Interesting Job Market article

[veo1]

---

Members do not see this ad.

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n10/full/nbt.2706.html

I am in no way comparing our plight to that of newly minted PhDs but it appears as if new PhDs are flooding the market at a record pace. While grateful that our plight has not plummeted to these depths I think we can draw a lot of parallels to this phenomenon.

Tenured professors (in our case, older pathologists) are impossible to move out of their positions and leave new grads to fight for scraps in the job market. Meanwhile many in academia and private practice continue to reap the benefits of cheap labor in such a horrible market (e.g. PhD candidates, postdoc fellows, etc work for peanuts and keep the machine running analogous to residents/fellows in our situation) with no regard for what the job market can actually accomodate. I think this is an impossible task for them to tackle as there is no central body to control such forces. We are in a slightly better situation and can make appropriate changes if the right people get on board.

The fact that this article was published in Nature shows that higher ups have acknowledged the above mentioned problems. They are not simply sweeping this under the rug as so many in our profession are doing. The data presented are staggering. The graphical representation of these data are downright scary. Thankfully our situation is not this extreme but I think it is a reasonable comparison.

I wish we could see a similar study for our profession instead of these hundreds upon thousands of useless research projects and bogus papers on random IHC markers presented at CAP or USCAP. I've been highly critical of the way our leadership have handled the situation but am willing to accept the opposing viewpoint if I see hard numbers based on current supply and demand in the job market articles that aren't based on a projected shortage. Any thoughts?

 

[pathstudent]

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n10/full/nbt.2706.html

I am in no way comparing our plight to that of newly minted PhDs but it appears as if new PhDs are flooding the market at a record pace. While grateful that our plight has not plummeted to these depths I think we can draw a lot of parallels to this phenomenon.

Tenured professors (in our case, older pathologists) are impossible to move out of their positions and leave new grads to fight for scraps in the job market. Meanwhile many in academia and private practice continue to reap the benefits of cheap labor in such a horrible market (e.g. PhD candidates, postdoc fellows, etc work for peanuts and keep the machine running analogous to residents/fellows in our situation) with no regard for what the job market can actually accomodate. I think this is an impossible task for them to tackle as there is no central body to control such forces. We are in a slightly better situation and can make appropriate changes if the right people get on board.

The fact that this article was published in Nature shows that higher ups have acknowledged the above mentioned problems. They are not simply sweeping this under the rug as so many in our profession are doing. The data presented are staggering. The graphical representation of these data are downright scary. Thankfully our situation is not this extreme but I think it is a reasonable comparison.

I wish we could see a similar study for our profession instead of these hundreds upon thousands of useless research projects and bogus papers on random IHC markers presented at CAP or USCAP. I've been highly critical of the way our leadership have handled the situation but am willing to accept the opposing viewpoint if I see hard numbers based on current supply and demand in the job market articles that aren't based on a projected shortage. Any thoughts?

The PhD academic job shortage has been a disaster for a couple decades. It first started with the humanities, then all the cold war money dried up and finally started to hit the pure sciences in the 90s. Now it sounds like it is hitting the more applicable industry cross-over PhDs.

I was smart enough to drop out of my pure science PhD program after a few years and go for an MD as I saw the guys finishing at my program not getting any faculty positions over a 3 year period. Of course we are just talking about a handful of people but they were just kept arounds as instructors teaching the basic courses.

 

[malchik]

What do you have against Chelski?

The PhD/postdoc market is certainly flooded, and I agree there are analogies to our field as there is an incentive to increase trainees and no source of downward pressure on training programs to decrease. So what would a similar graph look like in pathology? Surely the numbers are available?

 

[veo1]

What do you have against Chelski?

The PhD/postdoc market is certainly flooded, and I agree there are analogies to our field as there is an incentive to increase trainees and no source of downward pressure on training programs to decrease. So what would a similar graph look like in pathology? Surely the numbers are available?

