Which would you recommend for someone interested in non-patient-facing fields with an emphasis on visual diagnosis? Particularly if that person values lifestyle.
Any particular reason? Job market?Radiology, unless you really screwed up your boards 🤣🤣
They both have an emphasis on visual diagnosis (unless you're a clin lab/blood bank director in path,) and both are considered "lifestyle" fields in medicine. If those are the main two criteria you're looking at, irrespective of the differences in scope of practice as mentioned above, then radiology has a better job market, comparatively. Better job market = more job opportunities = more geographic flexibility = taking a job in an ideal location which caters to your lifestyle e.g. big city vs small town, four distinct seasons vs warm climate, beach vs ski resorts, etc. From my discussions with radiology colleagues & friends, if you value lifestyle, radiologists typically they have more vacation, more flexibility taking weeks off (for decreased comp), and/or the ability to do telerads from home.Which would you recommend for someone interested in non-patient-facing fields with an emphasis on visual diagnosis? Particularly if that person values lifestyle.
Nice job you got there. Don’t take a 8-5 pm weekdays only job for granted. I have relatives making a lot in medicine but working weekends as well, which sucks.Path for sure-Community path to be specific. My money is perfectly fine (~400k), 6wks vacation, and my avg daily workload is at around ~ 100 slides (not accessions) with a tumor board mixed in each week. Very chill day 95% of the time. Rad is great and of course more lucrative but not nearly as cush in my opinion.
Radiology being a specialty where you join a group (rather than fly solo), the floor for how busy it gets is definitely going to be a lot higher than path. Personal tolerance for this varies. OP did say lifestyle was their #1 priority.pretty sure u can work whatever lifestyle a path does and make 1.5x more than they do. easy answer.
Plenty of down time but i don't think path is inherently cushier than rads. and pay is def better on avg than path. call and weekends better in path fwiw, but 6 wks vaca isn't "cush" imo...that's standard hospital employee vaca. package.Path for sure-Community path to be specific. My money is perfectly fine (~400k), 6wks vacation, and my avg daily workload is at around ~ 100 slides (not accessions) with a tumor board mixed in each week. Very chill day 95% of the time. Rad is great and of course more lucrative but not nearly as cush in my opinion.
Path for sure-Community path to be specific. My money is perfectly fine (~400k), 6wks vacation, and my avg daily workload is at around ~ 100 slides (not accessions) with a tumor board mixed in each week. Very chill day 95% of the time. Rad is great and of course more lucrative but not nearly as cush in my opinion.
Curious. We've got about 4-5x as many rads as paths.I'll add that the rads group at my institution is about 2x the size of the path group, though both of us are private, make about the same $, and take 12 weeks of vaca. The difference is that our situation is an aberration at the extreme >95%ile of the MGMA ; the radiologist's situation is not.
I am a rad. My wife is a path. Both fields are really great!Rads can be pretty cush if you find the right gig. In this market, you could find a daytime job week on week off (26 weeks off) making $350k pretty easy depending on your subspecialty and other factors (think breast, rural or tele). VA would be easy and low stress since it’s hard to get sued, your caseload is minimal and you work bankers hours. Academics also have good hours but make less and get less time off. If you want to work hard while you’re at work, get lots of time off and make a lot of money, then private practice is a good choice. Right now, you can find whatever combination you want. It just depends on your definition of “lifestyle”.
Can you clarify what you mean by "everybody is trying to get into these days"? Current job market is very "unsaturated". No one can find people to work. Literally everyone I know is looking to hire (rural, metro, coasts, fly over country, large group, small group, employed, academic, private, part time, full time, days, nights, locums, on-site, tele, DR, IR). The only way this job market turns around is: A) A recession hits and old geezers don't retire, or B.) Residency spots expand. Somehow, the powers that be at our governing bodies did not jack this up. Probably more a result of disorganization rather than a concerted effort to protect the job market.I feel as though radiology could become over saturated pretty quickly just based on the eye test. Seems like everybody is trying to get into this these days
Can you clarify what you mean by "everybody is trying to get into these days"? Current job market is very "unsaturated". No one can find people to work. Literally everyone I know is looking to hire (rural, metro, coasts, fly over country, large group, small group, employed, academic, private, part time, full time, days, nights, locums, on-site, tele, DR, IR). The only way this job market turns around is: A) A recession hits and old geezers don't retire, or B.) Residency spots expand. Somehow, the powers that be at our governing bodies did not jack this up. Probably more a result of disorganization rather than a concerted effort to protect the job market.
I didn’t mean to imply that the job market is bad right now or will be in the very near term, but based on match lists of elite schools, DR definitely seems to be attracting larger numbers of applicants. True, I guess that this won’t really affect job market unless residencies are expanded. But isn’t that what happened to EM? Growth in interest followed by expansion.Radiology job market is better in my opinion. I see few jobs advertised in my area (near large metro area). Jobs are by word of mouth in my area, so if you are out of the loop then you’re out of luck.
How’s the job market in radiology near larger cities?
Although it may not have any effect on the job market, stories like this seem increasingly common
Depends on how you define success. There are some pathologists who I’ve met who are very good general surgical pathologists who worked in busy tertiary care hospitals (800+ bed hospital) who have been practicing for 30+ years. Hard work…yes. Were they lucky? No. They just were in the right setting (busy practice) and worked hard. Clinicians respect them because they are diagnostically very good and knowledgeable. To me, that’s a successful pathologist.I'm happy where I am but in a pathology versus radiology battle, radiology wins hands down.
To be successful in radiology requires hard work.
To be successful in pathology requires that and a lot of luck.
Depends on how you define success. There are some pathologists who I’ve met who are very good general surgical pathologists who worked in busy tertiary care hospitals (800+ bed hospital) who have been practicing for 30+ years. Hard work…yes. Were they lucky? No. They just were in the right setting (busy practice) and worked hard. Clinicians respect them because they are diagnostically very good and knowledgeable. To me, that’s a successful pathologist.