- Joined
- Mar 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 0
15% of positions are unfilled. And more and more FMG are taking FM left by AMGs. It doesn't look good at all for all future fm physicians. the yearly income for fm will be lower in the future.
What a shame! FP has the most unfilled positions for 2006 match.
- Thread starter costanza
- Start date
D
deleted87716
costanza said:
I wouldn't be too sure about that. If, as you say, 15% of FM slots were unfilled this year, that means that 85% were filled, making this the third year in a row of increasing match fill rates. According to the 2005 match results, family medicine had an 82.4 percent fill rate, up from 78.8 percent in the 2004 match, and 76.2 percent in 2003. Of course, fewer positions are being offered now, as well. See graph.
None of this, by the way, has anything to do with family physician incomes.
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Messages
- 307
- Reaction score
- 0
costanza said:
actually prelim surgery had more unfilled spots, and kent is right, that doesnt affect the salary of FPs. that is mostly dependent on the individual/practice/hours/loctation etc. etc. but not the match.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 45
- Reaction score
- 0
costanza said:
Why are you saying that fmgs taking the seats is adding to the the "bad future" for FM. Gimme a break, I'm tired of idiots like you who are prejudice against FMGs. There are good and bad FMGs out there just like there are good and bad USMGs. Stop trying to connect the dots when it comes to FMGs and bad programs/specialities. They worked just as hard and succeed just as much as others so why don't you get off your high horse. If you don't like it, stop living in a democracy like the US and go live somewhere where everything works to benefit your precious ass.
8
8744
enigma1800 said:If you don't like it, stop living in a democracy like the US and go live somewhere where everything works to benefit your precious ass.
I confess that I don't understand what you mean here. If we are living in a democracy where nothing works to benefit their own ass then doesn't the OP have the right to lambast whoever he wants because he's pulling his own weight?
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 3,915
- Reaction score
- 22
Panda Bear said:
He means that we will live in a society where your rewards are determined by how hard you work, not on factors such as citizenship, wealth etc (theoretically speaking).
basically he is saying to the OP...
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,900
- Reaction score
- 8
RVUs will determine how your work is compensated in $$ compared to other specialties. Of course, most individual docs are paid based on collections, but for the specialty as a whole the valuation of your work in RVUs is what determines the income (neither the skin colour nor the average number of vowels in the name of the average family practicioner has any influence on the incomes of the specialty).
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 37
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't think I'll ever worry about my future salary - there will always be my choice of working environments just about anywhere in the US, and to be honest, I could give a crap as along as I'm happy. I don't think the match will affect anything. Although I do wonder as an American grad if my salary would be higher than that offered to an FMG? Interesting....you would think Small Town USA where I want to work someday would rather have a "down home" (aka American) doc than an FMG - not like I would care, but just wondering....
On a total tangent...someone should take a hard look at the programs that REPEATEDLY ONLY match FMGs or go completely unfilled almost EVERY YEAR and just get rid of them. There has to be some reasons why it keeps happening (crappy training? bad location? poor faculty?) because there are plenty of programs that fill and are great. Why keep a program open just to go unfilled every year and match people that weren't good enough for you to put on your match list in the first place?
I agree that not all FMGs are bad (there are some excellent ones out there - it sucks that they get lumped in with the bad ones and ones who can barely speak English) but American residency programs are for training American docs....on the other hand, it's a completely different thing if someone wants training here because they plan on going back to the country where they came from to share that knowledge and provide much-needed primary care, but when it's just some way to get into the U.S. and stay there....well...I don't agree with that.
My program filled, so I'm happy!
16 of us, baby....and I don't even think we interviewed any FMGs (maybe?)....
On a total tangent...someone should take a hard look at the programs that REPEATEDLY ONLY match FMGs or go completely unfilled almost EVERY YEAR and just get rid of them. There has to be some reasons why it keeps happening (crappy training? bad location? poor faculty?) because there are plenty of programs that fill and are great. Why keep a program open just to go unfilled every year and match people that weren't good enough for you to put on your match list in the first place?
I agree that not all FMGs are bad (there are some excellent ones out there - it sucks that they get lumped in with the bad ones and ones who can barely speak English) but American residency programs are for training American docs....on the other hand, it's a completely different thing if someone wants training here because they plan on going back to the country where they came from to share that knowledge and provide much-needed primary care, but when it's just some way to get into the U.S. and stay there....well...I don't agree with that.
