This is what a good job market looks like

[Rudy]

http://www.healthecareers.com/aad/search-jobs/?specialty=*&location=ca

Granted, derm is obviously near the top of the medical specialty food chain, but it's pretty amazing to see the CA job opportunities listed on the job board for the AAD relative to the CAP. It is very difficult to find quality pathology (partnership) gigs in CA. This listing that I posted for derm shows 30 jobs in CA in the past month alone. 300 jobs are posted nationwide last month, with only about 350 residents coming out of training per year. Incredible.

Medical students: read and heed. Everyone won't be able to match into derm, but the contrast between the prospects in their field and ours is striking. This highlights again the damage done to our field by the blatant overage of pathology residents with no regard to job market.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[2121115]

No, that is what an excellent/ideal job market looks like. Most pathologists would settle for an "average for medical doctors" job market. And yes, medical students should consider this, particularly with the coming consolidation. There are few partnership openings is LA and SF because you don't have to offer that to get good pathologists to work at your practice. Even Kaiser is very competitive in these locations. This is true in EVERY large metro area though. Go to more rural areas and the game changes. Pathology is all about location, which is why you see differing opinions on how bad the job market is. If you were born and raised in LA, NYC, etc, and you want to live out your life there, well, good luck.

 

[turtle1966]

http://www.healthecareers.com/aad/search-jobs/?specialty=*&location=ca

Granted, derm is obviously near the top of the medical specialty food chain, but it's pretty amazing to see the CA job opportunities listed on the job board for the AAD relative to the CAP. It is very difficult to find quality pathology (partnership) gigs in CA. This listing that I posted for derm shows 30 jobs in CA in the past month alone. 300 jobs are posted nationwide last month, with only about 350 residents coming out of training per year. Incredible.

Medical students: read and heed. Everyone won't be able to match into derm, but the contrast between the prospects in their field and ours is striking. This highlights again the damage done to our field by the blatant overage of pathology residents with no regard to job market.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

This is so true. Shame on our leadership and on those blowing smoke on this crystal clear reality!

 

[Cellpathology]

When you have to expend roughly 100X the effort to find a job, as compared with your spouse in internal medicine, by definition the job market is terrible

 

[rollwithit]

http://www.healthecareers.com/aad/search-jobs/?specialty=*&location=ca

Granted, derm is obviously near the top of the medical specialty food chain, but it's pretty amazing to see the CA job opportunities listed on the job board for the AAD relative to the CAP. It is very difficult to find quality pathology (partnership) gigs in CA. This listing that I posted for derm shows 30 jobs in CA in the past month alone. 300 jobs are posted nationwide last month, with only about 350 residents coming out of training per year. Incredible.

Medical students: read and heed. Everyone won't be able to match into derm, but the contrast between the prospects in their field and ours is striking. This highlights again the damage done to our field by the blatant overage of pathology residents with no regard to job market.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

Markets of cosmetic / non-essential services where patients are willing to pay cash are far easier to establish a pro-provider job market versus a behind the scenes market that doesn't even have to interact with the patient. The downside is that it's tough to become a provider in that market.

There's no doubt room for improvement for the newly trained pathologist, but failing to acknowledge how pathology is uniquely situated to be a more "commoditized" field since the services are urgent and parts of the patient can be sent to you will only set you up for a lifetime of disappointment.

Good luck making the argument that we need to train less pathologists so you can make more money in the city you want. As long as patient care is not suffering, market forces will push pathology into as centralized and efficient service as possible. This simply is not physically possible for specialties that require heavy patient contact.

 

[hesperion]

Wow, that's really depressing and eye-opening (Rudy's post).

I moved to a place for my job. A place I never could have imagined living in just a few years ago. I've posted before that I'm not happy but I'm not unhappy either ... isn't that depressing? I know I would be much happier if I could choose where I live, I'd probably enjoy the field more too.

