So.... how much will I make? :)

[Dustbug10]

Is there a trend of increasing salaries with the first batch of Au.D.'s making their way into the job market? I don't think websites like payscale.com or salary.com are appropriate since most statistics include Master's level audiologists. I am going to begin my first semester as a student in the Au.D. program in the fall, and would like to know some of the trends that may pop up when it's time for me to enter the workforce. I will be 26 when I finish everything up and plan at this time to remain in the south in a state where the standard of living is fairly low.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[teucer]

The Au.D. doesn't necessarily offer significantly higher salary. It does offer marginally better job mobility, however, as many Master's level audiologists are finding. This is definitely not a "get rich or die trying" job; if you're looking for something along those lines, I know this guy named 50 Cent...

 

[Dustbug10]

The Au.D. doesn't necessarily offer significantly higher salary. It does offer marginally better job mobility, however, as many Master's level audiologists are finding. This is definitely not a "get rich or die trying" job; if you're looking for something along those lines, I know this guy named 50 Cent...

I don't want to get shot nine times.

I am simply gaging what the salary trends will be for the field that I am going to commit my professional and a good portion of my personal life to. There is no need to attach the stigma of a dumb kid who sees dollar signs to me. Besides, growing up in rural Arkansas, anything above $40,000 annually is rich (recession or not).

 

[teucer]

I don't think anyone who is looking into an Au.D. program is a dumb kid with dollar signs in their head. Certainly, I'd be amiss if I drew this conclusion of an individual with whom I've interacted only through a message board once or twice.

Nothing wrong with a sense of humor, though.

 

[marcrusc]

Unfortunately, salaries are much more highly correlated with years experience than degree. We aren't going to walk into big bucks just because we've chosen to start calling ourselves doctor. The problem is that we aren't able to bill for any services as AuDs that we couldn't bill for as Masters. Therefore, other than the PR boost of being doctors, there isn't a force pushing our pay upward. A predictable salary straight out of school would range from 48k to 52k. Unless you choose industry or go to the VA, the only way to beat those numbers is private practice. Given the current economic state, it's looking like the VA is the safest bet. While these figures aren't terribly impressive, consider this. If you marry someone who can at least match your pay, the household is bringing in over 100k/yr. In that light, the pay isn't so bad.....at least thats what I tell myself!!

 

[Dustbug10]

Unfortunately, salaries are much more highly correlated with years experience than degree. We aren't going to walk into big bucks just because we've chosen to start calling ourselves doctor. The problem is that we aren't able to bill for any services as AuDs that we couldn't bill for as Masters. Therefore, other than the PR boost of being doctors, there isn't a force pushing our pay upward. A predictable salary straight out of school would range from 48k to 52k. Unless you choose industry or go to the VA, the only way to beat those numbers is private practice. Given the current economic state, it's looking like the VA is the safest bet. While these figures aren't terribly impressive, consider this. If you marry someone who can at least match your pay, the household is bringing in over 100k/yr. In that light, the pay isn't so bad.....at least thats what I tell myself!!

As I mentioned in my previous post, that sort of money is rich to me! Especially in my living area. Thanks for the insight.

 

[marcrusc]

I tend to agree that the money itself isn't bad. However, given the financial cost of an AuD (National average AuD debt is 90k), the opportunity cost of 4 years of study, and the fact that I know lots of people with bachelors or less making the same or more money, it isn't as high as many would like.

 

[juicy123]

doesn't AuD start at 85K?......i got this information online.

 

[marcrusc]

Haha, I wish! A first year AuD is likely to pull in something in the very low 50s. At the VA, you can start at 60k. If you are a staff audiologist and do not own your own business, you would be lucky to retire at 85k. My bet is that the overwhelming majority will never see the 80's. If you are male, there is a 17k pay discrepancy that works in your favor. Short of that, you are out of luck. The numbers that ASHA likes to push aren't accurate. As I said previously, we don't have any billable skills as AuDs that weren't taught at the masters level. Its just the truth. Getting acquainted with actual salary information is a right of passage for AuD students. You'll be depressed for a little while, but you get over it!

 

[Hearatic]

hey marcus, since you are in the best position to comment, how much do you feel the ranking of your school influences how much you are likely to be offered? do you think vandy affords more opportunities for a higher salary or is it a rose by any other name? it's looking as though i can be nearly fully funded at some of my other choices, but vandy... well, not a dime so far. that's a big bag of debt to stare in the face.

