Psychiatry as an alternative to Clinical Psych?

[DD214_DOC]

I overheard something I found rather interesting at a Psi Chi meeting a few months ago. A new inductee was conversing with another about her future career plans. She said, "I decided to just go to medical school and specialize in Psychiatry, since it's easier than getting into a Clinical Psych program."

Although I am a psychology major, I have elected the med school route anyways and haven't bothered looking into any clinical psych programs. Are they really, on average, more difficult than admission to medical school?

On an off-note, I have always though that the mental health hierarchy should be headed by clinical psychologists and not psychiatrists. Don't they receive much more specialized training in therapy? Just opening a can of worms to discuss.

By the way, I didn't realize my question in another forum would give birth to this one

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[cici]

Originally posted by JKDMed
I overheard something I found rather interesting at a Psi Chi meeting a few months ago. A new inductee was conversing with another about her future career plans. She said, "I decided to just go to medical school and specialize in Psychiatry, since it's easier than getting into a Clinical Psych program."

Although I am a psychology major, I have elected the med school route anyways and haven't bothered looking into any clinical psych programs. Are they really, on average, more difficult than admission to medical school?

On an off-note, I have always though that the mental health hierarchy should be headed by clinical psychologists and not psychiatrists. Don't they receive much more specialized training in therapy? Just opening a can of worms to discuss.

By the way, I didn't realize my question in another forum would give birth to this one

I have also heard that getting into a clinical psychology program is statistically more difficult than getting into medicine. I guess it's cos' most programs will only accept 6 to 8 people out of several hundred applications.......the % is just lower than the admission rate of medical schools.

 

[MacGyver]

Clinical Psych is DEFINITELY harder to get into than med school.

The acceptance rate for med schools is like 50%.

Psychiatry is an easy residency to match into also--very noncompetitive

I dont know why you feel the need to put clinical psychs ahead of psyhiatrists though. Its a team effort, both can head departments and both can contribute in different ways.

I look at it like this:

Clinical Psych: The gold standard for non-medical therapy, but no training in pharmacology and the basic science principles behind the medicines.

Psychiatry: excellent training in meds/pharmacology, and slight coverage of psychotherapy stuff.

A psychiatrist can learn the psychotherapy stuff and be licensed to do it just like a clinical psych; whereas clinical psychs will have a hard time with the pharma stuff because they cant be licensed to practice medicine like a psychiatrist (well, except for New Mexico)

If a psychiatrist chooses to, he can do everything and more than a clinical psych can do. Conversely, clinical psychs wont be able to expand into medical treatments, so as a whole I'd say that psychiatry is the more flexible of the two professions

 

[cici]

Originally posted by MacGyver
Clinical Psych is DEFINITELY harder to get into than med school.

The acceptance rate for med schools is like 50%.

Psychiatry is an easy residency to match into also--very noncompetitive

I dont know why you feel the need to put clinical psychs ahead of psyhiatrists though. Its a team effort, both can head departments and both can contribute in different ways.

I look at it like this:

Clinical Psych: The gold standard for non-medical therapy, but no training in pharmacology and the basic science principles behind the medicines.

Psychiatry: excellent training in meds/pharmacology, and slight coverage of psychotherapy stuff.

A psychiatrist can learn the psychotherapy stuff and be licensed to do it just like a clinical psych; whereas clinical psychs will have a hard time with the pharma stuff because they cant be licensed to practice medicine like a psychiatrist (well, except for New Mexico)

If a psychiatrist chooses to, he can do everything and more than a clinical psych can do. Conversely, clinical psychs wont be able to expand into medical treatments, so as a whole I'd say that psychiatry is the more flexible of the two professions

I agree with you that I don't see the need for 1 profession to head the other. However, clinical psychology is not as inflexible (or easily replaceable by psychiatry) as you think:

1. We don't spend 7 years in school just to learn how to therapy. Research and assessment are big parts of our training (things that could be lacking in training in psychiatry). In these areas, clinical psychologists can do anything that psychiatrists can't do.

