Is this a completely ridiculous idea?

[deleted895369]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hey everyone!
So I'm finding myself in a bit of a confusing situation. I'm really torn between teaching chemistry and pursuing medicine. These are two things I am both equally passionate about, and I'm having trouble picking one.
I'm currently a 3rd year student majoring in chemistry, but I have the option at my school to complete my masters in chemistry by just adding on one extra year (while still only paying undergrad tuition and keeping my scholarships). Having a masters means I could get a job as an adjunct professor at a community college, which is something that I think I would really enjoy.
But at the same time, I still want to pursue an MD. Would it be foolish to pay the money (and spend extra time) to get the masters just to teach for two years or something? Also, could I even get a CC adjunct position straight out of a master's program?
Just to put it into perspective, I already graduated high school a year early, so I would be almost 22 years old when I would complete my masters. Would it be too far down the road to pursue medicine multiple years later? (Stats aren't really an issue, so I wasn't planning on taking a gap year in the first place. I always thought I would matriculate directly from undergrad)
Thanks so much for your help lovely SDNers!

 

[Goro]

Sounds fine to me.

It's unlikley that you could get a teaching position at the CC level right out of your masters. High school and lower? Yes.

 

[Robin-jay]

So I'm finding myself in a bit of a confusing situation. I'm really torn between teaching chemistry and pursuing medicine. These are two things I am both equally passionate about, and I'm having trouble picking one.

Hey, this was one of the choices I had to go through!

I have a chemistry masters degree.

Having a masters means I could get a job as an adjunct professor at a community college, which is something that I think I would really enjoy.

chemistry masters degree programs might be a bit rougher and tougher than you think. Although usually people in my masters degree program had 2-3 years, not "1". Also, be careful, my friend was promised a 1.5 year masters, and it ended up being at least 2.

Preparing a thesis in addition to several other responsibilities means chemistry with be 80+ hours a week for at least a couple years.

To be honest, I don't think a masters degree in chemistry with less than 2 years is even good.

Having a masters means I could get a job as an adjunct professor at a community college, which is something that I think I would really enjoy.
But at the same time, I still want to pursue an MD. Would it be foolish to pay the money (and spend extra time) to get the masters just to teach for two years or something? Also, could I even get a CC adjunct position straight out of a master's program?

It's unlikley that you could get a teaching position at the CC level right out of your masters. High school and lower? Yes.

Everyone I knew that wanted to teach CC with a chemistry masters out of my university was "easily" able to do it. In fact, it was a fall back if you couldn't get a good position in industry a lot of the time. It could be the location I'm at, it could be the CC's around me, or it could be my university is well known around the area, idk.

All I know is that getting adjunct teaching jobs for the CC's around with a chemistry masters is on the level of "very easy" to do here.

Just to put it into perspective, I already graduated high school a year early, so I would be almost 22 years old when I would complete my masters. Would it be too far down the road to pursue medicine multiple years later? (Stats aren't really an issue, so I wasn't planning on taking a gap year in the first place. I always thought I would matriculate directly from undergrad)
Thanks so much for your help lovely SDNers!

I'm still shocked colleges even have a "one year chemistry masters" degree. I guess I should have asked earlier, but is your chemistry masters "non-thesis"?

Other than that, you should be fine and your time line for med school is reasonable.

 

[Shigaliketoxin]

Have you seen how little adjuncts make?? You'll have to get multiple teaching gigs as as adjunct to make ends meet.

I taught college and high school before medical school because I figured it was easier to decide I didn't like teaching and then switch to medicine than vice versa. Maybe consider finding a way to teach high school chemistry for a couple years (Teach for America, The New Teacher Project, etc.) and keep medicine in your back pocket. Will get you some real world experience and help you decide if you like teaching or not. You can always pursue master's after that. Grad school isn't usually expensive for those in the sciences as you'll likely get a TA-ship somewhere. Yes you'll lose that undergrad tuition, but that isn't enough of a reason to make this decision right now if you're on the fence.

 

[star.buck]

Just a thought: I had a terrible chem course over 15 years ago, little did I know it wasn’t my own inabilities to understand the topics - it was actually the way it was taught (i foolishly dropped out under the assumption I wasn’t smart enough for the sciences)... fast forward to 7 years ago when I tentatively started the sciences again at a CC with a phenomenal chem teacher who was nerdy and passionate and loved to teach... no doubt in my mind I’m a 3rd year med student now partially because of teachers like her...

Moral of the story: if you want to teach and feel passionate about it, your future students will appreciate you intensely. I didn’t start med school til I was early 30’s, the life experience has paid off BIG time, you’re fine waiting.

Best of luck to you!

 

[Catalystik]

Would it be too far down the road to pursue medicine multiple years later?

Medicine will always be there. Teach for 2-10 years, or more, if you like, before you apply. Save up your cash to make application costs more tolerable.

@Shigaliketoxin is correct though. Adjunct CC faculty make very poor salaries. Better to be a HS teacher. If you go through the Teach for America process, you could earn your educational credits while teaching and qualify for full employment benefits in a few years.

