Early career scientists - get an MPH?

[Medstudent9]

Hello all,

I have a question mostly for people who are out of training. Is it worth it to get an MPH? I did an MD/PhD in basic science, tried to go back to the lab as a fellow recently and basically hated it, and now find myself leaning towards clinical research.

However, MD/PhD training doesn't really prepare one for clinical research - the last stats course I took was in college which was longer ago then I want to say.

So I am interested in doing an MPH in epidemiology. Harvard has one that's mostly online except for 3 weeks in June and a May project symposium. But it's about $33,000 x 2 years, plus using almost all my vacation (unless my dept will approve it as educational leave) for the June portion. Is it worth it? I'm at a place that is in the infant/toddler stages of trying to be academic so I probably won't get bang for my buck here but I may ultimately want to move to a location that is more academic and advance through the ranks. I'm in a procedure heavy specialty so research/academics is rare/valued but the supportive commitment to that at the same time is kinda lip service.

What to do? Should I try to get an MPH at Harvard?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[kchan99]

There are some master's programs that are part of KL-2 programs. If you're looking for a training grant, and it seems that you would have something to training in, then KL-2 would a good way to get a little bit of funding and protected time. The caveat is that not all med schools have KL-2 programs. Another route could be a certificate program as a part of a training plan in a K23.

You did mention a "procedure heavy" specialty. Can you mention which one?

 

[dl2dp2]

No frankly this is a waste of your time.

You know more statistics than most of the budding clinical researchers who are MD-onlys at this stage in your career. Most of the statistical work is outsourced to statisticians anyway.