successful ODs live in a bubble

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

east

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Messages
180
Reaction score
5
i've been doing a lot of thinking lately regarding how optometry is destroying itself from within. i know it is due to money and power, as is most everything. our "leadership" couldn't care less about the future of optometry and is only interested in keeping their own meager power. i have realized that i have become successful as a younger OD, yet that opportunity is disappearing at an exponential rate. we need to close like 8 schools, it will never happen unless market forces intervene before the entire profession is destroyed. please listen to me prospective ODs, consider alternatives!! this pie is shrinking fast and financial success in optometry is (SADLY) extremely sparse.

reconsider!
 
What can we do? How does this get fixed?
.
 
if you are not in optometry school yet, do a lot of research, and seriously consider another career. unfortunately due to human nature, the problem will get fixed only after a crisis. this is how we as human beings deal with difficult issues. it almost always takes a crisis of large proportion to trigger change. the only hope for optometry is that it implodes on itself while not taking everyone down with it. those that survive will hopefully learn from the mistakes of the past. i hate to be so doom and gloom, i am a successful private practice OD. i do very well, i am out less than 10 years, i practice in a 3500 sq ft professional building that i own, i see a great deal of pathology, i have a very high recapture rate, i am very fortunate, and .....i am the exception to the rule. the rule is pretty much what jason K has been saying. I made it into the life boat!. i know u pre-ods don't like to hear this but your chances of financial success are small.

something that could help tremendously...close about 7-8 OD schools right now. this will never happen. money and power, and whatever it takes to keep it, is driving the profession now.
 
Last edited:
What do optometry students do? drop out?
 
no don't drop out. but you should already have a plan during first year as to how you are going to survive the existing and growing calamity. i had a plan before i sat my ass down for my first class in optometry school. as a side note, nothing was given to me, i have no relatives in optometry, and no money in the family. anyway, it was amazing to me how many of my classmates in school just began to think about post graduation on their last rotation in 4th year.
 
no don't drop out. but you should already have a plan during first year as to how you are going to survive the existing and growing calamity. i had a plan before i sat my ass down for my first class in optometry school. as a side note, nothing was given to me, i have no relatives in optometry, and no money in the family. anyway, it was amazing to me how many of my classmates in school just began to think about post graduation on their last rotation in 4th year.

Can you share your plan?
 
i've got a better idea...you share with me your plan, and i will let you know what i think. your previous post is emblematic of part of the problem.
 
I've been thinking about this problem a lot lately too. I'm almost finished with my second year in a long time established program, so I feel like finishing school outweighs dropping out at this point. My plan so far is to keep my debt as low as possible and to network now as much as possible. OP, do you have any recommendations as far as networking goes? Is it acceptable to just outright call optometrists in the area I want to practice now and sit down to talk with them? I have had nothing given to me either, no ODs in the family, I don't come from money, I definitely had the grades to make it into medical school but not the desire. Just sad because I feel like I've already wasted 2 years and a nice chunk of change on optometry school, but any advice on how to overcome the challenges I know the future of finding a rewarding job as an OD faces would be great.
 
i've got a better idea...you share with me your plan, and i will let you know what i think. your previous post is emblematic of part of the problem.

Fair enough, I don't see myself buying a new practice or starting cold right after graduation since nor I will have the money or the experience. So being an employee will be my only option. I want to do a residency in ocular disease/refractive surgery in hopes of landing a job with an OMD. At this point I am on the Dean's list and hopefully I will do really well on the board exams down the road so I would match. I don't plan on staying in the state that I am going to school at and willing to go where ever the need is.........Now that I think about it I don't really have much of a plan. Its pretty much hopefully I will land a job. I am done.
 