2. Our area of practice extends beyond mental health. A lot of us do not (or do not plan to) work exclusively with mental health patients. We can work with medical patients, in the educational system, government, industry......our training gives us a lot of flexibility in deciding which population we wanna serve.

3. Many of us not only are competent to see adults, we also have specialized training to see kids, elderly, couples, family........early on in our graduate training.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: it's not just about meds / pharmacology when it comes to healthcare. It's not just about therapy / mental health when it comes to clinical psychology either. Some may feel that we're at a disadvantage cos' we don't have the training in medicine, but on the other hand, we have training that other medical professionals do not have.

 

[MacGyver]

Some may feel that we're at a disadvantage cos' we don't have the training in medicine, but on the other hand, we have training that other medical professionals do not have.

Sure you have other training that psychiatrists dont have.

But thats not my point.

My point is that psychiatrists, IF THEY CHOOSE TO, can do everything that a clinical psychologist can do by getting extra training and using it on patients.

Conversely, clinical psychologists cant expand into the realm of prescribing drugs or otherwise giving medical treatments to patients like psychiatrists can. Sure, you could study the pharmacology books, but you wont be able to use that knowledge to direct therapies for patients.

1. A psychiatrist, IF THEY WANT TO AND GET EXTRA TRAINING, can do everything a psychologist can do

2. A psychologist, even if they want to, cant do everything than a psychiatrist can do by state law/regulation (with the notable exception of New Mexico)

 

[cici]

Originally posted by MacGyver
Sure you have other training that psychiatrists dont have.

But thats not my point.

My point is that psychiatrists, IF THEY CHOOSE TO, can do everything that a clinical psychologist can do by getting extra training and using it on patients.

Conversely, clinical psychologists cant expand into the realm of prescribing drugs or otherwise giving medical treatments to patients like psychiatrists can. Sure, you could study the pharmacology books, but you wont be able to use that knowledge to direct therapies for patients.

1. A psychiatrist, IF THEY WANT TO AND GET EXTRA TRAINING, can do everything a psychologist can do

2. A psychologist, even if they want to, cant do everything than a psychiatrist can do by state law/regulation (with the notable exception of New Mexico)

What I'm saying is: psychiatrists can't do EVERYTHING psychologists do either, because psychologists are not just doing therapy, or treating patients. We're doing assessments (where certain instruments could only be used by psychologists), we're doing research, we're doing all kinds of things that go beyond the mental health field. Can ALL psychiatrists do that?

You may argue that "yeah they can, if they get another research degree, study psychology etc", but you don't think clinical psychologists can go to medical school to get that "extra training" in medicine? Seems like a couple of us on this forum are doing exactly that. You may say that they're in a minority, but this shows that your argument may not be entirely true.

 

[PublicHealth]

Originally posted by cici
I agree with you that I don't see the need for 1 profession to head the other. However, clinical psychology is not as inflexible (or easily replaceable by psychiatry) as you think:

1. We don't spend 7 years in school just to learn how to therapy. Research and assessment are big parts of our training (things that could be lacking in training in psychiatry). In these areas, clinical psychologists can do anything that psychiatrists can't do.

2. Our area of practice extends beyond mental health. A lot of us do not (or do not plan to) work exclusively with mental health patients. We can work with medical patients, in the educational system, government, industry......our training gives us a lot of flexibility in deciding which population we wanna serve.

3. Many of us not only are competent to see adults, we also have specialized training to see kids, elderly, couples, family........early on in our graduate training.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: it's not just about meds / pharmacology when it comes to healthcare. It's not just about therapy / mental health when it comes to clinical psychology either. Some may feel that we're at a disadvantage cos' we don't have the training in medicine, but on the other hand, we have training that other medical professionals do not have.

Don't forget that clinical psychologists make about $50,000/year while psychiatrists make between $120,000 and $200,000/year. Yes, the job descriptions may simulataneously vary and overlap, but there are some significant differences in lifestyle between the two professions that should not be overlooked.

