As ChubbyBaby and Mike said, the $30k day isn't abnormal in pros upon completion of full-mouth rehabs. I don't doubt that he's doing really well, but he isn't averaging that every day. Gotta disagree with Chubby here - $/hr extracting 3rds is WAY more profitable then endo. And OS do spend most of their days shucking 3rds, at least in private practice (assisted for 4 yrs) - add implants, and OS definitely has the highest earning potential. Many surgeons do perform orthognathic surgeries, trauma cases, and take call in the hospital - and yes, it pays poorly relative to 3rd/implants. But many surgeons limit hospital days to 1-4 days per month - really doesn't take up that much time. Some mess around with TMJ surgeries, many don't. That said, OMFS spend more time in training than any other dental profession - so the higher potential doesn't come without a cost. I think these studies are the best way to evaluate how specializing affects income. A 2001 by Cordes adjusted for hours worked and calculated IRR for ortho=16.62% and IRR for OMFS=26.83%. Downside is that these studies often use small sample sizes, and they are only done every several years. This is wrong on both counts. 1. You can't say that GP with business skills > all specialists. Rather, you should be comparing GP with business skills to a specialist with similar business skills - and the specialist will have a higher earning potential. Of course, the highest-earning GP will earn more than the lowest-earning OMFS...but you need to look at averages, or at least similar groups (like top 5% GPs vs top 5% OMFS). It should also be said that everybody thinks they're going to be the Donald Trump of dentistry...trust me, I too get caught up in all that ("I read SDN and DentalTown, I'll be golden"). But having true business acumen is a lot tougher than it seems - I'm trying to prepare myself for that harsh reality. 2. Experiential data with a sample size of 2 is NOT a proper way to judge the earning potential of members of a profession.