Academic/Researcher Salaries

[Chimed]

---

Members don't see this ad.

So, I know that there are few attendings that frequent this site that are researchers, but this may pertain to academic salaries in general. I'm curious what folks know about how much attendings make who do a 75% research/25% clinical work situation. In my institution, this is called tenure track. I've heard different salaries that can range from $125 to 150K starting. However, I'm starting to get the impression that these salaries do not reflect what these attendings actually make and these numbers are just their baseline pay. At least where I am, attendings make a lot more once you add in call and covering the unit occasionally on weekends. Also, I've heard that some of these researchers take in more money directly from their grants.

Anyone know more specifically about this? 125K seems awfully low for a psychiatrist salary and I'm having a hard time understanding how academic institutions ever get anyone to work for them with this low of a salary.

Thanks.

 

[F0nzie]

Found an article you might like to read. Although starting salary for academics is low there is potential for promotion to move up the ranks and long-term financial security.

Here's the link: http://ap.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=51376

Here is a figure from the 2009 article:

 

[F0nzie]

I've heard 105k starting salary for Academic Adult Psychiatry. But will vary depending on location.

 

[billypilgrim37]

Anyone know more specifically about this? 125K seems awfully low for a psychiatrist salary and I'm having a hard time understanding how academic institutions ever get anyone to work for them with this low of a salary.

That's about what I'm expecting as well. I think it's pretty hard to get higher salary from grants unless you're somehow buying more than 75% of your time, and that's pretty tough to do unless everyone on the same floor as somehow written you on to their R01.

How does the tenure track pay differ from the clinical track positions?

One of the faculty at your institution once made the joke to me? "Why is academic medicine so competitive? Because there is so little at stake." She made it sound funnier than I am, but still.

 

[psychattending]

So, I know that there are few attendings that frequent this site that are researchers, but this may pertain to academic salaries in general. I'm curious what folks know about how much attendings make who do a 75% research/25% clinical work situation. In my institution, this is called tenure track. I've heard different salaries that can range from $125 to 150K starting. However, I'm starting to get the impression that these salaries do not reflect what these attendings actually make and these numbers are just their baseline pay. At least where I am, attendings make a lot more once you add in call and covering the unit occasionally on weekends. Also, I've heard that some of these researchers take in more money directly from their grants.

Anyone know more specifically about this? 125K seems awfully low for a psychiatrist salary and I'm having a hard time understanding how academic institutions ever get anyone to work for them with this low of a salary.

Thanks.

Salaries vary a good bit based upon the region of the country. The AAMC releases a report each year with the salaries by region. It is in printed and electronic format. University libraries will usually have the information. One needs an AAMC account to see their information on line. However, I did find a 2007-08 report for the midwest region. Instructor level faculty had a median of 138K (25th=119; 75th=189; mean=150K) in total compensation - see page 125 at this URL http://www.uic.edu/com/dom/hr/FORM/AAMC.pdf
Realize that these numbers are for all instructors. Those just starting out will likely be skewed towards the lower end of the rang.

 

[PistolPete]

Why does that Y-axis have two 200,000 values? Error or am I missing something?

 

[surftheiop]

How many hours do people in academics work (including at home)? It seems like a lot of people in academics might be spending all weekend working on manuscripts or something which would seem to make the salary to work ratio decrease even more. Unless they are taking 8 weeks of vacation a year or something it seems like in academics your going to be working longer hours for significantly less money.

(I'm interested in academics, but I have always wondered how people actually manage to turn down the 50hr week for 160k offers and instead take 110k for a job that never really ends)

 

[billypilgrim37]

Clinical faculty probably put in an average of 50-55 hours, research faculty probably 65-75.

 

[surftheiop]

Clinical faculty probably put in an average of 50-55 hours, research faculty probably 65-75.

I know this is probably a stupid question, but about what percent of academic psychiatrists would be clinical vs research? And how much career progression is available for clinical faculty?

