Moonlighting PRITE conflict

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

Psych2014

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
132
Reaction score
15
Hey all
I have a conflict. Am looking for advice or ideas. Our new pd just decided to beef the place up on stats and took it from no moonlighting restrictions to must have 50th percentile on PRITE or no moonlighting for you. Our contract does not have this in it. Only "moon may be restricted if it interferes with learning. Like most, I learn while moonlighting. So not sure ill score that high and i cant quit working overtime. I have a family of 4 to support and mother in law will not support anymore. Anyone ever legally challenged this? Any ideas about best study method? I'm pgy4. I'm desparate. Appreciate it. Thanks
 
Last edited:
That is REALLY ****ty. My place wipes themselves with the PRITE. I've heard of places that can stop you from moonlighting if you're in trouble professionally/academically but never tied to such a new and non-validated test.

No real insight, just wanted to give sympathy.
 
Agree with Notdeadyet. The PRITE is a terrible exam, filled with terrible questions, and IMHO a waste of time. You could try to challenge it if you want, but I think if you did you might find your cause quite singular in numbers.

I'd diplomatically bring it up to the chief, and if your PD is open enough, maybe talk to him or her politely as to why you disagree with the policy.
 
You have no legal recourse. PDs can restrict moonlighting at will (at least, you have to decide to either follow the arbitrary legal policies of your program, or leave). That said, that is really crappy, and you emphasize to your PD how it might damage recruitment, which is about the only thing that would motivate a PD to undo a policy like that.
 
Hey thanks a lot you all. I appreciate the comments and encouragement.

Couple other thoughts, if this stimulates any new ideas:
1. Last night I explained to him that this is going to take away my ability to provide for my family. He responded pretty flatly.

2. Just wondering what you know that I don't where a PD can overcome basic contract law and throw new clauses into the contract at will, without any written warning, or a signature of agreement.
ie. we just resigned our contract for 2014, and it says nothing about moonlighting being restricted because of PRITE. And our handbook says nothing of the sort.

3. My thought was to say "I'm sorry, I'm not stopping". To which he'd be forced to either fire me or put me or suspend me, which I don't think he will. Or tying it up in legal stuff until I finish about 8 months later, but I'm guessing they'd suspend me at the point of legal.

4. He says "the GME committee thought this up". So can he give leniency if he so mercifully chooses?

(he has a history of making threats, and in facts many plans, and never falling through)

Again, any top notch study ideas. I hate doing old questions. I'd like to actually learn something in the process so I'm thinking either or both, the Kaplan Sadoc Q book, or the Spiegel book/CD.

I'm wordy and anxious, sorry.
 
3. My thought was to say "I'm sorry, I'm not stopping". To which he'd be forced to either fire me or put me or suspend me, which I don't think he will. Or tying it up in legal stuff until I finish about 8 months later, but I'm guessing they'd suspend me at the point of legal.
.

He could just suspend you for a couple of weeks, enough so that you don't get credit for a rotation. You could complain, and probably get paid for those few weeks anyway. Then you finish up the year and end up 1 rotation shy of being board eligible. You are not given the opportunity to make up that month and finish residency not eligible for board certification..

This is what could happen to you if you decide to buck the PD. Don't risk it. Study hard for the PRITE.
 
Agree. Defying a PD could be very bad news. It could even be that he agrees with you but has to follow the GME's orders. Now I don't know this PD. Some wouldn't do much, others could try to destroy your career.

I can see issues for debate but is it worth fighting the battle? Going to court could cost more than the profit from moonlighting. The culture of residency will likely make the work environment uncomfortable to say the least while it's going on.

I would bring it up to the the GME if the PD mentioned he's following their rules, on the argument that this is a rule pulled upon you after you started and that your understanding of the residency program when you came in was such that you thought you would've been able to moonlight. From there on, I don't know if it's worth fighting even if you are in the right.
 
Thanks Michael. Sounds as though you've seen or heard of this happening. It sounds possible.

I do keep hearing that a PD can hamstring you in many ways, such as never "certifying" you to take the boards. I guess I need to watch my steps.

I like to learn, and need to review, so I will be studying my *** off.
 
Just wondering what you know that I don't where a PD can overcome basic contract law and throw new clauses into the contract at will, without any written warning, or a signature of agreement.
ie. we just resigned our contract for 2014, and it says nothing about moonlighting being restricted because of PRITE. And our handbook says nothing of the sort.

It also probably said nothing about moonlighting being guaranteed. It probably said nothing about moonlighting whatsoever. It probably does say something along the line about you needing to maintain "in good standing" which includes following the "policies and procedures" established by leadership. Unfortunately, those policies and procedures are subject only to the whim of the leadership.

So, what I know is that this has nothing to do with contract law, basic or otherwise, because moonlighting has nothing to do with your contract unless it is specifically mentioned one way or the other (and it most certainly isn't, given the purposeful brevity and vagueness of the contracts). Otherwise, you're subject to the policies and procedures of your institution, which gives you essentially zero leverage.

