.

[GrouchoMarx]

 

I had the same problem. My undergrad research prof despised premeds and wouldn't give me a letter after I declined his offer to do a masters in his lab. He wanted me to continue on with his useless crap research. Petty academic peon, he was. It didn't matter in the end because I got admitted without his help.

 

Your prof is a pathetic loser. He is demanding that you put your potential dreams on hold so that he can get some free work out of an undergrad minion. I'm at a loss for words. He's probably one of those profs who tried to get into medicine but couldn't, and is now very jealous.

Apply anyway, and stop talking about it with him. If you don't tell him anything, you're not lying.

Find another academic reference if you must: another prof, another lab tech, another anyone, as long as they are in NO WAY associated with your lab. If word gets back to him he will try to sink you. He's that type, I know it.

It is clear from his conduct that he hates premeds and will not give you a good reference, even if you do stay for next year. I'd try to find another prof to work with, one with a track record of helping his undergrads get into medicine. Let's be honest here: your research in undergrad is a hurdle to jump, nothing more (but don't tell the profs that). When looking for a new prof, be kind and respectful, but also be clear that medicine is your ultimate goal and admission after your bachelor degree is what you hope to achieve.

[indefatigable]

I'm in no way defending or excusing the prof's action's or behaviour.  But from what I've seen,  the prof may have a chip on his shoulder which can be understood by looking at the career trajectory.

 He may have been through not only grad school, but post-docs and then the tenure-track progression.  Each of these steps is more competitive than the last, with the number of PhDs who obtain tenure-track positions being in the single percentage digits in many cases.  After these years, the prof may earn considerably less than a physician with a considerable amount of responsibility and pressure.  The system that he likely went through is only gentlemanly on the surface, it's a very competitive game, often fairly adversarial usually without any aid given.  

The system, may have helped to produce the individual - the system's needs become his responsibilities and thus "optimal" labour maximisation may become second nature, and "helping" a foreign concept, since publications have to be produced for more grants.  The individual and role of prof become increasingly inseparable.

Additionally, the prof may perceive that the grass is greener on the other side.  And thus, all these factors may in part contribute to the prof to manifest their own frustration with their career on the pre-med and even more.

In short, in the end, it's probably nothing personal.

[JohnGrisham]

Counterpoint: At least the research I have been involved in back in UG, the first little while was considerable amount of training and time away the grad students had to take to mentor/teach me. It took at least the first 8-10 months to get proficient at what i was doing, better at writing up things etc etc, where I became somewhat self-proficient and competent. From that point forward is where i would become a net contributer to the lab and "earn my keep" so to speak. So to an extent, i'd say there is some rationale behind wanting a longer term committment. 

BUT of course this is not always the case, and some UGs are just beaker monkeys or doing menial tasks - but if thats the case, theres not much reason to stick around anyways, because what could the LOR even say ha? "Cleaned and sterlized well!"

[adhominem]

20 hours ago, GrouchoMarx said:

 

I had the same problem. My undergrad research prof despised premeds and wouldn't give me a letter after I declined his offer to do a masters in his lab. He wanted me to continue on with his useless crap research. Petty academic peon, he was. It didn't matter in the end because I got admitted without his help.

 

Your prof is a pathetic loser. He is demanding that you put your potential dreams on hold so that he can get some free work out of an undergrad minion. I'm at a loss for words. He's probably one of those profs who tried to get into medicine but couldn't, and is now very jealous.

Wow, talk about someone with a chip on their shoulder. 

I have to echo other comments from people who seem to be a little more experienced when it comes to research: training undergrads is time consuming and expensive for professors. In many respects, they're doing the undergrad student the favor by allowing them to try and help, not the other way around. It would be far more cost effective for them to hire an experienced tech to do whatever it is the undergrad does for the most part. 