 

[Goro]

Have you seen how little adjuncts make?? You'll have to get multiple teaching gigs as as adjunct to make ends meet.

I taught college and high school before medical school because I figured it was easier to decide I didn't like teaching and then switch to medicine than vice versa. Maybe consider finding a way to teach high school chemistry for a couple years (Teach for America, The New Teacher Project, etc.) and keep medicine in your back pocket. Will get you some real world experience and help you decide if you like teaching or not. You can always pursue master's after that. Grad school isn't usually expensive for those in the sciences as you'll likely get a TA-ship somewhere. Yes you'll lose that undergrad tuition, but that isn't enough of a reason to make this decision right now if you're on the fence.

If that. They're known as "freeway flyers" and the going rate here is maybe $3K/class.

 

[deleted895369]

Hey, this was one of the choices I had to go through!

I have a chemistry masters degree.

Hey, this was one of the choices I had to go through!

I have a chemistry masters degree.



chemistry masters degree programs might be a bit rougher and tougher than you think. Although usually people in my masters degree program had 2-3 years, not "1". Also, be careful, my friend was promised a 1.5 year masters, and it ended up being at least 2.

Preparing a thesis in addition to several other responsibilities means chemistry with be 80+ hours a week for at least a couple years.

To be honest, I don't think a masters degree in chemistry with less than 2 years is even good.





Everyone I knew that wanted to teach CC with a chemistry masters out of my university was "easily" able to do it. In fact, it was a fall back if you couldn't get a good position in industry a lot of the time. It could be the location I'm at, it could be the CC's around me, or it could be my university is well known around the area, idk.

All I know is that getting adjunct teaching jobs for the CC's around with a chemistry masters is on the level of "very easy" to do here.



I'm still shocked colleges even have a "one year chemistry masters" degree. I guess I should have asked earlier, but is your chemistry masters "non-thesis"?

Other than that, you should be fine and your time line for med school is reasonable.

chemistry masters degree programs might be a bit rougher and tougher than you think. Although usually people in my masters degree program had 2-3 years, not "1". Also, be careful, my friend was promised a 1.5 year masters, and it ended up being at least 2.

Preparing a thesis in addition to several other responsibilities means chemistry with be 80+ hours a week for at least a couple years.

To be honest, I don't think a masters degree in chemistry with less than 2 years is even good.





Everyone I knew that wanted to teach CC with a chemistry masters out of my university was "easily" able to do it. In fact, it was a fall back if you couldn't get a good position in industry a lot of the time. It could be the location I'm at, it could be the CC's around me, or it could be my university is well known around the area, idk.

All I know is that getting adjunct teaching jobs for the CC's around with a chemistry masters is on the level of "very easy" to do here.



I'm still shocked colleges even have a "one year chemistry masters" degree. I guess I should have asked earlier, but is your chemistry masters "non-thesis"?

Other than that, you should be fine and your time line for med school is reasonable.

It's not a "one year masters", but rather an early-start program that you have to join no later than your third year into your bachelor's. It involves taking graduate level classes as electives during your typical bachelor's program and starting working on a research project early. So no, if I was to finish my undergrad and leave the university, I would come back and have to do my master's in a longer period of time. But thanks so much for your input; I really appreciate it!

 

[Robin-jay]

It's not a "one year masters", but rather an early-start program that you have to join no later than your third year into your bachelor's. It involves taking graduate level classes as electives during your typical bachelor's program and starting working on a research project early. So no, if I was to finish my undergrad and leave the university, I would come back and have to do my master's in a longer period of time. But thanks so much for your input; I really appreciate it!

I'm still skeptical of these programs. I doubt they give you as much edu-ma-cation as the typical 2-3 year chemistry masters. It does seem like a shortcut though. If you get a MS and not an MA, then it should be fine.

 

[Gibbward]

I'm still skeptical of these programs. I doubt they give you as much edu-ma-cation as the typical 2-3 year chemistry masters. It does seem like a shortcut though. If you get a MS and not an MA, then it should be fine.

I don't understand what is so skeptical with a condensed Masters program or how you doubt they give the OP "less of an education" compared a 2 year masters. Instead of taking random upper level undergrad electives, OP will do graduate level coursework and get a more focused education. It's possible that s/he'll take fewer classes than a traditional masters, I truly think there's only so much learning you can do from lectures and textbooks. With required research project, OP will get the lab experience that I think is most essential with attending a graduate program anyway.

And what's your issue with an MA? Obviously n=1, but I got an MA and it hasn't been a roadblock for anything. Heck, I didn't even have a thesis. I just did a specific number of research credits and tried to be as productive as possible. I taught orgo and biochem labs without any issues. And when I was interviewing for jobs and medical school, no one asked me "why is your degree ONLY an MA??". What they cared more about is what my research was and what lab techniques I can bring to the table for jobs, and if I understood how to conduct research in terms of critical thinking, reading literature, troubleshooting, and data analysis. I worked for 2 years in an bioinorganic chem lab and had no issues with "just" an MA. Now, I'm in med school and biochem, pharm, or anything that's got a more chem focus is still easy for me to understand.

