How Lucrative is Pathology?

[rrreagan]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi,

I'm contemplating going into several fields, including Pathology.....

I was wondering how lucrative the field really is....

Several pathologists that there are regional variations---in some markets, the salary is 100-150.

In others, it is 300-350.

Salary.com says that the median salary is 200K.

What's everyone take on this? Can I expect to make 300K as a pathologist?

 

[yaah]

There are many factors involved. Where you work, where you are willing to work, how much subspecialty training you have, how much ass you kiss, how experienced you are, etc etc etc. No one is ever going to give you what you are looking for in terms of hard and fast numbers. And who knows if they change every year anyway?

Picking a career because of a salary is going to cause you heartache and disappointment. And, people will be annoyed by you, because no one wants to work with someone who is there for the money only.

 

[Pingu]

Also remember that after a certain base amount that you need to live on, it is what you do with the money you make that will ultimately make you wealthy or poh.

No one gets rich off salary except pro athletes. You have to invest you money to see real wealth.

Example:

Pathologist A makes 200000 a year after taxes with a good accountant. He lives well on a budget of 80000 a year. He invests the other 120000 and makes 8% interest (the stock market has an average annual return of 12%) His return on investment is 96000. So essentially, thanks to his investing, his income this year was 216000, even after living expenses and will continue to increase the more money he invests. (Note,I did not include taxation in investment income, which is the governments way of f@#king you twice)

Pathologist B makes the same salary as Pathologist B. He blows his money on a pimped out condo, bling, a Porsche, and loose women. He manages to save 10000, which is quickly wiped away by two paternity suits. He is poh and replies to salary surveys that say pathologists make squat.

 

[KNightInBlue]

Pathologist A makes 200000 a year after taxes with a good accountant. He lives well on a budget of 80000 a year. He invests the other 120000 and makes 8% interest (the stock market has an average annual return of 12%) His return on investment is 96000. So essentially, thanks to his investing, his income this year was 216000, even after living expenses and will continue to increase the more money he invests. (Note,I did not include taxation in investment income, which is the governments way of f@#king you twice)

Maybe I am doing the math wrong but shouldn't 8% interest on 120000 yield a return of 9600? Which would make his annual savings 129600, not 216000.

Basically, it stays pretty much the same for the first year.

OP, I think what Pingu is getting at here is that if you save up around 100K for the first 10 years and start investing that 1 million at 10% return from thereon, you will make an extra 100K per year in return.

Now that's a nice little piece of change.

 

[bla_3x]

There are many factors involved. Where you work, where you are willing to work, how much subspecialty training you have, how much ass you kiss, how experienced you are, etc etc etc. No one is ever going to give you what you are looking for in terms of hard and fast numbers. And who knows if they change every year anyway?

Picking a career because of a salary is going to cause you heartache and disappointment. And, people will be annoyed by you, because no one wants to work with someone who is there for the money only.

Does it matter as to where you train? Big university institution vs smaller univerity "affiliated" one, etc.?

Are there particular path subspecialties that make more (besides the obvious derm path)? I worked as a Histo technologist and a couple of the pathologists I worked with had fellowships in surg path and cyto path....yet everyone in the group worked there as a surgical patholoist and read cytologies. Is it likely that the guys with the fellowships are getting paid more for some things? Thanks!

 

[A.D.O.R.]

Let's say you're M.D./Ph.D. and you match into path. When it's time to negotiate a starting salary, would you be paid less than or the same amount as an M.D. who did fellowships (assuming you did not)? I'm not worried about money but I am curious about the paths one can take and the compensation one would receive.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

Let's say you're M.D./Ph.D. and you match into path. When it's time to negotiate a starting salary, would you be paid less than or the same amount as an M.D. who did fellowships (assuming you did not)? I'm not worried about money but I am curious about the paths one can take and the compensation one would receive.

Depends on the research-to-clinical duties ratio. If you're gonna be doing predominantly research, you're gonna make less. If you do only clinical stuff, your salary should be equivalent to an M.D.

 

[yaah]

It is highly doubtful that a private practice would pay a premium to recruit an MD/PHD over a straight MD with similar qualifications. While the MD/PhD may find time for research and publish and bring notoriety to their practice, private practice is ultimately about billing and getting work done.

 

[A.D.O.R.]

I've been told that getting a Ph.D., in addition to your M.D., doesn't make a difference in academia when it comes to salary. So, do people go for the Ph.D. because they love science or want to match into dermatology (or another competitive specialty)? Sorry to hijack the thread but I've been curious about this for a while.

 

[PathOne]

Essentially, there's no difference between taking a combined MD/PhD and an MD, then a PhD. You'd have to do it because you really like doing research.
Yes, you save some time, not to mention money, by doing a NIH-funded combined program, but in the end it's not recommended if you're interested in living the sweet life. MD/PhD can of course give you an edge in applying for competitive residencies, but if you for instance look at dermpath, you really wouldn't find as many MD/PhD's as you might expect.

So by all means do a combined program, but only if you REALLY see yourself wanting to have a substantial research component in your career for years to come. As AndyM pointed out, the obvious (academic, research oriented) jobs for MD/PhD would actually probably, on average, pay less than you'd get as a straight MD (of course depending on your fellowships, business acumen and all the usual qualifiers).

 

[A.D.O.R.]

Thanks for replying but my question, in the second post, is "Why does it seem as if MD/PhD's fall into two camps?" Camp one: the science lover who matches into a "thinking specialty." Camp two: the MD/PhD who matches into ortho, derm, neurosurgery, etc. Is neurosurgery really compatible with bench research? As an outsider looking in, I would say, "No."

