those were not the only reasons!

 

[8t7x]

.

 

[JackShephard MD]

I'll agree w/ you on that point. 20 years ago, the best people went into internal medicine, and it paid well relative to other specialties. Dermatology was an afterthought, and nobody really went into it because it was just the province of rashes...

Of course, 20 years later, the tables have turned. Who's to say in another 20 years that ROAD specialties will be relegated to the bottom of the field? I bet PM&R is the next up and coming specialty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/fashion/19beauty.html?pagewanted=all

That said, I did work my ass off to get into my specialty and really enjoy it, and I'll admit, financial and lifestyle considerations did factor into my choice, but those were not the only reasons!

PM&R is appealing but it also seems like such a wildcard field.

 

[JackShephard MD]

what do you mean?

Well, it's relatively uncompetitive (mean Step 1 = 214), they rely heavily on referrals (no one goes to see their physiatrist), it is sometimes difficult for people to understand what they do (wait, so you're a physical therapist?), it's difficult to fix/cure severely disabled (small gains = wins in PMR), and there likely isn't strong lobbying or organizational backing (which fields like Ortho/Rads openly boast about).

They have a video here that shows some of the physicians:
http://www.aapmr.org/career/students/PMRspecialty/Pages/playback-pmr-sandel-video.aspx

It feels like psychiatry + rehab sometimes...

It does sound interesting though, no doubt.

 

[pupster]

Well, it's relatively uncompetitive (mean Step 1 = 214), they rely heavily on referrals (no one goes to see their physiatrist), it is sometimes difficult for people to understand what they do (wait, so you're a physical therapist?), it's difficult to fix/cure severely disabled (small gains = wins in PMR), and there likely isn't strong lobbying or organizational backing (which fields like Ortho/Rads openly boast about).

They have a video here that shows some of the physicians:
http://www.aapmr.org/career/students/PMRspecialty/Pages/playback-pmr-sandel-video.aspx

It feels like psychiatry + rehab sometimes...

It does sound interesting though, no doubt.

Pretty cush hours though...

 

[deleted103644]

I had no idea what PM&R was until interviews (still not really sure what they do). Without fail though, every PM&R person I met at a prelim interview was a Caribbean grad though. So definitely not competitive.

(I hope they can do surgery prelims too, because otherwise they may go unmatched for prelim, since I'd wager prelim medicine was more competitive than PM&R itself.)

 

[pupster]

I had no idea what PM&R was until interviews (still not really sure what they do). Without fail though, every PM&R person I met at a prelim interview was a Caribbean grad though. So definitely not competitive.

(I hope they can do surgery prelims too, because otherwise they may go unmatched for prelim, since I'd wager prelim medicine was more competitive than PM&R itself.)

That was the case w/ dermatology 20 years ago also...did you read my link to that NY Times article?

 

[JackShephard MD]

Pretty cush hours though...

No doubt. May be the best selling point.

 

[Skinceutical]

I'll agree w/ you on that point. 20 years ago, the best people went into internal medicine, and it paid well relative to other specialties. Dermatology was an afterthought, and nobody really went into it because it was just the province of rashes...

I've heard other people argue this before, but I'm not totally sure I believe it. I've been curious about this for a while, so I dug around a bit online.

Hard data is hard to come by; although the NRMP has reports dating back to 1986 on their website, dermatology only started to transition over to the match system in 1997 (before that, dermatology had its own "late match" that took place during the spring of your intern year). By the time all the programs had switched over to the match in 1998 (only 14 years ago, not a full 20), the percentage of unmatched US seniors applying to derm was 24.2% (second only to plastic surgery at 25%). For the sake of comparison, the percentage of unmatched US seniors applying to rad onc was just 2.7%, in rads 4.3%, and in ortho 20.7%.
http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddata1998.pdf

Going back further, back in the 70's and 80's American residency programs began accepting significant numbers of FMGs. While it's fairly common to see (now middle aged/nearing retirement) 1st generation physicians from Asia and the Middle East in IM, rads, surgery, etc, I've noticed that they seem to be few and far between in dermatology.

Looking at the data, apparently in 1973, FMGs made up 28% of IM residents, 22% of plastic surgery residents, and only 8% of derm residents. In fact, derm consistently had a significantly lower proportion of FMG residents compared to other specialties for the next 11 years (which was all the data available in that paper ca. 1986).
"Dermatologists in the Year 2000: Will Supply Exceed Demand." Arch Dermatol -- June 1986

Interestingly, a couple of these articles from the 80's were predicting a massive oversupply of dermatologists by the late 90's, and were lamenting the fact that the specialty would no longer have a reputation of attracting the "best and the brightest" if the over-proliferation of new residency programs wasn't stopped. The article above ended with the following thought:

"One striking example of a professional group for which supply increased more rapidly than demand is doctors of philosophy in the humanities. Will dermatologists also be driving cabs in the year 2000?"