The prof probably needs to relax, thats for sure. But at the same time I would caution you against going behind his back and getting a letter from another lab member. He would find out and torch you if he decides to be vindictive. Believe it or not, most people do see purposefully omitting details as lying, so you should keep that in mind.

[rcmp1234]

Get a reference letter from someone not involved with the prof and definitely don't ask him for one. One bad reference letter can unfortunately ruin your chances of getting into medicine. I've been involved with file review and unfortunately there were a few applicants with outstanding grades, ECs, and two otherwise excellent reference letter but wirh one negative reference letter that claims applicant is unsuitable for medicine. Without giving specifics let's just say one negative reference letter can entirely destroy your chances of getting an interview invite, let alone acceptance.

[asdasdasd]

.

[Lactic Folly]

1 hour ago, KeyzerSoze said:

Jesus christ. I don't know how some people could be so vile. It's one thing to tell your student that you're in no position to write them a reference, it's another to assure that that you're on their side and then slander them behind their backs.

To be fair, we don't know that the negative letter came from someone who cheerily agreed to write a strong letter. Most referees in this situation will show some lack of enthusiasm, but students may forge ahead in obtaining the letter because they feel they lack other alternatives, or value the referee's title or role.

[moonlitocean]

Your PI sounds like the kind of person that would sabotage your med school application if you ever ask him for a reference letter down the road. Run while you still can.

[ZBL]

As someone who has gone through grad school, and now medicine, some of the comments here are pretty naive. 

Undergrads are functionally useless to a lab when they start. They eat up resources and time. If they are doing an independent project, they are usually small and not terribly significant. If it is a bigger one part of a research program, then usually it’s something attached to a grad student’s work and that grad student needs to take time away to deal with it. As someone else above mentioned, it is not until you accumulate a reasonable amount of skill and knowledge that you become useful to the research team. So by that token, if you showed up and said “I want to do project X”, then the professor damn well expects you to finish project X. If you leave half way, they have to waste even more time trying to train someone else just to get back to the point where you left the lab, which is incredibly wasteful to the lab in terms of resources, money and time. 

People seem to think participating in research is some sort of right-of-way to get into med school. It isn’t. You don’t need to do it to get in. People also seem to think it’s a professors primary job to train undergrads. It’s not. It’s to do research and train grad students. They owe you nothing. 

My advice to to anyone here, before walking into a lab like some hot shot thinking they’re going to get into med school, take a minute and think about whether research is something you actually want to do. If so, and you agree to do a project, then finish it. It’s no different than anything else, be it matching in CaRMS, taking on some leadership position or agreeing to pick someone up from the airport - follow through on the commitments you are making. No one is saying you need to be a researcher for life - but be clear with people up front about what your goals and expectations are. In a research lab, that could be “hey Dr. _____, I’m in my second year of undergrad, and I’m really fascinated by the work that you are doing. My long term goal is to apply to medical school, but I would be very keen to learn more about _____. I was wondering if there might be any possibility to volunteer to provide assistance to any projects that you or your graduate students are working on.” 

There, you’ve been up front, and rather than taking on something new on your own you just lend a helping hand. Free to leave whenever you want. Very different from agreeing to do some big project on your own and then bailing halfway. 

So so from my view, if I was the prof (and having done med school and grad school), I’d probably be similar. I doubt he really cares what your final career is whether it’s medicine, research or whatever else, but If I’m giving up time to train you, I’d expect you to give back time to the team as per your commitment. Otherwise I’d see it as a professionalism issue. 

And actually, UofC highlights exactly that in their MD applications. Grad students are not allowed to apply and leave grad school midway without the explicit written approval by their supervisor to leave, because of the professionalism issue. 

So in your case, I’d say do what you like - be it apply now or wait a year. If you apply now, I would not ask your prof for a letter.

Lastly, despite what others here have suggested, no, the prof probably never wanted to do med school and did grad school as their primary interest. Med students/premeds seem to think everyone wants to be like us. I mean, 200K in debt, an extra 9-10 years of training with no income, slave work hours, no autonomy - yeah EVERYONE wants that....