 

[teucer]

Recently, I called an audiology practice to see if I could shadow someone in that office and see what they do during their day jobs. The guy misunderstood me...he asked when I could start and if I could come in that afternoon to set up my desk. I said I was sorry for not making myself more clear and then clarified that I was only trying to shadow someone...then he asked if I was a student and when I would graduate so he could follow up! I told him if he could wait four years then I'd take him up on his offer!!

Audiologists are, in many cases, in dire need. Get the degree from an accredited university and you should be good to go.

 

[marcrusc]

If you don't get at least a 50% scholarship to Vandy, then you should look to wherever you got money. Otherwise it is simply too expensive. This of course is assuming you got money from a good school.

Graduates from Vanderbilt do tend to make more money than those from many other schools. This is partly due to the reputation, as well as the networking that goes on from day one. However, the biggest reason by far is because Vandy produces excellent audiologists. Due to the faculty and facilities, it is easier to be excellent coming out of Vandy than elsewhere. However, with a little more effort, you could also be excellent coming out of a solid state school. If you get full funding at a U. of Memphis or another comparable school, I would go there, from a purely educational perspective.

In my opinion and that of multiple Audiology professors, it is absolutely foolish to take more than 80k in debt for an Audiology degree. There are tons of ways to make money in other fields without that kind of debt. When you look at salary data and the strongest predictive variable for salary is years experience, you know that lots of debt is not a wise choice.

Do not, however, go to a crappy school (and there are lots of them) just because they cover your bills. There are schools that should not be allowed to stay open. Don't take the PC perspective of everyone is equally amazing. If you choose a bad school this April, you will pay for it the rest of your career in the form of lower pay and ******ed advancement.

In sum, if Vandy, or any expensive private school, does not give you at least 50%, take a walk. You're diploma may not be as shiny, but your brand new car will be!

 

[teucer]

I keep hearing about these sub-par schools. Which schools are we talking about here, exactly?

 

[Dustbug10]

I keep hearing about these sub-par schools. Which schools are we talking about here, exactly?

Yes, please tell.

 

[DrumHead]

I think official numbers are a bit skewed since there are many audiologists only working part time or are in the public education system or both. It also has to do with the primarily female workforce to date. It is unfortunate that there is a difference in pay between genders but it is true. As more and more males enter the field we may see the averages increase.

From my experience, I know that several people from my program started above $75k/yr within one year of graduation. People tend to forget that there are so many options for AuD graduates including interoperative monitoring, management positions, and CI or HA specialists for corporations like Cochlear, AB, Phonak, etc.

If you get into sales you get base + commision and that can be well over $100K. Sure, the biggest money is in private practice, but there is still plenty of money to be made along the way.

That said, one of the most important things we need to do is make ourselves valuable as audiologists. In other words, if we want higher pay, we need to make it worth the employers' while.

 

[willi113]

As a recent Vandy graduate I can tell you that the notion that Vanderbilt audiologists make more money or somehow have an advantage on the job market in nonsense. It probably helps in terms of getting you an interview or perhaps knowing about open positions through the contacts at Vanderbilt but after that you are pretty much on your own.

I would also note that many audiologist jobs (ie. VA positions, university hospitals, etc.) are on strict pay scales and there is not much room for negotiation.

 

[marcrusc]

The numbers that AAA puts out suggest a maximum gender based pay differential of 17k. This is likely quite skewed by males going into private practice. I haven't recognized a pay differential for staff audiologists with a strong correlation with gender.

Willi13 is correct when he suggests that the Vandy name in and of itself does not boost your pay. He was also correct when he commented on the networking benefits that are afforded students of high caliber programs. When the improved networking is combined with a solid education, opportunity for higher pay results. If the name helps get you an interview you might not have known about and your skills land the job, it is easily seen that the alma mater has helped. As I said, I wouldn't take a lot of debt for it, but the benefit is there nonetheless. The New Zealand 4th year program comes to mind.

Moral of the story:
As someone who passed up amazing finaid at more than one top ten school to take on substantial debt at the #1 and has regretted it, don't be swayed by name. Don't ignore its potential benefits, but don't do something financially stupid.

 

[Integralpix]

Audiologists are, in many cases, in dire need.

This seems to run contrary to my limited research into the field. After talking to a professional audiologist, reading the latest Occcupational Outlook information, and browsing job websites, jobs appear to be in short supply for this field. I hope I'm wrong about this.

Is there a website devoted to only audiology job postings? If so, please provide a link.