My wife is a lawyer from a top 10 law school, and I've had some courses at the law school, so I've had a little more exposure than average.

This is unfortunate, stupid because the PRITE is a pretty lousy gauge of anything, and I think it's lousy you're in this situation, but if you go in thinking you have some sort of legal grounds that you don't have, you're just going to wind up hurting yourself further with your PD. Pursuing legal action against your program is something of a nuclear option. It would be cheaper to wrack up an absurd amount of credit card debt over the next year than it would be to pay counsel to pursue this (and even if somehow you could win this, courts rarely award legal fees in such situations. You can't win even if you win.).

Burning bridges at this point in your career will be really unfortunate with an impending job search. Heck, talk to a bank about taking out some sort of loan. You're going to have a real salary in a year. That may put you in a better situation to at least survive.

And, of course, the LAST thing you ever want to be is beholden to in-laws.
 
You have no legal recourse. PDs can restrict moonlighting at will (at least, you have to decide to either follow the arbitrary legal policies of your program, or leave). That said, that is really crappy, and you emphasize to your PD how it might damage recruitment, which is about the only thing that would motivate a PD to undo a policy like that.

Yeah, this. My program has historically treated the PRITE is entirely unimportant but last year rolled out a policy where you had to score in the 30th percentile or higher to moonlight. Your program could easily say that scoring below whatever cutoff they want on the PRITE means your moonlighting activities are interfering with your studies. It sucks when the rules get changed partway through your training, especially if you need that moonlighting income.

I'm wondering if increasing emphasis on the PRITE is a trend in programs.
 
At my program you have to score at or above 51st percentile in psych and 26th percentile for neuro. I did ok enough on the psych part last year but not the neuro, so I'm going to study like crazy so I can moonlight.
On the plus side, if we do really well on the PRITE (I don't know the exact scores) we can get an extra 1-3 days off per year🙂
 
Last edited:
Much good wisdom here. I very much appreciate all of you! I'm cooled down to where I can hear it better and it all makes good sense. I'll study hard to pass that mark and be believing right up until it happens, if it happens that it's a scare tactic to get our grades up so that we get 4 instead of 2 years on our next ACGME review. We'll see. Thanks again.

Regarding studying, I just hate the shallowness and tangentiality of many PRITE questions so I've got Spiegel review book and the Kaplan Sadock Q book for boards.
 
Some of it because residents were perceiving it as meaningless and blowing it off entirely.
So now programs feel there's a need to make it meaningful.

OPD. this is in no way directed as against you but the PRITE.

If programs want the PRITE to be seen as meaningful, the best way to do so is to make it a meaningful test.

1) Good questions
2) Questions should be used reflective of what is to be expected on the written board exam
3) Answer keys should be provided explaining the reasoning behind it.
4) No stupid mistakes like grammar errors.

I don't think this is much to ask.

Kaplan Sadock Q book for boards.

That book is in no way reflective on what you'll see on the boards other than on factors that will not help you. E.g. they are both in English. K&S IMHO has a weird tendency to teach what K&S believes is psychiatry even though it's not reflective of what's going on in the real world. What they emphasize in their books is hardly ever seen in the exam.

For example, on their book, they recommend you memorize the term forme fruste. I never saw this on the exam, and I don't know anyone who ever saw it. Further, I don't know anyone who even uses that term. It's like they're in their own world, trying to teach you their view of psychiatry that few share.

Kaplan (not K&S), the USMLE (among other test) review company actually gets people to try to obtain real test questions, hire ex-authors of exams, and try to get into the minds of those making the exam. They try to make questions on their books have a feel similar to that on the actual exams.

K&S, in comparison, makes questions kinda like to the effect of telling a guy to memorize everything about a hamburger when you eat it, but when the guy gets his test, the question is what type of chair you were sitting on when you ate it.

As many of you know, you could fail a course if you don't answer questions the way the prof wants you to, even if you know the material well. K&S have chosen material they want you to memorize where it appears they did no research to see what the real exam is like. I'd hardly call that a board-prep. Frankly I don't think K&S deserves the level of esteem it has as the go-to book in psychiatry unlike Harrison's has legitimately and deservedly done in IM.
 
Last edited:
Whopper,
Thanks a lot for your time and energy. I understand your first point is not about me. Thanks for the kindness. I will think through what you say here about K and S. to me the text is mostly ridiculously over complicated and many times speaking to non-psychiatrists in explaining extraneous detail, such as in interviewing a potentially violent person. Appreciate it.

I'm recalling what a blessing this forum is, the insight and experience available here, similar to VMD where I first learned about real foreign med schools.
 
So what are good sources to study for the PRITE? I got the Spiegel book that was mentioned (a great Ebay deal at 10 bucks). I know a lot of people say to review old PRITES, but what else? Psychiatry for the boards? Osler? Other?
Thanks🙂
 
The Spiegel book is phenomenal for the boards. How good? It was to the degree where I knew the answer to a 3 paragraph question on the real exam just by reading the first sentence because I saw enough almost same questions in Spiegel (and the Kaufman review notes).

