Rad Onc Twitter

  • Thread starter Thread starter deleted1002574
  • Start date Start date
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad.
Moonbeams said:
That's because Cornell had inferior radiation, Cornell a-holes!!!

Anybody who gets involved in any of this deserves what comes of it. Sadly, there is basically only one type of person who is going to end up in something like this and it is the same type of person that fills the handful of nuclear medicine spots that literally have no viable path to gainful employment.
Click to expand...
The residents do rotate through cornell apparently.
 
seper said:
NY Methodist will be able to fill spots no matter what. Location! A 4 year guaranteed job with full benefits.
Click to expand...
There are a ton of fmg types in the nyc area who haven’t secured advanced trading that are willing to do anything to secure a pgy 2 position. The spot(s) will fill with someone either via the match or after the match.
 
jondunn said:
Click to expand...

Hard to disagree with Simul on this point, even if it hurts an NYP attendings' feelings. CC, which could probably justify adding 4+ positions, decides to contract. NYP-Methodist, a nepotistic dumpster fire that has consistently been one of the worst programs in NYC, perhaps even the entire country, can somehow justify adding additional spots. How do you justify it? Does it meet an unmet need? Is this such a stellar training program that they do our field great service by expanding?

The only reason a program like this expands is because they can, and the only reason that they can is because our academic overlords have let them. For the last 5 years we've heard that it's illegal to prevent programs from expanding, but when the requirements for resident expansion allow a program like this is able to get approved for any additional residents, the bar is set too low.
 
Park Slope, right? That’s a nice place to live. Wonder why the hospital isn’t considered good.
 
RealSimulD said:
Park Slope, right? That’s a nice place to live. Wonder why the hospital isn’t considered good.
Click to expand...
NYC hospitals can be old and dingy. Go into Lennox Hill and totally unimpressive.
NYM is particularly dingy af, where the RO dept is located
 
medgator said:
Chair market has been pretty good the last few years..... many openings all over the country.
Click to expand...
Academic Chairs mostly surrendered to money-grabbing admins, hence the poor job security
 
medgator said:
Umm no. Seriously why do you feel the need to post rando tweets regarding other specialties here?

GU is a highly competitive match with a great job market at graduation. Literally has 0 in common with us
Click to expand...

It is interesting that magically somehow a research fellowship year makes you more suited or capable of becoming a urologist
Probably could sub peak radonc for urology
 
ROforbetterorworse said:
It is interesting that magically somehow a research fellowship year makes you more suited or capable of becoming a urologist
Probably could sub peak radonc for urology
Click to expand...
Urology has legit demand though with a lot of retiring boomer urologists and a great need demographically going forward.

Literally gu jobs anywhere in the country with higher starting salaries than rad onc
 
Last edited:
ROforbetterorworse said:
It is interesting that magically somehow a research fellowship year makes you more suited or capable of becoming a urologist
Probably could sub peak radonc for urology
Click to expand...
It doesn’t. And most recognize that. But if you don’t match you can:

1. Give up and soap another specialty unless you dual applied
2. Find a (preferably paid) research year to bolster your resume.
3. Do a prelim Gen Surg year and try to find a PGY2 spot, or PGY1 spot with repeating intern year.

I don’t think it’s particularly exploitative to offer Med students a paid research year. Though if I were a PD id probably rather have essentially a PGY2 to fill a PGY1s spot.
 
medgator said:
Urology has legit demand though with a lot of retiring boomer urologists and a great need demographically going forward. Literally gu jobs anywhere in the country
Click to expand...
You probably need 3-5 x times fewer radoncs than urologists. Think about the ratio at a community hospital. Yet radonc has about 200 match spots and urology 356. When I finished residency in radonc, you could find a job (not always a good one) anywhere in the country. That is why the specialty became so competitive.
 
Last edited:
RickyScott said:
You probably need 3-5 x times fewer radoncs than urologists. Think about the ratio at a community hospital. Yet radonc has about 200 match spots and urology 356. When I finished residency in radonc, you could find a job (not always a good one) anywhere in the country. That is why the specialty became so competitive.
Click to expand...

Rad Onc needs to be around 100ish spots/year. So much data everywhere shows this.
 
jondunn said:
Really? Would love to see the data
Click to expand...
Look at ratios of other specialty's numbers to ours like above. Look at what the best guess is for the number of people of retiring from rad onc is on a given year versus the number of newly minted grads in an era of shrinking cases and indications. Could even look at the number of US MD's applying to rad onc is in the match.