 

[teucer]

I myself have encountered conflicting information.

 

[cidanu]

i read an article recently though that health care jobs in Alaska are booming.

 

[marcrusc]

Here's an interesting letter to the editor on the future growth of the audiology by James Jerger. http://dev.aaa.susqtech.com/NR/rdonlyres/D9BFE677-612E-416F-B3F2-5E83A1B6BFCE/0/JAAA_13_2_1.pdf

 

[0U1988]

Here's an interesting letter to the editor on the future growth of the audiology by James Jerger. http://dev.aaa.susqtech.com/NR/rdonlyres/D9BFE677-612E-416F-B3F2-5E83A1B6BFCE/0/JAAA_13_2_1.pdf

This article made little to no sense to me, just because the technology changes doesn't mean the profession is in danger. It just means that curriculum has to evolve with technology, that's a no brainier that this person could have answered themselves. You don't see MD's looking in the classified adds every time; a new technology comes out that makes patient care easier or better. I think as long as Audiology programs stay abreast with the latest advancements, Audiology will be just fine. I think the real question is how are Audiologist fairing in this current economical market, i can't seem to find any such answers to my question anywhere. Anyone else having any luck answering this question?

 

[AuD2B]

as long as Audiology programs stay abreast with the latest advancements, Audiology will be just fine.

I think the point of the article is to be sure enough audiologists pursue research (mainly PhDs & AuD/PhDs but also some AuDs) so the rest of us will even have advancements to implement in our clinical practices.

The article is also emphasizing the importance of including a research element in the AuD curriculum so those of us not interested in performing formalized research will at least have the skills and foundation to critically evaluate the published studies in our field and to also make effective clinical decisions.

Last fall I did a brief research paper on the effects of the current recession (unfortunately the file is corrupted and I can't access my paper to share some of the reference sources! yikes!)I also had some trouble finding current info. I found info on prior recessions through some of the association websites. I don't remember anything more complex than Google searches to locate the info.

Upshot is there was an impact on pvt practice in prior recessions, but VA purchases were up to counterbalance sales in the entire industry over all...I think some VA policy change may also have occurred in prior recessions that helped the sales inccrease.

The current recession is extra tricky due to the compounding of a credit crunch...not sure how that is impacting purchasing and cash flow decision making in private practices. We're all aware of the budget crises at state levels, so you may need to infer and suggest possible impacts based on data from various sources--may not have something direct.

there might be a lag before the direct info is available. Lots of econ data is based on quarters & the analysis takes additional time after the numbers become available. Sometimes it is helpful to also call association offices to get some help getting steered to good resources.

Good luck with your research & hope you're able to find something...

 

[teucer]

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos085.htm

That one's from Uncle Sam.

 

[0U1988]

I think the point of the article is to be sure enough audiologists pursue research (mainly PhDs & AuD/PhDs but also some AuDs) so the rest of us will even have advancements to implement in our clinical practices.

The article is also emphasizing the importance of including a research element in the AuD curriculum so those of us not interested in performing formalized research will at least have the skills and foundation to critically evaluate the published studies in our field and to also make effective clinical decisions.

Last fall I did a brief research paper on the effects of the current recession (unfortunately the file is corrupted and I can't access my paper to share some of the reference sources! yikes!)I also had some trouble finding current info. I found info on prior recessions through some of the association websites. I don't remember anything more complex than Google searches to locate the info.

Upshot is there was an impact on pvt practice in prior recessions, but VA purchases were up to counterbalance sales in the entire industry over all...I think some VA policy change may also have occurred in prior recessions that helped the sales inccrease.

The current recession is extra tricky due to the compounding of a credit crunch...not sure how that is impacting purchasing and cash flow decision making in private practices. We're all aware of the budget crises at state levels, so you may need to infer and suggest possible impacts based on data from various sources--may not have something direct.

there might be a lag before the direct info is available. Lots of econ data is based on quarters & the analysis takes additional time after the numbers become available. Sometimes it is helpful to also call association offices to get some help getting steered to good resources.

Good luck with your research & hope you're able to find something...

