MD or PhD?

[jimmmmyi]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Is there anyone here deciding between medicine vs. research route?
I see the pros and cons of both roads, and I cannot seem to decide which one to go for. And there is no way i'm going to do a MD/PhD dual degree (it is just way too strenuous and long for me).

Is anyone here going through the same thing or had once thought about both career choices? If so, please let me know your story and how you decided on one career path over the other.

thanks!

 

[TheRealMD]

This is... ?

Maybe if the thread were MD/PhD vs. PhD, it might have some value, but you're asking a lifestyle question only you can answer. One does research all day. The other is a physician. How different can you get in the academic world?

 

[Crixivan]

This seems straight forward to me. If you have a choice, go the MD route. You can always do a research-oriented postdoctoral fellowship when you're finished with it and get the same access to a research career as you would with a Ph.D.

 

[Bond8204]

Is there anyone here deciding between medicine vs. research route?
I see the pros and cons of both roads, and I cannot seem to decide which one to go for. And there is no way i'm going to do a MD/PhD dual degree (it is just way too strenuous and long for me).

Is anyone here going through the same thing or had once thought about both career choices? If so, please let me know your story and how you decided on one career path over the other.

thanks!

Agreed with RealMD. The two careers pretty much only share that they have to do with science. I get the sense you're pretty inexperienced. Get experience with both and see which you like better.

 

[Bond8204]

This seems straight forward to me. If you have a choice, go the MD route. You can always do a research-oriented postdoctoral fellowship when you're finished with it and get the same access to a research career as you would with a Ph.D.

This is idiotic. There's no reason you should go $200,000 in debt if all you wanted to do is research all along. As a PhD student you make a modest amount of money while doing your thesis work. You won't make much money in research so it would be incredibly stupid to just go to medical school because you can "always go back and do research."

 

[Crixivan]

This is idiotic. There's no reason you should go $200,000 in debt if all you wanted to do is research all along. As a PhD student you make a modest amount of money while doing your thesis work. You won't make much money in research so it would be incredibly stupid to just go to medical school because you can "always go back and do research."

I wasn't necessarily talking about bench research, and with an MD, you can always become a pathologist if you love science or dislike working with people. The OP did not state what kind of financial risk either path would be, and the majority of students in my medical school get their education subsidized by a third party.

IMO, undergraduate students are not exposed to either career path well enough to make an informed decision about either one. The number of unhappy Ph.D. students I've met far exceeds the number of unhappy MD students I know, and I've met a lot more MD students in my life.

With an MD, you can become a clinical researcher while still getting some satisfaction in seeing patients too, plus the demand for your services is much greater. Having a license in and of itself is a valuable thing. With a Ph.D., you basically enslave yourself to the political realm of academia only to spend the rest of your life begging granting agencies to pay the half of your salary not covered by the school.

If money is a big factor, then I will agree with the other poster who said that you need to get more exposure to both types of professionals.

 

[Bond8204]

the majority of students in my medical school get their education subsidized by a third party.

If money is a big factor

I'm surprised by your first quote. Could you be more specific? Are you implying that the majority (read, greater than 50%) of kids at your medical school are not burdened with debt because their parents (or similar) are helping them pay? I would be very, very surprised by this. I don't want to turn this into a financial thread, but even in-state schools end up costing more than 100,000. I'd say your average school puts you $200,000 in debt. It's getting to the point where some will put your under 250-300.

Frankly, there are a lot of unsatisfied people in both careers (just make your way over to the resident/intern forum and look at the "Would you do it all again?" threads). My point is that medical school is an enormous financial decision (which, in the statistics I've read, most students undergo through loans on their own). If the OP's parents are paying for medical education, it's a nonissue. Otherwise I think my point stands: getting an MD is a terrible financial decision if research (even clinical research) is your primary goal.

Edit: We do, however, agree that the solution for the OP is just to gain experience. Where we disagree is that you seem to say "Oh just get an MD it'll give you much more opportunities." My point is that that shouldn't be such an easy decision given the above.

 

[Maxprime]

If you want to work with patients, MD. If not, PhD - easy as that.

 

[Crixivan]

Is anyone here going through the same thing or had once thought about both career choices? If so, please let me know your story and how you decided on one career path over the other.

You can PM me if you want my full story, but I've been on both sides of the fence and ultimately didn't want to spend the rest of my life writing grants and dealing with the politics of academic departments in the Ph.D. realm.