[asdasdasd]

.

[goleafsgochris]

Yeah, there is nothing to gain at that lab anymore.  Leave now, seriously.  If he "doesn't think well of you" even somewhat you don't want him writing your letter.  Start at a new lab or not, but don't consider using anyone from that lab as a reference.  Also, put down a post-doc (not him) as your verifier when you write on your application that you worked in his lab.

I will also note that I think youre being too kind in the above post.  A student leaving his lab for med school is not a good reason to "despise" them lol.  Stuff like this makes me so glad I never went the grad school route.

[indefatigable]

On 1/20/2018 at 2:43 PM, ZBL said:

 

 People also seem to think it’s a professors primary job to train undergrads. It’s not. It’s to do research and train grad students. They owe you nothing. 

 

Lastly, despite what others here have suggested, no, the prof probably never wanted to do med school and did grad school as their primary interest. Med students/premeds seem to think everyone wants to be like us. I mean, 200K in debt, an extra 9-10 years of training with no income, slave work hours, no autonomy - yeah EVERYONE wants that....

Depends on the school and position - at smaller schools, a professor's job is precisely to teach and train undergrads, since there are typically no or few grad students.  At a larger center, sure - research and teaching would be paramount, with a focus on post-docs and/or grad students for most faculty, but lecturers will have different responsibilities.

Grad school is a much rawer deal for most - as I mentioned above, the overall chances of getting a tenure track job is very low for the average PhD even with post-docs.  Plus it takes even longer with lower pay compared to residency and staff.  Still, the high debt, if one didn't match to CaRMS especially wouldn't be an enviable burden either.

And as far as work hours are concerned, try working for Prof. Carreira (see link).

[ZBL]

57 minutes ago, calcan said:

Depends on the school and position - at smaller schools, a professor's job is precisely to teach and train undergrads, since there are typically no or few grad students.  At a larger center, sure - research and teaching would be paramount, with a focus on post-docs and/or grad students for most faculty, but lecturers will have different responsibilities.

Grad school is a much rawer deal for most - as I mentioned above, the overall chances of getting a tenure track job is very low for the average PhD even with post-docs.  Plus it takes even longer with lower pay compared to residency and staff.  Still, the high debt, if one didn't match to CaRMS especially, wouldn't be an enviable burden either.

And as far as work hours are concerned, try working for Prof. Carreira (see attached).

Except at smaller schools, where there is the expectation to teach, there is minimal expectation to do research, and so we would not have this discussion in that case. 

University professor is one career option open to PhDs, but it's not the only one. Many go into business, start a company, work for industry, go into government etc. I'll bet the unemployment rate is higher for new ortho or CV surgery grads than it is for PhD grads. 

A PhD is also not longer compared to residency and staff. It's usually 5-6 years after undergrad, plus possible post-doc time of 1-3 years. Any medical specialty other than FM takes longer than that.

For finances - PhDs and post-docs get paid during their training. Most schools now have rules that profs cannot take a PhD student unless they pay them some minimum amount each year, usually around 25K. So even a middle of the road PhD student can very easily take in 30-35K per year in tax-free cash with many earning higher than that depending on the awards they receive, and post-doc pay is higher still - somewhere between 50-70K. Now they start working. If you do the math, someone who does a PhD and works in academia, industry or government can earn on par or be not too far off with many physicians over the course of a 30 year career, accounting for overhead and retirement savings.

And for work hours, the letter you posted is crazy, and by far not the norm for grad school, but is totally reasonable in most medical residencies and ongoing in some specialties as a staff. Many professors adopt the notion of "get the work done, i don't care where or when you do it, but get it done" which is great if you are good with time management. And once you are tenured, or in government/industry, your work hours drop significantly, whereas the same may not be the case for most medical specialties.

All that to say, going the PhD route is really not as bleak as it's made out to be. 