To bring it back on topic, OP at the end of the day, what's important is what you actually do during your masters program. Learn chemistry, learn the mindset for how to approach science and how to properly criticize data, learn essential lab techniques. Then when you apply to jobs, figure out how to effectively market your skills and accomplishments. At least for research gigs, you'd be able to land something if you take your program seriously. When it comes to getting a job as a CC lecturer, I don't really know anything about it or how the finances will affect you. However, I can tell you that I'm started med school 4 years after college. Med school is not going anywhere and it definitely won't be too far down the road if you did do this grad program. If you think you really want to pursue science education right now, you should definitely do it and put all your effort in being the best educator you can be. You may end up deciding that teaching is really what you wanna do for the rest of your life and you skip the hundreds of thousands in debt that med school gets you! Either way, good luck with your decision!

 

[mcat_taker]

Hey everyone!
So I'm finding myself in a bit of a confusing situation. I'm really torn between teaching chemistry and pursuing medicine. These are two things I am both equally passionate about, and I'm having trouble picking one.
I'm currently a 3rd year student majoring in chemistry, but I have the option at my school to complete my masters in chemistry by just adding on one extra year (while still only paying undergrad tuition and keeping my scholarships). Having a masters means I could get a job as an adjunct professor at a community college, which is something that I think I would really enjoy.
But at the same time, I still want to pursue an MD. Would it be foolish to pay the money (and spend extra time) to get the masters just to teach for two years or something? Also, could I even get a CC adjunct position straight out of a master's program?
Just to put it into perspective, I already graduated high school a year early, so I would be almost 22 years old when I would complete my masters. Would it be too far down the road to pursue medicine multiple years later? (Stats aren't really an issue, so I wasn't planning on taking a gap year in the first place. I always thought I would matriculate directly from undergrad)
Thanks so much for your help lovely SDNers!

Med school will always be there. Lots of students start in their mid to late 20's and even 30s. If you want to get your masters in chemistry +/- teach it, that will be a great experience that will only enrich you and make you more interesting going forward in your medical school curriculum and life as a doctor in my opinion. Plus will help with interviews for both med school and maybe even residency. Nothing wrong with pursuing this passion and see where it takes you before committing to med.

Not only that, but the extra science background may be beneficial if you end up pursuing academic medicine that is heavily research oriented.

 

[Robin-jay]

I don't understand what is so skeptical with a condensed Masters program or how you doubt they give the OP "less of an education" compared a 2 year masters.

Because those programs are more like abridged master degrees, rather than typical ones. It's essentially 1.5 years of research vs 2 or more from a typical masters.

And what's your issue with an MA? Obviously n=1, but I got an MA and it hasn't been a roadblock for anything.

M.S. makes a difference in terms of medical school admissions(although I'm unsure to what degree), and even job prospects. In an ocean of MS degrees, an MA will be beat out many times by an MS. Its just a way to protect yourself from the millions of MS degree holders around you. If your applying for a college faculty teaching job, and there are 15 MS degree prospects, and 1 MA prospect, why would they choose the MA?

Either way, be happy your in the process of earning your MD/DO/DPM.

OP has a chance somewhere with a chemistry MA, good Ugpa, good Ggpa, and good MCAT.

 

[Gibbward]

Because those programs are more like abridged master degrees, rather than typical ones. It's essentially 1.5 years of research vs 2 or more from a typical masters.



M.S. makes a difference in terms of medical school admissions(although I'm unsure to what degree), and even job prospects. In an ocean of MS degrees, an MA will be beat out many times by an MS. Its just a way to protect yourself from the millions of MS degree holders around you. If your applying for a college faculty teaching job, and there are 15 MS degree prospects, and 1 MA prospect, why would they choose the MA?

Either way, be happy your in the process of earning your MD/DO/DPM.

OP has a chance somewhere with a chemistry MA, good Ugpa, good Ggpa, and good MCAT.

Fair point, an extra half a year of research can definitely help though I would argue that it’s all about quality of the work you did in grad school, and developing a broad set of skills that can be utilized in different settings. Obviously the longer time you have the more skills you can gain, but depending on what you want to do with your degree, there are ways to spin your resume and skills for different applications.

At least for the Md schools I applied to, there were no stratification that ranked MS>MA>MPH>etc. except maybe SMPs which could def score you major points. I mean they say it doesn’t matter whether you have a BA or BS, so it makes no sense for them to arbitrarily say MS > MA.

As for job prospects, I say that MA v MS doesn’t matter is because it’s never just about your degree. As I’ve mentioned before, it’s all about the skills and techniques you learned, how productive and relevant your research was, how many papers you published, how good your LOR are, classes you’ve TAd, how well you interviewed, how good of a fit you are to the job, and then again how you present all that and market yourself to employers. The decision, for my experience, never ends up being decided only because of MA v MS. But I don’t know if that’s what you’ve experienced when you or people you know applied for Chemistry related gigs.

