Have you enjoyed the new VIN article about how we are going to be forever poor?

[bbeventer]

Thought I would share http://news.vin.com/VINNews.aspx?articleId=34412

My personal favorite line was this "Michael Dicks, who heads AVMA's economics division, reported that based on projected lifetime earnings potential, the average college graduate may do better financially to take a job immediately after earning a Bachelor of Science degree rather than attend veterinary school and work a full career as a veterinary associate."

I don't know what is the best part, the AVMA finally realizing there is a problem, or them deciding that veterinary school is non-profitable.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Felixor90]

Just what I need to read as I bust my ass off to get an A in biochem in hopes of becoming a vet. >.> <.<

Still worth it.

Seriously though, I don't think there are many of us that are doing this because we want to be rich. I'm sure any of us could be out there making 6-digit figures if we put as much effort into something else as much as we do to becoming a vet. As important as it is for those that are investing into this career to know the financial situation, it'd be nice to not have this type of thread come up every time somebody even hints at vet med not being a get-rich-quick route.

Sorry, studying for biochem makes me cranky. Back to gluconeogenesis.

 

[Caia]

If I wasn't already invested, I would be considering other options, not going to lie. Even with carrying a fraction of the debt that others might have.

Or I'm just being a cynic again. It comes in waves.

I really need to get my account info sorted with VIN so I can actually log-in one of these days.

 

[LetItSnow]

I'm cynical (I know, it's a shock to everyone), but I think that the AVMA is only starting to realize it now as more and more practice owners are finding it harder and harder to sell their practices to younger vets. It's one of those things that until it mattered to the people in authority ... it didn't matter, and no amount of hand-waving was going to help. Now that it's actually starting to impact the older retiring vets it's 'suddenly' an issue.

 

[Caia]

I'm cynical (I know, it's a shock to everyone), but I think that the AVMA is only starting to realize it now as more and more practice owners are finding it harder and harder to sell their practices to younger vets. It's one of those things that until it mattered to the people in authority ... it didn't matter, and no amount of hand-waving was going to help. Now that it's actually starting to impact the older retiring vets it's 'suddenly' an issue.

So you're saying there may be a trend with younger vets that are unable to afford a practice? I can't imagine why.

 

[epivetlove]

I was reading this earlier and I'm not surprised. I researched other paths, got other degrees, but still my heart belonged to vet med. I know I just got started, but I really do love school and this profession. I'm just hoping I feel this way 4, 10, 35 years from now. And maybe, just maybe, some positive changes will be made that'll help this profession as a whole.

 

[twelvetigers]

Not in it for the money, no. Obviously not. Never was. I'm fine with that.

Literally never being able to catch up with my alternate universe self that got a single bachelor's degree without taking the extra time to work in clinics (oh... 2008? When I was... 23?) is a bit harder to swallow.

I could be pulling an 8-5 in a micro lab and be perfectly happy with that. But no, I get to scurry around the hospital like a little minion for the next six months so that I can graduate and start paying my debt.

 

[twelvetigers]

If any of you newbies are the sort to accept a big ol' ice bucket wake up call over the internets, well. I'm just sayin'.

Think hard.

Especially if you are looking at those $200k+ options.

Somethings gonna give.

 

[LetItSnow]

So you're saying there may be a trend with younger vets that are unable to afford a practice? I can't imagine why.

Hehe. Right?

I just find it a bit discouraging that from where I'm sitting it looks like the industry 'leadership' didn't really care much about the industry until it started hitting them personally in the pocketbook. Just one of the multiple reasons the AVMA has been less than impressive to me as far as industry representation.

 

[Felixor90]

I could be pulling an 8-5 in a micro lab and be perfectly happy with that. But no, I get to scurry around the hospital like a little minion for the next six months so that I can graduate and start paying my debt.

Honest questions: did you always know you'd be perfectly happy with that option? If so, why invest all the extra time into the vet route when you could be a slave in a lab instead? Would you be happier if you ended up making the same money you would have if you had chosen to work in a lab?