What is there to like about Chelski? haha

 

[Anfield rd]

What is there to like about Chelski? haha

Dr. Eva Carneiro

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...a=X&ei=ITJgUv6cB8WK2wXEiIHYAw&ved=0CC0Q9QEwAA

https://www.google.com/search?q=che...%2Fconheca-a-doutora-eva-carneiro%2F;800;1105

 

[veo1]

Dr. Eva Carneiro

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...a=X&ei=ITJgUv6cB8WK2wXEiIHYAw&ved=0CC0Q9QEwAA

https://www.google.com/search?q=che...%2Fconheca-a-doutora-eva-carneiro%2F;800;1105

Scouser I presume?

 

[gbwillner]

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n10/full/nbt.2706.html

I am in no way comparing our plight to that of newly minted PhDs but it appears as if new PhDs are flooding the market at a record pace. While grateful that our plight has not plummeted to these depths I think we can draw a lot of parallels to this phenomenon.

Tenured professors (in our case, older pathologists) are impossible to move out of their positions and leave new grads to fight for scraps in the job market. Meanwhile many in academia and private practice continue to reap the benefits of cheap labor in such a horrible market (e.g. PhD candidates, postdoc fellows, etc work for peanuts and keep the machine running analogous to residents/fellows in our situation) with no regard for what the job market can actually accomodate. I think this is an impossible task for them to tackle as there is no central body to control such forces. We are in a slightly better situation and can make appropriate changes if the right people get on board.

The fact that this article was published in Nature shows that higher ups have acknowledged the above mentioned problems. They are not simply sweeping this under the rug as so many in our profession are doing. The data presented are staggering. The graphical representation of these data are downright scary. Thankfully our situation is not this extreme but I think it is a reasonable comparison.

I wish we could see a similar study for our profession instead of these hundreds upon thousands of useless research projects and bogus papers on random IHC markers presented at CAP or USCAP. I've been highly critical of the way our leadership have handled the situation but am willing to accept the opposing viewpoint if I see hard numbers based on current supply and demand in the job market articles that aren't based on a projected shortage. Any thoughts?

While there are certain parallels between the PhDs and our current pathology market perceptions there are far more differences. I have both an MD and PhD and have seen both firsthand and though my numerous colleagues.

First off, as you can see from the graph, there are more PhD positions created and more minted than there are academic positions for these individuals. The difference is quite staggering, and has been true for decades. This is tolerated because a majority of PhD recipients do not plan on becoming academic faculty. It's not that they try to get a job but cannot- a majority of PhD recipients have NO INTENTION of running labs or joining the faculty. Many in the biologic and physical sciences go into the private sector including industry. On the other hand, a vast majority of doctors who enter pathology training actually wish to pursue a job as a pathologist.

Second- while more PhDs are being granted every year according to the graph, the problem is a cumulative effect of the number of academic positions remaining more or less stable. The number of PhDs per year is actually pretty stable. This is going to reverse shortly as fewer people will seek PhDs. We are already starting to see this on the demand side- as training grants are becoming more scarce, there are fewer people being admitted to graduate school. This will lead to a correction in the near future. However, despite the gaudy numbers in the graph, the problem is really overblown here as again, it is not the desire of every PhD student to acquire an academic position. This is not reflected yet on the graph because the effect of fewer students today won't show up for another 5 years on graduation plots.

Third, While the pathology market is "tight" based on anecdotal reports, there is no hard data, as far as I am aware, that there are more pathologists created than there are jobs available. I've said it a hundred times on this board- I simply don't know any pathologist who is unemployed. You can talk about "underemployed" or whatever. Maybe reducing training positions improves demand- this is not the issue here. The course for a PhD who DOES want to join academia is FAR more tenuous. It used to be you graduated with a PhD and you were a primary investigator. Now you have to do one or more post-docs, because you need to get in line. And the funding situation is so bad that your chances of keeping your job for more than 5 years are getting abysmal. This has also lead to many reconsidering their career choice. Even after the post-docs, few actually make it.