Fair enough, I don't see myself buying a new practice or starting cold right after graduation since nor I will have the money or the experience. So being an employee will be my only option. I want to do a residency in ocular disease/refractive surgery in hopes of landing a job with an OMD. At this point I am on the Dean's list and hopefully I will do really well on the board exams down the road so I would match. I don't plan on staying in the state that I am going to school at and willing to go where ever the need is.........Now that I think about it I don't really have much of a plan. Its pretty much hopefully I will land a job. I am done.
I really don't believe that a residency in disease is worth the time unless you plan to teach, join the VA, etc. You can still work for an OMD. Recent grads have more training than a large segment of the OD population. I, and many who I graduated with, have worked or received offers for medically oriented jobs without doing the residencies. You have to go to where those jobs are. I would argue that being on the medical panels gives you more value than completing a residency.
 
I really don't believe that a residency in disease is worth the time unless you plan to teach, join the VA, etc. You can still work for an OMD. Recent grads have more training than a large segment of the OD population. I, and many who I graduated with, have worked or received offers for medically oriented jobs without doing the residencies. You have to go to where those jobs are. I would argue that being on the medical panels gives you more value than completing a residency.

Thanks, appreciate the advice.
 
I would argue that being on the medical panels gives you more value than completing a residency.

Is it difficult for new grads to get on medical insurance panels? I remember reading somewhere that panels can be "closed" for a certain period of time. Is there some bias against OD's trying to get on insurance panels?

I guess what im really trying to ask is, why is it difficult to get on medical panels?
 
Is it difficult for new grads to get on medical insurance panels? I remember reading somewhere that panels can be "closed" for a certain period of time. Is there some bias against OD's trying to get on insurance panels?

I guess what im really trying to ask is, why is it difficult to get on medical panels?

Access to medical panels is about #27 on the list of reasons that anyone considering optometry should think twice. The profession is dying. I would contend that it's already dead, it just hasn't stopped moving yet. Those of you who are considering optometry had better be ready for some serious reality when you reach your goal of obtaining an OD. Many of you think of this day as the first day of the rest of your life. In reality, it's the first day of your stay in professional prison.
 
the profession isn't dead, it is not in good shape, that's for sure. the problem is corporate sell out, and we have, (or will have soon), about 15 to 20 thousand too many ODs. i think the profession will survive, but it will be after an armageddon, then perhaps a renaissance of sorts. thousands of ODs will move on due to extreme oversupply. those that are the strongest will adapt and survive. sounds bad huh...that's cause it is.
 
Well, in the future, all those walking dead zombies will need someone to refer them out for Cataracts srx
 
Well, in the future, all those walking dead zombies will need someone to refer them out for Cataracts srx

i'm not sure if that was sarcasm directed at my post, but the profession is in real trouble.
 
Well, in the future, all those walking dead zombies will need someone to refer them out for Cataracts srx

Zombies actually don't need to see very well, so I doubt they would need a CE/IOL implantation. I think they seek their prey, mainly by smell, and head toward objects/areas that smell like wasted, rotting flesh and/or areas that are rife with bad management, poor decision-making, and horrid personalities.

For this reason, I suspect the AOA headquarters in St Louis will be the first palce they decend when the apocalypse comes. 😀
 
the profession isn't dead, it is not in good shape, that's for sure. the problem is corporate sell out, and we have, (or will have soon), about 15 to 20 thousand too many ODs. i think the profession will survive, but it will be after an armageddon, then perhaps a renaissance of sorts. thousands of ODs will move on due to extreme oversupply. those that are the strongest will adapt and survive. sounds bad huh...that's cause it is.

My understanding is there's lots of OD just staying at (their parent's) home, working minimal hours a week and seeing their student loans just accumulate. They don't have connections to find more work and hence they are massively underemployed. I've heard a lot of US-educated Canadians who return to Canada are in this boat. Someone I know interviewed 20 of "this type" of individual when he set out looking for an OD. He said literally 20, and they were ALL in the same situation.
 
Does your distaste for optometry have anything to do with the actual work the profession entails (i.e. seeing patients, looking at eyes all day, etc.), or is it only because of all the other stuff that's affecting the profession?

