What do you think... is med school worth it for the kids?

Parents Forum
221

<p>
[quote]
If someones getting some financial assistance from their parents (as many use to get the 'average' number will be) then those numbers might be realistic, but for someone who's not having the parents foot some of the bill then they're almost certainly going to graduate med school with much more than 130k of debt.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And if someone has rich parents, they can graduate with 0 debt. What's your point? That's why we use averages instead of resorting to extremes.</p>

<p>To address curm's question: Do those numbers account for inflation? I think generally physician salaries have declined by approx. 7% or so over the past decade if you account for inflation. So, yes, the physician who earlier said his/her salary has been cut in half is an anomaly.</p>

222

<p>Mean numbers can be distorted. 9 doctors make $100,000 and 1 doctor makes $1.1 million and the mean is $200,000.</p>

<p>This works with larger numbers too. </p>

<p>Using a Median would probably be better.</p>

<p>Having said that, I know many doctors that are making more than the mean. </p>

<p>I know one doctor that had one specialty, many years later changed it to plastic surgery, owns three clinics and makes over $1 million a year.</p>

<p>I know another doctor who owns his practice and his income has dropped in half. He still makes over $500,000 a year.</p>

<p>If a kid wants to go into medicine, the kid should. </p>

<p>Many careers are changing anyway. Some are no longer as lucrative. Who knows what the future will bring?</p>

<p>Just follow your passion.</p>

<p>Finance people can be fired at a drop of a hat. Many firms don't want anybody over 45. Plus the job is so money oriented..........</p>

<p>Most lawyers hate their jobs.</p>

<p>I don't know of too many professions where you have job security and make a pretty good living. Doctors still have this. Plus, you are really helping people.</p>

223

<p>
[quote]
And if someone has rich parents, they can graduate with 0 debt. What's your point? That's why we use averages instead of resorting to extremes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The point was that the original comment (that the 'average' is lower than what some have reported as what to expect debt wise) seemingly suggested that some of the figures presented here were unrealistically high because the reported 'average' is lower. I was simply pointing out that for many the figures are much higher or, if parents help out, lower so I don't think there is any disagreement there! ;-)</p>

224

<p>"This thread is interesting but I'm not sure to whom. It seems like it's for parents who want to "have" or not " have" their kids go into medicine. "</p>

<p>"Who on this thread is encouraging their child to be a doc? I missed that part. Now the discourage part- I read those. LOL. But no encourage posts. Heck, I'd like to read one if it's here. Point it out."</p>

<p>"For anyone who spends some time browsing the pre-med forums you'll see that there's a not insignificant number of the "I'm going to be rolling in cash and chillin' at the country club most days" types there. These are the ones that really should pay attention to the comments here."</p>

<p>I think that is what I was trying to say. This seems like a parents thread and I'm not sure what this has to do with us.</p>

225

<p>
[quote]
"For anyone who spends some time browsing the pre-med forums you'll see that there's a not insignificant number of the "I'm going to be rolling in cash and chillin' at the country club most days" types there. These are the ones that really should pay attention to the comments here."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Or too busy working to even surf the net?</p>

226

<p>
[quote]
This seems like a parents thread and I'm not sure what this has to do with us.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>uhhhh. It's the Parent's Forum? Parents come here to learn things that they can pass on to their kid about schools, testing, post grad options, occupations, and to sometimes share what we do know or find. That's what we do here. At least I think it's what we do here. I could be wrong.</p>

227

<p>When I say medicine is not for the brilliant and ambitious, it is not because of the income. It is the nature of the work itself. </p>

<p>Medicine is becoming a cookbook field. The creative brilliant person will not be PERMITTED to act upon her brilliant ideas. She will be forced to do things the usual way, or else. So her brilliance will be wasted, and her ambitions thwarted.</p>

<p>If she wants to do scientific research, with or without an MD, then that is still a field where sheer brilliance, drive, and ambition are well rewarded- in professional accomplishment, not necessarily in financial terms.</p>

<p>Some people will like the new medicine. There is less responsibility, less expectation of independence (not everyone wants independence), one can arrange shorter hours, in return for lower pay, but less attachment to a frustrating job.</p>

<p>The few brilliant docs I know manage to put up with clinical practice in at least one of several ways:</p>

<p>spend much of their time on research, thus they get their intellectual satisfaction from this, rather than clinical work</p>

<p>Have found narrow niches in medicine where they can still function according to their standards, rather than being dumbed down to the mean</p>

<p>or</p>

<p>Have lots of stimulating hobbies. I know some who chose medicine instead of concert careers as musicians, others who translate the classics, or put their hearts into their inventions.</p>

<p>Some brilliant ambitious people have making a lot of money as an important ambition. These people in the past might perhaps have gone into challenging and well compensated fields of surgery. There is still a chance for that, closing rapidly, but the leverage of their intellectual abilities is much higher in other fields. </p>