Being rad onc I know many want some sort of contrived study with a p value that says this is the exact number needed ect... before an opinion can be formed but that data just isn't out there.
 
jondunn said:
Really? Would love to see the data
Click to expand...


lol I got dislikes for this?


how did we arrive to 100 is my point.

I've seen people say we could not match any for 5 years and still not catch up

I've seen people in the other thread say job market is best it has been in 5 years

if someone says we have data saying 100 is the magic number - then I was curious to see it
 
jondunn said:
lol I got dislikes for this?


how did we arrive to 100 is my point.

I've seen people say we could not match any for 5 years and still not catch up

I've seen people in the other thread say job market is best it has been in 5 years

if someone says we have data saying 100 is the magic number - then I was curious to see it
Click to expand...
Just WAG by people.

I think one data point is that there are about 130 candidates that remain similar background as years past.

I think that another data point is some of the math me and my co-writer did in Inconvenient Truth. I think 100 jives pretty well with what we see.

What do you think is the correct number?
 
fiji128 said:
Look at ratios of other specialty's numbers to ours like above. Look at what the best guess is for the number of people of retiring from rad onc is on a given year versus the number of newly minted grads in an era of shrinking cases and indications. Could even look at the number of US MD's applying to rad onc is in the match.
Click to expand...

so you did this and got to 100?

honest, real question

if we can't have this discussion here, where can it be done?
 
medgator said:
Why not just bring it back to where it was during peak rad Onc? Did anything justify going from 130 to 200 a year?
Click to expand...

what year do you define as peak rad onc?

also what makes you think anything about the dynamics of the role of RT in the cancer space as well as the current supply/demand dynamics are anything like they were in whatever year you pick?

but I like Simul's point that 130 US MD people are applying
 
What I find is that both sides are pretty fixed..

What if I’m wrong? What if we are at the right number of docs? What if FIRE, >females in field (nothing wrong with that - just need to account for maternity and typically less manic workaholic tendencies), the great resignation, greater complexity of treatment, greater desire for “work-life-balance” (that seems to be a word that means whatever you want it to mean, but to me it means commute + work hours < 45 hours a week), push for job sharing and 3-4 day work week and then some other factors I can’t identify mean we are close to the right number … and that my math of fractions, patients and docs doesn’t matter because everything else changed?

Is it possible? I would say maybe I have a 10-25% chance of being wrong if all the above actually change what we think RadOnc “work” should look like. But, I still lean towards math saying too many of us.
 
great point Simul. I don't see it hardly ever mentioned but it is very true.

FIRE, >females in field (nothing wrong with that - just need to account for maternity and typically less manic workaholic tendencies), the great resignation, greater complexity of treatment, greater desire for “work-life-balance” (that seems to be a word that means whatever you want it to mean, but to me it means commute + work hours < 45 hours a week), push for job sharing and 3-4 day work week

I see all of this more than I did a few years ago

for example - friend of mine works at Hartsell group in Chicago - the entire group is moving to 4 days a week. Thus they hired multiple grads this year (I think 4 or 5!)
 
jondunn said:
so you did this and got to 100?

honest, real question

if we can't have this discussion here, where can it be done?
Click to expand...

Based on previous discussions and stuff that has been published recently it would seem there are about 100 or so rad oncs retiring per year, of course no one knows the exact number. I don't care to spend hours looking up all this stuff again but this number is in the ball park. Why are we graduating more people into the specialty then are leaving it.
 
jondunn said:
what year do you define as peak rad onc?

also what makes you think anything about the dynamics of the role of RT in the cancer space as well as the current supply/demand dynamics are anything like they were in whatever year you pick?

but I like Simul's point that 130 US MD people are applying
Click to expand...
Back when we didn't have double digits slots going into the SOAP and higher desirability amongst us medical students.

You still didn't answer my question though... What justified expansion beyond the 120-140 that used get trained after the turn of the century? Remember the bad job market even brought slots down into the double digits by the mid to late 90s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

uchihastan
Rad Onc vs. Heme/Onc
Replies
18
Views
2K
medgator
M
B
Rad Onc Procedures and RVUs
Replies
35
Views
5K
CurbYourExpectations
CurbYourExpectations
D
Saving Rad Onc
2
Replies
60
Views
7K
RickyScott
R
TheWallnerus
Rad Onc is in a dark place
Replies
13
Views
3K
RickyScott
R
M
Rad Onc Oral Boards: To quote or not quote studies?
Replies
2
Views
262
medgator
M
Top