MD/PhD vs. Engineering

[partyseeker1989]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I've been accepted into an MD/PhD program and also have offers from very well-known software companies whose products you have likely used today. I have very little time to decide.

I've spoken to over a dozen people who have gone through the MD/PhD program, and the majority told me to go to industry and forget the whole physician-scientist thing. Like any good engineer, I'm interested in helping humanity. Innovating in medicine seems like a way to do that. Medicine is 30 years behind technology, and something huge is going to happen. Going through the pre-med process was a huge sidetrack, took a ton of time, and detracted from my research. So, I feel like I could end up making a big mistake by turning down the opportunity.

Software companies in the Valley are starting to break into medicine and have realized their potential revolutionary role. I am worried that if I go with the MD/PhD route, silicon valley will have overtaken innovation in medicine by the time I get out (10-15 years out), making the MD/PhD superfluous. For example, google "apple watch medicine" and you will have an idea of what I'm getting at. Also, I'm concerned that I would be committing financial suicide. Good engineering superstars are now earning bigger salaries than physicians (e.g.: glassdoor.com "senior software engineer" vs. "radiologist"). Extrapolating into the future, I believe physician wages will continue to decline (and that the protectionist medical profession is on its way out) and engineering wages will continue to rise under market forces. Factoring in 12-15 years training time, I could be retired instead of just graduating from a residency. Yes, money is very important to me. I don't care what you say -- if you are on this forum, money probably matters so lying to yourself or to me won't help.

I'm posting this in the very off chance someone is in a similar position, since I know a lot of engineers would have a similar dilemma/mindset. Would I be crazy to turn down an MD/PhD offer?

 

[PharmHopefulLonghorn2015]

OMG! While I'm not as lucky as you, I would be thinking the same thing! IMHO, I don't think the medical profession will be compromised nearly as much as you think, but I may be incorrect. But these doctors do have some strong pull so I wouldn't underestimate their influential power.

FWIW, I would forego the PhD route and either choose MD or climb the ladder in industry. If I were to do MD, I would gun for super competitive residency =). But if I were you, I would probably do industry and climb the ladder using both intelligence and building political game skills that could be useful if you really desired to switch over to medicine later. And you are probably in your 20s so industry provides more flexibility to enjoy your free time.

 

[Long Way to Go]

I can't picture someone like you enjoying spending two years learning basic science coursework, two more years on clinical wards (with very little time for research), and the five or more years for residency + fellowship (even if fast-tracked). That's almost ten years right there where your research output is going to be limited. If your goal is really to do technological innovation in the medical sector, you're better off breaking into that from an outside perspective.

Judith Faulkner, the founder and CEO of Epic, has a master's in computer science as her highest degree. You don't need an MD or a PhD to the medical innovation you're proposing.

 

[Warderino92]

I remember reading something that someone on this forum posted awhile ago, if you can see yourself doing anything other than medicine and being happy then do that instead. For you, you could jump straight into a career doing something you seem more interested in, versus spending 8 years in medical school and up to 7 years in residency if you want to do a fellowship or something like neurosurgery. 11-15 years of training versus a happy career with no regrets right now and being able to start your life outside of school to me would be a easy choice.

 

[Just Call Me Doc]

As a former engineer, from everything you've said I would recommend taking one of those software company offers and running with it. Financially, you'll most likely be better off as an engineer (even more so if you happen to get in on the ground floor with a company that produces a particularly innovative product). As for helping humanity, between being a physician and an engineer you're looking at having a large hand in helping a few people or having a smaller part in possibly helping millions of people. You would have to decide which you'll be happiest with. But since you're choice is MD/PhD, you're looking more at the difference between being a scientist and an engineer. Would you rather be involved in developing the theories and researching the ideas, or in applying those theories and ideas into something that can serve humanity? There is, or course, some overlap but which area would prefer to devote most of your energy? With the negative of having to spent another 10-15 years of training before you could actually work, unless you truly have a passion for medical science then go with engineering and don't look back.

 

[referee3]

:troll:

 

[partyseeker1989]

Some really good points above. This is exactly why I posted on here. I agree with all the replies (except referee3 -- I'm not a "troll" although I can sort of see why it might be perceived this way). I guess it just seems crazy to give up something a lot of people would kill for and that's why I'm having the second thoughts. I also got rejected from about > 25 schools in the application process (the MD-only as well). That was emotionally very, very draining and hit my ego pretty hard for the last 6 months. My only admit is the MD/PhD and I cannot make it an MD-only program at this point because of the acceptance policy.