And I’m happy with where I’m at. I just don’t want anyone to get the idea that if they’re getting an MA, they’re f-ed or that what they’re working on isn’t worth it.

Sorry for derailing the thread OP! Teaching can be awesome. I loved teaching college chem, though you will have to deal with the annoying “I’m just here because I’m pre-med give me an A or else I can’t get into Harvard” kids every now or then.

 

[Robin-jay]

At least for the Md schools I applied to, there were no stratification that ranked MS>MA>MPH>etc. except maybe SMPs which could def score you major points. I mean they say it doesn’t matter whether you have a BA or BS, so it makes no sense for them to arbitrarily say MS > MA.

SMP >>>>> PhD >> MS > MA > BS

And I’m happy with where I’m at. I just don’t want anyone to get the idea that if they’re getting an MA, they’re f-ed or that what they’re working on isn’t worth it.

I talked to ADCOMs among others on the subject. The really wanted a thesis as opposed to not having one. That's my experience.

 

[Gibbward]

SMP >>>>> PhD >> MS > MA > BS



I talked to ADCOMs among others on the subject. The really wanted a thesis as opposed to not having one. That's my experience.

Interesting. I’m curious about the schools you applied to coz for schools I applied to and even people here in sdn have said this, a non-SMP masters really doesn’t contribute a whole lot and it def won’t make up for bad uGPA. What’s important is what you do with the degree. Plus for the thesis stuff, at the end of the day it’ll just go under research in amcas and you say you made a thesis. There isn’t even anything in amcas that differ between a thesis and non-thesis degree, at least from what I remember? I guess it’s helpful for showing productivity tho.

 

[Robin-jay]

Interesting. I’m curious about the schools you applied to coz for schools I applied to and even people here in sdn have said this, a non-SMP masters really doesn’t contribute a whole lot and it def won’t make up for bad uGPA.

Its because ADCOMs don't know how to look at most graduate programs(some are baised against them, some are ignorant on how rigorous some can be, some don't know how to compare it to Ugpa, etc.). You have some people on SDN swear up and down that grad. GPAs should always be stellar....but they are usually people that have no idea what they are talking about. In terms of difficulty, Advanced quantum chemistry 600 >>>> regular quantum chemistry 400. Yet SDNers will praise someone who got an A in quantum chemistry but say the grad. version should be an easy A.

Plus for the thesis stuff, at the end of the day it’ll just go under research in amcas and you say you made a thesis. There isn’t even anything in amcas that differ between a thesis and non-thesis degree, at least from what I remember?

Its been a while since I filled out AMCAS, but I'm sure you have to put your degree type when filling you information. Surely I had to input "master of science", so they would have to know. Master of Arts for MA.

I guess it’s helpful for showing productivity tho.

It takes several months of writing to finish a thesis. I know people with MA's that graduate 6-12 months early because they didn't have to write the thesis. Approval from committee members for the thesis defense and thesis itself was the most rigorous part of the degree. Research was easy compared to that. Not downplaying your degree, as its still a well-earned masters, but you didn't gain the full experience of a thesis defense and writing a thesis. That's a fair difference. Either way, it doesn't matter because of your doctoral degree you're now earning.

 

[OneTwoThreeFour]

Its because ADCOMs don't know how to look at most graduate programs(some are baised against them, some are ignorant on how rigorous some can be, some don't know how to compare it to Ugpa, etc.). You have some people on SDN swear up and down that grad. GPAs should always be stellar....but they are usually people that have no idea what they are talking about. In terms of difficulty, Advanced quantum chemistry 600 >>>> regular quantum chemistry 400. Yet SDNers will praise someone who got an A in quantum chemistry but say the grad. version should be an easy A.



Its been a while since I filled out AMCAS, but I'm sure you have to put your degree type when filling you information. Surely I had to input "master of science", so they would have to know. Master of Arts for MA.



It takes several months of writing to finish a thesis. I know people with MA's that graduate 6-12 months early because they didn't have to write the thesis. Approval from committee members for the thesis defense and thesis itself was the most rigorous part of the degree. Research was easy compared to that. Not downplaying your degree, as its still a well-earned masters, but you didn't gain the full experience of a thesis defense and writing a thesis. That's a fair difference. Either way, it doesn't matter because of your doctoral degree you're now earning.

I mean, I think you do a good job in this thread of showing why AdComs tend to disregard and/or expect masters GPAs to be outstanding. How am I to know school X provides a one-year accelerated option with inflated grades while school Y is rigorous and requires a thesis? That's not even to mention that some schools actually have both! Until programs start listing their graduate's average GPAs I can only compare it to what I've seen (which is a lot of 3.8, 3.9, and 4.0s). This is a problem you can't peg on admissions committee members; this one belongs to graduate education.
This is also why -other than a few regional exceptions (and maybe 1-2 national ones)- grade deflation isn't really considered.