Do ophthalmologists or any other physicians have difficulty getting on medical panels too? What about dentists? If none of them have difficulty, then why only optometrists?
 
Last edited:
Does your distaste for optometry have anything to do with the actual work the profession entails (i.e. seeing patients, looking at eyes all day, etc.), or is it only because of all the other stuff that's affecting the profession?

Do ophthalmologists or any other physicians have difficulty getting on medical panels too? What about dentists? If none of them have difficulty, then why only optometrists?

Because we're optometrists.
 
Does your distaste for optometry have anything to do with the actual work the profession entails (i.e. seeing patients, looking at eyes all day, etc.), or is it only because of all the other stuff that's affecting the profession?

Do ophthalmologists or any other physicians have difficulty getting on medical panels too? What about dentists? If none of them have difficulty, then why only optometrists?

i have no distaste for optometry, for the most part i enjoy what i do. i see more pathology than most. my professional services compromise about 65+% of my revenue (unusual). it can get boring at times, but i have had other jobs that get more boring much more quickly.

like i have said, i do well, very well, BUT i promise all of you future ODs this is by far the exception! you might be thinking, well if he can do it, then i can do it. without going into detail...serious sacrifice, a decent amount of luck, and being at the right place at the right time, with the right preparation was instrumental in my success. in a nutshell it wasn't just my will/skill that made it work.

to all new grads/those in school, you can be successful, but don't expect that diploma and license to do anything for your success. nothing is a given in this profession, and nothing can be taken for granted. to those contemplating school...think long and hard!
 
Access to medical panels is about #27 on the list of reasons that anyone considering optometry should think twice. The profession is dying. I would contend that it's already dead, it just hasn't stopped moving yet. Those of you who are considering optometry had better be ready for some serious reality when you reach your goal of obtaining an OD. Many of you think of this day as the first day of the rest of your life. In reality, it's the first day of your stay in professional prison.

Lets say i worked through problems 1-26 and I am now fine with optometry up to that point. Im at 27, medical insurance panels =)

Repost of my original:

Is it difficult for new grads to get on medical insurance panels? I remember reading somewhere that panels can be "closed" for a certain period of time. Is there some bias against OD's trying to get on insurance panels? If so, why? is it specifically due to services they provide or some larger issue.

why is it difficult for optometrists to get on medical panels? what is the actual difficulty? Examples/Scenarios for why one OD might be accepted and another OD might be rejected might be a great help in understanding this issue.
 
Lets say i worked through problems 1-26 and I am now fine with optometry up to that point. Im at 27, medical insurance panels =)

Repost of my original:

Is it difficult for new grads to get on medical insurance panels? I remember reading somewhere that panels can be "closed" for a certain period of time. Is there some bias against OD's trying to get on insurance panels? If so, why? is it specifically due to services they provide or some larger issue.

why is it difficult for optometrists to get on medical panels? what is the actual difficulty? Examples/Scenarios for why one OD might be accepted and another OD might be rejected might be a great help in understanding this issue.

I haven't had much trouble getting on medical panels (although there is an HMO near me that does not credential ODs), but there are some plans that will not credential ODs to provide medical services. Why? mostly these policies are created by MDs and when it comes to ODs these MDs have their heads up their asses. Its really a politically motivated and childish expression of MD hubris. Granted there will sometimes be legit reasons like some closed panels, etc, but just as often there is just a "policy". That's why any willing provider laws are often presented to the legislature in various states, and organized medicine pretty much always opposes them.
 
Lets say i worked through problems 1-26 and I am now fine with optometry up to that point. Im at 27, medical insurance panels =)

Repost of my original:

Is it difficult for new grads to get on medical insurance panels? I remember reading somewhere that panels can be "closed" for a certain period of time. Is there some bias against OD's trying to get on insurance panels? If so, why? is it specifically due to services they provide or some larger issue.