There are a few points to further explore:

1. The concept of doctors having influence, especially over regulation and clinical trials -- the question is whether this will persist. For example, will there always be an inherent (erroneous) belief that idiot doctors "know what is best"? Or will tech be able to overcome that wall the same way it has been breaking other barriers as of late (think Uber and Tesla)? In other words, can the medical profession fight off destructive innovation or is the establishment going to succumb as other professions have? Just imagine having the title MD, PhD when someone with an MD tries to shoot you down because they are scared you will make them irrelevant. A good example would be pathology or radiology, both of which will see algorithmic automation if they cannot defend their turf.

2. JustCallMeDoc -- why are you going into medicine as a former engineer given the advice you have just given me? Although, it appears other engineering professions have not fared nearly as well as silicon valley software devs, so I would understand that point. I think I would ultimately be trying to do the same thing whether a clinician-scientist or engineer. It's only the platform that is different. The program I have been admitted to will permit the PhD to be in anything, i.e. computer science, which is not true of all programs. Then the question is, can I get venture capitalists to trust me with money just because I have the MD/PhD, or would having a big tech name experience on my CV instead be more helpful? I honestly don't know.

3. LongWayToGo -- there is a lot of value in having the medical education background and this is precisely why I would value the 4-year program. As an engineer I love problem-solving, and "debugging" complex medical cases would be a lot of fun. It would let me identify what problems need to be solved. The clinical cases would influence my area of innovation. Additionally, I would be personally satisfied with the MD as a purely academic pursuit at the very least. However, rote memorization would piss me off enormously. This is one of the fundamental practices of medical education that I disagree with and one area that I wish to disrupt. The exams should be open book with the latest search technology to emulate responsible clinical practice, no?

4. Money -- despite anecdotal evidence that superstars are killing it, physicians are still the best paid professionals in general and have unmatched security. I don't mind being somewhat less well off knowing that it is 100% certain to be the case. Is this really going to change in our lifetime? Money matters very much to me. But I also don't subscribe to the nonsensical fallacy that being money-driven means you are going to make a less than stellar physician. I don't know what idiot thought of that one.

5. If I decide to do the MD/PhD, I will be ****ed if I decide I dislike innovating in the medical sector altogether. I would basically be forced to become a fulltime practitioner in that case, which would be a depressing prospect.

I think the decision is obvious, but I'm still waiting for someone optimistic about the md/phd. Also, given the cutthroat nature of admissions, I'm wondering whether I will even see it on here.

 

[Dormouse]

when I was interviewing for a MD/PhD program that's strong in biomedical engineering, there was a huge emphasis from the program director on bridging the gap between clinical practice and industry. Maybe go to the second look of the program to which you were admitted and ask to talk to people that are working on topics you're interested in and see what they'd recommend for someone in your position. Even if you then decline the combined degree, it'd be helpful in terms of planning your own career to hear others' experiences.

Also, there is always be possibility of doing your PhD in something like biomedical engineering, and then if industry becomes something more appealing to you in seven years, you can forgo residency and go straight to industry, in which case you have the training in medicine that pure engineers would not have, and a PhD to position you for more sought after jobs.

 

[Dormouse]

Then the question is, can I get venture capitalists to trust me with money just because I have the MD/PhD, or would having a big tech name experience on my CV instead be more helpful?

you need to talk to someone currently working in the field in technology or pharmaceutical companies. also, I'm not familiar with the engineering field, but is there a ceiling to how far you can go with only a bachelor's degree or would you also have to consider a master's or PhD at some point? if the latter, MD/PhD may be more worth it because the combined degree is necessarily that much longer than just a PhD.

 

[Lucca]

Some really good points above. This is exactly why I posted on here. I agree with all the replies (except referee3 -- I'm not a "troll" although I can sort of see why it might be perceived this way). I guess it just seems crazy to give up something a lot of people would kill for and that's why I'm having the second thoughts. I also got rejected from about > 25 schools in the application process (the MD-only as well). That was emotionally very, very draining and hit my ego pretty hard for the last 6 months. My only admit is the MD/PhD and I cannot make it an MD-only program at this point because of the acceptance policy.