 

[Robin-jay]

I mean, I think you do a good job in this thread of showing why AdComs tend to disregard and/or expect masters GPAs to be outstanding. How am I to know school X provides a one-year accelerated option with inflated grades while school Y is rigorous and requires a thesis? That's not even to mention that some schools actually have both! Until programs start listing their graduate's average GPAs I can only compare it to what I've seen (which is a lot of 3.8, 3.9, and 4.0s). This is a problem you can't peg on admissions committee members; this one belongs to graduate education.
This is also why -other than a few regional exceptions (and maybe 1-2 national ones)- grade deflation isn't really considered.

1. Undergrad. schools have grade inflation/deflation
2. ADCOMs should be competent enough to know that a masters in anatomy is much easier than a masters in bioengineering.
3. ADCOMs should be able to say "wow, advanced quantum mechanics 700 level is pretty difficult".
4. The graduate programs that squeeze out 3.8+ GPAs are mostly biology programs. Engineering, physics, chemistry, etc. masters are usually much more stringent.
5. My first graduate chemistry professor said the class "no one in here will get an A". That's right, ZERO percent of graduate students scored an "A" in that class.

My first semester Graduate GPA was 3.2.......because of that one professor. For an ADCOM to sit there and say "well he should have got an "A" ", is complete garbage.

*My GPA did rise substantially after first semester to 3.7+ by the end of the program *, but not without extremely working hard.

 

[OneTwoThreeFour]

1. Undergrad. schools have grade inflation/deflation
2. ADCOMs should be competent enough to know that a masters in anatomy is much easier than a masters in bioengineering.
3. ADCOMs should be able to say "wow, advanced quantum mechanics 700 level is pretty difficult".
4. The graduate programs that squeeze out 3.8+ GPAs are mostly biology programs. Engineering, physics, chemistry, etc. masters are usually much more stringent.
5. My first graduate chemistry professor said the class "no one in here will get an A". That's right, ZERO percent of graduate students scored an "A" in that class.

My first semester Graduate GPA was 3.2.......because of that one professor. For an ADCOM to sit there and say "well he should have got an "A" ", is complete garbage.

*My GPA did rise substantially after first semester to 3.7+ by the end of the program *, but not without extremely working hard.

Would you mind ordering all of these so I know which are stringent and which are easy A's?
Programs | Graduate Admissions
Or could you be showing your own bias without any data to support it?

 

[Robin-jay]

Would you mind ordering all of these so I know which are stringent and which are easy A's?
Programs | Graduate Admissions
Or could you be showing your own bias without any data to support it?

Same with undergrads. Can you order all the undergrads. in terms of rigor?

Again, I said ADCOMs should be able to determine which are harder using common sense for things like "anatomy masters vs bioengineering masters".

Between two chemistry masters, it might be difficult to know which one was more rigorous, but same with undergrads....

 

[OneTwoThreeFour]

Same with undergrads. Can you order all the undergrads. in terms of rigor?

Again, I said ADCOMs should be able to determine which are harder using common sense for things like "anatomy masters vs bioengineering masters".

Between two chemistry masters, it might be difficult to know which one was more rigorous, but same with undergrads....

I actually stated in my post that most people don't really consider undergrad schools beyond their own basic heuristics; ie X state school probably is easier than Y private. Many who have been doing it for a while probably have a much longer and better "validated" list than I do and that very well may extend to pursuing masters programs. I know that when I evaluated students the only times I considered a grade deflating school would be when I saw UPenn, MIT, and Dartmouth applicants.
But I don't believe intrinsically a chemistry masters is harder than a comparative literature masters or a french one or a biomechanical one. If you have data to show what you're saying I'd gladly take a look at it and change my approach.

 

[Goro]

Because those programs are more like abridged master degrees, rather than typical ones. It's essentially 1.5 years of research vs 2 or more from a typical masters.

M.S. makes a difference in terms of medical school admissions (although I'm unsure to what degree), and even job prospects. In an ocean of MS degrees, an MA will be beat out many times by an MS. Its just a way to protect yourself from the millions of MS degree holders around you. If your applying for a college faculty teaching job, and there are 15 MS degree prospects, and 1 MA prospect, why would they choose the MA?

Either way, be happy your in the process of earning your MD/DO/DPM.

OP has a chance somewhere with a chemistry MA, good Ugpa, good Ggpa, and good MCAT.

The bolded is not true. Let's clarify.

A research MS is fine for DO, but not for MD

An SMP, whether MS or MA, if fine for MD and DO

As for the actual area of study of an MS, I want to see that you can handle med school courses, not that you can be a physicist. It's not just the subject matter but also load. My students who have had an engineering background have tended to struggle in med school.

 

[Robin-jay]

The bolded is not true. Let's clarify.

A research MS is fine for DO, but not for MD

An SMP, whether MS or MA, if fine for MD and DO

As for the actual area of study of an MS, I want to see that you can handle med school courses, not that you can be a physicist. It's not just the subject matter but also load. My students who have had an engineering background have tended to struggle in med school.

I was mostly talking about MS vs MA and how it looks to ADCOMs. I was told in person it did make a difference. I suspect it wasn't a huge one though.

I do agree that engineering student, etc. may be behind for medical school, but graduate school isn't just a course load thing, its a multitasking fiasco.

