Unfunded PhD / PsyD - Worth it?

[R. Matey]

Psychologists.

Ah, that makes more sense. I thought board certification is the point of entry for you folks. Otherwise, I don't see a strong argument for board-certification.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

Ah, that makes more sense. I thought board certification is the point of entry for you folks. Otherwise, I don't see a strong argument for board-certification.

Many, if not most hospital system jobs require board eligibility/certification as a pre-req for hiring in neuropsych. Also a requirement for certain forensic opportunities. You can get by without it, but there are more doors that are open to you with it.

 

[R. Matey]

Many, if not most hospital system jobs require board eligibility/certification as a pre-req for hiring in neuropsych. Also a requirement for certain forensic opportunities. You can get by without it, but there are more doors that are open to you with it.

Makes sense for that, but it seems like it's just marketing for, like, couples and family psychology, group psychology, etc.

 

[WisNeuro]

Makes sense for that, but it seems like it's just marketing for, like, couples and family psychology, group psychology, etc.

Yeah, I can't speak to the other content areas and their relative importance.

 

[R. Matey]

Yeah, I can't speak to the other content areas and their relative importance.

Just saying, could be a reason why the overall number of board certified psychologists is low.

 

[WisNeuro]

Just saying, could be a reason why the overall number of board certified psychologists is low.

Definitely. I'd wager many content areas are slow growth, but the proportion of boarded neuropsychs is ever increasing. They've had to add a lot more oral exam slots in recent years.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Just saying, could be a reason why the overall number of board certified psychologists is low.

Yep, I suspect that's the primary reason (i.e., little to no ROI). Unless we end up going the way of physicians with insurance panels and perhaps most hospitals requiring that we be board certified, the majority of psychologists likely won't go through the process. Unless they're in VA and want the extra step increase.

 

[R. Matey]

Yep, I suspect that's the primary reason (i.e., little to no ROI). Unless we end up going the way of physicians with insurance panels and perhaps most hospitals requiring that we be board certified, the majority of psychologists likely won't go through the process. Unless they're in VA and want the extra step increase.

Academics and people in the VA are the only psychologists I've ever seen boarded in counseling psych, but I really don't it that closely, truthfully.

 

[PsySeeker]

The point is that not everyone will kill it in PP and the national estimate likely reflects that. You said yourself that you're an outlier so I don't know what you think you're accomplishing by giving people false hope--except maybe to brag about how rich you are on a public forum.

Edit: To drive the point into the ground--banking on high earnings in PP is why some people rationalize unfunded Psy.D. programs. But, it's a gamble that is not reflected in employment outcomes.

Most psychologists could approximate what I’ve done in private practice if they have a desire to do so at all and then subsequently make a focused effort to really learn how to do so, and are also willing to put the time in. Not everyone will have the desire to do this, perhaps a majority will not, but they could. That isn’t false hope, it’s the facts. It may make you feel a certain way for not doing so in your own life, but that doesn’t make it inaccurate or in need of suppression.

My sharing about this gives others, be they prospective students, students, or peers, another perspective on the possibilities that is very hard to find via Google for all the reasons we’ve already discussed.

For the record, I hardly bragged about how rich I am. The forum may be public but it’s anonymous…. and my goodness, I never even disclosed what I bring down in net income, what my net worth is, or what kind of car I drive, the type of watch I wear, my marginal tax bracket, or anything even remotely like that. You don’t need to project your insecurities on me, I’m here to help, just like I imagine you are, so if you need something just ask.

 

[R. Matey]

Most psychologists could approximate what I’ve done in private practice if they have a desire to do so at all and then subsequently make a focused effort to really learn how to do so, and are also willing to put the time in. Not everyone will have the desire to do this, perhaps a majority will not, but they could. That isn’t false hope, it’s the facts. It may make you feel a certain way for not doing so in your own life, but that doesn’t make it inaccurate or in need of suppression.

I'm merely saying that based on every reasonable data point available to me, you're an extreme outlier. Even by specialty standards. I don't believe that others aren't making it because they're lazy or unwilling as you imply. Salary surveys aren't perfect, but anecdotal evidence is even worse. Are you just lucky? Exaggerating? Outright lying? I don't know nor am I going to waste time figuring it out. What I do know is that I'm certainly not going to allure a student to an unfunded program to someone with promises of great wealth on the other side. Give me real data and I'll reconsider my position, but I really don't find your self-aggrandizing or your sloppy ad hominins especially moving.

