International Physician Pay Comparison

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

nicholasblonde

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
171
Reaction score
2
i could care less how much physicians get paid in the US vs World...i just wanna practice anywhere...money isnt gonna change/influence me !!
 
That graph is pointless without years of training and amount of debt(avg).
 
Members don't see this ad :)
You watch Fox News, don't you?
 
Rafa said:
You watch Fox News, don't you?

Not sure who that is for........
 
Rafa said:
You watch Fox News, don't you?
Ad hominem: the bastion of the thoughtful.
 
..
 
Last edited:
Not to mention that in most other countries in the world a bachelor's degree is not required for entry into medical school. :eek:
 
Sorry, but it just really bugs me when people try to compare US vs international med schools w/o talking about loans, much longer time in school, etc. :(
 
whyworldhateme? said:
Sorry, but it just really bugs me when people try to compare US vs international med schools w/o talking about loans, much longer time in school, etc. :(
Hmmm... If salaries in the US were supposed to be proportional to years/intensity/difficulty of training, then PhD's in (many fields of) academia should be earning MUCH more than docs -- while on average they get paid just about as much as a residents...

US Docs don't "earn" their pay. It's just that they've created (and vigorously maintained) the market to sustain it...
 
inverse_scatter said:
Hmmm... If salaries in the US were supposed to be proportional to years/intensity/difficulty of training, then PhD's in (many fields of) academia should be earning MUCH more than docs -- while on average they get paid just about as much as a residents...

US Docs don't "earn" their pay. It's just that they've created (and vigorously maintained) the market to sustain it...

PhD's also get paid while they are students, so no debt.
 
I agree with the first half of what you said, PhD's are underpayed, but being a graduate student myself I know that PhD work is not as demanding as med school, nor do you have to take out loans, etc., but then, we do call them poor hungry doctors after all :)

As far as US doc's, every primary care physcian I know works his (I don't know any female ones, not trying to be sexist) butt off and gets 200% less take home pay than he would have 25 years ago.
 
whyworldhateme? said:
I agree with the first half of what you said, PhD's are underpayed, but being a graduate student myself I know that PhD work is not as demanding as med school, nor do you have to take out loans, etc., but then, we do call them poor hungry doctors after all :)

As far as US doc's, every primary care physcian I know works his (I don't know any female ones, not trying to be sexist) butt off and gets 200% less take home pay than he would have 25 years ago.
Yes, I agree that things are comparatively crappy for docs right now...
And yes, I agree that most PhD's (at least in the sciences) have no debt. But at the end you have to look at disposable income: even while doctors are paying off their loans, they are MUCH better off than PhD's.

As for the amount of work -- it depends on the field (that's why I put in that "many fields" qualifier.) An aspiring biologist might have it pretty easy compared to a doctor (although that depends on the "culture" of his/her department and on how much of a slave-master his adviser is.) A theoretical physicist or a pure mathematician, on the other hand, is majorly screwed: 14-hour days are the norm. And these start in high school and continue through grad school and 3-4 postdoctoral appointments....
Med school is a piece of cake compared to what these guys go through...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
How many PhD's are terribly worried about being sued in the tort happy US?
 
inverse_scatter said:
Yes, I agree that things are comparatively crappy for docs right now...
And yes, I agree that most PhD's (at least in the sciences) have no debt. But at the end you have to look at disposable income: even while doctors are paying off their loans, they are MUCH better off than PhD's.

As for the amount of work -- it depends on the field (that's why I put in that "many fields" qualifier.) An aspiring biologist might have it pretty easy compared to a doctor (although that depends on the "culture" of his/her department and on how much of a slave-master his adviser is.) A theoretical physicist or a pure mathematician, on the other hand, is majorly screwed: 14-hour days are the norm. And these start in high school and continue through grad school and 3-4 postdoctoral appointments....
Med school is a piece of cake compared to what these guys go through...

Agreed :) My first PI was a slavedriver with his postdocs.
 
None, unless you're talking about sexual harassment lawsuits from psycho students...

But how many docs are worried about losing their jobs if they don't get good customer evaluations, or if they don't publish enough?
Tenure, you say? Yes, when that comes you might be ok (IF it ever comes -- there's a new trend in the smaller colleges: they want to abolish it altogether.)
In the mean time, you are, on average, about 45-50 years old, greying, stressed, and have no idea what your spouse or kids look like -- IF you ever had the time or luck to meet a spouse, that is (how many pople would find the whole overworked/poor/disgruntled PhD picture appealing?)