Apparently, you missed KHE's post. It's because we're optometrists. You might think that because you have an almighty OD, that insurance companies will be happy to add you to their panels. They're not. We are not equals with MDs/DOs/DMDs/DDSs/DPMs, despite what you think should be the case. We're optometrists, and because we have an older brother, in the form of ophthalmology, we're regarded as 2nd class citizens - and we always will be.

why is it difficult for optometrists to get on medical panels? what is the actual difficulty?

See above.
 
with the ACA being upheld by SCOTUS, the Harkin amendment could provide some positive changes to access for optometry starting in 2014. i have not had any trouble getting on any medical insurance panel with the exception of some ERISA plans. my understanding is that ERISA plans will also have to play ball after 2014. someone correct me if i am wrong. obviously if the panel is full and closed to any provider already, then that is a different story, but anti-discrimination when following scope of practice on open panels is directly written into the ACA. No?
 
Last edited:
with the ACA being upheld by SCOTUS, the Harkin amendment could provide some positive changes to access for optometry starting in 2014. i have not had any trouble getting on any medical insurance panel with the exception of some ERISA plans. my understanding is that ERISA plans will also have to play ball after 2014. someone correct me if i am wrong. obviously if the panel is full and closed to any provider already, then that is a different story, but anti-discrimination when following scope of practice on open panels is directly written into the ACA. No?

The problem with the ACA is, no one, not even the people who wrote it, know what it is. If you read it, it's full of exceptions, confusing "ifs," and back door rules for elites who don't want to participate. There are too many to count.

From what I can see, the ACA is created to "reduce costs" to the federal government, not the end user, and certainly not providers. There will be no shortage of codes that will be changed from unilateral to bilateral with no fee adjustment (already happened), fee reductions for multiple procedures (already happened), and codes that will be changed quietly to "one time only" (also already happening - patients will just have pay for it themselves after the first claim), all in order to reduce costs for the government. When it comes down to it, we're all going to see our reimbursements cut, and cut, and cut again. And then when the program runs out of money, as it is sure to do, we'll be cut some more. No worries, though, because we'll just be asked to do more "red tape" healthcare, to "increase efficiency and improve patient care." More work for less money.

If I were still relying on optometry as my income source, I'd be trying to figure out some way to get out of the insurance game entirely, and go to cash only. With all of the headaches that are sure to come, particularly with medicare and medicaid, it simply won't be worth the effort and expense, in my opinion.

So, I hope everyone reading this realizes that when they voted for Obama, and thought they were voting for "healthcare reform," they were voting for nothing of the sort. They voted for a tax that was designed to reduce the government's tab, not the private citizens'. It'll all come out in the wash in a few months, particularly when people realize that Obama was not quite honest when he said, "If you like your plan, you can keep it." He forgot to mention that if your employer doesn't want to keep the plan, he/she doesn't have to, and probably won't. Ooopps.
 
just so you know where i'm coming from, hate the ACA, Obama is terrible, and i agree with a lot of what you said. my point was that in the short term, panels are open or will be, and there will still be some money out there. right now i am in the insurance game completely, only about 5% cash, and for now i can't complain. you have to know how to play the game though. i'm not talking about being unethical, but playing the game the way insurance behemoths play the game with you. the vast majority of optometrists have no clue how to get on insurance panels, much less how to properly bill, code and collect.

I know many ODs/OMD who say, "cut reimbursement in half and i'll just see the patient twice as often." You can have a glaucoma patient back every 3 to 4 months and that's standard of care, i don't generally do that unless needed but it is totally legitimate. after talking to OD and OMD friends i usually end up feeling like i'm not bringing the patient back enough.

Insurance is a big game, you can play by the rules eg. you support and defend your testing, procedures, exams, and document the hell out of the chart for everything per medicare's strict rules). yes, even use colored pencil for your 3 inch drawing for extended oph. even though during a medicare audit they have you fax the records??

you can play the game and still make good money for now. i hope to make hay while the sun still shines and then get out. as for how long the sun will shine???
 
