ARRO now has Fellowship panel

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
It was just a simple question relating to the thread topic

Obviously no one thinks a fellowship unless it’s like maybe a unique proton or brachy fellowship really does much to teach you new stuff that you don’t already know. And if/when more than 5-10 grads a year are choosing to do them that would absolutely be a sign of an unhealthy job market. However I do know why some choose to do them. If you’re coming from a small program with no connections and no prospects, a proton fellowship at a place like Harvard or MSKCC can immediately catapult you to a higher tier of jobs that you wouldn’t have sniffed coming out of residency. I never would have considered it but for some, who want to live in a nice city for a year, and are okay delaying financial gratification, I have seen it work out for them. (In this way it is like people who take a year of research during medical school to improve their chance of matching or matching into a better program. This was very very common in the 2011-2016 era of rad Onc applicants or so)

But before you jump down my throat, it doesn’t add much to your skill set. It’s merely for marketing/networking for those who didn’t match well into a good program in the first place and found that it hurt their job search. Think of it like an MBA - it’s not for the classes and the learning it’s for the connections and for the new job opportunities.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
But before you jump down my throat, it doesn’t add much to your skill set. It’s merely for marketing/networking for those who didn’t match well into a good program in the first place and found that it hurt their job search. Think of it like an MBA - it’s not for the classes and the learning it’s for the connections and for the new job opportunities.

So in a way, it may be a symptom/by-product of the current resident oversupply/job market
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Yeah true.

But I do think program rep and connections probably have always mattered in this field (and many other specialized fields). How many stories from guys who trained ten years ago plus have posted here about people not liking their first jobs, people trying to take advantage of them etc. I think this field has always had some sharks in the field.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I have no problems with fellowships like this so long as they're less than 5% clinical. They're well-paid postdocs rather than poorly paid clinicians. You know, some people might like an academic career and the invigorating winter chill of the American tundra. The problem is with clinical fellowships, since the hospital and chairperson are making money from exploiting some poor soul, while pulling patients away from community practices under the guise of "education".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I have no problems with fellowships like this so long as they're less than 5% clinical. They're well-paid postdocs rather than poorly paid clinicians. You know, some people might like an academic career and the invigorating winter chill of the American tundra. The problem is with clinical fellowships, since the hospital and chairperson are making money off of exploiting some poor soul.
I have a problem with the clinical fellowship, not the post doc, those folks knew what they were getting into... The clinical fellowship in stereotactic is straight up exploiting a bad job market

Candidates have the opportunity to focus their fellowship training to gain high level expertise in one or more clinical arenas such as brachytherapy, MRI-guided adaptive radiotherapy, stereotactic radiotherapy or others. Salary range $110,000 - $130,000 annually
 


I actually applied and interviewed for this back a few years ago. It is essentially pitched as a way for folks who went to a bottom 50% type of program to get some academic pedigree and hopefully real research projects under their belt as a starting point for a career in academic rad onc. When I was there they had also hired maybe a few of their own PGY-5 residents as full attendings for that same year. In retrospect, you would really have to be dedicated to pursuing the academic/research thing to sign up for this. Not sure it would have relevance for private practice or satellite clinic work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I actually applied and interviewed for this back a few years ago. It is essentially pitched as a way for folks who went to a bottom 50% type of program to get some academic pedigree and hopefully real research projects under their belt as a starting point for a career in academic rad onc. When I was there they had also hired maybe a few of their own PGY-5 residents as attendings for that same year. In retrospect, you would really have to be dedicated to pursuing the academic/research thing to sign up for this.
Or have your attending job offer pulled/cancelled this year last minute thanks to covid and still want to pursue academics in this dumpster fire of a job market...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
Recently received unsolicited offer to interview with University of Kansas for a breast specialist. The ad stated that “completion of a breast fellowship” is preferred.

What the hell is that? A year dedicated to tangents, breath hold, IMNs, and 16 v 5 fractions?
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Recently received unsolicited offer to interview with University of Kansas for a breast specialist. The ad stated that “completion of a breast fellowship” is preferred.

What the hell is that? A year dedicated to tangents, breath hold, IMNs, and 16 v 5 fractions?
Sounds like language inserted for an inside candidate. Public universities are required to allow "access" for all but this may be an example of the criteria closely aligning with the candidate of interest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Did Kansas offer a breast fellowship this year? I don’t recall that because it would have been endlessly ridiculed here. Really, had any institute offered such a thing, I feel like we would have discussed it.

