what if I ONLY want to be a radiologist?

[batista_123]

Hi
once you get your md, is it guaranteed that you will end up practicing what you want? or there is some chance, luck, randomness involved?
for example, what if I only want to be a radiologist and nothing else?
if I go to medical school and dont get the radiology residency, what will i do?
will I just have to settle for something else, or wait a year and reapply, or ??
sorry for the ignorant question, believe it or not, i really dont know this.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ppfizenm]

Hi
once you get your md, is it guaranteed that you will end up practicing what you want? or there is some chance, luck, randomness involved?
for example, what if I only want to be a radiologist and nothing else?
if I go to medical school and dont get the radiology residency, what will i do?
sorry for the ignorant question, believe it or not, i really dont know this.

rads generally isn't the hardest specialty to match into. This of course all depends on how you do in med school. If you don't match your first time around you can always reapply in the next match, though your odds do go down of getting anything at that point.

 

[FrkyBgStok]

That depends. If you have the numbers to back it up, you could try again. There are absolutely no guarantees. If you are gunning for only one competitive specialty, you should probably find something else. USMLE can't be retaken if you pass. So if you barely pass, chances are you will never be a radiologist.

If you can't make, you settle with something else.

 

[batista_123]

thanks guys,
let me ask you another question.
besides radiology, what else can an MD do that does not involve dealing with people?

 

[SunsFun]

pathology

 

[theseeker4]

thanks guys,
let me ask you another question.
besides radiology, what else can an MD do that does not involve dealing with people?

Why would you be interested in being an MD at all if you simply don't want to deal with people? I assume you mean patients not people, as pathologists and radiologists still have to deal with fellow doctors and other health care workers...

 

[TriagePreMed]

thanks guys,
let me ask you another question.
besides radiology, what else can an MD do that does not involve dealing with people?

Then don't go into medicine. You'll deal with people almost all of your training. Even pathologists have to deal with people. If you can't deal with people, a carreer in basic science research would be better. If your definition includes colleagues, you won't be happy at any job except perhaps graveyard shift security.

Sent from my SCH-R910 using Tapatalk

 

[xXIDaShizIXx]

That depends. If you have the numbers to back it up, you could try again. There are absolutely no guarantees. If you are gunning for only one competitive specialty, you should probably find something else. USMLE can't be retaken if you pass. So if you barely pass, chances are you will never be a radiologist.

If you can't make, you settle with something else.

This.

 

[Law2Doc]

Hi
once you get your md, is it guaranteed that you will end up practicing what you want? or there is some chance, luck, randomness involved?
for example, what if I only want to be a radiologist and nothing else?
if I go to medical school and dont get the radiology residency, what will i do?
will I just have to settle for something else, or wait a year and reapply, or ??
sorry for the ignorant question, believe it or not, i really dont know this.

In general you probably shouldn't go into med school if there's only a single competitive specialty you want to do. Not everyone will get it. Most med school grads don't get into the competitive specialties, period. It's mostly not an issue of chance, randomness or luck. It's a question of who worked hard enough to score well on Step 1, who impressed on their clinical rotations, who found time to squeeze in some research and publications, and who networked well for LORs and on away rotations, and who was well liked on interviews. Basically you have to outshine those peers who also want this path. If you don't match into radiology you can do a research year and reapply, or you can try something else, or you can proceed on with your prelim/transitional year. Which path is wiser largely depends on your credentials, and how realistic it is that you will be a stronger applicant a year later.

Radiology was a bit less competitive this year than in the past, with a larger number of unmatched spots than in prior years, likely due to the common knowledge of scarcity of jobs for graduating fellows. Although the word on SDN was that the average Step score for matching into radiology actually went up, not down, so I guess it depends on what you consider less competitive.

