job market

[MedGeek42]

I've heard the job market in path is terrible right now. I'm curious about the field but am hesitant...how far up the residency 'food chain' do I have to go before I can find a job?
Sure, do what you love and all that, but if you don't find a job you still won't be doing what you love.

Also, to take another largely diagnositc specialty, radiology will be devastated in a few years by outsourcing to India. Could this happen to path? (ie, could you digitize slides and send them to India, or are there real technical difficulties with this?)

 

[yaah]

There are no less than 5 topics posted in this forum in the last year-year and a half, I shall not go into the details here, but the truth is that there are jobs now and there will continue to be for the foreseeable future. It is somewhat hard to predict because pathologists are notorious for working until they die, and in some cases, probably death does not even stop them. I think, as with everything else, the likely way that jobs are going is towards specialization - a well rounded person will likely get a job but a well-rounded person who has extra training in something else will be more of a hot commodity.

I don't know what to think about outsourcing. I have seen demonstrations of technology that allows for entire slides to be computerized and transmitted over the web, making remote diagnosis possible. However, while Americans can handle having their AOL questions answered by workers in India, and perhaps even handle a preliminary reading on a head CT by someone in Australia, Americans will want other Americans to have the final say. Maybe I am wrong. The almighty dollar is a powerful factor.

In short, pathology isn't going anywhere. The world of molecular pathology will probably become more and more important every year as technology improves and diagnosis is more affected by DNA markers, rearrangements, etc. Histologic slides may become less important, but are not likely to disappear or even decrease much. The histologic slide is often the "final" word for a patient that has gone through innumerable lab tests, radiographic studies, and clinical tests, and that probably won't change. Certain things like immunohistochemistry are also likely to be more important as a diagnosis of "Prostate Carcinoma," for example becomes less important than the genetic markers the tumor expresses and that may guide treatment. Don't forget, the best predictor of an actual diagnosis is usually the histologic diagnosis, and not lab values or other tests which may suggest a diagnosis, but not confirm it.

I am enough of a pessimist that I could probably talk you out of any specialty with enough foreboding of its uncertain future. I may be biased, but pathologists are and will continue to be a vital part of the chain of diagnosis and treatment.

 

[Forensics]

Way to go Yaah!
In fact, in trying to predict the future of medical practice, without bias, if any practice will last a lifetime (till the end of the world-not that I believe in it) it will be Pathology and any other specialty that will be carved out of it. This is the only place that people will keep coming back to when the chips are down. Think about it, if there are no more internist or surgeons, say, and granted there are still diseases plaguing mankind, somebody has to say what it is. Whoelse but a pathologist. They have the final say, believe it or not. And the real final say (autopsies).
I am interested in many of the advances that are coming in but one common denominator is that diagnoses has to be confirmed somehow and someone has to take charge of that. Whoelse but the pathologist. That's all folks!

 

[atropinedoc]

I agree with everything what Yaah said ,especially about pathologists working until they die. I think they should retire at 65, so new pathologists can find jobs. And, Yahh after you get matched I hope you will find the time to visit the path forum to answer our questions. GOOD LUCK.

 

[yaah]

That's IF I match! Since I am a New Englander I am self-deprecating, self-conscious and a pessimist by nature. I am proud of my accomplishments but of course worry about things. I will always have time to waste on computers so I will be around. I like reading forums like this, kind of interesting.

I have yet to talk to anyone, outside of people who think pathology is only doing autopsies, who thinks pathology is in trouble as a specialty over the next many years. So don't worry. And don't forget also that while pathology is getting more competitive, it's all still relative. Derm programs can get >1000 applications for 2 spots. There will still be (I think) fewer US grad applications than actual positions in the match.

Does anyone else ever wonder about robots or computers taking over the jobs of certain fields in medicine? Robots are taking over the world - you can go to the supermarket, get gas, get a carwash, buy a movie ticket, go shopping online, etc, all without ever having to talk to a person. Will you go to the doctor one day, input your symptoms, your history, have vital signs checked, full-body scanned, and be given a diagnosis by a robot? Perhaps. I don't think robots do too well with pathology though. It doesn't fit patterns very well. They might have trouble telling the difference between dysplasia and cancer. I'm betting the robot would tell you that you have a mass that needs to be biopsied, do that biopsy, and tell you that a pathologist would have to review the results. So, in my logic and reasoning, you better do pathology or you'll be replaced by a robot, who incidently would probably have better bedside manner (and common sense) than a lot of the docs I meet. And it would wash its hands. And be on time.

The robots can handle the blood banking, though.
And the pap smears.

 

[Primate]

Yaah,

You're a wicked pissah postah. Not only do you have the NE gestalt nailed, I get a kick out of many of your posts.

Thanks man.

That is all,
P

(not on topic, but I'm still laughing about the type A and type B pathologist at a scope together)

 

[Stinger86]

Originally posted by yaah
I don't think robots do too well with pathology though. It doesn't fit patterns very well. They might have trouble telling the difference between dysplasia and cancer. I'm betting the robot would tell you that you have a mass that needs to be biopsied, do that biopsy, and tell you that a pathologist would have to review the results.

The pathologist would review the slide and type the findings into the computer so it can come up with a diagnosis. Kind of funny when you picture it, but given the situation, at least that doctor would have a job! 🙂