I was wondering, because it really doesn’t sound like a thing. If breast fellowship becomes a thing, residency training has officially become 6 years long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Did Kansas offer a breast fellowship this year? I don’t recall that because it would have been endlessly ridiculed here. Really, had any institute offered such a thing, I feel like we would have discussed it.

I was wondering, because it really doesn’t sound like a thing. If breast fellowship becomes a thing, residency training has officially become 6 years long.
I don't know the answer but i would bet there is someone they want to hire who is presently in a fellowship. Since none of the fellowships are accredited by a governing body I bet that most could be categorized that way. Proton fellowships surely treat breast cancer. Again I don't know and I am speculating in this case but I know of two specific cases in the last decade where a state institution essentially tailored the job description to meet the attributes/experience of the preferred candidate.

It's kind of like how the HITECH Act language described perfectly the capabilities of the EPIC EMR. Evidently the EPIC people helped legislators to draft the language. Now there is a story that has yet to be told.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Probably true. I was hoping the recruiter had just adopted language from a “radiology” listing rather than rad onc becoming radiology, ie fellowship required to get a job in Kansas City.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Probably true. I was hoping the recruiter had just adopted language from a “radiology” listing rather than rad onc becoming radiology, ie fellowship required to get a job in Kansas City.
That could be true as well. Academic health systems are outsourcing recruitment to folks who don't know the difference between DR and RO
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
While the prospect of additional training may not be the first choice of most residency graduates, the competitive guaranteed salary support for Bentson Fellows (range $110,000 - $130,000 annually for 2-3 year Fellowship) and the family-friendly, vibrant, and diverse Madison, WI community provide excellent quality of life for our Fellows


 
  • Dislike
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users

Thankfully these are “real” research fellowships - essentially post-doc positions. The fellows had no clinical responsibilities at all and had 100% protected research time with the option to see some cases here and there in the clinic if they got worried they would lose their clinical chops. The culture at U Wisconsin was quite good and fellows got great jobs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Thankfully these are “real” research fellowships - essentially post-doc positions. The fellows had no clinical responsibilities at all and had 100% protected research time with the option to see some cases here and there in the clinic if they got worried they would lose their clinical chops. The culture at U Wisconsin was quite good and fellows got great jobs.
Glorified lab tech. Five years in GME only to go to the lab...Oy
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Glorified lab tech. Five years in GME only to go to the lab...Oy
Actually not at all true - dedicated postdoctoral research time with opportunity to develop your research to a point where it is competitive for NIH funding. Focused on 80/20 physician scientists - similar to what they get in medonc fellowship training - a launchpad for a research focused career
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Actually not at all true - dedicated postdoctoral research time with opportunity to develop your research to a point where it is competitive for NIH funding. Focused on 80/20 physician scientists - similar to what they get in medonc fellowship training - a launchpad for a research focused career
Shill much for the home team?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Actually not at all true - dedicated postdoctoral research time with opportunity to develop your research to a point where it is competitive for NIH funding. Focused on 80/20 physician scientists - similar to what they get in medonc fellowship training - a launchpad for a research focused career
I would think this position would almost defacto exclude md/phds right- 6 years medical school, 5 years residency, another 2-3 research fellowship, before getting a chance to become a junior faculty,which is not at all assured in this field... . Getting close to the point where this is total sham.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I play at being a physician-scientist in rad onc academics, which for me personally has been a rollercoaster of highs and lows.

MD/PhD program average length is about 8 years, and it has been that long for many years now. The idea of a 6 year MD/PhD is very antiquated and 7 was even hard to pull off when I started an MD/PhD program almost 20 years ago.

Physician-scientist jobs that lead a research lab are supposed to be 20% clinical effort. That is basically the intent of MD/PhD training--to train leaders of research labs and/or enterprises. One day a week in clinic or a few weeks a year of hospital service is the model for research-oriented physician-scientists in most specialties. 75% research effort is required by K grants, as the NIH also views the physician-scientist as someone who has 25% clinical effort or less.

Most institutions aren't going to take you seriously for that kind of protected time and other startup resources to build a lab without at least a K level grant. For many institutions (including some big name places that supposedly want research), even a K isn't enough, and they're looking for R01 level funding or equivalent (hundreds of thousands per year committed for 5 years, transferable to their institution).