I'm surprised by your first quote. Could you be more specific? Are you implying that the majority (read, greater than 50%) of kids at your medical school are not burdened with debt because their parents (or similar) are helping them pay? I would be very, very surprised by this. I don't want to turn this into a financial thread, but even in-state schools end up costing more than 100,000. I'd say your average school puts you $200,000 in debt. It's getting to the point where some will put your under 250-300.

That's what I'm saying. Most of my classmates come from affluent backgrounds or get good scholarships. Resident tuition in my region is less than $20K/year, but I'm sure things are different for people who choose private schools or pay oos. I personally don't think that the degree is worth more than the maximum Stafford limit ($40K/year) at this point in time. I agree that prices are rising though.

Frankly, there are a lot of unsatisfied people in both careers (just make your way over to the resident/intern forum and look at the "Would you do it all again?" threads).

True, but it's common for the negative viewpoints to emerge on such threads. I don't have any classmates who wish that they'd done something else (yet), but the attrition rate for Ph.D. students across campus is over ten percent after one year.

...getting an MD is a terrible financial decision if research (even clinical research) is your primary goal.

If it's going to cost you a quarter mil, don't do medicine for any reason if you're not sure about your decision.

If you want to work with patients, MD. If not, PhD - easy as that.

Agree. If you know that you are definitely not into working with patients, the MD path is probably not for you.

 

[ianian28]

while it's true both career paths will allow one to do research (write grants, become a professor, do research, publish), the styles of mental training are hugely different.

while both career paths take a similar amount of post-bachelor's time (4 years med school + 3-5 years residency vs. 6-8 years for biology-related PhD + 1-2 year post-doctoral work), how that time is spent is HUGELY different.

here come the broad generalizations. MD programs, for the purposes of these arguments, are relatively similar regardless of where you go in the united states. first two years taking classes, last two years doing rotations. MD training is very fact-intensive...learning to memroize, retain huge lists, 'if disease A treat with drug B.' it's also very social, with patient contact all 4 years regardless of what you decide to specialize in. the work load is huge, long hours, etc. it comes with more concrete rewards, i think...helping real people, seeing the immediate effects of your efforts. basic research projects (whether clinical or laboratory) is something most med students do in their free time to be competative for hard-to-get residency positions rather than because they have great passion for discovery.

PhD training is more variable between institutions. in my experience watching my friends, the years before the dissertation begins are a little more mellow than what you'd see in an MD program, but become insanely busy by the end. the training is more about how to ask interesting questions and how to find creative solutions...more abstract, etc. imagination, creativity, discovery...these are words you'd hear associated with PhD programs more than you will with MD. classroom-heavy the first few years, more freedom as time goes on. it's sometimes frustrating because it's not always clear exactly how long the program will last...each department may have its own, sometimes nebulous requirements (and if you're too good, your PI might just make you stay longer before letting you defend your thesis!).

like has been mentioned before, spend time around both jobs and see which you like more. i'm sure around here you're going to hear a lot of encouragement to pursue the MD route, but it's really a personal decision based on your likes/dislikes.

ALSO, and this is huge, the $$$ is very different. Most life-science PhD programs pay YOU to go to school, while you pay through the (insert orifice of choice here) to attend med school (most kids go into $100,000+ debt).

 

[hypertrophy]

I can totally empathize with the conflict of Md vs PhD but not MD-PhD because I have and am struggling with it myself.

I have a research-heavy background with not awesome grades but great testing ability. I've spent a considerable quantity and quality of time in ORs. I love medical science, and I have a passion for surgery, an insatiable curiosity, and a deep commitment to social justice. But at the end of a summer of research, after having labored over and submitted the AMCAS, I was still torn between grad or med. My advisors said I'd make a great doctor. They said I'd make a great scientist. I decided... to let the schools decide.

I this cycle I applied to 17 allopathic schools for the MD (broad spectrum), and 6 PhD (competitive for my subfield) programs.

Thus far I've been rejected from 7 med schools and have been asked to visit (by which I mean they are covering the costs for me to visit) 3 grad programs. I haven't yet heard from the rest.

At this point, the PhD programs I've been invited to see have offered me a glimpse of what it would be like to spend the rest of my life trying to answer interesting questions, without the burden of ~.20 million dollars of debt. Financial independence from my parents. A community of scholars. Sure, academic politics. But maybe inspiring and being inspired by students. Contributing to the advancement of medical science.