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying doctors' jobs are not stressful. All I'm saying is that we should not feel ENTITLED to our position in society, nor our pay. There is nothing inherent in our job that makes us deserve that pay any more than many other hard-working, intellectual people.
We are lucky to be getting the priviledges we get -- we are by no means "special."
 
The point about school debt is a good one considering american students have by far the largest amount.

But one other important point you are missing is the cost of living. Lets say the avg us med school debt is 100-150k. Well according to the chart a hospital doctor in britain would be make approx. 100k less than an american. I mean do the math on that alone and you end up at a much bigger disadvantage in britain. And then when you factor in the much higher cost of living in england - the gap becomes even wider.
 
inverse_scatter said:
A theoretical physicist or a pure mathematician, on the other hand, is majorly screwed: 14-hour days are the norm. And these start in high school and continue through grad school and 3-4 postdoctoral appointments....
Med school is a piece of cake compared to what these guys go through...
Starting in high school? Haha. I'm not sure where you've gotten your info but it's wrong. I haven't done the PhD thing, so maybe I'm not technically a physicist, but I do have a b.s. in physics, summa cum laude, mostly centered around theoretical physics, from a major research university. Physics was much more difficult than all of my medicine-related classes in the sense that it actually took brain power to understand and to do well in, whereas medical-related classes take hardly any brain power whatsoever and an A grade is merely a matter of spending lots of time memorizing. Physics, while intellectually much more difficult, took much less time because memorization is almost entirely absent from the field. Physics and biology are virtually on opposite ends of the spectrum in this regard. Becoming a physician is more about willpower than intellect. In fact pre-meds don't seem any more intelligent than any other college students--they are simply more annoying and more arrogant.
 
newguy357 said:
Starting in high school? Haha. I'm not sure where you've gotten your info but it's wrong. I haven't done the PhD thing, so maybe I'm not technically a physicist, but I do have a b.s. in physics, summa cum laude, mostly centered around theoretical physics, from a major research university. Physics was much more difficult than all of my medicine-related classes in the sense that it actually took brain power to understand and to do well in, whereas medical-related classes take hardly any brain power whatsoever and an A grade is merely a matter of spending lots of time memorizing. Physics, while intellectually much more difficult, took much less time because memorization is almost entirely absent from the field. Physics and biology are virtually on opposite ends of the spectrum in this regard. Becoming a physician is more about willpower than intellect. In fact pre-meds don't seem any more intelligent than any other college students--they are simply more annoying and more arrogant.


Yeah I definitely agree that pre-meds don't seem too intelligent compared to engineers/physics majors. I find the latter to be much more arrogant though (as your post kind of shows). Two of my lab partners in a bio class are engineers and are failing, one dropped the class already...all the while saying how easy it is and that it's just a matter of work. Annoying, yes. Arrogant? Not as much as engineers, sorry. If anything, I find pre-meds annoying because they are so insecure and over-bearing...not cocky. If I have to see one more induction to an honor society (that you have to apply for) in a class or one more announcement to come to a special service that they organized I might just puke..
 
a phD is considered the worst educational investment you can make. I forget where the article was published but it was fairley recent
 
Zoom-Zoom said:
Yeah I definitely agree that pre-meds don't seem too intelligent compared to engineers/physics majors. I find the latter to be much more arrogant though (as your post kind of shows). Two of my lab partners in a bio class are engineers and are failing, one dropped the class already...all the while saying how easy it is and that it's just a matter of work. Annoying, yes. Arrogant? Not as much as engineers, sorry. If anything, I find pre-meds annoying because they are so insecure and over-bearing...not cocky. If I have to see one more induction to an honor society (that you have to apply for) in a class or one more announcement to come to a special service that they organized I might just puke..

:laugh: :laugh:
I teach a sophomore level human physiology class that engineers interested in biomedical engineering take....its just hilarious how many come in there thinking they're very smart and flunk out because they don't realize they are only intellegent in one very specific area. :smuggrin:
 
newguy357 said:
Starting in high school? Haha. I'm not sure where you've gotten your info but it's wrong. I haven't done the PhD thing, so maybe I'm not technically a physicist, but I do have a b.s. in physics, summa cum laude, mostly centered around theoretical physics, from a major research university. Physics was much more difficult than all of my medicine-related classes in the sense that it actually took brain power to understand and to do well in, whereas medical-related classes take hardly any brain power whatsoever and an A grade is merely a matter of spending lots of time memorizing. Physics, while intellectually much more difficult, took much less time because memorization is almost entirely absent from the field. Physics and biology are virtually on opposite ends of the spectrum in this regard. Becoming a physician is more about willpower than intellect. In fact pre-meds don't seem any more intelligent than any other college students--they are simply more annoying and more arrogant.

