Radiologic Technology VS Sonography

[tcorrao]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I've been looking into changing my career from finance to medical. And these are the two areas of interest.

Can everyone give their opinion on the two positions? (pay, job duties, life of profession, job security, etc)

Radiologic Technology or Diagnostic Medical Sonography

 

[werewethere]

This particular forum tends to be populated by MD radiologists. For sono and rad techs, consider going to the appropriate forum on auntminnie.com

 

[hans19]

I've been looking into changing my career from finance to medical. And these are the two areas of interest.

Can everyone give their opinion on the two positions? (pay, job duties, life of profession, job security, etc)

Radiologic Technology or Diagnostic Medical Sonography

Both fields are in very high demand and both will command decent salaries- 35-45 k range for rad tech and probably more for sonographers.
As long as you are not incompetent, there is excellent job security for both fields. Rad Techs are the ones that perform radiologic examinations, whether Plain films, CT, MR, Angiography etc. Sonographers perform ultrasounds which tends to be more operator dependent and relies more on the the hand-eye abilities than radiography. The other thing is that at least half of ultrasounds concern women's health issues. Not surprisingly there are many more women in the field than men. Another thing to consider is that there are far fewer sonographers, so you may have to take overnight calls for emergent scans from the ER, which may factor into the higher salary figures compared to RTs.


For more information, you should try posting the same questions in the appropriate forum at the Auntminnie website.

 

[tcorrao]

Both fields are in very high demand and both will command decent salaries- 35-45 k range for rad tech and probably more for sonographers.
As long as you are not incompetent, there is excellent job security for both fields. Rad Techs are the ones that perform radiologic examinations, whether Plain films, CT, MR, Angiography etc. Sonographers perform ultrasounds which tends to be more operator dependent and relies more on the the hand-eye abilities than radiography. The other thing is that at least half of ultrasounds concern women's health issues. Not surprisingly there are many more women in the field than men. Another thing to consider is that there are far fewer sonographers, so you may have to take overnight calls for emergent scans from the ER, which may factor into the higher salary figures compared to RTs.


For more information, you should try posting the same questions in the appropriate forum at the Auntminnie website.

Thank you for all the good information. Now here's a question, where do you see each of the careers more? Say in hospitals or doctors office. And which route do you think pays more?

 

[f_w]

Thank you for all the good information. Now here's a question, where do you see each of the careers more? Say in hospitals or doctors office. And which route do you think pays more?

Up !

Hospitals tend to pay 'more' and have better benefits than radiology practices or clinician offices. Some of the 'more' comes in the form of call-pay and overtime. So while a sonographer might take home 60-70k, it also may mean that they are on-call 1:2 and have to come in during every call at least once or twice (2hrs time and 1/2).
In an outpatient office, RTs and sonographers typically make less, but then again its a 9-5 job (they will frequently do 'casual' work at hospitals to generate extra income).

There is a movement afoot to expand the role of midlevels in radiology. One of the accepted paths to these positions comes from the RT side of things (radiologist assistant).

While I have some general objections to the midlevelization of medicine, for the individual I think it is a great opportunity.

This afternoon I spoke to one of my weekend CT techs. He is planning to go back to school to become an RA. I encouraged him in this plan as it will certainly suit his talents.

 

[tcorrao]

Up !

Hospitals tend to pay 'more' and have better benefits than radiology practices or clinician offices. Some of the 'more' comes in the form of call-pay and overtime. So while a sonographer might take home 60-70k, it also may mean that they are on-call 1:2 and have to come in during every call at least once or twice (2hrs time and 1/2).
In an outpatient office, RTs and sonographers typically make less, but then again its a 9-5 job (they will frequently do 'casual' work at hospitals to generate extra income).

There is a movement afoot to expand the role of midlevels in radiology. One of the accepted paths to these positions comes from the RT side of things (radiologist assistant).

While I have some general objections to the midlevelization of medicine, for the individual I think it is a great opportunity.

This afternoon I spoke to one of my weekend CT techs. He is planning to go back to school to become an RA. I encouraged him in this plan as it will certainly suit his talents.

interesting. This is the same I have been hearing. Everyone is saying start small, and then move around.

 

[micheal895]

Another aspect that will determine your radiology Tech salary is that of your experience. The amount of years you have spent on the job will greatly affect the amount of money you can expect to see annually.

 

[xraytech]

interesting. This is the same I have been hearing. Everyone is saying start small, and then move around.

I think there is going to be a lot more growth in outpatient type facilities that aren't hospitals and are not necessarily doctor's offices either. These centers have lower costs and can see more patients efficiently. I think there will be more x-ray tech jobs at these type of places.

