30-year-old post-bacc--strategy?

[shogun4877]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

At 30 years old, I've decided that I want to change careers and become a doctor. However, I have three important factors working against me:

1) $90K in undergraduate debt (all private)
2) English major (no science or math courses whatsoever)
3) 2.6 GPA

After undergrad, I got my life together and have been continuously employed in the nonprofit sector for the past 8 years.

With a 2.6 GPA, will any formal post-bacc have me? I fear that a DIY post-bacc would take too long and force me to borrow even more than a formal program. I live paycheck-to-paycheck, so $ is a primary consideration. But with no science background at all, I'm worried about taking time away from my studies to work.

Thanks so much in advance!

 

[futuredoc331]

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one in that kind of situation. I am also living paycheck to paycheck and my finances are pretty bad. I also have all my prereqs in front of me, but with a job and family it's going to be tough. My plan is to knock out at least half of them at a country college near me and the rest at UNE online. I don't have crazy high aspirations of a top MD school or anything so I am not concerned with the online stigma or anything like that. I figure if I can complete them all in two years and nail the MCAT I should be good to go.

Two years gives me plenty of time to create an outstanding application to make up for the CC and online courses.

I forgot to mention originally that a DIY post bacc shouldn't be too crazy. Even of you went to a uni or UNE online it should be 10 to 20 thousand. That's not cheap, but it's nothing compared to some of the formal programs I've seen.

 

[Chuchunezumis]

Just be aware of what schools accept online classes if you do go the online route as the above poster is. Most if not all MD schools won't, though I imagine some DO do (though I'm not positive).

 

[shogun4877]

Yes, it's good to hear there are others going through the same thing!

I admit I am scared of doing community college/online courses because a lot of people on these forums say they are frowned upon my adcomms. I would like to do the post-bacc at a state university, but of course I work during the day, when most of the classes are offered...

 

[TriagePreMed]

Honestly, with a 2.6 and 90k in debt, the best advice anyone can give you is to move on and find another career. I come from similar beginnings as a non-trad with a low GPA living paycheck to paycheck. If you're serious about doing this, walking this road is tougher than people can describe it.

Being successful means that you'll have to prioritize school over work. You'll have to learn how to actually study because a) with a 2.6 you don't know how, and b) science is entirely new monster. It means you'll be stuck taking whatever professor is possible instead of who is good because you're on a time crunch. It means losing many friends as a result of not having time for them. It means you'll probably go into more debt because how else are you going to be able to pay for classes and books? God forbid you're forced to turn into part-time labor and your rent and groceries depend on it. And if volunteering is not your thing, find a way to make it because you can't slack on it.

Personally, I don't regret my decision. I really think I'm meant to do this, but I've seen enough people fail to feel the need to warn others.

 

[shogun4877]

Thanks, TriagePreMed. I appreciate the advice--and the warning.

I guess I am trying to find another career, ha! With 90k and a 40k salary, I'm tied to my debt for the rest of my working years. But after having spent the last 8 years in jobs that have been empty and meaningless, I guess spending the next 8 years training to do something I'd love to do sounds...not so bad. The additional (huge) debt and long training seem worth it to me to live a meaningful life. Otherwise I'm going to wake up in 10 years and still be broke and doing work I hate.

 

[futuredoc331]

This is my view on the debt issue. I have a ton of debt. If you include my home it's over 100k. I'm actually considering bankruptcy because my current salary ( nearly half of what you make) will never allow me to pay it off.

In our position we can hope to keep working the same jobs we are in with hopes of advancing and earning slightly more. Maybe 50 or 60 thousand a year in the nex 5 to 10 years? And even smaller increases from there. OR take out more loans, live the same quality of life if not better (working meaningless jobs while not getting by vs. studying endlessly and lrobably having fun when we can) for 10 years And then making 200k a year. All our debt would be paid of in 5 and we'd be happy and fairly well off in15.

Neither of us will be debt free and well off in 15 years at the jobs we are at. And unless we do something drastic the outlook is t great for a new job either.

90k is a huge debt for 40k salary, but it's not much for 200k. Even if that means putting another 150k on top of it would be worth it to me.

Btw, I have emailed and called several DO schools and none seem to care about class's being take online/. I will create a new thread with my list. DO is still a doctor. In our situations I wouldn't be hell bent at going to a top MD program. A good DO gets you to the same end point.

 

[Patassa]

Run the numbers.

90k today plus interest for all the years your won't be paying on it or just paying the minimum.
+ new undergrad loans?
+ med school loans
+ interest during residency and fellowship
= a crap load, just for education

+ mortgage somewhere in there
+ cars at some point

= how is this a better position then you're in now? And how in the world could you enjoy your work when you probably won't have much more at the end of the month after paying on this truly MASSIVE amount of debt?

 

[futuredoc331]

Debt it horrible. It is the worst thing in the world and in my opinion usury (making money from lending) should be illegal like it once was. There are different kinds of debt though. If you have debt backed by an asset it is different than debt from spending.