With regard to comprehensive behavioral healthcare, a psychiatrist is a MUCH better person to have assessing and treating you, because s/he understands the physiology underlying mental illness (e.g., somatoform disorders). God bless psychiatric patients getting treated by PhDs in New Mexico.

Still, I believe that clinical psychologists are a vital part of the healthcare and research community. Unfortunately, overwhelming financial gains from pharmaceutical companies will continue to bolster psychopharmacology's reign over psychotherapy, even though the latter is what patients need the most. Just take a look at the "new" types of therapies that are popping up -- vocational therapy, family therapy, etc. It's an exciting and tumultuous time in behavioral healthcare. I'm eager to see what the future holds.

 

[Sanman]

Well, first off, I believe the average for Doctoral psychologists is 65,000-80,000 and I've seen six figure averages for clinical neuropsychologists in private practice. Also,for something like ADD or LD I would think that a neuropsychologist is equally well trained in the physiology and better equipped to diagnose such a disease. In fact, never really understood how a neurologist or psychiatrist could accurately diagnose it. Second, this is a moot discussion. I don't believe that either profession will ever want to go through all the training neccessary to master all of those skills.

 

[PublicHealth]

Originally posted by Sanman
Well, first off, I believe the average for Doctoral psychologists is 65,000-80,000 and I've seen six figure averages for clinical neuropsychologists in private practice. Also,for something like ADD or LD I would think that a neuropsychologist is equally well trained in the physiology and better equipped to diagnose such a disease. In fact, never really understood how a neurologist or psychiatrist could accurately diagnose it. Second, this is a moot discussion. I don't believe that either profession will ever want to go through all the training neccessary to master all of those skills.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos056.htm

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos074.htm

Great point about clinical neuropsychologists, although managed care is in the process of chopping those six-figure salaries down quite a bit. How common are clinical neuropsychologists in private practice? It appears as if the trend among professionals in this field has been to secure those hard-to-come-by academic and neurorehabilitation gigs. Given how important clinical neuropsychologists are to the medical profession, it is truly a shame how they are not treated more fairly and respectfully.

Any thoughts?

 

[eddieberetta]

Originally posted by MacGyver
Clinical Psych is DEFINITELY harder to get into than med school.

The acceptance rate for med schools is like 50%.

That does not mean that med school is easier to get into than clin psy. Similar comparisons are also often made between vet and med school. However, there is a lot of self-selection going on. How many people applying to clin psy rocked the MCAT? What is their average GPA corrected for the fact that they were in an undergraduate psychology program? Just becuase a lot of people apply to a program does not necessarily make it competitive.

 

[DD214_DOC]

Ph.D. and Psy.D applicants have to take the GRE. There are also much fewer spots to apply for. Those that do apply and are accepted normally have GPA in the 3.6+ range.

Some people enjoy believing that medical school is the most difficult thing in life to accomplish; this is a gross overestimate. Try getting a slot in flight school in the military. Even worse, try getting air assault in the army. Try a navy seal program. You get the idea.

 

[PublicHealth]

Originally posted by JKDMed
Ph.D. and Psy.D applicants have to take the GRE. There are also much fewer spots to apply for. Those that do apply and are accepted normally have GPA in the 3.6+ range.

Some people enjoy believing that medical school is the most difficult thing in life to accomplish; this is a gross overestimate. Try getting a slot in flight school in the military. Even worse, try getting air assault in the army. Try a navy seal program. You get the idea.

Very true. But the prototypical pre-med's idea of masochism falls WAY short of military training.

 

[DD214_DOC]

When I first entered college, even though I knew I wanted to go to med school, I didn't think I could do it. So I was in a NROTC program and was anticipating becoming a naval aviator. After I realized, "Hey, my grades are good -- I can do this" I left the program.