I don't think this problem should be an issue, I think the problem is in the way it's packaged a PhD in Audiology makes absolutely no sense! Look at the model of other doctoring professions you don't see PhD in Medicine, instead it's in Molecular Biology or Immunology.. I think more AuD students maybe interested in obtaining a PhD, if it would further there goals of learning a particular area; instead of being super broad in scope. Also I'm not trying to rub people the wrong way But name another medical profession that it's PhD get to practice medicine too? In Audiology regardless if you have an AuD or PhD you can practice Audiology, so there is no actual line between the scope of practice between the two. What I'm trying to say is what's the point of having the AuD then, if your going to have research be apart of the curriculum and PhD graduates still practice Audiology so nothing has changed? You can't have it both ways, either PhD's are strictly geared towards research or there's no point in the AuD. This isn't just me talking several of the Audiologist I have spoken too have said this is the one problem the Field of Audiology has, you can't have you cake and eat it too if you wanted to be considered a Doctoring profession..

 

[teucer]

To my understanding, Ph.D. track students focus much less on techniques as applied in a clinical setting etc. The Au.D. focuses on practice while Ph.D. focuses on research...the curriculums are supposed to reflect this, but I don't know the ins and outs of how the programs are constructed so I cannot comment on this.

I'm a rifle and pistol marksman first and foremost, but I can occasionally pick up a shotgun and wing the odd skeet round...I just won't score that well, that's all. There's one analogy on the situation.

Would Ph.D. students be as prepared for the boards as Au.D. track students? I would not imagine that they focus on this as much as Au.D.s in their curriculums.

I think there will always be overlap, particularly in a doctoral situation like this that does not require attending formal medical school. "Degree creep" is a situation we are being forced to deal with as the bachelorette degree becomes the "new high school diploma". Like it or not, such is life.

If both can practice and you wanted to do away with one title or another, I'd do away with the Ph.D., not the Au.D. The Au.D. denotes the ability to practice clinically, which if is also is the case with the Ph.D. I'd rather separate it from the philosophy, statistics and all other Ph.D.s that do not denote this special ability.

 

[0U1988]

To my understanding, Ph.D. track students focus much less on techniques as applied in a clinical setting etc. The Au.D. focuses on practice while Ph.D. focuses on research...the curriculums are supposed to reflect this, but I don't know the ins and outs of how the programs are constructed so I cannot comment on this.

I'm a rifle and pistol marksman first and foremost, but I can occasionally pick up a shotgun and wing the odd skeet round...I just won't score that well, that's all. There's one analogy on the situation.

Would Ph.D. students be as prepared for the boards as Au.D. track students? I would not imagine that they focus on this as much as Au.D.s in their curriculums.

I think there will always be overlap, particularly in a doctoral situation like this that does not require attending formal medical school. "Degree creep" is a situation we are being forced to deal with as the bachelorette degree becomes the "new high school diploma". Like it or not, such is life.

If both can practice and you wanted to do away with one title or another, I'd do away with the Ph.D., not the Au.D. The Au.D. denotes the ability to practice clinically, which if is also is the case with the Ph.D. I'd rather separate it from the philosophy, statistics and all other Ph.D.s that do not denote this special ability.

I don't think PhD has to be done away with just modified to where it makes more sense and i think the scope of practice thing should be addressed.

 

[AuD2B]

Med students do undertake a research project. It's not the main focus of their studies, just a small project so they can use some independent thought in evaluating the JAMA articles they read...so the argument follows that clinical AuD students should also be familiar with how research works for similar reasons in their own clinical pursuits.

For med research, it is done by M.D.s (adjunct faculty in med schools), M.D./Ph.D.s and Ph.Ds. There are some people who stay in medical research and some who practice clinicial medicine.

If the knowledge base of the field is to advance, someone will need to continue to do research and I think the master plan is this will not be the AuD student...the concern is whether enough students will want to still pursue a PhD and focus on research and teaching, and how big the "pool" of candidates will be for these PhD programs (in addition to funding considerations).

It's an evolutionary process with lots of opinions on all sides. It's good to discuss and weigh in with our opinions now. Nice food for thought. Thanks for bringing it up!

 

[0U1988]

Med students do undertake a research project. It's not the main focus of their studies, just a small project so they can use some independent thought in evaluating the JAMA articles they read...so the argument follows that clinical AuD students should also be familiar with how research works for similar reasons in their own clinical pursuits.

For med research, it is done by M.D.s (adjunct faculty in med schools), M.D./Ph.D.s and Ph.Ds. There are some people who stay in medical research and some who practice clinicial medicine.

If the knowledge base of the field is to advance, someone will need to continue to do research and I think the master plan is this will not be the AuD student...the concern is whether enough students will want to still pursue a PhD and focus on research and teaching, and how big the "pool" of candidates will be for these PhD programs (in addition to funding considerations).

