Being a doctor

[agtownz]

My parents encourage me to become a doctor, along with other people in my family. They know that I like biology, chemistry, and physiology, however, I'm looking forward to expand on my learning after I finish with school. If I go into science, I will, of course, be doing science, keeping up-to-date with the latest developments in my field, doing lab work, reading up, the goods. I'm under the impression that if I become a doctor, the intellectual stimulation will cease -- having jumped through numerous hoops, I'm deemed qualified and sent on my way. Sure, the pay is nice, the job security is nice, helping people is nice, but I'm more concerned with doings things, such as experiments or research, being at the cutting edge, writing and reading (not just science, I'm very much into literature). As I see it, if I'm a doctor, the learning was done during school and residency. The focus shifts more to the 'way of the doctor' area.

As of now, I'm still waiting on the reply for my volunteer position at a hospital, so I have no real experience in the medical environment. Hence, my view could change. But as of now, is my perception correct, and if not, why?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Eklipse113]

Physicians still have lots of opportunities to do research. As a Dr. you are ALWAYS learning new information. Don't let that misconception steer you away from medicine, but do consider what you REALLY want to do. It doesn't matter if your family pushes you to do it- do what you want to do, because it's your life.

If you aren't sure about medicine adn don't have a passion for it, you won't enjoy doing it. If you would rather get a PhD and do research... power to you because I can't stand that stuff!

 

[agtownz]

I realize that you could be faculty or get a teaching position. However, nobody is going to take someone right out of medical school and prop them up on a chair and say "teach." The time it would take to gain a fairly comparable position should be much longer through the MD route.

Also, how am I wrong in comparing the amount of information learned between a doctor and, say, a molecular biologist?

 

[niranjan162]

I realize that you could be faculty or get a teaching position. However, nobody is going to take someone right out of medical school and prop them up on a chair and say "teach." The time it would take to gain a fairly comparable position should be much longer through the MD route.

Also, how am I wrong in comparing the amount of information learned between a doctor and, say, a molecular biologist?

Well in terms of amount of information during med school youre going to have to learn alot more generalized information and lots of it. Whereas as a molecular biologist I believe your learning would be much more in depth and more specific. Sure you can do lots of research as a physician, and the learning will always continue. However, i think if your main goal to be in the heart of cutting edge discovery, a PhD would be the best way to go. I dont think the sacrifices would be worth it unless you find the science of the human body interesting and like working with people.

 

[engineetor]

You can either go all out and get a MD/PhD or graduate with a MD with research distinction.

 

[Law2Doc]

...However, nobody is going to take someone right out of medical school and prop them up on a chair and say "teach." ...

Actually in residency they do exactly that. The residents are expected to teach the med students rotating with them. It's part of their "job". Not formal lectures necessarily (although some departments do have residents doing classroom teaching of med students), but sit downs on topics and lots of hands on teaching.

 

[agtownz]

I was using the "teach" example for something like teaching at UCSF. I've read Complications, I'm not totally clueless .

 

[Handy388]

just so let you know, cutting edge research could mean the folding pattern of protein 2E3218. It's not always all glam.

 

[disorder]

sounds like you want to be a PhD. go to graduate school.

however, academic medicine and certain specialties absolutely require you to be in the "know" for cutting edge research. the research is just... different. but, if you like experimentation and such, again--PhD.

but you also must define "intellectual stimulation". your idea is as you described. in my opinion, being a physician is just one of those professions where learning never ceases because you deal with people on a daily basis. you problem solve people; and this is ever changing. that's stimulation.

 

[Evergrey]

I was under the impression that most physicians spend a considerable amount of time keeping up to date on drug studies/medical advancements? This cardiologist I shadowed told me that, anyhow. Whenever he isn't doing stuff for his job during the day, he reads journals..

 

[JonathanMD]

sounds like you want to be a PhD. go to graduate school.

This was my sense as well.

Not knowing the rest of your story, just reading what you posted here, I think you'd be much happier in the long run with a PhD, really digging into science, in a particular field.

 

[Gut Shot]

I'm under the impression that if I become a doctor, the intellectual stimulation will cease -- having jumped through numerous hoops, I'm deemed qualified and sent on my way.

You severely underestimate the time, effort, and knowledge one must accrue in order to even be deemed qualified, much less above average. Also, residency/fellowship isn't the end of your training, it's the beginning. Given the rapidity with which medicine is changing, it is extremely difficult for physicians to keep on top of all the new information that pours out ever month. To merely go on one's way means almost immediate obsolescence.

