Today's NY Times seems to salute those who desert Academia and Research to go for Gold. It fails to mention that those who paid for Dr Glassman's education - and it wasn't whoever paid his tuition, as tuition covers less than ten per cent of the cost, - might have hoped that their contribution to his education was to help him become a Doctor, not an investment banker. The article implies that because he isn't incredibly ostentatious, his choice is somehow morally acceptable. The guy's a thief.
UPDATED 4:00 P.M. to add links above, and:
One of the major reasons the U.S. Health Care System is one of the most inefficient in the world, is of course because of the Robert Glassman's of this country. In the U.S. we spend by far the most per capita of any industrialized nation on Health Care and rank near the lowest in terms of outcome. Instead of an efficient single payer system, we choose to base our system on private insurers, who will pay Glassman millions a year to maximize the percentage of each and every health care dollar that goes into their private pocket.
And the Times seems to approve that the Glassmans aren't showy, tacky people. They are looking for a new house - but not as big as they could afford. They just want to have a bit of extra room - so that he can have a room to display his books and his diplomas. Diplomas which we - as tax-payers and health care consumers - paid for.
On his application to Medical School - do you think he admitted that his goal was to make as much money as possible?