Anyways...back to the original topic...

 

[deleted103644]

One striking example of a professional group for which supply increased more rapidly than demand is doctors of philosophy in the humanities. Will dermatologist also be driving cabs in the year 2000?

Wait, I thought the whole point of a PhD in philosophy WAS to drive a cab.

Are you saying there's an actual demand for philosophy PhDs?!?!?

 

[JackShephard MD]

I've heard other people argue this before, but I'm not totally sure I believe it. I've been curious about this for a while, so I dug around a bit online.

Hard data is hard to come by; although the NRMP has reports dating back to 1986 on their website, dermatology only started to transition over to the match system in 1997 (before that, dermatology had its own "late match" that took place during the spring of your intern year). By the time all the programs had switched over to the match in 1998 (only 14 years ago, not a full 20), the percentage of unmatched US seniors applying to derm was 24.2% (second only to plastic surgery at 25%). For the sake of comparison, the percentage of unmatched US seniors applying to rad onc was just 2.7%, in rads 4.3%, and in ortho 20.7%.
http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddata1998.pdf

Surely you know that % of unmatched doesn't really say much.

This year, PMR was 32% US Seniors unmatched, General Surgery was 28%, and Derm was 26%. PMR had an average Step 1 of 214 last year.

Can we conclude that PMR and GSurg are more competitive? No.

 

[Skinceutical]

Surely you know that % of unmatched doesn't really say much.

This year, PMR was 32% US Seniors unmatched, General Surgery was 28%, and Derm was 26%. PMR had an average Step 1 of 214 last year.

Can we conclude that PMR and GSurg are more competitive? No.

Like I said, data from 15+ years ago is hard to come by (especially in the context of a cursory online search).

I realize that the percentage of unmatched US seniors is only 1 aspect of the overall competitiveness of a field. The percentage of positions filled by FMGs is another aspect, which I also referenced in that post.

Is it definitive evidence? No.

However, I also have yet to see anything that proves that derm was an unpopular afterthought specialty in the past as many people like to claim.

 

[deleted103644]

I would assume derm was pretty unappealing before Botox + acne treatments that work + any recent advances in skin cancer treatment.

Although I guess prednisone and Vaseline have been around for awhile...

 

[deleted103644]

Sorry, did I say Vaseline? I meant "Aquaphor". 😛

Oh, and can't forget lasers.

 

[pupster]

Your times article didn't give any historical numbers, or mention % of FMG. Just the vague statement that IM and GS were the most competitive 25 years ago.

Mind clarifying what PM&R has in its wheelhouse that doesn't also fall under ortho or neuro (and could not be done by PT)? Not trolling, legitimately have no clue what you guys do. There will be interesting stuff in prosthetics in the future, but feel like that's more engineering.

I don't know...I'm doing derm...

 

[deleted103644]

I don't know...I'm doing derm...

Ah, okay. Enjoy caring about the difference between ointments, creams and lotions. Oh yeah, and all the Vaseline and lasers you could ask for!!! 😛

 

[pupster]

I've heard other people argue this before, but I'm not totally sure I believe it. I've been curious about this for a while, so I dug around a bit online.

Hard data is hard to come by; although the NRMP has reports dating back to 1986 on their website, dermatology only started to transition over to the match system in 1997 (before that, dermatology had its own "late match" that took place during the spring of your intern year). By the time all the programs had switched over to the match in 1998 (only 14 years ago, not a full 20), the percentage of unmatched US seniors applying to derm was 24.2% (second only to plastic surgery at 25%). For the sake of comparison, the percentage of unmatched US seniors applying to rad onc was just 2.7%, in rads 4.3%, and in ortho 20.7%.
http://www.nrmp.org/data/resultsanddata1998.pdf

Going back further, back in the 70's and 80's American residency programs began accepting significant numbers of FMGs. While it's fairly common to see (now middle aged/nearing retirement) 1st generation physicians from Asia and the Middle East in IM, rads, surgery, etc, I've noticed that they seem to be few and far between in dermatology.