Yup, our backgrounds are similar, so I'm not going to dispute your assertion that physics and medicine sit on opposite ends of the skills spectrum... (But that's besides the point, in terms of this discussion, I think.)

What I will dispute (and I mean no disrespect for your achievements) is that a summa cum laude from a US univesrity, (no matter how good this university) means anything in terms of future impact in the fields of physics:

ANYONE can be a physics major (especially in the silly US educational system), just like anyone can be a doctor (and, of course, just like anyone can be a mere physics grad student.) No special skills are required, other than determination to do what you're doing. Simple as that.

To be successful at what you do, however, you have to start *very* early. (My husband is a Physics prof so I'm afraid you are wrong that my info is false -- I have very close ties with the physics community.) I can tell you, as an insider, that most of these people (especially the ones from outside the US) have been slaving over their books for years on end, yes, since high school. The plain, sad, truth is that most US physics BA's cannot and will not ever amount to much, precisely because it's just so plain easy to take a few ridiculous physics courses and call that a physics BA. But ask Ed Witten if he was just fooling around during high school and undergrad!

But I'm digressing: The point is that there are differences between medicine and the sciences (my disticntion is intentional -- I do not consider medicine a science any more than I consider engineering a science): Any science has objective measures of who is "better" or who does "better" science. Very simply put, Nature is the judge of that (eventually.)

But in medicine, things are much more subjective. Not everyone will agree on who's a better doctor -- such labels are much more political in medicine than they are in the sciences. That means that there is much more "wiggle" room, i.e. much more room for mediocrity to thrive. So we can still make it if we party and watch TV all through high school and even college -- there are always second chances in medicine (don't start the whole "you'll never get into a US med school if you just party" attitude. There are several physicians at top-notch research hospitals who came from the caribbean schools.)

But in science there are never second chances: if you don't start early you will never catch up with the competition, so you will never amount to much.

This is why I say that the magnitude of a doctor's pay is not something that's necessarily "earned." It's just a convention that society accepts.
 
Is it just me or do i remember a big strike coming from a bunch of doctors in Germany??? I dont know...apparently after blowing money on school and residency and not getting paid enough is a good equation for a strike
 
inverse_scatter said:
None, unless you're talking about sexual harassment lawsuits from psycho students...

But how many docs are worried about losing their jobs if they don't get good customer evaluations, or if they don't publish enough?
Tenure, you say? Yes, when that comes you might be ok (IF it ever comes -- there's a new trend in the smaller colleges: they want to abolish it altogether.)
In the mean time, you are, on average, about 45-50 years old, greying, stressed, and have no idea what your spouse or kids look like -- IF you ever had the time or luck to meet a spouse, that is (how many pople would find the whole overworked/poor/disgruntled PhD picture appealing?)

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying doctors' jobs are not stressful. All I'm saying is that we should not feel ENTITLED to our position in society, nor our pay. There is nothing inherent in our job that makes us deserve that pay any more than many other hard-working, intellectual people.
We are lucky to be getting the priviledges we get -- we are by no means "special."

I completely disagree with you. Doctors ARE "special". And the people in the general public are the ones who decide that. How many times have you heard someone say "oh my lawyer is so great?" and glow because they gave them life saving surgery, or figured out an extremely complicated medical problem that was causing them a great amount of suffering. Lawyers are overpaid in my opinion. Why do you think people "oooh" and "aahh" when they hear you're going to medical school? People do that because they look up to doctors. I used to have more of a mindset like yours, but now that I've worked in patient care for 2 years in nursing, I see just how special nurses and doctors really are. They DEFINITELY deserve their pay, there is no doubt about it. There is SO much responsibility... peoples LIVES are in your hands, and if you eff up, they die, or they suffer a life-changing tragedy. You make or break people's lives with every action that you take. The general public directly DEPENDS on you to fix them, to make them feel better, to save their lives. Doctors are relied upon in extreme emergency situations. Sorry, but I've never seen a lawyer, or a physics PhD at a code table reviving someone's life, or watching a patient die who they've spent months, or years taking care of. With the amount of education it takes, and the special kind of person it takes to make a GOOD doctor, you bet your ass they earn their money. Maybe some specialties are overpaid... and there will be mediocrity ANYWHERE you go in this world, but I certainly think it is okay for a good physician to expect to make at least $100,000/year. Especially with the type of debt they come out of school with. Now, as for your post about ANYONE can become a doctor, that's BS. It's also BS that if you "get behind" that you cannot catch-up to the competition in the hard sciences. Medical school is WAY harder to get into than most hard science PhD programs. Don't even try to argue that one. There are schools that have a 100% acceptance rate to their own undergrads. I know it's a different story in terms of finishing the program, but ITS A 100% ACCEPTANCE RATE. They're so desperate for good candidates they PAY them while they're there, and charge NO tuition. Medical schools have on average... about 5-15% acceptance rate, and charge $20-45k/yeardepending on the school. The reason is competition, plain and simple. PhD programs struggle to recruit good applicants, because of the very topic we're discussing. It is very hard work, they often times don't make much money, and there are very few tenure jobs available. It can be very isolating and grueling without a lot of monetary reward. PhD's do a lot of good for our society behind the scenes, and it is more difficult to get the kind of social and monetary satisfaction a lot of people desire from those types of jobs. MD's overpaid? Maybe some. PhD's underpaid? Yes. Anyways, if you could pick any random person from your school, chances are they would fail to make it into medical school, even if they did everything in their power to try to get there. If they had the necessary intelligence and social skills, then they would have a chance. Same goes for PhD programs. As for not being able to catch up in PhD competition, that is complete BS. I know people who effed around in HS, and even college, and they're now going to high quality PhD programs in subjects like chemistry, and biochemistry. They will do just fine. If you feel the need to be stoic and think that doctors aren't special (I'm assuming you're pre-med?), that's your perogative, but I am going to wholeheartedly disagree with you. ;)
 
