Only if they're not competitive candidates. Top programs will always want to get the top candidates and will offer them competitive pay. If you're not a competitive candidate, I guess you're out of luck, you'll have to go to a program that pays far less, but that's how the world works.
The dentist comparison doesn't really fly. They (and optometrists, audiologists, and whathaveyou) can do only 4 years because they focus on only 1 body system. Plus, without residency training even dentists are limited in their practices. In a 4 year school, we could probably train an non-operative ENT (or one who only did minor things like ear tubes). Same idea with a urologist who only did scopes and vasectomies.
See I'm not sure that's true though. If you have the option of paying a great candidate 50k or a decent candidate 25k, what's the incentive for a program to choose the former?
Because a program's reputation depends on the quality of candidates they hire. If I hire top talent (e.g. Harvard grads), my program's reputation/prestige increases and I'll be able to recruit more top talent in the future. And some of those people will stick around and take jobs or fellowships at my hospital, too. The whole institution benefits. The premium salary is very worth it.
No, it really doesn't - assuming American MD students. Obviously a whole program of Carb. grads or DOs will raise eyebrows, but otherwise it doesn't tend to make a huge difference.
The idea isn't to create a specialist in 4 years. The idea is to graduate people from medical school with enough experience to practice medicine, although with a limited scope and probably under supervision. If NPs and PAs have enough knowledge/experience upon graduation to practice without killing anyone, why can't we? The result of this is that the GME system will no longer have everyone by the balls and the changes we've been talking about can actually happen.
I know the most about FM, IM, Peds, Psych etc. and in those areas a lot of program directors would kill to even get a couple of decent american MD grads. Surgery may be somewhat different, but a top grad is always more likely to pass the boards, more likely to produce great research, and more likely to get good jobs and fellowships. There's a reason why top programs aren't taking average med students en masse. A ****ty program conversely can improve by bringing in top talent, some of whom will end up staying as faculty and future program directors and improve the program.
If the quality of med students doesn't matter, given that they're all american MDs, why do top programs always go for students from the top schools with top scores? Why is every program trying to get the student from the best school with the best grades/scores they can? It must matter to them.
As a med school graduate, I think that sounds just awful but I would not be opposed to it on principle.
Well then the medical field is completely ****ed up because in every other field the top companies pay top salaries for fresh grads, even though having those companies on your resume would essentially be a golden ticket to any job in the future, much like training at MGH. You think people would work at those companies for peanuts, but they don't.
See, other than the American MD thing that's just not true. Outside of academic jobs (and even then, not in the top 5 things they look at), where you went to med school doesn't really matter. There is correlation between Step scores and board pass rate, but not really one that correlates GPA or med school. I don't know enough about research trends to speak to that one.
I bet Google could tank new-hire salaries and still get great people
I doubt it. If they could, they would. Google is not dumb enough to pay any more than they need to.
So why do programs insist on getting the best candidates they can? Why is there so much emphasis on scores and grades and research? Why not just pick any set of average students who seem nice?
Lol @free money. A ridiculous system perpetuated by the older heads who are making strides in their careers. Its a "If we did it ,so should you" mentality because you'll be making six figures soon. Basically, suck it up and be a b**ch for 3-4 and you'll be able to afford that new merc. If residents and med students don't stand up for themselves, noone else will.
Because medical school grads are forced to go to residency. No undergraduate is forced to go to any particular program after graduation in order to use their degree.
The system has not worked well if people are graduating with 300k+ student loan and other people are practicing medicine with <1/3 knowledge/experience of MD/DO...
No one is saying that rising tuition is justified or good, we're saying that it shouldnt' affect residency pay because residencies aren't the reason for tuition increases.
You show a profound lack of understanding about economics. Tuition keeps going up because students can get loans to cover it. If tomorrow everything changed and the maximum you could borrow for school loans was 25k/year total from all sources, schools would find a way to get their prices down to 25k/year. Currently, students are finding ways to cover the cost and so schools can charge more.