But it doesn't prepare you for the PRITE. The PRITE is like an exam written by a guy who has a very different view of psychiatry vs the actual board exam, and the PRITE isn't a good exam either. It's filled with several errors and questions based on very little data (e.g. questions where sample sizes of the population were small and there were few studies).

I do recall somewhere that programs aren't allowed to penalize residents based on their PRITE scores but I could be wrong about this. If this is the case, then the program cannot use a PRITE against a resident, but remember, this is based on a vague memory.
 
Thanks Michael. Sounds as though you've seen or heard of this happening. It sounds possible.
.

I haven't ever seen anything like this happening. I am just imagining what could happen, based on my experience applying for multiple board exams, medical licenses, hospital privileges- these organizations will check with your residency program for the rest of your career.
 
I had to deal with this just a few months ago. My program had the same requirements that were never stated explicitly in the contract. I asked my program director during my 3rd year what was required of me in order to moonlight and he told me the same thing: 50% on the PRITE. I achieved that goal and asked for approval which he never got back to me on. I went and applied for a moonlighting position anyway and got it.

And I went and made money to feed my family. Simple as that. I never logged the hours (it was only 6 hours a week) and never mentioned it to any of coworkers.

What you will need is a real DEA number (not the free one provided by your program that only applies to your hospital and it's satellites) and malpractice insurance. You also have to look for positions outside of your residency so your program director don't detect that you blatantly went over his head.

Is it the most honest way to do things? Maybe not, but when your leadership is being fickle about your livelihood then you need to do what you need to do. I too have two kids to feed and if that means a little deception to make sure they have a roof over their heads then that's what I'll do. I kept this up for my whole senior year and graduated with my attendings none the wiser.

Good luck
 
. I kept this up for my whole senior year and graduated with my attendings none the wiser.

Good luck

It will take a good deal of luck to keep your attendings from finding out- typically a few moonlighting patients will end up at the ER of the residency program and give the moonlighter's name as their psychiatrist (or they will bring in their pill bottles with the moonlighter's name on them). It's good that it worked out for you.
 
It will take a good deal of luck to keep your attendings from finding out- typically a few moonlighting patients will end up at the ER of the residency program and give the moonlighter's name as their psychiatrist (or they will bring in their pill bottles with the moonlighter's name on them). It's good that it worked out for you.

It's not too bad if you tailor your job that reduces contact with your program. Disability evaluations generally don't pop up in psych triage. If your program doesn't have child inpatient then moonlight at group homes and foster care. I suspect one of juniors did MSEs on the side for Camodian immigrants but he's sly about it.

Also, when it comes to moonlighting, I strongly suspect it one of those "see no evil" type attitudes. As long as you aren't blatant about it, your attendings will turn a blind eye. Hell, my moonlighting job was referred to my by the assistant program director himself and he never mentioned it to my PD even though I'm sure he knew.
 
I suspect that moonlighting is going on in every program in the country, but programs are free to make any policy they choose. We had a patient come to our ER holding a resident’s business card claiming to be a psychiatrist and he/she was terminated.

Like all jobs, nobody is looking for reasons to get rid of anybody they don’t want to lose. On the other hand, moonlighting against a program’s policy is handing them your head on a silver platter if things turn sour.
 
I achieved that goal and asked for approval which he never got back to me on. I went and applied for a moonlighting position anyway and got it.

And I went and made money to feed my family. Simple as that. I never logged the hours (it was only 6 hours a week) and never mentioned it to any of coworkers.
This strategy is has the potential to get really dicey if you ever get sued. Once a lawyer gets ahold of the fact that you were moonlighting against residency policy (lacking approval) with basic legwork, you're potentially hosed both in court and your home program.
 
This strategy is has the potential to get really dicey if you ever get sued. Once a lawyer gets ahold of the fact that you were moonlighting against residency policy (lacking approval) with basic legwork, you're potentially hosed both in court and your home program.

Yeah I suppose there is a risk, I figured it was okay since my assistant PD was my reference and referral, hence implicit approval. Also helps if you consult your insurer as they often have more insight into this.
The less risky thing to do would be jobs that don't require medications at all like disability evaluations which was also on the table for me, it pays a lot less but it is still viable and doesn't require any malpractice insurance. In the end you have to decide if you are willing to take the risk.
 
IMHO, I'd stongly consider kicking out a resident that was moonlighting without disclosing it to the program.

I'm not saying the people here that want to moonlight are ethically wrong, especially given the circumstances mentioned. If a PD is being fickle, that too is wrong most especially if the resident needs the money to support their family.

This is like driving without a license but the person needs to get to work. The odds of getting caught are low but if you're caught, you're screwed, and you wan't have much of a defense.

For you medstudents out there, take home is avoid programs that pull this type of thing. Whatever a program does should be on a contract.
 
Yeah I suppose there is a risk, I figured it was okay since my assistant PD was my reference and referral, hence implicit approval.
Implicit approval isn't going to be approval in the eyes of the court. There's bad exposure there.

