Is it bad to go in to medicine for the love of science and diseases more so than patient care?

[Microbeboy987]

I'm an undergrad junior in NYC studying biology who originally wanted to become a PhD but is having second thoughts. I work in a bacteriophage lab, so far 1 year, and it's really interesting and fun. The thing is I don't see myself doing only this as a career for my whole life. One of my concerns is in order to get to where he is now, my PI lives for phages almost exclusively and I don't want to narrow my intrest to that extent to go anywhere in research. I love microbiology and would want to do more research but I don't want my whole career just that. Medicine seems great since You learn so much more about so many things and can apply it to see results in care. Getting to help patients with the knowledge youve learned is great too and I'd love the chance to treat and educate but its not my main driver. I just wanted to ask this question because people seem to say that you need a drive for patient care the most on this website and not having it will lead to an unhappy life, is that true? yet there are so many premeds who honestly couldn't be interested in genetics, micro, and immunology and take it because they have to and I can't see why because those are so important to understanding the diseases and systems you treat.
Besides working in my lab I hope to shadow some ID specialists, oncologists, and hematologists over the summer, fingers crossed, to learn about the fields I'm most interested in.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mad Jack]

No.

 

[Microbeboy987]

No.

Straight to the point, thank you.

 

[ZPakEffect]

Hell, you could be a pathologist and not have to worry about patient care at all.

 

[MusicDOc124]

If you'd like to continue research where you have interest, but also have more patient care than pathology, you could look into Allergy and Immunology. Depending on where you end up working, you could have more focus on research than the patient side of things, but have both as an option.

 

[eteshoe]

MD -> Pathology
PhD -> Pathology, Immunology or Infectious diseases

 

[Mansamusa]

You could look into vaccine research. Or clinical research with superbugs, etc.

Just look for a broader field where you can be working with multiple diseases at once and can switch things up

 

[URHere]

Not necessarily, but it depends on what you want to do with your life. If you want to work in a research lab, a PhD would be a better use of your time. If you want to work on clinical trials, an MD would be a solid choice. If you want to look at how diseases spread over time, an MPH or other epidemiology degree may be best for you. If you want to do as many of these things as possible, and you have no problem with being a student for an unreasonably long period of time, you could consider MD/PhD, MD/MPH, or other combined training programs.

Before we can give you good advice, you need to have a better idea of what appeals to you. Get some shadowing experience. If you have a clinical trial center nearby, try to make some connections there to see what clinical trial research is like (spoiler alert: it's a lot more legal paperwork than you would expect, and in some cases recruiting/marketing is a nearly insurmountable challenge). Even after all of this, you may not have a real idea of what you like until you're actually in school. I went into my program leaning heavily towards research, and ended up loving clinical training and critical care more than I could have predicted. In a cruel twist of fate, I also adored my (later) PhD years, medical education, global health, public policy, and administration and am now trying to build a career that includes approximately everything I can get my hands on. It is possible that your interests may multiply instead of narrowing as you go down your path - only you can figure out what to do with that.

 

[Law2Doc]

The couple of people I know who were really into "science" and didn't like the patient care aspects hated and were miserable through every second of the latter two years of school, couldn't hide it, and were evaluated poorly as a result.

The whole "you can do medicine and then find a specialty where you won't see patients is absurdly exaggerated on SDN and really not an accurate depiction of medicine as a hands off science career in general, and of fields like pathology in particular. Med school trains clinicians. It's about the patients. It uses science as a foundation at some level, but the practice of medicine is not science. If at some level you aren't interested in patient care, you probably will hate this career. And the path to the medical sub specialties you listed goes through IM, where you'll be working long hours doing very little science with some very sick patients, for another three years after med school.

I strongly suggest you go shadow and see if what doctors actually do is something you can enjoy doing. Because you'll end up logging a lot of days, nights and weekends doing it, and it sure won't be what an undergrad person calls "science".

 

[Microbeboy987]

If you'd like to continue research where you have interest, but also have more patient care than pathology, you could look into Allergy and Immunology. Depending on where you end up working, you could have more focus on research than the patient side of things, but have both as an option.

Thanks for the reply, that sounds like an interesting idea. I still would want to contiune research but I'd miss the idea of seeing a patients as often so I'll try to find some allergy and immunology specialists to shadow too.

 

[Microbeboy987]

The couple of people I know who were really into "science" and didn't like the patient care aspects hated and were miserable through every second of the latter two years of school, couldn't hide it, and were evaluated poorly as a result.