Because all other things being equal, why wouldn't you try for the best? Right now, there is no advantage to not taking the best applicants you can. If tomorrow, programs had the choice between an AOA Hopkins grad who demanded 60k/year and a solid B student state school grad who was willing to work for 20k/year, I bet lots of places would choose that B student.
I think you're wrong. They could easily cut back of salary, perks, or whatever - they are consistently ranked high in employee benefits WAY above most other companies. They could easily get by with being #1 by a much smaller margin if they chose.
The system does need to be changed because we're paying more and more and getting less and less. You haven't been in school for a while so you probably don't realize how much has changed. We have so much useless fluff wasting our time and we have less and less actual bedside teaching and clinical experience. We barely get to do anything as med students. It wasn't like this in decades past.
So why don't they? Do they just like wasting money?
If you have to start by saying 'serious question', I guess you aren't serious... Med school and residency can't be separated because med students don't have a choice to skip residency... You even call it training in your previous post. Do you really think students/residents would be complaining about 50k salary if they were graduating with <100k in student loan? Med school structure does not give us a choice to practice w/o residency, so either they address the outrageous tuition or they start paying resident more so resident can prevents their student loan interest from ballooning...
I doubt they see it as a waste. When I interviewed for my MA, she told me what hourly rate she expected. I started her out at more than that. I've found it inspires more loyalty, proves I care. Could I have gotten her for less? Obviously so. Do I consider it a waste? Not in the slightest.
I could find you work after intern year quite easily, I had 3 different moonlighting jobs 2nd and 3rd year. That said, you need to go after the payers. They are the ones who won't pay you for your work without completing a residency. The law, at least in my state, says that after intern year you are a fully-fledged doctor and can do as you please. Its Blue Cross and Medicare that say different.If you have to start by saying 'serious question', I guess you aren't serious... Med school and residency can't be separated because med students don't have a choice to skip residency... You even call it training in your previous post. Do you really think students/residents would be complaining about 50k salary if they were graduating with <100k in student loan? Med school structure does not give us a choice to practice w/o residency, so either they address the outrageous tuition or they start paying resident more so resident can prevents their student loan interest from ballooning...
Interesting fact I was told by my friend who did his intern year and practice for 1 year in PR.... He told me they have no NP/PA there (or he did not meet one during his two years there) because there is no need for them... I asked him why and he told me that the government facilitate med students to work as GP after 1-year intern and most PR students elect to become GP instead of FM/IM docs.... So there are more GP than FM docs there... I wonder if a lot of people aren't dying because of that
Dude, I've only been out 5 years. The fluff was there, I hated it every bit as much as you do. I would have loved things to be more clinical too. But, in the end it really doesn't matter. You still get into residency, finish that, and then go play doctor. Other than tuition, things haven't changed all that much in the last several years.
It does matter because if all the fluffs (PBL, professionalism, interdisciplinary BS) are taken out, the curriculum can be covered in 3 years easily... That is 60k+ saving for most med students... I certainly would prefer to graduate with 200k instead of 260...
Lol, the only job an MD actually qualifies you for is a doctor. The mission of every medical school is to produce doctors. You can't be a doctor without completing a residency. So yeah, I'd say you are forced to go to residency.
Not going to argue with you after reading this nonsense...
Dilute the brand? Didn't know we were a "brand". I think we've already done enough diluting in the public's eyes by opening up so many shady offshore med schools that will take pretty much anybody.
We are. When people go to the doctor, there is as assumption of a certain level of competence.
Not going to post my schedule , but I have friends in 4th year who are taking Spanish for 3 months as elective. Lol
If you count half of 4th year, which most people spend coasting on the easiest electives they could find (one of my friends is doing 'medical cooking' for a month... really?) and all the useless lectures we get in 1st and 2nd year from PhDs who just want to prop up their own research, and add that to all the fluff, you'll get more than a year that you could easily shave off. Let's not forget that most of 3rd year is glorified shadowing (at least at my school). Eliminate all of that and you wouldn't change the quality of the education at all.
