The White Coat Investor’s Most Controversial Articles, Part 5: Looking Back at Our Biggest Fights
 |
 |
<!–
We haven’t published a Most Controversial Articles post in about 17 months, but that doesn’t mean all of the WCI content is sanitized for your protection. We sometimes run guest posts that don’t sit right with some people. We sometimes run columns that draw criticism. We sometimes run posts from Dr. Jim Dahle that compel people to throw flames in the comments.
As WCI’s content director, I don’t necessarily go out of my way to court controversy, but sometimes, it’s fun to see the reaction when we publish something a little more outside of people’s comfort zones. Sometimes, you know people will come after you in the comments for something somebody has written. Sometimes, you have no idea.
When the controversy gets going in a major way, I’ll often email Jim, and we’ll do a quick debrief to see if we did something wrong or if what we published was the right thing to do. Then, occasionally, we’ll lift back the curtain so readers can see our thought process (and weigh in themselves).
As I’ve written before:
“Beginning in 2021, we introduced a slew of new writers to the WCI community, and sometimes, these columnists have opinions that don’t necessarily mesh with what Jim would normally write. Since this website isn’t simply one person’s blog, differing ideas are beneficial. Quite honestly, they should be expected.
Sometimes, those competing philosophies make people really mad.
So, let’s revisit some of our most controversial pieces in what will be an occasional series on our most controversial articles and see how Jim and I feel about them in retrospect. Were we wrong to post them at all? What was the point of publishing them in the first place, and, in hindsight, would I make the same decision to run them?”
Here are Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 of our most controversial articles for even more viewing pleasure.
Why Physicians Should Retire as Multi-Millionaires by WCI Founder Jim Dahle on December 29, 2025
Josh Katzowitz: Well, it’s not every day Jim gets called a “money-grubbing piece of s*&t.” That must have been fun to receive that insult from somebody who clearly never reads the site. (I’m also not 100% sure this commenter wasn’t trolling, because they also wrote, “A doctor’s patients always take priority over everything else, including his family.”)
But let’s talk about why this piece was controversial. I think most people agreed with your overall point: that doctors, if they do mostly the right things when it comes to finance, should retire with a whole bunch of money.
I think the main issue was your first line of the piece: “A doctor who doesn’t retire as a multi-millionaire has failed.” You also wrote, “Maybe it’ll make some people feel badly, but I no longer care. Because I think those physicians who are not en route to multi-millionairehood need to be shocked out of their complacency, and maybe this ‘hot take’ will help do it.”
Obviously, you were going for some shock value there in the lede of the post. Did the comments play out like you would have expected? Did you think some people would misinterpret you saying that these docs had failed financially by thinking you meant they had failed in life? Or did you get what you wanted out of those first few sentences?
Jim Dahle: The point of this post was to get it spread around social media and picked up by collating email newsletters like those sent out by Doximity and the like. I wanted to shock docs into paying attention to their finances so they would be a better parent, partner, and physician. So from that perspective, the “shock value” of the language used early in the piece was a win. Maybe I should have changed the first line to “Financially speaking, a doctor who doesn’t retire as a multi-millionaire has failed.” That’s really the point of the post. You can screw up A LOT as a doc and should still retire as a multi-millionaire. The people who were most upset about the piece assumed I was calling their life a failure because they didn’t build any wealth during a 30-year physician career, and that really wasn’t the case.
Whether it would have been seen by as many eyeballs with that change, I don’t know. But when in doubt, blame the editor.
However, the comments on that post were very illuminating. I discussed them briefly on the podcast, too. They demonstrate the attitude that was once much more prevalent in our medical schools, residencies, academic medical centers, and even community hospitals before WCI and its mission became well known: the attitude that money is a taboo subject and that any doctor who talks about it or knows anything about it must by necessity be a bad doctor. Not only is that not the case (it’s entirely possible to be good with money and a good doctor), but I would argue it’s actually the opposite. The better you are with money, the better you can be as a doctor. You can concentrate more on your patients, your family, your practice, and your own wellness without so much worry or focus on the financial aspects of the practice. Imagine you had so much money that you don’t have to make anything doctoring. Would you be a better doctor or a worse doctor? Probably better if you’re like most.