A few semesters later, I hit organic and became frustrated. I went down to talk to the AFROTC recruiter about becoming a pilot. In the AF, you have to graduate very high in your class with a stellar GPA; preferebly in a scientific field. You have to score high enough on the overall and pilot/nav sections of the AFOQT. (not an easy section of the rest; it's all reading aeronautical gauges and stuff) You have to be within certain height/weight requirements, have excellent vision, and receive good letters of recommendation from an officer in your program. Then you get a shot at maybe getting a seat.

Once you do get a seat, the wash-out rate is high and so is the risk of death or permanent injury. I met the physical and grade requirements, however my major was not in a scientific discipline. Rather than change majors and start over, I decided med school would be easier and put up with ochem

By the way, I will always believe that landing a super-sonic jet fighter on the deck of a moving aircraft carrier at night will always be more difficult than what 70% of physicians do. But I guess I'm biased

 

[Monkeyguts]

Even worse, try getting air assault in the army

Dude, getting air assault in the Army is a piece of cake. Your talking about 10 days vs. 4 years (not including residency). No comparison...take it from somebody whose has done air assault (me).

 

[cici]

Originally posted by eddieberetta
That does not mean that med school is easier to get into than clin psy. Similar comparisons are also often made between vet and med school. However, there is a lot of self-selection going on. How many people applying to clin psy rocked the MCAT? What is their average GPA corrected for the fact that they were in an undergraduate psychology program? Just becuase a lot of people apply to a program does not necessarily make it competitive.

Most (good) clinical psychology programs require an Honours degree in psychology to enter. That means you need to finish a thesis as part of your graduation requirement. Not only you need to have good grades (typically 80% and above.......but usually the final admission criteria are higher than that), you also need to demonstrate competency in research (by having a lot of research experiences and / or publications). This means that we're not talking about a typical "undergraduate psychology program" that's easy and effortless to finish (as implied by you).

I agree with you that "Just becuase a lot of people apply to a program does not necessarily make it competitive." What makes it competitive is the admission criteria and acceptance (selection) rate. Like I said in my previous posts, a typical clinical psychology program receives application from several hundred people; usually only around 6 to 8 applicants will eventually be accepted (in PhD programs; PsyD programs may accept more).

 

[Sanman]

Public Health, its kind of tough to figure out how many neuropsychologists are in private practice. I know of at least a couple that I have seen. I also know one who works for my university, the local medical center and the corrections system. A good number of them make good money from the corrections system. Also, while medical reimbursements are being cut, people who deal with ADD/LD can move more towards educational consulting and seeing referrals from school psychologists so they don't have to take reimbursements for the more medically related procedures. In that way,psychologists are more versatile. Also, I believe the government factors in masters level practitioners on their average salary. It just seems that psychology, though having a lower average salary, has more room for innovative business opportunities. In my highschool, the school psychologist was a doctorate in school and clinical psych. He made a six figure salary for a six hour day ten months out of the year. From what I have seen the pay for them is equally good in private practice. I haven't seen a lot of doctors make that kind of money for those hours. Secondly, concerning how easy it is as an undergrad psych major, that depends on the person. I know a person who is a biochem major and does well, but had trouble in a learning and behavior class we took. I was just the opposite and had more trouble in gen chem than a 300 level pych class that was clearly more complex. Different people have different strengths and weaknesses so can't just assume that it is eaiser. At my school, you can get aroud taking tough cousres like physiological or developmental psych. However, then u wouldn't be eligible for application to grad school. I suggest you keep more of an open mind eddie.

 

[PublicHealth]

