Psychology PhD or Pathology Assistant?

[Question]

Hi, I'm not quite sure the best forum to ask this in. I graduated with an MA in Experimental Psychology last year. Though psych, I did more neuroscience/microbiology research. I would like to eventually work as a researcher in a pathology lab examining post-mortem brain tissue in hopes of contributing something to what we already know about Parkinson's disease. For the longest, I was convinced I had to obtain a PhD in order to do this. More recently, I came across pathology assistant as a profession.

My main goal is to be able to do hands-on research in a pathology lab. Will either the PhD or pathology assistant route be the most effective (i.e., time in school, financial investment, salary, etc) in reaching my end goal? Or is there another route I'm overlooking? There are not many accredited PA programs in the country and it seems relatively new (at least to me), based on your knowledge, is it a reliable profession (i.e., no job shortages)?

— Experts please respond to this post —

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Hi, I'm not quite sure the best forum to ask this in. I graduated with an MA in Experimental Psychology last year. Though psych, I did more neuroscience/microbiology research. I would like to eventually work as a researcher in a pathology lab examining post-mortem brain tissue in hopes of contributing something to what we already know about Parkinson's disease. For the longest, I was convinced I had to obtain a PhD in order to do this. More recently, I came across pathology assistant as a profession.

My main goal is to be able to do hands-on research in a pathology lab. Will either the PhD or pathology assistant route be the most effective (i.e., time in school, financial investment, salary, etc) in reaching my end goal? Or is there another route I'm overlooking? There are not many accredited PA programs in the country and it seems relatively new (at least to me), based on your knowledge, is it a reliable profession (i.e., no job shortages)?

— Experts please respond to this post —

Hopefully you have done your due diligence to know what PathA's do (https://www.pathassist.org/page/Become_PA). See this list (https://www.pathassist.org/page/AboutUs_NAACLS) for all the programs. From what I am aware of it, the profession is fairly reliable as long as you maintain your credentials. The training time for PathA is roughly 2 years as opposed to over 5 years for a Ph.D., and you may need to ask about doing research as a PathA during the program or after you finish.

 

[GoSpursGo]

I'm not super familiar with pathology assistants directly so please do your due diligence. But my general perception has been that similar to physician assistants/nurse practitioners, pathologist assistants are largely clinically focused. Meaning you'd likely be predominantly involved in performing autopsies, processing surgical samples, etc. It is entirely possible that there are more research-based positions out there, but if so I'm just not aware of them--again, do your own due diligence.

Even if there are research-based positions, I think you need to keep in mind that as a pathologist assistant you're unlikely to have a lot of say in the direction of the research. So unless there is a neuropathologist with access to post-mortem human brain tissue with an interest in Parkinson disease in an area that you live in who is also looking for a pathologist assistant... you may need to be more flexible in your research interests. The advantage, as outlined above, is that I'm pretty sure that as a pathologist assistant you'd have solid job security. In contrast, as a PhD you would be able to drive your own research interests. The downside is everything that comes with being a PhD--you probably have to do a post-doc after your PhD, then if you're successful in becoming a PI you get all of the headaches that come from running a lab and securing grant funding. It is NOT a career path with a ton of job security.

 

[PerioDont]

Hi, I'm not quite sure the best forum to ask this in. I graduated with an MA in Experimental Psychology last year, though psych, I did more neuroscience/microbiology research. I would like to eventually work as a researcher in a pathology lab examining post-mortem brain tissue in hopes of contributing something to what we already know about Parkinson's disease. For the longest, I was convinced I had to obtain a PhD in order to do this. More recently, I came across pathology assistant as a profession.

My main goal is to be able to do hands on research in a pathology lab. Will either the PhD or pathology assistant route be the most effective (i.e., time in school, financial investment, salary, etc) in reaching my end goal? Or is there another route I'm overlooking? There are not many accredited PA programs in the country and it seems relatively new (at least to me), based on your knowledge, is it a reliable profession (i.e., no job shortages)?

— Experts please respond to this post —

Your goal sounds very specific. I think doing a PhD is a route that’s better served to getting there as compared to being a pathology assistant.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

I'm not super familiar with pathology assistants directly so please do your due diligence. But my general perception has been that similar to physician assistants/nurse practitioners, pathologist assistants are largely clinically focused. Meaning you'd likely be predominantly involved in performing autopsies, processing surgical samples, etc. It is entirely possible that there are more research-based positions out there, but if so I'm just not aware of them--again, do your own due diligence.

Even if there are research-based positions, I think you need to keep in mind that as a pathologist assistant you're unlikely to have a lot of say in the direction of the research. So unless there is a neuropathologist with access to post-mortem human brain tissue with an interest in Parkinson disease in an area that you live in who is also looking for a pathologist assistant... you may need to be more flexible in your research interests. The advantage, as outlined above, is that I'm pretty sure that as a pathologist assistant you'd have solid job security. In contrast, as a PhD you would be able to drive your own research interests. The downside is everything that comes with being a PhD--you probably have to do a post-doc after your PhD, then if you're successful in becoming a PI you get all of the headaches that come from running a lab and securing grant funding. It is NOT a career path with a ton of job security.

Just noting, there is research ongoing even in allied health fields, but do the PhD if you really want the academic career. Again, due diligence... talk with practicing professionals.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Just noting, there is research ongoing even in allied health fields

True, but it tends to be more clinical. I haven’t seen someone from allied health is truly at the bench. Which is what the OP is describing.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

True, but it tends to be more clinical. I haven’t seen someone from allied health is truly at the bench. Which is what the OP is describing.

Definitely not disagreeing. Just noting that research can be part of the curriculum. I have seen a couple of student research projects from PathA students related to some of the sections they were preparing.

It just depends on the type of training the OP wants upfront. At many PhD programs you still go through all the biochemistry and molecular biology before you get into anything I would consider fun that is related to pathology, which probably happens in the second year of the PhD.

 

[TheBoneDoctah]

With your aspirations in your OP, you sound like you want to make a difference in spearheading projects. Although PhD is longer, it may give you what you are looking for better than the assistant job.

 

[AlteredScale]

Hi, I'm not quite sure the best forum to ask this in. I graduated with an MA in Experimental Psychology last year. Though psych, I did more neuroscience/microbiology research. I would like to eventually work as a researcher in a pathology lab examining post-mortem brain tissue in hopes of contributing something to what we already know about Parkinson's disease. For the longest, I was convinced I had to obtain a PhD in order to do this. More recently, I came across pathology assistant as a profession.

My main goal is to be able to do hands-on research in a pathology lab. Will either the PhD or pathology assistant route be the most effective (i.e., time in school, financial investment, salary, etc) in reaching my end goal? Or is there another route I'm overlooking? There are not many accredited PA programs in the country and it seems relatively new (at least to me), based on your knowledge, is it a reliable profession (i.e., no job shortages)?

— Experts please respond to this post —

Well I guess you can do pathA and still do research since the places running these PA programs are pretty big institutions though it may be harder. Remember that as a PhD there is not guarantee you will continue on the pathway of your interest and will need to adjust based on your PI until you move to independence. PA is a clinical job at the end of the day requiring you to put in the hours. It is not focused on research. I looked into this pathway prior to medical school as well. It seems like a good gig overall similar to PA/NP routes.