Agree with whopper to have potential applicants sort this out in writing with your residency program. Moonlighting was very important to me and I ruled out a few programs because of it. Most had very clear guidelines (must be PGY-2 or -3 or above, must not be on academic probation) but some hemmed and hawed and I dropped them from my list.
 
For you medstudents out there, take home is avoid programs that pull this type of thing. Whatever a program does should be on a contract.

Also ask the other residents if the PD follows through with his promises. I'll give you my experience:
During interview I asked what moonlighting opportunities were available for residents and was told it would be in house, only for 3rd and 4th years, needed PRITE of 50% or more.
When I became a 3rd year I got my PRITE score to snuff, then he changes the rules saying it was for 4th years only. So on my forth year I again had over 50% score and he states that there are no in house spots. When I find spot outside of the program, after paying for my DEA fees and one year of malpractice insurance, he becomes passive aggressive about it (ie telling me he will look into it and never getting back to me).

Keep in mind I have a family of 2 kids and have been taking loans from family members for the last 2 years. The cost of DEA and malpractice were significant investments on my part. Both cost that were necessary because my PD prohibited in house moonlighting. Then not giving me a definitive answer on the 11th hour...... I felt I had no choice but to go over his head.
 
Implicit approval isn't going to be approval in the eyes of the court. There's bad exposure there.

Agree with whopper to have potential applicants sort this out in writing with your residency program. Moonlighting was very important to me and I ruled out a few programs because of it. Most had very clear guidelines (must be PGY-2 or -3 or above, must not be on academic probation) but some hemmed and hawed and I dropped them from my list.

Can you name names here? At what point in the process did you find this stuff out - prior to interviews, or during the interview day, or after the interview but before ROL time?
 
IMHO, if someone has to moonlight to support their family, and the PD won't allow it based on a PRITE score, I'd steer clear of that program. The need to put food in your child's mouth certainly overrides a score on a bullcrap exam that is poorly written.

But if you're already trapped in that program, I don't know what to tell you because you're between a rock and a hard place. I could tell you to fight it but some programs are so malignant that in doing so, you're pretty much shooting your foot. As I've said the PRITE is a terrible exam. The use of the PRITE as a litmus test to the value of a resident is a bad one at best.

If don't feel comfortable telling us which program this is now, I understand but maybe after graduation do so. Heck, there'd be nothing wrong in doing so because any program that truly believed in using a PRITE determines if you moonlight standard ought to have the backbone to let their policy be known to applicants if it's such a good one.

And I would recommend all applicants to stay away from such a program.
 
IMHO, if someone has to moonlight to support their family, and the PD won't allow it based on a PRITE score, I'd steer clear of that program. The need to put food in your child's mouth certainly overrides a score on a bullcrap exam that is poorly written.

But if you're already trapped in that program, I don't know what to tell you because you're between a rock and a hard place. I could tell you to fight it but some programs are so malignant that in doing so, you're pretty much shooting your foot. As I've said the PRITE is a terrible exam. The use of the PRITE as a litmus test to the value of a resident is a bad one at best.

If don't feel comfortable telling us which program this is now, I understand but maybe after graduation do so. Heck, there'd be nothing wrong in doing so because any program that truly believed in using a PRITE determines if you moonlight standard ought to have the backbone to let their policy be known to applicants if it's such a good one.

And I would recommend all applicants to stay away from such a program.
I just graduated from my program but I'm not comfortable disclosing the program's name yet. I might do a review of it when it's time for people to put in applications for the med students know just what they are getting into. I knew what I was doing had its risks but the way the PD handled the moonlighting situation made me feel less guilty about going behind his back. As far as I was concerned, he had no intention of letting any of us moonlight from the start but fed us the lies just to recruit us.
 
I would bring it up to the the GME if the PD mentioned he's following their rules, on the argument that this is a rule pulled upon you after you started and that your understanding of the residency program when you came in was such that you thought you would've been able to moonlight. From there on, I don't know if it's worth fighting even if you are in the right.

I doubt the GME would be sympathetic. The GME will be full of surgeons and internists, whose residents work 80 hours a week and can never moonlight, and whose programs are known to terminate residents for not passing the inservice exams. (In surgery, they do that, don't they?)

Seriously while I sympathize with the OP on the grounds that the OP, like all residents everywhere is nothing but an indentured servant who is underpaid and being jerked around by his program and his PD, I can't see any way around this within the program. The only reform would be to unionize residency, but that won't ever happen.

The simple fact is that no one in America should be working the hours that residents work with the education that residents have and getting the measly pay that residents get. The entire system is designed for one purpose and one purpose only and that is to staff America's academic hospitals with cheap labor, and the OPs PD does that nicely, I'm sure. His GME helps out too, I'm sure.

There are exceptions and good PDs out there of course but this place doesn't seem to be one of them. Programs that don't keep up with inflation and PDs that jerk residents around should be named on this forum so that med students can avoid them.
 
The only reform would be to unionize residency, but that won't ever happen.
.

