Radiology Forums

alycia · Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 3

What exactly is the difference? is one more higher paying than the other? is one more easier/harder to find a job for? please tell me all you know! I'm looking into an MRI program.

hjhogle · Moderator Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 608 Location: CT

Primarily, it's an issue of professional pride. Myself, I prefer Radiographer, which I believe better describes the profession.

Technician was the original name, changed in the late 1970's to technologist. And Radiographer came around in the late 1980's.

There is no $$ difference, no difference in what we're asked to do on the job. Although I have to say that I rarely look at jobs that ask for 'technician', as I doubt that those institutions believe that their employees are professionals.

But there's no significant difference in job or pay.

bigskygal · Joined: 05 May 2006 Posts: 18

One time a long long time ago, I was informed by a Radiologist that a technician is someone who is state licensed only and a Technologist is a nationally licensed Radiographer. You may be one or the other or both. Of course the education is different, the pay is different and the pride should be different. Alot may depend on whether you have taken a registry or not.

hjhogle · Moderator Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 608 Location: CT

But I would think it would be difficult to find a state these days that DOES support a state license without requiring ARRT certification.

Of course, I could b wrong - wouldn't be the first time.