Job Market Data

[yaah]

That does make sense, I wasn't calling you sleazy, I was referring to groups that hire young people into their group and maybe after 8 years will call them "junior partner" which basically means they still work really hard, get paid decently but still well under the "senior partner" level. Now, I suppose many would not really consider that sleazy either, but it's a little suspect. But sometimes it seems as thought the point of becoming a "senior partner" in certain suspect groups is so you can do less work while others do the reimbursable stuff for you and you collect. Similarly are groups whose retired pathologists continue to collect income even though they are no longer working.

Physician education as to business aspects is somewhat related but basically a different story. While I agree with you that you don't need to bring up those business aspects to a new hire who doesn't express interest, my point is that many groups will specifically look for people who are interested in this, so that they can work with them on how to improve. This training wouldn't happen in the first few weeks, but over the first few years. I agree though, when you first start in a job, you have enough on your plate to worry about without trying to learn everything about the practice.

What I was referring to was more the groups who do not hire someone with the anticipation that one day that person could take over the group and learn the business aspects or otherwise contribute solidly to its growth (in some fashion). Not everyone is interested in the same things, but you can contribute to growth even if you know nothing about economic policy and billing oddities.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[sirus_virus]

The latest ASCP Job Market Survey is out.
see: http://www.ascp.org/pdf/ResidentCouncilFellowshipJobMarketSurvey.aspx
I am somewhat baffled that a job market in which more than half of new pathologists have starting salaries under $150,000 per year can be classified as "continues to improve". I am also struck by 20% having starting salaries under 100K.

"The job market continues to improve, and fellowship opportunities remain competitive. Of residents and fellows applying for jobs, 85% received job offers"

Here is my own barbershop analysis of the job market based on this article: If unemployment in the U.S stands at 6.8% and pathologists have 15% of applicants unable to find a job, then pathologists have more than twice as bad an employment outlook than the rest of the country. Does not sound good IMO.

 

[Path or bust]

Does not sound good IMO.

Well that depends. Were you expecting 100%?

There are many variables that are not included. For example, how many jobs did those included in the 15% apply to. One, two? Where they private practice, academics, congested metropolitan areas?

 

[yaah]

"The job market continues to improve, and fellowship opportunities remain competitive. Of residents and fellows applying for jobs, 85% received job offers"

Here is my own barbershop analysis of the job market based on this article: If unemployment in the U.S stands at 6.8% and pathologists have 15% of applicants unable to find a job, then pathologists have more than twice as bad an employment outlook than the rest of the country. Does not sound good IMO.

I would love to see a thorough analysis of the 15% unsuccessful applicants to see what factors are at play. From what I can tell, a lot of the unsuccessful component comes from narrowing one's job search to a specific geographic area (+/- a specific practice type) which can limit your options depending on your qualifications and your luck of timing. That doesn't explain everything, obviously.

 

[LADoc00]

"The job market continues to improve, and fellowship opportunities remain competitive. Of residents and fellows applying for jobs, 85% received job offers"

Here is my own barbershop analysis of the job market based on this article: If unemployment in the U.S stands at 6.8% and pathologists have 15% of applicants unable to find a job, then pathologists have more than twice as bad an employment outlook than the rest of the country. Does not sound good IMO.

QFT. If the US at large had 15% unemployment ALL HELL WOULD BREAK LOOSE. You would have TRILLION dollar bailouts, not billion dollar ones.

In the late 90s, unemployment in Pathology was a staggering 25-30%...Greater than the rate at the very height of the Great Depression.

Where is the concern? Where were/are the mf'ing bailouts for pathology residents??

Anyone overjoyed at a mere 15% unemployment rate needs to seriously CHECK THEMSELVES.

Step 1: Replace the entire ABP leadership, every person, every secretary.
Step 2: Step in and close 50% of all pathology residency programs.
Step 3: Of those programs that remain, cut 50% of all new spots.
Step 4: Start decomissioning fellowship slots, decrease the overall length of time people are spending in training by at least a year.
Step 5: Cut NP to 1 year. If you dont see enough neuro in 1 year, then the program should close down.
Step 6: Ensure the pass rates for boards is comparable to other specialities like rads and derm. Currently its not.
Step 7: Your end goal is unemployment at the end of residency of less than 1%, or roughly equivalent to other prized subspec fields. End of story, ABP must accomplish this AT ALL COSTS. There is no reason unemployment should be 2x greater than those people without high school degrees putting up dry wall or slinging espressos.

 

[yaah]

Where is the concern? Where were/are the mf'ing bailouts for pathology residents??

I think the lack of concern comes mostly from the fact that quality residents seem to have very little trouble finding jobs, and when trouble happens it's because of an inability or unwillingness to compromise on certain desired characteristics of a job. It's a very tiered job market. I knew a graduating fellow last year who had 16 job offers.

Obviously though a weakness in part of the job market affects everyone to some extent. But a lot of people look at things from an "I've got mine" kind of perspective, and they really don't want to spend any of their time worrying about things that they think don't matter to them (even if they do matter to them without their knowledge).

Here's the thing though - how are you going to convince ABP members or residency programs of the validity of your argument that programs need to be closed, slots need to be eliminated, etc? They will just respond with evidence that says demand is going up and spots at the very least need to be maintained at their current levels, if not increased. You can't respond to arguments like this with "sky is falling" comments - they don't buy it. I would wager that the ABP and others believe the 15% who can't find a job all have a major limiting factor in their application, many of them even voluntary, that prevents them from acquiring a job.