Taking 600+ level courses, grading your students papers, teaching your classes, proctoring, grading for professors, SI, tutoring, research, teaching research to undergrads/other grads., presentations, publications, etc., etc.

If one can handle all of that, then it would be reasonable to assume one could handle 25-30 science credits in a semester.

It certainly doesn't matter to me anymore after being accepted, but I do get a different feel from my interviews than what ADCOMs say here many times. I was told at one of my interviews that they were impressed with my ability to handle chemistry graduate school and what-not. Not looked down upon at all.

However, I didn't interview at MD schools. I suspect they are more brutal.

 

[Gibbward]

Its because ADCOMs don't know how to look at most graduate programs(some are baised against them, some are ignorant on how rigorous some can be, some don't know how to compare it to Ugpa, etc.). You have some people on SDN swear up and down that grad. GPAs should always be stellar....but they are usually people that have no idea what they are talking about. In terms of difficulty, Advanced quantum chemistry 600 >>>> regular quantum chemistry 400. Yet SDNers will praise someone who got an A in quantum chemistry but say the grad. version should be an easy A.



Its been a while since I filled out AMCAS, but I'm sure you have to put your degree type when filling you information. Surely I had to input "master of science", so they would have to know. Master of Arts for MA.



It takes several months of writing to finish a thesis. I know people with MA's that graduate 6-12 months early because they didn't have to write the thesis. Approval from committee members for the thesis defense and thesis itself was the most rigorous part of the degree. Research was easy compared to that. Not downplaying your degree, as its still a well-earned masters, but you didn't gain the full experience of a thesis defense and writing a thesis. That's a fair difference. Either way, it doesn't matter because of your doctoral degree you're now earning.

I mean I'm gonna say that I agree with most adcoms then. If college isn't standardized in terms of how grades are given, I will say grading and course expectation for grad programs are even more varied. Unlike your experience, my undergrad biochem courses were definitely much more difficult that my grad protein chem or inorganic biochem courses. The grading system was also super lax, in that most people in our class got As, and the only ones that got Bs are the ones that did the absolute bare minimum and didn't try very hard in their course requirements. Additionally, MS doesn't necessarily mean you do a thesis. There are non-thesis MS programs that I found just from a quick google search. And lastly, I do agree with you that just the nature of doing a thesis is indeed a full experience that is valuable by itself. My friends who had to do a thesis defense and had to do orals to get to the PhD track had a very different experience than me and I know it helped them in where they are now. But again, it's really all about what you do with the degree and what you want to do with the degree. Would a thesis make a difference in trying to get into good chemistry grad program? I don't doubt that one bit. But for MDs? From my experience, doesn't really matter.

 

[Robin-jay]

But I don't believe intrinsically a chemistry masters is harder than a comparative literature masters or a french one or a biomechanical one. If you have data to show what you're saying I'd gladly take a look at it and change my approach.

Do you think undergraduate chemistry is more difficult than a french undergrad. degree?

If you answer is yes, then you have consistently believe a chemistry masters is harder than a french one.

 

[Robin-jay]

my undergrad biochem courses were definitely much more difficult that my grad protein chem or inorganic biochem courses. The grading system was also super lax, in that most people in our class got As, and the only ones that got Bs are the ones that did the absolute bare minimum and didn't try very hard in their course requirements

My undergrad. quantum chemistry course 400/500 was an easy "A'.

My graduate quantum chemistry course 600 was a tremendously difficult "B".

I tried 10 times harder in advanced quantum chemistry 600 and scored lower than undergrad. quantum chemistry.

 

[Goro]

Do you think undergraduate chemistry is more difficult than a french undergrad. degree?

If you answer is yes, then you have consistently believe a chemistry masters is harder than a french one.

Medicine is another language, y'know?

 

[OneTwoThreeFour]

Do you think undergraduate chemistry is more difficult than a french undergrad. degree?

If you answer is yes, then you have consistently believe a chemistry masters is harder than a french one.

Maybe it is because I come from a liberal arts background but I really don't.

 

[Robin-jay]

Medicine is another language, y'know?

My advanced quantum chemistry partner used to see "math is another language" to me, approximately once a week.

He is currently halfway through a Quantum (physical) Chemistry PhD and plans to be a professor in it.

He was perhaps the smartest quantum chemistry that our university had in 3-5 years. He ridiculously intelligent.

I'll tell you one thing though, not only was he a great friend, he was a phenomenal quantum chemistry partner. Just phenomenal.

 

[Robin-jay]

Maybe it is because I come from a liberal arts background but I really don't.

Do you think medical school is more difficult than french graduate school?

 

[Goro]

Do you think medical school is more difficult than french graduate school?

Apples and oranges. The big problem for med students is sheer volume of material.

Tell you what...try writing an essay in fluent French on the causes of the French Revolution or the impact of the French Impressionists on Western art and you tell me if it's easier.

 

[Robin-jay]

Apples and oranges. The big problem for med students is sheer volume of material.

Tell you what...try writing an essay in fluent French on the causes of the French Revolution or the impact of the French Impressionists on Western art and you tell me if it's easier.