Originally posted by Sanman
Public Health, its kind of tough to figure out how many neuropsychologists are in private practice. I know of at least a couple that I have seen. I also know one who works for my university, the local medical center and the corrections system. A good number of them make good money from the corrections system. Also, while medical reimbursements are being cut, people who deal with ADD/LD can move more towards educational consulting and seeing referrals from school psychologists so they don't have to take reimbursements for the more medically related procedures. In that way,psychologists are more versatile. Also, I believe the government factors in masters level practitioners on their average salary. It just seems that psychology, though having a lower average salary, has more room for innovative business opportunities. In my highschool, the school psychologist was a doctorate in school and clinical psych. He made a six figure salary for a six hour day ten months out of the year. From what I have seen the pay for them is equally good in private practice. I haven't seen a lot of doctors make that kind of money for those hours. Secondly, concerning how easy it is as an undergrad psych major, that depends on the person. I know a person who is a biochem major and does well, but had trouble in a learning and behavior class we took. I was just the opposite and had more trouble in gen chem than a 300 level pych class that was clearly more complex. Different people have different strengths and weaknesses so can't just assume that it is eaiser. At my school, you can get aroud taking tough cousres like physiological or developmental psych. However, then u wouldn't be eligible for application to grad school. I suggest you keep more of an open mind eddie.

Great post, Sanman.

School psychologists can easily make a good living. However, mid-level practictioners (e.g., M.A.'s in school psychology), as you rightly observed, are slowly making their presence felt in school and clinical psychology. So where does that leave clinical psych PhDs? In my experience, they end up taking on research jobs, where they spend approximately 80% of their time on research/teaching, and 20% on clinical assessments/psychotherapy. With the diversification of neurologic disorders (e.g., dementia subtypes, traumatic brain injuries, etc.), it's pretty clear that clinical neuropsychologists are necessary in healthcare with respect to their ability to differentially evaluate complicated neurologic and neuropsychiatric disorders. Defining their purpose within the context of managed care, however, is becoming increasingly more complex.

PH

 

[DD214_DOC]

I have come to the conclusion that getting into medical school isn't difficult -- it's just time consuming. At least, for me.

 

[PublicHealth]

Originally posted by heelpain
Psychology phd's in private practice make tons of money! The ones I know have luxurious lifestyles. Many have beautiful and expensive homes. A couple have their own work out gyms at home. Where I live, most are making in the $100.00 range.

I hope you mean $100,000!

 

[Sanman]

Public, you beat me to it!

Anyway, I do believe you're at least partially right about clinical psychologists. Many people who go to the larger, more expensive Psy.D schools are already being directed towards things like clinical health and neuropsych so they can pay off their school debts. The thing about psychology training is that its a double-edged sword. Unlike medical training, all kinds of psychologists can go into all dofferent kinds of psychological fields by gaining a little extra training, however it also leads to more overlap in the field and problems like this if any one sector is squeezed with repayment. For example, school psychologists are fighting to be aloud more access to neuropsychological training. This would lead to a decline in the need for clinical neuropsychs since school psychologists refer ADD/LD kids to them if initial screenings are positive for these problems. As for doctoral school psycs being squeezed I don't believe its a problem. Master's level practitioners have always outnumbered doctorates in the field, but the rich school districts usually opt for Doctorates as do districts in need of supvisory positions and private practice firms. And these places are where the real money is. However, I'm sure even clinical psychologists in affluent areas won't be squeezed out, as heelpain alluded.

 

[Sanman]

well as far as medical vs. nonmedical training goes, In my undergrad experience it seems that pre-med stuff isn't harder, theres just a lot more busy work and weeding out that goes on. It seemes like its that way in grad training too. I know if med schoolers are smarter, but they seem to suffer mre than others in their training, which begs the question if they're as smart as they think they are to be doing all that work!

 

[Kimya]

Great to see this forum, by the way.

I think it's also important to consider what will happen after your training. If you go into psychiatry but want to do a good bulk of psychotherapy, for example, sure, you can do that theoretically. However, realistically, who is going to reimburse you for that when there are other professionals who can do that for less? Especially as managed care is making more and more inroads into psychiatry? Sure, you can open your own practice, but then there is also overhead, etc... So unless you are independently wealthy, that's something to consider as well.

 

[MacGyver]

Originally posted by heelpain
Med students are not smarter than non-med. students. Intelligence does not equal career choice.

Also, there are physicians who can't do math to get into an ugrad engineering program. I know of several.

Now, I've spoken to police officers who have engineering degrees. They are no less intelligent than doctors. Even those without engineering degrees.

