Why do doctors and lawyers make more money than physicists?

[Line]

We've discussed this before, physicsts aren't the highest paid proffesionals. Well to look at matters more, neither are engineers,programers,technogis or scientests. The average was about 50K for beginners and the highest was 120K fir seniors.

WHile higher than the average population not substantial when compared to doctors and lawyers. My question is howcome they make a lot more when we study our asses off. I diubt they even have to take calculas. You can spend nearly a decade studying frying your brain and get paid less than somebody that gets to rob people for money.

I know you're not supposed to be in physics for the money but when doctors are making 300k something's wrong. And why do they charge so much, does it take that much to keep their job running or their Mercedes?

You would think someone with such big ideas and major contributions to the world would get paid a lot higher.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well doctors tend to... oh i dunno... save peoples lives?

Lawyers... well its really because of the nature of their job. When you sue corporations for $200,000,000... they can occasionally become fabulously rich. And realistically, a physicists pay isn't as heavily gauged to his/her performance. I mean think of how strange life would be if physicists were only paid when their experiments worked or came in on time or on budget or whatever.

I also don't really know why you think doctors and lawyers don't study as much as physicists... the idea that 'they didn't even have to take calculus' is a silly point. A lawyer could say "I doubt physicists ever took public policy" or a doctor could say "I doubt physicists ever took microbiology" or whatever is a key concept for their fields.

 

[GluonZ]

Look at sports as well. Yes they provide entertainment, but the amount of money athletes get is preposterous. That money could be helping a lot better causes. Of course, one of the foundations of America was that people could make as much as they can earn; that money is obviously in sports and law right now. Then again, most people just don't care what scientists do and have done for them (or more 'advanced' knowledge in general). Most people just care about getting to see their sports, not how it gets to them. The average person probably doesn't care as to how the image gets to their television screen. I guess that is just modern society, however.

Gz.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yah that is one of the problems with societies these days, modern ones that is. People are pretty much ready to give their houses away to Reebok because some hero-for-a-day basketball player appears in a commercial by reebok. Capitalism would work if capitalism didn't work...

 

[Manchot]

Well, historically, the AMA is behind doctors' high salaries. In the 1800s and early 1900s, it essentially acted as a "union" for doctors, driving the salaries of doctors way above market price. They have lost some of their power in recent years, however. Perhaps something similar should be formed by the physicists and engineers?

 

[Line]

All modern society isn't about sports. Many countrues around the world take great interest in Science&Technology like Germany and Japan.

As for The States, we've got a lot of work to be done.

And although they take mocrobiology I doubt a dcotor's collegiate schooling is as hard as a physicist's.

 

[GluonZ]

All modern society isn't about sports. Many countrues around the world take great interest in Science&Technology like Germany and Japan.

I'm not limiting to just sports, and I'm not saying countries don't care about science and technology, I'm just stating (using a sports metaphor since it is common around the world), that most people just don't care.

Gz.

 

[Pengwuino]

I'm not limiting to just sports, and I'm not saying countries don't care about science and technology, I'm just stating (using a sports metaphor since it is common around the world), that most people just don't care.

Gz.

Yah the sports is a good analogy but there are probably better analogies. The thing is, one isn't paid based on how hard one had to work to get where they are. Theres always the CEO that got an AS from some community college making as much as a CEO that got a Mba or whatever from Harvard. It's really a combonation of market forces, cultural values, economic priorities of a country, etc etc.

One of my professors once said something that leads to the conclusion that if science had to make economic justifications for most of what it does, they would never make it in modern societies. So much of it, mainly now-a-days, is simply for knowledges sakes.

 

[t!m]

I diubt they even have to take calculas.

Yes they do. A traditional pre-med track as an undergraduate involves calculus, physics, chemistry, and biology.

And although they take mocrobiology I doubt a dcotor's collegiate schooling is as hard as a physicist's.