inverse_scatter said:
Hmmm... If salaries in the US were supposed to be proportional to years/intensity/difficulty of training, then PhD's in (many fields of) academia should be earning MUCH more than docs -- while on average they get paid just about as much as a residents...

US Docs don't "earn" their pay. It's just that they've created (and vigorously maintained) the market to sustain it...


Just noticed this post. Laughable. Completely laughable. PhD's should be earning MUCH more than doctors... Hahahahaha. Looks like someone's biased to their hubby. Kinda cute, also annoying. Like I said before, next time I see a physics PhD at a code table, I'll agree with you. Oh yea, and I guess the next time you need heart surgery, be sure to tell your surgeon, who's about to completely spread your ribs apart and do surgery on your still beating HEART, that your husband deserves to make more money than he/she does. You know, because hes really good at physics! I think it would be much more accurate to say that PhD's deserve a more equal pay to doctors. They have a similar amount of education time and overall intellectual ability requirements. They work hard, they do good things for society (sometimes... often times their research is nothing but failure and wasted money.) But more? No. Much more? Like I said: Laughable. You are just REALLY out there.
 
Dr. Weebs said:
I completely disagree with you. Doctors ARE "special". And the people in the general public are the ones who decide that. How many times have you heard someone say "oh my lawyer is so great?" and glow because they gave them life saving surgery, or figured out an extremely complicated medical problem that was causing them a great amount of suffering. Lawyers are overpaid in my opinion. Why do you think people "oooh" and "aahh" when they hear you're going to medical school? People do that because they look up to doctors. I used to have more of a mindset like yours, but now that I've worked in patient care for 2 years in nursing, I see just how special nurses and doctors really are. They DEFINITELY deserve their pay, there is no doubt about it. There is SO much responsibility... peoples LIVES are in your hands, and if you eff up, they die, or they suffer a life-changing tragedy. You make or break people's lives with every action that you take. The general public directly DEPENDS on you to fix them, to make them feel better, to save their lives. Doctors are relied upon in extreme emergency situations. Sorry, but I've never seen a lawyer, or a physics PhD at a code table reviving someone's life, or watching a patient die who they've spent months, or years taking care of. With the amount of education it takes, and the special kind of person it takes to make a GOOD doctor, you bet your ass they earn their money. Maybe some specialties are overpaid... and there will be mediocrity ANYWHERE you go in this world, but I certainly think it is okay for a good physician to expect to make at least $100,000/year. Especially with the type of debt they come out of school with. Now, as for your post about ANYONE can become a doctor, that's BS. It's also BS that if you "get behind" that you cannot catch-up to the competition in the hard sciences. Medical school is WAY harder to get into than most hard science PhD programs. Don't even try to argue that one. There are schools that have a 100% acceptance rate to their own undergrads. I know it's a different story in terms of finishing the program, but ITS A 100% ACCEPTANCE RATE. They're so desperate for good candidates they PAY them while they're there, and charge NO tuition. Medical schools have on average... about 5-15% acceptance rate, and charge $20-45k/yeardepending on the school. The reason is competition, plain and simple. PhD programs struggle to recruit good applicants, because of the very topic we're discussing. It is very hard work, they often times don't make much money, and there are very few tenure jobs available. It can be very isolating and grueling without a lot of monetary reward. PhD's do a lot of good for our society behind the scenes, and it is more difficult to get the kind of social and monetary satisfaction a lot of people desire from those types of jobs. MD's overpaid? Maybe some. PhD's underpaid? Yes. Anyways, if you could pick any random person from your school, chances are they would fail to make it into medical school, even if they did everything in their power to try to get there. If they had the necessary intelligence and social skills, then they would have a chance. Same goes for PhD programs. As for not being able to catch up in PhD competition, that is complete BS. I know people who effed around in HS, and even college, and they're now going to high quality PhD programs in subjects like chemistry, and biochemistry. They will do just fine. If you feel the need to be stoic and think that doctors aren't special (I'm assuming you're pre-med?), that's your perogative, but I am going to wholeheartedly disagree with you. ;)

