Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just read something that indicates a decline relative to inflation as well from about 1995-2003 a pause and then a near across the board rebound more recently beginning around 2011. It's buried in a medscape doc. that I can't c&p.
There's another medscape doc. that indicates the average doc's pay in 2011 was $206K up every single year since then to $294K as of this year's report. Eyeballing it that's around 7% yoy growth, general price inflation over that same period was 1.42% per year.
Sorry I can't link to this one either but you can find it easily......2017 Compensation Report Page 3.
Your report can say whatever it might. It does not change the fact that task for task pay has gone down. For doing the same things they are paid less and have been for the last 20 years or so. The fact that some see more patients than they used to or that they now invest in other things is irrelevant.
This is not rocket science. Anyone can look up CPT reimbursements anytime they want. How much does a physician get for an office visit compared to before? It is less. How much do they get to take out a gallbladder compared to before? It is less.
So tying this back to the original topic - NMSF is or is not a good indicator your kid will make a good doctor?
It is a good indicator of them being able to get good grades, score well on SAT and MCAT and getting admitted into medical schools, if they decide to do so. They can make competent doctors for sure. Ones who are really into it would make great doctors.
However, NMSF is not a good indicator of all of them being great doctors as PSAT only tests IQ not EQ. So many students end up in medicine for money and prestige and family pressures, for them it’s just a way to afford a good lifestyle.
Your report can say whatever it might. It does not change the fact that task for task pay has gone down. For doing the same things they are paid less and have been for the last 20 years or so. The fact that some see more patients than they used to or that they now invest in other things is irrelevant.
This is not rocket science. Anyone can look up CPT reimbursements anytime they want. How much does a physician get for an office visit compared to before? It is less. How much do they get to take out a gallbladder compared to before? It is less.
This is what I do for a living.
Great. But that's not what you said above. Here are your words.............."BTW if MDs were so smart why is that their pay has been cut every single year for the past 20 years?"
Great. But that's not what you said above. Here are your words.............."BTW if MDs were so smart why is that their pay has been cut every single year for the past 20 years?"
There pay has been cut. If I am an engineer and make $80,000 a year and then the next year I make $75,000 but I invest in a company that manufactures things for engineering and make an additional $20,000 I surely can't say my pay as an engineer has gone up to $95,000. Just because I find additional revenue streams and/or ways to counteract my pay cut does not mean I made more money in that specific role. If I open my doors on a Saturday as a doctor or take more on call assignments or get a second job as a concierge doctor which nets me more in the end it does not mean I did not take a pay cut. It means I found ways to overcome my pay cut.
For example it used to be 4 patients per hour. Now it is 12 patients per hour. You also fail to realize that Dr. X used to own his own practice which means he used to get all profit from his practice. Because reimbursement has been cut every single year for the past 20 he has found himself in a pickle an realizes he needs to sell his practice to the hospital and become an employee. Since his pay has gone down each year from $600K to $500K to $400K, etc and now he sits at $275K it is better for him to become a hospital employee and make $350,000 in salary. He can do less, worry about less, etc, but he gave up his practice to do so. Your report will show he made more but he did so by selling his practice which was one of his most valuable assets because business wise he din't figure out how to overcome pay cut after pay cut. 10-15 years ago almost every doctor I worked with was only a doctor. They practiced medicine in their office and nothing more. I don't know of many (if any) who are solely just practicing medicine in their office. Almost all have their hands in other things such as hospitals, surgery centers, other businesses, etc. This has allowed them to make more overall money which looks great in your reports, but they have taken on more risk, responsibility, etc. to achieve this.
The Mcdonalds employee who used to make $12/hr working 30 hours per week and now makes $10/hr working 40 hours per week didn't get a pay raise even though a report would show their income went from $360/week to $400/week.