 

[indefatigable]

4 hours ago, ZBL said:

Except at smaller schools, where there is the expectation to teach, there is minimal expectation to do research, and so we would not have this discussion in that case. 

University professor is one career option open to PhDs, but it's not the only one. Many go into business, start a company, work for industry, go into government etc. I'll bet the unemployment rate is higher for new ortho or CV surgery grads than it is for PhD grads. 

A PhD is also not longer compared to residency and staff. It's usually 5-6 years after undergrad, plus possible post-doc time of 1-3 years. Any medical specialty other than FM takes longer than that.

For finances - PhDs and post-docs get paid during their training. Most schools now have rules that profs cannot take a PhD student unless they pay them some minimum amount each year, usually around 25K. So even a middle of the road PhD student can very easily take in 30-35K per year in tax-free cash with many earning higher than that depending on the awards they receive, and post-doc pay is higher still - somewhere between 50-70K. Now they start working. If you do the math, someone who does a PhD and works in academia, industry or government can earn on par or be not too far off with many physicians over the course of a 30 year career, accounting for overhead and retirement savings.

And for work hours, the letter you posted is crazy, and by far not the norm for grad school, but is totally reasonable in most medical residencies and ongoing in some specialties as a staff. Many professors adopt the notion of "get the work done, i don't care where or when you do it, but get it done" which is great if you are good with time management. And once you are tenured, or in government/industry, your work hours drop significantly, whereas the same may not be the case for most medical specialties.

All that to say, going the PhD route is really not as bleak as it's made out to be. 

 

Faculty at all schools have the same general responsibilities, but with different balance.  Any science tenure-track faculty member within Canada, would be expected to do research and obtain grants.  At a larger university, the teaching load would be less and commensurately there would be more emphasis on research.  There would also be grad students and post-docs at a larger institution as opposed to a smaller institution.  

Starting businesses- you mean graduates from Caltech (where the letter is from)?  That's probably one of the most innovative universities out there (certainly per-capita).  And high expectations are standard at top-tier US universities in many scientific disciplines.  Sadly, this letter is maybe extreme, but is by no means exceptional.  I know of post-docs who have faced similar demands.  

And it's a big problem getting PhDs to relevant jobs (especially in Canada).  Yitang Zhang (a mathematician) worked at Subway post-PhD before solving a major problem and actually becoming a professor.  I don't know of too many ortho or CV grads driving taxis or working in subway shops (and things should NEVER get there - as an aside).  

The numbers you quote for funding are quite high.  I know of many grad students on 15-25K stipends which is much tighter to live on (before tuition).  Perhaps it depends on the field and discipline?  Again, your post-doc numbers are high as well.  In my case, I had a major fellowship, and earned considerably less.  

In terms of time, most grad-students in Canada must do a Master's degree which adds at least two years.  After two or more post-docs (standard in the life sciences), and I've seen faculty coming in with 10-15 years post-baccalaureate experience (so even more than many staff physicians).  There are too many variables to fully compare the professions (specialty, university, etc..) but I would argue that only an exceptional university professor would have a similar renumeration to a family physician (within Canada).  I'd argue that outside of academia, that the average PhD doesn't do nearly as well as a physician - there are exceptions but most non-academic jobs involve career switches or underemployment or both.  The US is different both within and outside academia - a PhD can open more doors and faculty members can have considerable renumeration.  Primary care in the US otoh is not always well compensated compared to Canada.  

I agree that post-tenure, people don't necessarily have the same pressure, but I also know staff physicians are also more comfortable with experience.

 

[goleafsgochris]

54 minutes ago, ZBL said:

Except at smaller schools, where there is the expectation to teach, there is minimal expectation to do research, and so we would not have this discussion in that case. 

University professor is one career option open to PhDs, but it's not the only one. Many go into business, start a company, work for industry, go into government etc. I'll bet the unemployment rate is higher for new ortho or CV surgery grads than it is for PhD grads. 