The debt accumulated In med school will give the asset of a medical degree and ability to earn 200k. 240 thousand in debt (90 + 150) give of take is a tremendous amount, BUT as a percentage of income it's not too bad. 240 is 120% of a 200k salary. If we are used to loving off 40k we can pay 160 right off the first year and owe 80. The next year it'd be paid off and we'd be in the black for the rest of our lives. Obviously it would probably take a little longer than that. Regardless though the debt would be paid rather quickly and the. 200k a year is tremendous.

Currently she has 90k with a 40k salary. That's 225% of the salary AND almost nothing is getting paid off on that debt. It will probably take 30 years to pay off. So in 30 years its paid. She earns 40k for another couple years and retires or dies. That is slavery, my friend. That's not even considering how bad inflation will destroy her current spending power ( mine as well).

Debt for the rest of your life because its relatively small OR go even deeper in it and be debt free in 15 with an earning power 5x what you will ever have.

 

[futuredoc331]

Btw, idk why I assumed OP was a female. Of you're male please forgive me.

 

[futuredoc331]

To summarize my last post - earning power. That's why it would be better off. OP is working a job they don't like and remaining in debt indefinitely as it is. Their earning power is not enough to pay their current debt. They will never get ahead.

Takin out more debt will guarantee a salary that can handle the additional debt. Paying 5k a month on student loans when you earn 20k a month is not being buried alive. Paying 500 when you only earn 4000 is.

 

[Patassa]

90k is a huge debt for 40k salary, but it's not much for 200k. Even if that means putting another 150k on top of it would be worth it to me.

This argument seems illogical to me.


You're saying that a 90k with 40k income is "huge". Debt to income ratio of 2.25.



Let's try this,
90k collecting intrest for all the time someone would need to do post bacc, medschool, residency, fellowship (12 years? @ what 4%?) =133k

then
150k for med school plus interest during residency and fellowship = 186k

total debt of 320k, that's with 4% interest and 6 years for residency + fellowship.

Assuming you can actually make 200k net right out of training...

But by this point in life, most people are married and need a house. Assuming a modest home is around 200-400k.

Debt to income ratio then is 2.6 (higher than where we started) - 3.6.

Pay that off will not be easier.

 

[DreamingTheLive]

Wow. This is a very difficult situation. Much much tougher than my decision, which seems like peanuts compared to this. Are you married? Do you have a family? I feel like we need more information to help you make the best decision possible.

 

[Patassa]

Debt it horrible. It is the worst thing in the world and in my opinion usury (making money from lending) should be illegal like it once was. There are different kinds of debt though. If you have debt backed by an asset it is different than debt from spending.

I think you're confusing "debt" with "being in debt". Being in debt might be one of the worst things in the world. But very few people are made slaves by debt, almost everyone chooses to become a slave through taking on debt. No one owes anyone else free money. I don't get anything else in the world for free, why would I expect to get money for free?

The debt accumulated In med school will give the asset of a medical degree and ability to earn 200k. 240 thousand in debt (90 + 150) give of take is a tremendous amount, BUT as a percentage of income it's not too bad. 240 is 120% of a 200k salary. If we are used to loving off 40k we can pay 160 right off the first year and owe 80. The next year it'd be paid off and we'd be in the black for the rest of our lives. Obviously it would probably take a little longer than that. Regardless though the debt would be paid rather quickly and the. 200k a year is tremendous.

Almost nothing in the paragraph is realist though. You've accounted for no interest, no taxes, aka you'll have more debt and less pay. And if someone has never successfully attacked debt and paid it off before you have no idea how much discipline and dedication it truly requires.

Currently she has 90k with a 40k salary. That's 225% of the salary AND almost nothing is getting paid off on that debt. It will probably take 30 years to pay off. So in 30 years its paid. She earns 40k for another couple years and retires or dies. That is slavery, my friend. That's not even considering how bad inflation will destroy her current spending power ( mine as well).

It is not unheard of for people to take 2nd and 3rd jobs while paying down debt. If someone isn't willing to make the sacrifice when they are young, single, healthy, in shape, and with few responsibilities to pay down their debt how will they do it when they are 10 years older, married, tired, and being pulled in multiple directions by job/spouse/kids etc?

Debt for the rest of your life because its relatively small OR go even deeper in it and be debt free in 15 with an earning power 5x what you will ever have.

Paying down debt is a matter of will power most of the time, if someone doesn't want to get rid of it, they will be in debt their entire lives regardless of their earning potential.

 

[futuredoc331]

You're assuming that family, marriage and increased debt will only effect them if they go to med school. That will happen regardless. Do they attempt to take that on with a salary of 40k a year? Or with 200k? Hell 500k in debt when you are earning 200k is much different than 90 at 40.

At 40 thousand 90k will never be paid off. They would have to live a a friend house for free and eat one serving of ramen noodles a day for 5 years. Even on a budget that debt will almost never get paid and the quality of life would never improve. By going to med school life would more than likely be of the same quality, during residency they'd make the same as they are earning now AND after that they'd have a salary capable of paying off a ton of debt.

500k of debt will get paid off faster with 200k of income than 90 will be paid at 40.

