Nearly half of hem.paths did NOT get a job!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
KluverB said:
Maybe because one-quarter did not even apply for one?
Click to expand...

Important to note that of hemepath fellows who reported not having a job offer, 61% had been looking for less than a month and 75% less than 3. The bulk of the sample population just started looking. Also important to note that of the hemepath population that received a job offer, 73% received the offer in 6 months of less of searching.

There is a more than minor population of fellows not receiving job offers in a timely fashion. That much is known. Whether this is because the jobs aren't there, or these fellows just keep floating from fellowship to fellowship, I don't know. Probably a combination of both.
 
rollwithit said:
61% had been looking for less than a month
Click to expand...

What?!?!?!?! No wonder they didn't get a job. You got to always be looking from day #1 of residency.

A - B - JH

A - Always

B- Be

JH - Job hunting
 
When was the survey conducted? If it was early in the year then it's kind of meaningless, all it means is that people aren't getting jobs early in the year. That has always been true - some people get them early but many don't. I agree you need to start looking and investigating early but most jobs aren't going to start offering that far in advance.
 
That's pretty demoralizing.

After 4 years of college, 4 years of med school, 4 years of residency training and then fellowship training, you only have 50% chance of getting a job.

Thrombus said:
ASCP job survey just out.

Dismal!!!!


👎thumbdown👎thumbdown

What is the soothsayer's spin now?????:laugh::laugh::laugh:
Click to expand...
 
scienceguy19 said:
That's pretty demoralizing.

After 4 years of college, 4 years of med school, 4 years of residency training and then fellowship training, you only have 50% chance of getting a job.
Click to expand...

If that's how you interpret that survey after 12 years of higher education and training, you probably don't deserve a job.
 
2121115 said:
What?!?!?!?! No wonder they didn't get a job. You got to always be looking from day #1 of residency.

A - B - JH

A - Always

B- Be

JH - Job hunting
Click to expand...

Really? How many other medical specialties that have gone through this much training have to do this amount of job hunting. Plus, what GOOD pathology group is going to field a call from a first year resident and say . . . oh yeah I remember you. We have been holding this spot for you for five years b/c there haven't been any other pathology grads who were any good. This is bad advice. Doesn't work. If the group is any good, and they need to fill a spot, they have about 50 eager, decent pathology grads each year to choose. Groups are scared to advertise b/c they know they will get hundreds of replies.
 
Most jobs in pathology are word of mouth. An old buddy calls you and says someone is finally retiring and they need some coverage. There is little need to advertise and I am sure it would generate hundreds of applications.

If you went into pathology thinking you would be heavily recruited, you were wrong.
 
WEBB PINKERTON said:
If you went into pathology thinking you would be heavily recruited, you were wrong.
Click to expand...
Maybe not "heavily recruited", but I was led to expect my application would be looked upon with more interest than an application to work at Wendy's.

The field over-represents itself. I can only surmise that most pathologists do this out of some desperate need to console themselves that "it's not that bad".
 
Any specialty that is behind the scenes, namely pathology and radiology, need to keep their numbers scarce to maintain their professional stature and therefore quality. Otherwise they become nameless commodities whereby the only thing differing one provider from another is cost.

Medical students spurn pathology, and are starting to spurn radiology because of this.

The problem is that it has been this way for so long in your field - unfilled spots being snatched up by IMGs, many of whom are severely questionable - that your field's reputation is that of poor communicators and underqualified practitioners, not intelligent physicians, and it is the status quo for pathology to be so marginalized. Since labcorps don't care as long as they have bodies to do the work, and academics don't care as long as they have someone to gross and write papers, they ensure that the supply keeps coming by playing prominent roles in your professional organizations, coming up with flawed studies warning of an impending shortage that will never come.

It is incredibly disingenuous for academic physicians to mislead students into choosing a field that faces employment and professional challenges using data that are so flawed that it becomes obvious that the academic had not scrutinized the data with diligence.

Radiology is becoming this way slowly, with massive cuts, the "alternative" pathway, and big radiology companies flying in to pick the meat from the bones of dead contracts. Lo and behold, applications are going down.
 