It's an evolutionary process with lots of opinions on all sides. It's good to discuss and weigh in with our opinions now. Nice food for thought. Thanks for bringing it up!

This issue to me is still moot; I find it funny that not only the guy in the article but several program directors at top Audiology programs really believes that not enough PhD candidates are the biggest problem facing Audiology. This so called problem has been around since the dawning of time, and is certainly not exclusive to Audiology. From biology all the way down to Art Theater they complain about not enough PhD candidates', I think that's why they created "stipends", or maybe I'm wrong? I think the "extreme" exaggeration of this problem, is the cause of the sad shape some of the Audiology programs are in. This is why several programs are still stuck in past, with there so called AuD programs being nothing more than a "glorified master degree"!

 

[teucer]

Which programs are those of which you speak?

 

[Dustbug10]

What is the policy on continued education once in the workplace? I would hate to think that audiologists would accumulate all of that knowledge in the program, then mail it in so to speak once they hit the professional ranks.

 

[Integralpix]

Is there anyone else who can comment on the general job market for audiologists? I've seen postings in the 90-100 # range on career websites (compared to the 1000s for such fields as physical therapy and SLP). How hard is it to land a job in the field after graduation?

 

[marcrusc]

I found a few comments to be interesting. Firstly, James Jerger is one of the founding fathers of Audiology. The very way you find a threshold in clinic comes from him (Jerger-Carhart Method). Do a PubMed search and see what you find. Therefore, his opinion should carry a lot of weight. Audiology as a profession is in a precarious position, because there is nothing we will ever do that cannot be done by a lesser trained person. Hearing instrument specialists legally fit hearing aids and there has never been a study that suggests that they don't do it equally as well as us. Vestibular is slowly sliding towards Physical Therapy techs. Remember, all we do in vestib is test. We do not diagnose. We do not treat. Therefore, we don't have a tight hold over it. All we do with cochlear implants is program them. This too can be done by a tech. As technology moves forward and becomes more financially lucrative, there exists the possibility that these lesser trained groups will step up and chip away at our piece of the pie. As long as all we do is tantamount to technician work, we should be concerned. Therefore, it is imperative that PhDs keep the science moving forward. We have to continue developing tests that are more sensitive and more specific so that we can become more and more essential. If we don't continue to advance, the profession gets overrun. There is no competition like this for dentists or optometrists, which is why comparisons between what we like to call comparable professions do not always work. We need PhDs to keep all AuDs in jobs. The PhD is not a bad idea for everyone thinking to do a AuD. Remember, there is nothing that an AuD can do that a PhD cannot do. There is nothing that an AuD can do that an MD cannot do. It is just that those degrees provide routes to higher incomes, so they don't try to compete with us. AuDs are staff audiologists. PhDs are Audiology Department Directors. Are we better at clinic initially? Yes. Can a PhD be just as good at clinic and also be a great researcher? Absolutely. Also, remember that people do not tend to get PhDs without clinical degrees anymore. There is only one professor at my school that doesn't also have a clinical degree and he is in psychoacoustics! It just so happens that the base clinical degree now takes two years longer than it used to. Finally, PhDs are extremely specific. To argue that they are a generalist degree is extremely misleading. My issue with the PhD degree is that it tends to be too specific. There is in fact a dearth of PhDs. As a future AuD, I want there to be a lot more PhDs. We need to start thinking practically and not let our "doctoring profession" egos put us in an inferior position. We need people to do research. If its not going to be AuDs, then it better be PhDs. They do not really benefit by our work, but we do benefit by their work. So I hope tons of people choose the PhD.

 

[cmc271]

We need PhDs to keep all AuDs in jobs. The PhD is not a bad idea for everyone thinking to do a AuD. Remember, there is nothing that an AuD can do that a PhD cannot do. There is nothing that an AuD can do that an MD cannot do.

A word of caution regarding this. A traditional Ph.D. program trains you to be a researcher not a clinician. With most Ph.D. programs you will not earn your CCC-A, necessary for clinical practice. There are some dual Au.D./Ph.D. programs arising which do get you both degrees and your CCC-A. From speaking with various professors, the jury is still out on which is a better way to go about it if you want both degrees. Some think it's a great idea while others think it is better to get the Au.D. then practice for a few years and pursue a Ph.D.

 

[DrumHead]

Just to clarify: a CCC-A is not REQUIRED, although it is highly recommended you get it. A license is REQUIRED to practice.