I've read this forum for at least 4 years, never really posted until I was a 4th year resident to commiserate with other 4th years about Boards. I was optimistic, I ignored the negative comments thinking those people were just pessimists in general. Well, now that I'm working, living in an okay place but by no means a place I want to live in forever, I'm starting to actually understand and appreciate all the comments here.

I guess if you're okay with living ANYWHERE in the US, then maybe this field is okay for you. If you want to live in your dream location, regardless of how good or bad the job is, good luck. You'll probably get a job there eventually if you constantly check the postings and send out your CV to all of them.

What a dismal market.

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

One of the positives of Medicare releasing that billing data is that you can see a breakdown of what physicians are billing for. A pathologist I know was bragging about how he/she is doing ultrasound guided needle biopsies him/herself. CAP has been touting this for a few years now. I looked at how many procedures he/she billed medicare for and it was very few. I was hoping the field would go more interventional but it looks like all you are needed for is "pushing glass" at large centralized labs. This will always keep the field a commodity.

 

[Glass Pusher]

When you have to expend roughly 100X the effort to find a job, as compared with your spouse in internal medicine, by definition the job market is terrible

I totally agree with this as my spouse is also in internal med. The most effort she had to put into finding a job was hanging up on recruiters calling her all the time.

 

[Cellpathology]

I totally agree with this as my spouse is also in internal med. The most effort she had to put into finding a job was hanging up on recruiters calling her all the time.

not to mention daily emails and LETTERS IN THE MAIL begging her to come work at some random desirable town

 

[Glass Pusher]

not to mention daily emails and LETTERS IN THE MAIL begging her to come work at some random desirable town

Exactly. And they didn't even want her to have 2 fellowships and 5 years of experience...go figure.

 

[path24]

So roughly the amount of jobs posted in a month for derm equals the amount posted for an entire year in pathology. And path trains almost double the number of physicians. Pathology job market is crap and will ALWAYS (yes always, there will never be the fantasy shortage, how are you going to get a freaking shortage with these numbers??) be utter crap.

On a very positive note "our leaders" the cap has a new HISTOTECH job available in California for pathologists. It is a PM shift though and you may have to lift up to 25 lbs which is a bummer.

Throw away your medical career....go into Path!!!!

 

[turtle1966]

I've read this forum for at least 4 years, never really posted until I was a 4th year resident to commiserate with other 4th years about Boards. I was optimistic, I ignored the negative comments thinking those people were just pessimists in general. Well, now that I'm working, living in an okay place but by no means a place I want to live in forever, I'm starting to actually understand and appreciate all the comments here.

Nothing new under the Sun! I first heard a similar despondent remark from a 4th year resident in the late 1980 and not much has changed in Pathology since.

Medical students heed the voices of experience and not the Siren songs of unethical academic dons and smoke blowers in this Board. If not, you will regret for rest of your life in leisure.

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

For god's sake people, most pathology jobs are word of mouth. It's friends calling friends. Many arent posted. Go away from your computers and make some connections.

 

[icpshootyz]

For god's sake people, most pathology jobs are word of mouth. It's friends calling friends. Many arent posted. Go away from your computers and make some connections.

True, but the point of the thread was that a healthy job market is one where there are more jobs than just those you can get through connections. I found a great job through my connections, but it would have been nice to have much more choice and bargaining power when I was looking.

 

[2121115]

For god's sake people, most pathology jobs are word of mouth. It's friends calling friends. Many aren't posted.

Honestly, this is probably the most telling sign of how weak the job market really is. You have to have an inside connection to get a good job. Think about that. It is limiting for the practice and limiting for the job candidate.

For example, let's say I want to move cross-country, say from Virginia to California. There is almost no way of doing that. I don't know anyone there and there is no way to find out about an opening. And on the flip side, any practice that does have an opening doesn't have any way of knowing I even exist.

Now, I know why practices do not usually advertise. They all say it is because they get a deluge of CVs from people who are unqualified and they get tons of hassling phone calls that interrupt their work day. I get it. But it is also that they don't have to advertise, because there is literally a pathologist on every street corner these days. Very few practices actually have a true "need", they have an "opening". IOW, "we could use somebody around so I can have an extra week of vacation, but it isn't like the cases aren't going to get signed out if we don't find anyone soon".