Medical school is notoriously difficult, including internship and residency. And then to pursue a specialty can add another four or so intensive years of schooling on top.

Add a high-stress environment and medical malpractice suits to the formula, and all I'm saying is I don't think doctors have the sweet life that you seem to think.

 

[Pengwuino]

I agree, doctors are asked to do a LOT. I mean what kind of environment would it be when people are all sick around you and families acting insane and you having to work for 30 hours straight.

 

[Line]

Calcuulus and physics, why would a doctor need Calculas and physics? Computer programmers don't even have to take that.

 

[Pengwuino]

Calcuulus and physics, why would a doctor need Calculas and physics? Computer programmers don't even have to take that.

... computer programmers don't have to take physics and calculus... are you sure you know what you're talking about? Yah sure they don't get into upper division quantum mechanics or complex analysis... but are you sure you know what you're talking about?

 

[franznietzsche]

One of my professors once said something that leads to the conclusion that if science had to make economic justifications for most of what it does, they would never make it in modern societies. So much of it, mainly now-a-days, is simply for knowledges sakes.

This is a load of bull****. The idea that science should have to economically justify itself is preposterous. If that were the case, Maxwell would never have created his theory of Electromagnetism, without which the modern world would not exist. At all. Maxwell had no idea what would come from his discovery, he was just playing with wires and magnets because they were interesting. What was arguably the single most important scientific discovery of all time could not have been "economically justified" before hand.

Calcuulus and physics, why would a doctor need Calculas and physics? Computer programmers don't even have to take that.

Computer programmers have to take both Intro physics and Calculus. You need to pick up a university catalog and actually look at degree requirements. Pre-med students are required to take calculus, in addition to intro physics. Biology students have it much easier than Biochem ones though (Looking over the biochem course list, I cringe. Thats nasty stuff).

 

[Pengwuino]

You just proved my point franznietzsche. What you said has nothing to do with this thread. What doctors and lawyers do are economically viable ideas while scientists work are rarely economically viable which means they should not be compared based upon what their worth to society is.

 

[franznietzsche]

You just proved my point franznietzsche. What you said has nothing to do with this thread. What doctors and lawyers do are economically viable ideas while scientists work are rarely economically viable which means they should not be compared based upon what their worth to society is.

I was not even commenting on that. i have no complaint with what doctors and lawyers get paid. I couldn't care less. However, the idea that scientific work should be economically viable is idiotic and counter-productive. Unless you want to give up every piece of electronic equipment you own?

 

[Line]

I meant people who study Computer Information Systems not programers.

 

[Pengwuino]

I meant people who study Computer Information Systems not programers.

They do... computer science requires a lot of heavy math...

 

[Pengwuino]

I was not even commenting on that. i have no complaint with what doctors and lawyers get paid. I couldn't care less. However, the idea that scientific work should be economically viable is idiotic and counter-productive. Unless you want to give up every piece of electronic equipment you own?

I'm not saying it should. I'm just saying that that is the case. I was saying if physicists had to be payed based on market forces and how they effect people's lives now-a-days (ESPECIALLY now-a-days), they wouldn't be making much. That's what i was talking about! The thread topic! roar!

 

[franznietzsche]

I'm not saying it should. I'm just saying that that is the case. I was saying if physicists had to be payed based on market forces and how they effect people's lives now-a-days (ESPECIALLY now-a-days), they wouldn't be making much. That's what i was talking about! The thread topic! roar!

There's nothing that makes it "especially" now-a-days. That's a load of crock. Didn't you know that physics was completely solved in the 1880s?

 

[Pengwuino]

There's nothing that makes it "especially" now-a-days. That's a load of crock. Didn't you know that physics was completely solved in the 1880s?

 

[Cyrus]

For the amount of training that Engineers and Scientists have, they should make as much or more than doctors do. Doctors in this country are WAYYYYYYY overpaid. Let's face it, people become doctors so they can get rich.