I ask this just based off of one conversation I had with someone who said that academic clinical jobs in general have very little room for promotion. (Granted this was a researcher so I suspect it was rather biased)

 

[billypilgrim37]

Depends ENTIRELY on the culture of the department.

It would not be uncommon to be a clinical prof for 30 years and still be an assistant prof.

Many clinical track folks still participate in lots of academic behaviors, even if it's not running research projects per se.

And many folks take a Co-I route, but they're not necessarily tenure track.

But the answer would be wildly different depending on the department, I suspect.

 

[Chimed]

Depends ENTIRELY on the culture of the department.

It would not be uncommon to be a clinical prof for 30 years and still be an assistant prof.

Many clinical track folks still participate in lots of academic behaviors, even if it's not running research projects per se.

And many folks take a Co-I route, but they're not necessarily tenure track.

But the answer would be wildly different depending on the department, I suspect.

Yeah. I can only speak to my knowledge of where I'm training and really don't know what other places are like...yet. But our medical school has clearly defined targets for promotion whether or not you're on a tenure track, pure research track (that is really only Phd's that spend 100% doing research), or clinical track. To get promoted in the tenure track, you have to be pulling in your own grants, be involved in some teaching, do some clinical work, and progress toward becoming a national leader or internationally recognized in your field. Also, from the minute you enter the tenure track, the clock starts ticking and you are expected to move up the academic ladder. In the clinical track, it's not expected that you move up in position unless that is your goal. My understanding is that if you don't progress in the tenure track, there's going to be a lot of pressure on you to either get going or change your path. This isn't necessarily true if you're on the clinical track.

To get promoted in the clinical track, you're still expected to publish, but you can do things like case reports, review articles, book chapters, contribute to something like Up to Date, etc.. You can also get promoted simply by being a good teacher and contributing to the clinic. It's much easier to get promoted AND much easier to NOT get promoted by being complacent in the clinical track, if that makes sense.

 

[Chimed]

That's about what I'm expecting as well. I think it's pretty hard to get higher salary from grants unless you're somehow buying more than 75% of your time, and that's pretty tough to do unless everyone on the same floor as somehow written you on to their R01.

How does the tenure track pay differ from the clinical track positions?

One of the faculty at your institution once made the joke to me? "Why is academic medicine so competitive? Because there is so little at stake." She made it sound funnier than I am, but still.

I'm really not sure what the pay difference between tenure and clinical tracks is. My take is that it all comes down to what you're bring to the institution. If you're pulling in huge grants and are making a name for yourself as a researcher and leader in your field, you have far more negotiating power when it comes time for promotion and salary. I would think this might be harder to leverage if you're on a clinical track, unless you have something else to offer.

 

[Chimed]

Salaries vary a good bit based upon the region of the country. The AAMC releases a report each year with the salaries by region. It is in printed and electronic format. University libraries will usually have the information. One needs an AAMC account to see their information on line. However, I did find a 2007-08 report for the midwest region. Instructor level faculty had a median of 138K (25th=119; 75th=189; mean=150K) in total compensation - see page 125 at this URL http://www.uic.edu/com/dom/hr/FORM/AAMC.pdf
Realize that these numbers are for all instructors. Those just starting out will likely be skewed towards the lower end of the rang.

Thanks!

You don't happen to have this for the mid-atlantic and East Coast by any chance? I'll try to see if I can get this from our library as well.

 

[Chimed]

I've heard 105k starting salary for Academic Adult Psychiatry. But will vary depending on location.

Ouch, 105K sounds extremely low, even for academics. It's hard to imagine a place like that could get anyone to work there.

Thanks for the link to the article on academic salaries!

 

[Chimed]

Clinical faculty probably put in an average of 50-55 hours, research faculty probably 65-75.