OP don't let the fear of a big debt number scare you from making this move. It is this honing and the fear of risk that prevent normal people from achieving greatness. You are INVESTING in an ASSET. Look at all successful businesses or business people. Most of them have millions and billions in debt backed by income producing assets. Have 100 million in debt is not scary to them because they will produce many times that in profits.

This is no difference. 200k, 300k, 500k for that matter are all numbers when you consider your earning potential.

Say it takes 10 years to start earning 200k. You'll be 40. Work 25 years at 200k for simple math and that's 5 million. Work from now until 65 at 40k and that's 1.4 million?

If that isn't a simple enough consider your ability to invest. At 200k you could easily invest 50k plus a year and earn great deal of money while kicking inflations ass each and every year until you die.

At 40k you'll never save a dime. The 5 bucks that you do save will be devalued by inflation and your spending power will be almost nothing. You'll struggle for your whole life and then die.

We are talking many millions of dollars in the long run. Think rationally, but don't be afraid of risk. Only you can do your own calculations. If this is what you want to for it.

 

[futuredoc331]

Paying down debt has everything to do with earning potential. Why do people take second and third jobs?? To increase their earnings. You are recommending working 3 jobs for several years to pay off debt (aka having no life) to be debt free and earning a barely livable wage?

At 40k OP will either love completely broke for their entire life OR get back into debt many times over. That is just the sad truth. Living frugal on 40k is much different than living frugally on 200k

 

[futuredoc331]

And not to get into a philosophical debate, but money used to be lent at very low interest rates in there was interest at all. Historically and biblically it was deemed wrong to earn money for lending it. After all, That is basically earning money for free. No work is required in lending money.

Usury is a tool to keep people in slavery. It's one of the many ways 99% of the world is kept in the rat race.

 

[Patassa]

Paying down debt has everything to do with earning potential. Why do people take second and third jobs?? To increase their earnings. You are recommending working 3 jobs for several years to pay off debt (aka having no life) to be debt free and earning a barely livable wage?

At 40k OP will either love completely broke for their entire life OR get back into debt many times over. That is just the sad truth. Living frugal on 40k is much different than living frugally on 200k

People take 2nd and 3rd jobs because the have the will power to give up having a "life" for a season and taking care of their obligations.

So what if the OP doesn't have a life while they are paying of their debts? They won't have a life as a Post-Bacc trying to maintain a 4.0 and study for the MCAt, neither will they during med school, nor residency. That's a non issue either way.

 

[futuredoc331]

People take 2nd and 3rd jobs because the have the will power to give up having a "life" for a season and taking care of their obligations.

So what if the OP doesn't have a life while they are paying of their debts? They won't have a life as a Post-Bacc trying to maintain a 4.0 and study for the MCAt, neither will they during med school, nor residency. That's a non issue either way.

You are missing the point about earning power. Listen, that's good that you paid off debt. Or whatever. Its obvious youre very big on willpower, but with all the will power in the world you will struggle on 40k. Why not have the willpower to suck up premed, and med school in order to get ahead one day.

The debt is a non issue really. Without more earning potential OP will always struggle.

 

[Patassa]

And not to get into a philosophical debate, but money used to be lent at very low interest rates in there was interest at all. Historically and biblically it was deemed wrong to earn money for lending it. After all, That is basically earning money for free. No work is required in lending money.

Historically? Are you saying civilizations since the beginning of time were in agreement that it was morally wrong to earn interest? I'd like to see your case for that, starting from Mesopotamia to recent history.

Biblically, let's play fair and use some proper context. Almost every occasion in the OT where God is commanding the israelites regarding interest it's in the context of how to treat the poor and downtrodden. He's not taking about daily business transactions. If he were, then Jesus would not be making much sense here,

But his master answered and said to him, 'You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed. Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest. (Matthew 25:26-27)

Clearly Jesus was not adversed to interest being charged on the money he would loan to the bank in this illustration.

Usury is a tool to keep people in slavery. It's one of the many ways 99% of the world is kept in the rat race.

I don't buy this in the context of student loans. No one is being forced to take them out, and if you take them out and you're tired of being a slave, pay the lender and buy your freedom.

 

[Patassa]

You are missing the point about earning power. Listen, that's good that you paid off debt. Or whatever. Its obvious youre very big on willpower, but with all the will power in the world you will struggle on 40k. Why not have the willpower to suck up premed, and med school in order to get ahead one day.

The debt is a non issue really. Without more earning potential OP will always struggle.

No I'm not missing the point, I understand that it takes money to pay off debt. Everyone here gets that, we can all do numbers I'm sure.

Have you ever paid off a significant amount of debt? If not, how can you tell us what it's like or what it takes? If it were a simple math problem, most people I know would not be in debt today.

 

[Patassa]

The debt is a non issue really. Without more earning potential OP will always struggle.

Also if you're going to invoke the bible, was it not Jesus who said "the debtor is a slave to the lender".

Isn't an implication of that to NOT become a slave? You're only presenting one side of that, "interest should not be charged" how about the other side, "don't borrow money" and "if you do, pay off your debts".

 

[futuredoc331]

We are forced to take out student loans to go to school. It is much to expensive to go otherwise. You could decide not to go, but unless you have a connection in the union you're not going very far with that plan.