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

If you want to be successful in this field, you have NO CHOICE but to make as many connections as possible. I've seen many people do a little locum work for friend(s) and then it leads to full time employment down the road. The last pathologist we hired was a friend who was miserable working for a national lab. The job was never posted. When I finally leave for good, the job wont be posted even if they decide to fill it. We have a pool of miserable friends to choose from. LOL

 

[turtle1966]

Good luck making the argument that we need to train less pathologists so you can make more money in the city you want.

I have and will continue to make the argument that the major root of all evil in our specialty is oversupply of trainees, caused by our *****ic and self-serving (to be kind) academic dons.

Price of things and services are dictated "at the margin". You close down sufficient number of residencies for 5 years and will see big labs scrambling to raise wages to attract pathologists.

There is tons of money in pathology (just look at the published Medicare payments to physicians). The problem is that it is being siphoned away from us and we are left with crumbs.

I have very little hope that pathology will change internally. More likely, Society at large will force flattening of highs and lows in Medicine such that our field will look less bad.

Medical students and first and second year residents: if you are looking for money, job security, peace of mind and respect, seriously consider either avoiding or getting out of pathology while you can. Do not listen to Academic dons and smoke blowers in this Board.

 

[Cellpathology]

Yeah no matter what comments are made, if people say jobs are word of mouth, which we know many of them are, it still does not change the fact that the job market sucks.........relatively speaking........

 

[pathstudent]

Yeah no matter what comments are made, if people say jobs are word of mouth, which we know many of them are, it still does not change the fact that the job market sucks.........relatively speaking........

Yeah because all fields have jobs which are word of mouth. Having lots of word of mouth jobs is not unique to pathology as the pathology job market pollyannas would have you believe.

 

[2121115]

Having lots of word of mouth jobs is not unique to pathology as the pathology job market pollyannas would have you believe.

Of course not. The difference is that in pathology ALL jobs are word of mouth. Big, big difference.

 

[cmz]

I agree that MOST jobs are completely word of mouth. My job wasn't advertised. In fact, since I've joined my group, I've had two offers from local groups who would like my services. I love my current job, though.

I do have this irrational fear of our hospital canning our current contract though ... SDN has made me a very paranoid person. #thanksSDNpathboard

 

[rollwithit]

I have and will continue to make the argument that the major root of all evil in our specialty is oversupply of trainees, caused by our *****ic and self-serving (to be kind) academic dons.

Price of things and services are dictated "at the margin". You close down sufficient number of residencies for 5 years and will see big labs scrambling to raise wages to attract pathologists.

There is tons of money in pathology (just look at the published Medicare payments to physicians). The problem is that it is being siphoned away from us and we are left with crumbs.

I have very little hope that pathology will change internally. More likely, Society at large will force flattening of highs and lows in Medicine such that our field will look less bad.

Medical students and first and second year residents: if you are looking for money, job security, peace of mind and respect, seriously consider either avoiding or getting out of pathology while you can. Do not listen to Academic dons and smoke blowers in this Board.

Of course it would be better for you if you had less competition. If you want less trainees, you are going to have to lobby congress and convince them to pull back gme funding without rocking the boat. Maybe you and some of the posters here can pool your resources and research the wasted spend? Do the taxpayers a favor. The research and mega lab world certainly aren't going to do this on your behalf. Nobody asks to be de-funded or have their labor pool reduced.

 

[2121115]

Nobody asks to ... have their labor pool reduced.

Actually, yes they do. Dermatology has done this multiple times.