I'm not going to argue this one out -- everyone's entitled to their opinion (and I don't even think the things we're saying are all that different.)
Of course docs are useful and great and all. No one in their right mind would doubt that -- not at this day and age, at least...

But allow me to comment on the value of the "oooh-aahh" factor -- IMHO it's not very indicative of anything. Society always fusses over appearance and flakiness and the ephemeral (like pop stars or sports icons or fame, for example.) As a matter of fact, if there is too much "oooh-aaah" over something, I am always skeptical about it. As a rule, I doubt anything of real essence ever creates much of a stir in society. Things of any significance (like advancements in science) happen quitely, behind the scenes, without anyone ever realizing them. Society just benefits from them and then takes them for granted. As a matter of fact, everyone thinks docs are so great nowadays (there used to be MUCH more distrust toward them as little as 100 years ago) because of all the advances made by SCIENTISTS, not docs. Most of the great things doctors can do nowadays -- the non-invasive procedures, the MRI's, the new drugs, the great successes of medicine in the 20th century (and even more so in the century ahead of us) -- they are gifts of science, not medicine (for most of the part, anyway.) We are now just reaping the fruits of the work quietly done by dorky scientists many-many years ago. But the scientists hardly ever get any recognition for this work. That's why I respect them.

As for acceptance rates to grad schools, I agree. MUCH harder to get into med schools these days -- hands down. But still: That's just the market conditions, and it's a direct result of the AMA lobby, which wants to keep physician salaries high. (And, as a matter of fact, it's a direct result of the fact that society is getting flakier by the day and more and more people are now swayed by the "ooh aah" factor".)

But if you read my posts, you'll notice I never claimed grad students are special or that they need to work hard to get into grad school (quite the contrary, actually.) Again, we've both agreed on this, it's the market conditions: The lifestyle and the pay suck, so no one wants to go into academia any more.

However, getting into grad school FAR from assures you'll actually do well in science. I was talking about making an IMPACT in science, not being a mediocre idiot (like most PhD's in the US sadly are, nowadays!) Just like a doctor's goal is to actually cure people, a scientist's goal is not to be merely *named* a scientist but to actually ADVANCE his/her science.
So I was claiming that if you want to keep up with the INTERNATIONAL competition (present and PAST), you have to work your butt off (obviously this is more true in some sciences than others.) And the amount of work you really have to put in to become a successful scientist in some of the "hard-core" sciences, (the way I define successful), is actually MORE than the amount of work you have to do to be a successful doc. That's all.

I'm not trying to belittle anyone. But I've both lived through and closely observed both processes and that's my own anectodal conclusion.
 
Dr. Weebs said:
Just noticed this post. Laughable. Completely laughable. PhD's should be earning MUCH more than doctors... Hahahahaha. Looks like someone's biased to their hubby. Kinda cute, also annoying. Like I said before, next time I see a physics PhD at a code table, I'll agree with you. Oh yea, and I guess the next time you need heart surgery, be sure to tell your surgeon, who's about to completely spread your ribs apart and do surgery on your still beating HEART, that your husband deserves to make more money than he/she does. You know, because hes really good at physics! I think it would be much more accurate to say that PhD's deserve a more equal pay to doctors. They have a similar amount of education time and overall intellectual ability requirements. They work hard, they do good things for society (sometimes... often times their research is nothing but failure and wasted money.) But more? No. Much more? Like I said: Laughable. You are just REALLY out there.

No need to resort to insults, as I don't think I ever did.
But I hope you haven't yet taken the MCAT, as I fear your verbal reasoning section might need some improving upon:

First of all, I was just making a point: I did NOT claim that PhD's should be paid more than docs.