There are a few points to further explore:

1. The concept of doctors having influence, especially over regulation and clinical trials -- the question is whether this will persist. For example, will there always be an inherent (erroneous) belief that idiot doctors "know what is best"? Or will tech be able to overcome that wall the same way it has been breaking other barriers as of late (think Uber and Tesla)? In other words, can the medical profession fight off destructive innovation or is the establishment going to succumb as other professions have? Just imagine having the title MD, PhD when someone with an MD tries to shoot you down because they are scared you will make them irrelevant. A good example would be pathology or radiology, both of which will see algorithmic automation if they cannot defend their turf.

2. JustCallMeDoc -- why are you going into medicine as a former engineer given the advice you have just given me? Although, it appears other engineering professions have not fared nearly as well as silicon valley software devs, so I would understand that point. I think I would ultimately be trying to do the same thing whether a clinician-scientist or engineer. It's only the platform that is different. The program I have been admitted to will permit the PhD to be in anything, i.e. computer science, which is not true of all programs. Then the question is, can I get venture capitalists to trust me with money just because I have the MD/PhD, or would having a big tech name experience on my CV instead be more helpful? I honestly don't know.

3. LongWayToGo -- there is a lot of value in having the medical education background and this is precisely why I would value the 4-year program. As an engineer I love problem-solving, and "debugging" complex medical cases would be a lot of fun. It would let me identify what problems need to be solved. The clinical cases would influence my area of innovation. Additionally, I would be personally satisfied with the MD as a purely academic pursuit at the very least. However, rote memorization would piss me off enormously. This is one of the fundamental practices of medical education that I disagree with and one area that I wish to disrupt. The exams should be open book with the latest search technology to emulate responsible clinical practice, no?

4. Money -- despite anecdotal evidence that superstars are killing it, physicians are still the best paid professionals in general and have unmatched security. I don't mind being somewhat less well off knowing that it is 100% certain to be the case. Is this really going to change in our lifetime? Money matters very much to me. But I also don't subscribe to the nonsensical fallacy that being money-driven means you are going to make a less than stellar physician. I don't know what idiot thought of that one.

5. If I decide to do the MD/PhD, I will be ****ed if I decide I dislike innovating in the medical sector altogether. I would basically be forced to become a fulltime practitioner in that case, which would be a depressing prospect.

I think the decision is obvious, but I'm still waiting for someone optimistic about the md/phd. Also, given the cutthroat nature of admissions, I'm wondering whether I will even see it on here.

From what you are describing Engineering is for you. The MD/PhD is meant to train basic and translational scientists. It sounds like you want to work in the innovation tech space. That's a point for engineering. Another point for having more flexibility in engineering.

Money. Engineering is for you. Academic physicians are paid 40-60% what their full clinical counterparts are. The training is long and involves 8 years of very humble pay and 3-7 years of residency pay which is much better but not comparable to the Valley. If you are money driven you will be miserable for these 12-15 years, in medicine in general, and will probably opt for full clinical or biotech entrepreneurship once you finish to make the kind of money you want to make and have not been making. "An idiot" did not come up with the old adage that money driven egos do not belong in medicine. There is a very strong reason this adage exists and that reason is becoming stronger as compensation is predicted to decline.

Go to your job in the Valley, try to fix the tech problems medicine has, learn about integrating basic science and technology without being a basic scientist (be basic science literate), plan to get a PHD or MS in Engineering in the future if you decide the research end is more your deal than the development end, live a happy and fulfilling life. Your attitude would not mesh well with a life in medicine and that is Ok, it's not for everyone.

 

[Dormouse]

Academic physicians are paid 40-60% what their full clinical counterparts are. The training is long and involves 8 years of very humble pay and 3-7 years of residency pay which is much better but not comparable to the Valley.

Yes, but s/he doesn't necessarily need to continue with residency. He can go straight to engineering after the combined degree, with the additional advantage of having perspectives on medicine that other engineers would not have. Combining MD with PhD can also shorten his PhD if he eventually does go for a research route.

 

[BeLikeBueller]

I've been accepted into an MD/PhD program and also have offers from very well-known software companies whose products you have likely used today. I have very little time to decide.

I've spoken to over a dozen people who have gone through the MD/PhD program, and the majority told me to go to industry and forget the whole physician-scientist thing. Like any good engineer, I'm interested in helping humanity. Innovating in medicine seems like a way to do that. Medicine is 30 years behind technology, and something huge is going to happen. Going through the pre-med process was a huge sidetrack, took a ton of time, and detracted from my research. So, I feel like I could end up making a big mistake by turning down the opportunity.