 

[0U1988]

If you don't get at least a 50% scholarship to Vandy, then you should look to wherever you got money. Otherwise it is simply too expensive. This of course is assuming you got money from a good school.

Graduates from Vanderbilt do tend to make more money than those from many other schools. This is partly due to the reputation, as well as the networking that goes on from day one. However, the biggest reason by far is because Vandy produces excellent audiologists. Due to the faculty and facilities, it is easier to be excellent coming out of Vandy than elsewhere. However, with a little more effort, you could also be excellent coming out of a solid state school. If you get full funding at a U. of Memphis or another comparable school, I would go there, from a purely educational perspective.

In my opinion and that of multiple Audiology professors, it is absolutely foolish to take more than 80k in debt for an Audiology degree. There are tons of ways to make money in other fields without that kind of debt. When you look at salary data and the strongest predictive variable for salary is years experience, you know that lots of debt is not a wise choice.

Do not, however, go to a crappy school (and there are lots of them) just because they cover your bills. There are schools that should not be allowed to stay open. Don't take the PC perspective of everyone is equally amazing. If you choose a bad school this April, you will pay for it the rest of your career in the form of lower pay and ******ed advancement.

In sum, if Vandy, or any expensive private school, does not give you at least 50%, take a walk. You're diploma may not be as shiny, but your brand new car will be!

what crappy schools do you speak of i would like to steer clear?

 

[teucer]

We've heard this more than once. I think this is one of those "believe half of what you see and nothing what you hear" situations

 

[0U1988]

We've heard this more than once. I think this is one of those "believe half of what you see and nothing what you hear" situations

Could raise our salaries a bit if it passes
http://www.audiologyonline.com/news/news_detail.asp?news_id=3651

 

[marcrusc]

Hearing aid tax credits will be great if they pass all the way through. Our clinic director mentioned an additional $500 credit in the UAW insurance plan some time back and how there was literally a line out the door. People might react even though $500 off of a $4700 bill isn't that much. The key to higher wages is rising above 22% market penetration. We haven't been able to do that for the last 30 years. Maybe a credit will help. If you guys would like a comprehensive look at the current market, I can get you a link to the latest MarkeTrak.

If you would like my opinion on particular programs, please PM. It would be inconsiderate to possibly speak ill of a program someone is excited about.

 

[marcrusc]

The point about C's is pretty well moot. In a lot of states C's are actually required to obtain a state audiology license (We can thank ASHA for that). Tennessee is one of those states. However, they are not hard at all to get and easier to maintain. There are tons of PhDs without clinical degrees who have C's. In my experience, albeit limited, I notice the following pattern. A newly admitted AuD expects high pay and high respect. He doesn't find it, so he gets angry at PhDs and MDs who have the benefits he wants. He can then finish his AuD and then get a PhD, become permanently bitter, or realize where he fits in this game and use his strengths to come out ahead. It is very easy (and counterproductive) to get caught up in this whole "white coat" "doctor" thing. We don't have the pull to win that game. The sooner you are able to understand the bigger dynamic and how you fit in it, the sooner you'll actually be happy. At least this is how it worked for me.

 

[0U1988]

The point about C's is pretty well moot. In a lot of states C's are actually required to obtain a state audiology license (We can thank ASHA for that). Tennessee is one of those states. However, they are not hard at all to get and easier to maintain. There are tons of PhDs without clinical degrees who have C's. In my experience, albeit limited, I notice the following pattern. A newly admitted AuD expects high pay and high respect. He doesn't find it, so he gets angry at PhDs and MDs who have the benefits he wants. He can then finish his AuD and then get a PhD, become permanently bitter, or realize where he fits in this game and use his strengths to come out ahead. It is very easy (and counterproductive) to get caught up in this whole "white coat" "doctor" thing. We don't have the pull to win that game. The sooner you are able to understand the bigger dynamic and how you fit in it, the sooner you'll actually be happy. At least this is how it worked for me.

hmm your experiences worry me no respect or good money! That's a lot of money and time spent getting a Aud; so what have your experiences shown you? Do people even consider us a doctors, what are these benefits you speak of PhD's and MD'S have an not us?

 

[teucer]

The Master of Architecture (M.Arch) program I was looking at as a contingency for getting rejected from the Au.D. programs was a four year program. Granted M.Arch students have summers off but it is still four years...for a masters! Four years is a small investment that I am happy to make, regardless of whether or not I'm a "real" doctor. I remember there being some article about people getting tripped up over status and titles; it was a good read. I'll post it up if I can find it again.