Last edited:
just so you know where i'm coming from, hate the ACA, Obama is terrible, and i agree with a lot of what you said. my point was that in the short term, panels are open or will be, and there will still be some money out there. right now i am in the insurance game completely, only about 5% cash, and for now i can't complain. you have to know how to play the game though. i'm not talking about being unethical, but playing the game the way insurance behemoths play the game with you. the vast majority of optometrists have no clue how to get on insurance panels, much less how to properly bill, code and collect.

Insurance is a big game, you can play by the rules, and still make good money for now. i hope to make hay while the sun still shines and then get out. as for how long the sun will shine???

Agreed, but I'm on here to speak to those who won't be out and about for another 5-9 years. By that point, medicare will probably be charging doctors to see patients. There simply isn't enough time to get on the train before it stops, for any of the students on this forum. It'll be moving backwards by the time they get out.
 
Agreed, but I'm on here to speak to those who won't be out and about for another 5-9 years. By that point, medicare will probably be charging doctors to see patients. There simply isn't enough time to get on the train before it stops, for any of the students on this forum. It'll be moving backwards by the time they get out.

I have to agree. i don't want to agree, but any logical person would have to conclude that it is very sad what we have done to our profession, and for that matter our kids future. not just in the small world of optometry, but in this country.
 
I think it is safe to say that for ODs and MDs, it is a generally sinking ship.
 
I think it is safe to say that for ODs and MDs, it is a generally sinking ship.

I don't think it's that bad for MDs. They're still better off than most of the population. Don't ophthalmologists, for instance, make about 3-4 times as much as optometrists?
 
I think it is safe to say that for ODs and MDs, it is a generally sinking ship.

It's all relative though. Maybe the MD cruise-liner is taking on some water, but ODs are in a rubber dinghy that's losing air.
 
I don't think it's that bad for MDs. They're still better off than most of the population. Don't ophthalmologists, for instance, make about 3-4 times as much as optometrists?

Yes they do. Ophthalmologists can do everything an OD can do and more. Thus they are much better prepared to weather the storm. There is even a predicted shortage of OMDs in the future (based on a recent Ophthalmology Management edition). Some people think OD will pick up the slack.......but that's not going to happen since we can't do cataract surgery or refractive surgery, and that's where all the increased business will be coming from (baby boomers). Incidently another thing that hurts ODs pocketbook is that cataract surgery is basically a fine-tuned refractive surgery now. As the old OMD die out, the younger ones are better trained and can get that post op cataract eye to 20/20 near and far. So while the pt used to come back to your office needing glasses, that's not the case many times now and certainly won't be in the future. ODs will miss that income and have no way of making it up by other means.

But hey, we can get that $80 post op co-management fee if you find an OMD that is busy enough not to care about doing it himself and feels sorry for you (while they sell the patients expensive glasses behind your back).

And alot of fat, lazy diabetics (apologizes to the shinny ones that didn't bring it upon themselves) will present to our offices only to be referred out to the retinal OMD never to be seen again.

There are quite a few plans that don't let ODs on the panel........just because they are ODs. This varies by community. I have one BIG one in my area run by MDs and they won't dare let a lowly OD on their panel. We might blind them with proparicaine you know. The horror!😱
 
Last edited:
The profession is expanding. the people who feel like optometry is dying are not using their OD degree to its full potential. there is plenty of room in disease management and vision therapy. perhaps we are shifting from refraction and frames sales as financial fodder, but there is plenty of opportunity for medically oriented optometrists. HTN, DM, GL, VT, TBI, etc are all growing fields. stop asking 1 or 2 and stop posting inflammatory sentiments.

As a side note, the few and the frustrated are often the loudest voices in forums like this. logically, we should all recognize this and take these negative posts with a grain of salt.
 
Well, in the future, all those walking dead zombies will need someone to refer them out for Cataracts srx
Sample Boards question: Zombie referred for cataract surgery is a 4.50 Diopter refractive myope with and axial length of 24.5 mm. If keratometry reveals -2.50 D x 135 AM 48.50, how can we help this zombie patient eat the brains of his cataract surgeon?
 