A PhD is also not longer compared to residency and staff. It's usually 5-6 years after undergrad, plus possible post-doc time of 1-3 years. Any medical specialty other than FM takes longer than that.

For finances - PhDs and post-docs get paid during their training. Most schools now have rules that profs cannot take a PhD student unless they pay them some minimum amount each year, usually around 25K. So even a middle of the road PhD student can very easily take in 30-35K per year in tax-free cash with many earning higher than that depending on the awards they receive, and post-doc pay is higher still - somewhere between 50-70K. Now they start working. If you do the math, someone who does a PhD and works in academia, industry or government can earn on par or be not too far off with many physicians over the course of a 30 year career, accounting for overhead and retirement savings.

And for work hours, the letter you posted is crazy, and by far not the norm for grad school, but is totally reasonable in most medical residencies and ongoing in some specialties as a staff. Many professors adopt the notion of "get the work done, i don't care where or when you do it, but get it done" which is great if you are good with time management. And once you are tenured, or in government/industry, your work hours drop significantly, whereas the same may not be the case for most medical specialties.

All that to say, going the PhD route is really not as bleak as it's made out to be. 

 

Not to get into a big argument but this is an EXTREMELY rosy view of grad school, and is certainly not the norm.

The comparison to new ortho grads is silly.  They can locum even without a job and earn 300k+/year.  They may work poor hours, but at age 30-35 that is how much the AVERAGE orthopod makes.  What percentage of people who went the grad school route make that much even at 40?  I would bet its well under 0.5%.  

35K/year is not affordable in even a mid sized city.  Good luck enjoying your late 20s like that.  What post doc do you know making 70k?  I know over 10 post docs and their salary is cripplingly low.  One of them lives in subsidized housing.  I don't think any of them clear 40k.  Meanwhile is residency, EVERY SINGLE resident makes over 50k in the first year and over 75k by the 5th.

Its not really even an argument, as evidenced by: the banks.  They will give anyone who enters med school 275k because they can pay it back.  They will certainly not do that for a grad student, and we both know the reason why--because most of them would never be able to pay it back.  

I'm not trying to attack you I just don't want an unsuspecting undergrad coming across this post and buying into it bc IMO its insanely misleading

[ExercMed]

I definitely know some PIs that are like what is in that letter ahah. Really stresses the importance of choosing the right lab. Starting a PhD is very often done out of sheer interest in the research, not the end goal of going into academia or industry/business (most people I talk to only start developing these thoughts after a few years in the program). Clearly they want to have a career in the field but the exact route isn't solid. I agree with @calcan, those numbers are crazy high. 15-25K (again before tuition), is more on par with PhD students earning closer to 25K. If they have external funding this is usually subtracted from what the PI is giving so it doesn't get a whole lot higher. 30K would be amazing IMO. For post-docs, I can't imagine anyone making 70K even in HEAVILY funded labs. There is really no comparison. 

[ZBL]

4 hours ago, calcan said:

Starting businesses- you mean graduates from Caltech (where the letter is from)?  That's probably one of the most innovative universities out there (certainly per-capita).

Since when do you have to be a CalTech grad to start a business?

And it's a big problem getting PhDs to relevant jobs (especially in Canada).  Yitang Zhang (a mathematician) worked at Subway post-PhD before solving a major problem and actually becoming a professor.  I don't know of too many ortho or CV grads driving taxis or working in subway shops (and things should NEVER get there - as an aside).  

That's a pretty extreme example. There was a neurosurgeon who murdered his family, but I don't think all neurosurgeons are murderers. Just like not all PhDs are serving Subway. Scientists don't rely on anecdotes. 

The numbers you quote for funding are quite high.  I know of many grad students on 15-25K stipends which is much tighter to live on (before tuition).  Perhaps it depends on the field and discipline?  Again, your post-doc numbers are high as well.  In my case, I had a major fellowship, and earned considerably less.  

