PhD in Psychology or MD?

[psychgirl95]

Forgive me if this has been asked before; I searched but couldn't find anything relevant to my questions.

I'm a psychology major, though I'm debating about whether to double major in neuroscience or not (this, plus a minor in French, would delay graduation by about a semester). I'm behind a couple credits, but I'll basically be beginning my sophomore year in August.

I love psychology. That's why I chose this major. I originally intended on applying to Clinical Psychology programs after earning a graduate certificate in autism spectrum disorders (ASDs), but then I started wondering about whether going the MD (or MD/PhD) route might be better for what I'd like to do. Abnormal psychology seems to be my main psychology interest and my honors thesis is likely going to be about the neurobiological basis of autism. My other interests include: personality differences and personality neuroscience; the neurobiological basis of other disorders, especially ones like antisocial personality disorder and schizophrenia; eidetic memory; and the neuro differences found in individuals with high IQs.

I know that I want to be heavily involved with research as a career. I have absolutely no interest in therapy at all, though I am interested in learning psychological assessment techniques (though I suppose I might just be able to take a graduate level course to learn this?). After looking at curricula for graduate clinical psychology programs, I'm not sure if I'm interested in a lot of the coursework either. While, for example, I liked developmental psychology, I don't think I care enough about it to want to study it on a graduate level.

This makes me wonder if going to med school and pursuing a residency in psychiatry or something like neurodevelopmental disabilities would be the better option, since I've seen people (on here) say that the MD is more "versatile" than the PhD degree. The fact that I've had an interest in medicine since I was a child (I love shows like House, Hawthorne, NY ER, Boston Med, Mystery Diagnosis, Diagnose Me, Body Bizarre, etc... and was watching surgeries, such as hemispherectomies, as young as 9 or so) is another reason med school is appealing. I wanted to be a pediatrician up until I was in the 6th grade. However, the fact that I'm autistic makes me worry about succeeding in clinicals in med school (I've seen other autistic people say that they really struggled with them). If I were to go the PhD route, I feel like this would be less of an issue because a) I'd mainly be doing research and b) the only other thing I would be doing would be assessing people for ASD. If I went the MD/PhD route, I imagine my day being similar to the PhD route (though the clinicals would still be a concern). But one pro of earning a PhD would be that I would be able to teach undergraduate psychology courses one day if I chose to do so.

What does it sound like would suit me better? Though I'm aware that only I can ultimately make the decision about what's best for me, I was hoping some of you would be able to help me with this. Thanks in advance.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

First, you need to narrow your interests somewhat, kind of all over the place. You could go dozens of ways there. So, I'm just going to pick out one thing you said. IF you want to be heavily involved in research, by which most people would assume that you want it to be a large part of a career plan, I'd go the PhD route. That's where you'll learn the ins and outs of research.

As for learning psych assessment techniques, that is broad. IF you mean neuropsych assessment techniques, yeah, you could learn to administer a couple in a grad level class. But, anyone can administer a test, not everyone knows the psychometrics and research behind the tests and how to interpret them, though. That will take much more than a class.

 

[psychgirl95]

First, you need to narrow your interests somewhat, kind of all over the place. You could go dozens of ways there. So, I'm just going to pick out one thing you said. IF you want to be heavily involved in research, by which most people would assume that you want it to be a large part of a career plan, I'd go the PhD route. That's where you'll learn the ins and outs of research.

As for learning psych assessment techniques, that is broad. IF you mean neuropsych assessment techniques, yeah, you could learn to administer a couple in a grad level class. But, anyone can administer a test, not everyone knows the psychometrics and research behind the tests and how to interpret them, though. That will take much more than a class.

Autism is my main interest and that's the focus of my undergraduate research. The others are areas I want to research in my free time. I agree that PhD is best for research, but my school is heavily research based (due to their med school, I guess) and it's emphasized throughout the psychology and neuroscience majors. Research is actually a requirement for graduation and I feel like I'd be pretty prepared for a career as a researcher even if I went to med school (though of course, I wouldn't be as prepared as someone with a PhD), especially if I took the "Scientific Reasoning and Medical Research" course that's offered. However, I could be totally wrong about all of this (which is why I'm hoping you guys with more experience can clarify it for me).