The average age for MD/PhDs to get their first R01 is 45 years old. That's not a typo. This is not 1980 when people like Ralph Weichselbaum finished their training and the average age for MD/PhDs to get their first R01 was 36 years old.

This means that today, if you start medical school at 22, finish MD/PhD training at 30, do a 5 year rad onc residency, you'll be done at age 35. Let's assume that you did not get major funding during residency, and frankly almost nobody does because an 18 month Holman isn't really enough time and the NIH and most other funding sources are not looking to give K08s or larger to residents.

Now you've got a choice if you're an MD/PhD who actually wants to do significant basic and/or translational research. You can either:
1. Go to a main center academic job like Wake Forest just posted at 80% clinical and work a lot of extra hours to prove yourself with grants and papers to claw back time.

2. Go to a research fellowship or instructor level position for at least 2-3 years to do more experiments, write papers, and write grants. If you're both lucky and good, you may end up with a real physician-scientist job somewhere once you get a solid grant. You may not succeed, and in this case you will end up back in position #1 or #3 below.

3. Just be screwed by the job market, have no option for 1 or 2 above, and end up in an academic satellite being a full-time clinician. Maybe they'll tell you that you might be able to work your way back to the main center. Maybe that will actually happen. What choice do you have?

There are shades of gray here. Maybe you got a 1-2 year grant as a resident that allows you to negotiate a 50% research position as faculty. Maybe you have a K08 written and/or submitted and your home institution or someone else powerful likes you enough that they make a case for you and give you a startup position anyway at 1-2 days of clinical effort and resources for 3 years assuming that you'll get the K grant. This is a select number of institutions willing to do this and happens for a small number of people every year.

The problem moving forward is that you have to sustain it. They're going to be expecting that R01 out of you within 5 years of starting, and probably sooner than that. Remember, you started your faculty job at 35, they're expecting that R01 by 40, and the average age for first R01 is 45. The selection pressure here is enormous, and most will fail to get their first or second R01s. The funding rates for R01 level grants are about 10% and as a new grad you'll be competing with career scientists and physician-scientists.

The physician-scientist pathway is broken in this specialty. There are a very select few MD/PhDs who will succeed. The fellowship that's posted is for someone who really wants to take a shot at it. Or maybe they can't find any jobs besides academic satellites, and they are willing to take a shot at being a real academic because they never went into MD/PhD and rad onc to go be a generalist full time clinical rad onc at an academic satellite. There used to be plenty of high paying private jobs that would absorb MD/PhDs who didn't want to roll the dice or who weren't good and lucky enough to succeed. But, there are very few of these jobs left, and they rarely want to take a chance on a seemingly academic MD/PhD when there are loads of "three A" graduates clamoring for the few good private jobs remaining.

So in the end, this sort of fellowship just reflects the reality of a very difficult situation.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
  • Love
Reactions: 12 users
I play at being a physician-scientist in rad onc academics, which for me personally has been a rollercoaster of highs and lows.

MD/PhD program average length is about 8 years, and it has been that long for many years now. The idea of a 6 year MD/PhD is very antiquated and 7 was even hard to pull off when I started an MD/PhD program almost 20 years ago.

Physician-scientist jobs that lead a research lab are supposed to be 20% clinical effort. That is basically the intent of MD/PhD training--to train leaders of research labs and/or enterprises. One day a week in clinic or a few weeks a year of hospital service is the model for research-oriented physician-scientists in most specialties. 75% research effort is required by K grants, as the NIH also views the physician-scientist as someone who has 25% clinical effort or less.

Most institutions aren't going to take you seriously for that kind of protected time and other startup resources to build a lab without at least a K level grant. For many institutions (including some big name places that supposedly want research), even a K isn't enough, and they're looking for R01 level funding or equivalent (hundreds of thousands per year committed for 5 years, transferable to their institution).

The average age for MD/PhDs to get their first R01 is 45 years old. That's not a typo. This is not 1980 when people like Ralph Weichselbaum finished their training and the average age for MD/PhDs to get their first R01 was 36 years old.

This means that today, if you start medical school at 22, finish MD/PhD training at 30, do a 5 year rad onc residency, you'll be done at age 35. Let's assume that you did not get major funding during residency, and frankly almost nobody does because an 18 month Holman isn't really enough time and the NIH and most other funding sources are not looking to give K08s or larger to residents.