And yet, the photo my surgeon friend took when I was scrubbed in is still affixed to my bedpost. I think of the murmur and ritual of the OR. The satisfaction of cleaning a wound and clothing it in a new dressing. The warmth of connecting with a patient, of really improving someone's quality of life... It's so direct. it's so concrete.


At the beginning of this cycle, I gave it my all. Now the institutions themselves are giving me their verdict. The way I'm beginning to understand the outcome is that I gave Medicine 17 chances, and Science 6. But in serving medical science, I will go where I'm wanted.

 

[DeadCactus]

I'm with you (sort of). I want to be a physician, but I'll be damned if there aren't days (like today when I find out I need over a grand in repair work on my car) that I wonder wtf is wrong with me wanting to go spend another decade being broke and busting my ass especially when the alternative is making a small pitince for a few years and then going into a decent paying career with a much more flexible schedule and lifestyle...

That is a long ****ing sentence. Anyway, no one can help you (or I) with that call. At the end of the day is there something in being a physician that makes it worth giving up other opportunities? For me, I believe there is and so I'll be pursuing it, even if a relatively relaxed life as a math or engineering prof is very tempting...

 

[jimmmmyi]

Glad to hear some people are in the same position as I am. The reason that I find this decision to be difficult is because I DO have experience in both a lab and medical setting. I mean, if I didn't already, why would I need to post on the board for advice? I would just simply get some hands on experience.

I've worked in a laboratory setting as both an undergraduate researcher for a couple years and am currently a research associate at a top 10 medical school. I interact with a lot of graduate students and post docs and I can see both the appeal and ****tiness (if I may) of going the research route. I do like science and abstract thinking and problem solving and all that. Plus, the lifestyle is pretty awesome. But the job outlook is not as great as medicine, you don't have a good grasp of when you're going to finish your program and where you're going to go next, the politics, the fear of your research getting scooped, and frankly, grant writing SUCKS.

On the flip side, I am a medical assistant at a free clinic where I get to do a lot of cool things and even assist in many procedures. I love the patient contact, working with my hands, and talking w/ the docs about how they arrive at the diagnosis. I have also spent countless hours shadowing many different specialities and have spent almost 100 hours in the OR. BUT I like asking questions and problem solving, and many medical students and doctors tell me its very cut and dry memorization. I'm also not sure if I'm gung ho about it enough to the 80 hour work weeks in residency and still be thirsty for more. And I'd like to spend some time in the lab.

Yes, there are MDs that end up owning a lab and doing research, but they spread themselves out so thin between their lab, academic politics, teaching, clinic, clinical research, etc.. that something has to go. I realize that you really can't have it all plus a life.

I've seen an equal amount of unhappy graduate and medical students.

I like Hypertrophy's strategy and I just might go that route. Hypertrophy, did you just ask for two letters from your recommenders, one for phd and one for md? Or you are just that great of a superstar that you have at least 6 people to write your recommendations?

 

[jimmmmyi]

Oh, and i hate to say it....but since we're talking about financial rewards anyway, I feel like MD is more "worth it". Sure, you're paying a crapload of money for your education, but you make it all back. Unlike a PhD, where you get paid to go to school, you still don't know how you're going to make a decent living after you graduate. You're practically begging to get paid. And if you're in an academic position w/o tenure and loss of funding? You're screwed. The industry is not much better. Many jobs are contract jobs and you never know when you'll get laid off.

 

[Crt428]

Yeah the NIH is an absolute mess right now. My mentor in college, who's been a biology professor for over 25 years, didn't get his grant renewed from the NIH and had to let go 3 people from the lab because he couldn't pay them. And he's a very established researcher with many recent publications. I am working at a Harvard-med Hospital, and even some of these people are having a hard time securing funding

I had a similar dilemma to you no more than 6 months ago. Ultimately it came down to the fact that I liked both, but couldn't really see myself doing research for the rest of my life (it can get rather lonely working with cells and mice all day). As an MD, you certainly have the flexibility to do both. I work with several clinicians who spend a certain percentage of their time doing research, and a certain amount of time seeing patients. In fact these two jobs can complement each other quite well especially in certain areas such as oncology. And yes, if you do an MD, you'll be in a great deal more debt than someone who is being paid a $25,000 a year stipend to get their PhD, but it all evens out because you'll be making six figures with excellent job security, while they make 80-90,000 (unless they manage to get a PI or senior scientist position, not as easy as it sounds) and have to constantly worry about funding. In the end it turned out to be a much easier decision than I first thought👍

