4.5 Article

The Recent Pathology Residency Graduate Job Search Experience A Synthesis of 5 Years of College of American Pathologists Job Market Surveys

期刊

ARCHIVES OF PATHOLOGY & LABORATORY MEDICINE
卷 142, 期 4, 页码 490-495

出版社

COLL AMER PATHOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2017-0207-CP

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context.-Pathology residents and fellows tailor their training and job search strategies to an actively evolving specialty in the setting of scientific and technical advances and simultaneous changes in health care economics. Objective.-To assess the experience and outcome of the job search process of pathologists searching for their first non-fellowship position. Design.-The College of American Pathologists (CAP) Graduate Medical Education Committee has during the past 5 years sent an annual job search survey each June to CAP junior members and fellows in practice 3 years or less who have actively searched for a non-fellowship position. Results.-Job market indicators including job interviews, job offers, positions accepted, and job satisfaction have remained stable during the 5 years of the survey. Most survey respondents who had applied for at least 1 position had accepted a position at the time of the survey, and most applicants who had accepted a position were satisfied or very satisfied. However, most attested that finding a non-fellowship position was difficult. Despite a perceived push toward subspecialization in surgical pathology, the reported number of fellowships completed was stable. Respondent demographics were not associated with job search success with 1 significant exception: international medical school graduate respondents reported greater perceived difficulty in finding a position, and indeed, fewer reported having accepted a position. Conclusions.-Pathology residents and fellows seeking their first position have faced a relatively stable job market during the last 5 years, with most accepting positions with which they were satisfied.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据