Specifically, I'm interested in personality, cognitive/intelligence, and autism assessments. I can learn the autism assessments through the graduate certificate program I want to enroll in, but the personality and cognitive/intelligence assessments might be a bit more difficult to learn (if I went to med school).

Edit: I think one reason I'm considering psychiatry is that psychiatrists tend to deal with more severe mental illness (such as schizophrenia), whereas many people seem to see psychologists as just being therapists (even though some psychologists deal with severely mentally ill clients as well). However, the PhD seems more flexible due to it being a shorter program; I also feel like it'd also allow me time to travel the world (which is something I want to do) more than an MD would.

Thank you.

 

[WisNeuro]

I can't speak to your experience in research in undergrad, but I would be very skeptical that it alone would prepare you for a professional career in research. This takes years and work on multiple projects to even become a novice, really. As for the assessment stuff, you would not learn that in med school, well, maybe how to give a MoCA. As for the severe mental illness component, both psychologists and psychiatrists deal with both. Especially if you are on an SMI team. How you interact with these patients will differ greatly depending on if you go the PhD or MD route. I guess it's how much you want to do med management vs other things.

 

[deleted343839]

Autism is my main interest and that's the focus of my undergraduate research. The others are areas I want to research in my free time. I agree that PhD is best for research, but my school is heavily research based (due to their med school, I guess) and it's emphasized throughout the psychology and neuroscience majors. Research is actually a requirement for graduation and I feel like I'd be pretty prepared for a career as a researcher even if I went to med school (though of course, I wouldn't be as prepared as someone with a PhD), especially if I took the "Scientific Reasoning and Medical Research" course that's offered. However, I could be totally wrong about all of this (which is why I'm hoping you guys with more experience can clarify it for me).

If you are thinking about a faculty job that mainly involves research and teaching, a Ph.D. is the minimum qualification. To be competitive, you will likely need to put in a couple of years as a postdoctoral fellow. All of this training can easily stretch out over 7 or 8 years, during which time you will carve out a relatively specialized research focus for yourself, try to apply for research funding, and persuade a university or an academic medical center to hire you. If you don't like the idea of clinical practice, you could look into behavioral neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience, or a related field. You certainly don't have to be a clinician to study autism.

If, on the other hand, you want to be a clinician and do a little research on the side, you could do that with an M.D. in an academic medical setting. But an M.D. is usually not the best route if you already know that you want research to be your main career activity. The little bit of research training you get in medical school won't prepare you to do much independently; you would end up needing more training, or you would have to depend on collaborators with the expertise you lack.

For what it's worth, if you enter a competitive M.D. or Ph.D. program, most of your cohort will have had undergraduate research experience. There is much, much more to learn.

 

[psychgirl95]

I can't speak to your experience in research in undergrad, but I would be very skeptical that it alone would prepare you for a professional career in research. This takes years and work on multiple projects to even become a novice, really. As for the assessment stuff, you would not learn that in med school, well, maybe how to give a MoCA. As for the severe mental illness component, both psychologists and psychiatrists deal with both. Especially if you are on an SMI team. How you interact with these patients will differ greatly depending on if you go the PhD or MD route. I guess it's how much you want to do med management vs other things.

I meant research say, the way psychiatrists tend to research the neuro side of disorders. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I agree that both deal with severe mental illness - I just know that psychologists have said that that's how people see them, which is odd to me.

If you are thinking about a faculty job that mainly involves research and teaching, a Ph.D. is the minimum qualification. To be competitive, you will likely need to put in a couple of years as a postdoctoral fellow. All of this training can easily stretch out over 7 or 8 years, during which time you will carve out a relatively specialized research focus for yourself, try to apply for research funding, and persuade a university or an academic medical center to hire you. If you don't like the idea of clinical practice, you could look into behavioral neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience, or a related field. You certainly don't have to be a clinician to study autism.

If, on the other hand, you want to be a clinician and do a little research on the side, you could do that with an M.D. in an academic medical setting. But an M.D. is usually not the best route if you already know that you want research to be your main career activity. The little bit of research training you get in medical school won't prepare you to do much independently; you would end up needing more training, or you would have to depend on collaborators with the expertise you lack.