There are some unions out there, and I guess it would help some. However, unions do a poor job of dealing with the academic credit/board eligibility aspects of residency. They would however make sure your 40-45k/yr paychecks keep rolling in.
 
A lot of residents are unionized. They lobby for pay, work conditions, vacation time, benefits, but never have weighed in on moonlighting.

The ACGME states that PGY-Is cannot moonlight, and they require that all programs have a moonlighting policy in place, but there isn’t a single word about what that policy is.

Our faculty cannot moonlight without the consent of the chairman. Is it so wrong that residents cannot moonlight without the consent of the graduate medical education committee? If someone is underperforming, they should be focused on an educational plan of correction. Allowing moonlighting in the context of an underperforming trainee is unconscionable in my opinion. I do grant you that > 50% on the PRITE is a strange bar given that it would mathematically exclude half of residents and is of questionable validity in determining very much about overall resident performance. It is one of the few objective things that can be used. I bet that most training directors would use other criteria if anyone could think of what that would look like.
 
The ACGME states that PGY-Is cannot moonlight, and they require that all programs have a moonlighting policy in place, but there isn't a single word about what that policy is.
I don't think anyone has a problem with programs having a criteria for resident moonlighting. I think the issue is that it should be written and explicit.

Incidentally, SDN is the pretty much the only place I run into these horror stories first-hand of vindictive and incompetently managed residency programs. Sure, I know they exist, but the folks I know socially and from medical school that got into a fair number of psych programs all seem to report a pretty good-to-fantastic experience. Most of the big complaints are field related rather than program specific.

I say this because I disagree with nancy's assertion that good PDs are an "exception.". Not the experience of most folks I know. I say this so that prospective applicants reading this don't buy into the notion that most PDs are going to be mean spirited or useless. I think that THESE are the exception to the rule. Apply broadly and with a good enough application that where you end up doesn't depend on blind luck, and you have an excellent chance of attending a program with a culture that is more supportive than malignant.
 
Last edited:
I say this because I disagree with nancy's assertion that good PDs are an "exception.". Not the experience of most folks I know. I say this so that prospective applicants reading this don't buy into the notion that most PDs are going to be mean spirited or useless. I think that THESE are the exception to the rule. Apply broadly and with a good enough application that where you end up doesn't depend on blind luck, and you have an excellent chance of attending a program with a culture that is more supportive than malignant.

👍 If anyone doubts this, I'd encourage you to attend an AADPRT or AAP meeting and meet the Majority of PDs. I've never met one who is less than devoted to teaching and training.
 
I say this because I disagree with nancy's assertion that good PDs are an "exception.". Not the experience of most folks I know. I say this so that prospective applicants reading this don't buy into the notion that most PDs are going to be mean spirited or useless. I think that THESE are the exception to the rule. Apply broadly and with a good enough application that where you end up doesn't depend on blind luck, and you have an excellent chance of attending a program with a culture that is more supportive than malignant.

Well, I'm sure you're right, and I'm sure most people do attend programs that are well run, where the training is good and the PDs mean well and try hard and are not merely there to extract cheap labor or make excuses for the lack of services in certain US states. My views only represent my views. But they are just as valid as those of notdeadyet. Notdeadyet I am glad you are such a happy camper but that doesn't make your views more valid than mine. I happen to be cynical and jaded for a reason -- because I have had a bad experience.

My point is -- residency is a messed up system financially. We are underpaid systemically with respect to our education. You can take your 4 year MD and go work for a consulting firm and make more than the barely 40K I made as an intern. That is why I said "exception." PDs are in the basic business of extracting cheap labor whether they realize it or not; that was my point. I didn't mean that they were all incompetent or mean spirited. However I'm cynical for reasons that go beyond my post.

Any medical student that takes MY views or any other single poster's views as representative of some general truth would be very misguided. I am simply one person; my views only represent what I have experienced! Plus maybe I am incorrect; as you seem to imply. Same with you, Notdeadyet! Only an idiot would base their match list or career choice on the words of a single individual. I hope you didn't choose your career that way. That would be stupid. By the age of 25 or 26 a person ought to know better than to take the advice of one person as gospel. I hope such dingbats are not populating our field. Even if I exaggerated by saying that good PDs are the "exception," which, I would acknowledge, they're probably not.

Nonetheless medical students have a right to know that bad experiences and bad programs and bad states are out there. They might not be the norm or even very common but you aren't going to silence views like mine just because my views differ from yours. The internet makes people like you mad precisely because people like me come on here and complain. The reason I'm so jaded is because I did residency in a state with one of the poorest mental health services in the nation. And people actually seem PROUD of this. Our salaries are among the lowest in the country too. Maybe you'd be jaded too if you trained here. As a resident what I've observed is a revolving door system where few patients get better, and where the root of most people's problems is truly socioeconomic, and nothing will ever be done about it. When you're underpaid to work in this system, then come tell me how you feel about it.

I would certainly take back my statement that good PDs are the "exception" because I cannot question their motives. I'm sure most mean well and do quite well by their residents. That doesn't take away the fact that there is abuse and exploitation of residents in this country and that system makes this perfectly easy to do.
 