<p>Curmudgeon, If your daughter loves scientific research, and is likely to be extraordinarily good at it-say tenured at a top research university, then she should go into research. Whether an MD would be helpful will depend on the area of research. In many of the life sciences it can come in handy. In the more technical fields, does not contribute much. If she mainly wants to make a lot of money, and the work is a means to that end, then medicine is not a good idea.</p>

228

<p>"I could be wrong."</p>

<p>Nope. Thanks for clarifying.</p>

229

<p>
[quote]

Family and General Practice ** Anesthesiologist **Surgeon</p>

<p>Physicians offices-$156,110 ** $191,440 ****** $190,670
Hospitals-**<em>$142,760 *</em> $153,060
Outpatient Clinics $166,530 **$169,700</p>

<p>Here's others that are sometimes mentioned as alternatives:
(I picked the highest sub-category in each.)
Petro eng- $112,000
Bio-med eng- $93,000
Architect -$79,440
Elec eng-$90,190
Comp Software eng-$84,610
Non-government lawyer- $119,390</p>

<p>BTW, I couldn't find any occupations with salaries higher than Family and GP, much less the others shown. Now, I admit I wasn't there very long, maybe 5 minutes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Most of the other salaries you mentioned only require a Bachelors degree and these people, engineers, architects etc. start drawing a salary from year one after graduation. Now most doctors have 4 years of medical school plus at least 4 years of internship and residency that's 8 years of little or no income. Assuming these 8 years the average engineer makes $80K per year, the opportunity cost to the doctor is already (average pay of internship/residency is $42K) $640K-$168K=$472K. Then of course, the loan accumulates interest. After the 8 years, the engineers and architects have already bought their houses, saved for retirement and the doctors are just starting out. </p>

<p>Why the disconnect between your neighboring docs' lifestyles and some of us here ? Well, for one thing, orthopedists, plastic surgeons, radiologists,cardiologists, opthalmologists, any of these specialties that do procedures will make much more. Some have no loans to pay back. My husband's private medical school education was only $6000 per year in the mid 1970's, much less than what we paid for our children's private high schools. Some docs are businessman, like a group of OB/GYNs in our town operate a beauty business giving botox shots, dermal abrasions, laser treatments to supplement their incomes. One doc has a dialysis clinic. Several cater their practice to weight loss reduction. Many do not accept insurance payments.
So there are many different kinds of practices. Those who have no gimmicks (most primary care docs) will make the $150-$200K.</p>

<p>My husband loves patient care and hates business, so no early retirement for us. He would have encouraged our kids to go to med school, but neither showed any interest.</p>

230

<p>
[quote]
Some docs are businessman, like a group of OB/GYNs in our town operate a beauty business giving botox shots, dermal abrasions, laser treatments to supplement their incomes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Boy and when you're giving rich folks their botox injections you really get that "I'm truly helping people and out there making a difference" feeling. [/sarcasm]</p>

231

<p>The electrical or software engineer's career may start early, but the career also end early unless they move out of technical work into management. The hours are often as long as the doctors, and they have to worry about being outsourced all the time.</p>

<p>BTW, the job with great pay and no crazy hour is orthodontist.</p>

232

<p>There are many software engineers who have worked until a normal retirement still doing technical work. It doesn't necessarily "end early".</p>

233

<p>
[quote]
Curmudgeon, If your daughter loves scientific research, and is likely to be extraordinarily good at it-say tenured at a top research university, then she should go into research. Whether an MD would be helpful will depend on the area of research. In many of the life sciences it can come in handy.

[/quote]
afan, I'm really not the best judge of what she's capable of I'm sad to say. Earlier today my D presented her genetics/dna work (Please don't ask me. Something to do with something called cln3 cyclins) research at a conference attended by (her words) "a potential Nobel Prize winner from the U of Toronto". She said she drew a good crowd to her area (maybe even the UT guy) and she thinks she did an O.K. job of presenting her work. </p>

<p>This was the first time she ever had to stand there and take questions from a bunch of post-docs and prof's but she said she enjoyed it. I don't know what that means to this thread but she just told me and it seemed apropos. Her best compliment came from a post-doc she knows from St. Jude's who team taught a senior bio topics course she took. He said to her (upon learning today that she was a soph) "Can't you just graduate early and do something useful? It is a detriment to society for you to stay there." LOL. He's not from around here, but she was pleased to hear it. ;)</p>

<p>As to $ being a strong motivator for her, I don't think it's in the top 3 but I'd guess it's in the top 5. Hopefully she can find an appropriate compromise.</p>

<p>I appreciate everyone's helpful comments. (I'm off to google the UT guy and the St.Jude's fella.)</p>

234

<p>I think the best way to mitigate for the risk of going to an MD career is to get free ride somewhere or go to a state school. I would not spend $200K for an expensive undergraduate at Ivy league.</p>

235

<p>
[quote]
I would not spend $200K for an expensive undergraduate at Ivy league.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well unless you're already quite rich you wouldn't have to at some top schools (e.g. the new endowment backed financial packages being rolled out).</p>

236

<p>I know this is off-topic, but it give a perspective to the house is greener on the other side. The following is quoted from New York Times Op-Ed Page January 26, 1998 by computer science professor Norman Matloff of UC Davis:</p>