 

[PsySeeker]

I'm merely saying that based on every reasonable data point available to me, you're an extreme outlier. Even by specialty standards. I don't believe that others aren't making it because they're lazy or unwilling as you imply. Salary surveys aren't perfect, but anecdotal evidence is even worse. Are you just lucky? Exaggerating? Outright lying? I don't know nor am I going to waste time figuring it out. What I do know is that I'm certainly not going to allure a student to an unfunded program to someone with promises of great wealth on the other side. Give me real data and I'll reconsider my position, but I really don't find your self-aggrandizing or your sloppy ad hominins especially moving.

I never implied that all folks who aren't engaged in or successful in private practice are lazy, unwilling would be a valid reason for some through, no shame in that, and of course there are plenty of other reasons too. Indeed, in this single response you state that I imply all others are lazy, that I may be "just lucky," exaggerating, or "outright lying," then imply that I am trying to "lure" student to unfunded programs (I've done no such thing), with great "promises" of "great wealth" (never once did I ever promise anyone anything), that I'm self-aggrandizing and of making "sloppy ad hominins." Really, your whole comment is nothing but a series of baseless attacks... I am sorry you are apparently feeling so vulnerable, but I'm not your enemy.

I don't think there is anyway I can connect with you right now, so let's part ways here, best of luck in life.

Should anyone else reading this think I could be of service to them please feel free to contact me, I am always willing to share what I know!

 

[R. Matey]

I never implied that all folks who aren't engaged in or successful in private practice are lazy, unwilling would be a valid reason for some through, no shame in that, and of course there are plenty of other reasons too. Indeed, in this single response you state that I imply all others are lazy, that I may be "just lucky," exaggerating, or "outright lying," then imply that I am trying to "lure" student to unfunded programs (I've done no such thing), with great "promises" of "great wealth" (never once did I ever promise anyone anything), that I'm self-aggrandizing and of making "sloppy ad hominins." Really, your whole comment is nothing but a series of baseless attacks... I am sorry you are apparently feeling so vulnerable, but I'm not your enemy.

K, your choice. I don't mind a discussion, nor do I really take it personally. Resorting to personal attacks tells me that you have no real evidence to offer other than your own experience, which is completely fine. Just recognize there might be factors other than personal merit influence a psychologist's salary and you'll have no further quibble from me.

Edit: Btw, calling someone else's opinion a set of baseless attacks doesn't automatically make them baseless attacks. We just disagree.

 

[Sanman]

As I feel like the conversation is going nowhere productive, I do want to chime in with some thoughts. Can people make money in psychology or most healthcare professions? Yes. Is it easy? Not nearly as easy as it used to be. If one wants to spend a decade struggling through school and then spend another decade bootstrapping a small business, one can still do well. However, if one wants the straight forward path of going to professional school and getting a good paying job once you jump through the predetermined hoops, healthcare is offering a lot less of that. Being a physician still pays well enough right now. Nursing probably has the best bang for the buck. The rest of us face this reality. This goes for things like pharmacy, optometry, physical therapy, and other health professions as well.

Now, many that come here asking about unfunded programs are looking for the path of least resistance (I don't want to move, I don't want to do research, I can't compete with others for funded programs). Are these the type of people that will choose to forgo the path of least resistance once graduated and bootstrap a business or are they more likely to want a job and to start their family, professional lives, etc? Each applicant can answer the question for themselves, but I do think we need to balance expectations in both directions about what it really takes.

 

[Peacemaker36]

As I feel like the conversation is going nowhere productive, I do want to chime in with some thoughts. Can people make money in psychology or most healthcare professions? Yes. Is it easy? Not nearly as easy as it used to be. If one wants to spend a decade struggling through school and then spend another decade bootstrapping a small business, one can still do well. However, if one wants the straight forward path of going to professional school and getting a good paying job once you jump through the predetermined hoops, healthcare is offering a lot less of that. Being a physician still pays well enough right now. Nursing probably has the best bang for the buck. The rest of us face this reality. This goes for things like pharmacy, optometry, physical therapy, and other health professions as well.

Now, many that come here asking about unfunded programs are looking for the path of least resistance (I don't want to move, I don't want to do research, I can't compete with others for funded programs). Are these the type of people that will choose to forgo the path of least resistance once graduated and bootstrap a business or are they more likely to want a job and to start their family, professional lives, etc? Each applicant can answer the question for themselves, but I do think we need to balance expectations in both directions about what it really takes.