 

[Cellpathology]

path student, understand the significant difference between the pathology job market in internal medicine vs pathology: pathology, search for many months, send CV to many (100+) institutions, wait months to hear something, interview at a few, get a job after 5 solid months of searching (best case scenario) vs internal medicine, respond to random emails or letters you get begging you to come work for them.... 1 day of work vs 5 months minimum (extremely intense effort).. no one can reasonably suggest that the pathology job search is not intensely frustrating and anxiety provoking

 

[turtle1966]

Of course it would be better for you if you had less competition. If you want less trainees, you are going to have to lobby congress and convince them to pull back gme funding without rocking the boat. Maybe you and some of the posters here can pool your resources and research the wasted spend? Do the taxpayers a favor. The research and mega lab world certainly aren't going to do this on your behalf. Nobody asks to be de-funded or have their labor pool reduced.

I agree with you. That is why I do not think things will change internally.

 

[turtle1966]

Actually, yes they do. Dermatology has done this multiple times.

Many years ago (I think it was in the 1990's), Anesthesiology had an excess of trainees who could not find jobs. They solved the problem by strangling production line.

The difference was that their academic leadership was responsive and reasonable.

 

[turtle1966]

I agree that MOST jobs are completely word of mouth. My job wasn't advertised. In fact, since I've joined my group, I've had two offers from local groups who would like my services. I love my current job, though.

I do have this irrational fear of our hospital canning our current contract though ... SDN has made me a very paranoid person. #thanksSDNpathboard

I hope it does not happen to you and nor do I believe it is a common event. However, it would be good to make yourselves useful, needed and politically connected in your hospital(s).

 

[turtle1966]

Of course not. The difference is that in pathology ALL jobs are word of mouth. Big, big difference.

A reasonable person in ANY SPECIALTY would search for an associate/partner/employee in the following order:
1-word of mouth
2-advertisement
3-get a recruiter; this can be very expensive

The reason why most jobs are by word of mouth in Pathology is because there is no need for #2 or #3. True, national labs do use #3 for obvious reasons.

 

[Thrombus]

the reason there is a claim out there that most jobs are "word of mouth" is that if you advertise you will get 100's of CV's to sort through.

Many of these CV's have those who cannot communicate well in English. Failure to communicate well in English is a huge liability as there are many nuances in our reports that have to be mastered.

One wonders why so many programs are training those who cannot communicate well in English? Are they out of touch or are they doing it for the labor and the paychecks that come with it?

 

[BlondeDocteur]

I think it's interesting, too, that the field routinely matches in people who are 7, 10, or even more years out of medical school-- people who didn't do even the observorships or electives that FMGs in other fields pursue, who have literally never spent a day in a US hospital nor touched an American patient, ever.

Dragon Dictation can overcome a plethora of accents and grammar errors, but there are so many subtleties conveyed by a pathology report-- not to mention the face-to-face or phone communication.

 

[rollwithit]

Actually, yes they do. Dermatology has done this multiple times.

And they can get away with it bc nobody cares if little Tim has to wait 3 weeks to have his acne checked or if some sort of cosmetic procedure has a backlog. There's likely a better balance to be found in path but it's wishful thinking if you think pathologists could protect the field the way derm can.

 

[BlondeDocteur]

Actually there is an enormous problem of very long wait periods to see a dermatologist for more urgent issues, particularly skin cancer concerns. If you have government insurance, forget it.

The NYTimes did this awesome expose a few years back, where they cold-called every licensed dermatologist in Manhattan and pretended to be one of two fake patients. The first wanted Botox. The second described a suspicious mole in terms that were clearly worrisome for melanoma. They made sure they had insurance accepted by the provider. The wait time for Botox averaged 2-3 days, and the wait time for the suspicious mole averaged 6 months.

 

[rollwithit]

Actually there is an enormous problem of very long wait periods to see a dermatologist for more urgent issues, particularly skin cancer concerns. If you have government insurance, forget it.

The NYTimes did this awesome expose a few years back, where they cold-called every licensed dermatologist in Manhattan and pretended to be one of two fake patients. The first wanted Botox. The second described a suspicious mole in terms that were clearly worrisome for melanoma. They made sure they had insurance accepted by the provider. The wait time for Botox averaged 2-3 days, and the wait time for the suspicious mole averaged 6 months.

Fair point. Sad, but fair. I guess quick cash will result in questionable judgment more times than not. The job market may be outstanding for those able to get in, but I'm not sure it's something path should, or can, imitate.