That's a little depressing. Do you really think this is true everywhere? Maybe I'm not passionate enough about research to be working 65 hours per week to make 50 to 100K less then I could doing straight clinical work and working 45 hours. I really want to stay in an academic setting, but the reality of extremely high student loans, family, and retirement stuff is starting to become a stark reality. 🙁

 

[nitemagi]

Some academics bump their salary by moonlighting or having a private practice. You may have to pay a "tax" though (percentage to the university). If you're a career researcher you take more of a hit early on until you build up enough grants to be self-perptuating (your grants and projects pay your salary and those in your lab, and hopefully churn out research that makes it easier to get more grants). But that's if you're good and motivated to do research. I like research, but I don't like writing grants for the sake of writing grants.

Also recognize that some departments don't have "tenure" in clinical positions. You have to permanently earn your keep by seeing patients.

 

[splik]

That's a little depressing. Do you really think this is true everywhere? Maybe I'm not passionate enough about research to be working 65 hours per week to make 50 to 100K less then I could doing straight clinical work and working 45 hours. I really want to stay in an academic setting, but the reality of extremely high student loans, family, and retirement stuff is starting to become a stark reality. 🙁

There are many opportunities to supplement your income especially if you are good at marketing yourself, are personable, can establish yourself as an expert, and are good at public speaking. Some of the ways academics I know have supplemented their income:

• Honoraria for lectures, seminars, public speaking
• Honoraria for taking part in panels, committees, clinical guideline development
• Writing books for general audiences
• Having columns in newspapers/magazines and increasingly online
• Expert witness testimony (one does not need to be a forensic psychiatrist - i am talking about non-forensic cases)
• Medicolegal reports and insurance reports
• Television appearances
• If you are an expert then people will pay significant sums to come and see you. If this is done through the medical school they will pay you more as you will be generating more income. If you did this privately you will probably have to pay a cut to the medical school.
• Developing and running CME/CPD courses for psychiatrists, psychologists, physicians, nurse quacktitioners, lawyers etc.
• Visiting/Adjunct Professorships etc (often in exotic countries)

If you are willing to sell your soul a la charlie nemeroff et al you can clean up! It is important to remember that good negotiating skills appear to be part of it - academic salaries are shrouded in mystery and few departments publish salaries but we know that women and minorities tend to earn less than their white male counterparts.

Yes you can make a lot more in private practice, but the academic environment offers unbeatable intellectual stimulation, continual learning, being at the frontier of psychiatry and a decent salary with job security (if you get tenure), a good retirement plan and it is not difficult to get loan forgiveness from NIH fellowships etc.

 

[Chimed]

Yes you can make a lot more in private practice, but the academic environment offers unbeatable intellectual stimulation, continual learning, being at the frontier of psychiatry and a decent salary with job security (if you get tenure), a good retirement plan and it is not difficult to get loan forgiveness from NIH fellowships etc.

Thanks. I appreciate your response. Yes, I agree with the appeal of being in an academic institution. That is why I'd be sad to not go down an academic route because of money. But the difference between 200K and 125K is huge when one has other financial and family pressures. Now, if I could get that number up to 150K without working my rear off--that I can live with. That's the question I'm having is, how do researchers work for such low pay?

 

[Chimed]

Some academics bump their salary by moonlighting or having a private practice. You may have to pay a "tax" though (percentage to the university). If you're a career researcher you take more of a hit early on until you build up enough grants to be self-perptuating (your grants and projects pay your salary and those in your lab, and hopefully churn out research that makes it easier to get more grants). But that's if you're good and motivated to do research. I like research, but I don't like writing grants for the sake of writing grants.

Also recognize that some departments don't have "tenure" in clinical positions. You have to permanently earn your keep by seeing patients.

I agree. The idea of being in a rat race to get funding, is not that appealing.

 

[psychphan]

Yes you can make a lot more in private practice, but the academic environment offers unbeatable intellectual stimulation, continual learning, being at the frontier of psychiatry and a decent salary with job security (if you get tenure), a good retirement plan and it is not difficult to get loan forgiveness from NIH fellowships etc.