For what it's worth, if you enter a competitive M.D. or Ph.D. program, most of your cohort will have had undergraduate research experience. There is much, much more to learn.

See above; I clarified, my bad. I would only consider teaching if I pursued a PhD, because I'm aware that that would necessary. Thank you for the suggestions. I've looked into some of those programs before; the main reason I was attracted to clinical psychology though was because of what I mentioned earlier - wanting to give assessments (mainly autism, cognitive/intellectual, and personality). I know that generally only clinical psychologists and school/educational psychologists assess autism. But do you know if someone with a PhD in behavioral neuroscience can, say, give personality assessments (especially if it's relevant to their research)?

Thank you for explaining that. That was exactly what I was wondering about - what psych research as an MD would be like. I know that MDs don't get much research training, so I've already looked into residencies and fellowships that integrate research into them. So with that being said, do you think MD/PhD would be a way to go for me? While I like research, I wouldn't want it to be my full career - just a large majority of it.

Oh, I'm aware that many MD and PhD applicants have research experience (and sometimes even publications). I'm willing to learn .

Thank you both!

 

[WisNeuro]

I meant research say, the way psychiatrists tend to research the neuro side of disorders. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I agree that both deal with severe mental illness - I just know that psychologists have said that that's how people see them, which is odd to me.

The things that you mentioned are more in the purview of neurology research rather than psychiatry.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I think the MD/PhD route, with the latter being in neuroscience and the former leaning perhaps toward pediatric psychiatry, could be one way to go. You could always go for "just" the MD/DO and then do research-oriented fellowships, although I'd imagine the PhD subject matter (i.e., neuroscience) would be particularly interesting for you.

RE: another statement made, keep in mind that when all is said and done, a PhD generally isn't completed much (if at all) sooner than an MD + psychiatry residency. The latter is 8 years and the former is generally 6-8. If you add in a peds-oriented fellowship for psychiatry, that would of course increase the training time, but you'd probably also want a developmental disorder-oriented fellowship with the PhD, which will add another 1-2 years.

 

[PsychScience]

The things that you mentioned are more in the purview of neurology research rather than psychiatry.

To echo this, if you went the medical route what you are describing falls much more in the domain of developmental medicine/pediatric neurology than psychiatry.

Additionally, you mentioned that you are autistic and concerned that you would struggle with the clinical components of MD training. Something to keep in mind if you go the PhD in clinical psychology route is that it can also be heavily clinical nature. Even the most research heavy clinical psychology programs require clinical hours. So it may be worth teasing out what specifically about the clinical training of an MD you think would be difficult for you and whether or not the same or similar variables might be present in a clinical psychology program. Similarly, in teasing out what it is about the nature of training that you think could be difficult you may find that it isn't as large of a barrier as you thought given your own unique strengths/weaknesses.

Regardless, it does seem like the MD/PhD combo might fit your interests best... and double bonus, from what I know about these programs, like the PhD model they tend to cover the cost of your tuition.

 

[psychgirl95]

The things that you mentioned are more in the purview of neurology research rather than psychiatry.

Oh really? I guess that's good though, because I was hoping to find a dual residency in psych/neurology.

I think the MD/PhD route, with the latter being in neuroscience and the former leaning perhaps toward pediatric psychiatry, could be one way to go. You could always go for "just" the MD/DO and then do research-oriented fellowships, although I'd imagine the PhD subject matter (i.e., neuroscience) would be particularly interesting for you.

RE: another statement made, keep in mind that when all is said and done, a PhD generally isn't completed much (if at all) sooner than an MD + psychiatry residency. The latter is 8 years and the former is generally 6-8. If you add in a peds-oriented fellowship for psychiatry, that would of course increase the training time, but you'd probably also want a developmental disorder-oriented fellowship with the PhD, which will add another 1-2 years.

Yeah it would probably be in neuroscience. And you're right about the training time - that's why I was trying to see if I'd need a PhD or not for what I'd like to do. So far, I've found a couple research oriented residences (e.g., Yale and Brown) and they're pretty appealing to me.

To echo this, if you went the medical route what you are describing falls much more in the domain of developmental medicine/pediatric neurology than psychiatry.