 

[Patassa]

We are forced to take out student loans to go to school. It is much to expensive to go otherwise. You could decide not to go, but unless you have a connection in the union you're not going very far with that plan.

You speak as if you know no one who works their way through school and graduates debt free.

 

[futuredoc331]

Biblical References
The Christians of the late Empire were not so flexible. There is a steady condemnation of lending at interest running through the patristic literature. St. Jerome declared usury to be the same as murder, echoing Cato and Seneca, since it consumed the life of the borrower. Christians, however, seemed required by God to condemn it. Exodus 22:25 forbad oppressing one’s neighbor with usury. Deuteronomy 23:20-21 said you could not charge your brother usury. Ezekiel 18:7-8; 13 makes it clear that the righteous do not lend at usury; and that usurers “shall not live.” Leviticus 25:35-36 says if your brother is poor do not charge him usury. The final Old Testament word on the issue came from the Psalmist, who charged the godly to aid their neighbors, not lending to them at interest. The strongest rejection of loans at interest came from Christ in Luke 6:35, where He says “Lend, hoping for nothing in return.”

 

[futuredoc331]

And historically,

Aristotle

The Greek philosophers wrestled with the question of whether money can be lent at interest. Most notably, Aristotle concluded that it could not. Aristotle defined money as a good that was consumed by use. Unlike houses and fields, which are not destroyed by use, money must be spent to be used. Therefore, as we cannot rent food, so we cannot rent money. Moreover, money does not reproduce. A house or a flock can produce new value by use, so it is not unreasonable to ask for a return on their use. Money, being barren, should not, therefore, be expected to produce excess value. Thus, interest is unnatural.

Roman Law
Roman lawyers were more subtle in their treatment of the problem. They recognized the right to lend and borrow for a specified return, the mutuum. A strict contract in which money, oil, or other fungible good could be lent on the expectation of an equal return in kind and quality of the substance loaned. Interest was not recognized in this obligation unless it was agreed upon by the parties ahead of time. Foenus was an illegal contract for interest without risk, with one exception. The foenus nauticum allowed lenders to contract for certain return on money lent for large projects, such as voyages. It was the Latin foenus that was used interchangeably with usuram in Latin biblical translations. Nonetheless, Roman law did, in the Lex Unicaria of 88 B.C., recognize an interest rate of up to 12%. Made the maximum rate in 50 B.C. by a decree of the Senate, the centesima usura stood until Justinian lowered the rates in 533 A.D., creating a sliding scale with 12% only applying to the foenus nauticum, 8% to business loans, 6% to those not in business, and 4% to distinguished persons and farmers.

Previous two posts from this source
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/jones.usury

 

[Patassa]

Biblical References
The Christians of the late Empire were not so flexible. There is a steady condemnation of lending at interest running through the patristic literature. St. Jerome declared usury to be the same as murder, echoing Cato and Seneca, since it consumed the life of the borrower. Christians, however, seemed required by God to condemn it. Exodus 22:25 forbad oppressing one’s neighbor with usury. Deuteronomy 23:20-21 said you could not charge your brother usury. Ezekiel 18:7-8; 13 makes it clear that the righteous do not lend at usury; and that usurers “shall not live.” Leviticus 25:35-36 says if your brother is poor do not charge him usury. The final Old Testament word on the issue came from the Psalmist, who charged the godly to aid their neighbors, not lending to them at interest. The strongest rejection of loans at interest came from Christ in Luke 6:35, where He says “Lend, hoping for nothing in return.”

Again, you're using quotes from the context of people being instructed on how to be gracious and charitable to the poor. Not on those who are making business exchanges. If we were to take what you're trying to say as being correct, we would have to conclude Jesus was wrong to say it would be a good thing for his money to have accumulated interest (interest that would have been paid from the bank by people borrowing money from the bank). And that would make your entire biblical authority argument fall apart as it would then be internally conflicting.

 

[futuredoc331]

You speak as if you know no one who works their way through school and graduates debt free.

It's extremely rare. Get off your high horse for paying off your debts. Most people aren't so lucky and it's not because they have less will power or work ethic than you.

 

[futuredoc331]

Again, you're using quotes from the context of people being instructed on how to be gracious and charitable to the poor. Not on those who are making business exchanges. If we were to take what you're trying to say as being correct, we would have to conclude Jesus was wrong to say it would be a good thing for his money to have accumulated interest (interest that would have been paid from the bank by people borrowing money from the bank). And that would make your entire biblical authority argument fall apart as it would then be internally conflicting.

They are not talking about being noble or charitable. They are talking about t being wrong in all instances including business to charge usury. Usury is unfair interest rates. It was legal to charge small amounts, but to earn profit and to take advantage was and is immoral.

Banking in the way it is done now is rather new in history. And may I add has been shown to fail many times over. Especially, the fiat system run b America. Never and history has a system like ours succeeded.