There pay has been cut. If I am an engineer and make $80,000 a year and then the next year I make $75,000 but I invest in a company that manufactures things for engineering and make an additional $20,000 I surely can't say my pay as an engineer has gone up to $95,000. Just because I find additional revenue streams and/or ways to counteract my pay cut does not mean I made more money in that specific role. If I open my doors on a Saturday as a doctor or take more on call assignments or get a second job as a concierge doctor which nets me more in the end it does not mean I did not take a pay cut. It means I found ways to overcome my pay cut. For example it used to be 4 patients per hour. Now it is 12 patients per hour. You also fail to realize that Dr. X used to own his own practice which means he used to get all profit from his practice. Because reimbursement has been cut every single year for the past 20 he has found himself in a pickle an realizes he needs to sell his practice to the hospital and become an employee. Since his pay has gone down each year from $600K to $500K to $400K, etc and now he sits at $275K it is better for him to become a hospital employee and make $350,000 in salary. He can do less, worry about less, etc, but he gave up his practice to do so. Your report will show he made more but he did so by selling his practice which was one of his most valuable assets because business wise he din't figure out how to overcome pay cut after pay cut.
Obamacare has nothing to do with reimbursement. Reimbursement was cut every year prior to Obamacare.
So again if they were so smart why has their pay been cut every year.
This is common sense.
1. For the third or fourth time........all of the items you noted above, like docs selling out and becoming hospital employees, becoming cash only practices, concierge medicine etc. are accounted for within average doctor pay.
2. Further, granted it's tough to find good info., it does not appear doctors are working longer hours now than in the past either. The rough average of about 60 hrs. per week seems to have held for many years.
_______________________
More broadly in my opinion anyone becoming an MD or DO, "for the money" is crazy. There are so many easier roads to make even more money.
As one of my doc. buddies told my son a few years ago before my son started medical school, "XXXX you are smart enough to go to medical school so your are smart enough to not go to medial school as well."
1. For the third or fourth time........all of the items you noted above, like docs selling out and becoming hospital employees, becoming cash only practices, concierge medicine etc. are accounted for within average doctor pay.
2. Further, granted it's tough to find good info., it does not appear doctors are working longer hours now than in the past either. The rough average of about 60 hrs. per week seems to have held for many years.
_______________________
More broadly in my opinion anyone becoming an MD or DO, "for the money" is crazy. There are so many easier roads to make even more money.
As one of my doc. buddies told my son a few years ago before my son started medical school, "XXXX you are smart enough to go to medical school so your are smart enough to not go to medial school as well."
Like I said I do this for a living. I get to see all aspects of revenue for thousands of hospitals, physicians, offices, etc and see all the different revenue streams.
Flat out they take a pay cut every year. Do many of them overcome that by doing other things and/or changing the way they practice medicine? Sure.
If you think that a doctor seeing 12 patients in an hour making $1000 is a pay increase from seeing 4 patients an hour making $800 then you are extremely naive. While on paper it shows that a higher amount was made and it shows the hours are the exact same, it is anything but.
You also fail to understand that if you have 4 doctors each making $250,000 in 2016 (total $1MM) and then in 2017 3 doctors make $200,000 doing the same things and 1 guy who sold to a university now makes $450,000 (total 1.05MM) then it shows that on average pay went up. This is happening all over the US as show by my link. Hospital owned doctors offices are skyrocketing. As already pointed out a physician offering additional services in his/her office to create more revenue on paper shows more income yet it is not comparing apples to apples. If you had to work during your lunch hour to make more pay at work to make up for lost pay on paper it looks like you make more. If you had to invest in other things (tying up capital) to make up for lost income, on paper it shows you make more.
Dear god, this board has officially gone overboard with its obsession with school metrics.
I feel obligated to point out, once again, that PSAT scores are a terrible way of judging the quality of education offered at a given school. It probably tells you something about the quality of the student body, and while that can be useful, these "Good job, Plano/HP/etc.!" posts in reference to PSAT scores are just silly. There are so many factors that go into PSAT scores. Off the top of my head, I can name at least the following:
- Strong academic reputations are self-reinforcing. If PW develops a reputation as the academic powerhouse, parents who care the most about academics and are able to afford PW are likely to move there. Guess what? Their kids are probably going to do pretty well on the PSAT.
- Good SAT prep works, and not all districts have equal participation rates, even when income is accounted for.
- Even accounting for income, cultural differences in attitude toward academics exist between districts. This affects PSAT scores.
Even ignoring the obvious, easy-to-control-for factors like income and parental education level, there are too many moving parts for these scores to be used the way most of you are using them. I own an SAT prep company that operates in DFW and several other cities. I have been in this industry for years. I know more about these tests than everyone else on this board combined. You are using them incorrectly.