Now you've got a choice if you're an MD/PhD who actually wants to do significant basic and/or translational research. You can either:
1. Go to a main center academic job like Wake Forest just posted at 80% clinical and work a lot of extra hours to prove yourself with grants and papers to claw back time.

2. Go to a research fellowship or instructor level position for at least 2-3 years to do more experiments, write papers, and write grants. If you're both lucky and good, you may end up with a real physician-scientist job somewhere once you get a solid grant. You may not succeed, and in this case you will end up back in position #1 or #3 below.

3. Just be screwed by the job market, have no option for 1 or 2 above, and end up in an academic satellite being a full-time clinician. Maybe they'll tell you that you might be able to work your way back to the main center. Maybe that will actually happen. What choice do you have?

There are shades of gray here. Maybe you got a 1-2 year grant as a resident that allows you to negotiate a 50% research position as faculty. Maybe you have a K08 written and/or submitted and your home institution or someone else powerful likes you enough that they make a case for you and give you a startup position anyway at 1-2 days of clinical effort and resources for 3 years assuming that you'll get the K grant. This is a select number of institutions willing to do this and happens for a small number of people every year.

The problem moving forward is that you have to sustain it. They're going to be expecting that R01 out of you within 5 years of starting, and probably sooner than that. Remember, you started your faculty job at 35, they're expecting that R01 by 40, and the average age for first R01 is 45. The selection pressure here is enormous, and most will fail to get their first or second R01s. The funding rates for R01 level grants are about 10% and as a new grad you'll be competing with career scientists and physician-scientists.

The physician-scientist pathway is straight up broken in this specialty. There are a very select few MD/PhDs who will succeed. The fellowship that's posted is for someone who really wants to take a shot at it. Or maybe they can't find any jobs besides academic satellites, and they are willing to take a shot at being a real academic because they never went into MD/PhD and rad onc to go be a generalist full time clinical rad onc at an academic satellite. There used to be plenty of high paying private jobs that would absorb MD/PhDs who didn't want to roll the dice or who weren't good and lucky enough to succeed. They would also absorb really strong productive clinical rad oncs in academic departments. But, there are very few of these jobs left, and they rarely want to take a chance on a seemingly academic MD/PhD when there are loads of "three A" graduates clamoring for them.

So in the end, this sort of fellowship just reflects the reality of a very difficult situation.

As someone who is a few years behind Neuronix in the exact same career trajectory (to this point), his post is the most accurate take possible. This is 100% gospel truth, and anyone who has aspirations of being a RadOnc physician-scientist in 2020 and beyond should burn those words into their soul. A handful of physician-scientists are hired in RadOnc every year - and when I say a handful, I think 5 or fewer per year based on my personal observations. Of those 3-5 hired per year, I don't have a sense what the "failure" rate is, but even if 50-75% "make it" (optimistically), we're talking like 1-4 people from every class of residents...maybe?

It's hilarious because the Chairs/senior attendings seem ignorant of these numbers, because it "worked out" for them. Remember, all the successful physician-scientists are biased by their experiences - they made it, and so can you!

The analogous experience is when I talk to older folks who throw out the line: "when I was a kid I didn't wear a seatbelt, and I turned out just fine". Well, that's because the people who didn't wear seatbelts and died, aren't here to give their counterpoint.

The attendings advising medical students in real life are the ones who survived and made it in academia...a small fraction of the whole trying to convince the next generation that their path is a viable one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
The physician-scientist pathway is broken in this specialty.
In a good year there may be 4 to 5 pgy5 residents signing on for real 80/20 jobs with significant startup. A few of these have major grants (K08, DP5) but some do not. The advice we give is to apply for these grants early so that they could potentially be in hand when applying for jobs. However to do that, you need to start Holman PGY3 and be lucky/successful very early on. Trying to get a research project to that level in about a year and a half is extraordinarily difficult. Of incoming residents with PhDs, at best a fifth of them are actually capable of doing it + want to do it. So many would need extra time with fellowship... or realize that’s too much training and that maybe 50/50 would be Ok, or simply are turned off entirely by academia/research, so they don’t even try.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Shill much for the home team?
Actually yes -
I feel quite strongly that this is an outstanding approach for those who need additional time for their science to mature and/or who don't have the support during residency to have a R01 equivalent grant ready to go out the door on day 1. As said - this is not for everyone - but we believe it provides an outstanding launching pad for the individual who is highly motivated.