Last edited:
...That doesn't take away the fact that there is abuse and exploitation of residents in this country and that system makes this perfectly easy to do.
And probably even more so in a locale where psychiatrists' services aren't valued, as was sadly the case for you.

Better luck in your new position, I hope.

(PM me and let me know how it's going sometime)
 
If anyone doubts this, I'd encourage you to attend an AADPRT or AAP meeting and meet the Majority of PDs. I've never met one who is less than devoted to teaching and training.

Being a PD entails a heck of a lot of extra work, headaches, and it doesn't pay significantly much more. Of course there are bad PDs out there but if anyone becomes a PD, they usually wanted to do it for academic, altruistic, and/or personal enjoyment reasons, not because they're some evil person.

I had a PD that I didn't think was a good one but she was trying her best and did take her job seriously. She was new to her position and was still growing to the role. Only reason why I say she was bad, because usually such a person IMHO if they make mistakes those mistakes can often be excused, was out of insecurity I've caught her lying (willfully) and doing a few boundary violations that were too excessive to be excused. She did, however, actually give a big damn about trying her best, and I hope that this person grew out of those insecurities I mentioned. I think she would've because those that actually give a damn usually eventually learn from their mistakes and improve.
 
Last edited:
Our faculty cannot moonlight without the consent of the chairman. Is it so wrong that residents cannot moonlight without the consent of the graduate medical education committee? If someone is underperforming, they should be focused on an educational plan of correction. Allowing moonlighting in the context of an underperforming trainee is unconscionable in my opinion. I do grant you that > 50% on the PRITE is a strange bar given that it would mathematically exclude half of residents and is of questionable validity in determining very much about overall resident performance. It is one of the few objective things that can be used. I bet that most training directors would use other criteria if anyone could think of what that would look like.

Agree. If a resident was doing poorly, taking away moonlighting is a completely viable option. I too am at an institution where faculty are not allowed to moonlight without the department's permission.

You rightfully acknowledge that the PRITE is a poor standard.

I would also add that a program shouldn't be imposing some new rule out of the blue that can seriously screw with a resident's ability to keep their family fed that the then-applicant didn't know about.
 
And probably even more so in a locale where psychiatrists' services aren't valued, as was sadly the case for you.

OPD, your presence on SDN is one reason I actually have some confidence in academic psychiatry. I appreciate your fair-minded attitude about so many issues. And I do think it makes a difference where one's locale is. In the training setting, I sort of felt like my PD was doing to us what I felt I was doing to my patients: sending them back out on the street with nothing but a phony line that never addressed the real issues.

For now my real gripe, quite honestly, is with the fourth year of residency, and that does relate to moonlighting. PGY4s shouldn't have to moonlight when essentially they're just doing the same thing they did the three previous years, but more efficiently and at a savings to the institution. I don't even see why psychiatry residency is four years long. I was exposed to very little new in my final year of residency. Maybe other programs offer more electives. But even then, the purpose of residency is not to offer people an "array of options;" it's to train residents in what is required to work safely. Electives aren't "required" by definition. So couldn't the fourth year be cut out?

Plus, HALF of all residents in the country are going to be in the bottom 50% on the PRITE. If they can't moonlight, does that imply they also shouldn't work after graduation? Should they not graduate? What the heck are these PDs implying?
 
Our faculty cannot moonlight without the consent of the chairman. Is it so wrong that residents cannot moonlight without the consent of the graduate medical education committee? If someone is underperforming, they should be focused on an educational plan of correction. Allowing moonlighting in the context of an underperforming trainee is unconscionable in my opinion. .

I imagine the rationale for requiring consent for faculty to moonlight is entirely different than it is for requiring consent for residents to moonlight. Faculty are assumed NOT to be underperforming and don't need to prove themselves with an annual PRITE. I would imagine that faculty need approval because the institutional might demand a cut of their moonlighting profits. At least, at private, non-academic hospitals that sometimes is how it works. So no, I don't follow your argument that by extension, residents should require approval of the GME, because I don't think the GME should get a cut of residents' moonlighting pay, if that's what's going on with faculty.

Any physician with a full medical license can work outside their residency program. They can QUIT and go work at an urgent care place doing non-psychiatric primary care. Remember that. I don't see why that's "unconscionable." In fact I think it's unconscionable that you want so badly to interfere with someone else's ability to earn money using their medical license. No they may not be board certified or the president of the APA or whatever or have the PDs stamp of approval but they're still a bona fide MD.

Medical training in this country is getting way too filled with red tape and ridiculous meaningless overtraining and people around here seem way to happy to see it happen, and I fail to see how the health of Americans is benefitting from it. Has anyone proven that red tape in residency prevents bad doctors from working or helps create good doctors? Show me some proven health measures that show it. Half of my residency was about "work life balance" and "professionalism" anyway. Good grief. I learned more from moonlighting than from any of that crap.
 