The whole "you can do medicine and then find a specialty where you won't see patients is absurdly exaggerated on SDN and really not an accurate depiction of medicine as a hands off science career in general, and of fields like pathology in particular. Med school trains clinicians. It's about the patients. It uses science as a foundation at some level, but the practice of medicine is not science. If at some level you aren't interested in patient care, you probably will hate this career. And the path to the medical sub specialties you listed goes through IM, where you'll be working long hours doing very little science with some very sick patients, for another three years after med school.

I strongly suggest you go shadow and see if what doctors actually do is something you can enjoy doing. Because you'll end up logging a lot of days, nights and weekends doing it, and it sure won't be what an undergrad person calls "science".

Thanks, I said I was having second thoughts on a Phd but it's still an idea. I don't hate the idea of patient care at all but as of right now it's not a main driver to my decision making. However, your right I need to shadow because I dont really know what patient care is and I could just have a bias to the "science" aspect. Shadowing is a must before I make any decision.

 

[Microbeboy987]

You could look into vaccine research. Or clinical research with superbugs, etc.

Just look for a broader field where you can be working with multiple diseases at once and can switch things up

Or phage therapy, since biofilm forming and antibiotic resistant bacteria are becoming more and more prevalent and regural antibiotics may not be best alone

 

[Law2Doc]

Thanks, I said I was having second thoughts on a Phd but it's still an idea. I don't hate the idea of patient care at all but as of right now it's not a main driver to my decision making. However, your right I need to shadow because I dont really know what patient care is and I could just have a bias to the "science" aspect. Shadowing is a must before I make any decision.

Like I said, on this path you are going to do very little of what you likely consider "science" after second year med school through your IM residency ( a stretch of at least 5 years) during which it's all going to be about patient care. Don't kid yourself into thinking this is a job where they'll pay you more but still let you mostly be a scientist. More often you'll only get to do what you would call "science" one academic day a week, if you get enough grants. If your goal is more, don't do medicine, become a scientist. Glad you are going to shadow and see what's really what.

 

[Microbeboy987]

Like I said, on this path you are going to do very little of what you likely consider "science" after second year med school through your IM residency ( a stretch of at least 5 years) during which it's all going to be about patient care. Don't kid yourself into thinking this is a job where they'll pay you more but still let you mostly be a scientist. More often you'll only get to do what you would call "science" one academic day a week, if you get enough grants. If your goal is more, don't do medicine, become a scientist. Glad you are going to shadow and see what's really what.

Thanks for the real talk. I'll keep what you said of the years of medical school and IM residency in mind since that's a long time. Since you're a physician would you mind if I asked you what's it like in a day in your shoes when it comes to patients? I don't want to know the details of your care but more so patient interaction and the joy and difficulty that you deal with. When you've seen all the patients you had for that day do you always look back and say what a great day of patients or is it a little common to think of how hard and stressful that day was? And if it's stressful how would a physician deal or change that? These are the questions I hope shadowing can answer as well.

 

[Mansamusa]

Or phage therapy, since biofilm forming and antibiotic resistant bacteria are becoming more and more prevalent and regural antibiotics may not be best alone

Also, are you competitive for funded MD/PhDs? Because that could be a really good way for you to get both the knowledge and the research- especially with ID. There is a lot of educating patients involved in ID and it seems like a fun service where you don't need to develop long-term relationships with patients. ID is also low-paying, so going MD only might make it difficult for you to afford doing mostly research.

 

[Law2Doc]

...When you've seen all the patients you had for that day do you always look back and say what a great day of patients or is it a little common to think of how hard and stressful that day was? And if it's stressful how would a physician deal or change that? These are the questions I hope shadowing can answer as well.

Everyone has great days and bad days, good and bad outcomes. The job is always hard and stressful but frequently rewarding despite that. But you have to enjoy the job function or you'll have a tough time. This really isn't a job where you can just live for the weekend (if you even get one). It's not the right job for everyone.

 

[MedV]

Being a doctor I would say involves more patient care than it does science. You will be day in day out talking to people getting to know them and doing paper work with them. The "real" science is the 2 minute talk you with your peers after talking to the patient for 20 mins. Medical school is being social, and im not 100 percent positive but I would say the interview is basically to find out if you can interact with patients or not.

 

[Med Ed]

The whole "you can do medicine and then find a specialty where you won't see patients is absurdly exaggerated on SDN and really not an accurate depiction of medicine as a hands off science career in general, and of fields like pathology in particular.