I agree with this post.

Personally I would not recommend attending any PsyD or PhD program if at the end of it you will have $200K in debt. But I disagree with the notion that students from "diploma mill" doctoral programs and master's programs graduate with equivalent levels of knowledge and training. There is no reason to make things up if the goal is to protect prospective students from making catastrophic financial decisions.

 

[R. Matey]

As I feel like the conversation is going nowhere productive, I do want to chime in with some thoughts. Can people make money in psychology or most healthcare professions? Yes. Is it easy? Not nearly as easy as it used to be. If one wants to spend a decade struggling through school and then spend another decade bootstrapping a small business, one can still do well. However, if one wants the straight forward path of going to professional school and getting a good paying job once you jump through the predetermined hoops, healthcare is offering a lot less of that. Being a physician still pays well enough right now. Nursing probably has the best bang for the buck. The rest of us face this reality. This goes for things like pharmacy, optometry, physical therapy, and other health professions as well.

Since the thread is about discussing special cases negating national means and it's implications for tempting students to weigh $100k+ in loans against a high salary in PP, I really don't see how we disagree.

 

[Sanman]

Since the thread is about discussing special cases negating national means and it's implications for tempting students to weigh $100k+ in loans against a high salary in PP, I really don't see how we disagree.

Never said we disagree, just said the convo was not productive. Some folks will make more many will not. Anyone considering these degree programs should have a solid grasp of statistics, including means, medians, and outliers.

 

[R. Matey]

Never said we disagree, just said the convo was not productive. Some folks will make more many will not. Anyone considering these degree programs should have a solid grasp of statistics, including means, medians, and outliers.

I think calling people out is productive. That's how peer review works. (Edit) Also, I wouldn't underestimate the power of "oh, but that won't happen to me."

 

[Sanman]

I think calling people out is productive. That's how peer review works.

And that is fine, but both points have some merits. Yes, you can make more money running your own business than the average. This is true in most fields. We both know the numbers. From there it is up to the individual.

If you tell me that you wanted to go to an unfunded program, are from a working class background in CA or NY and want to work woth undeserved communities. Another comes on here and says they are from Santa Fe, NM and their parents own a psychiatric practice and you have an interest in prescribing. I may have two different answers for both or the same answer with different reasons.

 

[R. Matey]

If you tell me that you wanted to go to an unfunded program, are from a working class background in CA or NY and want to work woth undeserved communities. Another comes on here and says they are from Santa Fe, NM and their parents own a psychiatric practice and you have an interest in prescribing. I may have two different answers for both or the same answer with different reasons.

We differ here especially since both aims can be accomplished by attending a funded program. I believe the poster I'm debating also attended a funded program so that's really not the issue. That said, I'm not sold that independent wealth ever justifies a bad investment.

And that is fine, but both points have some merits. Yes, you can make more money running your own business than the average. This is true in most fields. We both know the numbers. From there it is up to the individual.

I think the overall effect of PP salaries on BLS figures is the crux of the issue. I maintain that it's likely not that huge. Others seem to disagree.

 

[Sanman]

We differ here especially since both aims can be accomplished by attending a funded program. I believe the poster I'm debating also attended a funded program so that's really not the issue. That said, I'm not sold that independent wealth ever justifies a bad investment.

Not saying someone would not be better off at a funded program. However, one of those scenarios is likely to end up better than the other. I have run across more than a few folks willing to set their kids up in a business and help foot the costs. While it may leave a bad taste in my mouth, the ones I know have been successful.

I think the overall effect of PP salaries on BLS figures is the crux of the issue. I maintain that it's likely not that huge. Others seem to disagree.

I think the spread in PP is huge because PP is not a single entity. It ranges from working for a 50/50 split, to solo PP, to owning a practice with 50 employees. Those folks make drastically different sums.

 

[R. Matey]

I think the spread in PP is huge because PP is not a single entity. It ranges from working for a 50/50 split, to solo PP, to owning a practice with 50 employees. Those folks make drastically different sums.

I think the BLS figures account for business ownership, actually. I linked the methodology a few pages ago so feel free to look for yourself. Really though, you're just confirming my point. It is likely a spread that is reflected in the measures of central tendency.

 

[Sanman]

I think the BLS figures account for business ownership, actually. I linked the methodology a few pages ago so feel free to look for yourself. Really though, you're just confirming my point. It is likely a spread that is reflected in the measures of central tendency.

