Hey everyone! I was hoping graduating residents or recent hires would feel comfortable sharing details of their job offers. I would really appreciate it. I understand that some people don't like to share exact numbers so PMing me would be fine too. I know there a lot of factors that go into what is a good vs. bad offer but any info would be very helpful. Just trying to get an idea, and I know the climate will change in a few years. Thanks!
Current Job Offers
- Thread starter FranzLO
- Start date
- Joined
- May 25, 2012
- Messages
- 89
- Reaction score
- 33
I'd love a PM also!
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2011
- Messages
- 489
- Reaction score
- 241
"Data from the 28th Annual Economics of Diagnostic Imaging 2013: National Symposium and those obtained from personal experience and extensive discussions with practice leaders indicate that the most common starting salary offered by private practices is $250,000 to $350,000, plus benefits. New-hire benefits (health and life insurance, continuing medical education stipends, and pensions or profit-sharing contributions) typically add $40,000 to $50,000. For shareholders, benefits can exceed $100,000 per year. Although most practices have kept their initial compensation packages intact, some have begun to lower them."
http://www.jacr.org/article/S1546-1440(14)00401-3/abstract
I know there are many factors, but is starting at $250,000 - 350,000 for a new attending common
http://www.jacr.org/article/S1546-1440(14)00401-3/abstract
I know there are many factors, but is starting at $250,000 - 350,000 for a new attending common
Last edited:
It seems that you have already applied and probably matched into ER. Why do you want to know about radiology starting salaries?
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2011
- Messages
- 489
- Reaction score
- 241
The posts in the EM residency cycle thread were about Step 2 timing, I never said I was applying that cycle. Rads is still a top 3.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2008
- Messages
- 174
- Reaction score
- 3
250k starting pay as a radiology grad is not worth going into radiology. Even 300 is debatable unless the location is great and the work is easy.
Radiology training is long, fellowship is basically required these days, and board certification has become onerous.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2014
- Messages
- 390
- Reaction score
- 469
Disagree. $250-300 starting salary is lower than in the past and the workload has gone up, but it's still good if you love radiology. If radiology is a means to some other financial end, then you might want to shop around, otherwise I think rads is one of the better fields in medicine. I am biased.
Board certification is not that onerous.
Board certification is not that onerous.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2010
- Messages
- 2,753
- Reaction score
- 3,865
Hardly. Even for financial reasons there are many, many other fields with a much lower ROI. Fields with longer training (fellowship included) and similar or lower starting salaries include: Any peds subspecialty, any IM subspecialty that is not GI or interventional cards, some surgical subspecialties including ENT, Plastics, and Ophtho, etc. Some of these, like ophtho have higher ceilings, but similar or lower starting salaries.
Rads may not be the golden goose it once was, but its hardly a poor financial choice.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,496
- Reaction score
- 13,040
What do you think starting internists or IM specialists make? Honestly that figure isn't too far off for rad onc either, starting wise
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2004
- Messages
- 3,221
- Reaction score
- 680
Don't focus on the starting salary. It's the partner salary that matters. Easily double or more the starting salary.
But we should scare off the medical students who go into radiology for the wrong reasons.
But we should scare off the medical students who go into radiology for the wrong reasons.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
- Messages
- 995
- Reaction score
- 507
But aren't there 1000+ graduates per year?
These job ads come and go. They won't stay there for one year.
Most jobs are not advertised. Our group recently hired for next year. The job was never advertised anywhere.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 2,165
- Reaction score
- 366
Market is definitely better.
http://www.auntminnie.com/index.aspx?sec=sup&sub=imc&pag=dis&ItemID=111731
August 27, 2015 -- The job market for radiologists in 2015 seems to be improving, according to the fourth annual workforce survey by the Commission on Human Resources at the American College of Radiology (ACR), published online in theJournal of the American College of Radiology. But those jobs won't necessarily utilize one's fellowship skills.
"The majority of radiologists work less than 50% of the time in the areas of their subspecialties," wrote lead author Dr. Edward Bluth, of the Ochsner Clinic Foundation in New Orleans, and colleagues. "[So] residents should focus on becoming well-versed in all areas of their specialties before entering fellowship or subspecialty training."
Decline of general radiologists?
