- Joined
- Jun 3, 2015
- Messages
- 2,983
- Reaction score
- 3,184
- Points
- 5,226
- Dentist
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
10/10No it doesn't irritate me. You're asking reasonable questions and seem open to debate. I got slightly irritated at other people because I explained my opinions and views six ways to Sunday and somehow still didn't manage to get the point across to them, which is probably more my fault for not being clear than it is theirs for not understanding. But I digress...
My definition of a qualified applicant is an applicant who gets accepted to dental school. There are a concrete, limited number of seats, and applicants with stats that would have gotten them in 5 years ago but now leave them on the outside looking in. This doesn't mean they're "dumb" or "useless", it just means they're not qualified to go to dental school that cycle. They either need to improve their app next cycle or do something else with their lives, its just that simple. You can't evaluate people based on stats in the past; that's ridiculous, and I saw somebody doing that which blew my mind. We aren't applying in the 2005 or 2010 cycle. We applied in the 2015 cycle. It's literally like me saying "oh I'm 5'10" and I'm exceptionally tall, because the average height of somebody in the 1300's was like 5'1". Am I short at 5'10"? No, but I'm certainly not exceptionally tall by today's standards. I'm not even sort of tall by today's standards.
Competition for everything is increasing and you have to keep up or get out of the way. It's tough but it's true. Imagine if every person who wanted something could have it.
Increasing the number of seats in order to make money (more than one private school is guilty of this, which is why I have repeatedly said I'm not singling out Touro) is clearly detrimental to the profession because the percentage of people going to work in truly undeserved areas is smaller than the percentage of new grads that either go work as an associate in a private practice in a well-served area, where at least they are more likely to practice ethically. The new grads may unfortunately end up at a corporate practice. Now, this isn't to say that all private practices are the bastions of squeaky clean ethics, nor that all corporate offices operate like up selling mechanics or used-car salesmen. However, corporate offices are often leaving treatment decisions and goals up to business managers and not dentist, and there is a lot of dentists caving in to the pressure to produce dentistry that isn't ethical or necessary. The dentists themselves just as culpable as corporate leadership, but the elimination/slowing of the corporate model would at least reduce some of the risk to patients this type of dentistry poses. If we don't put them in the tough spot of being unethical to keep their job and provide for their families, it's less likely to happen. Period. Corporate is growing quickly and preying on young new grads that need an immediate, steady job to help pay off increasingly high debt burdens. Incomes have remained stagnant in dentistry since the early 2000s and the cost of attendance has doubled in that time. People are doing what they need to to pay off the debt. It's sad but it's true, and the patients are the ones who are hurt by it.
As much as it would be nice for all these new grads to work for the IHS, or move to rural Montana or Mississippi or inner-city Memphis, it's unrealistic to think that people $300,000+ in the hole will uproot and take the risk of living somewhere like that when there are guaranteed higher incomes and better school systems for their kids elsewhere. It's just too much of a risk for someone with that debt to make that decision, even if they are single. That's why I think the opening of schools doesn't due anything to address the poor allocation of dentists, and makes saturation worse. Am I pretending to have a solution to an immensely complex problem? No, but I do strongly believe that opening new expensive schools is not a solution.
I'm not saying dentistry is in grave danger, but the excesses of corporate and its harm to patients is, I believe, the ugliest part of an otherwise great profession.
Please let me know if there's anything you'd like me to explain or clarify. Also, I'm sorry for all the Fairfield County jokes I have made and will continue to make in my life. Whenever I meet someone and tell them from Connecticut, I clearly emphasize I'm from elsewhere in the state lol. It's all good though.