 

[0U1988]

The Master of Architecture (M.Arch) program I was looking at as a contingency for getting rejected from the Au.D. programs was a four year program. Granted M.Arch students have summers off but it is still four years...for a masters! Four years is a small investment that I am happy to make, regardless of whether or not I'm a "real" doctor. I remember there being some article about people getting tripped up over status and titles; it was a good read. I'll post it up if I can find it again.

I'm not worried about status i just want to hear what Marcrus, has to say on the subject he seems to have some insight on how things work so i would like too hearhis opinion. Small investment or big investment, it's still an investment and i would like to get a glimpse into what the future might hold.

 

[marcrusc]

As always, understand that these are my opinions and that they are colored by my experiences. However, that being said, I think I am much closer to reality in my opinions than I wish I was.

As for respect from patients, when you have the ability to put on a white coat, they will call you doctor. However, I have yet to have a patient that didn't think I was a PhD or MD. Furthermore, none of them seem as impressed when I have to explain that I am actually receiving some obscure degree. We are members of a new profession and recipients of an even newer degree. What we have failed to this point to do is establish how our skills as "doctors" are superior to those of masters level practitioners. It is not enough in the eyes of PhDs and MDs to simply start calling ourselves doctors. We are not their equal in their eyes, and I would likely say, that we are not their equals in my own eyes. There are a lot of AuDs who do not know why they do certain things. This makes them technicians. Until that changes, we cannot expect increased respect. It is telling when a famous audiology researcher came to grand rounds a few weeks ago and put up his acknowledgements. The MDs and PhDs were grouped together. Then came a large space down and the two AuDs. Note that this presentation was given to a room full of fifty AuDs, students and clinicians.That being said, if you go about your business as an audiologist and your pscyhe does not require that you be accepted at the highest levels, then you can do quite well.


Respect issues aside, money is also limited at the AuD level as compared to the PhD. By far, the route to highest AuD income is private practice. However, this route is subject to many forces outside of your control. The economy can crash and your business can bankrupt even if you are a great audiologist. I prefer more stability. This stability will cost you though. You will have to take decreased pay as a staff audiologist, with the highest of those salaries coming from the VA's and the military. You can also work for industry, but that is more sales than audiology.

PhDs however have more routes. As opposed to only being a staff audiologist, PhDs have the ability to become clinic and department directors. This is exceedingly rare for AuDs, though our hearing aid clinic is indeed managed by an AuD (His boss is a PhD). Additionally, they can make money teaching, tons of money in industry, among other sources.

The main point is to say that their is a glass ceiling for the AuD degree. You cannot go as far as you might like, because the letters at the end of your name are not the right ones. PhDs have always held these high positions and until they are sufficiently convinced of the AuDs quality, you are not going to advance like you might like. This is much more important than whiny "Why won't they respect me?" arguments. They are directly messing with you wallet. If you are okay being a staff member, then that is great! Audiology is a great, comfortable job. However, if you want more, then in my opinion, you will have to get a PhD. Four years of AuD and 3 years of PhD is not entirely unreasonable. Put in three more years now and reap the benefits till the day you die.

Some people may not recognize any lack of respect towards the AuD degree. I would argue that these people are the ones who don't want anything more than being a staff audiologist. People that want to do something else will find their efforts impeded. There are lots of jobs with much less education and student loans that will provide just as high or higher a salary. What everyone has to do is determine if this career provides something that the others don't. This decision is best made sooner rather than later.

 

[cidanu]

this whole issue of respect and wanting to be on the level with phd's and md's is part of what steered me towards audiology over speech path-really for me that comes down to competitiveness and ego.

at the same time i'll admit that what drew me to audiology over medicine is the fact that it's less intense, and to audiology over the phd is that i want to have a clinical skill, and i'm not sure i want the constant pressure to publish that comes with academic tenure.

i think audiology sits nicely in the middle of all those things and i hope i'll be happy there, but this is already my first career change, so i know you never have to stay in one place. in fact there was a pharmacist at one of the open houses i attended who was interested in speech path and the faculty were really impressed. if my competitiveness gets to me or i get bored, i plan to get a phd. in fact i'm already kind of anticipating it will.

 

[teucer]

My father is an anesthesiologist (MD). He opines that Au.D.s are not "real" doctors and are just a product of "degree creep". But, who cares? I mean really, who gives a damn. He still thinks it is great I am pursuing the career field and all that & is behind me 100%.