 

[Patassa]

And historically,

Aristotle

The Greek philosophers wrestled with the question of whether money can be lent at interest. Most notably, Aristotle concluded that it could not. Aristotle defined money as a good that was consumed by use. Unlike houses and fields, which are not destroyed by use, money must be spent to be used. Therefore, as we cannot rent food, so we cannot rent money. Moreover, money does not reproduce. A house or a flock can produce new value by use, so it is not unreasonable to ask for a return on their use. Money, being barren, should not, therefore, be expected to produce excess value. Thus, interest is unnatural.

Roman Law
Roman lawyers were more subtle in their treatment of the problem. They recognized the right to lend and borrow for a specified return, the mutuum. A strict contract in which money, oil, or other fungible good could be lent on the expectation of an equal return in kind and quality of the substance loaned. Interest was not recognized in this obligation unless it was agreed upon by the parties ahead of time. Foenus was an illegal contract for interest without risk, with one exception. The foenus nauticum allowed lenders to contract for certain return on money lent for large projects, such as voyages. It was the Latin foenus that was used interchangeably with usuram in Latin biblical translations. Nonetheless, Roman law did, in the Lex Unicaria of 88 B.C., recognize an interest rate of up to 12%. Made the maximum rate in 50 B.C. by a decree of the Senate, the centesima usura stood until Justinian lowered the rates in 533 A.D., creating a sliding scale with 12% only applying to the foenus nauticum, 8% to business loans, 6% to those not in business, and 4% to distinguished persons and farmers.

Previous two posts from this source
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/jones.usury

A greek philosopher's take on interest is that it's unnatural. Ok.

And then you're saying the Romans charged interest, correct? Which, unless I'm confused, does not support your earlier claim that "historically" interest was seen as "wrong".

 

[futuredoc331]

You questioned the historical significance of usury. I showed you what the Greeks viewed it as, the Romans, and the bible. Historically it mattered and still should.

 

[Patassa]

It's extremely rare. Get off your high horse for paying off your debts. Most people aren't so lucky and it's not because they have less will power or work ethic than you.

Ok if we're going to make this personal, so be it. How about stop pretending your a victim and deal with your obligations. Not only do you disagree with paying interest but you don't even want to pay your loans back. (bankruptcy)

 

[Patassa]

You questioned the historical significance of usury. I showed you what the Greeks viewed it as, the Romans, and the bible. Historically it mattered and still should.

No, I said "Are you saying civilizations since the beginning of time were in agreement that it was morally wrong to earn interest? I'd like to see your case for that, starting from Mesopotamia to recent history. "

 

[futuredoc331]

Ok if we're going to make this personal, so be it. How about stop pretending your a victim and deal with your obligations. Not only do you disagree with paying interest but you don't even want to pay your loans back. (bankruptcy)

It's not personal, but it's obvious that you feel some kind of superiority for diggin yoursel out of a bad situation.

Your pride is causing you to give bad advice and your logic is flawed.

 

[Patassa]

It's not personal, but it's obvious that you feel some kind of superiority for diggin yoursel out of a bad situation.

Your pride is causing you to give bad advice and your logic is flawed.

Right, I feel superior for doing the lawfully and morally right thing, paying back my loans with interest rates that I agreed to and not pretending I was some how victimized by taking them out. This should be normal, common practice. The fact that you think I feel superior for doing what's expected of any law abiding citizen shows how little value you place on paying off one's debts.

My pride is causing me to point out that a 200k salary isn't going to solve all the OP's debt problems if it cost them several hundreds of thousands to get.

My logic based on finance calculations is horribly flawed, no doubt.

Your advice isn't biased in the least, I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that you are doing what you are advising someone else to do. Maybe the OP should file bankruptcy too and be haunted by that for the next few decades. They should definitely take advice on what it will be like to deal with half a million dollars of debt from someone that doesn't know a thing about paying off loans and who is considering defaulting on the ones they already have. Brilliant.

Good luck, OP. You be the judge of the advice.

 

[futuredoc331]

Your calculations are based on fear. It is viewpoints like yours that cause most people to live in mediocracy. My potentially filing bankruptcy is not an attempt to get out of obligations. It is a last resort. The fact that you've pointed that out no fewer than 3 times shows that you feel superior for not doing that.

It takes risk to be successful. Hard work and will power in a dead end job will never get you to where you want to be, even if you feel morally superior for trying. You must risk in order to gain.

 

[ToldYouSo]

Wow I'm really impressed; an interesting derail about the Bible that doesn't involve religion-bashing or ranting.

 

[Patassa]

Your calculations are based on fear.

Or costs and interest rates, same thing I guess. ?

My potentially filing bankruptcy is not an attempt to get out of obligations. It is a last resort. The fact that you've pointed that out no fewer than 3 times shows that you feel superior for not doing that.

Or I was doing it to show that you have very little ground to stand on when advising someone to take on more debt and what it will be like to pay it off.

It takes risk to be successful. Hard work and will power in a dead end job will never get you to where you want to be, even if you feel morally superior for trying. You must risk in order to gain.

Think about this for a minute, I'm a pre-med in the non-trad forum. Think you might be preaching to the choir a little bit?

 

[Patassa]

After all, That is basically earning money for free. No work is required in lending money.