Hospitals are good places to start though because you will get great insurance benefits, there's a cafeteria, etc. On the flip side, schedules might be more unpredictable! Night shifts aren't uncommon!

 

[DrAwsome]

Up !

Hospitals tend to pay 'more' and have better benefits than radiology practices or clinician offices. Some of the 'more' comes in the form of call-pay and overtime. So while a sonographer might take home 60-70k, it also may mean that they are on-call 1:2 and have to come in during every call at least once or twice (2hrs time and 1/2).
In an outpatient office, RTs and sonographers typically make less, but then again its a 9-5 job (they will frequently do 'casual' work at hospitals to generate extra income).

There is a movement afoot to expand the role of midlevels in radiology. One of the accepted paths to these positions comes from the RT side of things (radiologist assistant).

While I have some general objections to the midlevelization of medicine, for the individual I think it is a great opportunity.

This afternoon I spoke to one of my weekend CT techs. He is planning to go back to school to become an RA. I encouraged him in this plan as it will certainly suit his talents.

What will RAs do? It takes 5 years + medical school training to make a radiologist. What does the "assistant" do?

 

[CATrtb]

Both fields are in very high demand and both will command decent salaries- 35-45 k range for rad tech and probably more for sonographers.
As long as you are not incompetent, there is excellent job security for both fields. Rad Techs are the ones that perform radiologic examinations, whether Plain films, CT, MR, Angiography etc. Sonographers perform ultrasounds which tends to be more operator dependent and relies more on the the hand-eye abilities than radiography. The other thing is that at least half of ultrasounds concern women's health issues. Not surprisingly there are many more women in the field than men. Another thing to consider is that there are far fewer sonographers, so you may have to take overnight calls for emergent scans from the ER, which may factor into the higher salary figures compared to RTs.


For more information, you should try posting the same questions in the appropriate forum at the Auntminnie website.

Both fields are not in demand (in most places). There has been a flood of technologists and sonographers into the market the last 8 years. The boom times were from 98-04 or so, then jobs got progressively harder to come by. With widespread PACS use came an increase in efficiency per tech. You couple that with the massive amount of schools that opened up from 2000-2008 to "fill demand" with the start of the recession and you got a massive flood of techs. Thus salaries and jobs dropped. When a person graduates from rad tech school today they are lucky to even get a part-time every-other-weekend night shift job starting at 1998 starting wages. I know tons of people who went through rad tech school or u/s school the last few years only to come out unemployed.

The only thing that holds me back from going full court press to become a radiologist is that I think "What is stopping what happened to the technologist market from happening to the radiologist market?"

So to the OP---I would look into something else, unless you know demand is high in your area.


Edit: Good Lord, this thread is from four years ago. I wonder what OP did.

 

[CATrtb]

RA's were created to help with the "demand" of radiologists back in 2002. They can do as much as their training radiologist will allow except for reading films or making diagnoses. The can do all the fluoro work, put in lines, etc. so that you can keep reading. It's funny because I remember teaching courses to future "Radiologic Technologist Assistants" back in 2002 to help with the "demand". How things can change.

 

[EeePC1005PR]

I've been looking into changing my career from finance to medical. And these are the two areas of interest.

Can everyone give their opinion on the two positions? (pay, job duties, life of profession, job security, etc)

Radiologic Technology or Diagnostic Medical Sonography

Not sure if this is what you are asking about : radiographer or sonographer.

If you don't mind patient contact (as in physically contacting them with your probe), then sonography will probably give you better leverage. Reason being a lot radiologists are too busy already with other modalities, and rely on good sonographers to take good images quickly. Sonography is like riding a difficult bike. It's not just a set of routines to follow. Years of hands on experience will make you increasingly valuable.

I've also known some very good sonographers who are also radiographer, and also have enough IT background to sort out PACS issues. Those people are true assets.

 

[jacksono]

Not sure if this is what you are asking about : radiographer or sonographer.

If you don't mind patient contact (as in physically contacting them with your probe), then sonography will probably give you better leverage. Reason being a lot radiologists are too busy already with other modalities, and rely on good sonographers to take good images quickly. Sonography is like riding a difficult bike. It's not just a set of routines to follow. Years of hands on experience will make you increasingly valuable.

I've also known some very good sonographers who are also radiographer, and also have enough IT background to sort out PACS issues. Those people are true assets.

So the combination between sonographer and radiographer is the best choice? Anyone have suggestion about sonographer & radiographer? I need some advice for my brother, thank you