 

[twelvetigers]

Honest questions: did you always know you'd be perfectly happy with that option? If so, why invest all the extra time into the vet route when you could be a slave in a lab instead? Would you be happier if you ended up making the same money you would have if you had chosen to work in a lab?

No, I didn't always know. I'm really stubborn, so I did (and still do) take an unreasonable amount of pride in the fact that I picked what I wanted to do when I was five years old and, GD it, I did it. No mediocrity for me. Maybe it's a small town thing, maybe it's a personal thing. Looking back... I would probably been just fine working in a lab (like a tox lab - that would be cool) but I didn't *know* that. And who's to say if I could have gotten over the 'what ifs' and just gone with it.

Also, something about the process of going through vet school also leaves you a bit disenchanted with the whole thing, which is probably contributing to the 'get off my lawn' factor here.

If the profession was in the same position four years ago that it is now (and it was known publicly - because honestly it probably was and it's just that no one was talking about it) then I don't know if I would have still gone for it or not. I certainly am a stubborn idiot. I may have. But I'm keeping my debt firmly under $100k. If that weren't the case... then I think I may have even seen the red flags and really, REALLY gave it some thought. Looked for other things I would okay with.

If I had a magic time machine beep-beep-boop button to rewind four years (and the ability to forget about the friends I have made and any self-discovery personal growth type bullcrap that I would be missing from said years) then I'm pretty sure I would take a different route.

Man, I need to stop watching so much Scrubs - I think I'm channeling Dr. Cox or something.

 

[twelvetigers]

Now I'm all riled up. And right before bed, too. Bad newbie!

 

[MassDVMMPH]

OK, I'm confused... This quote from the article

The growth in student enrollment has not been accompanied by a proportional increase in applicants. Counting international seats, the ratio of applications to first-year enrollment has fallen to 1.64 to 1, according to figures presented Tuesday by Lisa Greenhill, AAVMC’s associate executive director for institutional research and diversity.

seems to imply that every person who applies gets in. If the ratio of applications to enrollment is 1:1, which is what this says, then there is one applicant for every available seat. Unless there are seats that are going unfilled (and I have not been reading about this), it sounds like there is a seat for every applicant. But we all know people who aren't getting in anywhere. Anyone want to explain this?

 

[Felixor90]

OK, I'm confused... This quote from the article

The growth in student enrollment has not been accompanied by a proportional increase in applicants. Counting international seats, the ratio of applications to first-year enrollment has fallen to 1.64 to 1, according to figures presented Tuesday by Lisa Greenhill, AAVMC’s associate executive director for institutional research and diversity.

seems to imply that every person who applies gets in. If the ratio of applications to enrollment is 1:1, which is what this says, then there is one applicant for every available seat. Unless there are seats that are going unfilled (and I have not been reading about this), it sounds like there is a seat for every applicant. But we all know people who aren't getting in anywhere. Anyone want to explain this?

When he/she says 1.64 to 1, he/she means 1.64:1 (as in the ratio). There are 1.64 students applying for every 1 seat. So lets say for example there are 100 seats, there will be 164 students applying for those 100 seats so 64 won't get in.

 

[MassDVMMPH]

Oh, OK - I think I read it as from 1.64 to 1 - I'm blaming that on it being 4:00 AM - LOL.

 

[dyachei]

I mean...part of the issue IS their fault. They work so hard to get new vets to work for cheap that we are never able to pay off our debts. I get wanting to make money as a business but some of the people that are trying to attract vets to buy their practices still feel there is this need to make you pay the same "price" they had to in order to work your way up. Throwing vets into practices where they aren't supported also doesn't help.

 

[Vetdaddy]

The article does imply a tipping point in application numbers is about to be reached and that the number of applicants to seats will dive quickly towards parity. The argument seems to be that dismal job prospects and unsustainable cost/benefit ratio for vet school will become so apparent that potential applicants will be dissuaded and some schools will have to close, just as several dental schools did in the 80s and 90s. "Certainty of death, small chance of success--what are we waiting for? "