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.