I think this is really at the root of our disagreement.

Do you know why interest is charged? It's charged because money has time value. If I have extra money that I do not need in the near future there are things that I can and should do with it so that its value increases. I could buy an asset. I could invest in a company, a product or an idea. Or, I could lend it out. If someone lends money and does not charge interest they have lost the time value of that money that they otherwise could have gained by doing something else with the money. Not to mention the fact that they are taking a risk by giving the money to someone else to manage, in this case, earn a degree. They risk someone not paying back the money, which then has them losing both the time value they would have seen in other ventures and the original loan amount.

You couldn't be more off base by saying they are "earning money for free".

On your next point, "No work is required in lending money". Also false for all the above reasons but you're also failing to take into account that work was done in order to make that money in the first place. The work that it took to not spend it, to guard it, to move it, to manage it, and have it available for loan.
If someone worked for 50 years and accumulated a large sum of money that they can then lend out to someone who chose not to do that or is otherwise in need of money immediately then this person is providing a service to the community that otherwise would not exist. Today we look to the bank for this, same principle though. Why do you think a long term savings account collects interest for you? Because the bank is loaning that to people who need it or want it and rewarding you for depositing it with them through your saving, working, sacrificing, or otherwise having it available for them to loan.

In summary: Work is generally required to make, keep, manage, and grow money and that money has time value.

 

[shogun4877]

Wow, I have no idea how this thread turned into a Bible debate, but I wish it hadn't.

I appreciate Patassa's realism, but I think you did miss an important point: I don't to become a doctor solely for the money. Right now I am 1) miserable and 2) broke. In 10 years I will be 1) miserable and 2) broke. If I take the other path, in 10 years I will be 1) fulfilled and 2) slightly less broke.

I also agree with Allen's larger point about earning potential. If I continue on my current career path, I will literally never pay down my debt. If I take on an additional 150-200k, that's a huge debt load, no doubt. But when I pay it down, I will be making much, much more than the 50k or so I can expect to be making at 40. Yes, I will be married and have a house by then, but as Allen pointed out, that will happen anyway, except I'll have to tackle it making 50k.

 

[futuredoc331]

I never intended the convo to to biblical. I actually don't base much on the bible. I was just making a historical point about interest and debt.

My point all along was that you can live all your life with 90k in debt and never pay it off or you can take out more and eventually pay it off. I'm in the same boat. If I stay on the oath I'm on I will make 50k for 10 or 15 years and them maybe 80k. 30 from now I might see 150. If I decide to med school though I will make 200k in 10. The difference in ince is enormous.

I'm glad you saw that shogun. As far as your post bacc plans go, don't be shy about online or CC classes for your prereqs. They will be cheaper and they'll fit into your schedule. You have two years to volunteer, shadow, and study for the MCat. Nail those things and you're in.

 

[repititionition]

Can you imagine being anything other than a physician?

If there is even a shred of "yes" in you, then do not walk down this road. You will live to regret it for reasons touched on above. Complete your pre-reqs in the most expedient and cheapest fashion and go to PA/AA/nursing school.

If, however, the one and only thing you want to do with your life - the only path to your personal life satisfaction (and I do not get this sense from your post, but I may be wrong) - is medicine, then you have to accept that you're at the start of a long road, and accept that you'll be chipping away at the stone for a long time. There is no need to rush, tempting as it may be. Do all of your prereqs live, in person, and with professors that can write you incredible letters. Further, be BE incredible. Crush your classes, even if it means taking them one at a time and applying at 35. You simply cannot afford anything less than academic perfection at this point, even with aspirations to go DO.

 

[Gfliptastic]

Wow, I have no idea how this thread turned into a Bible debate, but I wish it hadn't.

I appreciate Patassa's realism, but I think you did miss an important point: I don't to become a doctor solely for the money. Right now I am 1) miserable and 2) broke. In 10 years I will be 1) miserable and 2) broke. If I take the other path, in 10 years I will be 1) fulfilled and 2) slightly less broke.

I also agree with Allen's larger point about earning potential. If I continue on my current career path, I will literally never pay down my debt. If I take on an additional 150-200k, that's a huge debt load, no doubt. But when I pay it down, I will be making much, much more than the 50k or so I can expect to be making at 40. Yes, I will be married and have a house by then, but as Allen pointed out, that will happen anyway, except I'll have to tackle it making 50k.

PLEASE shadow. Do some extracurricular work first. Find out, at least on the surface, what it's like to be a doctor. Ask real questions when you have the opportunity.

Understand that you have to really want this. Not just you, everyone who thinks they can ONLY be a physician. If you don't truly cherish this and love this path w/ all of your heart, there's at least another decade of misery in store for you.

Being in med school is almost like a persistent state of borderline depression. You don't know how much we study and have no concept of it. Just to be a middling or even better than average student. Fast forward to clinicals if you make it thru TWO YEARS of basic sciences. It's NOT Scrubs. It's NOT Grey's Anatomy. S*** is real. And then it just gets worse when you get to residency. 80 hr/weeks are MINIMUM. And guess what. You make $40k/year. For however long your residency is. Then there's the changing face of being able to just practice medicine under all these new laws and procedures. Worry about lawsuits. Or even just harming or killing someone constantly.