 

[franznietzsche]

In the late 1800s, physics was considered by many physicists to be almost completely solved. Then Lorentz, Poincare, Einstein, Planck, and Bohr rolled around.

Your claim that "especially now-a-days" scientists can't justify themselves economically is simply wrong. Such has been the case since Newton. Newton certainly couldn't have justified his work economically. Nor could Gauss, Faraday, Coulomb, Watt, or almost any other physicist of the past 300 years. There is nothing especial about now-a-days.

 

[marlon]

This is a load of bull****. The idea that science should have to economically justify itself is preposterous. If that were the case, Maxwell would never have created his theory of Electromagnetism, without which the modern world would not exist. At all. Maxwell had no idea what would come from his discovery, he was just playing with wires and magnets because they were interesting. What was arguably the single most important scientific discovery of all time could not have been "economically justified" before hand.

Well, i disagree with you on this one. It is always easy to name "those happy few" scientists that made the big contributions to science. Indeed, the origin of their work was not economic in nature but one cannot extend this idea toward contemporary science, as you are doing here. Keep in mind that science has gotten a whole lot more expensive. For example, look at the budgets needed in the micro-electronics research "industry" and then look at the solutions this research provides. I am working in this field as a PhD student (high k materials and metal gates in CMOS structures) and i can assure you, the required investments are way out of line. This was certainly NOT the case with the people you summed up in your post.

Also, you should not forget that most research does not solve any problem what so ever. Naming big names in a field is easy because one cannot argue the use/quality of their work. But what about those other 10000 researchers that get funding and a monthly payment, that do not achieve anything worthwhile during their entire careers.

One needs to invest a lot, to acquire some few useful results. That is one of the main reasons why scientists will never be the ones collecting the biggest paycheck. Most of the times, they do not solve realtime specific problems like a doctor does, so what exactly is their service for which they should get paid ? You see my point ?

marlon

 

[marlon]

However, the idea that scientific work should be economically viable is idiotic and counter-productive.

Ohh c'mon, please stop thinking like you live in the 19th century. The "way science is done" has changed completely. Economic relevance is one of the key issues. Why do you think that so many institutions like IMEC, CERN invest so much in doing quantum ab initio simulations ?

In order for a researcher to acquire funding, he/she will be spending a lot of time to prove the economic relevance of his/her project. Clearly, you have not yet defended a research project to acquire funding.

The big fundamental new concepts in science are really a minority in today's research activities. Now, unless you want to waist your time doing LQG or string theory research (which has not yet any experimental evidence) you really need to be looking at how your research can be implemented into technical concepts/products. If your research has some promising prospects into technical applications/products (read : if it can generate a cash flow TOWARDS the institute or company you are working for) you will have a much bigger probability of actually acquiring the funding. That's what it is all about no ? That's the economic part i am referring to. As an example, the research institute i am working for (IMEC) has seven core partners in the industry like INTEL, ASM, Texas instruments, PANASONIC. Why do you think that is ?

Unless you want to give up every piece of electronic equipment you own?

?

Why do you think the IC , CMOS, was invented ? For scientific relevance ? Please

marlon

 

[franznietzsche]

?

Why do you think the IC , CMOS, was invented ? For scientific relevance ? Please

marlon

Why were electric circuits and the behavoir of most of the simple components in those ICs invented? For economic relevance? Please.

The modern age would not exist if scientists had been required to justify themselves economically in the 1800s.

 

[0rthodontist]

They do... computer science requires a lot of heavy math...

True--most of my computer science professors have degrees in math. We need to take multivariable calculus, discrete math (taught within the department), and linear algebra, plus another upper division math course of our choice. Our required technical electives include plenty of math options, such as Formal Langauge Theory, a computer science department course. We also take algorithms which is mostly a math course. In the school I came from we needed calculus-based statistics.

But that might vary from school to school.