I think you are choosing the wrong profession if your goal is to not deal with people. Medicine is about personal interaction. It is a true service industry, like law. Even radiology has become more interventional/procedural these days. There are fields that have decreased patient interaction, but it's still a lot. You cant condition being a doctor on finding a specialty without patient interactions. Its a lot like wanting to be an astronaut so long as you never have to leave earth. Don't go into medicine if you cannot stomach working as a clinician. You will be on the wards your latter two years of med school, and then your intern year of residency, even if you go into radiology.

 

[MT Headed]

Why would you be interested in being an MD at all if you simply don't want to deal with people? I assume you mean patients not people, as pathologists and radiologists still have to deal with fellow doctors and other health care workers...

Actually if you become a new radiologist or pathologist, it is extremely likely that you will not have to deal with people of any kind...



...because you'll be unemployed!

 

[drizzt3117]

The job market thing is overblown for rads; it isn't path. Yes it's hard to find a cush private practice job in SF or NYC... That's always been the case. Finding jobs in slightly smaller markets isnt too bad atm. All 5 of our neuro fellows here have jobs lined up for next year, all 5 last year are working at new jobs too, half of them in chicago/NYC. It does imply going to a low tier community program in an undesirable location could be suboptimal for trying to get a job in a desirable location, though.

 

[unhappytnt]

Since when did radiology become so oversaturated that people are comparing it to pathology? I always thought that the future job prospects in radiology were really good.

 

[crazyasian]

http://www.nrmp.org/data/chartingoutcomes2011.pdf
Check that out. It looks like there are 1.1 applicants per spot so not bad... but also they tend have much higher board scores (2nd highest among the different specialty)

 

[MT Headed]

Since when did radiology become so oversaturated that people are comparing it to pathology? I always thought that the future job prospects in radiology were really good.

Amount of work going up. Reimbursement going down. Old timers not retiring.

It's all over the radiology forums.

 

[drizzt3117]

Amount of work going up. Reimbursement going down. Old timers not retiring.

It's all over the radiology forums.

There's like 2 people that think that, and are constantly trolling.

 

[Law2Doc]

There's like 2 people that think that, and are constantly trolling.

BS. I personally know a lot of radiology fellows, and all are still in job search mode, and this is pretty late in the year to still be looking as compared to prior years. The job market is lousy. and not just in SF/NY

It's cyclical though, so for you just starting residency and still 6 years to go before finishing fellowship I wouldn't sweat it.

 

[drizzt3117]

BS. I personally know a lot of radiology fellows, and all are still in job search mode, and this is pretty late in the year to still be looking as compared to prior years. The job market is lousy. and not just in SF/NY

It's cyclical though, so for you just starting residency and still 6 years to go before finishing fellowship I wouldn't sweat it.

I think it just depends where you're looking. NYC/SF, sure. I feel like people are getting jobs fine in the upper Midwest; I spoke to our chair today and apparently our current fellows almost have jobs and while our program is good, it's not MGH or w/e. That being said, I think the reason the job market is soft for rads (and path) because people can work in them till older ages bc they aren't as physically demanding as surgery or medicine etc and aren't retiring because of the poor economy. Improvement in the economy will help the job market a lot if that theory is true.

 

[SpecterGT260]

seriously u guys?

 

[thesauce]

Amount of work going up. Reimbursement going down. Old timers not retiring.

It's all over the radiology forums.

How does this contribute to a tight job market?

 

[catzzz88]

Don't like people? How about dead ones?

Medical Examiner/Pathologist:

New York State Salary: Average: $155,550/year (range $53,500 - $166,400+/year)
Nevada: Average: $223,350/year
South Dakota: Average: $222,780/year
Florida: Average $195,280/year
California: Average $191,650/year (payscale range, $65,900/year and up)
Texas: Average: $175,680/year

Have fun!

Best,
C

 

[Veritas86]

thanks guys,
let me ask you another question.
besides radiology, what else can an MD do that does not involve dealing with people?

Research. At least not so much patient interaction.