Additionally, you mentioned that you are autistic and concerned that you would struggle with the clinical components of MD training. Something to keep in mind if you go the PhD in clinical psychology route is that it can also be heavily clinical nature. Even the most research heavy clinical psychology programs require clinical hours. So it may be worth teasing out what specifically about the clinical training of an MD you think would be difficult for you and whether or not the same or similar variables might be present in a clinical psychology program. Similarly, in teasing out what it is about the nature of training that you think could be difficult you may find that it isn't as large of a barrier as you thought given your own unique strengths/weaknesses.

Regardless, it does seem like the MD/PhD combo might fit your interests best... and double bonus, from what I know about these programs, like the PhD model they tend to cover the cost of your tuition.

After doing a little more research, it sounds like neuropsychiatry might work for me as well? (Since I'm interested in neurodevelopmental disorders.)

I'm pretty "high functioning" so most people think I'm just quirky. But I worry about the social deficits (e.g., not understanding humor, misreading facial expressions, and not being able to hold a conversation properly). I've been working at these, but I don't know if they'll still be issues in the future or not - and I can imagine clients or patients (along with professors) getting annoyed at these types of things.

Thanks again!

 

[shrinkgirl15]

I recently met someone who's doing a joint MD/PhD program in pediatric neurology for many of the same reasons you've mentioned (though I'm unsure whether she is autistic or simply doesn't want a heavily clinical career). It's a lot of schooling, but she really does enjoy getting to do more neuro than psych stuff.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Autism is my main interest and that's the focus of my undergraduate research. The others are areas I want to research in my free time. I agree that PhD is best for research, but my school is heavily research based (due to their med school, I guess) and it's emphasized throughout the psychology and neuroscience majors. Research is actually a requirement for graduation and I feel like I'd be pretty prepared for a career as a researcher even if I went to med school (though of course, I wouldn't be as prepared as someone with a PhD), especially if I took the "Scientific Reasoning and Medical Research" course that's offered. However, I could be totally wrong about all of this (which is why I'm hoping you guys with more experience can clarify it for me).

Specifically, I'm interested in personality, cognitive/intelligence, and autism assessments. I can learn the autism assessments through the graduate certificate program I want to enroll in, but the personality and cognitive/intelligence assessments might be a bit more difficult to learn (if I went to med school).

Edit: I think one reason I'm considering psychiatry is that psychiatrists tend to deal with more severe mental illness (such as schizophrenia), whereas many people seem to see psychologists as just being therapists (even though some psychologists deal with severely mentally ill clients as well). However, the PhD seems more flexible due to it being a shorter program; I also feel like it'd also allow me time to travel the world (which is something I want to do) more than an MD would.

Thank you.

If developmental disabilities is

Oh really? I guess that's good though, because I was hoping to find a dual residency in psych/neurology.



Yeah it would probably be in neuroscience. And you're right about the training time - that's why I was trying to see if I'd need a PhD or not for what I'd like to do. So far, I've found a couple research oriented residences (e.g., Yale and Brown) and they're pretty appealing to me.



After doing a little more research, it sounds like neuropsychiatry might work for me as well? (Since I'm interested in neurodevelopmental disorders.)

I'm pretty "high functioning" so most people think I'm just quirky. But I worry about the social deficits (e.g., not understanding humor, misreading facial expressions, and not being able to hold a conversation properly). I've been working at these, but I don't know if they'll still be issues in the future or not - and I can imagine clients or patients (along with professors) getting annoyed at these types of things.

Thanks again!

For what it's worth I worked for about 10 years in the developmental disabilities field (as a psychologist) and I got the sense that there were far more psychologists conducting research, editing professional books, and just generally figuring out what was going on (e.g., being involved in longitudinal research programs, publishing) than psychiatrists. I mean, there was the niche of psychopharmacological treatment of folks with developmental disabilities / autism spectrum disorders but this appeared to be a very very specialized niche.

Just as an anecdote, the 'Independent Expert' appointed by the U.S. Dept. of Justice to oversee the improvement of developmental disability services in our state was a Ph.D. psychologist.

 

[futureapppsy2]

In my experience, developmental pediatricians (who complete a peds residency followed by a developmental fellowship) are much more active in autism research than psychiatrists. Psychologists are also very active, as our people trained in ABA (though not so much wrt to the neuro aspects, of course).