 

[Caprica6]

OP, you don't seem ready to go the PhD or MD route right out of undergrad. Take some time off and explore your options before you apply to any programs. For MD, I think that it depends on the specialty, but many doctors do research, you also have to keep up on you continuing education. PhDs are very, very specialized. You will likely be looking at one protein, pathway or mechanism your entire career.

 

[Dral]

The day you decide to be a physician is the day you agree that you will continue to learn for the rest of your life. That's what the best physicians do.

 

[Sarg's kid]

I realize that you could be faculty or get a teaching position. However, nobody is going to take someone right out of medical school and prop them up on a chair and say "teach." The time it would take to gain a fairly comparable position should be much longer through the MD route.

Also, how am I wrong in comparing the amount of information learned between a doctor and, say, a molecular biologist?

Go for an MD/PhD. The school is longer, but on the other end of it, you'll be board certified as a physician, but with an expectation that you will continue doing research. And, if you are looking to teach, I'm sure that you could find a location to research and teach and see patients.

I think you misunderstand the way that it works. It's not like a college professor. You will be researching on your own as an attending, with residents and med students there with you to be taught.

 

[FlowLimited]

Here's a good question to ask yourself: Do I have any interest whatsoever in treating patients?

If you do, think some more about the path you should take. If you don't, get a PhD.

 

[ngkats]

I was using the "teach" example for something like teaching at UCSF. I've read Complications, I'm not totally clueless .

Generally, as an MD keeping up with journals and current research is a must, especially if your a practicing in a more dynamic field. This quality becomes essential, of course, if you're a faculty member at an academic university.

But if you're only interested in biomedical science and--more importantly not interested in directly caring for patients--then getting an MD is pretty much a waste of time. Sure, a MD/PhD will give you the best appreciation for clinical and basic science than either one alone. But if seeing patients is a major motivation for you, don't go to medical school.

Another note: "teaching" in the medical world typically means clinical teaching of residents or medical students. Typically, the basic science years of medical schools are not taught by PhDs. So if you envision yourself in a huge lecture all talking bout the finer points of the TCA cycle, the PhD route may be your best bet.

 

[atomi]

-

 

[disorder]

The road to become a tenured professor at a four year university is long and hard. I would say it IS harder to become a tenured professor than a doctor. IF you get into medical school, you should be able to get a decent job with a decent salary. If you go the PhD route, you are NEVER guranteed a job. If you want to do research, go into academia and do a 90/10 or 80/20 split. Investing your time with an MD is much wiser than a PhD. I know of several tenured PhDs who went to Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Cornell and hate their life as all they have done with their life since college is study a function of this and that every single day. They all said that if you can't find a question that you would LOVE to research every single day for a good four decades, don't do the PhD thing. When I started college, I wanted to do the PhD thing really bad, but the more I learned about how the PhD in academia works, the faster I ran away. Then I worked in a hospital and LOVED it (not the job, but just working in health care).

I know some academic places have three ways to get tenured: 1) see patients full-time, 2) teach and see patients, 3) research 80 or 90/10 split. The easiest way to get tenured of these three is the first one listed. The hardest is the third one.

In academic research, IT'S PUBLISH OR PERRISH. Do you want to live the rest of your life not getting the lab space you want, not getting the support you want from the university, and having to count on putting food on your table at night by getting that next grant (oh, by the way, how you do your research will be told by people you don't even work with...aka the people who approve your grant).

Edit: I want to add more.

So how long to become tenured?

4 years of college

2 years for the master's degree (get paid about $28,000)

4-6 years for the PhD (studying something) (get paid about $28,000)

2-3 years for your first postdoct (get paid about $32,000)

2-3 years for your second postdoct (get paid about $32,000)

Oh please, can I get a real job yet? (can I get paid $100,000 a year?)

We should be friends.

 

[Law2Doc]

... Typically, the basic science years of medical schools are not taught by PhDs. So if you envision yourself in a huge lecture all talking bout the finer points of the TCA cycle, the PhD route may be your best bet.

Did you really mean the "not"? Most basic science courses ARE taught by PhDs actually. But then you move on to the clinical years, which are deemed more important for your future and those will be taught by clinicians. And mostly not taught in the lecture/didactic sense, but taught in the sitting down during table rounds or over a patient kind of teaching.

 

[agtownz]

Thank you all for replying, especially coldfeet09, your information was quite useful. I'm still a senior in high school, therefore it isn't much of a rush, as some thought it was. Who knows, maybe during college I might decide to just go for a master's and get a job working for the gov. or private corp. One thing I am sure of is that no matter where I go, I'll be fine -- that's the attitude I go about life with. It's nice to have a plan, which is why I'm gathering information here. Again, thank you all for your replies.