 

[Crt428]

Also, the Md/PhD route is not that much longer than the traditional PhD. Depending on what school you attend, and how much progress you make towards 1) getting a good project and 2) making a key finding and getting publications out of that project, it can take just as long for PhD. I believe MD/PhD is 7 years, correct me if I'm wrong. PhD is usually 5 at the very least (only the very lucky people graduate in 5), but usually more along the lines of 6 years or even 7 for some. Again, it can be variable. It really depends on the school and you.

 

[Ride Big Sky]

I think a lot of you are forgetting or don't realize that there is a substantial market for Ph.D consultants throughout the US and other countries right now. There is more risk involved since you are basically free lancing but the rewards can be extremely large. I grew up being exposed to this part of the industry because my mom does it along with many of her friend and it is very reasonable to pull in 250k or more. Just something to think about.

 

[Maxprime]

If you want to work with patients, MD. If not, PhD - easy as that.

I don't see how this doesn't clear it up?

 

[BluePhoenix]

while both career paths take a similar amount of post-bachelor's time (4 years med school + 3-5 years residency vs. 6-8 years for biology-related PhD + 1-2 year post-doctoral work), how that time is spent is HUGELY different.

While generally, you only need to do 1-2 years of post-doc work, the current average is closer to 7 years due to NIH and NSF budget cuts. Not to mention the fact that there hasn't been much of a pay increase in like 7 years. The mentality right now is "I can hire you as a post-doc and pay you nothing for 7 years, why make you a jr. scientist?" Yes, there are exceptions, but I can honestly say, we are not in a good spot right now if you want to do research. And funding is pretty much going to the big, already famous labs, making it really difficult for new researchers or anyone that's not looking at something involving cancer/nanoscience/stem cells etc.

I'd recommend doing as much research as you can to get a feel for it, but it always seems more interesting and exciting when it's new. If you want to look into rare diseases, you might have a better chance as an MD because of increased exposure and awareness of things that aren't typically being studied, and you don't have to worry so much about paying your own salary and the like. I guess, if you think you want to be an MD or be both...I'd go with MD...then you can dabble in research to the extent that you want, or take a break and just work for a while. Being a scientist is pretty much an always on job, focusing on a relatively small area...but hey, if that's what you want to do...then do the PhD.

 

[ianian28]

one of the big reasons i chose MD is the job security. sure, MD's salaries may be stagnant/falling/going up slightly, but you're practically guaranteed a six-figure salary SOMEWHERE upon graduation and throughout your career.

with the amount of time it takes to complete a PhD/post-doc course of study, add in the ups and downs of NIH funding, politics, the economy, and top it off with the reality that new researchers are always at the bottom of the funding totem pole...it's just too much uncertainty for me.

thank goodness i'm not a recently graduated PhD student right now...i work with some of the most promising new HIV researchers in the country, and they're desperate. starting up a new lab right now would scare the hell out of rme.

 

[BluePhoenix]

Well, if you want to make lots of money...consulting and finance groups recruit like crazy...a majority of the people that I did my PhD with went into consulting and starting off making $100,000+ with no post-doc'ing at all. You generally have to give up science, but in terms of financial returns, it's pretty well up there.

 

[Bond8204]

I believe MD/PhD is 7 years, correct me if I'm wrong. PhD is usually 5 at the very least (only the very lucky people graduate in 5), but usually more along the lines of 6 years or even 7 for some. Again, it can be variable. It really depends on the school and you.

If you're disciplined (and...to a certain extent..lucky), most people can get a PhD in 4-5 years. The way I understand MD/PhD programs, though, is that you do the first 2 years of med school, rotating with some labs to figure out where you'll do your PhD at the same time, and then you're cut loose--you're told to get your PhD in however much time that takes. So there's no set time for an MD PhD either--I'd say most take 7-8 years.

I agree with those who say this isn't really as difficult a choice as the OP is making it. You either want to do research or you want to work with patients..simplified but true.