Finally, the differences in the causes of these issues is indeed different. PhD students in general are paid for via training grants. Better institutions have their grants reviewed and awarded. They can ask for more money, and usually do. The students become cheap labor for basic science labs, so there is always incentive to ask for more money to train more students, I get that. But this isn't reality in pathology residency. First off, residency positions are not paid for by training grants. There is a fixed pot of money for residents from Medicare. How this is broken up depends on a lot of factors. But if University X wants an additional residency spot, typically that means University Y will get one less. Furthermore, each professional organization lobbies for the number of residency positions they want and can support. If you notice, there really hasn't been a noticeable increase in the number of pathology positions in the recent past. As pathologists, we are in a much better position to fix this problem, because if indeed it appears that there are newly minted pathologists that have no work, then pathology as a whole can reduce the number of positions to remedy this problem. This has happened many times to many different medical specialties, most noticeably Rads like 5 years ago. This may in fact happen if it turns out that the market turns south. Yes, training programs have incentive for cheap resident labor just like the PhD counterparts, but they cannot just add spots and any additional spots granted come at the expense of other programs or other specialties.

 

[LADoc00]

That figure is INCREDIBLE. Can that actually be true?

Im mean seriously, in 2006 there was less than perhaps 10-20,000 PhDs needed for teaching yet we graduated over 600,000?!

 

[Substance]

While there are certain parallels between the PhDs and our current pathology market perceptions there are far more differences. I have both an MD and PhD and have seen both firsthand and though my numerous colleagues.

First off, as you can see from the graph, there are more PhD positions created and more minted than there are academic positions for these individuals. The difference is quite staggering, and has been true for decades. This is tolerated because a majority of PhD recipients do not plan on becoming academic faculty. It's not that they try to get a job but cannot- a majority of PhD recipients have NO INTENTION of running labs or joining the faculty. Many in the biologic and physical sciences go into the private sector including industry. On the other hand, a vast majority of doctors who enter pathology training actually wish to pursue a job as a pathologist.

Second- while more PhDs are being granted every year according to the graph, the problem is a cumulative effect of the number of academic positions remaining more or less stable. The number of PhDs per year is actually pretty stable. This is going to reverse shortly as fewer people will seek PhDs. We are already starting to see this on the demand side- as training grants are becoming more scarce, there are fewer people being admitted to graduate school. This will lead to a correction in the near future. However, despite the gaudy numbers in the graph, the problem is really overblown here as again, it is not the desire of every PhD student to acquire an academic position. This is not reflected yet on the graph because the effect of fewer students today won't show up for another 5 years on graduation plots.

Third, While the pathology market is "tight" based on anecdotal reports, there is no hard data, as far as I am aware, that there are more pathologists created than there are jobs available. I've said it a hundred times on this board- I simply don't know any pathologist who is unemployed. You can talk about "underemployed" or whatever. Maybe reducing training positions improves demand- this is not the issue here. The course for a PhD who DOES want to join academia is FAR more tenuous. It used to be you graduated with a PhD and you were a primary investigator. Now you have to do one or more post-docs, because you need to get in line. And the funding situation is so bad that your chances of keeping your job for more than 5 years are getting abysmal. This has also lead to many reconsidering their career choice. Even after the post-docs, few actually make it.

Finally, the differences in the causes of these issues is indeed different. PhD students in general are paid for via training grants. Better institutions have their grants reviewed and awarded. They can ask for more money, and usually do. The students become cheap labor for basic science labs, so there is always incentive to ask for more money to train more students, I get that. But this isn't reality in pathology residency. First off, residency positions are not paid for by training grants. There is a fixed pot of money for residents from Medicare. How this is broken up depends on a lot of factors. But if University X wants an additional residency spot, typically that means University Y will get one less. Furthermore, each professional organization lobbies for the number of residency positions they want and can support. If you notice, there really hasn't been a noticeable increase in the number of pathology positions in the recent past. As pathologists, we are in a much better position to fix this problem, because if indeed it appears that there are newly minted pathologists that have no work, then pathology as a whole can reduce the number of positions to remedy this problem. This has happened many times to many different medical specialties, most noticeably Rads like 5 years ago. This may in fact happen if it turns out that the market turns south. Yes, training programs have incentive for cheap resident labor just like the PhD counterparts, but they cannot just add spots and any additional spots granted come at the expense of other programs or other specialties.

Your analysis is quite good.

I would like to see the graph taking into account those that are vying for academic positions compared to availability.

I would also like to see data comparing industry positions with graduating PhDs.

Something tells me that, in both cases, there is an oversupply of PhDs.

Furthermore, in regards to the pathology job market, the issue is not unemployed pathologists. The issue appears to be underemployed pathologists, meaning those in positions that are unbecoming of their stature, training, and impact on patient care as compared to their specialist physician peers.