 

[yaah]

Everything is relative. There is a ton of hyperbole on here which is not helpful. For comparison's sake, if you talk to a newly minted lawyer and describe the pathology job market, they would say that the path market is excellent expecially in comparison to law jobs, many of which now are essentially paid internships paid directly by the law schools themselves so that the job market doesn't look worse. When 99% of people get jobs, that is only a bad job market in comparison to a select few fields. The fact that almost all of them are in other medical fields is interesting but also is not the whole story, because many many other graduate degree programs would kill to have pathology's unemployment. Comparisons to dermatology are really not terribly helpful because it's a totally different environment. The natural thing is to try to compare path to other fields to make some sort of point, but it really doesn't add much.

The job market is what it is. People have vastly different experiences with it. Some get multiple choice offers, some have to struggle and move to find anything. Predicting the future is exceedingly difficult because you have to predict not only work patterns and job availability but also changes in practice in the field itself.

The path job market is obviously not what it should be. It needs to get leaner in terms of supply, because the more entrants into the job market that are sub par the more the field suffers. The pathology job market and excess of trainees should not exist simply to serve residency programs, it should exist to adequately supply the field and not oversupply it. Unfortunatley, despite what many of you say, this is exceedingly hard to study and predict accurately. To make significant changes NOW to the resident supply means affecting the job market 5-6 years down the road, not immediately. To respond to future shortages will also require steps that take 5-6 years to have affect. This is a problem. It's not an assembly line with just in time production.

All I ask is just for people to think about this and use a little perspective. Harassing future trainees is not productive as it just means fewer good people go into the field. Attention should be directed towards reducing the output of subpar trainees and pathologists, but unfortunately this is much easier said than done.

 

[pathstudent]

Everything is relative. There is a ton of hyperbole on here which is not helpful. For comparison's sake, if you talk to a newly minted lawyer and describe the pathology job market, they would say that the path market is excellent expecially in comparison to law jobs, many of which now are essentially paid internships paid directly by the law schools themselves so that the job market doesn't look worse. When 99% of people get jobs, that is only a bad job market in comparison to a select few fields. The fact that almost all of them are in other medical fields is interesting but also is not the whole story, because many many other graduate degree programs would kill to have pathology's unemployment. Comparisons to dermatology are really not terribly helpful because it's a totally different environment. The natural thing is to try to compare path to other fields to make some sort of point, but it really doesn't add much.

The job market is what it is. People have vastly different experiences with it. Some get multiple choice offers, some have to struggle and move to find anything. Predicting the future is exceedingly difficult because you have to predict not only work patterns and job availability but also changes in practice in the field itself.

The path job market is obviously not what it should be. It needs to get leaner in terms of supply, because the more entrants into the job market that are sub par the more the field suffers. The pathology job market and excess of trainees should not exist simply to serve residency programs, it should exist to adequately supply the field and not oversupply it. Unfortunatley, despite what many of you say, this is exceedingly hard to study and predict accurately. To make significant changes NOW to the resident supply means affecting the job market 5-6 years down the road, not immediately. To respond to future shortages will also require steps that take 5-6 years to have affect. This is a problem. It's not an assembly line with just in time production.

All I ask is just for people to think about this and use a little perspective. Harassing future trainees is not productive as it just means fewer good people go into the field. Attention should be directed towards reducing the output of subpar trainees and pathologists, but unfortunately this is much easier said than done.

Three points

1 Comparing pathology to other medical specialties is much more meaningful than comparing it to other careers like law

2 law schools are responding by cutting back on enrollment.

3. Encouraging top medical students to go into a field that will be commoditized into oblivion does a huge disservice to the best and the brightest. Because as hospital systems form I nsurance companies and acos proliferate,pathology services will go to the lowest bidder not the best and brightest. Docs that can drive patients will still make a good living. Pathologists do t drive patients.