Substance said:
The problem is that it has been this way for so long in your field - unfilled spots being snatched up by IMGs, many of whom are severely questionable - that your field's reputation is that of poor communicators and underqualified practitioners, not intelligent physicians, and it is the status quo for pathology to be so marginalized. Since labcorps don't care as long as they have bodies to do the work, and academics don't care as long as they have someone to gross and write papers, they ensure that the supply keeps coming by playing prominent roles in your professional organizations, coming up with flawed studies warning of an impending shortage that will never come.
Click to expand...

This is not true everywhere. There are many institutions for which the pathologists are greatly respected and equal members of the medical staff. The field's "reputation" varies mostly depending on the quality of local pathologists, as well as the relationship of the institution they practice at with their pathologists. If the pathology is mostly farmed out and the pathologists are second rate, they will be seen more as dispensable.

It is unfortunate that so much of the talk on this forum is in terms of broad stereotypes which are not even close to true for most practitioners. Part of the problem with stereotypes is that it is very easy to find examples which agree with your stereotype, and thus it confirms your biases. Opposite findings are dismissed as outliers. In fact, the real truth is that there are bad pathologists and good pathologists; poor communcators and excellent communicators; pathologists with great relationships with their institutions and clinicians and pathologists with terrible relationships.
 
http://members.tripod.com/runker_room/ap/ap_jobs.htm

A little path job market history. Did some googling. Decades of crappy results. Would be nice to see some of the articles published back then. I am sure they claim the market is fine, just a rough period, and there is an upcoming shortage. See what the ascp...etc. was claiming back then. I am sure it is on paper. Anyone have that?

2013....same crap. just a different year. decades of a horrible job market.

There will always be a massive oversupply of pathologists.
 
pathololology said:
Really? How many other medical specialties that have gone through this much training have to do this amount of job hunting. Plus, what GOOD pathology group is going to field a call from a first year resident and say . . . oh yeah I remember you. We have been holding this spot for you for five years b/c there haven't been any other pathology grads who were any good. This is bad advice. Doesn't work. If the group is any good, and they need to fill a spot, they have about 50 eager, decent pathology grads each year to choose. Groups are scared to advertise b/c they know they will get hundreds of replies.
Click to expand...

This is not my experience.

The scenario of the first year calling the group is dumb, I agree, but I've seen groups- academic and private- "hold" a position for someone who goes away to do some training- like neuro, pedi, transfusion, renal, whatever. I've seen it happen over and over- an internal candidate for the job, or someone who has some connection to the group and is engaged in training that will be useful to them.

My group has had some openings in the past couple years- ADVERTISED positions- and we get nothing good. I'm wondering where these hundreds of applicants are all applying to. This herd of wandering out of work pathologists is exaggerated.
 
Its nice to show med students that there is decades of evidence of an oversaturated job market. The CAP, ASCP, program directors...etc. have done nothing and will continue to do nothing. Med students need to realize the risk they take with entering pathology. You beg for a job and then spend your career begging to keep specimens/work.
 
It's not so easy as to suggest that the job market is the biggest factor in the perpetual decline of the field of pathology, but it certainly is one of the major reasons for it.

Behind-the-scenes specialties need to keep numbers low, or risk becoming commodities. Even if this means bad hours or high stress.

Pathology, due to its exceptionally weak leadership, failed to realize this and flooded the market with warm bodies, making tissue diagnosis a commodity rather than a profession. Congratulations! Now that cost is the only factor in differentiating providers, smart, proud doctors will train in fewer numbers, leaving the rest of the spots open for low-quality troglodytes. A strong medical student matching to pathology is akin to the valedictorian being put in the "slow class".

Radiology is currently facing the same fate. They would do well to look to the sinking (sunk) ship that is pathology.
 
Substance said:
It's not so easy as to suggest that the job market is the biggest factor in the perpetual decline of the field of pathology, but it certainly is one of the major reasons for it.

Behind-the-scenes specialties need to keep numbers low, or risk becoming commodities. Even if this means bad hours or high stress.

Pathology, due to its exceptionally weak leadership, failed to realize this and flooded the market with warm bodies, making tissue diagnosis a commodity rather than a profession. Congratulations! Now that cost is the only factor in differentiating providers, smart, proud doctors will train in fewer numbers, leaving the rest of the spots open for low-quality troglodytes. A strong medical student matching to pathology is akin to the valedictorian being put in the "slow class".