I think that the problem with capitalism as the sole driving force of science is that capitalists tend to be shortsighted. The ones who succeed are the ones who succeed "right now" and that doesn't leave a lot of room for looking towards the distant scientific future, unless you're a huge company. Capitalism is a greedy algorithm.

 

[marlon]

Why were electric circuits and the behavoir of most of the simple components in those ICs invented? For economic relevance? Please.

Err, is that the only reaction you can come up with ?
You just copied my own words.

The modern age would not exist if scientists had been required to justify themselves economically in the 1800s.

What's that got to do with anything ?
Besides, we are discussing the economic relevance in contemporary research projects, remember ?

I clearly explained why you cannot refer to these big names.

What do you have to say about the above three objections of mine ?


marlon

 

[0rthodontist]

A good summary of this debate is that clearly, economic forces should be taken into consideration because they lead towards better products, but left alone they do not think long-term enough and stifle potential fundamental advances. Economically viable research is the dwarf on the shoulders of the giant of economically unviable research.

 

[cronxeh]

For the amount of training that Engineers and Scientists have, they should make as much or more than doctors do. Doctors in this country are WAYYYYYYY overpaid. Let's face it, people become doctors so they can get rich.

Are you high? Scientists/Engineers don't know the 1/10th of what an average physician is supposed to know. Get over it. Physicians are underpaid and lawyer are overpaid.

 

[GluonZ]

Are you high? Scientists/Engineers don't know the 1/10th of what an average physician is supposed to know. Get over it. Physicians are underpaid and lawyer are overpaid.

I see you like to exaggerate.

 

[Jeff Ford]

For the amount of training that Engineers and Scientists have, they should make as much or more than doctors do. Doctors in this country are WAYYYYYYY overpaid. Let's face it, people become doctors so they can get rich.

Some do. Others do it because they want to help people. The amount of sacrifice required to get a medical degree is pretty intense. They earn their pay. Also, they don't earn nearly as much as most people would think based on what they charge. Alot of that has to go towards covering malpractice insurance. That costs 10's of thousands per year.

 

[cscott]

I diubt they even have to take calculas.

Wrong. Most would have to taken calculus if they followed somewhat of a standard route to med school.

Calcuulus and physics, why would a doctor need Calculas and physics? Computer programmers don't even have to take that.

I'm beginning to feel you don't know what you're talking about.

Well doctors tend to... oh i dunno... save peoples lives?

So contributions like the transistor are of no value? If you mean scientists can't stay consistent, then you have a point.

For the amount of training that Engineers and Scientists have, they should make as much or more than doctors do.

How can you make this generalization? As an example, my father had 13 years of training (from undergrad on) to get to where he is now. How is that "much less" than engineers or scientists?

 

[Jeff Ford]

Be it medicine, science or legal tomfoolery, you shouldn't be pursuing any of it just becuase of how much money you'll make. That's the surest way to burnout and hating life. You should pursue these things becuase you're passionate about them.

 

[0rthodontist]

Ridiculous, cronxeh... maybe some scientists/engineers know fewer _facts_ but facts aren't real knowledge.

 

[Manchot]

Why were electric circuits and the behavoir of most of the simple components in those ICs invented? For economic relevance? Please.

The modern age would not exist if scientists had been required to justify themselves economically in the 1800s.

Well, most scientists in the 1800s didn't need to economically justify themselves because a) their research didn't cost nearly as much as modern science and b) many of them were rich as a result of old money. Moreover, I don't think that the IC is the best example to use, as its components were invented for financial gain. Bell Labs was looking for a solid state switch to replace the vacuum tube (which was approaching the limits of its usefulness), and from that, the transistor was born. Now, one could argue that resistors and capacitors weren't invented for monetary gain, but I find it hard to accept that one can "invent" a property intrinsic to a material (i.e., resistance and capacitance).

Are you high? Scientists/Engineers don't know the 1/10th of what an average physician is supposed to know. Get over it. Physicians are underpaid and lawyer are overpaid.