 

[image187]

most people think I'm just quirky. But I worry about the social deficits (e.g., not understanding humor, misreading facial expressions, and not being able to hold a conversation properly)

half of medical students

 

[psychgirl95]

I recently met someone who's doing a joint MD/PhD program in pediatric neurology for many of the same reasons you've mentioned (though I'm unsure whether she is autistic or simply doesn't want a heavily clinical career). It's a lot of schooling, but she really does enjoy getting to do more neuro than psych stuff.

Yeah, I'd really like to combine the two. Thanks.

If developmental disabilities is


For what it's worth I worked for about 10 years in the developmental disabilities field (as a psychologist) and I got the sense that there were far more psychologists conducting research, editing professional books, and just generally figuring out what was going on (e.g., being involved in longitudinal research programs, publishing) than psychiatrists. I mean, there was the niche of psychopharmacological treatment of folks with developmental disabilities / autism spectrum disorders but this appeared to be a very very specialized niche.

Just as an anecdote, the 'Independent Expert' appointed by the U.S. Dept. of Justice to oversee the improvement of developmental disability services in our state was a Ph.D. psychologist.

In my experience, developmental pediatricians (who complete a peds residency followed by a developmental fellowship) are much more active in autism research than psychiatrists. Psychologists are also very active, as our people trained in ABA (though not so much wrt to the neuro aspects, of course).

I definitely agree with both of you - that's why I originally looked into clinical psych programs. I also looked into developmental/behavioral pediatrics, though I didn't get the sense that they were very active in the neuro research of autism. But thank you for the suggestion! Shadowing a developmental pediatrician never crossed my mind (why, I have no idea) until I saw this. I was able to find a couple local ones and I'll contact them about shadowing.

half of medical students

 

[hamstergang]

I know I was reading this quickly, but I didn't see any good reason for you to pursue an MD. It sounds to me that what you want is the psychologist training (though I'm a child/adolescent psychiatry fellow, so maybe I don't know precisely what that training entails).

 

[PsyDr]

My opinion: go for the MD, forget the PhD. Part of the beauty of an MD is that you can basically do anything you want. Walk out of residency and apply for a research position? No problem. Decide you want to practice medicine? no problem. Want to do research part time? Call up a few pharm companies and done. The MD degree lets people presume that you are competent in damn near everything. There are also specialties that require low amounts of social interaction including surgery, path, and rads. And it is a guaranteed 140k+ minimum.

As for your autism diagnosis: It doesn't make any sense to eschew medicine because of an autism diagnosis and then pursue a career in a field that requires MORE social skills. Even in pure research there are still social requirements such as subject recruitment, subject interaction, the hell that is committee meetings, student interactions, etc.

 

[deleted343839]

My opinion: go for the MD, forget the PhD. Part of the beauty of an MD is that you can basically do anything you want. Walk out of residency and apply for a research position? No problem. Decide you want to practice medicine? no problem. Want to do research part time? Call up a few pharm companies and done.

This is not true in my experience. I work mostly among physicians and I know very few MDs who are primarily researchers. Most who are have done a research fellowship and/or earned a master's degree (MS or MPH) to acquire additional research skills; they have to earn their living on grants like anyone else in a research faculty job, and if they can pull that off, more power to them. It's not all that difficult to become a site PI for a pharma trial, but it takes a lot of time and effort for mediocre payoff (essentially recruiting patients for trials in exchange for limited access to data and at best a middle position authorship on a paper).

 

[psychgirl95]

I know I was reading this quickly, but I didn't see any good reason for you to pursue an MD. It sounds to me that what you want is the psychologist training (though I'm a child/adolescent psychiatry fellow, so maybe I don't know precisely what that training entails).

My main reason for going to med school would be that I've always had an interest in medicine. (My mother was a nurse so I got exposed to some medicine from a pretty young age. She spent the last 7 years working as a psychiatric nurse, which is what helped spark my interest in psych.)