Bluth and colleagues used the Practice of Radiology Environment Database (PRED) to identify 1,742 radiology practices for their survey. Of these, 555 responded, for a rate of 32%; the responses represent 12,079 radiologists, or 39% of all practicing radiologists in the U.S. (JACR, August 24, 2015).
Dr. Edward Bluth from the Ochsner Clinic Foundation.
The survey asked participants to report the number of radiologists currently employed in their practice, the number hired in 2014, and the number they plan to hire in 2015 and 2018. It was sent via email in January of this year; final data were received by March. The survey also asked respondents to describe their organization type and to divide their departments between general radiology physicians and those hired to serve mainly as subspecialists. Finally, additional questions regarding gender and age distribution were included in this year's analysis.
Bluth's team found that 87% of survey respondents were subspecialists, with the most common subspecialty areas being body imaging (14.1%), general radiology (12.8%), general interventional radiology (11.8%), and neuroradiology (11.4%).
For the first time, the percentage of body imagers in the workforce is greater than the percentage of general radiologists, the authors noted. "This could be the result of the continual retirement of older radiologists who practice in general radiology," they wrote.
Are there jobs?
The survey data suggest that between 2012 and 2015, the year 2013 was the worst for hiring. But it looks like the job market for radiologists will improve in 2015, according to Bluth and colleagues, aided perhaps by a change in workflow needs depending on the retirement of senior radiologists: 7% of all radiologists are older than 65 years, while 22% are between the ages of 56 and 65.
"If these individuals decide to retire, the dynamics of the workforce could significantly change, creating a great need for additional radiologists," the group wrote.
More radiologists were hired in 2014 than predicted: 1,393, compared with the estimate of 1,114. For the first time this year, the researchers calculated a range of potential available jobs rather than a single number: For 2015, the data suggest there will be 1,131 to 1,484 new hires, with the largest percentage being general interventionalists, breast imagers, and body imagers. The bulk of these new jobs will be in private practice (47%), followed by academic or university practices (32%) and hospitals (17%).
For 2018, the survey data predict that 840 to 1,103 jobs will be available, although the researchers added a caveat to this estimate.
"Now that we have several years of experience with our survey, we know that the three-year projections are less accurate and reliable than the other information in our survey," they cautioned.
Where are radiologists working?
In terms of practice type, the number of radiologists in private practice remained stable. But there was a statistically significant increase in the number of radiologists employed by hospitals, compared with 2013.
Radiologist employment by practice type
Practice type 2013 2014 2015
Private group 54% 53% 55%
Academic university 19% 21% 19%
Hospital employee 11% 16% 22%
Multispecialty clinic 14% 8% 4%
Corporate employee 1% 2% 0.5%
Government (Veterans Affairs or military) 1% 1% 0.3%
Eighty-eight percent of radiologists work full time, while 12% work part time, the researchers found. In terms of gender, the survey showed that 21% of radiologists are women; 76% of these women work full time, compared with 90% of their male counterparts. Approximately one-third of female radiologists work in academic practices, in multispecialty clinics, and as hospital employees, rather than in private practice.
Also new in this year's survey were data showing that most fellowship-trained radiologists spend about a quarter to half of their time working in their areas of expertise. Radiologists in academic university practices were most likely to spend the majority of their time working in the area of their fellowship training.
"The present survey data indicate ... that although the vast majority of radiologists do fellowships, most radiologists outside of the academic university environment are expected to perform general radiology functions and interpretations," the authors wrote. "Individuals in training should realize that they will spend a significant [amount] of their time interpreting examinations outside of their fellowship subspecialties."
Interesting that despite all the doom and gloom, Private Practice continues to be a legitimate option. Can't be said of many other specialties.
August 27, 2015 -- The job market for radiologists in 2015 seems to be improving, according to the fourth annual workforce survey by the Commission on Human Resources at the American College of Radiology (ACR), published online in theJournal of the American College of Radiology. But those jobs won't necessarily utilize one's fellowship skills.
"The majority of radiologists work less than 50% of the time in the areas of their subspecialties," wrote lead author Dr. Edward Bluth, of the Ochsner Clinic Foundation in New Orleans, and colleagues. "[So] residents should focus on becoming well-versed in all areas of their specialties before entering fellowship or subspecialty training."