To be honest the market isn't very good for young ophthalmologists either right now. Older ophthalmologists are seeing more and more patients on their own in order to try to make up for declining reimbursements. Most attendings would advise most ophtho residents to do a fellowship in order to be able to offer something more. No matter what people say about there being a shortage of eye doctors in the country it certainly does not feel like there is a shortage. So yes, being a step below a comprehensive ophthalmologist is not a good position to be in and the fact that they continue to open up optometry schools is beyond stupid.

I've often wondered this, but why not do a low-vision specialty? Our low vision specialist (optom) is booked out for months.
 
To be honest the market isn't very good for young ophthalmologists either right now. Older ophthalmologists are seeing more and more patients on their own in order to try to make up for declining reimbursements. Most attendings would advise most ophtho residents to do a fellowship in order to be able to offer something more. No matter what people say about there being a shortage of eye doctors in the country it certainly does not feel like there is a shortage. So yes, being a step below a comprehensive ophthalmologist is not a good position to be in and the fact that they continue to open up optometry schools is beyond stupid.

I've often wondered this, but why not do a low-vision specialty? Our low vision specialist (optom) is booked out for months.

cause low vision sucks imo. it's slow, frustrating, tedious work, with many times negligible results.
 
The profession is expanding. the people who feel like optometry is dying are not using their OD degree to its full potential. there is plenty of room in disease management and vision therapy. perhaps we are shifting from refraction and frames sales as financial fodder, but there is plenty of opportunity for medically oriented optometrists. HTN, DM, GL, VT, TBI, etc are all growing fields. stop asking 1 or 2 and stop posting inflammatory sentiments.

As a side note, the few and the frustrated are often the loudest voices in forums like this. logically, we should all recognize this and take these negative posts with a grain of salt.

to whom are you speaking? Have you been out in practice? the profession is shifting, but not nearly enough to counterbalance the massive amount of new graduates, most of whom don't want to live in a place, or work hard enough to practice to their full potential. i respectively submit that there is NOT plenty of room for disease management much less vision therapy. this is not meant to be inflammatory, this opinion is coming from a successful private practice OD, with years of experience, who knows hundreds of ODs and their situations/predicaments

could a new grad make it? sure....but will most new grads have their schedules full of interesting pathology, and parents who show up with wads of cash so that u can enhance their kids "visual perceptual" skills, absolutely not! there are some opportunities, but not nearly enough.
 
Last edited:
The profession is expanding. the people who feel like optometry is dying are not using their OD degree to its full potential. there is plenty of room in disease management and vision therapy. perhaps we are shifting from refraction and frames sales as financial fodder, but there is plenty of opportunity for medically oriented optometrists. HTN, DM, GL, VT, TBI, etc are all growing fields. stop asking 1 or 2 and stop posting inflammatory sentiments.

Look, I'm not on here to ruin the day of any OD student, you guys get pounded enough. But you need to realize that you have not one ounce of reality before you get out of school. Do you honestly think you're going to hear the truth while you're in school? Do you think your professors are going to "warn" themselves out of a job? I used to teach in an OD program, I never uttered a word of this stuff to my students, because all it would do would be to cause me headaches with senior administrators and other faculty. When you're in a cushy academia gig, the last thing you need is some guy telling students that they made a bad decision by entering optometry.

And upon what evidence do you base your statements that "there's plenty of room in disease management and vision therapy?" Who is telling you this? We have about 40,000 ODs right now, and we'll be adding about 1,500 to that number every year, once all the new schools are up and running, even accounting for retirement. If half the ODs in the nation decided to convert to the medical model, as you say, and stop asking "1 or 2," the result would be that about half the ODs in the nation would go out of business in a matter of weeks, due to an inability to keep their doors open. There is not enough ocular disease, my friend, to keep the trillions of ODs in this country busy.