Software companies in the Valley are starting to break into medicine and have realized their potential revolutionary role. I am worried that if I go with the MD/PhD route, silicon valley will have overtaken innovation in medicine by the time I get out (10-15 years out), making the MD/PhD superfluous. For example, google "apple watch medicine" and you will have an idea of what I'm getting at. Also, I'm concerned that I would be committing financial suicide. Good engineering superstars are now earning bigger salaries than physicians (e.g.: glassdoor.com "senior software engineer" vs. "radiologist"). Extrapolating into the future, I believe physician wages will continue to decline (and that the protectionist medical profession is on its way out) and engineering wages will continue to rise under market forces. Factoring in 12-15 years training time, I could be retired instead of just graduating from a residency. Yes, money is very important to me. I don't care what you say -- if you are on this forum, money probably matters so lying to yourself or to me won't help.

I'm posting this in the very off chance someone is in a similar position, since I know a lot of engineers would have a similar dilemma/mindset. Would I be crazy to turn down an MD/PhD offer?

Knowing what I know about healthcare now, I wish I had a background in programming/software engineering. (And have seriously thought about going back to school to get one).

My official advice is that you need to do what you are going to be happy doing.

That being said, from my experience in the hospital over the past year, technology holds the key to improving patient safety and outcomes. If you have an interest in healthcare and a background in technology, I would say that the impact you could have on patient safety and outcomes is far greater in technology than it will ever be in medicine. That's just my $0.02 though. The key is, do what is going to make you happy. Don't do anything for the money, or perceived prestige, or any crap like that. In the end, the only things that really matter are family and friends. The rest is just gravy.

 

[Just Call Me Doc]

2. JustCallMeDoc -- why are you going into medicine as a former engineer given the advice you have just given me? Although, it appears other engineering professions have not fared nearly as well as silicon valley software devs, so I would understand that point. I think I would ultimately be trying to do the same thing whether a clinician-scientist or engineer. It's only the platform that is different. The program I have been admitted to will permit the PhD to be in anything, i.e. computer science, which is not true of all programs. Then the question is, can I get venture capitalists to trust me with money just because I have the MD/PhD, or would having a big tech name experience on my CV instead be more helpful? I honestly don't know.

A while ago I made the decision to follow a path that will most likely have a big impact on a few people, rather than have a smaller role that may possibly have an impact on many. The overall mission in Silicon Valley, and the rest of the tech world, is to make money. There are ways, though, to do so while providing service to humanity (but keep in mind they say about 9 out of every 10 start-ups fail). I guess for me, I decided I wanted more certainty and instant feedback in my service to others. In exchange, I sacrificed a lot financially and in stability and comfort in my life. I walked away from a six-figure income and, if you look at my potential earnings if I stayed an engineer, I would have made at least one to one and a half million dollars by the time I finish med school. And that doesn't factor in the debt I'm about to occur. But I've developed a real passion for medicine and serving others and to me it's worth it.

For the path it seems you wish to pursue, as a clinician-scientist you'll spend at least 7 to 10 years to possibly develop the one idea/process/innovation that MAY revolutionize the health care industry (or not). If you're an engineer, you may need to find people with those revolutionary ideas and then develop them into applications that the healthcare industry or society can use. In the grand scheme, both are important facets of the process. But as an engineer, in those 7 to 10 years you can jump from idea to idea or company to company relatively easily. And you don't necessarily need an MD/PhD to glean through the research that has already been done to figure out an application that may benefit society. An MD/PhD CAN be helpful (just as a big name company on your CV) in terms of venture capital. But probably just as important, or more so, is the idea you're trying to pitch and how you market it. Not necessarily worth 7+ years of your life. (You can always hire an MD/PhD to boost your company's prestige)

If you had a passion for discovering a novel and unique solution to combating health problems, and was comfortable making the sacrifices required to do so, I would say go for the MD/PhD. But it seems, from the little I can glean from a couple posts, that you'd probably be happy developing any sort of application that advances healthcare while staying financially comfortable. So I think the tech industry is the way to go.

If things change later on, you always have the option to reapply for medical school and go that path.

 

[cyclopes93]

An MD/PhD position would lead me to think that despite matching into a competitive specialty, you would stay in academia and get a lower salary. The fact that you are more centric on obtaining a stable lifestyle instead of actually spending all your following years to medicine means that you would be MOST CONTENT with engineering.