Not sure they do. The note (1) related to employment numbers states they excluded self-employed individuals. I wonder if they excluded their salaries to get a more representative sample of national "job" data.

 

[R. Matey]

Not sure they do. The note (1) related to employment numbers states they excluded self-employed individuals. I wonder if they excluded their salaries to get a more representative sample of national "job" data.

That is true though employees of small business firms are counted. So practice owners could be excluded, but not those who work for them, theoretically. It probably depends on how the worker is classified. So, like I said, not perfect, but anecdotal evidence is much worse.

 

[R. Matey]

So, here's the CWAS data from 2015: 2015 salaries in psychology. PP people do have higher salaries, but also higher variations in those salaries.

 

[Sanman]

So, here's the CWAS data from 2015: 2015 salaries in psychology. PP people do have higher salaries, but also higher variations in those salaries.

The non-incorporated folks listed are likely using less tax wizardry than the incorporated folks, to give an idea. Though, the SD will always be large.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Just to add to the confusion, it's also worth noting that private practice income can vary pretty significantly from one year to the next, depending on the setup. And yes, the tax situation makes things more complicated all around in terms of quantifying income.

But all in all, I agree that it's hard to recommend attending an unfunded program. There are situations in which it can work out, and situations in which that option may be better than others (e.g., alternative careers that wouldn't result in a successful PP or career earnings in the same neighborhood), but it's still an inherently (much) greater risk. I do also think that a future psychologist who would be very successful in private practice would likely also be successful in multiple other careers.

I enjoy what I do. I may still have enjoyed it if I'd attended an unfunded program, but I'm not sure, as the financial stress immediately after graduating probably would've been greater, and I don't know if the grad school experience would have been as enjoyable.

 

[R. Matey]

The non-incorporated folks listed are likely using less tax wizardry than the incorporated folks, to give an idea. Though, the SD will always be large.

Using a basic inflation calculator that bases inflation on the CPI and generously assuming that nothing ever changed for these psychologists, I get a PP-incorporated mean $137,230 ($125,955 SD) in 2022. Talk about a wild ride.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Using a basic inflation calculator that bases inflation on the CPI and generously assuming that nothing ever changed for these psychologists, I get a PP-incorporated mean $137,230 ($125,955 SD) in 2022. Talk about a wild ride.

Yep, I know of folks whose individual PP income has varied by that much (or more) from one year to the next. PP isn't necessarily for the faint of heart.

 

[WisNeuro]

Is that mean gross or net? Because that's be a terrible gross for anyone working at or near FT.

 

[R. Matey]

Is that mean gross or net? Because that's be a terrible gross for anyone working at or near FT.

I presume it's net, but that's a good question. The report doesn't give that information.

 

[Sanman]

Is that mean gross or net? Because that's be a terrible gross for anyone working at or near FT.

It is asking for "salary" which is why the incorporated numbers are whacky. Non-incorporated folks may reporting net profits. Then again, that may account for some of the large SD.

 

[WisNeuro]

It is asking for "salary" which is why the incorporated numbers are whacky. Non-incorporated folks may reporting net profits. Then again, that may account for some of the large SD.

Yeah, I wish there was some sort of corrected "net compensation" number provided. That would make it easier to compare. Otherwise, I fear that people are reporting different numbers, making the figures hard to interpret.

 

[R. Matey]

Yeah, I wish there was some sort of corrected "net compensation" number provided. That would make it easier to compare. Otherwise, I fear that people are reporting different numbers, making the figures hard to interpret.

I'm sure there were instructions.

 

[Sanman]

I'm sure there were instructions.

Let me tell you, when I receive requests for APA surveys, I read the instructions carefully and self-audit my tax returns for the previous 7 years. I would never ball park numbers off the top of my head. In other news, I carefully read the TOS contract on my latest Apple device line for line.

 

[R. Matey]

Let me tell you, when I receive requests for APA surveys, I read the instructions carefully and self-audit my tax returns for the previous 7 years. I would never ball park numbers off the top of my head.

Your doubt is just as good as my confidence since neither of us know for sure. Although CWAS is pulling their data from the NSCG, of which the form is public domain: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/...g/Questionaires/2021/Returning Responders.pdf

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Your doubt is just as good as my confidence since neither of us know for sure. Although CWAS is pulling their data from the NSCG, of which the form is public domain: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/programs-surveys/nscg/Questionaires/2021/Returning Responders.pdf

Looks like the form asks respondents to estimate their income, minus business expenses, if they aren't salaried. It later also asks about total earned income, before deductions.

