choosing PhD and residency

[jeniffer lopez]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hey guys!
I just wanted to know if you guys were thinking about what kind of residency you would like to go through when choosing your PhD. I know most of you are in the process of getting admitted to MSTPs, but do you have in mind already the whole plan and how it works out? I mean, I would like to choose a PhD program that would fit nicely my residency, but how can you choose before doing your medical rotations of the last two years of medical school? I guess I am concerned because I thought I would do neuroscience to later on go into neurology, but most of the people I have talked to that are either in neurology or dropped out of it mention that it is incredibly frustrating. Some went to completely different areas after finishing MD/PhDs in Neuroscience. What are your thoughts about this? Any advice is appreciated😉

 

[noy]

If we apply this year, don't we have something like 6 or 7 years to worry about residency? I think that is plenty of time - with 5 or 6 years of clinical experience (just being around physicians) I plan on getting a very good idea about the daily lives of each specialty...

In my field - engineering - I think its possible to connect many of the 'physical' specialties to PhD work - surgery, IM, radiation oncology, anasthesiology, where bodily parts and fluids need to be manipulated. I would say psychiatry and neurology would be much tougher fits for some engineers, but I know of BME's who do neural network modeling, and have research that would fit right into neurology.

Neurology is a weird one, since the feeling often is so often 'poking in the dark', now knowing what fundamental issues are causing the processes we see. I think the discipline will be very different 15-20 years from now, similarly to how oncology changed so much when better RT and multiple drug therapies came out in the 60's, and a more basic science was developed.

I get the feeling that you don't have to end up working in the exact field of your PhD - you do the residency and then get hired to work on research in that area, using your PhD as a 'union card' - this is what two MD/PhD's told me, neither of whom did residencies in the same field as their Phd.

 

[Sonya]

hi,

I'm also very curious about this.
Also, do you think you're research has to become more clinical once you do residency? How about if you're focused on clinical medicine, with like only 20-30% research.

Yes, I think peoples research changes as they progress through clinical medicine. But, I also think it would be better if both could be known ahead of time.

 

[Vader]

It is not necessary to do your PhD in a field that relates to your future residency, for many reasons. First, the main point of the PhD is to learn to investigate questions; the same thinking skills are applicable in any scientific field. Second, your field of research will change dramatically in the years you are on clinical service during residency. Third, it would be difficult to expect someone to know exactly what they want to do without exposure to different fields. Fourth, often new ideas and advances are brought into a field by those from an outside perspective.

It is also not necessary at most MSTP programs to know ahead of time exactly in which field you will conduct research during the graduate school years. The first two years of medical school will expose you to a wide range of topics that may spark your interest. Many applicants may apply to programs with certain interests, only to realize later that these interests have evolved over time. At my school, for example, we decide which graduate program to undertake mid-way through our second year of medical school.

Neurology is an excellent field for basic research, as well as clinical research. Because we understand relatively little about the vast array of disease processes that affect the nervous system, neurology is a perfect choice for those interested in both practicing clinical medicine and conducting basic biomedical research. Academic neurology lends itself to allowing time for investigation, whether it be basic or clinical.

Neuroscience is an extremely broad area of research, unified by interest in the nervous system. You can approach questions in this field on a variety of levels (i.e. molecular, cellular, systems, behavioral, computational, etc) and from a diverse set of perspectives (i.e. biological, chemical, physical, etc). People in the field study everything from membrane biophysics and protein structure to neural network modeling and computational theory.

Hope this helps,
Vader
MSTP-III

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by Vader
It is not necessary to do your PhD in a field that relates to your future residency, for many reasons. First, the main point of the PhD is to learn to investigate

It's not necessary but I think getting a PhD in molecular/cancer pathology and completing a residency in pathology will be a great plus for me. Sure there's going to be redundancy ( for example my PhD core courses in pathology are taken with medical students) but in this case, redundancy is a great thing!.

I also attend clinical conferences with resident pathologists 3X/week and by far, the knowledge base of the lady with the PhD in pathology is well above her peers.

 

[MacGyver]

Originally posted by pathdr2b
I also attend clinical conferences with resident pathologists 3X/week and by far, the knowledge base of the lady with the PhD in pathology is well above her peers.

Too bad she gets paid about 60% less than the MD pathologists...