My program filled, so I'm happy!
16 of us, baby....and I don't even think we interviewed any FMGs (maybe?)....
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2005
- Messages
- 287
- Reaction score
- 1
i totally agree. these programs must suck for some reason or anohter if they are repeatedly unfilled, so they should just be gone.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 300
- Reaction score
- 3
Is anyone else surprised that Ventura went unfilled? I interviewed there as a back up to ob/gyn, and thought the program was incredible. In fact, I would have ranked it ahead of some of my ob/gyn programs! Are they picky, or was it a rough year??
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 3,915
- Reaction score
- 22
ramonaquimby said:
Even though many of those programs are in the inner city or underserved areas, SCREW THEM! Poor and rural people don't need medical care anyway. More for rich guys like us to enjoy...
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 1,380
- Reaction score
- 34
McDoctor said:This is actually an improvement over the past several years and the best fill % since 1998.
... but likely because the number of positions available have been contracting. Number of US seniors remained constant.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Messages
- 656
- Reaction score
- 8
lowbudget said:
good point. I have to admit, I haven't actually looked at the numbers very closely.
Still, I would say that things looks bleak for the aging population on a whole, not necessarily for future FM docs.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2001
- Messages
- 3,757
- Reaction score
- 5
The number of US seniors entering residencies is CLIMBING, not decreasing.
You are forgetting the impact of the DO schools. 10 new DO schools in the last 20 years with 5 or 6 more in the pipeline
Also, there are new MD programs:
1) FSU Med opened in 2002
2) Cleveland Clinic Med opened in 2004
3) UCF and FIU will start new MD schools in the next couple of years (already approved)
You are forgetting the impact of the DO schools. 10 new DO schools in the last 20 years with 5 or 6 more in the pipeline
Also, there are new MD programs:
1) FSU Med opened in 2002
2) Cleveland Clinic Med opened in 2004
3) UCF and FIU will start new MD schools in the next couple of years (already approved)
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2005
- Messages
- 99
- Reaction score
- 0
enigma1800 said:Why are you saying that fmgs taking the seats is adding to the the "bad future" for FM. Gimme a break, I'm tired of idiots like you who are prejudice against FMGs. There are good and bad FMGs out there just like there are good and bad USMGs. Stop trying to connect the dots when it comes to FMGs and bad programs/specialities. They worked just as hard and succeed just as much as others so why don't you get off your high horse. If you don't like it, stop living in a democracy like the US and go live somewhere where everything works to benefit your precious ass.
I agree!!
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi Everyone,
I'm not a doctor myself, but I've been reading the posts here because my wife will be entering her third year of medical school and I thought I'd read up on the different specialties out there. What has been fascinating to me is what drives people to choose there medical specialty, and the one constant has been the desire for "prestige." Yes, lifestyle and money issues seem important as well, but these factors seem to play a role especially when a future doctor is forced to choose between two specialties competing for his/her interest -- to wit, "I like derm and IM, but I chose derm because the work is easy and you make bank." The more "overall" choice, when you have the entire realm of medical specialties before you, seems to be between primary care, diagnostic specialties (e.g. radiology, derm), or procedure-based specialties (e.g., surgery, cards). It is here that "presitge" seems to play the predominant role -- as in, "I don't want to do primary care because you don't get as much respect/prestige" as EM, open-heart surgeons, cancer docs, etc." Indeed, when "prestige" is the motivating factor, it seems that primary care, in particular FM, always seems to lose out. Again, I am not a doctor, but I think a do know a bit about prestige. I have two degrees from Harvard, one in undergraduate and one in law (yes, I'm a lawyer -- but not THAT kind of lawyer). I work at one of the most prestigious law firms in the country. Like some doctors out there, I make a good deal of money. You would think that a background like that would buy you a good deal of respect/prestige/whatever. It doesn't, at least not from my colleagues. Once you start to work, your co-workers, your boss, the partners, the janitors, the secretaries, the paralegas -- none of them care about where you went to law school. There is no "prestige" here because everyone around you is accomplished and hardworking -- the only thing that matters is that you get the job done. Outside of work, "prestige" is even less of a factor. Sure, maybe people really do "respect" my degrees or think my job has a lot of "prestige." But consider this: (1) most people enough self-respect to openly kiss your ass about how much they "respect" you; (2) most non-law people don't know enough about the law to know whether your job is prestigious or if you're just another ambulance-chaser; (3) I'm at work so often (i.e. daily) that I just don't have that many interactions with non-law people. With respect, I think these same principles apply to the practice of medicine. Basically, my point is this: there are two kinds of "respect" -- those you get from your fellow workers and those you get from the public. Only the first is important. You will be too busy to know or care what the general public thinks of you. And your boss won't just respect you because you're a surgeon and not a family practitioner -- after all, he is a sugeon too (and a better one than you). So, bottom line, if you choose your specialty, much less your profession, based on some vague notion of respect or prestige, think again: you will come to regret your choice. So give FP a chance!
