The Pathology Job Market is Strong

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Unty

New Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
574
Reaction score
258

60 applications for one job ad. People with one job offer. Someone’s bsing here.

Data from 2018 shows a whopping 62% of grads report at least a moderately difficult, difficult or very difficult job market. That’s 372 graduates (600 grads entering the workforce each year) who say the job search was at least moderately difficult. This data was presented at a CAP residents forum

EAF8004D-ABC5-4E18-85B1-F63BC9E1745D.jpeg


I guess 62% of pathology grads finding it difficult to get a job equates to a strong job market!

I mean cmon data which is presented here at a CAP conference does not correspond to a “strong” job market article recently published by CAP a few weeks ago.

CAP you guys are playing yourselves aka contradicting yourselves!

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
FLAWED PAPER! THESE CLOWNS DON'T KNOW HOW TO GAUGE DEMAND.

ACCORDING TO THESE CLOWNS IF MY CORPORATE LAB TAKES OVER AN 8 MAN, KICK ASS GROUP, AND REPLACES IT WITH 12 FTE LACKEY PATHOLOGISTS, THAT THIS DEMONSTRATES A STRONG JOB MARKET, INDICATING 12 JOBS CREATED!
 
From my experience finding a job this year I truly think that the job market has improved compared to the previous years but is still far from great. The number of advertised positions is significantly up compared to, say, 3 years ago. That CAP survey also shows that finding a position is now easier which I do believe. Of course, around 20% of the fellows still said that finding a job was difficult or very difficult, which cannot be said about most other medical specialties.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
This hiring was not limited to larger, academic-based practices, but also occurred among smaller practices and practices based in nonacademic hospitals, independent laboratories, and other settings. Although some practices retrenched (60 full-time equiva- lents in 2017), the net increase was a healthy 187 full-time equivalents. Practices most frequently sought pathologists who had at least 2 years of experience, but the level of experience identified with the ‘‘optimal’’ candidate varied by desired areas of subspecialty expertise. Practice leaders also reported expected growth in hiring, with the number of positions they hope to fill in the next 3 years exceeding those vacated by retirement.
Conclusions.—Our findings support the proposition that the demand for pathologists is strong, at least at the current time.
(Arch Pathol Lab Med. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2019-0356-CP)

“Desired at least 2 years of experience.”

Among the surveyed practice leaders, 115 (45.5%) sought to hire at least 1 pathologist in 2017, and together tried to fill 246 full-time equivalent positions that year, of which 93.5 full-time equivalents (38%)

246 FTE? But there are 600 pathologists entering the workforce each year? Of these jobs, some are asking for at least two years of experience but may take a fresh grad on based on Subspecialty training is what you are saying.

Do you guys see the discrepancy here? 600 pathologists for 246 FTE? Let me repeat that again. 600 pathologists for 246 FTE? Of those 246 FTE a majority will require at least two years experience. So a majority of those jobs wouldn’t be applicable to a new grad then if you use some common sense.

If you take the jobs out that don’t require experience, how many jobs are left for new grads? Of these jobs, how many jobs are considered “weak jobs”? So new grads are left with some jobs that may be good, may be not, but the 600 pathologists are COMPETING for these 246 fte jobs some of which may be weak jobs or in undesirable places.

Not all jobs are alike.

There are weak jobs out there (88 bed hospital in middle of nowhere Midwest). There are jobs in undesirable areas.

The number of FTE jobs available for new grads gets SMALLER based on subtracting those jobs looking for experience and some of those leftover are weak jobs like I mentioned or in undesirable cities. A majority of those leftover are academic jobs (table showing most jobs are at academic centers or AHCs).

You also have to take into account that not all jobs will want the fellowship you trained in as well.

Dr Karchner or Dr Hoda please speak up. Isn’t there a discrepancy here? I mean the numbers aren’t adding up to your conclusion that the job market is a ”strong one”.

Dr Hoda-you mentioned that those who have “trouble finding jobs are the vocal ones” in one of your your Twitter posts. Please do speak up to explain this discrepancy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This hiring was not limited to larger, academic-based practices, but also occurred among smaller practices and practices based in nonacademic hospitals, independent laboratories, and other settings. Although some practices retrenched (60 full-time equiva- lents in 2017), the net increase was a healthy 187 full-time equivalents. Practices most frequently sought pathologists who had at least 2 years of experience, but the level of experience identified with the ‘‘optimal’’ candidate varied by desired areas of subspecialty expertise. Practice leaders also reported expected growth in hiring, with the number of positions they hope to fill in the next 3 years exceeding those vacated by retirement.
Conclusions.—Our findings support the proposition that the demand for pathologists is strong, at least at the current time.
(Arch Pathol Lab Med. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2019-0356-CP)

“Desired at least 2 years of experience.”

Among the surveyed practice leaders, 115 (45.5%) sought to hire at least 1 pathologist in 2017, and together tried to fill 246 full-time equivalent positions that year, of which 93.5 full-time equivalents (38%)

246 FTE? But there are 600 pathologists entering the workforce each year? Of these jobs, some are asking for at least two years of experience but may take a fresh grad on based on Subspecialty training is what you are saying.

Do you guys see the discrepancy here? 600 pathologists for 246 FTE? Let me repeat that again. 600 pathologists for 246 FTE? Of those 246 FTE a majority will require at least two years experience. So a majority of those jobs wouldn’t be applicable to a new grad then if you use some common sense.

If you take the jobs out that don’t require experience, how many jobs are left for new grads? Of these jobs, how many jobs are considered “weak jobs”? So new grads are left with some jobs that may be good, may be not, but the 600 pathologists are COMPETING for these 246 fte jobs some of which may be weak jobs or in undesirable places.

Not all jobs are alike.

There are weak jobs out there (88 bed hospital in middle of nowhere Midwest). There are jobs in undesirable areas.

The number of FTE jobs available for new grads gets SMALLER based on subtracting those jobs looking for experience and some of those leftover are weak jobs like I mentioned or in undesirable cities. A majority of those leftover are academic jobs (table showing most jobs are at academic centers or AHCs).

You also have to take into account that not all jobs will want the fellowship you trained in as well.

Dr Karchner or Dr Hoda please speak up. Isn’t there a discrepancy here? I mean the numbers aren’t adding up to your conclusion that the job market is a ”strong one”.

Dr Hoda-you mentioned that those who have “trouble finding jobs are the vocal ones” in one of your your Twitter posts. Please do speak up to explain this discrepancy.
I suggest you write these two an email and post their answers here rather than expecting them to come to this site and address an anonymous posting that they sure unlikely to ever be aware of.
 
I suggest you write these two an email and post their answers here rather than expecting them to come to this site and address an anonymous posting that they sure unlikely to ever be aware of.

I will but I’d also like to see what others thought about the data presented in this paper and what I deciphered as NOT a strong job market as they concluded.
 
I will but I’d also like to see what others thought about the data presented in this paper and what I deciphered as NOT a strong job market as they concluded.

I'm not the author, but I think the obvious answer to your biggest question (200 positions for 600 graduates) is pretty straight forward and likely to be that they did not survey all pathology groups/practices, but a percentage that they knew was representative of the overall group. They may have reached out to all but only a percentage responded. They can't possibly know how many FTEs would be filled by groups that did not respond. At least that's my take.
 
Top