bluedevilmike

Well, we already know that many careers have higher net lifetime incomes than physicians.
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...2-post108.html. Almost all of these professions also have fewer hours, making the per-hour tradeoff even worse.

Because medicine is currently subject to very strict price control from the government and that control is likely to (1) increase and (2) be under tighter budgetary constraints, I think the list above is likely to grow.

On the other hand, there is a great deal about medicine that makes it a very special career. These are getting bogged down in business elements at the moment. A (hypothesized) total government takeover would certainly reduce financial compensation, but might make those things a lot better (simplifies insurance) or a lot worse (imposes gov't paperwork).

MiamiDAP

BDM,
Again, you addressed "compensation level'. My primary concern is "job security" - meanning "having professional job", place to work as a professional. Compensation level is very secondary if not even below secondary. I am IT professional who have many friends in engineering field and who knows many MDs also. While first 2 groups are always concerned with job security, (literally, when 2 people meet, the first question goes: "How is job?", people who are in medical field afford themselves talking about compensation, they do not have any feeling about what others dealing with. Am I incorrect?

curmudgeon

I'll phrase my question differently. What specific career choice is more "viable" than being a physician, such that one would choose it over being a physician based on that "viability"?

A lifetime doing what you want to do with stable employment at an income level virtually guaranteed to still be above the national median for grad/professional school graduates really doesn't sound that bad to me.

Law? Yeah, right. For a chosen few. Law is changing fast. Tort "reform" kills both plaintiff's lawyers and insurance defense lawyers driving all of them to change professions or practice areas. Law schools are still churning out competitors at an alarming rate. Corporate finance? I think my newsboy was doing that 3 years ago. Academia? How competitive is that? What are there, 12 new jobs a year? Tenure is a dinosaur and the meteor is coming..

Pretty much leaves government service of some kind as far as I can tell. How is that preferable in any way as to the "viability" of the career?

DocT

" A lifetime doing what you want to do with stable employment at an income level virtually guaranteed to still be above the national median for grad/professional school graduates really doesn't sound that bad to me."

I don't think it is necessarily a good idea to postulate what someone is going to like to do for a lifetime when you're in your twenties. As with any career, most people don't realize the negatives of a career especially from a lifetime standpoint when they're that age. I know a very well known physician (probably someone who people on CC have heard of) who has been very financially successful who is miserable on the job and has been pretty much retired since 55.

curmudgeon

And I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to dissuade someone in their twenties about a career based on perceived "viability" without giving them concrete options with greater viability. Go figure.

curmudgeon

And BTW, Isn't that what all grad/pro school applicants do? Gosh. I sure hope so. Why else would they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and many years to gain that degree? Or do you think they go in thinking "Hey, I might not like this ..but what the heck?" If I had an inkling that any applicant I knew had that mind-set I'd certainly share your concern.

MiamiDAP

I completely agree that to be miserable for most part of your day is dreadful. I have been doing it for 11 years and then I realized that one lives only once. I love what I do now and it makes huge difference, money is secondary.

Well, in personal case of my D, law carrier is out of questions. Would not come close, never considered. Any history/economy, business type of class is huge ordeal, no interest whatsoever in any political discussions, or for that matter any discussions outside of scientific discoveries in Bio science field. No interest in any technical field either. I strongly believe that one needs to hold an interest of certain degree to at least consider a fileld. It is not possible to be successfully engaged in activity for most part of one's day without having at least a little desire to perform this activity. Well, from interest point, I do not know where D would fit outside of Medical field. She absolutely loves Bio, Psych. classes, absorbs this material like a sponge and can talk about it forever (if only we could understand any of it). She loves working/helping others and posses great ability to connect which she discovered during Crisis Center hot line volunteering and her Supplemental Instructor's session. For that she would not consider Research Lab, nor Pharmacy, she wants to work with people. We have discussed IT and engineering, but I knew that she is not a type which she confirmed. So, where straight "A" student like this who wishes great job security but not so much concerned with level of compensation and who most likely will not have a debt after Graduate school, would be applying his/her talents?

bluedevilmike

I mean, stability is what you make of it. Physicians are "stable" because there is very little variation in income or status. Once you're a doctor, you're very similar to most of the other doctors in your field. Other professions move around either because their companies are closing (avoidable -- sign up at a big company) or because they're looking for some kind of advancement, which is also avoidable if you are content with where you are.