 

[path19]

Agree. It is not at all a fair comparison to look at the job market for law school graduates (3 years post college) versus pathology (usually 9 or 10 years post college). The job market for law school grads could be more fairly compared to business school grads. Just as the pathology job market should be compared to those for other medical specialties with similar training (i.e. not 3 year residency primary care fields). While dermatology isn't the best apples to apples comparison, it is far better than law school graduates (or college graduates or high school graduates). Radiology seems to be the most natural comparison to me.

 

[yaah]

Three points

1 Comparing pathology to other medical specialties is much more meaningful than comparing it to other careers like law

2 law schools are responding by cutting back on enrollment.

3. Encouraging top medical students to go into a field that will be commoditized into oblivion does a huge disservice to the best and the brightest. Because as hospital systems form I nsurance companies and acos proliferate,pathology services will go to the lowest bidder not the best and brightest. Docs that can drive patients will still make a good living. Pathologists do t drive patients.

#1: Why? Because the earlier stage is "closer"? Who cares whether it is more meaningful? What if you're someone who likes pathology but doesn't really like other fields, but does think they would also like being a lawyer? Is it more meaningful for them? My point is that these comparisons are not helpful because they don't really say anything important. And there are extremely rare individuals who will experience both job markets anyway, thus we are left with essentially anecdotal comparisons, which can be picked and chosen to suit whatever argument you're making. The only people for whom it is important are unusual individuals who are going to be making a significant career choice based on variations in job market patterns which may or may not be true when they actually finish their training. See what I'm saying? This scenario does not apply to a lot of people. No way in heck I was going to want to be a dermatologist or an anesthesiologist. Would have rather been a lawyer.

#2: Are they? Not really. Seems to me like they are responding by paying places to employ their grads. Law schools aren't really cutting enrollment, fewer students are choosing to go into it. Look at the comments to this: Sound familiar? http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2014/03/1l-enrollment.html

#3: You could make this argument about any field in medicine. Have you talked to other docs? They say the same things about their field. Everyone feels like a commodity, everyone feels pressured, everyone feels marginalized. I have posted about this many times before. Certain select individuals will become hot commodities but it's not as though hospitalist or anesthesiologist salaries are skyrocketing. OK, so there are more job openings. So? The average pathologist finishing training is probably making more than the average hospitalist. Is that relevant too? You have to deal with the reality of the situation because comparisons aren't going to change anything.

 

[pathstudent]

#1: Why? Because the earlier stage is "closer"? Who cares whether it is more meaningful? What if you're someone who likes pathology but doesn't really like other fields, but does think they would also like being a lawyer? Is it more meaningful for them? My point is that these comparisons are not helpful because they don't really say anything important. And there are extremely rare individuals who will experience both job markets anyway, thus we are left with essentially anecdotal comparisons, which can be picked and chosen to suit whatever argument you're making.

#2: Are they? Not really. Seems to me like they are responding by paying places to employ their grads. Law schools aren't really cutting enrollment, fewer students are choosing to go into it. Look at the comments to this: Sound familiar? http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2014/03/1l-enrollment.html

#3: You could make this argument about any field in medicine. Have you talked to other docs? They say the same things about their field. Everyone feels like a commodity, everyone feels pressured, everyone feels marginalized. I have posted about this many times before. Certain select individuals will become hot commodities but it's not as though hospitalist or anesthesiologist salaries are skyrocketing. OK, so there are more job openings. So? The average pathologist finishing training is probably making more than the average hospitalist. Is that relevant too? You have to deal with the reality of the situation because comparisons aren't going to change anything.

Law schools are cutting class size http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324281004578354490114584144

Again. Specialties that steer patients will be in much better position in the future than pathology which is essentially just a cost center to the hospital like housekeeping.

 

[hesperion]

I read this board frequently, but not frequently enough to match names with comments. I'm curious how many of the people who are posting about the job market being horrible and demoralizing are recent grads who have actually experienced it first hand. It seems to me, and maybe I'm completely wrong, that many-most of the people who are recent grads have expressed frustration with the market and many of the people who are well into their careers are the ones telling us suck it up and stop scaring away med students. Kind of a big variation in perspective there, it's easy to be righteous when you're safe and comfortable.