If you are determined to become the creme de la creme of engineering, I urge you to pick this for your sake and when you purchase your new car, go cruising in the bahamas, meet people likewise to you, you will say "I am going to make my kids doctors and enjoy this awesome life"...............#lol

After a while a 100k salary vs. a 300k salary don't really matter because the doctor won't have the time to enjoy the pay as much as the engineer and the engineer can practically still buy everything he/she wants compared to the doctor. You'd be surprised the few doctors I have met that seem to want to go to engineering because they actually had an undergrad degree in it and know how to compare. Healthcare is a busy busy field, you got to have STAMINA, a real burning passion to stay. Anything short of that, forget about it...you blew your only chance at having an amazing life.

 

[Lil Mick]

I would suggest taking the software job. I actually wound up choosing between the two while I was in my program, and I have to say, I've been able to do more in the last year or so that I could have done in the extra 3-5 years I would have had left in my program. I doubt the MD would have helped much in the field, though having some graduate training has helped (but you can get that through your company while you work--a lot of places will pay for an MS or PhD in that field in exchange for x number of years with the company). In fact, you really don't need the MD or the PhD in software engineering or computer science unless you want to be faculty somewhere. There's a huge shortage in the medical tech/software/data fields right now, and there's always time to go back to medical school if you find that your heart is in medicine. If this field keeps pace for the next decade or two, you could probably retire at 45 and start a new career in medicine!

Send me a PM if you want to talk more.

 

[cyclopes93]

@Mick, to go back to med school at the age of 45 is rare. It can be done but please make sure you let the OP know that he/she must be clear in the head of what they want to pursue. Medicine is not something you just pick up by the side, it is a true calling as many have iterated. You need to know what is more important. OP must pay attention to what I have mentioned. It is a hard decision but once made, don't regret and hardily enjoy.

 

[Lil Mick]

@cyclopes93
If you refer to my post, I am not suggesting medicine as a side career. I am stating that if OP goes the software route, he can always change his mind later. Most software engineers I've worked with have been able to retire relatively young (30's and 40's, especially in CA), and many have used their time and finances to pursue a second career (people I personally know and have worked with). With money saved up from a few years/decade of work in this field, it would be financially feasible for OP to change his mind, work towards MCAT/courses, and pursue medicine at a later date when he has the financial stability and can be sure that he wants to pursue medicine. Trust me, it is easier to switch out of engineering to pursue medicine than it is to leave medical school to pursue software engineering.

@cyclopes93
When you reach medical school, you will likely find several non-traditional students in your class. Some schools only have a few; some schools have quite a few per class. My school was not known for a lot of older students; we had 5 students, including 2 who switched from careers in engineering after feeling drawn back to medicine. Being an undergrad, you probably have not experienced this in your college classes yet.

 

[Lil Mick]

Yes, but s/he doesn't necessarily need to continue with residency. He can go straight to engineering after the combined degree, with the additional advantage of having perspectives on medicine that other engineers would not have. Combining MD with PhD can also shorten his PhD if he eventually does go for a research route.

As for this, the PhD is NOT shortened if you pursue a PhD outside of biology/medicine. A PhD in mathematics or software engineering will likely require even more years than is typical for MD/PhD students. For me, the total length if I'd stayed for the clinical years would have been 10/11 years. It's a lot of time for an MD/PhD that will result in either working as an MD or as a software engineer/mathematician/other area unrelated to biology.

 

[partyseeker1989]

Thanks to everyone who replied, and especially Lil Mick for the personal experience. Very thought provoking. I'm so glad I posted on here. This helped me organize my thoughts. I've decided to stick with engineering. In case I start doubting myself again, this is my justification (which incorporates everything I picked up from above). I'll force myself to read my own post if the need arises.

-Financial: SV firms will start me in the high 100's and I can get to the 200's within years. It's unclear whether I would ever hit parity with medicine. However, I like the idea of being financially secure by the time I'm in my mid to late 30s. As Lil Mick has mentioned, the market conditions are really, really good right now for those of us who invested considerable time into computer engineering training starting in the late 2000's. It also appears that physician wages are more likely to decline than rise. Hence, this parity likely becomes a greater uncertainty into the future. I am disgusted by the idea of being poor potentially at the age of 40.

-Career change option: The door is never closed. Sort of related to flexibility and finance, the idea Lil Mick mentioned about potentially going back one day as a second career with zero financial concerns actually seems quite feasible. If anything, I would do it as a retirement activity / purely academic pursuit out of interest of the science. This is a good idea and one that I thought of previously. It helps that Mick has corroborated the feasibility. I do not have any desire for family or kids (currently in my late 20's and feel very strong about this) so I would be able to comfortably set enough money aside, surely by the time I'm 45, toward this pursuit if I truly wanted. If North American schools are too hard to get into as a 45-year-old, I would be comfortable going anywhere in the world at that point where the schools are less selective. It could be a very interesting mid-life change indeed. Also worth emphasizing Mick's point that engineering-->medicine is feasible whereas medicine-->engineering is hard.