Physicians are usually stable because they don't have any other options and the one they have is okay. Other careers could be stable, too, if you were willing to forego your better options.

curmudgeon

Are there any specifics as to what is more viable profession? I'm not setting a trap. I just want to know what's out there that is more viable. Seems that once the posit was questioned nobody has named (yet) a better (as in more "viable") choice.

bdm, what careers would have the equivalent stability?

curmudgeon

I mean , it's mildly interesting that the profession is not what it once was, but what are some possible better (more viable) options? Bueller? Bueller?

bluedevilmike

Well, for example. One of my close friends works at a Fortune 500 company managing a beverage brand. The usual track for young associates is to attend business school after three years. There's no REASON they have to do this. They are making six-figure salaries at age 25 (outearning thirty-year-old family physicians) and would continue advancing slowly within the company.

They all do jump, however, because the MBA helps accelerate them even faster. So they have to pack up, move to school, wait a year, get a summer internship (usually somewhere else), then move back to school, then move to wherever their job is. It's a major hassle and a lot of chaos -- but it's entirely self-inflicted. There's no reason whatsoever that any of them have to do this.

Young management consultants are the same way. Young product managers at Microsoft are the same way. I have a friend who's a software engineer at a Silicon Valley startup--he jumped because he didn't like the projects he was working on. One of my friends wants to move from writing (where she gets paid VERY well) to fashion (where she will hopefully get paid about the same) and is attending business school to facilitate the jump.

These jumps, strictly speaking, are all unnecessary. The fact that doctors don't have anywhere to jump to isn't necessarily a perk to the profession.

bluedevilmike

Criteria for viable?

MiamiDAP

BDM,
"Other careers could be stable, too, if you were willing to forego your better options. " - which ones? The ones that I know (IT, engineering any kind of science / technical jobs are not stable at all). Then it goes: teaching reguires very special talent, not everybody can do it. Then you need huge luck / exceptional talents to be able to support yourself with: acting, music, art, sport. Can you give us examples of what you mean by stable careers. I would not go so far as stable income, I am interested more in high probability of having professional position without being let go many times in your carrier.

curmudgeon

(avoidable -- sign up at a big company) lol. Like GM? Or Chrysler? Or Boeing? or (I could name fifty). Do you want a mulligan on that one?

There are no guaranteed ways to avoid layoffs. American private industry is tanking. Manufacturing is NOT the place to be in 21st century America. American corporate mentality has changed to the quick buck. Our time windows have changed from decades to to quarterly reports. If they can kill 2,000 jobs to make the stock price higher this quarter and line the pockets of the upper-echelon, it happens. IMHO nobody in corporate America gives a tinker's damn about their employees anymore. And if they do, chances are they will be gone soon as they get trampled by the Vandals and Goths in charge at their competitors. (The employees couldn't care less about their employers either.)

Gee. I'm a cheery fellow. Look. I'm not very confident about the future and a stable job in a field you enjoy is , to me, something worth working hard to achieve . Even if it's not a ticket to riches. For those who wanted to enter the profession to get rich, well........maybe there are better choices. But for the life of me, I really can't name one.

bluedevilmike

I discuss a few examples in post #41.

The main other one that comes to mind is airline pilots. In-house corporate attorneys; accountants; other health professionals are all also very stable.

Again, IT, biological research, etc. all could be very stable jobs if you were working a mid-level job at a major corporation and were happy doing so. The fact that most folks jump from lab-to-lab (especially in a University context) isn't necessary; it's a consequence of the fact that they work in a grant-supported context or at a relatively small startup. The pharmaceutical industry, as pharmagal will tell you, has many very stable "corners." The fact that the more glamorous (higher-paying?) jobs are very unstable doesn't mean that the entire sector is.