 

[PsySeeker]

K, your choice. I don't mind a discussion, nor do I really take it personally. Resorting to personal attacks tells me that you have no real evidence to offer other than your own experience, which is completely fine. Just recognize there might be factors other than personal merit influence a psychologist's salary and you'll have no further quibble from me.

Edit: Btw, calling someone else's opinion a set of baseless attacks doesn't automatically make them baseless attacks. We just disagree

It’s not a discussion with you. All you do is attack. Therefore I’m out.

K, your choice. I don't mind a discussion, nor do I really take it personally. Resorting to personal attacks tells me that you have no real evidence to offer other than your own experience, which is completely fine. Just recognize there might be factors other than personal merit influence a psychologist's salary and you'll have no further quibble from me.

Edit: Btw, calling someone else's opinion a set of baseless attacks doesn't automatically make them baseless attacks. We just disagree.

There is no discussion with you. I’m out.

 

[PsySeeker]

As I feel like the conversation is going nowhere productive, I do want to chime in with some thoughts. Can people make money in psychology or most healthcare professions? Yes. Is it easy? Not nearly as easy as it used to be. If one wants to spend a decade struggling through school and then spend another decade bootstrapping a small business, one can still do well. However, if one wants the straight forward path of going to professional school and getting a good paying job once you jump through the predetermined hoops, healthcare is offering a lot less of that. Being a physician still pays well enough right now. Nursing probably has the best bang for the buck. The rest of us face this reality. This goes for things like pharmacy, optometry, physical therapy, and other health professions as well.

Now, many that come here asking about unfunded programs are looking for the path of least resistance (I don't want to move, I don't want to do research, I can't compete with others for funded programs). Are these the type of people that will choose to forgo the path of least resistance once graduated and bootstrap a business or are they more likely to want a job and to start their family, professional lives, etc? Each applicant can answer the question for themselves, but I do think we need to balance expectations in both directions about what it really takes.

I would agree in full and have said much the same.

 

[R. Matey]

There is no discussion with you. I’m out.

Your choice.

 

[ThatPsyGuy]

Funny story, a friend of mine actually did purchase a lighthouse recently and is turning it into an Airbnb. So, if you really want to stay in one...

I saw this article and remembered this post:

US to give away free lighthouses as GPS makes them unnecessary

Program aims to preserve the properties, most of which are more than a century old, to anyone willing to preserve them

www.theguardian.com

 

[Dazen]

You may find the following references interesting then:

Peterson, D. R. (1968). The Doctor of Psychology program at the University of Illinois. American Psychologist, 23(7), 511–516. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026199

Peterson, D. R. (2006). Connection and disconnection of research and practice in the education of professional psychologists. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, S(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3918.S.1.47

Since this thread already got brought back from the graveyard, wanted to thank you for these references. I didn't know much about the history of the PhD/PsyD distinction, so it was interesting to see the theoretical underpinnings (which I largely agree with) before they were perverted into the current financially exploitative system. A line that stuck out to me in the first paper was "no feasible reconstruction of the PhD program is likely to satisfy the need for dedicate, fully trained professional personnel as well as an explicit professional program." From my (albeit limited) experience, this is still true given the resource-intensive nature of the mentor model employed by PhD programs. I empathize with the need for more practitioners and many people's frustration with the overall competitiveness of clinical psych doctoral programs. I'd love for that system to better accommodate individuals who want to pursue the highest levels of clinical practice without getting bogged down in research requirements. But I also think these articles do a good job of laying out why we can't modify the current PhD system to achieve that goal. And as someone who's in the PhD for research primarily, I see value in continuing to have this option available.

 

[Sanman]

Since this thread already got brought back from the graveyard, wanted to thank you for these references. I didn't know much about the history of the PhD/PsyD distinction, so it was interesting to see the theoretical underpinnings (which I largely agree with) before they were perverted into the current financially exploitative system. A line that stuck out to me in the first paper was "no feasible reconstruction of the PhD program is likely to satisfy the need for dedicate, fully trained professional personnel as well as an explicit professional program." From my (albeit limited) experience, this is still true given the resource-intensive nature of the mentor model employed by PhD programs. I empathize with the need for more practitioners and many people's frustration with the overall competitiveness of clinical psych doctoral programs. I'd love for that system to better accommodate individuals who want to pursue the highest levels of clinical practice without getting bogged down in research requirements. But I also think these articles do a good job of laying out why we can't modify the current PhD system to achieve that goal. And as someone who's in the PhD for research primarily, I see value in continuing to have this option available.