Given the same amount of time and effort I put into chemistry graduate school, I could probably direct a film on the French Revolution after writing the book.

 

[Shigaliketoxin]

Do you think medical school is more difficult than french graduate school?

Have done it (in another foreign language). YES, medical school is harder.

 

[Robin-jay]

Have done it (in another foreign language). YES, medical school is harder.

So, french graduate school is equal the chemistry graduate school, but medical school is harder? (assuming you agree with above poster)

Bad logic.

I'm a new medical student so I'll tell you my findings. I'm going to guess chemistry graduate school and medical school are roughly equal.

 

[trobinsonmd]

Hey everyone!
So I'm finding myself in a bit of a confusing situation. I'm really torn between teaching chemistry and pursuing medicine. These are two things I am both equally passionate about, and I'm having trouble picking one.
I'm currently a 3rd year student majoring in chemistry, but I have the option at my school to complete my masters in chemistry by just adding on one extra year (while still only paying undergrad tuition and keeping my scholarships). Having a masters means I could get a job as an adjunct professor at a community college, which is something that I think I would really enjoy.
But at the same time, I still want to pursue an MD. Would it be foolish to pay the money (and spend extra time) to get the masters just to teach for two years or something? Also, could I even get a CC adjunct position straight out of a master's program?
Just to put it into perspective, I already graduated high school a year early, so I would be almost 22 years old when I would complete my masters. Would it be too far down the road to pursue medicine multiple years later? (Stats aren't really an issue, so I wasn't planning on taking a gap year in the first place. I always thought I would matriculate directly from undergrad)
Thanks so much for your help lovely SDNers!

I personally don't think it is ridiculous. In fact, it is actually not a bad idea if you are passionate about both. Avg age for an MS1 is around 25, so you will be able to work for 2-3 years and enhance your application before applying. Lots of my classmates who took several years off before applying had similar teaching experiences both here and abroad.. you can definitely make it work. wrt the debate above about medical school difficulty, I think goro put it very well... med school material is not exactly rocket science, but the sheer amount of volume is mind numbing and it requires you to learn organization..

 

[OneTwoThreeFour]

So, french graduate school is equal the chemistry graduate school, but medical school is harder? (assuming you agree with above poster)

Bad logic.

I'm a new medical student so I'll tell you my findings. I'm going to guess chemistry graduate school and medical school are roughly equal.

You are so convinced that whatever you went through is harder than what other people went through. Until there's actual data that shows chemistry masters are harder or are graded on a tougher scale I'm unwilling to assign them any more value than any other masters degree.

 

[Robin-jay]

You are so convinced that whatever you went through is harder than what other people went through. Until there's actual data that shows chemistry masters are harder or are graded on a tougher scale I'm unwilling to assign them any more value than any other masters degree.

Have you answered the question?

What do you think is harder, medical school or french graduate school?

Because if you say "'yes", according to yourself, you're just super duper biased.

Likewise, its obvious chemistry is harder than french.

 

[Shigaliketoxin]

So, french graduate school is equal the chemistry graduate school, but medical school is harder? (assuming you agree with above poster)

Bad logic.

I'm a new medical student so I'll tell you my findings. I'm going to guess chemistry graduate school and medical school are roughly equal.

That's not what you asked. I answered the question that you asked. Excellent critical thinking skills here.

 

[OneTwoThreeFour]

Have you answered the question?

What do you think is harder, medical school or french graduate school?

Because if you say "'yes", according to yourself, you're just super duper biased.

Likewise, its obvious chemistry is harder than french.

Luckily I have the statistics of students who attend medical school and these stats show that it is #1 extremely competitive and #2 filled with students from the top of their class. As far as work that goes into it, I think obtaining a PhD in a French sub-category in four years would probably be about the same amount of work.

 

[Robin-jay]

Luckily I have the statistics of students who attend medical school and these stats show that it is #1 extremely competitive and #2 filled with students from the top of their class.

lol, there's statistics showing that scientific researchers are also among the top students in their class. Medical students aren't the smartest people on earth. Engineers, physicists,etc. easily rival them.

Personally, I feel like my graduate class of chemists was smarter than my medical school class. I can't see some of my medical class even attempting advanced quantum chemistry 600...

As far as work that goes into it, I think obtaining a PhD in a French sub-category in four years would probably be about the same amount of work.

If you really believe that medical school or chemistry graduate school is equal to french graduate school in terms of difficulty, I can't help you. That is absurd.

 

[OneTwoThreeFour]

lol, there's statistics showing that scientific researchers are also among the top students in their class. Medical students aren't the smartest people on earth. Engineers, physicists,etc. easily rival them.

Personally, I feel like my graduate class of chemists was smarter than my medical school class. I can't see some of my medical class even attempting advanced quantum chemistry 600...



If you really believe that medical school or chemistry graduate school is equal to french graduate school in terms of difficulty, I can't help you. That is absurd.

I'm not looking for your help. I was actually trying to help you see that just because you believe one degree is harder than another doesn't mean it is a consensus. And how it looks particularly fishy when that is the degree that you've obtained/are pursuing. But it looks like we won't come to an understanding on this one.