Funny, I was just chatting with a pathologist friend of mine the other day who mused that he hasn't seen a full, live patient since 2009.

 

[Law2Doc]

Funny, I was just chatting with a pathologist friend of mine the other day who mused that he hasn't seen a full, live patient since 2009.

This is not so typical, and he may have been exaggerating. Many pathologists are part of biopsies and in that role "interact" with patients daily, even if their interaction isn't akin to taking a history. And in pathology in particular, jobs aren't plentiful enough for anyone to be picky and decide you only want to do X.

 

[Med Ed]

I'm an undergrad junior in NYC studying biology who originally wanted to become a PhD but is having second thoughts. I work in a bacteriophage lab, so far 1 year, and it's really interesting and fun. The thing is I don't see myself doing only this as a career for my whole life. One of my concerns is in order to get to where he is now, my PI lives for phages almost exclusively and I don't want to narrow my intrest to that extent to go anywhere in research. I love microbiology and would want to do more research but I don't want my whole career just that. Medicine seems great since You learn so much more about so many things and can apply it to see results in care. Getting to help patients with the knowledge youve learned is great too and I'd love the chance to treat and educate but its not my main driver. I just wanted to ask this question because people seem to say that you need a drive for patient care the most on this website and not having it will lead to an unhappy life, is that true? yet there are so many premeds who honestly couldn't be interested in genetics, micro, and immunology and take it because they have to and I can't see why because those are so important to understanding the diseases and systems you treat.
Besides working in my lab I hope to shadow some ID specialists, oncologists, and hematologists over the summer, fingers crossed, to learn about the fields I'm most interested in.

Coming to pre-allo and saying that patient care isn't your #1 career goal is somewhat akin to declaring yourself an autistic sociopath who's terrible at cocktail parties. At least, that's how some people here will (over)interpret your statement.

You have gotten some good advice on this thread. Medicine is a huge field, encompassing many different career paths, and benefits from a variety of perspectives. It is certainly worth exploring.

 

[Med Ed]

This is not so typical, and he may have been exaggerating. Many pathologists are part of biopsies and in that role "interact" with patients daily, even if their interaction isn't akin to taking a history. And in pathology in particular, jobs aren't plentiful enough for anyone to be picky and decide you only want to do X.

No, no exaggeration. And I don't think I would place an adequacy check in the same category as seeing a patient.

 

[Law2Doc]

...And I don't think I would place an adequacy check in the same category as seeing a patient.

It actually can be much more intense-- he may need to make small talk with a family member to distract them while the proceduralist is sticking a needle into the patient, and then the patient and crew may be staring at him hoping he will give some sense of a diagnosis on the spot.

My point is, some readers are going to see the exaggerated posts on SDN and think-- there are opportunities to sit closed up in a lab doing "science" and never seeing patients, but still be paid like a doctor. That's not really going to happen for most and even if you ultimately are the one in a thousand who finds such a job, you will have had to endure something very different throughout med school and residency, where being a clinician is emphasized.

 

[Med Ed]

It actually can be much more intense-- he may need to make small talk with a family member to distract them while the proceduralist is sticking a needle into the patient, and then the patient and crew may be staring at him hoping he will give some sense of a diagnosis on the spot.

That requires approximately the same quantity of social skills needed to politely order fast food.

 

[Goro]

1000% agree with every post my learned colleague has made in this thread.

OP, go look up the six required core competencies of medical school graduates. You'll find that "scientific knowledge" is only one of them. The rest are all service/humanistic domains. Meaning, you have to be able to master dealing with patients.

It actually can be much more intense-- he may need to make small talk with a family member to distract them while the proceduralist is sticking a needle into the patient, and then the patient and crew may be staring at him hoping he will give some sense of a diagnosis on the spot.

My point is, some readers are going to see the exaggerated posts on SDN and think-- there are opportunities to sit closed up in a lab doing "science" and never seeing patients, but still be paid like a doctor. That's not really going to happen for most and even if you ultimately are the one in a thousand who finds such a job, you will have had to endure something very different throughout med school and residency, where being a clinician is emphasized.

 

[Med Ed]

My point is, some readers are going to see the exaggerated posts on SDN and think-- there are opportunities to sit closed up in a lab doing "science" and never seeing patients, but still be paid like a doctor. That's not really going to happen for most and even if you ultimately are the one in a thousand who finds such a job, you will have had to endure something very different throughout med school and residency, where being a clinician is emphasized.