People come here and complain about the difficulty of getting into a funded program. These same people often complain that salaries are not better. What non-competive field do you know of that makes lots of money?

 

[Dazen]

People come here and complain about the difficulty of getting into a funded program. These same people often complain that salaries are not better. What non-competive field do you know of that makes lots of money?

Having a different focus doesn’t equate to non-competitive for me. Plenty of professional degrees (medicine, law) are competitive, are associated with a high salary, and require little to no research in doctoral studies. I don’t think the system is currently set up to accommodate a similar structure in psychology, but IMO the idea has merit. I have little issue with the current competitiveness of programs.

 

[psych.meout]

Having a different focus doesn’t equate to non-competitive for me. Plenty of professional degrees (medicine, law) are competitive, are associated with a high salary, and require little to no research in doctoral studies. I don’t think the system is currently set up to accommodate a similar structure in psychology, but IMO the idea has merit. I have little issue with the current competitiveness of programs.

I don't know about that one, hoss.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

Having a different focus doesn’t equate to non-competitive for me. Plenty of professional degrees (medicine, law) are competitive, are associated with a high salary, and require little to no research in doctoral studies. I don’t think the system is currently set up to accommodate a similar structure in psychology, but IMO the idea has merit. I have little issue with the current competitiveness of programs.

Having many friends who are lawyers, interacting with lawyers professionally, and also applying to law school myself (just for kicks and to add another couple of letters after my name), roughly 70-80% of people accepted to law school shouldn't ever practice law.

 

[WisNeuro]

Having many friends who are lawyers, interacting with lawyers professionally, and also applying to law school myself (just for kicks and to add another couple of letters after my name), roughly 70-80% of people accepted to law school shouldn't ever practice law.

Can confirm.

 

[Sanman]

Having many friends who are lawyers, interacting with lawyers professionally, and also applying to law school myself (just for kicks and to add another couple of letters after my name), roughly 70-80% of people accepted to law school shouldn't ever practice law.

Given the number of lawyers that cannot find a good job, I'm not sure that would be a model we want to follow anyway.

 

[Ollie123]

I would definitely not consider becoming a lawyer remotely competitive. A top tier law degree is competitive. However, your cat can probably get accepted to and graduate from law school these days - even considering the professional schools it is substantially easier than clinical psychology. There are plenty of law schools that accept > 60% of applicants with median GPAs in the low 3's. Salaries vary wildly. The ceiling in law is certainly higher, but those jobs tilt towards the top programs and can be near-impossible to break into without that pedigree. There are lots and lots of lawyers making 80k or less these days. Sometimes it is a choice to work in a specific subfield (e.g., I know a Yale grad working as a public defender), but for many folks it isn't. Some can't pass the bar.

 

[Sanman]

Having a different focus doesn’t equate to non-competitive for me. Plenty of professional degrees (medicine, law) are competitive, are associated with a high salary, and require little to no research in doctoral studies. I don’t think the system is currently set up to accommodate a similar structure in psychology, but IMO the idea has merit. I have little issue with the current competitiveness of programs.

Research is an important part of the field and as far as hoops go, it can be a relevant one to your career. That said, having started pre-med there are many more hoops in med school path. Most competitive specialties like some research involvement. Add to that long hours in residency (nowadays those hours have been significantly reduced) and other rites of passage.

There will never be a path of doing only what you want and reaping the rewards.

 

[Dazen]

Apparently law was an especially bad point of reference - learned something new today!

Research is an important part of the field and as far as hoops go, it can be a relevant one to your career. That said, having started pre-med there are many more hoops in med school path. Most competitive specialties like some research involvement. Add to that long hours in residency (nowadays those hours have been significantly reduced) and other rites of passage.

There will never be a path of doing only what you want and reaping the rewards.

Absolutely agree with this. As a (mostly) reformed finance bro, I’ve actually found grad school to be easier on the whole than my prior post -college life because of my comparative control over my time and goals. I don’t begrudge the hoops I had to jump through to get here or the aspects of the degree that are less interesting to me. Mostly trying to spitball, from a place of limited knowledge, how to potentially increase the number of providers of doctoral level clinical competency (if this is actually necessary) without while still maintaining a path to academia for those who want it.