I'm glad you chimed in here, this thread was starting to get pretty disheartening. It baffles me how experts in the field and people during cutting edge research at large academic institutions gets paid so much less than Joe Schmo psychiatrist who has mentally checked out years ago and just sits in his office all day writing scripts for Paxil. Makes no sense to me.

I have a question though, do many people do part time academic with part time private practice? It seems like that could be the bestof both worlds, supplementing your income, keeping mentally sharp, and not working yourself to death.

 

[splik]

it varies from institution to institution but it is possible to work part-time as clinical faculty and then have a private practice. however some institutions won't allow you to do private work, or will ask for a cut. Also you usually have to work a certain number of hours to be entitled to the benefits from a faculty position. I think really it depends on whether you are a researcher, clinician or education. If you want to establish yourself as a leading researcher it is a more than full time job - you are always working even when you are not - and you always have to be thinknig about the next grant, the next study, the next paper etc. The people I know who have done research part-time have done so because they are interested in research and the intellectual satisfaction but are happy not to be PIs and staying as assistant professor or whatever for the rest of their careers.

I have met a number of people who have gotten LOAN FORGIVENESS for pursuing an academic track - it does look like the NIH do this to encourage more people to pursue a research career so I am not convinced that anyone really needs to earn 200k a year, academics earn a decent crust far more than the majority of people and have a level of status and respectability not matched in private practice. There appear to be a ton of ways to make piles of cash in psychiatry but many of them are ethically dubious and even those that aren't do not seem particularly worthwhile.

I think those who pursue an academic (research) career are often extremely motivated, ambitious and sometimes almost autistic or monomaniacal in their outlook. I also think that individuals who look for external validation for their self-worth may be more drawn to academics (there are plenty of metrics there from election to distinguished societies, publications in journals, grant money, endowed chairs, editorships etc) whilst those who see earnings as the best measure of their self-worth may be drawn to a lucrative private practice.

 

[surftheiop]

Another thing I was wondering about related to this- does getting administrative positions related to education relate to salary? Like for example if your the dean of students or admissions for the medschool, or the program director for a residency, does that just mean you do correspondingly less clinical work and make the same salary as you did before, or are these promotions?

 

[whopper]

I think those who pursue an academic (research) career are often extremely motivated, ambitious and sometimes almost autistic or monomaniacal in their outlook. I also think that individuals who look for external validation for their self-worth may be more drawn to academics (there are plenty of metrics there from election to distinguished societies, publications in journals, grant money, endowed chairs, editorships etc) whilst those who see earnings as the best measure of their self-worth may be drawn to a lucrative private practice.

Agree in general as a demographic. I have met some excellent researchers who do not follow this trend, but yes I'd say I'd be more likely to find a lab geek in the research crowd vs. the clinical.

I had a lunch with a top researcher a few weeks ago and I was surprised to find the guy to be affable, charismatic, and seem to be a guy I'd like to hang out with. In fact he seemed more like a successful business type than a researcher, though the guy also has done some very sucessful business ventures.

It baffles me how experts in the field and people during cutting edge research at large academic institutions gets paid so much less than Joe Schmo psychiatrist who has mentally checked out years ago and just sits in his office all day writing scripts for Paxil. Makes no sense to me.

This is a reason why I sometimes think that some of the drug money top researchers get isn't always so evil. Just to give you an example, a top researcher I know that works for a university, but has a few 100K deals with pharmaceutical manufacturers...all above the table and on the up and up in the sense that it's transparent (at least as far as I know). Altogether, he is making what someone could've made had they just simply had a successful private practice. Remember, this is a top researcher with a national reputation. The guy does highly specialized work for pharm companies as a consultant. Shouldn't he make some money off of that that's going to make him something at least competitive with what he'd make had he just ran a private practice?