And then guess what? You'll probably be somewhere upwards of $200k in debt (on top of your $90k). There are physicians who keep the med school debt for 5-10 years. 20 years later, guess what, you are where you started.

I want to inject some realism to this. It's not often one sees basically, "I want to be a doctor cuz I'm bored and want to get out of debt." So you need to ask yourself, realistic if you are passionate about this. The bottom line isn't finances. The bottom line is you can't live w/o the idea of being a physician. You are passionate about patient care. What do you put in your personal statement. How do you answer the questions in secondary apps, ya know?

If let's say, healthcare does interest you, there IS nursing. It's not as tough of a road, a much shorter pathway, and you make great $ and you still have patient care and are in medicine.

Since people in my position often do med school interviews (at schools that have 1 med student interview, which is a lot of them), IDK if I would endorse you w/ what you've said so far. And schools that have MS3's and MS4's doing interviews value our input.

If you don't have the passion to pursue being a physician you will ABSOLUTELY dread medical school. Probably worse than what you feel now.

Cuz the only thing that gets me out of bed everyday is my passion. 🙂

 

[shogun4877]

I really appreciate the honest replies.

I probably should have stated at the outset that I am currently volunteering at a hospital and taking an online human physiology course (not the same, I know, but after being out of college for 8 years, I'm slowly re-learning how to study in preparation for CC or post-bacc).

I also appreciate recommending other careers in health care. That is definitely something I will be considering as I continue volunteering. PA, PT, RN are all on the table as well.

Again, I'm not considering the physician route to get rich, as I've said above. But I do believe that I would be more financially stable in 20 years than if I continue on my current career path. After 20 years in nonprofit, I'll still be living paycheck to paycheck and won't be able to support a family. In 20 years, if I'm a physician, I might be able to start saving a considerable amount of money, at least according to the AAMC.

Thanks again.

 

[DreamingTheLive]

Wow, I have no idea how this thread turned into a Bible debate, but I wish it hadn't.

I appreciate Patassa's realism, but I think you did miss an important point: I don't to become a doctor solely for the money. Right now I am 1) miserable and 2) broke. In 10 years I will be 1) miserable and 2) broke. If I take the other path, in 10 years I will be 1) fulfilled and 2) slightly less broke.

I also agree with Allen's larger point about earning potential. If I continue on my current career path, I will literally never pay down my debt. If I take on an additional 150-200k, that's a huge debt load, no doubt. But when I pay it down, I will be making much, much more than the 50k or so I can expect to be making at 40. Yes, I will be married and have a house by then, but as Allen pointed out, that will happen anyway, except I'll have to tackle it making 50k.

Much (too much probably) has already been debated on here about lending, loans, earning potential blah blah blah....but none of this is for certain. You referenced taking out around 150K for med school in an earlier post...is that for 2 years lol, because I get in-state tuition at a pretty affordable MD school and anything as far as loans go totalling 150K for the entire 4 years sounds...welll...pretty unreal after all the fees, textbooks, tests, etc., etc...and they will nickel and dime you to death...If you're counting on DO schools, if I remember right a lot of them are VERY expensive....also, Obama basically hates medical students, interest rates are horrible, and nobody...nobody...knows where physician salaries will be once you're ready to be an attending...which is basically, what, 7-8 years from now at the earliest if you did a 3 year residency? Listen, obviously your earning potential will most likely be vastly improved, but certain posters on here may be overselling you income to debt ratio...just a thought.

All that crap aside. I LOVE that you know deep down this isn't about money. to me, it makes the decision to do this much easier. You sound like you're ok with the fact that you'll never be rich, and this could, potentially, be something you REALLY enjoy doing day-to-day. It is for THAT reason that I think you should consider doing it, NOT because it may increase your earning potential...nobody knows what the future holds as far as physician reimbursement, but if you're happy every day at work...golden.

Can you fulfill a lot of these post-bacc requirements while still maintaining current employment? Could you take night classes at a local University?

I'd be hesitant about community college (avoid if possible b/c they ARE frowned upon by many/most admissions depts) and I'd still be hesitant about purely on-line courses as this might really pigeon-hole your options...so a few DO schools say they accept them...are you sure you want to be a DO? What if you rock your MCAT and suddenly want to go MD? I'm a bit unfamiliar with how most departments feel about online courses by I'm pretty sure it'd be a no-no at my school.

Got to run. I'll try and post more later, sorry if this post was a jumbled mess...life on run haha

 

[futuredoc331]

Again, I'm not considering the physician route to get rich, as I've said above. But I do believe that I would be more financially stable in 20 years than if I continue on my current career path. After 20 years in nonprofit, I'll still be living paycheck to paycheck and won't be able to support a family. In 20 years, if I'm a physician, I might be able to start saving a considerable amount of money, at least according to the AAMC.

Thanks again.

THIS!!! I keep chiming in here because I think our situations are very similar. I'm not sure that the other posters realize how life can be working in a hardly satisfying job that is paying a barely livable wage. In the position we are in it will take a very dramatic change to see any improvement of quality of life over the next 10 or 20 years. A completely new career is more or less required.