The “exploitation” of residents is a very long tradition and it is slowly receding. Some programs work residents harder than others, but most of the very best training programs make their residents work fairly hard. It would be great in everyone’s opinion to be able to pay residents more so that they wouldn’t be so pressured to moonlight. Resident pay is surprisingly consistent across different systems nationally. Ultimately, I guess this is because programs can find people who need the training enough to do it for the pay that is offered. I don’t think that PDs are particularly responsible for this situation. At least I have never heard of any that have a hidden war chest to draw from and pay residents any more than they get.
 
Notdeadyet I am glad you are such a happy camper but that doesn't make your views more valid than mine. I happen to be cynical and jaded for a reason -- because I have had a bad experience.
I'm truly sorry you've had a bad experience. Residency is a long slog if you're not enjoying it. You're almost done, right? I'm hoping you're seeing brighter skies ahead.

I am a happy camper, but an extremely critical one. The reason I camp happily isn't because I wear rose-colored glasses, am over-medicated, or drink deep from the Kool-Aid. It's because I came to psychiatry late and have actually worked in these other industries that folks tend to think must be so much better.

Residency as a job is a bad sell and tough to stomach. Who wants to work long, sometimes unsociable hours for $40-50K/year?

But residency as an investment (which by definition involves current blood/sweat/tears for building a better future for yourself), is just plain hard to beat.

That said, I'm happy with the program I'm at. I feel reasonably respected. I feel like my thoughts and objections are listened to before they're accepted or rejected. The painful or uncomfortable parts of my training are explained transparently in a way that seems truthful and logical. If that wasn't the case, taking the delayed gratification view would be a lot harder.

I understand your experience has been more negative and I'm sorry for that. And I'm glad you post. I think most psych residencies are pretty good places to be, and that's why you see a fair number of happy posters on SDN. But there are also some truly miserable places to be. I'm glad that folks who have had a negative residency experience are still willing to post so that folks get a good spectrum of ideas.
 
Last edited:
The "exploitation" of residents is a very long tradition and it is slowly receding.
I realize I'm old school, but I have trouble reconciling $40K/year with long hours for four years followed by a $150K-$350K/year job for life as what pops into my head when I think "exploitation."

I definitely have bad days, but when I take a deep breath, I just can't get outraged about low resident wages. Unlike the case of gibits (autocorrect off), which by his description sounds like a sandbagging with regards to his ability to moonlight, we all knew exactly what we were getting into. In fact, we had pretty good insight into hours and salary 8 years in advance, which is pretty unheard of outside the military or the most civil of service. The only difference between the job I have now and the one I expected when I started medical school is that residents earn more money and work less hours now than they did when I started.

It flat out sucks to be an intern sometimes. Most of us have had rotations where we worked well over 80 hours per week. This happens for about six months max. The other half of intern year, the 60 hour week is the exception to the rule for most. Beyond intern year, average hours seem to be 40-50 hours for the easier programs, around 50 hours/week for many programs, and pushing 60 at the hardest of programs. Even at the programs that have the reputation for being true workhorses, I doubt many of them would have a 60 hour workweek if you averaged PGY2-4. But again, it isn't hard getting visibility into which program is which with a little initiative and research.

Though it sure feels like a lot when you're doing it, 50 hours per week is on the light side for a professional career. Lawyers would kill for this. Programmers would kill children for this. Business consultants would wipe out entire cultures. Dentists, granted, would call it a real grinder.

The counter-argument to any reassessment of the hours always is the money, but again, this is something we knew from day 1. It's incredibly tough to get off of a 60 or 70 hour workweek (which ended on Sunday mid-morning) and realize that although you have a day(ish) off, you don't have enough money to go see a (matinee) movie. That truly sucks. It's particularly hard without a sense of delayed gratification. It's worth remembering that one of the lowest performing residents from one of the lowest regarded residency programs in psychiatry still has a $150K/year job waiting for him, if he is so inclined. The lowest performing law student from one of the lowest regarded law schools? He's now a barrista. The lowest performing business student from one of the lowest regarded business schools? She's interning to become a barrista.

And that's just cash, a huge motivator for some.

For others, there's the fact that psychiatry is one of the few fields of medicine you can still set up a shingle for yourself in many markets without a huge cash outlay and a sense of sheer masochism.

For others, there's the fact that you can throw a dart at a map of the United States and feel fairly confident you can find (or create) a job within a livable commute of wherever it lands (the middle of the Great Lakes doesn't count).

For others, there's the fact that your basic psychiatry residency can open the door to a world of practice opportunities. Private practice psychotherapy or psychopharmacology. Inpatient public sector. Outpatient public outreach. Hospital-based consulting. Addiction. Prisons. Veterans. Etc. etc. etc.

For others yet, there's the very tangible benefit of after a long hard day knowing that you weren't making widgets, you weren't selling potato chips, and you weren't moving zeroes on a spreadsheet. At the end of each day there's a particular satisfaction coming from either having helped people or (on the bad ones) at least having had the opportunity to.