Getting a job at a podlab is a job, but it is not one worthy of the training of a physician, in my opinion. One may call this an attitude of entitlement, but I disagree with that. It is having appropriately high standards, and to admit that a podlab job is "good enough" is to devalue your own work and the work of your field, which is not a wise move. With that being said, I would love to see the proportion of available and existing jobs for pathologists that are PP, academic, corporate, and podlab, and compare those to the graduating cohort and those looking for work. Just a simple number-by-number comparison, without any "forecasting".

Radiologists face a similar fight with nighthwaking and telerads outfits, and admit that these are terrible jobs, often blacklisting those that agree to take on work with them. The current and pending oversupply of radiologists is but a sequel to the happenings in pathology. Cries of shortage trumpet loud, out of the mouths of academics who want call drones and executives who want cheap employees.

This is all very important because your field has a recruitment problem. In Canada it is dead last in terms of competitiveness - even family medicine is more competitive. Smart medical students are avoiding it, and you're having to settle for FMGs of varying quality and usually low ambition. Given that, compared to every other field in medicine, pathology does not offer a reward on par with other fields(namely, well-paid available dignified work), students opt to go elsewhere. Radiology is beginning to see declining interest due to the mismanagement of training positions.

Furthermore, though I assume Dr. Remick has nothing but the best intentions, most of the positions he lists on this website are lab director positions, which are generally unavailable to newly-graduated pathologists.

 

[gbwillner]

Something tells me that, in both cases, there is an oversupply of PhDs.

I don't think ANYONE would dispute that. It is basically fact at this point. People who want to stay in science cannot because of the poor funding situation and lack of jobs. My point is that the gaudy numbers are off- this is a relatively recent phenomenon and the numbers fail to reflect that most in grad school just burn out. But those that don't are still screwed.

Furthermore, though I assume Dr. Remick has nothing but the best intentions, most of the positions he lists on this website are lab director positions, which are generally unavailable to newly-graduated pathologists.

As an academic, I suspect the positions he posts will be biased to what is available to him- namely academic positions. Why would someone in a cushy private practice in Alabama send Dr. Remick an ad posting for a position? If anything, it should be learned from this board that pathologists who get good private practice jobs don't do so through job postings. That's probably the best thing someone can get from these posts- go out there and make connections- though alumni or at meetings or through personal contact. For us academic types, there are much more opportunities so it really doesn't compare.

 

[veo1]

Your analysis is quite good.

Radiologists face a similar fight with nighthwaking and telerads outfits, and admit that these are terrible jobs, often blacklisting those that agree to take on work with them. The current and pending oversupply of radiologists is but a sequel to the happenings in pathology. Cries of shortage trumpet loud, out of the mouths of academics who want call drones and executives who want cheap employees.

I, too, also appreciate your analysis gbwillner. Substance I think you hit the nail on the head with this statement. I think overtraining definitely works in the benefits of academic programs in pathology who get cheap labor, drones for cutting frozens, grossing, research projects, etc. and works against us outside of academia as well. Employers (whether private practice, large reference labs, or podlabs) are using the oversupply to their advantage as they know so many will accept a lowball offer just to have a job or avoid doing another fellowship.

gbwillner, thanks for the insight into the differences between our market and the PhD market

 

[yaah]

The other disturbing related issue is that of "adjunct" faculty and such - a lot of the teaching now is being done by very poorly-paid (like $10-$20k per year full time) adjunct faculty. It perpetuates the system.

 

[malchik]

The difference is quite staggering, and has been true for decades. This is tolerated because a majority of PhD recipients do not plan on becoming academic faculty. It's not that they try to get a job but cannot- a majority of PhD recipients have NO INTENTION of running labs or joining the faculty.

Well, they have no intention of running labs AFTER being in grad school a few years and seeing the ridiculous odds of success! I think a more important reason the PhD job market is tolerated, and another major difference with pathology, is that PhD students are paid to be students and have not gone to professional school to the tune of 250k in debt. It is easier for the milennial hipster to wander into grad school for a few years and then shifting careers to become a mushroom farmer without the med school investment.

