3-4 year PhD, or 2 Masters+research?

[Kaiju]

I'm a med student pursuing a career in global health policy and research. Between 2nd and 3rd year of med school, I'm looking at a couple of options. Finances/money play little role here.

1) 3-4 PhD in Epidemiology
2) 1 year Masters in Science in Epidemiology and a 1 year Masters in Science in Health Systems/Policy. After this, I might follow with a year of research in either/both disciplines.

I'm aware my perspective/goals can change, but currently I don't want to pursue a career in academia/research/teaching, which is why I'm not sure about the PhD. But I certainly want to incorporate research into my work in health policy and health systems--it will play some role. I may want to work for WHO or CDC in the future, or with health ministries worldwide. The Masters degrees give me a degree of flexibility and versatility, as well as less time spent in school. Plus, since it's a Masters in Science, they do expose and prepare students for research work (but maybe not to the extend a PhD could).

I honestly could care less about letters after my name when I'll already have an MD compared to the perspective I gain from either path. I feel a PhD can give me sound research training, but I fear it may be too narrow in scope and too theoretical. I see a lot of MDs doing global health research w/o a PhD who obtain research training through other means. These cases force students to find the right mentors and opportunities if you won't do a PhD. But I almost wonder, if I'm thinking of spending 2-3 years off anyways, I should just get the PhD--maybe my reservations about the PhD are not valid. I welcome your thoughts and inputs.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[zippyziggy]

I'm a med student pursuing a career in global health policy and research. Between 2nd and 3rd year of med school, I'm looking at a couple of options. Finances/money play little role here.

1) 3-4 PhD in Epidemiology
2) 1 year Masters in Science in Epidemiology and a 1 year Masters in Science in Health Systems/Policy. After this, I might follow with a year of research in either/both disciplines.

I'm aware my perspective/goals can change, but currently I don't want to pursue a career in academia/research/teaching, which is why I'm not sure about the PhD. But I certainly want to incorporate research into my work in health policy and health systems--it will play some role. I may want to work for WHO or CDC in the future, or with health ministries worldwide. The Masters degrees give me a degree of flexibility and versatility, as well as less time spent in school. Plus, since it's a Masters in Science, they do expose and prepare students for research work (but maybe not to the extend a PhD could).

I honestly could care less about letters after my name when I'll already have an MD compared to the perspective I gain from either path. I feel a PhD can give me sound research training, but I fear it may be too narrow in scope and too theoretical. I see a lot of MDs doing global health research w/o a PhD who obtain research training through other means. These cases force students to find the right mentors and opportunities if you won't do a PhD. But I almost wonder, if I'm thinking of spending 2-3 years off anyways, I should just get the PhD--maybe my reservations about the PhD are not valid. I welcome your thoughts and inputs.

Other people with more experience in this field can and should comment, but it sounds like the Masters is the way to go. Since you're not interested in academic medicine, and seem to be mostly interested in public health, you don't need to go the more research-heavy route of getting the PhD - in fact, a lot of people who do important work for WHO or CDC don't even have a Masters or MPH - they learned from working in the field. The reason why you'd get a PhD in Epi would be to do serious biostatistics or molecular epi work, or maybe to run multiple large clinical trials or something (so you'd have more cred in the field), but it doesn't seem like you're into doing that kind of work.

I also don't think you need to do two Masters. Why not do an MPH? That essentially gives you a broad exposure to the field (in both epi and policy), which is perfect since it sounds like you don't know precisely what you want to do yet. Are you sure you want to do research, and what kind of research, exactly? This may be the only reason to get a research-based Masters over the MPH, or the PhD over the Masters for that matter, though you really don't learn enough in a one-year Masters to do serious research.

The possible benefit from doing a PhD is that it might further define your goals and career, but you're sort of letting fate decide that. Most of the time, whatever your PI works on, you work on, and you work on for a long time unless you purposefully decide to do a postdoc in a different field. I'm not quite sure about the differences between a PhD in Epi versus a PhD in a basic science (I'm enrolled in a Masters in Epi program and will do a PhD later in basic science, but I haven't started), but you might have more flexibility in Epi than in other fields because it's dry lab. At any case, if you do do a PhD, you might be stuck on a project you don't want to work on, or you might serendipitously find your passion for the identification of cardiovascular risk factors, say.

My personal opinion is that the sooner you can do the work you actually want to do, the better. Contribute to your field as early as possible. That probably means a Masters for you. But then again, that may just be the old fogey in me talking.

 

[Kaiju]

I appreciate the thoughtful and insightful reply--thank you!

 

[zippyziggy]

Thanks for the clarification. My advice would be to do the MS in Epi but not in Health Systems/Policy. Spend that time doing research in epi, or working in the field. No offense to anyone working in policy, but no one I know who's influential in health policy (outside of academia) got their degree in policy. It's something you learn during your career, and not something you need intensive study on. Epi is different; like you say, it forms the basis for a lot of things, and gives you the tools to quantitatively measure population trends, policy interventions, etc. Point is, with epi, you can do a lot of things, including health policy - in fact, it might not even be much of a transition, since that's what many epidemiologists work on anyway.

My opinion is that for the type of work you want to do, you don't really need that much training; what you do need are connections (for establishing collaborations to get the data you need). Look up some people whose work matches your interests, and see what they did. Or maybe apply for a Masters in Epi now, and once you're in the program, assess whether or not a PhD or another Masters is right for you by talking with more people in that field and having your research interests clarified. You can probably easily continue on for a PhD or another Masters if you need to. I think that'll help you a lot.

-My 2¢.