Hey all,
Without going into too much detail, I'll say that I've been accepted to MD and currently have the option to apply within the school for the MD/PhD with a supposedly almost-guarantee of getting it. Like the title says, should I go for the MD/PhD or just the MD?
I know everyone says "research = MD/PhD" but ultimately, I have no idea what I'll want 20 years from now - I need a crystal ball. I like the research I'm doing now (this is my 3rd summer in the same lab) and I could definitely see myself working in a lab for 3-4 years. What's nice is this would be protected research and I'd basically be getting a PhD out of it without worrying about getting funded and such. Also, the idea that you become an expert in a specific field that no one else is doing is truly awesome. From what I hear, mud phuds are like the "doctor's doctor" and essentially are authoritative in knowing the basic science behind the clinical aspects. This appeals to me the most.
However, I dont really see myself going into research as a career 100%, worrying about grants or if I'll be a good enough researcher to support myself, especially with the climate of funding these days. Rather, I could definitely see myself doing both the clinic work and the research, although probably most clinic (maybe like 60 clinic, 40 research? - I just have no idea right now). Even if I don't want to necessarily continue all the way (residency and beyond) with the basic science research (which I'm not saying at all is my intention), isn't it true that my background would still make me a better clinician? I feel like 20 years from now I might be looking back and thinking that I should have gone for the PhD and if there was anytime to do it, THIS would have been the time.
The MD that owns our lab (but doesn't do any research) has told my P.I. that he is often bored of just seeing the same kinds of patients day in and day out, but gets really excited when the rare "zebra" comes in. Would an MD/PhD help to break up this monotony and allow me to pursue multiple aspects of medicine more easily? Do MD/PhDs often get to see more of these "zebras" or at least get consulted more often on "zebras"?
I guess what I'm basically asking is, is it worth it for me to do an MD/PhD? (They also do land great residencies - the one I'm interested in and I've been doing research in is notoriously tough to match into.) In my case, since there are also just more ways to mix and match clinic and research, is it a good idea for me?
Sorry for the long post, and thanks in advance for the help!
Without going into too much detail, I'll say that I've been accepted to MD and currently have the option to apply within the school for the MD/PhD with a supposedly almost-guarantee of getting it. Like the title says, should I go for the MD/PhD or just the MD?
I know everyone says "research = MD/PhD" but ultimately, I have no idea what I'll want 20 years from now - I need a crystal ball. I like the research I'm doing now (this is my 3rd summer in the same lab) and I could definitely see myself working in a lab for 3-4 years. What's nice is this would be protected research and I'd basically be getting a PhD out of it without worrying about getting funded and such. Also, the idea that you become an expert in a specific field that no one else is doing is truly awesome. From what I hear, mud phuds are like the "doctor's doctor" and essentially are authoritative in knowing the basic science behind the clinical aspects. This appeals to me the most.
However, I dont really see myself going into research as a career 100%, worrying about grants or if I'll be a good enough researcher to support myself, especially with the climate of funding these days. Rather, I could definitely see myself doing both the clinic work and the research, although probably most clinic (maybe like 60 clinic, 40 research? - I just have no idea right now). Even if I don't want to necessarily continue all the way (residency and beyond) with the basic science research (which I'm not saying at all is my intention), isn't it true that my background would still make me a better clinician? I feel like 20 years from now I might be looking back and thinking that I should have gone for the PhD and if there was anytime to do it, THIS would have been the time.
The MD that owns our lab (but doesn't do any research) has told my P.I. that he is often bored of just seeing the same kinds of patients day in and day out, but gets really excited when the rare "zebra" comes in. Would an MD/PhD help to break up this monotony and allow me to pursue multiple aspects of medicine more easily? Do MD/PhDs often get to see more of these "zebras" or at least get consulted more often on "zebras"?
I guess what I'm basically asking is, is it worth it for me to do an MD/PhD? (They also do land great residencies - the one I'm interested in and I've been doing research in is notoriously tough to match into.) In my case, since there are also just more ways to mix and match clinic and research, is it a good idea for me?
Sorry for the long post, and thanks in advance for the help!