<p>As a result, careers in the programming field tend to be short-lived. According to a survey conducted by the National Science Foundation and the Census Bureau, six years after finishing college, 57 percent of computer science graduates are working as programmers; at 15 years the figure drops to 34 percent, and at 20 years -- when most are still only in their early 40's -- it is down to 19 percent.</p>

<p>In contrast, the figures for civil engineering are 61 percent, 52 percent and 52 percent. As one industry executive stated a few years ago at a stockholders' meeting when asked about corporate downsizing, "The half-life of an engineer, software or hardware, is only a few years."</p>

237

<p>
[quote]
Well unless you're already quite rich you wouldn't have to at some top schools (e.g. the new endowment backed financial packages being rolled out).

[/quote]

Don't count on it. It means income up to $180K only if you don't have any asset. Tell me what is the percentage of 40-50 years old that don't have any assets like home equity for example. Dream on.</p>

238

<p>bomgeedad: </p>

<p>I guess they missed the people in my software development group in their survey (from 10 years ago). In the CS field though, if one doesn't keep up with the current technology they'll definitely find themselves left behind. And of course, a certain number will move into management and company ownership and some will strike it rich and retire or do something completely different. </p>

<p>This one's been discussed on CC before though so we're better off not replicating it in this MD thread so I'll return the thread to the regularly scheduled program.</p>

239

<p>The</a> Real Science Crisis: Bleak Prospects for Young Researchers</p>

<p>My comments apply to the life sciences. This is one of the reasons why many of my peers who would have done straight PhD had income prospects been better... of if they were supremely confident of their abilities... choose to go into a MD/PhD program, despite the huge opportunity cost learning-wise. You don't need all those years in the hospital to do research, translational or otherwise.</p>

<p>What the MD/PhD does provide if you're not certain about research, or even your capability to compete at the very top of the research hierarchy, is the stability of the medical profession.</p>

<p>Practicing even one day a week, while doing research all the other days, doubles your income compared to your typical biology assistant professor (huge surplus of biology PhD's... terrible supply/demand situation).</p>

<p>You might love research, and even if you feel lukewarm about clinical work, but at least you're in a better position to support a new family. There's an obvious opportunity cost intellectually having to waste your time in clinical rotations and residency, but income-wise you probably win out.</p>

<p>Graduate College: 21 years
MD/PhD Length: 7 years on average (free with MSTP)
Residency Length: 4 years
Finished ($100k -> $150k): 32 years old</p>

<p>Your PhD unless he's supremely brilliant (in which case you wouldn't even think about wasting time with the MD and clinical work, and would find collaborators, or would be commercializing something into a spin-off) is either an assistant professor on tenure track or more likely still a postdoctoral candidate is making between $50-70k a year probably. Your PhD stipend is so low that you're probably didn't save anything either.</p>

<p>For biology (not engineering, or anything else), MD/PhD is a very nice compromise for somebody who likes research, but is not Nobel-calibre material in his mind.</p>

<p>To make over $100k in biology you need to be one of the top researchers. Consulting and being on scientific boards comes usually to those who have already made that boundary, so that's not an option for mediocre researchers. If you're mediocre as a MD/PhD, you can pass by doing BS clinical research if that still interests you, and still pull in $120-150k, or pull out entirely and do clinical work and see a significant increase in salary, whereas a pure PhD you'd be stuck sub-$100k, without a clear or easy transition to comparable salaries in industry (with the added risks of lay-off and job instability).</p>

240

<p>Prince_Phoenix,</p>

<p>Excellent summary of the trade offs. All of this is relevant for the vast majority who are not superstars in research. For the handful of such stars, then tenure at a major university provides a very nice professional career and lifestyle. Tenured profs at Harvard in the life sciences earn more than many MD's, have near perfect job security, great benefits, and exciting jobs with no cap on their intellectual output. Problem is, there are very few jobs like that.</p>

<p>I would point out that a life scientist right out of their PhD program has virtually no chance of landing a tenure track job at a research university. An absolute star would be considered eligible for consideration for such a job after 2-3 years of post doc, but straight out of grad school? Unheard of. </p>

<p>Tack on 2-3 years post doc minimum, and most people now do two post docs- say 6 years post PhD. Average age at getting first NIH PI grant is in the early 40's, and tenure is not offered to life scientists who do not have funding.</p>

<p>So... if you are, say, National Academy potential (hard to predict while in college), then go pure PhD, single post doc, tenure track. Then if you want to, move among the top research universities as each offers you a better package. If you are below this level, then pure PhD is a gamble professionally if you want a research career. Adding MD helps the research prospects a little bit, by expanding the range of research you can do, but mainly gives you the alternative of practicing clinical medicine. Problem is, most people with the potential to be great scientists would hate practicing clinical medicine.</p>

<p>Matloff raises many interesting points, but I believe the youth of programmers in part reflects the limited nature of the job. People grow out of it after a while, and become overqualified for simply writing code. Sort of like why you don't find many 40 year old lieutenants in the army.</p>