Residency can be sucky. It can be particularly exploitive and sucky at the malignant programs. But at the end of the day, the prospects are far greater for every psych resident than for most. Earning $43K/year sounds like absolute peanuts (though it's actually the average U.S. working wage), and it can be demoralizing to do the math and figure out your hourly when you're crushing 70 hour weeks ($22 an hour or somesuch?). But for mental health-sake, it needs to be viewed as what it is, which is an investment. And it's one that pays off higher and more reliably than almost any other use of four years. And if you truly want to become a psychiatrist, it's all to do the best job out there.

No one likes coughing up the down-payment on a house either, but it beats the $hit out of renting the rest of your life. Hang in there, everybody. As they say, it gets better.
 
Last edited:
The lowest performing law student from one of the lowest regarded law schools? He's now a barrista. The lowest performing business student from one of the lowest regarded business schools? She's interning to become a barrista
This is actually really optimistic. You may be overestimating the lowest rated law and business schools.

And I liked your long rambling post. Or at least what I read of it.
 
billypilgrim37 said:
This is actually really optimistic. You may be overestimating the lowest rated law and business schools.

And I liked your long rambling post. Or at least what I read of it.
The danger of being too busy to edit.

I read a review article of the return-on-investment of going to different tiers of law and business schools. Scary stuff...
 
When you look back in the rear view mirror at your training once you have finished. The quality of your skills gained during training will have so much more to do with your opinion than your pay or workload.

Training sucks, but psychiatry sucks a lot less than most and the rewards are proportionally not so off the mark as some might suggest looking at the suffering vs. reward ratio.

I think that liking psychiatry is more essential for people going into psychiatry than other specialties, but if you are blessed with the ability to like it, you can hit pay dirt better than most of your medical school classmates. No amount of pay is worth being miserable unless it is temporary, but residency is temporary all be it at the end of a long road.

Trust me, you want to be in a field that pays well that isn't easy to get into. Medical school is the definition of this, and psychiatry is not. You are much better off having these crossroads in this order than the other way around.

Ask yourself if during your misery are you having any high yield learning? If not, I suggest to you that what you are learning may shape your post graduate targets for jobs and this is the most invaluable lesson learned. Don't be too sure too early about not liking psychiatry. It is poorly taught in most schools and most programs don't let you see the most likely practice locations (outpatient) until you are half way through.

There is light at the end of the tunnel, but tunnels are not nice places to be in.

Gosh, I have to stop pontificating. I'm not sure I like the way I sound, but the pessimism requires me to reframe a little bit. I am really happy to be a psychiatrist and most of you will be too.
 
Last edited:
For others, there's the fact that you can throw a dart at a map of the United States and feel fairly confident you can find (or create) a job within a livable commute of wherever it lands (the middle of the Great Lakes doesn't count).
One of our recent grads does live on an island (in the summer) and commutes by boat. 😀

For others yet, there's the very tangible benefit of after a long hard day knowing that you weren't making widgets, you weren't selling potato chips, and you weren't moving zeroes on a spreadsheet.
Or worst of all, a Drug Rep. :naughty:
 
Read the OP again and I think psych2014 is screwed either way. He probably doesn't have 50% as a third year and by the time he gets the PRITE score back he can only moonlight for what, 3 months? Is he really willing to kick up a big fuss over that? I personally don't think it's worth it.
 
Thanks a lot for taking your valuable time to comment. This journey requires encouragement, perspective, and information. All 3 are here in abundance.

*Has this reached “stickey status”?

Just wanted to comment on/reply to a few of the comments above.
1. *Key issue: I do not consider my program malignant. My PD is young, 3-4 years out of residency, and ambitious. This to me is a bad combination. Too young to have empathy for many situations in adult life, and the ambition gives the catalyst to make decisions that are inconsiderate of others.
2. I’ve determined to get the 50% on the PRITE. Percentile, if it were applied within my class, would mean ½ of closest friends would not be able to moonlight, because I scored 1 point higher than them. Is that right?
3. It’s pathetic of me to have to study hard to get 50% on a test that others barely study for and get 80% or better. My PD and his class happen to be these people. He brags about it. This is sad.
4. I like the guy who went under/over his PD’s head to provide for his family. F you comes naturally to me.
5. REGARDING WARNING MEDICAL STUDENTS, MY PROGRAM NAME:
My best advice is just to be aware that programs can hire new PD’s, and realize that nothing stays the same. Pray/hope for the best, plan for the worst. I guess I could have read the writing and asked “how long have the recent PD’s been in position”. I would have found out. I get mesmerized by shiny cars and other things that I want, like a simple life for my family. That mesmerization effect stole some of my brains. But then again I could not have foreseen the future change in PD’s.

6. Regarding written policies?
My program has a handbook, and a yearly 1 page contract, which says you’ll abide by the handbook. The handbook mentions moonlighting restrictions if it is inhibiting learning. So PD is interpreting 50% or less on PRITE to be inhibited. *Apparently that’s his prerogative, or so I’m gathering, granted by his God-like power of naysaying to future employers, or blocking the finishing of my 4th year.
Is this right? No. Is he Evil or malignant? Probably not. As I said, just young and ambitious.
 
Top