But seriously though. Why go into medicine? If you don't want to deal with people, I would think clerkships would be hell.

 

[thesauce]

Research. At least not so much patient interaction.

But seriously though. Why go into medicine? If you don't want to deal with people, I would think clerkships would be hell.

Yes, but they don't last forever. Far too many people make every life decision based on what they don't want to do in the short-term. The 4 year slog that is medical school goes by in a blink and then you have 30-40 working years in your specialty. Think about the latter.

 

[SnakeOil]

There's like 2 people that think that, and are constantly trolling.

Rads is becoming less and less competitive by the year. Rads had more unfilled positions this year than surgery, EM, and ortho combined.

 

[SnakeOil]

How does this contribute to a tight job market?

I think he's saying the amount of work that each radiologist has to do in order to keep pace with his/her current salary.

 

[DrBowtie]

Rads is becoming less and less competitive by the year. Rads had more unfilled positions this year than surgery, EM, and ortho combined.

The # of unfilled spots is not a direct metric for competitiveness. There are plenty of applicants, there is just a mismatch in what applicants programs think they can get. Sure there is a decline from previous years, but it is still more competitive than GSurg and EM.

 

[thesauce]

I think he's saying the amount of work that each radiologist has to do in order to keep pace with his/her current salary.

That's not what was being discussed

 

[Gut Shot]

That's not what was being discussed

It's all interrelated. If you have a group of 10 radiologists and 1 retires, declining reimbursement means the remaining 9 are more likely to spread the extra work than bring in someone new.

 

[thesauce]

It's all interrelated. If you have a group of 10 radiologists and 1 retires, declining reimbursement means the remaining 9 are more likely to spread the extra work than bring in someone new.

That makes sense

 

[SnakeOil]

The # of unfilled spots is not a direct metric for competitiveness. There are plenty of applicants, there is just a mismatch in what applicants programs think they can get. Sure there is a decline from previous years, but it is still more competitive than GSurg and EM.

I can't say this with complete confidence since I didn't see the numbers myself but talking to people who a few people who went through the scramble this year I've heard that rads had a pretty significant bump in unfilled spots. Guess we'll have a better idea when numbers come out.

 

[DrBowtie]

I can't say this with complete confidence since I didn't see the numbers myself but talking to people who a few people who went through the scramble this year I've heard that rads had a pretty significant bump in unfilled spots. Guess we'll have a better idea when numbers come out.

Correct. There were more unfilled spots. The problem with your logic is that its easy to manipulate the number of spots open. If all programs interviewed an extra 20 underqualified candidates or FMGs with no USCE, they wouldn't have any open spots.

You have to take into account Board scores, % AOA, things from Charting Outcomes to get the whole picture.

 

[SnakeOil]

Correct. There were more unfilled spots. The problem with your logic is that its easy to manipulate the number of spots open. If all programs interviewed an extra 20 underqualified candidates or FMGs with no USCE, they wouldn't have any open spots.

You have to take into account Board scores, % AOA, things from Charting Outcomes to get the whole picture.

Let me see if I understand your logic here. You're saying that the competitiveness for rads hasn't changed but rather programs are for some reason doing a poorer job of interviewing and selecting the right candidates? I guess that's possible but it seems that programs probably have a pretty good sense after going through the match year after year of the number/quality of applicants they need to rank to fill all their spots.

If the number of qualified applicants in the total pool of graduating seniors isn't changing then it makes more sense to me to assume that the bump in unfilled radiology spots is better explained by more qualified applicants choosing other specialties which is leaving fewer qualified applicants for rads to choose from.

 

[DrBowtie]

Let me see if I understand your logic here. You're saying that the competitiveness for rads hasn't changed but rather programs are for some reason doing a poorer job of interviewing and selecting the right candidates? I guess that's possible but it seems that programs probably have a pretty good sense after going through the match year after year of the number/quality of applicants they need to rank to fill all their spots.