 

[b&ierstiefel]

Well, some mudphuds have had a very frustrating time during grad school. Consequently, they don't want to do predominantly research anymore in their careers. They're too disenchanted with research just like how some of us are disenchanted with clinical medicine. Some but not all of them go into ortho, derm, or neurosurg though.

I know one guy who is going into ortho. But he's been set on ortho since joining the program, he's done his PhD in biomedical engineering, and he still plans on applying to ortho residencies. He still wants to do a lot of research though...it doesn't hurt though that his grad school work went really well.

Anyways, I think one's experiences in the med school phase and grad school phase will determine one's decision to focus solely on clinical medicine (and hell why not go into a lifestyle specialty and make a ton of cash and provide for your family, right?) or academic medicine.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

I've been told that getting a Ph.D., in addition to your M.D., doesn't make a difference in academia when it comes to salary. So, do people go for the Ph.D. because they love science or want to match into dermatology (or another competitive specialty)? Sorry to hijack the thread but I've been curious about this for a while.

Some of us really do love science even though it pays like **** compared to purely clinician salaries

It really is kinda counterintuitive. It's like God wired us in a really weird way...as some kind of sick joke!

 

[tsj]

This thread needs some LADOC insight.

LADOC are you out there?

 

[beary]

This thread needs some LADOC insight.

LADOC are you out there?

He lurks.

 

[LADoc00]

Im stuck somewhere in a hotel in some city Ive never heard of. Air travel sucks. I actually ran into 2 pathologists while sitting an afternoon at DFW airport and we started talking. It turned out our expectations about the financial aspects of path were wildly different...similar to going to see some movie that had been hyped up and getting disappointed vs. seeing a random show and being pleasantly suprised. I was the former and they were the in latter category. 2 guys from some small town in the midwest happy to be the first people in their families to ever get the "big 6 six figures" (their words, I almost started laughing) and I was there bitchin and moaning about my meesely quarter mil.

....I guess all I have to add is that if you think at the end of your training in anything in medicine you will be insta millionare, you will be sorely disappointed.

On a completely unrelated note, I heard some very interesting things about the whole board cert issue (ABMS is pressuring the ABP to change all certs to time limited). Apparently, in a test of the new re-cert system the exam was given to numerous famous US academic pathologists including the editors of Robbins, who all actually failed the AP board exam. Chaos ensued and supposedly the exam has been made easier. Of course this is rumor, but interesting.

Hasta La Vista

 

[bananaface]

This is a pharm post, but I find it interesting and thought I'd share. Ignore the fact that it's blatently pro-pharm and just think about the perspective on monetary issues.

I saw a thread regarding money and Pharmacy. Here is my 2 cents.

Pharmacy students will come out of school making $100,000 per year. That's given. Other healthcare professionals will make more..or some less. And most of them including the pharmacists will all fit into the middle upper class bracket. That being said..

The element of lifestyle that most of us want involve Money, Time, & Youth. And you need all 3. When you have money and time, but have no youth..at 80 y/o... what good is it. When you have time and youth.. with no money, what good is it. When you have money and youth, but no time to enjoy it..what good is it? You need all 3... Money, Time and Youth.

Most of healthcare professionals work a JOB. JOB = Just Over Broke. Because, without a JOB, I don't care if you're a neurosurgeon, you'll be broke. In essence, there are 3 ways to make money.

1. Trade time for money, JOB, most primitive. Problem is, you only have 24 hours a day. Your income potential is limited by the amount of time. And even for a neuro surgeon, their income potential, albeit high, is still limited by the amount time and the surgeries that can be performed within the given time. Majority of the working class makes money this way.

2. Investments. No need to go into it.... Stock Market..Real Estate... it requires some capital to invest.

3. Duplicate your effort through buying other people's time. This is the most efficient way with virtually no ceiling on the income potential. Ex.. Sam Walton opens 1 Walmart...then by duplicating his effort through hiring other people..he has over 2000 Walmarts..world wide. Now he has a residual income..that will keep on paying him...day after day...regardless of if he works or not.

Money, Time & Youth is best provided by the method #3. There is no question about it.

Now, which healthcare field has the best potential for using #3 to create income?

Pharmacy.

A physician in a private practice will not make an income..unless he or she works. Surgeon in a busy practice makes good money..but will not make an income if he or she stops performing surgeries. Basically, physicians have to rely on the method #1..trade time to make money.

Dentistry provides a better option to get into the method #3. Open up a bunch of dental offices..and hire other dentists. It can be done..and smart dentists do it.

Pharmacy...most student won't even think about opening up their own pharmacies.. but there are pharmacists who own multiple locations..where they can hire other pharmacists to do the work. It can be done.

Don't be envious of $300,000 ...$500,000 per year income... after tax take home income is approximately 50%... But be envious of business owners with residucal income source..where it pays them day after day...and the income keeps on growing...exponentially..

Sorry...I had to type this fast... since I'm at work...working a JOB.. so..ignore the typos and bad grammar..

 

[A.D.O.R.]

This is a pharm post, but I find it interesting and thought I'd share. Ignore the fact that it's blatently pro-pharm and just think about the perspective on monetary issues.

I don't know if anyone here reads investment books for fun or education but the argument provided by that poster is essentially the one presented by Robert Kiyosaki in "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" and the "Cashflow Quadrant." Over the years, physicians have shifted from being self-employed or business owners to being employees and THAT is what has caused the drastic decrease in physician salaries. Salaries offer security but they also place a ceiling on how much money you can make.

 

[CameronFrye]

I know of a fairly young doctor who has made a career of buying troubled practices (b/c the previous doctors had zero business sense) and turning them into money makers. She no longer sees patients. She just handles the business aspect of running these urgent care centers and family medicine practices. So, I wouldn't say that doctors can't exercise option #3.