Career choice does not equal intelligence.

Well I know thats the PC thing to say, but is it really true?

Are doctors no more intelligent than day laborers? What about secretaries? What about cooks?

I think there are some correlations to be made across professions. Engineering and medicine are probably a wash, but that doesnt mean that the average intelligence is the same in every single career field

 

[DD214_DOC]

I think it's the other way around: med students and physicians want to believe they're, on average, above the norm for intelligence. This is a biased assumption.

The truth is that getting into medical school is not difficult. I don't think it is, and many other people don't think it is. I haven't studied much at all, I never studied for organic. While I wasn't the top of the class in OChem I, I still passed with a relatively decent grade.

The "pre-med" curriculum is full of more busy work than intellectually challenging material. I tend to find I use my brain more for courses in philosophy than I have for courses in biology, chemistry, physics, etc. The difficulty in these courses comes from the large investment of time they take, as well as the discipline required to spend so much time on what many may find an uninteresting and relatively droll topic.

I have met many, many blue-collar workers who would put many physicians to shame intellectually. Anyone can regurgitate anatomy and the different reactions and processes of biochemistry given enough time to absorb the material. Regurgitation is not a sign of intelligence, it is a sign of a disciplined, studious person. But it seems the studious people get the credit for being intelligent.

There is an old friend of mine from high school with whom I still associate. Both of us never studied in high school nor really cared to. He broke 1300 on his SAT without even trying. I was well over 1200 with equal preparation. We ran a business designing websites and computer systems at 14. For our eight-grade physical science project of building a better mouse trap, we tore apart an old nintendo system and used the power supply to power an electrical mouse trap we designed, complete with a circuit board, timers, diodes, and a LED power switch. Everyone else had some mindless junk made from rubber bands. We were programming computers at 16. Routinely, we debated complex ethical and scientific issues with teachers, much to their surprise.

The point of this "gloating"? I'm in college, he works at a convenience store. Another similar friend of mine is enlisted in the Air Force. Why? Because they CHOSE to. Both could easily spank a seasoned physician in intelligence. Just because people aren't physicians or scientists doesn't mean they're below the intelligence of these respective careers, they just made different choices.

Some of the dumbest people I have met have GPA's above 3.6. They could tell you the intricacies of an organic reaction, but god help them if you tried to discuss a political issue.

You get the idea. Getting into medical school just means you had good grades and studied a lot. That's about it.

 

[MacGyver]

come on JKD, you know as well as I do that personal anecdotes are worthless.

we can all come up with a thousand examples of how docs are smarter than others or how others outshine docs--personal stories mean NOTHING.

Since there are no studies on this subject, its impossible to state with any confidence one way or the other.

But I highly doubt that intelligence is the same across all professions, across all jobs, across all careers.

 

[Sanman]

Wow, I must have been drunk on that last post, my grammar was horrible. Anyway, pc or not I don't think that people who are doctors are inherently more intelligent than people who belong other professions. I agree with JKD that they're more diligent in being able to finish the large volume of work assigned. Everyone here is missing one point; ambition. There's a reason almost all med-schoolers are type-A personalities. Some people are happy w/out the responsibility of med-school. I have an extremely intelligent friend who is afraid of responsibility. Others don't want to be challenged or are financially strapped. Is the average doctor smarter than the average brick-layer; possibly. Is the average doctor more ambitious than the average brick-layer; almost definitely.

 

[nanosomic]

I think JKD you are underestimating the difficulty it takes to get into med school and eventually being a physician. Firstly, premed students do a lot of thinking and they not just study a lot to make good grades. Why do you think some people go to psychology? it is because they find the road to med school very, very hard ( I am not trying to say psychology is easier). All I am saying is premeds do think and for most premeds they are above average intelligence. Most premeds have higher non-science GPA than science GPA. So how can premeds be lost in politics, philosophy,etc? I agree with you though that one's career does not necessarily indicates one's intelligence.

