Would doing 100% research be more productive than doing 80% research and 20% clinical? Money is not important to me. I'm just wondering if there's any advantage to maintaining some degree of clinical work.
Would doing 100% research be more productive than doing 80% research and 20% clinical? Money is not important to me. I'm just wondering if there's any advantage to maintaining some degree of clinical work.
depends on your definition of "productive". you may not care about money yourself, but it's the money that makes research go around. what about salary for your postdoc/techs? maybe you can live in a homeless shelter...
will you get paid more as 80/20 or 100/0? 80/20, sometimes substantially more
will you be more flexible geographically? 80/20
will you be more likely to get hired? 80/20
will you be more likely to get a grant? 80/20
will you be more likely to get published (in any journal)? 80/20
will you be more likely to get tenured somewhere? 80/20
will you be less likely to lose your job? 80/20
on the other hand
will you be more like to get a basic science grant? 100/0
will you be more likely to get published in Cell, Nature, Science? 100/0
will you be more likely to get HHMI? 100/0
will you be more like to get the Nobel prize? 100/0 (don't know ANY with 80/20 who has a Nobel prize...although there are a few 0/100)
![]()
Was anyone asked this during an interview and if so how did you respond? I'd probably go with 80 - 20 for an interview and in real life as well. If I wanted to do 100% research I'd probably go hardcore PhD only and drop the MD.
at northwestern they tell you do do 100% research and 20% clinical.
Think about it.