Radiology is currently facing the same fate. They would do well to look to the sinking (sunk) ship that is pathology.
Click to expand...

Whatever. Rads is one of the worse for taking low-quality students. Its the speciality ex-frat boys choose, along with gas. Most pathologists are intelligent but they are terribly introverted or english is their second language.

I doubt any pathologists have sat in the frat house late at night lighting their own farts in front of a group of people, unlike most radiologists and gas men.
 
WEBB PINKERTON said:
Whatever. Rads is one of the worse for taking low-quality students. Its the speciality ex-frat boys choose, along with gas. Most pathologists are intelligent but they are terribly introverted or english is their second language.

I doubt any pathologists have sat in the frat house late at night lighting their own farts in front of a group of people, unlike most radiologists and gas men.
Click to expand...

Dude. You do realize that rads has been one of the most competitive specialties for the past 10-15 years, right?
 
Substance said:
A strong medical student matching to pathology is akin to the valedictorian being put in the "slow class".
.
Click to expand...

I know you're just trolling, but do you really believe this? How many pathologists do you know? A lot of bright students go into pathology. Do you think people in MSTP programs at top 10 schools are idiots? Pathology has been the second or third most popular specialty among that group for a long time. Some end up doing lab research, but the majority end up practicing pathology in either academics or private.
 
malchik said:
I know you're just trolling, but do you really believe this? How many pathologists do you know? A lot of bright students go into pathology. Do you think people in MSTP programs at top 10 schools are idiots? Pathology has been the second or third most popular specialty among that group for a long time. Some end up doing lab research, but the majority end up practicing pathology in either academics or private.
Click to expand...

Most of the students who go into pathology are average, according to board scores, and a great many of them probably have sub-par medical educations from proprietary for-profit offshore schools or foreign schools that, aside from being listed on that joke FAIMER list, have medical education standards that would have been current in the 1980s. Compare this to a field with standards, like that of your urology or dermatology employers.

Another thing you are doing, and I see it a lot in all fields, not just yours, is equating the willingness to do research with skill as a physician. These are mutually exclusive traits, and may even be inversely correlated. Maybe I stand in the minority here, but people in MSTPs don't impress me. If anything, getting a spot in an MSTP in a competitive field is easier because most people don't want to commit to a substantial research requirement. In pathology, its probably not even a factor in matching.

I did not say in any way that pathology is an easy field, nor that it does not deserve able, motivated and skilled practitioners. But the reality is that it is the bottom of the barrel in medicine, and that it has relaxed its standards for so long that being able to speak comprehensible English is considered a strong advantage for one's employment.

Your field is in dire straits, and I find it very strange that nobody in your organization with any power has picked up on this. Here in Canada, the Urology association did a study about how it is very concerned with the fact that urology is becoming less competitive here (it's still very competitive, just not as much as it used to be). They know that if they lower the standards, the reputation of their field will be hurt, patient care will be diminished, and their slice of the great medical pie will be cut smaller. Pathology still has not learned this lesson.
 
Heard pathologists don't do CP in Canada, they leave it to Ph.D's.
 
Torsed said:
Heard pathologists don't do CP in Canada, they leave it to Ph.D's.
Click to expand...
I know a CP pathologist in Canada (US citizen) that has a good gig. If they are using PhDs, they probably have a shortage of pathologists. You still need to hire AP folks.
 
You wanted your "data", here is what the chair of this job survey has to say

http://www.ascp.org/Newsroom/2013-F...vey-Reveals-Hiring-Outlook-Training-Gaps.html

“Still, there is somewhat of a disconnect,” Dr. Rinder says. “We hear from several sources that the workforce is going to (eventually) need more pathologists. Yet, right now based on this survey, we see that some of our fellows are having a difficult time finding a job. What we need, and what residents are asking for, is hard data on what jobs are currently available.”
 
You didn't mention the line about only 6% of FP fellows not having a job offer yet, lowest among the subspecialties surveyed. That said, the survey also didn't talk at all about starting salaries, and I'm quite sure the average American FP starting salary is lower than the average American community pathology starting salary. So, job prospects/security versus income... pick your poison.