 

[MacGyver]

Good grief you people are ridiculous and need to learn how to critically read.

1. Did I say that doctors are ALWAYS smarter than other people? NO.

2. Did I say that theres a 100% correlation between intelligence and career? NO.

Stop attributing these statements to me which I never claimed.

I'm talking about AVERAGES and statistical differences, not 1:1 correlations and conclusive statements about every single ****ing person in the profession.

I'm saying, that, ON AVERAGE, doctors are smarter than people in MOST, not ALL, other professions. There is no freaking way you are going to tell me that the average intelligence of a population of garbage disposal workers is the same AVERAGE intelligence of a population of physicians.

 

[cici]

Originally posted by MacGyver
Good grief you people are ridiculous and need to learn how to critically read.

1. Did I say that doctors are ALWAYS smarter than other people? NO.

2. Did I say that theres a 100% correlation between intelligence and career? NO.

Stop attributing these statements to me which I never claimed.

I'm talking about AVERAGES and statistical differences, not 1:1 correlations and conclusive statements about every single ****ing person in the profession.

I'm saying, that, ON AVERAGE, doctors are smarter than people in MOST, not ALL, other professions. There is no freaking way you are going to tell me that the average intelligence of a population of garbage disposal workers is the same AVERAGE intelligence of a population of physicians.

There is indeed research showing that Wechsler IQ is related to occupational status. Normative data of the WAIS show that people with graduate training are smarter than those with only undergraduate training......but people who can make it to college are also smarter than high school grads / people with clerical or sales jobs.

However, physicians are not the only one at the top of this hierarchy though. I think this is the message we're trying to get across -- that yes, physicians are "smart" ("SMART" DEFINED AS A HIGH SCORE ON A STANDARDIZED INTELLIGENCE TEST ONLY), but they're not the only group of people that are "smart". People with PhD's, graduate training etc are just as smart, regardless of whether you wanna accept it......intelligence is also a multidimensional construct consisting of abilities besides cognitive ability. If you're limiting your conclusion (that physicians are smarter than most people) to cognitive ability only, it's a valid statement (but requires some modification too). If you're saying that physicians are superior in all the skills that we considered as "intelligent behaviours", it's not a statement that is substantiated by empirical findings.

 

[DD214_DOC]

I think their level of education has more to do with their scores on the test than their actual "intelligence". Remember that IQ tests aren't exactly an accurate assessment of someone's intellect. Intelligence is more than just knowing stuff.

 

[Sanman]

.originally posted by nanosomic Why do you think some people go to psychology? it is because they find the road to med school very, very hard ( I am not trying to say psychology is easier).

Then what are you trying to say? Though its an understandable conclusion. How long does it take to get a PhD, a week or two?

If you believe that doctors are more intelligent than any other group, you be somewhat correct and somewhat incorrect. In general, I would believe that doctors are more adept at the skills used to master academic learning, as are most people who choose to enter any graduate level of study. Perhaps, they have been blessed with great attention spans or a great memory. However, many who truly excel enjoy and are very adept at book learning. That doesn't make them any smarter than other people. It has been shown that good book learners are usually less creative than some other people. Here's another little fact, most millionaires, aka people w/ a NET WORTH of over a million dollars, are not doctors and usually didn't do well in school. Guess what, most people who are successful in non-academic jobs were'nt necessarily terrific students. These people obviously are not stupid seeing a how many have amassed sizable wealth,so perhaps they harbor a different type of intelligence. I wonder if even the most prestigious neurosurgeon would survive having to hustle for a living in the ghetto. Perhaps some would, Ben Carson did, but I'm sure some wouldn't. As far as intelligence tests are concerned, they are somewhat fallable since they are based on education and more educated people would have an edge. For a somewhat different example, an article in a neuropsychology journal brought up the issue of using a french horn as a picture in memory recognition tasks sice many people from poorer neighborhoods w/out music programs never learned about that instrument. The true essence of intelligence, the brain's ability to learn and expound on that learning, is not really testable