There's been a lot of talk about AI taking the jobs of radiologists. FWIW I don't think this will happen, but it got me wondering. The landscape of many specialties (e.g., rheumatology, due to all the new drugs) have rapidly changed in recent years.
Which specialties will take off and which ones will decline?
Which ones will become more profitable?
I am a final year MD student wanting to do neurosurgery.
Yes, I am well aware that there is a stereotype of overzealous med students saying they want to do neurosurgery without having realistic expectations or understanding of the specialty, so I'm prepared for the downvotes and comments telling me to chill out haha.
I'll be the first to admit that I have a lot to learn about neurosurgical practice but also feel I've had an above average exposure to the specialty in med school, both through my two neurosurgery rotations (in 4th year surgical unit and as an elective this year at an overseas hospital) and also some personal experiences that relate to a close family member. I've wanted to do neurosurgery for a few years now and have publications in the field and have been privileged to receive mentoring from some eminent neurosurgeons along the way.
The main reason for this post is that I've had the experience of two unaccredited registrars (one NSx, one plastics) telling me that it's simply not worth it. They say that I'll end up hating myself and my work in the process and that it's dedicating an inordinate amount of time to a pursuit you will most likely fail. Yes, it's a pessimist's mindset but statistically speaking they are correct, and it's started to plant seeds of doubt in my mind.
I guess I have two main questions for current unaccredited/trainees/consultants (both in neurosurg and other RACS specialties).
I know these are probably vague and difficult-to-quantify questions. I appreciate any responses irrespectively. Thanks so much.
Apologies in advance if this comes across as ill-informed - I don't really know much about how selection for training works.
I came across another thread posted yesterday that was talking about use of AI to pump out research, and came across a few comments saying that a high volume of publications is a red flag to selection committees.
I'm an MD1 and have an honours degree and PhD in medical science from before I started med school and have published 20 papers and a handful of conference abstracts. I'm working with my PhD supervisor's research group part-time while in med school and will continue to conduct research and (hopefully) publish. I would not be surprised if I finish med school with 25-30 publications.
Almost all of my work is in high impact journals, has been cited reasonably well for its time since publication, and I'm proud of and can attest to the rigor of each publication. Is it really a thing that selection for training will frown upon a high volume of papers and assume it's low quality without looking at it? Those comments made me a little worried as I don't want to come across as unprofessional. Everyone comes from different backgrounds so surely making such a generalisation is problematic?