Path or bust said:
You wanted your "data", here is what the chair of this job survey has to say

http://www.ascp.org/Newsroom/2013-F...vey-Reveals-Hiring-Outlook-Training-Gaps.html

“Still, there is somewhat of a disconnect,” Dr. Rinder says. “We hear from several sources that the workforce is going to (eventually) need more pathologists. Yet, right now based on this survey, we see that some of our fellows are having a difficult time finding a job. What we need, and what residents are asking for, is hard data on what jobs are currently available.”
Click to expand...
 
Torsed said:
Heard pathologists don't do CP in Canada, they leave it to Ph.D's.
Click to expand...

Depends. Lots of places (maybe most) use PhDs for biochem (because they're cheaper). Lab heme is always path (or hematologists in QC). Micro is variable, and sometimes mixed e.g. infectious disease and PhDs working together.
 
Conclusions:
The job situation for pathology fellows is mixed; most receive one or more offers,
but a substantial minority is not finding employment right away. This latter circumstance
may weigh on fellows' decisions to pursue additional fellowship training.
Most fellows receive a job offer within the first six months, but some need up to a year
for a positive response.

http://www.ascp.org/PDF/Fellowship-Reports/ASCP-Fellowship-Job-Market-Surveys.pdf


Better have a nice emergency fund, you may be out of work for a year and in the unemployment lines. Our own organizations are telling us this, but for people like MLW, it falls on deaf ears. Medical students, take warning and look at our own job surveys from ASCP.
 
Don't claim my ears are deaf. It's not my fault you diagnostic guys have a crappy job situation, and I am not ignorant of the situation, just less knowledgeable because it's not my situation.

I've never seen a candidate who struggled (read: finished training and didn't obtain employment, and was willing to move) to find a job stand up and say they're a sub-par candidate. It's always the job market, the job market, the job market. All the pathologists I know in the flesh-and-blood world, not on here, who were competent pathologists and not walking Axis II diagnoses found work. If I apply to be center for the Knicks and don't get it, it's not because the market is poor... it's because I am a sh**y basketball player. Maybe, just maybe, you and some of the other gloom-and-doom crowd on here should open your minds to the possibility that perhaps some of the people who couldn't find employment are sh**y pathologists... or just keep blaming it on the job market if that makes you feel better.

Path or bust said:
Conclusions:
The job situation for pathology fellows is mixed; most receive one or more offers,
but a substantial minority is not finding employment right away. This latter circumstance
may weigh on fellows' decisions to pursue additional fellowship training.
Most fellows receive a job offer within the first six months, but some need up to a year
for a positive response.

http://www.ascp.org/PDF/Fellowship-Reports/ASCP-Fellowship-Job-Market-Surveys.pdf


Better have a nice emergency fund, you may be out of work for a year and in the unemployment lines. Our own organizations are telling us this, but for people like MLW, it falls on deaf ears. Medical students, take warning and look at our own job surveys from ASCP.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
mlw03 said:
Don't claim my ears are deaf. It's not my fault you diagnostic guys have a crappy job situation, and I am not ignorant of the situation, just less knowledgeable because it's not my situation.

I've never seen a candidate who struggled (read: finished training and didn't obtain employment, and was willing to move) to find a job stand up and say they're a sub-par candidate. It's always the job market, the job market, the job market. All the pathologists I know in the flesh-and-blood world, not on here, who were competent pathologists and not walking Axis II diagnoses found work. If I apply to be center for the Knicks and don't get it, it's not because the market is poor... it's because I am a sh**y basketball player. Maybe, just maybe, you and some of the other gloom-and-doom crowd on here should open your minds to the possibility that perhaps some of the people who couldn't find employment are sh**y pathologists... or just keep blaming it on the job market if that makes you feel better.
Click to expand...

Interesting points. Maybe, the study was wrong> Should the jobs survey have said, "a significant minority likely SHI**Y fellows, did not find employment?" Do you have data?