I totally agree that funds from pharm companies need to be transparent, shouldn't put the researcher in a position where he has a conflict of interest or puts his research into question, but hey, national rep and lots of significant advancements in the field. To me that surely merits he make more than a typical clinical doctor. Point a finger at me all you want, but IMHO the system should financially reward research excellence and shouldn't only reserve research for people who want to have relatively meager salaries vs. the stereotype (THAT DOES EXIST) of psychiatrists who just give out Paxil to everyone with little to no thought process in the decision. Of course such financial rewards need to be transparent, and the research needs to remain honest and accurate. Some of the incidents published in the NY Times in the last few years certainly doesn't fit what I'd call honest pay from a pharm company.

 

[Chimed]

The people I know who have done research part-time have done so because they are interested in research and the intellectual satisfaction but are happy not to be PIs and staying as assistant professor or whatever for the rest of their careers.

I'm curious how people are doing part-time research. From what I've looked into, unless you're doing it on your own time, it is very difficult to do a 50% research split. I'd be very interested if that's false.

 

[splik]

it is difficult but it is definitely possible for clinical research (i think it would be harder for basic science stuff). One of my friends is involved in a clinical trial (and is a co-PI on it) where the trial is partly happening on the i/p unit where he works. he also does a small amount of cash only PP.

one of my supervisors was doing health services research but again the research was based on the unit where he worked.

to me, it appears this sort of set up has you working 60 hours/week as your clinical and research commitments will always demand more time than you anticipate.

 

[surftheiop]

I'm curious how people are doing part-time research. From what I've looked into, unless you're doing it on your own time, it is very difficult to do a 50% research split. I'd be very interested if that's false.

One of my friends is a research assistant for a psychiatrist who does a 60/40 split. (2 days clinic, 3 days research) where the research portion of the salary is funded through grants, but I think the institution guarantees it for a certain number of years if the researcher is between projects.

 

[psychphan]

I'm curious how people are doing part-time research. From what I've looked into, unless you're doing it on your own time, it is very difficult to do a 50% research split. I'd be very interested if that's false.

Does that include clinical research. I would think it would be much more feasible to do part time research if you were involved with clinical trials, since you don't have to be producing results in a "lab" per se. In fact, I'm actually struggling to understand how a clinical researcher would spend ALL of their time during research. I mean there is certainly a lot of grant writing, data collection/analysis, writing up the results, etc but there are many variables that I would think limit the hours of clinical trials (pt availability, etc) that I would honestly think would allow, if not encourage time for practice outside of the research activities. I'm not entirely sure how it all works though, but would certainly like to find out. I really want to be involved in research, mostly for my own curiosities and intellectual stimultion, but would also like to be involved in other areas of psych practice. I don't want to spend my whole life writing up grants, but I do need something to maintain my intellectual curiosities.

 

[whopper]

As mentioned above, it's certainly going to vary per the institution. Usually with psychiatry depts doing research, there's usually only one in the area, and you're going to be dependent they allow you to do. They'll be able to dominate and lay the groundrules. There are exceptions, e.g. private institutions doing research independence of universities, or living in a metropolis where there's many universities doing research such as in NYC.

It's certainly possible to do a split of clinical and research in the way you want it if where you lived would not be a consideration. If you don't want to move or want to live in a specific area, you are now locked into the possibilities only in that specific geographic area, that will likely be determined by the big university of that area.

 

[gioia]

Know of many academic psychiatrists that consult for pharma or is that taboo?

 

[nitemagi]

Know of many academic psychiatrists that consult for pharma or is that taboo?

Many do. It is increasingly taboo as that information is now publicly available and published online, and academia is drawing much firmer boundaries against pharma involvement (no drug lunches in most hospitals, for example).