Scientists/engineers and physicians have completely different kinds of knowledge. Physicians have to do a lot of memorization, while physicists have to be better at analytical problem-solving. You can't compare the two types of knowledge: it's like apples and oranges.

 

[G01]

Scientists/engineers and physicians have completely different kinds of knowledge. Physicians have to do a lot of memorization, while physicists have to be better at analytical problem-solving. You can't compare the two types of knowledge: it's like apples and oranges.

Very good point

 

[cronxeh]

Scientists/engineers and physicians have completely different kinds of knowledge. Physicians have to do a lot of memorization, while physicists have to be better at analytical problem-solving. You can't compare the two types of knowledge: it's like apples and oranges.

Thats exactly something someone with little knowledge of medicine would say.

 

[cscott]

Thats exactly something someone with little knowledge of medicine would say.

Care to elaborate, or are we playing games?

 

[devious_]

Contrary to popular belief, physicians (especially diagnosticians) tend to have excellent problem solving skills. However, that is not to say that their analytical skills are in anyway superior to those of, say, mathematicians. Although I'm inclined to say that scientists/engineers are usually more proficient problem-solvers because of the prolonged training they've had and the pure nature of their fields, but I admit I am slightly biased. In the end, it's all very subjective.

 

[cronxeh]

Care to elaborate, or are we playing games?

Anastesiology is a purely analytical specialty, so is oncology, pharmacology, most of internal medicine, and not to mention radiology - which requires knowledge of mathematics (linear algebra/diff eq/topology) - at least an introductory level as well as nuclear physics.

It may seem like doctors only need to remember and catalog symptons, but if you have a few competing diseases in the system you won't get the right diagnosis unless you were thinking analytically. Most docs will not admit to you that they think in terms of differential equations and linear algebras - perhaps because they don't know they are, but once you know that math and then you study medicine you realize that you are in fact thinking analytically.

 

[Cyrus]

http://medschool.umaryland.edu/Epidemiology/masters_clinres.asp
http://medschool.umaryland.edu/admissions/curriculum_glance.asp


My friend wants to do medicine. He is biology undergrad. He does not have to take any of the math you listed cronxeh. And I don't see that on the med school list of courses. Can you explain what you mean by ' differential equations and linear algebras - perhaps because they don't know they are, but once you know that math and then you study medicine you realize that you are in fact thinking analytically.' How can they think in terms of linear algebra and differentail equations? One does not think in terms of differential equations unless trying to solve a specific differential equation via equations. How does making a diagnosis have do deal with diff equations?

 

[cronxeh]

http://medschool.umaryland.edu/Epidemiology/masters_clinres.asp
http://medschool.umaryland.edu/admissions/curriculum_glance.asp


My friend wants to do medicine. He is biology undergrad. He does not have to take any of the math you listed cronxeh. And I don't see that on the med school list of courses. Can you explain what you mean by ' differential equations and linear algebras - perhaps because they don't know they are, but once you know that math and then you study medicine you realize that you are in fact thinking analytically.' How can they think in terms of linear algebra and differentail equations? One does not think in terms of differential equations unless trying to solve a specific differential equation via equations. How does making a diagnosis have do deal with diff equations?

I don't know what your links are supposed to show, but whatever it was, you missing the point. Doctors know statistics, and great doctors also understand how to construct differential equations for physiological problems. Most of pharmacology and prescribing medicine requires you to think in terms of bioavailability and time-based dosaging. Its all diff eq. All of radiology is systems of linear diff eq's.

And by the way.. I hope your friend never becomes my doctor

 

[Cyrus]

But do the doctors actually set up and solve these equations, or do they refer to a formula that has been worked out by someone else and they simply plug and chug? Thinking in terms of math does not mean you are a skilled mathematician. The point of my link was based on the fact that you said

which requires knowledge of mathematics (linear algebra/diff eq/topology) - at least an introductory level as well as nuclear physics.