15K is crazy low for a PhD student. Shame on them for accepting that position, and shame on the school for offering it. I've heard that number for an MSc, but certainly not a PhD.Again, TA money is extra to this.

 

In terms of time, most grad-students in Canada must do a Master's degree which adds at least two years.  After two or more post-docs (standard in the life sciences), and I've seen faculty coming in with 10-15 years post-baccalaureate experience (so even more than many staff physicians).  

Also pretty extreme. MSc is 2 years, PhD is 4 for a combined of 6 normally. Post-docs do range in length. But anyone with 15 years of grad school/post-doc training without a job is doing it wrong or has had some major setbacks along the way (and is very likely in the minority).

 

There are too many variables to fully compare the professions (specialty, university, etc..) but I would argue that only an exceptional university professor would have a similar renumeration to a family physician (within Canada).  

False, and I'll show you below. 

 

I'd argue that outside of academia, that the average PhD doesn't do nearly as well as a physician - there are exceptions but most non-academic jobs involve career switches or underemployment or both.  

True. You gamble a bit going outside of academia. Can either pay very big or very little. Also probably very dependent on the discipline, with easier money tending to involve those in engineering/computer science. Life science doesn't have many alternatives beyond academics or pharma, maybe some government.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, goleafsgochris said:

The comparison to new ortho grads is silly.  They can locum even without a job and earn 300k+/year.  They may work poor hours, but at age 30-35 that is how much the AVERAGE orthopod makes.  What percentage of people who went the grad school route make that much even at 40?  I would bet its well under 0.5%.  

I'm talking long haul income, not who can buy a Porsche faster. But you're right - not many PhDs will gross 300/year at age 40.

35K/year is not affordable in even a mid sized city.  Good luck enjoying your late 20s like that.  What post doc do you know making 70k?  I know over 10 post docs and their salary is cripplingly low.  One of them lives in subsidized housing.  I don't think any of them clear 40k.  Meanwhile is residency, EVERY SINGLE resident makes over 50k in the first year and over 75k by the 5th.

You are failing to consider tax. That 35/year for a PhD student is tax free. Also tuition is not that expensive. 35 is not a lot, but it's also also not terrible. 

Its not really even an argument, as evidenced by: the banks.  They will give anyone who enters med school 275k because they can pay it back.  They will certainly not do that for a grad student, and we both know the reason why--because most of them would never be able to pay it back.  

...and because what grad student pays 25K/year tuition in Canada, 10K on licensing exams and 10-15K on away rotations and CaRMS? A med student NEEDS that much. A grad student doesn't for reasons of lower tuition and since there are plenty of funding opportunities. No one is doubting an MD is a road to guaranteed income, and yes that's a big reason why banks give that money away so readily, but let's not lose sight of the fact that the only reason that is there in the first place is to allow students to afford the cost of training. 

I'm not trying to attack you I just don't want an unsuspecting undergrad coming across this post and buying into it bc IMO its insanely misleading

And I the same.

Now, to address PhD funding, go look up regular funding amounts from CIHR for PhDs and post-docs. While you're at it, look up the Vanier scholarship program and Banting post-doc program. There are also plenty of external awards from provincial governments and health organizations who pay similarly, or give top-up amounts. Not super easy to get any of these, but if you are relying on in-house funding for your training entirely without any external support, then academia won't work out for you anyways. Just wanted to highlight that my above post was not all rose colored nonsense, and that there are legitimately many grad students in Canada who do OK while training. Again, if 15K is what you're being offered for doing a PhD, you should turn it down. Also, assuming a similarly hard working student between med school and grad school, the grad student WILL get external funding.

Now to address a PhD vs family physician for income. Let's assume two students, both finish UG at 21 debt free and one goes the grad school route and the other wants to be a family doctor. 

For simplicity, I'm going to ignore the cost of living and assume they are equal during training. I'm also going to wipe clean the fact that the med student is probably in the hole 150K at the end of it and the PhD student probably had some scholarships. 