I said that IF the only criterion upon which to base pay was the amount of years spent being educated, THEN many PhDs should be paid more than docs.

I said this to refute the argument that society somehow rewards MDs as much as it does because of all the years MDs spend in training. My argument was that this cannot be true, because if society actually chose to reward effort/years in school, then it would also reward PhD's proportionally to their effort -- and, therefore, many PhDs would end up being paid much more than doctors (which clearly, they are not.)
My point was that there are OTHER factors that influence salary, and that those don't have much to do with years in school.


Second, I never spoke with absolutes. My posts are full of qualifiers, which you have chosen to ignore. In this case you chose to ignore the "many fields" which preceded the "academia". So even IF this was not a purely argumentative sentence phrased for the SOLE purpose of proving the aforementioned point, the sentence would read: "PhD's in MANY FIELDS of academia should be earning much more than doctors." I think the qualifier makes a world's difference, and, irrespective of whether or not you or I believe it, it's not such a preposterous statement.

Since you brought it up, I happen to NOT believe in it, BTW, for the simple reason that, like I've said, many PhD's are not true scientists but are sheer idiots that, indeed, contribute nothing to society but their share of entropy. If I wanted the sentence to be a statement of opinion rather than an argument, I would say that MANY PhD's in MANY FIELDS of academia should be paid much more than MANY docs.

But that's just my opinion, and if that does, indeed, put me "out there" it might be a good thing, as "out there" might mean away from the idiotic "ooh-aaah"-abiding masses...
 
inverse_scatter said:
No need to resort to insults, as I don't think I ever did.
But I hope you haven't yet taken the MCAT, as I fear your verbal reasoning section might need some improving upon:

First of all, I was just making a point: I did NOT claim that PhD's should be paid more than docs.

I said that IF the only criterion upon which to base pay was the amount of years spent being educated, THEN many PhDs should be paid more than docs.

I said this to refute the argument that society somehow rewards MDs as much as it does because of all the years MDs spend in training. My argument was that this cannot be true, because if society actually chose to reward effort/years in school, then it would also reward PhD's proportionally to their effort -- and, therefore, many PhDs would end up being paid much more than doctors (which clearly, they are not.)
My point was that there are OTHER factors that influence salary, and that those don't have much to do with years in school.


Second, I never spoke with absolutes. My posts are full of qualifiers, which you have chosen to ignore. In this case you chose to ignore the "many fields" which preceded the "academia". So even IF this was not a purely argumentative sentence phrased for the SOLE purpose of proving the aforementioned point, the sentence would read: "PhD's in MANY FIELDS of academia should be earning much more than doctors." I think the qualifier makes a world's difference, and, irrespective of whether or not you or I believe it, it's not such a preposterous statement.

Since you brought it up, I happen to NOT believe in it, BTW, for the simple reason that, like I've said, many PhD's are not true scientists but are sheer idiots that, indeed, contribute nothing to society but their share of entropy. If I wanted the sentence to be a statement of opinion rather than an argument, I would say that MANY PhD's in MANY FIELDS of academia should be paid much more than MANY docs.

But that's just my opinion, and if that does, indeed, put me "out there" it might be a good thing, as "out there" might mean away from the idiotic "ooh-aaah"-abiding masses...

OK. Thank you for clarifying It makes more sense now. I still think we are going to disagree. Docs get paid a lot because so many of them are necessary, not because they've created some sort of crazy market value for themselves. They certainly aren't being paid more because most PhD's are "idiots" as you say. Even the best PhD's do not have the responsibility that a doctor has put in their hands. The responsibility... of another human being's life. There is no possible way you can argue against that. I can think of very few academic jobs that have the responsibility of people's lives in their hands. Period. To think that MD's get paid a lot because they have selfishly "created" a market for themselves shows a lot of ignorance. That is why I made references to things such as codes, life-saving surgery, the relief of agonizing pain and suffering. Doctor's make a mistake, they kill someone, or they ruin a life. They get sued for millions of dollars and they lose their career. That is why they get paid so much and why they deserve it. I know some INCREDIBLY brilliant people, who said they would never want to be a doctor for that very reason.
Does your husband want that kind of responsibility?