 

[atsai3]

Does that include clinical research. I would think it would be much more feasible to do part time research if you were involved with clinical trials, since you don't have to be producing results in a "lab" per se. In fact, I'm actually struggling to understand how a clinical researcher would spend ALL of their time during research. I mean there is certainly a lot of grant writing, data collection/analysis, writing up the results, etc but there are many variables that I would think limit the hours of clinical trials (pt availability, etc) that I would honestly think would allow, if not encourage time for practice outside of the research activities. I'm not entirely sure how it all works though, but would certainly like to find out. I really want to be involved in research, mostly for my own curiosities and intellectual stimultion, but would also like to be involved in other areas of psych practice. I don't want to spend my whole life writing up grants, but I do need something to maintain my intellectual curiosities.

Really the bottom line is that research requires money, the only way to get money for research is to write grants, and the only way to successfully compete for grants is to be a successful researcher. It is circular but means that, in general, psychiatrists who want to do research will spend the majority of their time conducting research. The 80/20 split is typical. This is a balance between spending enough time in research to successfully compete against people doing this stuff full time vs. spending enough time in clinical practice to (a) supplement your meagre research salary, and (b) have fun, see interesting cases, and not kill anyone [with the latter consideration less of a concern in psychiatry compared to surgical specialties like surgery and ob/gyn].

Having a reverse split (10-20% research, 80-90% clinical) is also possible, but people who choose this path realize that they will never be "successful" researchers. It simply isn't enough time to write grants and papers enough to compete with people who are doing this stuff 80/20, much less full time. Moreover, that much clinical time will easily spill over into your research time: if you try to carve out one afternoon a week to write a paper, before long you will find yourself answering phone calls, calling the pharmacy, calling insurance plans, calling schools, calling social workers, etc etc etc.

I haven't really seen anyone doing the split you are describing. Certainly there are clinicians who do 100% clinical work but spend a portion of that clinical time doing clinical evaluations for RCTs (e.g., screening patients for eligibility, seeing follow-up patients and administering symptom severity scales, etc). But that's not really "research" in the sense that I am describing above. As a clinician conducting evaluations for RCTs you may be awarded 7th authorship (out of a team of 20 authors) on a large pharma-sponsored RCT, but no NIH review committee will take that to be evidence of serious research commitment.

 

[whopper]

Know of many academic psychiatrists that consult for pharma or is that taboo?

Yes.

The problem has been debated often. It being that when researchers receive funds from a pharm company, it creates a conflict-of-interest with the researcher's own work if that research has connection with the products from that company. E.g. a researcher publishing papers on schizophrenia but receiving funds from Astra Zeneca that produces Seroquel.

On the flip-side, who better for the pharm companies to consult than some of the top researchers in the field? Wouldn't you want top-level consulation?

The problem is where is the line drawn? Some believe researchers should have no pharm involvement--and the result being some of these top doctors will make peanuts compared to far inferior doctors in private practice. If one believes it's alright for researchers to receive funds from pharm companies, then when is it alright or not? That problem is highly complicated.

I do know of some highly respected researchers that are purists that will have nothing to do with pharm companies due to their own personal beliefs. I know others that have taken in plenty of money.

 

[billypilgrim37]

Really the bottom line is that research requires money, the only way to get money for research is to write grants, and the only way to successfully compete for grants is to be a successful researcher. It is circular but means that, in general, psychiatrists who want to do research will spend the majority of their time conducting research. The 80/20 split is typical. This is a balance between spending enough time in research to successfully compete against people doing this stuff full time vs. spending enough time in clinical practice to (a) supplement your meagre research salary, and (b) have fun, see interesting cases, and not kill anyone [with the latter consideration less of a concern in psychiatry compared to surgical specialties like surgery and ob/gyn].

Having a reverse split (10-20% research, 80-90% clinical) is also possible, but people who choose this path realize that they will never be "successful" researchers. It simply isn't enough time to write grants and papers enough to compete with people who are doing this stuff 80/20, much less full time. Moreover, that much clinical time will easily spill over into your research time: if you try to carve out one afternoon a week to write a paper, before long you will find yourself answering phone calls, calling the pharmacy, calling insurance plans, calling schools, calling social workers, etc etc etc.