IMHO - one of the many problems our field makes is trying to get new faculty to see 15-20 on treat and write grants at the same time. Not gonna happen (for most). The $ makes it challenging, but if you are committed to a life pursuit of science being in clinic full time would not be fulfilling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
In a good year there may be 4 to 5 pgy5 residents signing on for real 80/20 jobs with significant startup. A few of these have major grants (K08, DP5) but some do not. The advice we give is to apply for these grants early so that they could potentially be in hand when applying for jobs. However to do that, you need to start Holman PGY3 and be lucky/successful very early on. Trying to get a research project to that level in about a year and a half is extraordinarily difficult. Of incoming residents with PhDs, at best a fifth of them are actually capable of doing it + want to do it. So many would need extra time with fellowship... or realize that’s too much training and that maybe 50/50 would be Ok, or simply are turned off entirely by academia/research, so they don’t even try.
Another issue that many don't recognize is that at some institutions the tenure clock starts from your first day as a faculty member. For us if you start on the clinical track and want to transfer to the tenure track in your 3rd year becuase you've had some success getting funding, your 7 year tenure clock starts at the first year you were hired. Not when you switch tracks. We don't have an "instructor" position as a possibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
My concern is that the number of physician-scientist tenure faculty positions (80/20 lab/clinic) each year is usually less than 10 nationwide and with current trends (decreased reimbursement, etc) that number will likely fall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Another observation to add to all the above is that some institutions have a strong preference to hiring established investigators (read: R01 in hand, already tenured) than new hires. This effectively eliminates many potential universities/cities when looking for jobs, however medical students/younger residents have no clue that options are already restricted going into the process.
 
What’s your guess as to how many radoncs have an r01?

ASTRO looked at this in 2017:


From page 3 of that report, 126 RadOnc PI's with NIH grant funding. 79 with R01s. I don't believe this is limited to RadOnc MDs - I believe this is anyone with a RadOnc affiliation, so PhD-only folks are counted (I could be wrong, I haven't read this report in awhile).

Assuming PhD-only PI's are counted here...that's what, probably 50 or fewer MD or MD-PhD RadOncs with R01s? Even if all 79 R01s came from MD or MD-PhD Radiation Oncologists...that's some intimidating math if you want to hack it as a physician-scientist in this specialty.
 
ASTRO looked at this in 2017:


From page 3 of that report, 126 RadOnc PI's with NIH grant funding. 79 with R01s. I don't believe this is limited to RadOnc MDs - I believe this is anyone with a RadOnc affiliation, so PhD-only folks are counted (I could be wrong, I haven't read this report in awhile).

Assuming PhD-only PI's are counted here...that's what, probably 50 or fewer MD or MD-PhD RadOncs with R01s? Even if all 79 R01s came from MD or MD-PhD Radiation Oncologists...that's some intimidating math if you want to hack it as a physician-scientist in this specialty.

There are problems with these analyses including misplaced departmental affiliation. The number could be very different (even higher potentially). However there are many clinical (non-lab 80/20) R01s, so who knows how many scientist MD/PhDs with R01s there are. This analysis is due to be updated and efforts made to capture all radiation oncologists in the numbers.
 
There are problems with these analyses including misplaced departmental affiliation. The number could be very different (even higher potentially). However there are many clinical (non-lab 80/20) R01s, so who knows how many scientist MD/PhDs with R01s there are. This analysis is due to be updated and efforts made to capture all radiation oncologists in the numbers.

Oh yeah definitely flawed - it's probably the best we have right now though, to my knowledge at least. I toyed with doing this myself as a project...and then realized I'd rather spend my time doing other things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Actually yes -
I feel quite strongly that this is an outstanding approach for those who need additional time for their science to mature and/or who don't have the support during residency to have a R01 equivalent grant ready to go out the door on day 1.

Nobody has a fundable R01 equivalent grant to go out the door on day one. That's an unrealistic expectation. That's what I wrote in my post above--average age to first R01 grant is age 45. It takes years of faculty work to get to that point.

Coming out of a fellowship with a fundable R01 is also not a reasonable expectation in my opinion. The NIH expects people to be faculty level with a K grant for a few years before getting an R01 grant.