And for the record, I got my job through word of mouth.

 

[yaah]

Actually, it's a mix. A lot of the most strident commenters are well into practice and in comfortable positions (although many pathologists in practice feel under constant threat). Everyone has their own reason for their thoughts. Some do it out of grudges, some out of spite, no doubt some are trying to prevent good people from entering so that it means less competition for them. Some had a bad experience themselves and don't wish it on anyone. Our own experiences color our opinions. Part of the major problem on this forum is people jumping to conclusions. Someone who posts they had a good experience but doesn't qualify it with "I was really lucky and truly the market sucks" is called pollyanna or whatever. Lots of people have posted anecdotes, but as with any analysis of anecdotes, people tend to pick only the ones that suit their view to focus on.

Don't misinterpret opinions as "suck it up and stop scaring away med students." That's a terrible interpretation. How does scaring away med students help? Do you want to be in a field where the best and most qualified people shy away for certain reasons? If you talk to anyone who has done any hiring in the past few years, many of them will say two things:

1) It is not hard to find an applicant.
2) It is often hard to find a good, qualified applicant who is right for the job.

People can dismiss #2 all they want but it is a reality. Part of this is because many jobs are specialized and many applicants are also specialized, and finding the right mix can be challenging. Another problem is that many groups will purely dismiss new grads out of fear that the new grad won't be ready or will be dangerous. Often they have been burned before. This is shortsighted and usually mostly a factor in groups who aren't willing to take the time to thoroughly vet candidates. 4/6 of our most recent hires have been directly out of training. Although occasionally (and perhaps increasingly) a smaller group just thinks that their job is too complicated on the administrative end for a new grad to handle. They are often right, which is why programs need to do a better job educating residents in these things.

Our most recent job search involved an ad, which was unusual for our group. I would estimate that 80% of the applications were from unqualified individuals. The job had a couple of specific requirements but wasn't that restrictive. I would also estimate that 50% of the applications were from people already in practice (i.e., they had a full time job). The other 50% were graduating fellows. I don't think there were any applicants who were unemployed or out of training without having any job. One can take this to mean whatever you want. If you want to just shotgun an opinion and jump to conclusions you could say either that there are way too many pathologists or that training programs are pumping out too many unqualified graduates. Those are answers, but they are likely not the whole story.

I really don't know, to be honest, what happens to these applicants. Some of them no doubt leave the country but most of them seem to find a job somewhere, and then end up trying to find a better one. But lots probably find a job they like and stick with it.

This issue is both simple and complicated, it depends on your perspective. For some people on this forum it's enough that the job market is weak and that's all they need to know and their response is to rant and critize anyone who disagrees with them. I'm not sure what this accomplishes other than to scare and inflame. It certainly doesn't help the situation at all. But I think most people see it more nuanced and more complicated.

Another part of the problem is that the only real "studies" that come out about the job market also show nuance and variability. And studies attempting to predict the future are flawed but refuting them with real data has proved somewhat difficult. It's easier to rant.

In the ideal world only programs that could produce qualified, solid trainees would be allowed to train residents. But there isn't much oversight from national organizations as best as I can tell, and I'm not exactly sure what they could do if they tried other than making the board exam harder or something.

 

[turtle1966]

... I'm not exactly sure what they could do...

General opinion on this Board is: "job market is tight to very very tight."

Hello, could we just strive to have a job market that other specialties have? Anyone in charge?

 

[DermViser]

Exactly. And they didn't even want her to have 2 fellowships and 5 years of experience...go figure.

Well, @BU Pathology says the market is excellent.

Pathology is such a great intellectual field. So very sad that students that love learning pathology now have to take into consideration job availability instead of the old adage of doing what you love.

 

[Substance]

Well, @BU Pathology says the market is excellent.

Pathology is such a great intellectual field. So very sad that students that love learning pathology now have to take into consideration job availability instead of the old adage of doing what you love.

Follow the money.