They all focus on how difficult this road will be. Med school can be hell and residency may feel like slave labor. It's tough and we need to realize that, but is it going to be that much tougher than living paycheck to paycheck at a job we despise? At a job with absolutely no satisfaction? I don't think so. I'm tempted to say that med school with increased debt may actually be an improvement in quality of life. As long as you don't dwell on the debt.
For the same reason I don't feel we must be 10000% sure we want to be a physician. Are you 1000% sure your curren career or any other career will give you the life you desire? Willing to be being a physician even with all it's dkwnfalls will bring you muh closer than any other option currently available.

Another poster mentioned Obama hating med school students and how his policies may affect doctor salaries. The sad truth is he hates America as a whole and under his policies life is going to hurt in all fields. Doctors may not make a fortune like they once did but they will ways make a hell of a lot more than we will at our current jobs.

Take what I say with a grain of salt I guess. I'm not afraid of debt and Inmay be over confident in my academic abilities. Debt nor med school make me nervous. I'm excited by the challenge. If you aren't like that you may want to take more caution.

 

[shogun4877]

You referenced taking out around 150K for med school in an earlier post

That was the average debt I got from AAMC. I guess it might be much higher though, so I appreciate hearing your experience.

Unfortunately, the local University only offers Bio/Chem Labs at night. The lectures are only offered during the day, and I have zero work schedule flexibility. It's very frustrating.

 

[yossarian444]

OP -
The money wouldn't be an issue at all if you were guaranteed to get in. 90K is nothing when it comes to medical school - many people go to private US MD med schools and come out with 250K in loans (me) while many people go to state MD schools and come out with 150K in debt. That's already a differential of more than 90K, yet most people graduating from more expensive private schools can make it work no problem as they then buy a relatively modest house and no luxury cars and don't go into primary care. No big deal.

However, for somebody like you, you are really gambling whether you can get in. You have a huge hole to dig out of with your GPA. I'm sorry, but 2.6 is really bad. Sure, I think DO has grade replacement, but now you're talking more time and more tuition $$. And with a 2.6 GPA, do you really think you're going to be able to get a 4.0 as a post-bac? For many big state schools that have medical schools, they use every single med school pre-req as a "weed-out" class so they don't have 10,000 students from their undergrad applying to their med school with 4.0's. The pre-reqs are no joke.

Say it is 4+ years from now and you've do all the pre-req's and as many grade replacements as possible. What if you don't get in? Now, rather than being 90K in debt with a 40K, you are stuck with >150K in debt with no job and only spotty, minimal work experience over the last 4 years with a lot of volunteering. Your career potential went from decent to really, really bad.

Yeah, SDN is littered with success stories from bad GPA. But how many failure stories do you see? How many SDN IDs are there on this nontrad forum that sort of stop posting over time? Most likely they gave up/failed. Just look at the "read my blog" post - click on all those blogs and see how many of the blogs just sort of stop over a year ago. It'd be interesting if somebody looked for all the SDN posters on the non-trad forum that just stopped posting to get a rough estimate as to how many failures there are.

I don't know, I'm not saying don't try. But I do think you need to realize that you're in a really bad spot and if the cards don't fall right, you'll be guaranteed to be in debt for the rest of your life. Right now, with 40K salary and 90K in debt, you CAN pay off your loans, even if it seems impossible right now. Furthermore, being a doctor is no ticket to happiness. If you were unhappy in life before med school, you'll almost certainly be unhappy after. Happiness comes from within, not from a career.

 

[Gfliptastic]

As long as you are contemplating, I'll propose my $1 million question (that I seem to propose in lots of contemplating threads lol). Which is...

If you won $1 million, would you still decide to go to medical school?

(and this is for you and anyone else in this situation to think about, it's not rhetorical)

If you can come up w/ 3 reasons, and at least 1 of them is good...best wishes! I hope you succeed, apply to my school, I interview you, and am inspired by one of your answers.

Cheers!

 

[TriagePreMed]

Thanks, TriagePreMed. I appreciate the advice--and the warning.

I guess I am trying to find another career, ha! With 90k and a 40k salary, I'm tied to my debt for the rest of my working years. But after having spent the last 8 years in jobs that have been empty and meaningless, I guess spending the next 8 years training to do something I'd love to do sounds...not so bad. The additional (huge) debt and long training seem worth it to me to live a meaningful life. Otherwise I'm going to wake up in 10 years and still be broke and doing work I hate.

Well, if that's how you feel about it, you do what you have to do. I certainly did and don't regret it. Life does go on. You'll hit 40 being a doctor or not.

I would strongly recommend you join a post-bacc with linkage such as the one at LECOM. Even if you have to bring your GPA up for a year, do that. I think grade replacement is great if you have any D or F on your transcript, but at this point retaking "C" in non-science classes proves nothing to your ability to do medical school. Focus entirely on the prerequisite and any D or F grade. Also, I realize that community college is a bit taboo around these waters, but consider it for the non-science retakes or if money is running tight.

Good luck.