JK: Let me ask about something else real quick that kind of relates to that. When you’re in a situation where you’re buying a car or in some other situation where you’re negotiating for a better deal, do you tell people you’re a doctor? Do you think that if people know you’re a doctor and think you’re rich that you won’t get as good a deal? We just recently bought a car for my twins, and my physician wife made sure not to tell anybody at the dealership that she was a doc, even when they asked specifically what she did for a living. Do you hide that detail, or do you not care (or think it matters when negotiating)?
JD: I suspect that happens occasionally (I’ve had it happen to me), and I think Julie was wise. It’s none of their business. I think it really happens most when a contractor comes over to your expensive home and gives you a quote. Less being a doctor and more obviously having an expensive home.
JK: Well, you certainly do have an expensive-looking home. Especially with that firepole in the middle of the house. That’s fun to slide down when you have to get from the second floor to the first floor in a hurry.
JD: It’s a pretty fun house. When we did the renovation in 2019, I said this only makes sense to spend all this if we keep doing WCI for at least two more years. Well, here we are seven years later . . .
The Case for Ending PSLF — And What You Should Do by WCI Columnist Charles Patterson on May 9, 2025
Josh Katzowitz: I think I made a mistake with this headline. I guess to some people it sounded like our columnist, Charles Patterson, was making HIS case for why PSLF should be ended and not why OTHERS might believe it should be ended. To get that nuance, though, people would have had to read the column and not just the headline. I pride myself on writing compelling (and not click-baity) headlines, but I think I whiffed on this one.
Sometimes, a not-so-great headline can take away from the entire story, huh?
Jim Dahle: I’m glad you brought this one up. This one WAS a whiff, and yes, it was the headline’s fault. I agree the article was fine but nuanced, and way too many people didn’t understand that nuance even after reading the article. I even saw people saying WCI is against PSLF, which couldn’t be further from the truth.
JK: Oh man, thanks for trying to make me feel better about my failings. Another interesting part of this topic is how we at WCI have contended with all the changes to the student loan picture in the last several years. Let’s give readers a quick peek behind the curtain. Can you run readers through what we as a company must do with our student loan content when the federal government keeps changing the rules of the game? It’s been hard to keep up with everything while trying to keep our previous student loan posts updated with the correct and up-to-date information.
JD: Living life online is tough, but when we fail, at least we get back on track quickly!
At WCI, we try to write pretty specific content most of the time because we know that it is the most useful content for our readers. But the more specific we get, the more quickly it needs to be updated as tax laws or student loan laws or economic conditions change. Imagine the challenge of keeping 3,000+ blog posts up to date. If it isn’t impossible, it certainly “rounds there.” So, any time student loan rules change, we try to go back to the 50 or 100 posts we have out there discussing student loan management to see if anything needs updating. It might take months. We put additional effort into posts that we “re-run” before publishing them, but even in those, we sometimes miss things. The good news is that with our large audience, we usually quickly find out when we failed to update something, and blog posts are dramatically easier to correct than books or even podcasts. Together as a community, we usually manage to get it right pretty quickly.
JK: That’s true. Sometimes, we need help from readers and commenters to help fill in the cracks we might have slipped through. That is always helpful.
 |
 |
<!–
How to Calculate the ROI of Med School Admissions Consulting by WCI Guest Writer Aanika Warner on December 27, 2025
Josh Katzowitz: At WCI, we get dozens of guest post pitches per quarter, and while many of them come from doctors or other professionals in the WCI community, some are from industry professionals who want to impart their wisdom on readers while also getting a link or two in the post that will direct readers to their business.
The question becomes whether what those in the latter camp are writing is something interesting or informative enough that will capture the readers’ attention (in a good way). Sometimes, a post is overly promotional, and I, most of the time, reject those posts. Sometimes, it’s a more difficult call because, while much of the point of these guest writers penning something is getting their company’s URL in front of our readers without having to pay advertising fees, they oftentimes make for good content.
Trying to carefully walk that line has been how I’ve handled guest post pitches since I’ve been here.
This particular guest post was a balancing act. Clearly, the author wanted readers to know about the company, but I also thought the content was unique enough (I didn’t even know medical school admissions consulting was a thing) that our readers would benefit. Especially those who are thinking about applying for med school or who have kids who are thinking about applying for medical school.
In my initial edits, I had to take out some parts that were overly promotional, and I asked the author to add the info about how much medical school admissions consulting might cost. But overall, I thought we turned this tightrope-y column into something that was solid and useful. Plenty of readers, though, disagreed. One person wrote that publishing that guest post “leaves me concerned for the ethics and oversight WCI as a reputable source for physicians and other medical professionals.”