Residents are cheaper than PAs, which leads to their proliferation. Academic incomes are low and are based on research output, which again favours over-recruitment. Corporate laboratories want to increase profit, and a workforce glut is a great way to achieve that.

Unfortunately, this transforms the field from a consultative practice to a commodity. Radiology is approaching the same fate but is slightly more protected due to the sheer volume of imaging.

I don't believe the pathology job market will improve given the monetary benefits an oversupply grants the organizations that currently hold recruiting power.

 

[2121115]

And they can get away with it bc nobody cares if little Tim has to wait 3 weeks to have his acne checked or if some sort of cosmetic procedure has a backlog. There's likely a better balance to be found in path but it's wishful thinking if you think pathologists could protect the field the way derm can.

????

You really think pathology is more "STAT" than dermatology? The specimens sit in formalin. They can wait an extra day. A lot of the turn around time pressure is CAP-induced or referring clinician-induced, not care or patient-induced (for hospital specimens anyway).

 

[turtle1966]

I don't believe the pathology job market will improve given the monetary benefits an oversupply grants the organizations that currently hold recruiting power.

I hope that our specialty will repeat the Canadian experience.

 

[Substance]

????

You really think pathology is more "STAT" than dermatology? The specimens sit in formalin. They can wait an extra day. A lot of the turn around time pressure is CAP-induced or referring clinician-induced, not care or patient-induced (for hospital specimens anyway).

I agree with this. How can a specimen be STAT? As someone who has dealt with true emergencies and urgent situations I cannot see how any type of elective pathology specimen can be an emergency. The CAP's focus on turn-around-time seems more the work of business-minded individuals than physicians, which makes me wonder about big lab influence.

Turtle, how do you define the "Canadian experience"?

 

[turtle1966]

Turtle, how do you define the "Canadian experience"?

Someone had posted that pathologist pay in Canada used to be low and now is better than or on par with that of US.

On the other hand, since the issue in US is not the pay, but job availability, it may not be a fair comparison.

 

[rollwithit]

????

You really think pathology is more "STAT" than dermatology? The specimens sit in formalin. They can wait an extra day. A lot of the turn around time pressure is CAP-induced or referring clinician-induced, not care or patient-induced (for hospital specimens anyway).

No not in the nature of the specimen itself. My point was you can't ask the public to wait in line long for the pathologist due to the reach they have in so many different types of disease. Derm can get away with it bc a sizable portion of their work is cosmetic. I doubt restricting the labor pool in pathology would be as successful as derm bc the pushback from wait times by clinicians and patients would be pretty loud. I'm not talking about a day or two delay - I'm taking about a week + delay and applying that to a much larger population of clinicians and patients affected.

 

[rollwithit]

Follow the money.

Residents are cheaper than PAs, which leads to their proliferation. Academic incomes are low and are based on research output, which again favours over-recruitment. Corporate laboratories want to increase profit, and a workforce glut is a great way to achieve that.

Unfortunately, this transforms the field from a consultative practice to a commodity. Radiology is approaching the same fate but is slightly more protected due to the sheer volume of imaging.

I don't believe the pathology job market will improve given the monetary benefits an oversupply grants the organizations that currently hold recruiting power.

If this is a money thing, shouldn't this be true for all fields and not just path? This board has **clearly** proven that it's easy to train more people by getting some of that government pork. All you have to do is ask for more spots and you get an extra 300k to play with. I guess the path folks were just smart enough to catch on first and get that easy money.

It couldn't be anything about the nature of services that creates a different dynamic than other fields. Impossible! Crazy talk!

 

[yaah]

What a bizarre series of posts.

Seriously you guys are arguing that it is worthless to provide test results in an expeditious and efficient (and accurate) fashion? Have any of you ever been patients? Have you ever tried to care for a patient? And I am not talking about just inpatients.

It almost seems like you're advocating increasing TAT out of spite.

I continue to not understand the discouraging of students and such to pursuing a career in pathology, if that is what they love and want to do. It's kind of a sick attitude.