The idea of vision therapy is great, except there's just one problem - no one wants to pay for it. Insurance won't pay for it, and mom won't pay for it, so you're left with one option, give it away free, or do what ophthalmology does - prescribe pencil pushups. You're about the 100 thousandth person who's thought of VT as their golden calf. It doesn't happen.

As for ocular disease management, good luck with that. The fact is, the vast majority of what nearly ALL private ODs do, is refract. If you visit some of the heavily medical OD offices in this country, they still make their money on normal patients. I don't care how many coding and billing seminars you go to, in which someone tells you that you can bill your dry eye patient for $4K in services every time he comes in for a visit, it doesn't happen very often. Most people's eyes are distinctly normal, despite the fact that we've come up with 1,000 tests so we can fill up an exam with exiting cards and dials to annoy patients.

I hate to burst your bubble, chief, but it sounds like yours won't be popped for a while anyway. Keep your head down and try to find a spot on the lifeboat, but don't look at VT as your path to freedom; it isn't. As far as disease management goes - super, learn it, and learn to code for it, but don't expect that to save you either; it won't.

Nothing I post on this site is "inflammatory;" it's the truth, and it's real. If you don't like to hear it, that doesn't make it "inflammatory," that just makes it unpleasant. Our liberal educational system has created a nation of young people who are largely incapable of accepting that things are not as they wish. Bad things happen, and your decisions are not always the right ones, despite what your professor/teacher in a crinkly, long skirt, large multi-colored beaded necklace, and a silk scarf, with a pencil-restrained hair bun, may have told you. There are right answers and wrong answers. There are good career choices and bad ones. You'll need to make the best of what you chose.

I really feel for you guys - you know everything, but you don't know anything.
 
Last edited:
Your post once again is commendable Jason K. Call it as you see it-real.
Job prospects and employment is getting tougher each year for OD's while from 16 US Optometry Schools we are at 20 and counting.
Add board certification which IMO makes absolutely no sense and we are just rolling down hill.

Our leaders who once took great pride in advancing our wonderful profession have NOW failed us.
Shame!
 
Well, just to show that it's not ALL doom and gloom, our private practice is looking to take on an associate doctor so if you anyone is interested in a private practice in Connecticut, please send me a PM.
 
yes MDs are better off than most of the population but why are we comparing MDs to the general population? Lets say a cornea trained ophthalmologist that was 9 years after college that is done to make much less than someone who works on wall st or gets their MBA from a top school. I had some classmates who forgo an MBA from Wharton and Kellogg to go to medical school. They are pretty much kicking themselves in the head at this point. Sure we make more than truck drivers but thats comparing apples to oranges.
 
yes MDs are better off than most of the population but why are we comparing MDs to the general population? Lets say a cornea trained ophthalmologist that was 9 years after college that is done to make much less than someone who works on wall st or gets their MBA from a top school. I had some classmates who forgo an MBA from Wharton and Kellogg to go to medical school. They are pretty much kicking themselves in the head at this point. Sure we make more than truck drivers but thats comparing apples to oranges.

I'm not sure if that's a fair comparison either. Can you explain why a cookie-cutter 4.0/40 pre-med would be competitive for a Wharton MBA? My impression is that the top MBA programs generally require their applicants to have relevant work experience, and not "just" good undergrad grades. I'd by and large say that the "average" med school matriculant is not necessarily competitive for the very top MBA programs. You need more than just 4.0/40 (or whatever equivalent GMAT score) to get in. I could be wrong but in this case I don't think I am.

You may have some friends who were fortunate to have that choice, but I would think it was the exception more than the rule - e.g. did you have that choice? Does the average student at SUNY medicine at stonybrook (or whatever "average" med school) have the background to get in Wharton MBA? I doubt it. Maybe some exceptional students scattered around here and there do, but they are the exceptions, not the "apples".

To compare apples to apples, you'd probably want to compare health care professionals with other health care professionals, or even some disciplines of medicine to other disciplines. You really can't get more different than an MD vs an MBA.
 