How do you know that is the case? Perhaps there is no bad job market, eh? Or could it be that a few good individuals do have genuine trouble in findings jobs every year? My objective is to inform all medical students who are considering entering this profession about the realities of their future. If you consider that "gloom and doom" that is fine by me.

Medical students: note how violent people get when you show them a true jobs survey, pushed out by our own institutions. See how they justify a bad job market and put it on the backs of the innocent "SHI**Y" individuals. Be informed of these decisions. And look at these jobs surveys for yourself


http://www.ascp.org/PDF/Fellowship-Reports/ASCP-Fellowship-Job-Market-Surveys.pdf


again:
Conclusions:
The job situation for pathology fellows is mixed; most receive one or more offers,
but a substantial minority is not finding employment right away. This latter circumstance
may weigh on fellows' decisions to pursue additional fellowship training.
Most fellows receive a job offer within the first six months, but some need up to a year
for a positive response.
 
I don't have data about the quality of the individuals who have struggled to find jobs. I'm not sure such data exists, and even if it did, we could debate what defines a "sh**y pathologist." I actually agree with what you're saying - that perhaps some solid candidates struggle to find jobs - but you and others on here refuse to acknowledge any alternatives to these individuals' struggles beyond, bad job market, bad job market, or bad job market. I don't know what your practice situation is, but if you were in private practice and interviewed someone who had mediocre or poor LoRs, was awkward socially, failed to recognize her/his own limitations diagnostically, and not-infrequently missed relatively straightforward diagnoses, would you hire that person? Would another group? Would an academic center? If the answers are "no" then is that an indictment of the job market, or the individual candidate? Would any of us want our mother's breast biopsy reviewed by that hypothetical pathologist? Persons who cannot do the job, don't deserve the job - you're darn right I'll put that on the individual.

I don't think I'm violent (whatever that means in the context of a virtually meaningless internet discussion)... just frustrated that people misrepresent reality. I also disagree with comments from those who say the job market is wonderful and that every med student who consider a career in pathology. There is a middle ground. The job market is sub-optimal, and some bad candidates struggle to find jobs. Show me a field of medicine where that is not true. Med students, informed ones at least, likely know this to be true in virtually every area of medicine in the US.
 
Interesting discussion. I find is a bit strange that a field that could be so easily commoditized(if it already hasn't been) still manages to convince the government of impending shortages that never come. There's another motive to that kind of posturing besides quelling a supposed shortage, as if pathologists are sandbags to block the flood that may or may not come, but I cannot imagine it without broad speculation.

I can say that most medical fields do not have the employment difficulties of pathology, besides probably radiology, though that appears to be quite temporary.
 
"Disconnect" What you call something when you don't want to admit reality. There is "a shortage" but pathologists can't find jobs....oh wait its a disconnect!! Pathetic response from pathetic organizations/individuals/programs.

Nice to see US citizens having to leave the country to find work. Another disconnect!!!

What med students need to learn from this forum, is to not go into pathology and know that any specimen you send to pathology you can take a cut of the money. Pathologists are a dime and dozen and ripe for explotation by anyone.
 
mlw03 said:
I don't have data about the quality of the individuals who have struggled to find jobs. I'm not sure such data exists, and even if it did, we could debate what defines a "sh**y pathologist." I actually agree with what you're saying - that perhaps some solid candidates struggle to find jobs - but you and others on here refuse to acknowledge any alternatives to these individuals' struggles beyond, bad job market, bad job market, or bad job market. I don't know what your practice situation is, but if you were in private practice and interviewed someone who had mediocre or poor LoRs, was awkward socially, failed to recognize her/his own limitations diagnostically, and not-infrequently missed relatively straightforward diagnoses, would you hire that person? Would another group? Would an academic center? If the answers are "no" then is that an indictment of the job market, or the individual candidate? Would any of us want our mother's breast biopsy reviewed by that hypothetical pathologist? Persons who cannot do the job, don't deserve the job - you're darn right I'll put that on the individual.

I don't think I'm violent (whatever that means in the context of a virtually meaningless internet discussion)... just frustrated that people misrepresent reality. I also disagree with comments from those who say the job market is wonderful and that every med student who consider a career in pathology. There is a middle ground. The job market is sub-optimal, and some bad candidates struggle to find jobs. Show me a field of medicine where that is not true. Med students, informed ones at least, likely know this to be true in virtually every area of medicine in the US.
Click to expand...