So PhD does 2 years MSc, then 4 years of PhD then 2 years of post-doc before finding an assistant professor spot. They now started work at age 29 and plan to retire at age 65, so 36 years working. Usually about 8 years to get tenure and promoted to Associate professor. Then another 8 or so before getting bumped to full professor, where they will work for the next 20 years. Based on average Asst., Assoc. and Full professor salaries of 89K, 110K and 138K (see report from Canadian Association of University Teachers), and factoring in tax deductions annually at each paygrade, and factoring in pension contributions of about 8K/year on average (see UofT pension plan), that person nets about 2.7 million over their 36 year career. 

Now the MD, they did 4 years of med school then two years of residency before starting work at age 27. They also plan to retire at age 65, so they will work for 38 years. Average family doctor income is 250K gross (see CMA specialties). Deduct 28% overhead from that each year, plus annual tax and that's about 116K per year net. Over 38 years, that's about 4.4 million net. 

Aha! The family doctor makes more you say. Well, up to age 65, yes. But remember that pension plan the PhD contributed to? The University adds on top of it. Based on the UofT framework, which is typical across universities, and actually a bit lower than government pension plans, that university professor get's paid an extra 89K every year until the day they die. The family doctor needs to factor that in to their initial earnings. Let's say they both live to age 85. Well now that University professor made it to 4.5 million in lifetime earnings, edging out the MD. That's why it's not a race to see who gets a Porsche first.

Even if the med student did ortho (5yr residency plus 2 fellowships), at 400K gross/year that's ~5.5 million in net earnings by age 65. So they get 1 million extra during retirement, which is nice but not massive over the next 20 years. Of course investments throw all these numbers off as to who actually comes out on top, but on salary alone, an academic or government PhD is not a bad gig compared to most medical specialty earnings, and at (usually) less hours per week.

 

Just to reiterate my central points:
- no PhD student should be making 15K per year. PhD students can be reasonably paid during training if you work hard (i.e. like a med student) and apply for external funding.
- A standard academic or government career post-PhD can be equivalent if not higher than a family doctor in the long run, but up front physicians make more for sure - shouldn't really make a difference in how you live day to day though, as presumably you'd want to save for retirement. 
- No, not all PhDs will make it to academia. Just as not all applicants to med school will get in. But there are other career options, obviously nothing as stable as medicine or academia/government. 

[indefatigable]

22 hours ago, ZBL said:

 

Now, to address PhD funding, go look up regular funding amounts from CIHR for PhDs and post-docs. While you're at it, look up the Vanier scholarship program and Banting post-doc program. There are also plenty of external awards from provincial governments and health organizations who pay similarly, or give top-up amounts. Not super easy to get any of these, but if you are relying on in-house funding for your training entirely without any external support, then academia won't work out for you anyways. Just wanted to highlight that my above post was not all rose colored nonsense, and that there are legitimately many grad students in Canada who do OK while training. Again, if 15K is what you're being offered for doing a PhD, you should turn it down. Also, assuming a similarly hard working student between med school and grad school, the grad student WILL get external funding.

Now to address a PhD vs family physician for income. Let's assume two students, both finish UG at 21 debt free and one goes the grad school route and the other wants to be a family doctor. 

For simplicity, I'm going to ignore the cost of living and assume they are equal during training. I'm also going to wipe clean the fact that the med student is probably in the hole 150K at the end of it and the PhD student probably had some scholarships. 

So PhD does 2 years MSc, then 4 years of PhD then 2 years of post-doc before finding an assistant professor spot. They now started work at age 29 and plan to retire at age 65, so 36 years working. Usually about 8 years to get tenure and promoted to Associate professor. Then another 8 or so before getting bumped to full professor, where they will work for the next 20 years. Based on average Asst., Assoc. and Full professor salaries of 89K, 110K and 138K (see report from Canadian Association of University Teachers), and factoring in tax deductions annually at each paygrade, and factoring in pension contributions of about 8K/year on average (see UofT pension plan), that person nets about 2.7 million over their 36 year career. 