But I don't see any real need to know these topics at a level of understanding of a math major in order to take any of the courses to become a doctor.

 

[Cyrus]

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/admissions/apps.html

I still don't see admissions requirements in any of the areas of math you gave. Can you provide me with a link where it is used, I would be curious to know.

Mathematics-Calculus or Statistics, one year (6 to 8 semester hours) Advanced Placement credit for calculus, acceptable to the student’s undergraduate college, may be used in fulfillment of one semester of the Hopkins’ math requirement.

And by the way.. I hope your friend never becomes my doctor

...okay...

 

[Line]

To sum it up physicists work really hard. It's probrabl one of the most demanding fields on the mind. And if you go to he University Of Houston's website and lookup Computer Information Systems you'll see that they don't have to take any Math.

And whoever the idot was that said scientests don't make contributions to society needs to wear a dunce hat. It's a great plague of our country people don't know what scientests do have done for them.If you took away all the work of scientests you wouldn't even have a wheel and fire. You'd have no tools and just live out on the prairie all day eating fruits and bugs before you take a dump. You wouldn't even be cavemen.

ANd scientests might not always have results that are imediatly economically viable but engineers and technologists do. With all their immense importantance and hard work all they topped out at was $100,000 a year.

 

[inha]

And whoever the idot was that said scientests don't make contributions to society needs to wear a dunce hat. It's a great plague of our country people don't know what scientests do have done for them.If you took away all the work of scientests you wouldn't even have a wheel and fire. You'd have no tools and just live out on the prairie all day eating fruits and bugs before you take a dump. You wouldn't even be cavemen.

You should try to understand marlon's point before you call him an idiot. That way you wouldn't sound like one in the process. Even in your post the keyword is "were". What was done has nothing to do with what contemporary physicists should earn in money and recognition. And it didn't take scientists to invent the wheel or fire.

I probably will not discover anything that'll improve the everyman's life. Neither will you. The vast majority of us will spend our working lives fiddling with stuff that won't get us recognition beyound our close collagues and most definelty will not contribute anything to society. What we do simply is not that important.

 

[0rthodontist]

I looked on the university of houston site but couldn't find any major called "computer information systems." I did find "information systems technology" and they do have to take calculus. Yes it does seem to be a math-weak major though.

If we are comparing the problem solving abilities of doctors and physicists, why not compare their IQ's?

 

[Nothing000]

Look at sports as well. Yes they provide entertainment, but the amount of money athletes get is preposterous. That money could be helping a lot better causes.

I think it should be mandatory for everyone in the NBA and NFL to give one fourth of their sallary to a charity of their choice. Why doesn't the owner of one of these major sports leagues make a rule like that? Is there single owners of entire leagues? If there are I think they should make some sort of rule like that. These guys don't need to be making 50 million dollars a year.

 

[Nothing000]

We've discussed this before, physicsts aren't the highest paid proffesionals. Well to look at matters more, neither are engineers,programers,technogis or scientests.

Engineers get paid pretty good.

 

[Manchot]

I probably will not discover anything that'll improve the everyman's life. Neither will you. The vast majority of us will spend our working lives fiddling with stuff that won't get us recognition beyound our close collagues and most definelty will not contribute anything to society. What we do simply is not that important.

That's the problem. People can see the immediate effects of doctors' work: they save lives. They can see the immediate effects of lawyers' work: they get me money, save my money, prosecute, and defend. Even Thomas Edison, the man who "invented" the light bulb gets recognition. However, most things created by engineers/physicists nowadays most likely won't have immediate applications. Moreover, people don't understand the significance of the items. I mean, if you go on the street and ask people who John Bardeen or Jack Kilby is, 99.9% of people won't have any idea. If you tell them that those two men are perhaps more responsible than anyone else for computers smaller than a room, they'll probably wonder why they've never heard of them.