By the way, if you do apply to med school, your internal debate about this (and why you eventually chose medicine...even if you haven't and are applying to both) would make a great foundation for a personal statement.

 

[Maxprime]

If you're disciplined (and...to a certain extent..lucky), most people can get a PhD in 4-5 years. The way I understand MD/PhD programs, though, is that you do the first 2 years of med school, rotating with some labs to figure out where you'll do your PhD at the same time, and then you're cut loose--you're told to get your PhD in however much time that takes. So there's no set time for an MD PhD either--I'd say most take 7-8 years.

I agree with those who say this isn't really as difficult a choice as the OP is making it. You either want to do research or you want to work with patients..simplified but true.

Average time to degree is still 7.5 years for MuDPhuD, IIRC. Generally, you go the summer beforehand, then do M1 & M2, then PhD for 3-5 years (classes for 1 year only usually), then either one or two years of rotations (some schools don't require MIV b/c it's usually a vacation if you know what you want to do).

 

[hypertrophy]

I like Hypertrophy's strategy and I just might go that route. Hypertrophy, did you just ask for two letters from your recommenders, one for phd and one for md? Or you are just that great of a superstar that you have at least 6 people to write your recommendations?

Oh. Right. Um.... Actually, my strategy is truly awful, which anyone who gets to medapp secondary burnout could affirm. I don't recommend it unless you really have no other route to a decision. It's expensive (I happened to get some grad fee waivers because of my summer research programs so that helped) and time consuming and nerve fraying. My grades plummeted last semester because of my "strategy". The only way I could in good conscience tell someone else to do this is if you also follow this advice:

Apply to med schools really freeeking early and finish your secondaries in the summer before classes start. (!!!!!)

Once that is out of the way, take the GRE (October), send in your scores, and do your grad apps. It's a very different mindset for everything from the statement of purpose to the kind of ECs you list, but it's a lot easier after however many medapps.


As for recommendations, I had one research professor overlap with my recommendations, and I did have him write two separate letters. I worry, though, about letting on to LOR writers about my indecision. All of my med recommenders (5) knew I had considered the PhD, but only one knew I was seriously going through with it. And for grad apps, two knew, one of whom wrote a second letter, and one had known in the past that I wanted to do MD-PhD but didn't ask about it when we met.

If that's confusing, here's the breakdown:

Med LORs:
Drs A, B, C, & D - knew I had considered grad, didn't know I applied.
Dr E (professor at a med school)

Grad LORs:
Dr E (professor in my putative research field)
Dr F - knew I also applied to med
Dr G - knew I had considered med, but didn't know I applied.


While I worried that this might be deceptive, I did have the option of keeping my possible futures totally separate but gave Drs E and F the chance to rock the boat, and I think it was important to not cloud my other (less familiar) recommenders' opinions with my own doubts.


Moral of the story: you don't have to tell everyone the whole story.

 

[hypertrophy]

.

 

[jimmmmyi]

Thanks everyone for your replies.

I think the reason it isn't as simple as whether I like working with patients or not because I really do like working with patients, but if i am out of the lab for a few months, then I'm itching to pick up a pipette. So I guess I really like both.

I think both fields do overlap more than some people think. I mean at the school I work at, the MDs go to weekly research journal clubs and seminars and the PhDs go to grand rounds as well. All research labs are made up of both MDs and PhDs and they also coordinate clinical trials together. I just can't see myself as some doctor who spends the rest of his life working in some clinic or small town hospital and never contributing to scientific discovery.

But MD does sound like the best way to combine the two w/o doing a MD/PhD. Fellowships require research and many doctors do end up seeing patients only once a week and then spend the rest of their time doing research academically or in the industry. I'll pursue PhD if the MD doesn't work out.

Thanks again everyone!

 

[Snake Doctor]

Has anyone figure out the economics?

Most of the top Ph.D. programs is pretty much free of tuition with the financial packages they offer; however, MDs are able to take care of the loans with relative amount of ease.

Just out of curiosity (I have a few friends who are foreign students), I believe Ph.D. programs are WAY MORE more friendly towards foreign students than allopathic medical schools, right?

 

[Shunwei]

Well, if you want to make lots of money...consulting and finance groups recruit like crazy...a majority of the people that I did my PhD with went into consulting and starting off making $100,000+ with no post-doc'ing at all. You generally have to give up science, but in terms of financial returns, it's pretty well up there.