I don't doubt that there are some trainees out there who fit that description. But there is no way to know how many, or if it is related to the "bad job market".

However, reducing training spots overall, especially at particular institutions, would go a long way to alleviating both issues.
 
2121115 said:
I don't doubt that there are some trainees out there who fit that description. But there is no way to know how many, or if it is related to the "bad job market".

However, reducing training spots overall, especially at particular institutions, would go a long way to alleviating both issues.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
path24 said:
"Disconnect" What you call something when you don't want to admit reality. There is "a shortage" but pathologists can't find jobs....oh wait its a disconnect!! Pathetic response from pathetic organizations/individuals/programs.

Nice to see US citizens having to leave the country to find work. Another disconnect!!!

What med students need to learn from this forum, is to not go into pathology and know that any specimen you send to pathology you can take a cut of the money. Pathologists are a dime and dozen and ripe for explotation by anyone.
Click to expand...

I did not have to move north to find a job. FP fellows, so long as they're willing to move, virtually always find a job if they are competent. I moved north for a combination of personal reasons and better overall job opportunity, but let me make it clear that I know of no American FPs up here (and there are probably at least 10-15 of us across Canada) that came because there were no options in the US.

I don't know about the disconnect; however, you speak of pathologists like they're interchangeable cogs, when the reality is that many of us are quite subspecialized and our training and interests are pretty specific. A solid AP/CP resident with a cyto fellowship can't be a director of a blood bank, or an FP, or do pure peds path. The disconnect is perhaps somewhat our own fault. How many of the people struggling to find jobs are willing to spend 1 year training in a subspecialty that is more in demand? These are 1 year fellowships for the most part... but people don't want to do them, because... well, I don't know.

I imagine med students reading this are often scared away from pathology.
 
WEBB PINKERTON said:
Whatever. Rads is one of the worse for taking low-quality students. Its the speciality ex-frat boys choose, along with gas. Most pathologists are intelligent but they are terribly introverted or english is their second language.

I doubt any pathologists have sat in the frat house late at night lighting their own farts in front of a group of people, unlike most radiologists and gas men.
Click to expand...

Try to contain your ******ed drivel.
As for anesthesia, they've said the sky is falling for 20 years because of the CRNA threat. I still don't know a single unemployed anesthesiologist, and happily reside in the 1%. And the only gasses I play with are fluorinated ethers. They're good for some laughs too.
 
Here is my favorite "gas man" of all time. He pretty much changed health care in an entire town all by himself before ending up on the wrong side of the law.

The story with links:

He decides to start a for profit hospital in a college town after losing privileges at the town hospital. Not sure if he did it for spite, if he was a great entrepreneur or both.

http://www.bloomingtonalternative.com/articles/2004/02/15/7468


Eventually he is arrested for fraud and now is in prison.

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/feds-doctor-bilked-at-least-21-million-from-insurers

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/...mal-tiwari-sentenced-to-3-years-in-fraud-case


Of course the town has no need for two hospitals so it becomes overbedded and financial trouble follows. Both hospitals in the town sell out and are owned by larger hospital chains, largely thanks to one "gas man".
 
path24 said:
What med students need to learn from this forum, is to not go into pathology and know that any specimen you send to pathology you can take a cut of the money. Pathologists are a dime and dozen and ripe for explotation by anyone.
Click to expand...

👍
 
cap today: cap president also pushing the upcoming shortage of pathologists crap. In 2010 there was 5.7 paths per 100,000....aka way to many, terrible job market. And apparently using 2010 as the normal, optimal path number. Docs "electing" to do multiple fellowships....i don't remember "electing" to, it was more about putting food on the table and hoping for a future in this field.

Maybe the unemployed half of hemepaths should email him and ask about a job. His response?

There is literally no hope or future for this speciality.
 
path24 said:
cap today: cap president also pushing the upcoming shortage of pathologists crap. In 2010 there was 5.7 paths per 100,000....aka way to many, terrible job market. And apparently using 2010 as the normal, optimal path number. Docs "electing" to do multiple fellowships....i don't remember "electing" to, it was more about putting food on the table and hoping for a future in this field.