I believe there is still a contradiction to what you are saying. If so many PhD's are "idiots", how can you say that many PhDs should make more money than many docs? There are a FEW, not MANY, PhD's who truly better the world around them by their lifelong research. THOSE PhD's definitely deserve to make more money than say, a family doc. As for making more than a thoracic surgeon, or a neuro surgeon... that's definitely stretching it, even for the best PhD's. And, you are right, they are the ones who invent things like cures for cancer, and new machines to visualize the body, etc. and don't get a whole lot of credit for it. They're more amazing than most docs in terms of brilliance, that is for sure. But, if it weren't for doctors, who would use those great inventions to better society? I can tell you one thing, I haven't met many PhD's with the people skills necessary to be a good doctor(not to say there aren't exceptions on both sides). The point is, we need each other to survive. MD's need PhD's to come up with new medicines and technology to help them with their goal of curing people, and PhD's need MD's to make their technology USEFUL. That is why I don't see eye to eye with you in saying that many PhD's deserve to make, as you said, MUCH more than docs.

I also disagree with you in saying that a PhD's training is longer or more intense than a doctor's, and thus by the original criteria trying to be refuted, should make "much more" than docs. I don't see where you get that kind of statistic. Just to become a family doctor in this country, you need 7 years of post-bacc training. And it's pretty intense, especially residency (100hr workweeks, 36hr shifts). Any type of specialty that makes big money and you're talking 10-15 years of post-bacc training. Last time I checked, you can get a physics PhD in 4 years, 7 if you're slow. You can get a chem PhD in less. Add post-doc in there, and you're up to 8-10 years. Sounds familiar.

I also did some research to be more detailed about the monetary dyscrepency between MD's and Physics PhD's. I'm very curious about this issue, as I have thought for years that academicians in general are underpaid, so I did this research to see what the dyscrepency really is.
You're MAKING 15-20k while you're a PhD student, as opposed to spending 40k/year as a med student. That's 60k/year difference for 4 years. Over 4 years, that's almost 250,000 dollars. Then, during an MD's residency, and the PhD's post-bacc, they're even in pay. At the end of that (we'll say the average MD residency/fellowship is 4yrs) 8 years post-bacc is when the dyscrepency starts. We'll say conservatively that the PhD is now ahead by $225,000. The doc starts out making $160k/year, and the PhD is making $60k/year. Within 2 years, the doc has almost made up this difference. I do agree that dyscrepency is too large. However, Physics PhD's aren't doing so badly. The average salary for a physics PhD is 90k/year, and they have an unemployment rate of 1.7%. I got that from the american institute of physics, so its pretty accurate. Most general practice docs make around $120-130k in my area. That's not a very large dyscrepency in the end. I believe a lot of that difference comes from what I've already pointed out. A general practice doctor is ALWAYS going to be useful, and necessary, unless he/she is a complete failure and commits multiple malpractice infractions, which is extremely rare. They also have the responsibility of another person's life in their hands, which to me is what really sets a doctor apart from almost any other job. Also, many PhD research projects end up being a huge waste of time and money, and benefit nobody. Unfortunately, that is the nature of science.

I've seen this type of thread on here many times, and usually it's one lone PhD candidate, or someone who has a husband who's a professor, or whatever, trying to convince us soon-to-be doc's that PhD's work harder and deserve more money than we do. You will never win that argument. When another human being walks into your husband's office and puts their life into his hands, then you can argue with me.


Last thing. To touch on some things you said about others:

"But that's just my opinion, and if that does, indeed, put me "out there" it might be a good thing, as "out there" might mean away from the idiotic "ooh-aaah"-abiding masses.."

"many PhD's are not true scientists but are sheer idiots that, indeed, contribute nothing to society but their share of entropy"

Your arrogance really comes through in your last post. "Sheer idiots". Incredible. Way to completely belittle someone's life work. Just because someone fails at being successful at something as difficult as PhD level physics, hardly makes them a "sheer idiot". It must be difficult being perfect. As for calling the general public "idiotic masses". Wow. I personally think that's really sad. Those "idiotic masses" are the ones you will be caring for. They are going to look up to you and rely on you for their care. They will trust you. They will expose very personal, embarrassing, and stressful information to you in confidence. They will need you to be sensitive to their feelings, to their opinions. They will need your compassion and your empathy. I certainly wouldn't want my doctor to have such a judgemental viewpont of the general public. You are exactly the type of person that medicine does not need. Please, do us all a big favor: Stick to physics.
 
Like I said -- not going to argue. What each of us believes is our own business -- though I still think you are arguing for argument's sake and we really don't disagree in much.

Nice effort in your research BTW, but your stats on Physics are off: Many of the unemployed physicists and the ones that have changed fields altogether no longer have ties with APS, so they don't report there.
And the average salary includes physicists in the industry, that's why the figure is so high.
And no physicict will only do 1 postdoc. Most of my friends are now on their 3rd, some on their 4th. But this is totally besides the point... It has nothing to do with the OP.