I haven't really seen anyone doing the split you are describing. Certainly there are clinicians who do 100% clinical work but spend a portion of that clinical time doing clinical evaluations for RCTs (e.g., screening patients for eligibility, seeing follow-up patients and administering symptom severity scales, etc). But that's not really "research" in the sense that I am describing above. As a clinician conducting evaluations for RCTs you may be awarded 7th authorship (out of a team of 20 authors) on a large pharma-sponsored RCT, but no NIH review committee will take that to be evidence of serious research commitment.

Everything said here is 110% true. Research is hard. People that think they can just flirt with it are mostly delusional. Mentors who were able to flirt with it and get something out of it exist, but that doesn't mean it's going to be a particularly viable pathway for a newly minted attending or current resident.

I say this who came into residency hell-bound on being one of those 80/20 research/clinical folks. And I now think it doesn't entirely match me all that well. Instead of trying to half-***** a research career, I'm mostly pursuing other academic activity while not entirely shutting the door on a possible t-32 and staying in the research world in the future. Quality improvement, program development, and teaching are all extremely important missions for academic clinical faculty who want to do more than just see patients.

 

[whopper]

Research IMHO requires real intelligence.

Anyone can take in any patient, prescribe Paxil, and the see the patient get fat and possibly never get better at all. Of course the doctor doing that type of practice would be a bad one, but I see that type of thing actually as common often times with the doctor making a heck of a lot of money.

Research can be tedious, requires a good knowledge of statistics that most medical doctors never received training to the degree where it's needed to write a publication, requires a lot of writing, and unless you're getting a big grant is making you a heck of a lot less money than you would've received had you just done private practice.

It's also not out of the ordinary to spend several months, even years on a project and the results end up with nothing that a journal will publish. Journals are biased to publish results that are significant...that is the pharmacological agent (or otherwise) made a significant improvement. Studies where there's no significant difference are harder to publish even if they can advance the state of medical knowledge.

Even our own thread where we poke fun of useless studies required a heck of a lot more brainwork from the authors of those studies than I see from several clinicians. That's not to say clinicians are worse, just that you can get away with a lot less brain work and effort.

 

[Chimed]

Everything said here is 110% true. Research is hard. People that think they can just flirt with it are mostly delusional. Mentors who were able to flirt with it and get something out of it exist, but that doesn't mean it's going to be a particularly viable pathway for a newly minted attending or current resident.

I say this who came into residency hell-bound on being one of those 80/20 research/clinical folks. And I now think it doesn't entirely match me all that well. Instead of trying to half-***** a research career, I'm mostly pursuing other academic activity while not entirely shutting the door on a possible t-32 and staying in the research world in the future. Quality improvement, program development, and teaching are all extremely important missions for academic clinical faculty who want to do more than just see patients.

What you wrote, billypilgrim, is the reality that is setting in for myself as well. I know we come from very similar training programs, so perhaps that is why what you're saying makes so much sense to me. I think I might be giving up my the idea that I can "flirt" with research and am far more geared for a clinical track. I'll be a little jealous when my collegeuages are figuring out the neural networks for Autism and other psychiatric illnesses. But at least I'll have time to golf on the weekends! 😉

 

[atsai3]

Know of many academic psychiatrists that consult for pharma or is that taboo?

Plenty of academic psychiatrists consult for pharma. Back in the day, it was gold rush times. Now it is a little less common but still highly prevalent as there continues to be a big money grab before everything is locked down. (ie., not all departments have ironclad disclosure rules, not all journals refuse to publish pharma-sponsored RCTs, etc) It is a little harder to grab a piece of the pie if you are small-time. But unfortunately you can't make big pharma money if you aren't a big-time academic, and it is very difficult to make it as a big time academic if you don't take pharma money. There are still some pockets of clean folks even at places like MGH, but they are far and few between.