 

[Robin-jay]

'm not looking for your help. I was actually trying to help you see that just because you believe one degree is harder than another doesn't mean it is a consensus. And how it looks particularly fishy when that is the degree that you've obtained/are pursuing.

It should be a reasonable consensus that medical school or chemistry graduate school is harder than a French PhD.

Also, it isn't just my degree, I also said medical degree, engineering degrees, and physics degree, etc.

But it looks like we won't come to an understanding on this one.

Of course we won't, because your stance is "PhD in French is as hard/harder than Medical school or chemistry graduate school", and that is ridiculous.

 

[Shigaliketoxin]

It should be a reasonable consensus that medical school or chemistry graduate school is harder than a French PhD.

Also, it isn't just my degree, I also said medical degree, engineering degrees, and physics degree, etc.



Of course we won't, because your stance is "PhD in French is as hard/harder than Medical school or chemistry graduate school", and that is ridiculous.

I still don't understand your point in arguing about all of this. Are you that insecure that you need to put down humanities degrees to make you feel smarter? Move on.

 

[Robin-jay]

I still don't understand your point in arguing about all of this. Are you that insecure that you need to put down humanities degrees to make you feel smarter? Move on.

No, its just ridiculous the amount of denial some people have when it comes to difficulty of majors.

I will gladly admit that undergrad. chemical engineering is most likely more difficult than my plain-jane undergrad. chemistry major.

In the same way I'd expect people to acknowledge majors like French are easier than chemistry, engineering, physics, or medicine.

 

[Gibbward]

I think it's ridiculous that it would be impossible for some people to think that humanities are more difficult than some "hard science" majors.

I went to liberal arts college so I took a number of humanities classes and thought my English and Philosophy classes in college were much more difficult than my Chem classes (except for maybe Biochem and PChem). No way would I ever want to read hundreds of pages of dense convoluted language from roman or medieval times and then come up with papers reading between the lines of texts that I barely understood, or contribute to a class discussion with some insightful commentary on how it reflects the political and economic strife in a random town in middle of nowhere Europe, or fully appreciate the complexity and beauty of Shakespeare (I still don't even understand what was so special about his writing tbh and I had to read 2 books from him).

Science made so much more sense to me and it was easier to use equations or to push electrons around to figure out an organic mechanism. There are just some things that can be subjective, and can't be definitively stratified into rankings.

 

[Robin-jay]

I think it's ridiculous that it would be impossible for some people to think that humanities are more difficult than some "hard science" majors.

I went to liberal arts college so I took a number of humanities classes and thought my English and Philosophy classes in college were much more difficult than my Chem classes (except for maybe Biochem and PChem). No way would I ever want to read hundreds of pages of dense convoluted language from roman or medieval times and then come up with papers reading between the lines of texts that I barely understood, or contribute to a class discussion with some insightful commentary on how it reflects the political and economic strife in a random town in middle of nowhere Europe, or fully appreciate the complexity and beauty of Shakespeare (I still don't even understand what was so special about his writing tbh and I had to read 2 books from him).

Science made so much more sense to me and it was easier to use equations or to push electrons around to figure out an organic mechanism. There are just some things that can be subjective, and can't be definitively stratified into rankings.

Ok, so you're combining a whole bunch of things into one category. Here are the three categories I think you're trying to elaborate on:

1. Difficulty
2. Subjectivity
3. Level of interest

Lets start with difficulty. Generally, this can have two categories of its own.

1. Content
2. GPA influence

The difficulty of Pchem or Biochem vs most humanities is dictated by content given. You should acknowledge that thermodynamics is harder than almost any humanity subject, conceptually. Also look at GPA influences, and by this I mean, how it the class graded? I can tell you right now that all my humanity classes were easy A's, and many people were allotted A's for minimal effort. Some courses in the hard science in the upper levels already decided only 10% of people will get A's, so even if you deserve an A, but you scored 11th overall, then too bad. Have an A-. I never saw these rigorous standards in anything other than hard science courses.

The second big one is "Subjectivity".

Yes, I actually agree with you on this one to some extent. Grading essays and grading exams based on short answers would be frustrating in non-science classes all the time. When I would grade my students lab reports or grade for exams, there would almost be no subjectivity, and most of it was extraordinarily objective. I would go insane trying to grade essays, because one professor would give an "A" to the same student who another professor could give a "C". Its just a system that can't be fair. But subjectivity doesn't account for difficulty on the subject.

The third thing you mentioned is "interest".

Yes, I absolutely don't care for many subjects, and my level of interest would be low in them. However, it shouldn't influence my competency in doing well in a subject I find boring. Again, this is not a difficulty argument, this is a "I'm not interested in a subject, so I'm less inclined to do well" argument.

To this I say, have 100 students in humanities and 100 students in hard sciences switch classes between eachother, and I guarantee you the science students will slay the humanities much better than vice versa, even if they don't have an interest in it.


Overall, hard sciences are more "difficult" than humanities.