If the number of qualified applicants in the total pool of graduating seniors isn't changing then it makes more sense to me to assume that the bump in unfilled radiology spots is better explained by more qualified applicants choosing other specialties which is leaving fewer qualified applicants for rads to choose from.

No. I agree there has been a drop in competitiveness.

I disagree that using the # of unfilled spots to say its an easier match than EM or GSurg.

 

[SnakeOil]

No. I agree there has been a drop in competitiveness.

I disagree that using the # of unfilled spots to say its an easier match than EM or GSurg.

I see. I don't think rads is less competitive than EM or surg either, I was just trying to illustrate a point.

 

[drizzt3117]

Let me see if I understand your logic here. You're saying that the competitiveness for rads hasn't changed but rather programs are for some reason doing a poorer job of interviewing and selecting the right candidates? I guess that's possible but it seems that programs probably have a pretty good sense after going through the match year after year of the number/quality of applicants they need to rank to fill all their spots.

If the number of qualified applicants in the total pool of graduating seniors isn't changing then it makes more sense to me to assume that the bump in unfilled radiology spots is better explained by more qualified applicants choosing other specialties which is leaving fewer qualified applicants for rads to choose from.

There were fewer applicants this year but the applicants were high quality. I think we need a few more years of data to announce a trend, though. Last year was in line with 2007-2011.

 

[Gigantron]

Actually if you become a new radiologist or pathologist, it is extremely likely that you will not have to deal with people of any kind...



...because you'll be unemployed!

[YOUTUBE]6zXDo4dL7SU[/YOUTUBE]

 

[SnakeOil]

There were fewer applicants this year but the applicants were high quality. I think we need a few more years of data to announce a trend, though. Last year was in line with 2007-2011.

2009 data
applicants (US seniors): 730
positions: 151
applicants/position: 4.83

2010 data
applicants (US seniors): 633
positions: 141
applicants/position: 4.70

2011 data
applicants (US seniors): 635
positions: 144
applicants/position: 4.41

We don't have the numbers for this year yet but with how many unfilled spots they had, I'd be surprised if the applicant/position ratio wasn't lower this year than it has been in the last few years. I think it's fairly safe to call that a trend.

 

[drizzt3117]

2009 data
applicants (US seniors): 730
positions: 151
applicants/position: 4.83

2010 data
applicants (US seniors): 633
positions: 141
applicants/position: 4.70

2011 data
applicants (US seniors): 635
positions: 144
applicants/position: 4.41

We don't have the numbers for this year yet but with how many unfilled spots they had, I'd be surprised if the applicant/position ratio wasn't lower this year than it has been in the last few years. I think it's fairly safe to call that a trend.

Uh, what are you quoting with positions = 144? Is that for categorical programs?

From 2007 to 2011, there were 79 new spots created in radiology (901 in 2007, 980 in 2011) which corresponds neatly to the 75 unfilled spots that currently exist. Therefore, the bigger problem is creating capacity when it wasn't needed. This will correct itself as smaller community programs whose graduates can't find jobs will be less viable.

 

[killinsound]

Rads is becoming less and less competitive by the year. Rads had more unfilled positions this year than surgery, EM, and ortho combined.

How can you say this when the step one score has been increasing every year

 

[TexasPhysician]

2009 data
applicants (US seniors): 730
positions: 151
applicants/position: 4.83

2010 data
applicants (US seniors): 633
positions: 141
applicants/position: 4.70

2011 data
applicants (US seniors): 635
positions: 144
applicants/position: 4.41

We don't have the numbers for this year yet but with how many unfilled spots they had, I'd be surprised if the applicant/position ratio wasn't lower this year than it has been in the last few years. I think it's fairly safe to call that a trend.

Recheck your stats. They are wrong. There are 900+ spots for rads.

 

[synthmonsterjax]

there's obviously a chance of disappointment but if you have a history of working very hard and doing well i don't see why it's a bad goal off the bat