- Joined
- Aug 16, 2005
- Messages
- 203
- Reaction score
- 0
Last edited:
Path vs. Rads (causing mental anguish)
- Thread starter blackbird11384
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2005
- Messages
- 203
- Reaction score
- 0
Quick questions to the Moderators. Can I post this same thread in the Radiology forum? I don't think they will ever see it on here.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2007
- Messages
- 1,822
- Reaction score
- 821
What can you see doing for the rest of your life? If youve done rotations in either they are drastically different. Do you like looking at images all day in the dark or do you like looking at the cellular level under a microscope all day? Do you enjoy grossing specimens?
As a pathologist you will be looking under the scope most of the day every day for the rest of your life. No your eyes wont be glued to the scope but you know what I mean. I think the best way to really tell if you like one of the other is by asking yourself if you had a stack of 100 images to read in the dark or 100 slides to read under the scope which would you prefer?
No one can decide which one is better for you...you need to make your own decision.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2008
- Messages
- 616
- Reaction score
- 2
I've heard people say this before, but I'm not sure where it comes from. Radiology will never be able to resolve as fine a detail about a disease as pathology. As our knowledge advances, the molecular and morphological detail of a pathology diagnosis will become more valuable and form the basis of more clinical decision-making, not less.
Last edited:
You need to honestly assess your motivation. What do you want? I'm going to go out on a limb and conclude that lifestyle needs are what you are really concerned with. Pathology and radiology are not that similar, other than absent direct patient care. People who lump them tend to be focused on the lifestyle. And that's fine.
In my opinion, pathology offers more challenges across the board, intellectual, economic, professional, workload, etc. Radiology is an overall easier path from point A to B. You need to ask yourself if the added challenges are something that will keep you more or less happy ten, twenty years from now.
In my opinion, pathology offers more challenges across the board, intellectual, economic, professional, workload, etc. Radiology is an overall easier path from point A to B. You need to ask yourself if the added challenges are something that will keep you more or less happy ten, twenty years from now.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,801
- Reaction score
- 1,187
From what I hear from my Rads friends, salaries are really coming down, and may not be much different from Path levels.
Also, the Rads market is currently also going through a sharp decline in jobs. Rads residents are also now needing to do fellowships to land a job, so job prospects may not be so different after all.
To the OP: if you are competitive enough to get into Rads and Path and choose path, I don't think you will have much a of a problem in terms of getting a job. Especially if you are interested in academics. I would pick the field you like best.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 3
I am a rads resident w a unique perspective as my close relative is a pathologist. First off I only did rads to do IR so the diagnostic component holds little appeal to me. But people are right as far as diagnostic accuracy path wins hands down. There are few things in rads that can be diagnosed without a biopsy and path is pretty much the end of the line in terms of diagnosis.
Money wise the particular person I know is a partner in a small group and makes well over 450k. Rads salaries aren't as high as you think. Unless you are IR and that is declining because most are now doing more clinical work I.e. seeing patients in clinic admitting and rounding which doesn't pay as much as doing just procedures.
As far as job security I can't imagine a more secure job. We will always need path and unlike rads where everyone thinks they can do it. No one thinks they can do path except for path.
Hours wise both can be light and both can be brutal. But if you join a general rads group you may be asked to some basic interventions like biopsies and thoras and paras, which I guess is the biggest difference. Regardless of what subspecialty you choose you will be asked to do some procedures.
But like someone already said do what you love. I think the future for both is quite good.
Money wise the particular person I know is a partner in a small group and makes well over 450k. Rads salaries aren't as high as you think. Unless you are IR and that is declining because most are now doing more clinical work I.e. seeing patients in clinic admitting and rounding which doesn't pay as much as doing just procedures.
As far as job security I can't imagine a more secure job. We will always need path and unlike rads where everyone thinks they can do it. No one thinks they can do path except for path.
Hours wise both can be light and both can be brutal. But if you join a general rads group you may be asked to some basic interventions like biopsies and thoras and paras, which I guess is the biggest difference. Regardless of what subspecialty you choose you will be asked to do some procedures.
But like someone already said do what you love. I think the future for both is quite good.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,369
- Reaction score
- 23
For the sake of opening the blinders a little bit, there are certainly areas in which diagnosis depends in part on clinical and/or imaging findings, falling in the category of clinicopathologic diagnoses. It's pretty easy to pat ourselves on the back and call ourselves the end-all be-all of diagnosis in pathology, and certainly medicine as we currently know it couldn't function without pathology. But for the most part it seems we've been talking about anatomic pathology and diagnosis of presence/absence of tumor. There's also, of course, clinical pathology and the myriad of related testing...which by volume is primarily interpreted by clinicians, not pathologists. Obviously there's a lot more to it than just that, but still generally the further one drifts from tumor pathology the more important history, clinical findings, and often CP labs become (not that most people would want to diagnose tumor without some history either). Most people don't go to the doctor because they have cancer or a mass -- maybe at one point in their lives, but most of the time no.
As for any doctor thinking they can read imaging while none think they can read path.. this is perhaps mostly true, but certainly some renal folks would like to read medical renal, respiratory medical lung, GI's medical GI, and of course derm has already made huge strides in cornering that particular market.
But no matter what, I'm in the boat that you should try to do what you most enjoy. If you're not sure, then do everything you can to get more experience in/exposure to your favorite options -- rotations, reading, observation, discussion, etc.
As for any doctor thinking they can read imaging while none think they can read path.. this is perhaps mostly true, but certainly some renal folks would like to read medical renal, respiratory medical lung, GI's medical GI, and of course derm has already made huge strides in cornering that particular market.
But no matter what, I'm in the boat that you should try to do what you most enjoy. If you're not sure, then do everything you can to get more experience in/exposure to your favorite options -- rotations, reading, observation, discussion, etc.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2003
- Messages
- 28,059
- Reaction score
- 441
Wait a bit and if you don't get the responses you want you can post a different thread in the other forum. You might be surprised though at the reponses from just this one. Posting the same active thread in different forums often discourages replies to both, in our experience.