Decline of general radiologists?
Bluth and colleagues used the Practice of Radiology Environment Database (PRED) to identify 1,742 radiology practices for their survey. Of these, 555 responded, for a rate of 32%; the responses represent 12,079 radiologists, or 39% of all practicing radiologists in the U.S. (JACR, August 24, 2015).
Dr. Edward Bluth from the Ochsner Clinic Foundation.
The survey asked participants to report the number of radiologists currently employed in their practice, the number hired in 2014, and the number they plan to hire in 2015 and 2018. It was sent via email in January of this year; final data were received by March. The survey also asked respondents to describe their organization type and to divide their departments between general radiology physicians and those hired to serve mainly as subspecialists. Finally, additional questions regarding gender and age distribution were included in this year's analysis.
Bluth's team found that 87% of survey respondents were subspecialists, with the most common subspecialty areas being body imaging (14.1%), general radiology (12.8%), general interventional radiology (11.8%), and neuroradiology (11.4%).
For the first time, the percentage of body imagers in the workforce is greater than the percentage of general radiologists, the authors noted. "This could be the result of the continual retirement of older radiologists who practice in general radiology," they wrote.
Are there jobs?
The survey data suggest that between 2012 and 2015, the year 2013 was the worst for hiring. But it looks like the job market for radiologists will improve in 2015, according to Bluth and colleagues, aided perhaps by a change in workflow needs depending on the retirement of senior radiologists: 7% of all radiologists are older than 65 years, while 22% are between the ages of 56 and 65.
"If these individuals decide to retire, the dynamics of the workforce could significantly change, creating a great need for additional radiologists," the group wrote.
More radiologists were hired in 2014 than predicted: 1,393, compared with the estimate of 1,114. For the first time this year, the researchers calculated a range of potential available jobs rather than a single number: For 2015, the data suggest there will be 1,131 to 1,484 new hires, with the largest percentage being general interventionalists, breast imagers, and body imagers. The bulk of these new jobs will be in private practice (47%), followed by academic or university practices (32%) and hospitals (17%).
For 2018, the survey data predict that 840 to 1,103 jobs will be available, although the researchers added a caveat to this estimate.
"Now that we have several years of experience with our survey, we know that the three-year projections are less accurate and reliable than the other information in our survey," they cautioned.
Where are radiologists working?
In terms of practice type, the number of radiologists in private practice remained stable. But there was a statistically significant increase in the number of radiologists employed by hospitals, compared with 2013.
Radiologist employment by practice type
Practice type 2013 2014 2015
Private group 54% 53% 55%
Academic university 19% 21% 19%
Hospital employee 11% 16% 22%
Multispecialty clinic 14% 8% 4%
Corporate employee 1% 2% 0.5%
Government (Veterans Affairs or military) 1% 1% 0.3%
Eighty-eight percent of radiologists work full time, while 12% work part time, the researchers found. In terms of gender, the survey showed that 21% of radiologists are women; 76% of these women work full time, compared with 90% of their male counterparts. Approximately one-third of female radiologists work in academic practices, in multispecialty clinics, and as hospital employees, rather than in private practice.
Also new in this year's survey were data showing that most fellowship-trained radiologists spend about a quarter to half of their time working in their areas of expertise. Radiologists in academic university practices were most likely to spend the majority of their time working in the area of their fellowship training.
"The present survey data indicate ... that although the vast majority of radiologists do fellowships, most radiologists outside of the academic university environment are expected to perform general radiology functions and interpretations," the authors wrote. "Individuals in training should realize that they will spend a significant [amount] of their time interpreting examinations outside of their fellowship subspecialties."
Interesting that despite all the doom and gloom, Private Practice continues to be a legitimate option. Can't be said of many other specialties.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2015
- Messages
- 129
- Reaction score
- 232
Looks like there are even decent jobs on the ACR site now. I think that's a good sign. A good number of fellows at my program in many different departments (even stuff like nucs) have jobs lined up. Not too bad.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2004
- Messages
- 3,221
- Reaction score
- 680
Radiology will always be popular. There aren't many medical fields where you can avoid patient contact. Anesthesia is going down because of the CRNAs and that problem is worsening with no end in sight. Pathology is in the gutter and has been for a long time.