 

[BU Pathology]

Furthermore, though I assume Dr. Remick has nothing but the best intentions, most of the positions he lists on this website are lab director positions, which are generally unavailable to newly-graduated pathologists.[/QUOTE]

Of course I have the best of intentions. Basically I post the "cold call" recruiting emails.

 

[Dr.Tao]

I was smart enough to drop out of my pure science PhD program after a few years and go for an MD as I saw the guys finishing at my program not getting any faculty positions over a 3 year period. Of course we are just talking about a handful of people but they were just kept arounds as instructors teaching the basic courses.

+1

And let's not forget the negative impact of H1-B Visa status option on the PhD job market.

 

[dermpathdoc]

One institution in the south had a novel way of getting rid of tenured professors that were no longer actively contributing to the institution and whose grants for research were dwindling or gone. They slashed salary to $1 per year. Told them they would still have an office and could come to work and still teach. Needless to say all left soon. My friend didn't tell me how long it took those tenured people to see the light. But the institution faculty council later rescinded the policy of tenuring professors. Not that this has anything to do with the supply of pathologists. BUT if someone really wanted it get rid of those in a Pathology group that wouldn't retire...well

 

[Johnny Sunshine]

Some places may make attractive retirement package offers, in an attempt to push out the old and get some fresh blood. This may cost them some "ouchie" funds upfront, but after a few years should be worth it as they've replaced a senior member with a cheaper face.

Of course, if the new face is too fresh, they may then regret losing the senior member's experience and knowledge...

 

[LADoc00]

One institution in the south had a novel way of getting rid of tenured professors that were no longer actively contributing to the institution and whose grants for research were dwindling or gone. They slashed salary to $1 per year. Told them they would still have an office and could come to work and still teach. Needless to say all left soon. My friend didn't tell me how long it took those tenured people to see the light. But the institution faculty council later rescinded the policy of tenuring professors. Not that this has anything to do with the supply of pathologists. BUT if someone really wanted it get rid of those in a Pathology group that wouldn't retire...well

There was a guy I know, no clue if he is still employed or what: Tenured full professor at highly prestigious university. CP boarded only. RO1 Research Lab was closed a decade before. Didnt teach. Took CP call one week every 10. That is just call by the way, he couldnt even SO a marrow if there was a gun to his head.

His office was dark when I stepped in and it appeared he was either a hoader or a compulsive scrapbooker because there was random nonsensical stacks of old articles (newspaper and sci pubs) EVERYWHERE. His office was in a non-University business park like wayyyy off campus (and this campus is immense..and he was still off campus).

I had visited him because for 5 consecutive days he had not responded to either an office phone call or a page while he was on with me. Apparently his landline had been disconnected years ago. He reached up to a high shelf to get a dusty box and pulled out something that could only be decribed a oversized walkie talkie and told me this was the original paging device from like the Stone Age and it "acted up on occasion".

Horrified, I left realizing he had literally nothing to contribute to my residency experience of being on CP call but was intrigued he had literally spent a decade or more off the radar while collecting a paycheck for essentially nothing...

 

[Thrombus]

There was a guy I know, no clue if he is still employed or what: Tenured full professor at highly prestigious university. CP boarded only. RO1 Research Lab was closed a decade before. Didnt teach. Took CP call one week every 10. That is just call by the way, he couldnt even SO a marrow if there was a gun to his head.

His office was dark when I stepped in and it appeared he was either a hoader or a compulsive scrapbooker because there was random nonsensical stacks of old articles (newspaper and sci pubs) EVERYWHERE. His office was in a non-University business park like wayyyy off campus (and this campus is immense..and he was still off campus).

I had visited him because for 5 consecutive days he had not responded to either an office phone call or a page while he was on with me. Apparently his landline had been disconnected years ago. He reached up to a high shelf to get a dusty box and pulled out something that could only be decribed a oversized walkie talkie and told me this was the original paging device from like the Stone Age and it "acted up on occasion".

Horrified, I left realizing he had literally nothing to contribute to my residency experience of being on CP call but was intrigued he had literally spent a decade or more off the radar while collecting a paycheck for essentially nothing...

🤣🤣

If I was in CP, this would be my plan. Probably could find similar folks "working" in CP across the country doing this for 200K or so.