My point is that you are also exaggerating, just in the opposite direction. An interested student with the ability to carry on a normal conversation can become competent in the skills necessary to interact with patients. Most of the issues seen in clerkships have to do with professionalism and severe gaps in medical knowledge.

I also do not find your "one in a thousand" quip to be rooted in evidence. In fact, I think you just made it up. We can get wrapped up in the notion that doctors are either on rounds or seeing 32 patients/day in clinic, and a lot of people do one (or both) of those things, but medicine is a lot bigger than most of us can see.

 

[Med Ed]

Meaning, you have to be able to master dealing with patients.

If you look at the overall rate of medical school attrition, and the never-pass rate on Step 2 CS, you realize that the bar for mastery isn't set very high.

 

[Law2Doc]

If you look at the overall rate of medical school attrition, and the never-pass rate on Step 2 CS, you realize that the bar for mastery isn't set very high.

But if you look at job dissatisfaction survey results, you'll see that getting into and through med school isn't the real hurdle for having a happy career. This path isn't for everyone. If you want to do mostly science you are going to hate it. You won't fail out, but might secretly have preferred that outcome.

Saying there's opportunity for a multitude of different paths for everyone in medicine and everyone can find their niche with as little patient involvement as they want is about as bogus as when the ABR used to publish brochures on "what else you can do with a law degree" besides being a lawyer. The field is about patient care. Med school is geared toward becoming a clinician. The one or two hardcore scientists I know who went into medicine despite dreams of a science heavy career hated every second of med school and residency. Their evaluations reflected this. Their test scores were fine.

 

[GrapesofRath]

If you look at the overall rate of medical school attrition, and the never-pass rate on Step 2 CS, you realize that the bar for mastery isn't set very high.

One key question though is how many people's clinical performance/evaluations in year 3 is significantly affected by their "disinterest in working with patients" or inability to communicate due to either lack of social skills or lack of desire to, both with patients and attendings? My guess is it's a much much greater number than Step 2 CS failure rate. Defining competency and attrition rates as a measure for anything is always going to be limited and should never be the goal.

I do tend to agree with you on the otherhand to some extent that this whole idea of "mastering how to deal with patients" can be a bit of a misnomer. The whole "you must master dealing with patients" idea can be overstated, particularly by those who are saying it in a certain way and meaning. "Mastering" means different things to different people with different interests different goals and in different fields.

 

[7331poas]

A PhD means you MIGHT get employed. Having an MD and not liking patients might suck, think about how much it will suck if you are unemployed and not doing anything in science at all...

 

[Law2Doc]

...think about how much it will suck if you are unemployed and not doing anything in science at all...

Or employed and doing exactly the thing you like least, 70-80 hours a week.

 

[DRsmartypants]

No, not at all. I know tons of people who went in for scientfic reasons only to later enjoy patient care. If you love science, radiology or pathology are the best fields to go into, they probably know the most basic science out of any physician. Personally, I love science, but I also like people so some extent and the idea of sitting in a lab all day disinterested me, I found research to be a good "hobby", and I loved doing research, but not bench work as much. Radiology is probably what I plan to go into b/c of the vast breadth and depth of the field as it intersects in every specialty, as well as the necessity to know lots of basic science and clinical presentations(well it would be easier if physicians gave radiologists proper Hx), but also talking to other doctors, discussing cases, I found that to be really cool when it happened. We learned from eachothers. I don't mean to be rude, but while I still like helping people, I was never that passionate for helping people, if I was I would have gone for nursing. I also disliked the general scientific illiteracy of the patients, I liked talking to other doctors, or even nurses because we understood each other, whether it was on highly complex things(more doctors stuff) and on simpler things I would talk to the nurses with. It is great, who cares about what medical schools want, do it for your own reasons. I can guarantee not everyone going into biomedical engineering for example is doing it because they just love to create new things, some are going into it for job security and money.

 

[7331poas]

Or employed and doing exactly the thing you like least, 70-80 hours a week.

Like 70% of this country. Hate to sound cynical but most people have a miserable time at their jobs, might as well get paid for it.

 

[Goro]

True, but see @Law2Doc's comments about enjoying this profession if you don't like patients.

If you look at the overall rate of medical school attrition, and the never-pass rate on Step 2 CS, you realize that the bar for mastery isn't set very high.

