I totally agree...with some caveats. These may not even be applicable any more.
1. Elite academic places are effective at cultural messaging. You are made to feel like a bit of a loser if you don't continue in academics (although maybe a fair number of people have come to terms with the bargain of remaining in academics while functionally being a community doc in an extended network...I'm sure plenty of people believe these networks are our future).
2. If you went to Harvard (or similar) for med school (even more true for undergraduate), it rarely (not always) matters if you grew up in the Southern Tier of NY state or rural Missouri. You are not going back. Now if you went to a decent state school and worked your way to an elite training program...it's different. This is one of several areas where the absurd competitiveness of peak radonc has done damage. The geographic and undergraduate educational diversity of residents decreased at top places as "meritocracy" got out of hand.
I think the sum experience of life helps mold where you want to go. You grew up some where, went to the state school, trained in state...different than getting a whiff of Boston and high end academic culture and elite East Coast living,
(Regarding IMGs, location of training likely very important regarding distribution of long term employment).
I'm all for provincialism.
I don't think those are caveats haha - I think those are some of the core problems which I feel are unsolvable and, ultimately, why I feel maldistribution in medicine (RadOnc or otherwise) is unsolvable.
You're perfectly describing my own experience and why I know I'm "odd" (I know I'm odd for like, a TON of reasons, but...pertinent to this discussion).
1) I'm an MD-PhD with an "elite" pedigree. The cultural messaging was absolutely brutal, oppressive, crushing, basically - all the adjectives you can imagine. We all know this, of course.
To recognize that I had been lied to about academia being a truth-seeking meritocracy focused on improving human health, and was rather a bunch of egotistical middle schoolers thinking they were playing 4D chess by sending passive aggressive emails, and I would not be happy spending my life playing those games with these people...that was hard.
Deciding that I would be happier focusing on patient care - and then successfully executing a plan to have such a career - was harder.
2) I am fortunate enough to have quirky interests where I can live in fun cities and all their resources for many years, then return to an area where there isn't even a movie theater and still be fine with it.
At the end of the day, the extremely convoluted 15-year path that brought me back to an area with limited resources is not something I can replicate in a sort of "protocol to fix maldistribution".
Which is why I like virtual supervision, which I never expected to be "controversial" but clearly, as we see here on SDN, it deeply touches a nerve for people.
Yes, there are dangers. Of course it can be exploited. But it's also the only hope I see as we become an population with a predominantly elderly demographic to help provide medical care in places that will only struggle more and more as the years go on.
But...none of this is black and white. I wish I had better answers.