What did you think about this guest post and about walking a tightrope?
Jim Dahle: I agree with your points about guest posts, but I was really surprised anyone was upset by this one. I thought it would make for a useful discussion about whether a service like this should be used. Lots of people were upset that we at WCI didn’t do a more careful calculation about the ROI of a consulting service after the author used that term in the post. Live and learn. At least the controversial posts this time aren’t all mine!
JK: I guess some people were upset because they don’t like anybody promoting their business in these posts, as if that somehow doesn’t mean the info they’re providing is valid. As a former newspaper journalist who was taught about the explicit boundary between editorial and advertising, I can see that point. It’s something I struggle with sometimes when selecting whether a guest post should be accepted. But these kinds of decisions are no longer as defined as they once were back in the olden days of journalism (and really, I’m sure there was always that push-pull between editorial and advertising, going all the way back to earlier centuries).
We walk a tightrope; in this case, though, I think we landed on the right side, even if many others believe otherwise.
Money Song of the Week
The O’Jays had a top-10 Billboard hit when the soul group recorded For the Love of Money in 1973. It got recognition back then, and it was nominated for a Grammy for Best R&B Vocal Performance. Unlike most of everything else that was released that year, For the Love of Money is still in the cultural zeitgeist more than 50 years after the tune was created.
It was the theme song for The Apprentice, it was featured in plenty of 1990s hit TV shows, and it was sampled in subsequent songs by Jay Z and Marky Mark.
Even if the song title doesn’t look familiar, you almost surely know the intro that featured a reverse echo of, “Money, money, money, money, money, money . . . money.”
But since I grew up on hair metal, I want to introduce you to a cover of For the Love of Money from the BulletBoys, who added louder snare drums and cymbal work; a bass solo that transforms into a 1980s shredder guitar solo; and a preening, Spandex-clad blonde lead singer who twirls the mic stand like a baton. Listen, if we’re talking about my favorite minor BulletBoys hit, I’d go with Smooth Up in Ya. But I also enjoy the band’s O’Jays cover, maybe partially because I hear elements of NOFX’s Dinosaurs Will Die in there.
Here’s how the two versions of the song compare. First, the BulletBoys’ 1988 version:
And now, here’s a live version from the O’Jays.
As Marq Torien of the BulletBoys sings,
“For the love of money/You would lie to your mother/For the love of money/You would steal from your own brother/For the love of money.
People can’t even walk the streets/They never know who in the world they’re gonna meet/For that mean, mean green.”
The BulletBoys’ version of the song reached No. 78 on the Billboard charts, so it wasn’t nearly as successful as the O’Jays. And really, you have to be kind of a hardcore glam metal fan to remember the BulletBoys at all. But the band still has played a role in the song lasting for decades in the public conscience.
It’s obvious what the song is about, so we don’t need to go into too much detail (though the title apparently was inspired by the Bible verse, “For the love of money is the root of all evil.”). But I found it interesting when researching this post about how BulletBoys guitarist Mick Sweda thought about the band’s early success, which was fueled in part by For the Love of Money.
When asked about how the success of the band’s debut album affected him, he said,
“Negatively, the way it affects nearly everyone in our situation. We were all struggling to get by before our deal and when we got a little money and the chance to do what we’d rehearsed for our whole lives, the world became a different place. People are waiting for you everywhere, people do things for you for different reasons and doors open for you that would rarely open for anyone else. That has an effect and, if you aren’t grounded, it’s not good.”
Kind of makes the lyric “Don’t you know money is the root of all evil? Do funny, funny things to ya” true to form, huh?
Fifteen years before the BulletBoys covered that song, O’Jays lead singer Eddie Levert already knew what Sweda and his bandmates were going to go through.
“While we make those songs like Backstabber and For the Love of the Money is because these are things that are actually happening,” Levert said on the Portia Show. “To let them know that I‘m also looking, too, and I also experienced those things you’re talking about. For the love of money, people will lie, they will cheat, they’ll sell their brother down the river . . . Be aware of that, that those certain things go on in the world.”
More information here:
Instagram Reel of the Week
Reliability oftentimes beats flashy, right?
What do you think about our most controversial topics? Were there other posts that we missed that made you absolutely steam?
The post The White Coat Investor’s Most Controversial Articles, Part 5: Looking Back at Our Biggest Fights appeared first on The White Coat Investor – Investing & Personal Finance for Doctors.
 |
 |
<!–
