How to tell a PhD that you don't want to be a researcher

[ccantr10]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I'm a reapplicant x3 this cycle. As an undergraduate, I did research for ~1.5 years and published a paper as a second author. I was talking with an adcom (who is a PhD in pharmacology) the other day, and she was kind enough to look over my AMCAS and give me feedback. She asked me why I didn't want to go into research, and I think I gave a response that offended her. I would like to know how some of my fellow applicants, particulary those that have been successful in research, are answering this question.
My decision to go MD instead of PhD was heavily influenced by my research experience. I loved using my mind to learn new things about a compound and contribute to science, but there were drawbacks as well. The word I use to describe how I felt working in the lab is LONELY. I remember doing benchwork and computations for 12-16 hour stretches without seeing a single person. And the personalities of the people I did see (grad students, my PI) left something to be desired. I remember thinking "If I have to be around people like this every day, I'm going to go nuts."
I'm also from a very small, very rural town (pop. 500), and my dream is to be able to contribute to the growth and prosperity of small communities. I don't think I can do that with a PhD in biochemistry (at least not directly), but I know I can do it with an MD degree. After I graduated, I started working in a doctor's office in a small town. Comparing my experience as a medical records clerk to my experience in research is like describing the difference between night and day. I got to meet and assist people from all socioeconomic, racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds (which was an incredible thing to do in a small town!), not just a small group of PhDs. I also found that I could accept the temper tantrum of a 70 year-old man dying of cancer better than the ones thrown by a perfectly healthy, 40 year-old biochemist. I guess I'm just funny that way.
Does my logic make sense? If so, how would you guys succintly relate it to a PhD in a diplomatic way. I have the utmost respect for the people who toil in research labs night and day to unearth one fact about one molecule that takes part in one process for the benefit of people that they will never meet. I just don't think it's for me. Thanks in advance to those who reply!

 

[FindMeOnTheLinks]

I think your reasons for wanting md over phd are totally legitimate. If you were able to explain it to the phd as well as you did here, you have nothing to apologize for in my opinion.

 

[hemaoncol]

I am getting my PhD in Biochemistry and I know exactly what you mean. In that type of environment, being non-apologetic and straight to the point is best for you. Just be honest. You have to remember that people who are in academia for the sciences would generally not survive well in the social world. I always describe my PI and committee members as sixteen-year olds girls with bad tantrums. Just say what you, and mean what you say then leave it alone. You are never going to be able to make them happy when switching to MD and they will always try to convince you to do research. Let them deal with reality for once. I think the way you described it here would be fine.

 

[goft20]

Tell him/her that you don't want to be teaching brats and rather have more moneys.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[URHere]

The way to speak about this tactfully is to focus on positives, not negatives. You have a clear idea of what to you want to contribute with your career - it's enough to describe how the MD is the best fit for achieving these goals without mentioning any specific negatives of the PhD world.

Honestly, most PhD researchers probably wouldn't be offended by your honest assessment of research, but it's best to avoid making waves in interview settings when you really have no idea how the person you are speaking with is going to respond.

 

[DokterMom]

The "lonely" bit is fine, but the "personalities of the people I did see (grad students, my PI) left something to be desired" part could offend. Those personality-deficient people are basically her and her freinds.

 

[ccantr10]

The "lonely" bit is fine, but the "personalities of the people I did see (grad students, my PI) left something to be desired" part could offend. Those personality-deficient people are basically her and her freinds.

Don't worry, I would never put it in THOSE terms. That assessment is just between us SDNers. I think one thing I did do that made her suggest I do research was describe myself as "pretty nerdy" (and I am, no doubt about it). And I wouldn't say researchers are personality-deficient. They just have quirks like the rest of us. What do you think is a good way to say "I don't have the personality of a researcher"?

 

[DokterMom]

Don't worry, I would never put it in THOSE terms. That assessment is just between us SDNers. I think one thing I did do that made her suggest I do research was describe myself as "pretty nerdy" (and I am, no doubt about it). And I wouldn't say researchers are personality-deficient. They just have quirks like the rest of us. What do you think is a good way to say "I don't have the personality of a researcher"?

I don't think there is a tactful way to say "I don't have the personality of a researcher" other than "I need to interact with lots of different people during the day. If I am in a situation that has me spending long hours alone without interacting with others, I can get depressed." The better tack would be a positively-framed "I think I'd be happiest working in a primary care role."

 

[ccantr10]

I don't think there is a tactful way to say "I don't have the personality of a researcher" other than "I need to interact with lots of different people during the day. If I am in a situation that has me spending long hours alone without interacting with others, I can get depressed." The better tack would be a positively-framed "I think I'd be happiest working in a primary care role."

I agree with your thinking. Thanks!

 

[allantois]

Because PhDs don't get to take care of individuals, duh! While they can contribute to the well being of a lot of people by coming up with new molecules and what not, they are essentially not the ones who are concerned with the well being of one person, their patient. I wouldn't be able to stand the environment of a research lab as you said because of it's loneliness. Or you can better say that you enjoy helping people very much throughout the day and an MD job will be very fulfilling to you.

 

[Goro]

Without having been there, my first thought is "It's not what you say, but how you say it." I, for one, don't get offended when I have applicants tell me they're not interested in research. Hell, it's uncommon for research techs to stay on as research techs..they usually end up going to either grad or medical school!

Just state the truth and say "my heart's not in it" or "I'd be happier helping/taking care of people". OR, "I don't like the grants rat race and the uncertainty it holds".


I'm a reapplicant x3 this cycle. As an undergraduate, I did research for ~1.5 years and published a paper as a second author. I was talking with an adcom (who is a PhD in pharmacology) the other day, and she was kind enough to look over my AMCAS and give me feedback. She asked me why I didn't want to go into research, and I think I gave a response that offended her. I would like to know how some of my fellow applicants, particulary those that have been successful in research, are answering this question.

 

[mysdnhandle]

.

 

[ccantr10]

Oh, it would be such a Twilight Zone moment to treat my PI in the ED or something. If he was having a heart attack, he'd probably go into V-fib at the sight of me.