 

[Goro]

The thing about having a PhD is that one can always get a job, even if it means being a professional post-doc. Getting a faculty job means being in the right place at the right time, but getting a job in industry (more common for PhDs nowadays) depends upon the job market.

A PhD means you MIGHT get employed. Having an MD and not liking patients might suck, think about how much it will suck if you are unemployed and not doing anything in science at all...

 

[YellowfinGuy10]

Healthcare is a profession that when you're at work you want to leave and when you are at home you want to go back...Its a weird job

 

[JustAPhD]

The thing about having a PhD is that one can always get a job, even if it means being a professional post-doc. Getting a faculty job means being in the right place at the right time, but getting a job in industry (more common for PhDs nowadays) depends upon the job market.

Which would be some kind of hell.

 

[Mansamusa]

Which would be some kind of hell.

All the post-docs I've worked with have been post-docs for 10 years or more @_o

They were all non-Americans, so that might be why

 

[pgoat]

If two vectors point in the same direction, does it matter that one is longer than the other?

 

[Law2Doc]

Like 70% of this country. Hate to sound cynical but most people have a miserable time at their jobs, might as well get paid for it.

I've commented on this kind of statement being the worlds biggest cop out many times on SDN. If you are smart enough to get into med school, you have many choices in life. If you take the attitude "all jobs suck" so why bother looking for the right one, or "everybody hates their jobs" you are simply being lazy. You have a "loser" mentality and ought to shake that. Take it from a career changer-- you owe it to yourself to not be miserable in life. You don't have to be. The guy with no choices in life, no education, no ambition, limited abilities, who is forced to stock shelves at Walmart (i.e. The 70% you are referencing) can have that attitude. You don't get to.

 

[Med Ed]

But if you look at job dissatisfaction survey results, you'll see that getting into and through med school isn't the real hurdle for having a happy career. This path isn't for everyone. If you want to do mostly science you are going to hate it. You won't fail out, but might secretly have preferred that outcome.

I believe we are reading the initial post in different ways. You see someone who mostly wants to do science in and beyond medical school, I see a college junior who, considering his age, stage, and stated prior experiences, is exploring career options and asking a fairly common and benign question. I have had students who approach medicine from a scientific standpoint and adapt to the social element just fine. I have likewise had students who are all about the human interaction but learn the biomedical disciplines the same way: just fine. I know some people think you'll be miserable in this profession if your first word was not "patient," but I would respectfully disagree with that sentiment.

Saying there's opportunity for a multitude of different paths for everyone in medicine and everyone can find their niche with as little patient involvement as they want is about as bogus as when the ABR used to publish brochures on "what else you can do with a law degree" besides being a lawyer.

You're right, that is bogus. I am glad that I did not say anything so absurd and melodramatic.

The one or two hardcore scientists I know who went into medicine despite dreams of a science heavy career hated every second of med school and residency. Their evaluations reflected this. Their test scores were fine.

So? Bearing in mind that life is a journey, not everyone gets to love every step of the way. If these "hardcore scientists" are now happily toiling on translational research projects in their labs I would say the outcome was satisfactory. It has been my experience that most of the MD/PhD students ultimately flee science and settle into clinical practice. What shall we make of that?

 

[Med Ed]

One key question though is how many people's clinical performance/evaluations in year 3 is significantly affected by their "disinterest in working with patients" or inability to communicate due to either lack of social skills or lack of desire to, both with patients and attendings?

That's an interesting question. Here's another one: who do you think is at greater risk of becoming disillusioned by medicine: the student who sees M3 as a means to an end, or the student who entered medical school with an exalted view of patient care and collides with the day-to-day reality?

 

[GrapesofRath]

That's an interesting question. Here's another one: who do you think is at greater risk of becoming disillusioned by medicine: the student who sees M3 as a means to an end, or the student who entered medical school with an exalted view of patient care and collides with the day-to-day reality?

Well I dont think its an issue of comparing who is more likely to be "disillusioned" as much as which of those two is more likely to have issues more problematic for a physician.

Which is worse for medicine: the MS3/4 who gets disillusioned by medicine after seeing it in practice be nothing like they wanted it to be or the one who knows going in much of the training and much of busy work even as an attending is a means to an end(and to this person interacting with patients or attendings could easily be seen to them "busy work" ie work they doesnt care for which others might)? You could make an argument for either one. Frankly, to me which one it is isn't the main point. We can talk about trying to identify those "who are least likely to enjoy working with patients" but we arent gaining all that much from that if we likewise dont try and identify those "who are most likely to be disillusioned by real world medicine once MS3 hits" and take measures addressing both(if you believe measures need even be taken against both that is).