Now the MD, they did 4 years of med school then two years of residency before starting work at age 27. They also plan to retire at age 65, so they will work for 38 years. Average family doctor income is 250K gross (see CMA specialties). Deduct 28% overhead from that each year, plus annual tax and that's about 116K per year net. Over 38 years, that's about 4.4 million net. 

Aha! The family doctor makes more you say. Well, up to age 65, yes. But remember that pension plan the PhD contributed to? The University adds on top of it. Based on the UofT framework, which is typical across universities, and actually a bit lower than government pension plans, that university professor get's paid an extra 89K every year until the day they die. The family doctor needs to factor that in to their initial earnings. Let's say they both live to age 85. Well now that University professor made it to 4.5 million in lifetime earnings, edging out the MD. That's why it's not a race to see who gets a Porsche first.

Even if the med student did ortho (5yr residency plus 2 fellowships), at 400K gross/year that's ~5.5 million in net earnings by age 65. So they get 1 million extra during retirement, which is nice but not massive over the next 20 years. Of course investments throw all these numbers off as to who actually comes out on top, but on salary alone, an academic or government PhD is not a bad gig compared to most medical specialty earnings, and at (usually) less hours per week.

 

Just to reiterate my central points:
- no PhD student should be making 15K per year. PhD students can be reasonably paid during training if you work hard (i.e. like a med student) and apply for external funding.
- A standard academic or government career post-PhD can be equivalent if not higher than a family doctor in the long run, but up front physicians make more for sure - shouldn't really make a difference in how you live day to day though, as presumably you'd want to save for retirement. 
- No, not all PhDs will make it to academia. Just as not all applicants to med school will get in. But there are other career options, obviously nothing as stable as medicine or academia/government. 

I've been through the system; I know what funding is like.  Vanier and Banting are relatively new scholarships and are very lucrative, but maybe what - .1% of grad students get those?  I'm aware of the pension factor in fact I've even brought it up on this forum - I believe it's misleading when the public equates gross earnings with take home salary.  

Nonetheless, using say UofT pension or salary isn't accurate either, since that happens to be the largest and probably richest university in Canada.  TO also has a very high cost of living too.  Family physicians earn different amount in different provinces, but profs have to pay taxes too  - comparing net to pre-tax income doesn't seem accurate.  And personally for a late-comer to medicine like myself, these earnings factors are definitely important in terms of paying off debt and saving for retirement.    

Honestly, I agree with other people's comments.  The two paths are not comparable.  The PhD "success" rate (defined in studies by tenure track job success) is less than 10 percent in even some science fields (post PhD).  Many take lecturer, part-time work, multiple post-docs, teacher's college etc..  When even the Economist, come out against doing a PhD, you know something's up.  Here's a  relevant quote:

".. men with a bachelor's degree earn 14% more than those who could have gone to university but chose not to. The earnings premium for a PhD is 26%. But the premium for a master's degree, which can be accomplished in as little as one year, is almost as high, at 23%."

That's a pretty far cry than the "top 1%" label attached to physicians.   I'm not arguing that a tenured job at UofT isn't a good job - just saying that they're mostly taken up haha.  

Economics and innovation is complicated - but it's not as easy as simply getting a PhD.  According to this discussion, CalTech has about an average of 8 startups/year vs Stanford at 12/year.  The GDP produced by Stanford affiliated companies is higher than many countries (link).  Canada struggles at innovation and just simply hoping producing more PhDs by working them hard on PI funded grants will be the magic answer to producing wealth and economic success isn't enough.

All this is interesting, but unfortunately I do have a few too many other commitments to keep the discussion going.  I agree especially with last couple of posts by goleafsgochris they're right on for pre-meds reading this forum.