Looking at the data, apparently in 1973, FMGs made up 28% of IM residents, 22% of plastic surgery residents, and only 8% of derm residents. In fact, derm consistently had a significantly lower proportion of FMG residents compared to other specialties for the next 11 years (which was all the data available in that paper ca. 1986).
"Dermatologists in the Year 2000: Will Supply Exceed Demand." Arch Dermatol -- June 1986

Interestingly, a couple of these articles from the 80's were predicting a massive oversupply of dermatologists by the late 90's, and were lamenting the fact that the specialty would no longer have a reputation of attracting the "best and the brightest" if the over-proliferation of new residency programs wasn't stopped. The article above ended with the following thought:

"One striking example of a professional group for which supply increased more rapidly than demand is doctors of philosophy in the humanities. Will dermatologists also be driving cabs in the year 2000?"

Anyways...back to the original topic...

There's an article by Frederick Malkinson (http://archderm.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/117/8/457) that outlines proposals for the first derm. match in 1969. In table 1, 185 positions were filled, 18 of those to FMGs and 167 to USMGs. There were 188 positions offered in total, which means that there were 3 positions that went unfilled.

So...basically, derm programs came into existence in the decade of the 1970s. So, by the 1980s, dermatology was a new field (which was formerly part of internal medicine) and nobody really thought much of it. It was not considered a hot field like it is today. Same thing with emergency medicine. That field was also a part of internal medicine and not a hot field until more recently. All these areas were part of internal medicine and due to the specialization of care (and now, of course, we're down to the doctor who specializes in the toenail of the left foot....I mean, now you have specialties within each specialty). You have less and less for the internist because of this specialization. So internists in academic centers are leading the way to creating a new role for the internist that is based more on process (managing quality of care) than on medical content. Same thing w/ dermatology now (Mohs, DermPath)....

Alas, I digress....

Anyway, my point was just to say that in 20 years, I'm humble enough to consider that another speciality such as PM&R that everyone scoffs at now may just be the new "dermatology." Especially w/ a growing geriatric population....

 

[Skinceutical]

There's an article by Frederick Malkinson (http://archderm.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/117/8/457) that outlines proposals for the first derm. match in 1969. In table 1, 185 positions were filled, 18 of those to FMGs and 167 to USMGs. There were 188 positions offered in total, which means that there were 3 positions that went unfilled.

That's still less than 10% FMGs, in an era when ~30% of all residency positions were taken by FMGs (see the chart attached, source: "Dermatologists in the Year 2000: Will Supply Exceed Demand." Arch Dermatol -- June 1986).

I think this has been a desirable field for longer than you give it credit.

 

[pupster]

That's still less than 10% FMGs, in an era when ~30% of all residency positions were taken by FMGs (see the chart attached, source: "Dermatologists in the Year 2000: Will Supply Exceed Demand." Arch Dermatol -- June 1986).

I think this has been a desirable field for longer than you give it credit.

Hmmm....my sense is that it was all about STDs for the longest time. Perhaps we should ask our attendings...heh! Anyway....back to Andrews :-/....

But before I go, I'd just add that I don't know if the < 10% FMGs going into derm at that time is indicative of the competitiveness. It could also be due to lack of interest/awareness about dermatology. Remember, it was a fairly new specialty, just like PM&R is now. I think what's more telling is the fact that derm (back then) didn't fill.

 

[Skinceutical]

Hmmm....my sense is that it was all about STDs for the longest time.

LOL. Now you're taking it back to the days of Hopital Saint Louis in Paris.

But before I go, I'd just add that I don't know if th < 10% FMGs going into derm at that time is indicative of the competitiveness. It could also be due to lack of interest/awareness about dermatology. Remember, it was a fairly new specialty, just like PM&R is now. I think what's more telling is the fact that derm (back then) didn't fill.

Like I said, I freely admit that I don't have comprehensive data to prove that derm has been competitive for the past few decades. However I think its generally well accepted that FMGs tend to congregate in less competitive specialties. Their relatively low historic representation in derm, while not definitive proof, certainly seems suggestive of the idea that the field was at least somewhat competitive back then too.

 

[farmadiazepine]

Eh...I wouldn't say that. I'd be willing to do a job I hated if I had 5 days off a week or something. In general, it's better to do something you enjoy, obviously, but if you get one of those once-in-a-lifetime opportunities, it might be worth eating the crap job, depending on where your priorities lie.

Being an MD is not a job, it is a lifestyle.

 

[auburnO5]

Being an MD is not a job, it is a lifestyle.

Pretty sure last time I checked it was a job...