What this whole discussion really brings me back to thoughis the question how does a pre-med know they want to work with patients? How can anybody have an idea of if that is what they do or dont want to do before being an MS1. Id imagine there are more people who think theyll love interacting with patients going in but come to not find it so enjoyable than those who go in expecting the worse from dealing with patients but then end up enjoying it. But both types exist which is relevant to this thread's discussion.

I would also argue in the admission process we dont really select for people "most likely" to enjoy dealing with patients. Part of it is any predictor an applicant could have is going to be flawed/rather limited. But a bigger part IMHO is just schools have characteristics they prioritize in applicants that I dont think really correlate to these applicants "being more likely to enjoy dealing with patients". Those factors/ECs that I might argue could simply arent really valued/prioritized as much.

 

[bearintraining]

The thing about having a PhD is that one can always get a job, even if it means being a professional post-doc. Getting a faculty job means being in the right place at the right time, but getting a job in industry (more common for PhDs nowadays) depends upon the job market.

The job market for life science PhDs is horrible. Being a forever postdoc isn't satisfying either.

 

[Law2Doc]

... If these "hardcore scientists" are now happily toiling on translational research projects in their labs I would say the outcome was satisfactory..

That's my point -- they aren't. This is a bad path if your goal is to be a scientist.

 

[Med Ed]

That's my point -- they aren't. This is a bad path if your goal is to be a scientist.

Tell that to the thousands of physicians across the nation who engage in research as a significant component of their careers.

 

[Law2Doc]

Tell that to the thousands of physicians across the nation who engage in research as a significant component of their careers.

Again, if your idea of "scientific research" or "significant component" is to maybe do it a portion of one day a week as your academic day, or in your free time for "fun", that's fine. That's what I do. But if you want or expect science to be the primary focus of your job, this just isn't the right route.

Anyway, I've made the point I wanted to make, so I shall just agree to disagree with you.

 

[7331poas]

The job market for life science PhDs is horrible. Being a forever postdoc isn't satisfying either.

Nah, it's all good because you are following your passion right? I can't believe we are still peddling this.

 

[Med Ed]

What this whole discussion really brings me back to thoughis the question how does a pre-med know they want to work with patients? How can anybody have an idea of if that is what they do or dont want to do before being an MS1. Id imagine there are more people who think theyll love interacting with patients going in but come to not find it so enjoyable than those who go in expecting the worse from dealing with patients but then end up enjoying it. But both types exist which is relevant to this thread's discussion.

This is the rub, isn't it? When a premedical student says she wants to work with patients, she is really saying that she likes the idea of working with patients. What are we supposed to do with that? As with many career paths, you don't really know what it's like until it is too late to turn back. Your relationship with patients evolves over time, as well, while you become more knowledgable, more skilled, and add some years and perspective onto your own life. "Patient care" isn't even a discrete concept, in practice. A pediatrician, a neurosurgeon, occupational medicine doctor, a hematologist/oncologist, and a floor nurse all care for patients, but they lead very different professional lives.

I would also argue in the admission process we dont really select for people "most likely" to enjoy dealing with patients. Part of it is any predictor an applicant could have is going to be flawed/rather limited. But a bigger part IMHO is just schools have characteristics they prioritize in applicants that I dont think really correlate to these applicants "being more likely to enjoy dealing with patients". Those factors/ECs that I might argue could simply arent really valued/prioritized as much.

Now this is intriguing. Could you give me some examples?

 

[bearintraining]

Nah, it's all good because you are following your passion right? I can't believe we are still peddling this.

I have several friends "stuck" in post docs right now. The majority of them are miserable, and that's even if you have a good mentor. Million times worse when you happen to pick the wrong one. People with 30+ publications get destroyed at faculty interviews at my institute. It's really sad, and it really makes it a challenge to advocate for a science career because the reality is most undergrads will have rose coloured glasses when looking at grad schools

 

[Med Ed]

Again, if your idea of "scientific research" or "significant component" is to maybe do it a portion of one day a week as your academic day, or in your free time for "fun", that's fine. That's what I do. But if you want or expect science to be the primary focus of your job, this just isn't the right route.

Anyway, I've made the point I wanted to make, so I shall just agree to disagree with you.

Indeed. We seem to be living on different academic planets.

Mine is a bit larger than yours, incidentally.