If the point of your fellowship is to get people a K08 to get a tenure track faculty position with 25% clinical effort or less for 3-5 years with startup resources, I'm fine with that. Many specialties do require extra training to get there. I wonder, for what percentage of your fellowship trainees does this happen where they get a real physician-scientist job at the end?

IMHO - one of the many problems our field makes is trying to get new faculty to see 15-20 on treat and write grants at the same time. Not gonna happen (for most). The $ makes it challenging, but if you are committed to a life pursuit of science being in clinic full time would not be fulfilling.

What ever happened to the startup package? Promising faculty with a solid track record and good plan should be mentored and supported to grow to the R01.

If you are committed to a lifelong pursuit of science, MD/PhD radiation oncologist is an interesting life choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Yeah, I dont see why everyone constantly needs to analyze and critique MD/PHDs and the physician scientist pathway. Look, becoming a physician scientist is extremely rare it is also extremely challenging and difficult. There can be significant rewards for the select few that make it, but many of those rewards may only be known by the person themself for example having freedom to explore a new idea or making a new discovery.

The analogy would be that of an olympic athlete. You could ask yourself why would anyone want to train every day and sacrifice 8-12 years of their life and maybe never make it to the olympics?? Well the answer is because some people are driven to do it, and a few people do succeed and do great things in their field.

So I would submit that people stop this fascination with MD/PHD and the 80/20 physician scientist. It is obviously only for a very few select people who are mainly going to be self selected. If they want to do an extra year of research post residency as a fellow or post-doc then so be it. I have no affiliation with Wisconsin, but it sounds like a great opportunity to try and setup a research career.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Agree with above but it is important to think about the ‘leaky pipeline.’ There is something to be said that if we could make positive changes to retain good talent, the field would reap dividends in the years to come. It doesn’t make sense to make the pathway as hard as possible and have people drop out while in the last half of the race. It’s worth discussing positive changes (increase number of direct resident -> real faculty positions) and viable, successful alternative pathways like at UW.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Yeah, I dont see why everyone constantly needs to analyze and critique MD/PHDs and the physician scientist pathway. Look, becoming a physician scientist is extremely rare it is also extremely challenging and difficult. There can be significant rewards for the select few that make it, but many of those rewards may only be known by the person themself for example having freedom to explore a new idea or making a new discovery.

The analogy would be that of an olympic athlete. You could ask yourself why would anyone want to train every day and sacrifice 8-12 years of their life and maybe never make it to the olympics?? Well the answer is because some people are driven to do it, and a few people do succeed and do great things in their field.

So I would submit that people stop this fascination with MD/PHD and the 80/20 physician scientist. It is obviously only for a very few select people who are mainly going to be self selected. If they want to do an extra year of research post residency as a fellow or post-doc then so be it. I have no affiliation with Wisconsin, but it sounds like a great opportunity to try and setup a research career.

My tax dollars go to make MD/PhDs, with the expectation they will become physician-scientists. If residency programs are suggesting to applicants they will have a good chance of becoming a physician-scientist, when the opposite is true, then they are defrauding no only the applicant, but the taxpaying public as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Likewise, if public funds are going to training radiation oncology residents that can’t find a job or don’t eventually end up employed using their skill set, that is a similar problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
My tax dollars go to make MD/PhDs, with the expectation they will become physician-scientists. If residency programs are suggesting to applicants they will have a good chance of becoming a physician-scientist, when the opposite is true, then they are defrauding no only the applicant, but the taxpaying public as well.

agree but true of all md phds right? Not just rad onc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
My concern is that the number of physician-scientist tenure faculty positions (80/20 lab/clinic) each year is usually less than 10 nationwide and with current trends (decreased reimbursement, etc) that number will likely fall.
agree with this - 10 is a generous estimate and i would suggest that half of those are not really set up to help the individual succeed
 
agree but true of all md phds right? Not just rad onc.
not so much - many field - ID, cards, medonc, pulm regularly hire MD/PhDs to do ~20% clinical and 80% research - where it is less common is in surgery, ENT, rads
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
  • Haha
  • Like
  • Okay...
Reactions: 5 users
agree with this - 10 is a generous estimate and i would suggest that half of those are not really set up to help the individual succeed

When I was looking...I interviewed for one of these “academic” jobs. I wasn’t even sure why they asked me to come because I was just a lowly MD.