Maybe the unemployed half of hemepaths should email him and ask about a job. His response?

There is literally no hope or future for this speciality.
Click to expand...

I want one of those "pathologists are groovy" pins he was wearing. :laugh:

There is still hope till November when the cuts are announced. If those go through, there should never be a discussion about a pathologist shortage again.
 
Pardon me, but I just had a vision of a pathologist commune.
 
I see this guy works for Duke Pathology. I would be interested in how many specimens Duke has.

Duke claims to have "70 full time faculty members, 15 research associates, 24 residents and clinical fellows, and over 90 support and administrative staff engaged in a full range of teaching, experimental, clinical and anatomic pathology endeavors. The Department of Pathology is located in the heart of the Duke University School of Medicine and occupies over 40,000 square feet of space. Our 40+ physician faculty members..."

With this kind of workforce, they should be able to do all the pathology in the entire state of North Carolina. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

But no, I would bet one could stroll through their halls and see about 10% of the people working at any given moment, living high off the hog with their free, subsidized resident labor.
 
WEBB PINKERTON said:
Remember when Duke got into trouble for their worthless gene-based tests?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/health/research/08genes.html?_r=0


Just think, some people dont want these tests regulated. What a joke. These lab developed tests NEED regulation. I foresee patients getting screwed under the guise of "personalized medicine".
Click to expand...

LOL. I would like to know how half the stuff we do benefits anyone. I would like to know how much money we spend on QC/proficiency and how much evidence their is that it saves lives. If we did an inspection every 5 years as opposed to 3 years. How about QC every other day or weekly instead of daily. Etc. Etc... Where is the evidence? Where is the benefit? I thought this was a science not an extortion scheme.
 
Thrombus said:
LOL. I would like to know how half the stuff we do benefits anyone. I would like to know how much money we spend on QC/proficiency and how much evidence their is that it saves lives. If we did an inspection every 5 years as opposed to 3 years. How about QC every other day or weekly instead of daily. Etc. Etc... Where is the evidence? Where is the benefit? I thought this was a science not an extortion scheme.
Click to expand...

I wonder some days if we are doing more harm than good. But we have this fake health care market now that is dependent on doing invasive procedures. Most of my work is pulmonary. We constantly have PET positive mediastinal lymph nodes that get worked up and are a complete waste of time. If we didnt have them, pulmonologists, hospital, rads and myself would lose a lot of money though. Gotta find something to do for all these pathologists we continue to train in this country.

Health care: where more competition=higher costs :laugh:
 
Thrombus said:
LOL. I thought this was a science. . .
Click to expand...

Ha! One of the first disappointments I had as a medical student is when I realized how much of medicine was not science.
 
Thrombus said:
LOL. I would like to know how half the stuff we do benefits anyone. I would like to know how much money we spend on QC/proficiency and how much evidence their is that it saves lives. If we did an inspection every 5 years as opposed to 3 years. How about QC every other day or weekly instead of daily. Etc. Etc... Where is the evidence? Where is the benefit? I thought this was a science not an extortion scheme.
Click to expand...

One of my profs was a big wig in CAP and they had a wintertime meeting in the Bahamas or the carribean, of course paid for by CAP, and was he told the annual recenue from proficiency testing was 200,000,000. As he said to me "we are in the wrong business".
 
Last edited:
Why is the field of pathology in such bad shape?
 
Umyo said:
Why is the field of pathology in such bad shape?
Click to expand...

1)Ever walked into a doctor's office and seen the sign at reception that says "payment is due at the time of service? We can't do that.

2)There are too damned many of us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

pathres9999
What makes someone leave a job?
Replies
35
Views
5K
MifflinDunder
M
N
fully remote job
Replies
11
Views
4K
ygdrasil
ygdrasil
coroner
Is relinquishing medical directorship leverage to get a raise?
Replies
11
Views
2K
coroner
coroner
KeratinPearls
Job market-Real shortage of pathologists?
2
Replies
66
Views
14K
coroner
coroner
PathOmaniac
Did you get a signing bonus for academics?
Replies
1
Views
1K
allopathdoc
A
Top Bottom