I respect his opinion, as my thoughts on the matter are similar. Seeing what my dad went through to get his MD, I would never consider myself to be on parity with him on a professional level. That's just the way it is. In the military, a saying goes: "there's always someone bigger and better than you are". That's the case with the Au.D. just as it is in every other field.

 

[DrumHead]

Audiology as a profession is in a precarious position, because there is nothing we will ever do that cannot be done by a lesser trained person. Hearing instrument specialists legally fit hearing aids and there has never been a study that suggests that they don't do it equally as well as us. Vestibular is slowly sliding towards Physical Therapy techs. Remember, all we do in vestib is test. We do not diagnose. We do not treat. Therefore, we don't have a tight hold over it. All we do with cochlear implants is program them. This too can be done by a tech. As technology moves forward and becomes more financially lucrative, there exists the possibility that these lesser trained groups will step up and chip away at our piece of the pie.

You can teach a 10 year old how to do technician work. The difference lies in the knowledge base. You seem to be looking too much at just the testing and not the full scope of what is involved to practice. The Au.D. is a highly specific degree, one that encompasses considerably more than button pushing. We diagnose, we prescribe, we counsel, and we treat.

As for respect, I can only say that you get the respect you earn. That goes for anyone with or without a degree. If you want to sit around and wear a slanty face

because you don't think your Au.D. is good enough, then that's about as much respect you'll get for it. If you're looking for some sort of respect from Academia, well, perhaps you should have gone for a Ph.D. What does a Ph.D. think of a D.D.S or an O.D.? Does it matter? As for patients, you are a in position of authority and unless you royally screw something up, you will have at least the respect afforded others of those in the health care industry (good or bad, depending on your raisings)
You also mentioned that patient's were 'not impressed' by your Au.D. Are we in the business of impressing patients? I mean if we do it through practice, then great, but I'm not here to dazzle my patients with a degree.

I am excited about this degree and the options available. I'm not interested in researching (done it, not for me), It doesn't matter to me what the Academes think of the value of my degree. I love the possibility of autonomy (ask a technician if he can do THAT!). It is a different degree and shouldn't be compared to Ph.D's, apple and oranges and all that.


I apologize if this sounds too harsh, but I am bit disappointed in the bleakness that seems to be seeping into this thread.

 

[psychbert]

I am excited about this degree and the options available. I'm not interested in researching (done it, not for me), It doesn't matter to me what the Academes think of the value of my degree. I love the possibility of autonomy (ask a technician if he can do THAT!). It is a different degree and shouldn't be compared to Ph.D's, apple and oranges and all that.

I was in the position of doing hearing research previously, but now I see the AuD as a nice alternative to the demands of the PhD. It is definitely all about finding what works for you and embracing the traits of your chosen career path.

 

[marcrusc]

I agree with most of the last few posts whole heartedly. However, to clarify, I do not argue that I care for respect for respects sake. Rather, by being seen as "degree creep", doors are shut to us that wouldn't be shut otherwise. Everyone can agree that that situation is not preferable. I would also agree with the statement that counseling is a wonderful thing that sets us apart from techs. However, we do not legally diagnose anything ever, not even hearing loss (at least in Tennessee). A flat profound hearing loss with zero air-bone gaps, as "diagnosed" by an audiologist will officially be purely conductive at the say so of any MD (or NP for that matter). The "prescribing" is done by a computer. You will always either use a formula from the National Acoustic Laboratories in australia or you will use the Desired Sensation Level formula. Prescribing amounts to hitting a button. From that point on you are just clicking a mouse to match targets. Apart from counseling, there is no distinction between us and hearing instrument specialists, as far as hearing aids go. They have high school degrees.

I really enjoy Audiology. I simply feel that there are lots of things that one will learn about the profession only after having made the jump. This information shouldn't be hidden for fear of being labled "negative nancy". I plan on making a lot of money and having fun while I'm doing it. You all can do the exact same. I suggest only that you have a healthy respect for both sides of what you are getting into.

 

[0U1988]

so i finally found a VERY recent article on the state of Audiology in this tough economy thought i would share!
Part 1
http://www.audiologyonline.com/theHearingJournal/pdfs/HJ2009_03_p7-8.pdf
Part 2
http://www.audiologyonline.com/theHearingJournal/pdfs/HJ2009_04_p28-29.pdf