If I ended up doing a combined residency, I could get both the psych and neuro exposure that I want without having to get a PhD. (So far, I've found some psychiatry residencies that allow a lot of time for research. I haven't looked into fellowships yet.) From what I've gathered from everyone on this thread, a clinical psychology degree probably wouldn't be best for me since I'm not interested in therapy or in a lot of the coursework that's required for that degree. (The only reason I considered the degree was because I wanted to do psych assessments.) However, because I'd still want to see clients/patients (I want to see patients with psychiatric and neurological disorders and also research those disorders), but since I likely wouldn't be able to do that without a clinical psychology degree, it's sounding like psychiatry might be best for me.

I'm actually interested in child/adolescent psychiatry. Since you're in that field, perhaps you could explain what you think would be a good reason for someone to go to med school (with the intention of pursuing psych, though I'd be open to other specialties as well)?

My opinion: go for the MD, forget the PhD. Part of the beauty of an MD is that you can basically do anything you want. Walk out of residency and apply for a research position? No problem. Decide you want to practice medicine? no problem. Want to do research part time? Call up a few pharm companies and done. The MD degree lets people presume that you are competent in damn near everything. There are also specialties that require low amounts of social interaction including surgery, path, and rads. And it is a guaranteed 140k+ minimum.

As for your autism diagnosis: It doesn't make any sense to eschew medicine because of an autism diagnosis and then pursue a career in a field that requires MORE social skills. Even in pure research there are still social requirements such as subject recruitment, subject interaction, the hell that is committee meetings, student interactions, etc.

I've seen others on this forum agree with you and call the MD more versatile than the PhD. That's why I'm strongly considering it.

I think the difference would be how I would be judged. I can't speak to how psychology PhD students are graded on their social skills/clinical interaction (though I would assume rather harshly, especially if they're clinical psych students), but I have talked to others with autism who were in medical school and they noted how they were about to fail clerkships because of their social deficits. I could be totally wrong about this (and I probably am), but I see the atmosphere of clinical psychology as being less harsh (and more understanding) than medical school would be in regards to people having social deficits.

This is not true in my experience. I work mostly among physicians and I know very few MDs who are primarily researchers. Most who are have done a research fellowship and/or earned a master's degree (MS or MPH) to acquire additional research skills; they have to earn their living on grants like anyone else in a research faculty job, and if they can pull that off, more power to them. It's not all that difficult to become a site PI for a pharma trial, but it takes a lot of time and effort for mediocre payoff (essentially recruiting patients for trials in exchange for limited access to data and at best a middle position authorship on a paper).

I know that the rule for MD/PhD is 80/20. People seem to advise against going this route unless you're sure that you want to primarily be a researcher. While I definitely like research and want it to be a large part of my career, I think I'd like it to be more 50/50 or 60/40. I still want to see clients/patients, but I'd also like to spend a significant time on research.

I suppose that even if I did go to med school and later changed my mind, I could always try to pursue a PhD after that.

 

[WisNeuro]

I've seen others on this forum agree with you and call the MD more versatile than the PhD. That's why I'm strongly considering it.

I know that the rule for MD/PhD is 80/20. People seem to advise against going this route unless you're sure that you want to primarily be a researcher. While I definitely like research and want it to be a large part of my career, I think I'd like it to be more 50/50 or 60/40. I still want to see clients/patients, but I'd also like to spend a significant time on research.

I suppose that even if I did go to med school and later changed my mind, I could always try to pursue a PhD after that.

I guess it depends on what you consider versatile. Certain training, especially neuro, is pretty versatile. I have training in neuro assessment, neuro research(including eeg, MRI, fMRI), therapy training, and forensic assessment. There are a ton of varying positions one can qualify for. Really depends more on your background and desires more than anything.

As for changing your mind, that is true. I would just crunch some of those numbers though. Especially financially. Could be an expensive change of heart.

 

[psychgirl95]

I guess it depends on what you consider versatile. Certain training, especially neuro, is pretty versatile. I have training in neuro assessment, neuro research(including eeg, MRI, fMRI), therapy training, and forensic assessment. There are a ton of varying positions one can qualify for. Really depends more on your background and desires more than anything.

As for changing your mind, that is true. I would just crunch some of those numbers though. Especially financially. Could be an expensive change of heart.

True. I think I'm mainly interested in neuro research, though I'm interested in seeing patients as well.