Back to work . . .
id
I'm not a doctor myself, but I've been reading the posts here because my wife will be entering her third year of medical school and I thought I'd read up on the different specialties out there. What has been fascinating to me is what drives people to choose there medical specialty, and the one constant has been the desire for "prestige." Yes, lifestyle and money issues seem important as well, but these factors seem to play a role especially when a future doctor is forced to choose between two specialties competing for his/her interest -- to wit, "I like derm and IM, but I chose derm because the work is easy and you make bank." The more "overall" choice, when you have the entire realm of medical specialties before you, seems to be between primary care, diagnostic specialties (e.g. radiology, derm), or procedure-based specialties (e.g., surgery, cards). It is here that "presitge" seems to play the predominant role -- as in, "I don't want to do primary care because you don't get as much respect/prestige" as EM, open-heart surgeons, cancer docs, etc." Indeed, when "prestige" is the motivating factor, it seems that primary care, in particular FM, always seems to lose out. Again, I am not a doctor, but I think a do know a bit about prestige. I have two degrees from Harvard, one in undergraduate and one in law (yes, I'm a lawyer -- but not THAT kind of lawyer). I work at one of the most prestigious law firms in the country. Like some doctors out there, I make a good deal of money. You would think that a background like that would buy you a good deal of respect/prestige/whatever. It doesn't, at least not from my colleagues. Once you start to work, your co-workers, your boss, the partners, the janitors, the secretaries, the paralegas -- none of them care about where you went to law school. There is no "prestige" here because everyone around you is accomplished and hardworking -- the only thing that matters is that you get the job done. Outside of work, "prestige" is even less of a factor. Sure, maybe people really do "respect" my degrees or think my job has a lot of "prestige." But consider this: (1) most people enough self-respect to openly kiss your ass about how much they "respect" you; (2) most non-law people don't know enough about the law to know whether your job is prestigious or if you're just another ambulance-chaser; (3) I'm at work so often (i.e. daily) that I just don't have that many interactions with non-law people. With respect, I think these same principles apply to the practice of medicine. Basically, my point is this: there are two kinds of "respect" -- those you get from your fellow workers and those you get from the public. Only the first is important. You will be too busy to know or care what the general public thinks of you. And your boss won't just respect you because you're a surgeon and not a family practitioner -- after all, he is a sugeon too (and a better one than you). So, bottom line, if you choose your specialty, much less your profession, based on some vague notion of respect or prestige, think again: you will come to regret your choice. So give FP a chance!
Back to work . . .
id
D
deleted87716
goodvibrashins said:
Very well said. Welcome to the forum.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 0
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2003
- Messages
- 756
- Reaction score
- 0
Buy low, sell high.
A few years ago there were too many pharmacist. Everyone said if you go into pharmacy you may not find a good job. some people obviously did not listen and now there is a major shortage of pharmacist and the ones that went into it when there was a slump in the field are now making 90K a year.
Not bad for a 4 year degree. Actually, I think it's five years but it is still considered a bachelors.
A few years ago there were too many pharmacist. Everyone said if you go into pharmacy you may not find a good job. some people obviously did not listen and now there is a major shortage of pharmacist and the ones that went into it when there was a slump in the field are now making 90K a year.
Not bad for a 4 year degree. Actually, I think it's five years but it is still considered a bachelors.
Similar threads
