- Joined
- May 26, 2012
- Messages
- 49
- Reaction score
- 0
Posted in another thread, but this should have been a separate, new thread. Here it is.
As a CA3, currently looking for jobs, it seems that the market (at least in my area) is GOOD but not great.
The super lucrative partnership track positions are seemingly being distributed very very cautiously by those lucrative groups/partners. Fellowships in such groups are probably going to be required.
That being said, I'm finding opportunities for new grads. I think the "norm" is going to be much different as many on this forum have echoed many times. Mid-range salaries (300-400) as partners are probably going to be much more common than ever before.
Some groups are offering employee positions in larger (more desirable?) cities which are actually pretty nice to start (300-350) etc.
Mediocre paying partnerships seem to be offering "typical" partnership buy ins of 250k or so with a 2 year track.
Given the uncertainty of our future earnings, it seems that being a partner is important. Sure, there are uncertainties and nobody has a crystal ball but my instinct is to take a 250k offer for future partnership earnings in the 300-400 range (with growth potential if you can grow the business) versus an employee job making perhaps more even.
I feel that a non-fellowship trained employee is much more vulnerable to whims of the "market" than a partner. Arguably, a non-fellowship trained partner is more secure than a fellowship employee. Many of the fellowship "requirements" are not legitimate in my opinion, but are being used as marketing tools or simple barriers to entry for most groups. You don't really need a peds fellowship to do general peds ENT stuff. B&B hearts at a small cardiac program? Not so much. Yet, it's true that some groups are using this as a barrier to partnership.
It seems that partners/owners control things. How many PP jobs are requiring fellowships when the senior partners don't have fellowships? Lots. A double standard? Yep, but if you're a partner it doesn't matter really does it? How many partnerships are offering "salary only" positions with virtual moratoriums on offering partnership tracks? Many, it seems.
What do you guys think? Is securing a partnership every more urgent/crucial than ever before? Securing them while they still exist, that is? (or being offered I should say).
I'm not seeing an end to partnership structures. But, it seems they are changing. Hiring CRNA's is becoming more common as are partnerships only offering employee positions, for example.
As a CA3, currently looking for jobs, it seems that the market (at least in my area) is GOOD but not great.
The super lucrative partnership track positions are seemingly being distributed very very cautiously by those lucrative groups/partners. Fellowships in such groups are probably going to be required.
That being said, I'm finding opportunities for new grads. I think the "norm" is going to be much different as many on this forum have echoed many times. Mid-range salaries (300-400) as partners are probably going to be much more common than ever before.
Some groups are offering employee positions in larger (more desirable?) cities which are actually pretty nice to start (300-350) etc.
Mediocre paying partnerships seem to be offering "typical" partnership buy ins of 250k or so with a 2 year track.
Given the uncertainty of our future earnings, it seems that being a partner is important. Sure, there are uncertainties and nobody has a crystal ball but my instinct is to take a 250k offer for future partnership earnings in the 300-400 range (with growth potential if you can grow the business) versus an employee job making perhaps more even.
I feel that a non-fellowship trained employee is much more vulnerable to whims of the "market" than a partner. Arguably, a non-fellowship trained partner is more secure than a fellowship employee. Many of the fellowship "requirements" are not legitimate in my opinion, but are being used as marketing tools or simple barriers to entry for most groups. You don't really need a peds fellowship to do general peds ENT stuff. B&B hearts at a small cardiac program? Not so much. Yet, it's true that some groups are using this as a barrier to partnership.
It seems that partners/owners control things. How many PP jobs are requiring fellowships when the senior partners don't have fellowships? Lots. A double standard? Yep, but if you're a partner it doesn't matter really does it? How many partnerships are offering "salary only" positions with virtual moratoriums on offering partnership tracks? Many, it seems.
What do you guys think? Is securing a partnership every more urgent/crucial than ever before? Securing them while they still exist, that is? (or being offered I should say).
I'm not seeing an end to partnership structures. But, it seems they are changing. Hiring CRNA's is becoming more common as are partnerships only offering employee positions, for example.