As for the AMA lobby and the market value it creates, the OP comes pretty close to proving its actions with that graph. I have both been to and practiced medicine in several countries (both "third-world" and european) where doctors were struggling to make end's meat. There are some countries in europe where doctors are UNEMPLOYED.
Why do they deserve to be paid less? They don't obviously, it's the market that's screwed up...


As for my aptitude in medicine, like I've said, I've practiced it and that's for my patients to decide.
But patients aside (one might be able to "fake" it with them) I'd like to believe that if I had a kid with Down's I'd still love it and care for it with all my might, even though, technically, he'd be an "idiot."
The truth is that not everyone can be good at what they'd like to be. There's no rule in the universe that says that your life's efforts have to be rewarded; nothing that guarantees that if you devote your life to something, your work will be less inconsequential, less "idiotic." Life needn't be pleasant. And that's part of why science can be so gut-wrenching and torturous -- because people in it can completely shred their self-esteem to pieces. A true scientist sacrifices that all-prized "feel-good" (and all the "nice places" that come with it) that have become so
valued in our culture of entitlement. No true scientist will feel very good about themselves. But the truth is that people deserve repsect because of a lot more things than intellectual power.

You can still think people are idiots and care for them very well, is my point. Last year someone I know went to Angola to try to help contain the Marburg (Hemorrhagic Fever) outbreak. The locals were being complete dorks -- not only did they not appreciate the fact that the intenational aid people were putting their lives at risk for them, they accused them of actually planting the virus so some aid workers were attacked and killed. Yes, from their own viewpoint, the locals were being completely rational. But knowing what you know, you cannot help being mad at them and exclaiming they are "idiots." (Doctors are still human, after all, not saints.) That does not mean that you will take the next plane home and stop helping them. My friend stayed -- as I would have also... (oh, and by the way, speaking of responsibility, helping people, and putting your life at risk: do you know what my firend got paid? NOTHING! Just living expenses and airfare...)

In any case, I am completely average ( I hope) in my intellect, I myslef don't contribute much more to society than entropy, yet I find ways to respect myself.

You are the one passing judgement about people, not me.

But this is becoming a silly argument. I'd rather find more creative ways to create entropy. So I'm out.
 
Hey, I don't get why this turned into a PhD vs MD front. I mean, get over it people. Let's get back to topic about international physican pay.

Internationally, I think some countries have physicians who are far lower paid than the US, but you have to factor in things unsaid. For example, Australian doctors don't make what American's do, but they have a Public Health care system Medicare and it gets rid of a lot of the paper work through bulk billing. To be honest, Im accepted to an American MD and MD/PhD school here for 2007, but I think I would prefer to make 200k in Australia than 275k in the US based on my limited knowledge of the HMO infrastructure and insurance costs here. Not to mention, most Australians are generalists (GP), about 80%, yet they still make so much money. So you have to break these things down in to specialties and specific areas.

I think you could say a generalist does far better in Australia than in the US, but I think the US is still a better place to be for specialty training. That's why I want to do my residency here in the US and not in Australia. But I would gladly consider going back home to practice/teach.
 
i'd personally prefer having to take out massive loans and get more money in salary than not have any loans at all and have a low salary. loans can be paid off.
 
i'd personally prefer having to take out massive loans and get more money in salary than not have any loans at all and have a low salary. loans can be paid off.

in germany
1. med school is free.
2. not half as toxic or painful as it is in the US.
3. as an attending, you work reasonable hours and get paid for overtime.
 
i'd personally prefer having to take out massive loans and get more money in salary than not have any loans at all and have a low salary. loans can be paid off.

You 've been wired, from birth, to think that is right. When you've been in slavery for so long, you begin to see slavery as the norm. There is nothing good in taking out loans because in the end you pay triple the amount you borrowed.
 
i could care less how much physicians get paid in the US vs World...i just wanna practice anywhere...money isnt gonna change/influence me !!

Some people are only concerned with the Benjamins. Even if I'm not making ****loads of money, I'll be doing what makes me happy, and I have a feeling that I'll still manage to earn a decent living.
 
Some of us actually want to academic physicians...

...and make much less than our peers in the "real world."

Why would anyone do that???? And if you think an academic physician works less than a private practice doc, think again!
 
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,grossbild-575805-399537,00.html

Interesting. Why again am I against AMSA's universal healthcare lobby? Oh yeah, because of the graph found on the link above.

AMSA sucks a$$. It's such a leftist organization. I'm going to do everything I can to avoid universal healthcare in my practice. I hope to accept private insurance only, unless the leftist bastards put a gun to my head, which they may do. So much for freedom in America.
 
Top