Cookie-cutter 4.0s from top colleges are exactly who would be competitive for business school. Yes, going to a top college Ivy-league or equivalent (Stanford, Duke, Hopkins..) helps a lot (but most of my classmates in medschool and residency went to these colleges as well). Then you get recruited by a consulting or banking/finance company. You work as an analyst for them for about 2 years making a lot more money than a resident or med-student and pay off your college loans. Then you go to business school, and you'll have no problem getting into Wharton or Harvard business. All of my college friends in business have gone this exact route.

It's not comparing apples to oranges (especially when compared with physicians in competitive specialties like ophthalmology who often went to top medschools and colleges). Several of my friends from medschool have gone to work for consulting companies. And finance is probably a main competitor with medicine at top colleges. The main difference is that most people in finance don't do much useful for society.

Btw. Thaieyemd, switching to consulting is an option even after medschool or residency. The downside is that it's a waste of your many years of training. The other downside is that early on in consulting careers you often have to travel a lot, and once you've finished residency, are in your early 30's and are finally able to start a family, you may not want to travel that much and start a whole new career.
 
Last edited:
Cookie-cutter 4.0s from top colleges are exactly who would be competitive for business school.

You are arguing straw man. I didn't dispute this and this isn't what thiaymed said. He said this:

yes MDs are better off than most of the population but why are we comparing MDs to the general population?

We aren't talking about the top med students from the top colleges. He said MDs and if you are going to generically refer to MDs, then you refer to the average med student with average credentials from SUNY stonybrook medicine (or whatever "average" med school you have down in the US).

How is some "average" med student who studied biology in undergrad and did hospital volunteering MORE competitive for Wharton MBA compared to a top finance undergrad who studied economics, did consultancy for 3 years, aced his GMAT, and applied to UPenn business school? If your argument is that the avg med student is bright and could've applied themselves to other fields and succeeded in them, then fine. But if you're saying the average med student somehow by virtue of being a med student, is actually most qualified for all other areas of industry, then you're fooling yourself. And I'm not talking about "diversity", I'm talking about raw credentials. If that's the case, then why don't we see more top engineering grads in med school? Sure it happens, but in general someone who got a 4.0 in Biochemistry with an interest in med school is probably more committed to a career in medicine than a 4.0 civil engineer. And I think med schools understand this, even though that 4.0 civil engineer is damn bright.
 
Btw. Thaieyemd, switching to consulting is an option even after medschool or residency.

You see, you really do argue straw man.

Why are you equating getting a consultancy job with Wharton MBA admission? Your post even implies you have to do 1 before 2.

So this is perfect. You've set this up perfectly. Why would UPenn admit avgJoe, MD, from AvgStateMedU in Buffalo, when they have top med students from top undergrads who have done 3 years of consultancy, also applying for their MBA program? The answer is they wouldn't. So no, average MDs don't have Wharton MBA as their back up plan.

You aren't that bright. I doubt you'd do well on an LSAT exam where you need analytical reasoning.

Edit: Bingo - it's in your post:

Cookie-cutter 4.0s from top colleges are exactly who would be competitive for business school.

Then you get recruited by a consulting or banking/finance company. You work as an analyst for them for about 2 years making a lot more money than a resident or med-student and pay off your college loans. Then you go to business school, and you'll have no problem getting into Wharton or Harvard business. All of my college friends in business have gone this exact route.

My post, opening remarks:

I'm not sure if that's a fair comparison either. Can you explain why a cookie-cutter 4.0/40 pre-med would be competitive for a Wharton MBA? My impression is that the top MBA programs generally require their applicants to have relevant work experience, and not "just" good undergrad grades. I'd by and large say that the "average" med school matriculant is not necessarily competitive for the very top MBA programs. You need more than just 4.0/40 (or whatever equivalent GMAT score) to get in. I could be wrong but in this case I don't think I am.

You changed my argument. Straw man my friend.
 
Last edited:
Top