Yeah, you're right! But the expense would be relatively low if I found a program that gives students full tuition and a stipend.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

True. I think I'm mainly interested in neuro research, though I'm interested in seeing patients as well.

Yeah, you're right! But the expense would be relatively low if I found a program that gives students full tuition and a stipend.

The direct cost, yes, although there's also opportunity cost to consider (e.g., lost wages, lost retirement contributions and interest accumulation, etc.). Especially if you were already a physician, essentially losing 6-8 years' worth of income would be pretty expensive. Not necessarily prohibitively so, just something else to consider.

 

[clausewitz2]

You have mentioned previously that a graduate program containing a large volume of material you do not find interesting is a major obstacle for you.

If you go the MD route, you have to be okay with the idea that you will find yourself at 3 AM sitting in Labor and Delivery desperately hoping for something to happen. Or standing very still and not touching anything during hour 6 and counting of a laparoscopic Nissen that converted into an open gastrectomy and bypass and trying very hard to think about the fact that you haven't eaten since, well, yesterday. These are things that happen, and does not even get into the utter tedium of preclinical years.

Have you considered non-clinical cog neuroscience academia? I can attest that it is very tolerant of a ... wide range of personalities.

 

[psychgirl95]

The direct cost, yes, although there's also opportunity cost to consider (e.g., lost wages, lost retirement contributions and interest accumulation, etc.). Especially if you were already a physician, essentially losing 6-8 years' worth of income would be pretty expensive. Not necessarily prohibitively so, just something else to consider.

Yeah, I definitely agree.

You have mentioned previously that a graduate program containing a large volume of material you do not find interesting is a major obstacle for you.

If you go the MD route, you have to be okay with the idea that you will find yourself at 3 AM sitting in Labor and Delivery desperately hoping for something to happen. Or standing very still and not touching anything during hour 6 and counting of a laparoscopic Nissen that converted into an open gastrectomy and bypass and trying very hard to think about the fact that you haven't eaten since, well, yesterday. These are things that happen, and does not even get into the utter tedium of preclinical years.

Have you considered non-clinical cog neuroscience academia? I can attest that it is very tolerant of a ... wide range of personalities.

See thing thing is - I like psychology, but I generally don't like a lot of theories. So I suppose my interests really are more neuroscience-related than psychology related, so perhaps that's why I don't find the programs that I looked into interesting.

Actually, I really haven't looked into it much, so thanks for the suggestion.

 

[erg923]

See thing thing is - I like psychology, but I generally don't like a lot of theories. So I suppose my interests really are more neuroscience-related than psychology .

Neuroscience has, arguably, one of the most pervasive theories embedded within it: Cartesian Duality.

 

[clausewitz2]

Neuroscience has, arguably, one of the most pervasive theories embedded within it: Cartesian Duality.

I have yet to meet a single neuroscientist who consciously believed in even a weak form of Cartesian dualism. Even those with religious convictions logically requiring dualism in their personal lives would never seriously suggest such a viewpoint in their professional lives. Usually the strongly dualist arguments about neuroscience are coming from people outside of neuroscience. e.g. Roger Penrose, that lot.

I wonder, @erg923 , what you're referring to?

 

[clausewitz2]

Yeah, I definitely agree.


See thing thing is - I like psychology, but I generally don't like a lot of theories. So I suppose my interests really are more neuroscience-related than psychology related, so perhaps that's why I don't find the programs that I looked into interesting.

Actually, I really haven't looked into it much, so thanks for the suggestion.

So I guess the question is why not apply to neuroscience graduate programs? These are very different from psychology programs (which is why they are usually in different departments).

 

[WisNeuro]

See thing thing is - I like psychology, but I generally don't like a lot of theories. So I suppose my interests really are more neuroscience-related than psychology related, so perhaps that's why I don't find the programs that I looked into interesting.

This is science and medicine in general. We all deal with theories, largely. Sure, there are some absolutes, but it's all a lot less cut and dry than most people think once you're in it.

 

[bns140]

If research is your interest, then I would go with the Ph.D. route. An M.D. isn't really a research degree. In your case, I think doing a Ph.D. would be more flexible, you can do very medically related research if you get your Ph.D. in neuroscience, or anything similar, and then you can also become a professor as you said.