Long story short it was a colossal waste of time. You carried an academic title but were expected to cover 3 academic satellites, work with residents, and worked 5 days a week no academic day. Their answer to the lack of an academic day? Well you get the weekends off.

Unsurprisingly I didn’t get the job, but 2 of my friends with PhDs were given offers. They literally LOL’d when they got the offer. Apparently it was 200K with a 15K quality bonus. Tenure based on pubs but had no real research infrastructure.

The sad thing is I don’t think this was a one-off type of job. I think many institutions pull the same crap.

Even my friends with PhDs in other specialties ended up becoming completely jaded by whole thing and ended up working purely clinical.

The thing to be right now is an MD PhD Med onc...tons of directions to take that in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
When I was looking...I interviewed for one of these “academic” jobs. I wasn’t even sure why they asked me to come because I was just a lowly MD.

Long story short it was a colossal waste of time. You carried an academic title but were expected to cover 3 academic satellites, work with residents, and worked 5 days a week no academic day. Their answer to the lack of an academic day? Well you get the weekends off.

Unsurprisingly I didn’t get the job, but 2 of my friends with PhDs were given offers. They literally LOL’d when they got the offer. Apparently it was 200K with a 15K quality bonus. Tenure based on pubs but had no real research infrastructure.

The sad thing is I don’t think this was a one-off type of job. I think many institutions pull the same crap.

I will agree that I have seen a number of "academic" positions like this. Private practice work for academic pay with no clear path for academic activity or advancement other than working 80 hours a week.

This is the problem with oversupply.

These sorts of jobs used to be the least desirable jobs in rad onc and wouldn't fill or be negotiated to something more acceptable.

With the oversupply these jobs are now filling. ARRO/ASTRO tick a box that a new grad has a job, and that rad oncs are not going unemployed.

The net effect are a bunch of junior rad onc attendings stuck in these jobs chronically looking for new jobs or chronically unhappy.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: 9 users
I will agree that I have seen a number of "academic" positions like this. Private practice work for academic pay with no clear path for academic activity or advancement other than working 80 hours a week.

This is the problem with oversupply.

These sorts of jobs used to be the least desirable jobs in rad onc and wouldn't fill or be negotiated to something more acceptable.

With the oversupply these jobs are now filling. ARRO/ASTRO tick a box that a new grad has a job, and that rad oncs are not going unemployed.

The net effect are a bunch of junior rad onc attendings stuck in these jobs chronically looking for new jobs or chronically unhappy.
Basically because of job market, an academic department can get md/phd to enhance departmental prestige, pay them sht, and give them only clinical work, running around to staff price gouging satellites. Either that or unemployment.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 6 users
I will agree that I have seen a number of "academic" positions like this. Private practice work for academic pay with no clear path for academic activity or advancement other than working 80 hours a week.

This is the problem with oversupply.

These sorts of jobs used to be the least desirable jobs in rad onc and wouldn't fill or be negotiated to something more acceptable.

With the oversupply these jobs are now filling. ARRO/ASTRO tick a box that a new grad has a job, and that rad oncs are not going unemployed.

The net effect are a bunch of junior rad onc attendings stuck in these jobs chronically looking for new jobs or chronically unhappy.

"Almost no one is unemployed per the ARRO survey, everything is fine, where is the data?"

The people who sell this narrative would probably have pushed back on trying to improve the Halsted mastectomy because it cured a lot of cancer - everything is fine, where is the data? Tick the box! Email another SurveyMonkey form to everyone! Quell the rabble-rousers!
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Angry
Reactions: 4 users
"Almost no one is unemployed per the ARRO survey, everything is fine, where is the data?"

The people who sell this narrative would probably have pushed back on trying to improve the Halsted mastectomy because it cured a lot of cancer - everything is fine, where is the data? Tick the box! Email another SurveyMonkey form to everyone! Quell the rabble-rousers!

I got an email from a Resident taking a survey about this a few weeks back. I could have sworn I filled one out earlier. I don’t even know ow how I’m gods name I got on the mailing list.
 
I got an email from a Resident taking a survey about this a few weeks back. I could have sworn I filled one out earlier. I don’t even know ow how I’m gods name I got on the mailing list.

Pretty sure ASTRO sells it to the highest bidder . . .
 
Top