Woah, now this is dangerous and inaccurate reporting at its best. The majority? First of all, while some consulting groups do recruit Ph.D.'s, the vast majority of them still prefer MBAs, because the education and work experience match better with the job needs. Secondly, the pay of consultants is not that high, unless you are working for a tier 1 consulting company like Bain or BCG. But in order to secure a position with those guys, your academic pedigree has to be elite along with top grades, personal accomplishments, etc. It is by no means easy, and job security is nil, given how elastic the field is to the economy. Finally, the working environment and lifestyle is extremely demanding as a consultant: the corporate atmosphere and constant travel can wear anyone out in 1-2 years, which is why very few people make consulting a long-term career choice.

In the final analysis, don't get a Ph.D. thinking that it is an automatic leverage for you to make money as a consultant or in any other financial position. It won't. It is, first and foremost, a research/teaching certificate. Some people may be able to translate the skills learned during the degree as an alternate career choice--and much more suitable for engineering and physics PH.D.'s for their math skills, but not so much so for bioscience Ph.D.'s-- but you don't spend 6-7 years getting the degree with that specific route in mind.

This is a very misleading, dangerous post by Bluephoenix.

 

[Snake Doctor]

Woah, now this is dangerous and inaccurate reporting at its best. The majority? First of all, while some consulting groups do recruit Ph.D.'s, the vast majority of them still prefer MBAs, because the education and work experience match better with the job needs. Secondly, the pay of consultants is not that high, unless you are working for a tier 1 consulting company like Bain or BCG. But in order to secure a position with those guys, your academic pedigree has to be elite along with top grades, personal accomplishments, etc. It is by no means easy, and job security is nil, given how elastic the field is to the economy. Finally, the working environment and lifestyle is extremely demanding as a consultant: the corporate atmosphere and constant travel can wear anyone out in 1-2 years, which is why very few people make consulting a long-term career choice.

In the final analysis, don't get a Ph.D. thinking that it is an automatic leverage for you to make money as a consultant or in any other financial position. It won't. It is, first and foremost, a research/teaching certificate. Some people may be able to translate the skills learned during the degree as an alternate career choice--and much more suitable for engineering and physics PH.D.'s for their math skills, but not so much so for bioscience Ph.D.'s-- but you don't spend 6-7 years getting the degree with that specific route in mind.

This is a very misleading, dangerous post by Bluephoenix.

Great post👍 I have also heard the same from a couple of sources, including one prof. Some institutions allow you to do consulting work for X # of hours. There is a limit to how much you can do. With that said, the emphasis is still on research. Research is still the primary career. Consulting is just a thing on the side, whether it is for financial reasons or the desire to contribute. Oh, I see you'll be attending UCLA (signature)! I was just in the Dental School on my way to the Biomed library lol. Lovely weather I must say! You'll love it 🙂

 

[gbwillner]

...with an MD, you can always become a pathologist if you love science or dislike working with people. ....

Wow... the ignorance is shocking here.

To the OP- You will have to work with people in either medicine or science. If you encounter unhappy grad students a lot of time it relates to the uncertainty of the course they undertake- in med school it's over in four years, in grad school it ain't over until it's over. Plus, if your PI is a jerk, you can't just hold your breath until your rotation ends.

If you enjoy science and the scientific process- be a scientist. Being a physcian will only satisy you in special circumstances as most of the time you will have a job with specific responsibilities that do not include satisfying your curiosity about the way the world works.

 

[hypertrophy]

Alright guys, here's what happened after the interviews.

I was invited to md interviews at u of minnesota- tc, albany, and ros franklin.

I was accepted to phd programs at u of chicago, u of minnesota, and u of wisconsin-madison.

I went to uminn-tc-med's interview in feb.

I cancelled my albany interview after I got into the phd programs.

I'm going to rfu's interview in two weeks, probably for a waitlist spot.

I'll hear from minnesota next week.



Over the course of the interviews I decided that the reason this is all so difficult for me is that applying to phd was so impulsive, and yet it ended up going so well. I even got awarded a fellowship.

And at my med school interview... I ended up feeling really frustrated. I asked about journal clubs and lab courses, and I left knowing I want more scientific training than an md alone will give me.

So unless I figure out a way to shift into a mdphd track... and I'm told you end up choosing anyway... I might choose science.

It's been a crazy ride, this year.