To clarify, I am not saying these tests aren't useful metrics when analyzing students. I am saying comparing the number of ~top 1% scorers at various schools is a terrible way of comparing education quality offered at those schools. If you have a terribly bright student that you want to be surrounded by other top 1% students, go for it. Use these stats to help you answer that question. But that isn't how they are being used here.
1. Obviously IQ is tightly intertwined with education. I've never heard anyone say otherwise.
2. Inductive reasoning wordless IQ tests for one example have been used around the world for decades - widely since the 1950s.
3. Obfuscate all you want, however, IQ results across most nations and large groups are very well understood and have been for a long time. With respect you don't get decide scientists, researchers, psychologists and educators do and they have. Note that is not to say that IQ testing and results are perfect but they are useful.
4. Your claim that western cultures view IQ as solely reliant on genetics is news to me. Most psychologists seem to believe that "IQ potential" is between 40-60% genetic and 40-60% environment/education etc. You follow on claim about Eastern cultures is challenged by the 100% easily verifiable fact that the Chinese pull high IQ students out of normal educational tracks and place them in higher rigor tracks and they've been doing this for a long time. Other "Eastern" countries employ similar modalities.
5. Regarding your social economic paragraph while your points have some validity what really matters is if we divide the US population into 5 parts each quintile can be described like this.
By income
1. The lowest income quintile has the lowest IQ and lowest educational attainment.
2. The next lowest income quintile has the next lowest IQ and educational attainment.
3. The next lowest income quintile has the next lowest IQ and educational attainment.
4. The next lowest income quintile has the next lowest IQ and educational attainment.
5. The highest income quintile has the highest IQ and the highest educational attainment.
What's more across the quintiles these trend lines run surprisingly straight until very high incomes, the last few percent or so of the top income quintile, which is likely explained at least partially because lots of very smart people go into academia, reporting etc. which on balance don't pay particularly well relative to that cadre.
I'll send you links to federal data backing all of this up if you want them.
6. Einstein was not fluent in French as a kid apparently French was his worst subject in school. All this nonsense about AE being a dumb kid is urban legend.
This is sourced very well FWIIW...... EINSTEIN REVEALED AS BRILLIANT IN YOUTH - NYTimes.com
This is an excellent post, and just about every point is completely true. I think most intelligence psychologists actually place the genetic component slightly higher, at .5-.8. The portion that is environmental is also likely made up, to a large degree, of very early nutrition. The idea that education from the ages of 6 onward is contributing greatly to IQ is incorrect. This is an example of people letting their social ambitions taint their scientific conclusions. It may be inconvenient to say that IQ is mostly genetic, the environmental components are mostly beyond the reach of our educational system, there is a very measurable difference in IQ between races (where race is a proxy for geographic origin) and IQ is mostly unchangeable in adults. That might be inconvenient, but it's supported by the evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLDSoon
I stand by my assertion that IQ is influenced by education too much to separate the two.
What is your evidence for this? Are you familiar with the Minnesota Twin Family Study? Identical twins separated at birth share greater IQ correlation than non-twin siblings raised together. How is it possible, then, that genetics do not play a very significant role in IQ?
Is there a single study that shows that education after the age of 5 or 6 contributes greatly to IQ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLDSoon
Western cultures believe that intelligence is some in born thing that one has a pre-determined amount of and that one can only tap into until they hit their capacity.
Eastern cultures ( and really the rest if the world) believe that while there are outliers, for the vast majority of people, knowledge is something you acquire and that acquisition is a skill one can perfect much like any other
... through work and practice. They do not see innate intelligence as anything other than a personality trait.... much like having a short temper. It is for that reason that ‘Asian’ students will always blow other students out of the water academically because they will always outwork them.... no matter what their ‘IQ’. This fact can be seen in the average SAT scores of Asian students in any random high school anywhere in America. Those kids aren’t all ‘smarter’ than all the kids they do better than. They definitely however, work harder and on a more consistent basis than most all of them, at least on academics.
You are arguing for disparate points that can all be true. Intelligence is a mostly "in born thing." Knowledge is something that is acquired. Hard work does pay off academically. These things aren't mutually exclusive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