-Flexibility and freedom: Both paths are minimum 80 hour workweeks. However, I am terrified by the concept of being locked into a role that I have trained so hard for that I can't escape. In engineering, I can take what I need from medical literature off the shelf. In contrast, the very long training time in medicine (especially since I would be inclined to do a residency) means that I would lose a large chunk of my engineering skillset that I have spent my 20s developing because I would be too distracted by the medical program. This is a serious concern of mine. I also adore my privacy, the freedom to work any odd hours that I want (especially at night and alone), and getting sleep as per my own schedule. I'm not sure I would be ready to give this up.

-Humanity: I dislike human interaction quite a lot. I refrained from mentioning this earlier because I feel like I'm a pretty good actor, and I definitely bullshat my way through interviews. But I also am starting to get tired of doing this. All the volunteering work I did in the last couple of years goes to waste (yes, I genuinely feel that way) but I'm honestly extremely relieved that I don't have to do any of it anymore. I don't believe that any of it was actually making a difference.

-Drastic change / Ego: It will be a hit to my ego to not have those 5 letters after my name. Every time I see someone sign their name with MD, it stirs me up inside. I know it's pointless but it's this cutthroat nature hardwired into me. Maybe this is something I need work out with myself and get over. However, it's possible in the long term also that medicine will change to the point where MDs are much less in control and less relevant than they are today. As someone above said, I do believe that technology is the key to the future of medicine. If that is the case, how long before Google or Apple destroy the profession through destructive innovation of the sort that we can't even begin to imagine at this point. If that happened, I would never be able to forgive myself for the wrong choice. It does appear possible to be an innovator, like the above mentioned Judith Faulkner, without having the credentials. She is worth almost $3 Billion. When you're worth that much, I would think you likely added extraordinary value to the system.

If anyone wanted to add or refute anything, please do. Thanks again.

 

[partyseeker1989]

I was just browsing the news casually, and this is what I found:

Imagine if a nurse or technician can use that, making your oncologist superfluous. That's the sort of destructive innovation that I'm talking about.

 

[Lawgiver]

the best part of that vid was how human radiologist were 93% accurate when they cleared someone. This tech like other tech will complement the physician. People will still expect a physician to evaluate test results, which is what this basically is, a diagnostic test. you sound like you surely don't belong in medicine by the way.

and why is it these "MD so bad grrrr" threads so often get started by people with 1 post count?

 

[DokterMom]

But since you're choice is MD/PhD, you're looking more at the difference between being a scientist and an engineer. Would you rather be involved in developing the theories and researching the ideas, or in applying those theories and ideas into something that can serve humanity? There is, or course, some overlap but which area would prefer to devote most of your energy?

A very valid question --

You've also compared the salaries of "rock star" engineers to MDs. What about the salaries for NON-rock stars? And do you know exactly what the differences are between the rock stars and the rank and file worker bees? It's not ALL brains - there's a lot of politics involved. Sales skills, schmoozing, flat-out BSing, killer hours, organizational skills, leadership, and hubris. Will you excel there?

Consider also if you will BE and FEEL qualified without either that MD or PhD. Will you have the paper qualifications to do what you want to do? To attract investors? Having that MD/PhD with the PhD part in BioTech can add a lot of credibility to a project/company and move your name up the organizational hierarchy.

 

[aich]

I'm actually on the same boat. It's a very difficult decision indeed.

I've accepted a software/data science position and plan on enrolling in an MD program after a year or two of doing that. If/when having an MD becomes less financially valuable than being an engineer (which is already true in many parts of the world), then you will at least have something to fall back on. No PhD because I would like to get it in math or physics and it wouldn't help my out as a physician.

I'm thinking that by working for a year, I'll be able to have a better idea of what my ceiling will be if I stay on that career track and decide then if I would even want to go to medical school. Although this probably isn't an option, have you given doing something like this any consideration?

Regardless of what you do, please let us know as I'm very interested in your decision.

good luck on St. Pat's day.

 

[Dormouse]

It sounds that you have given this issue much thought and have pretty much decided on the engineering route (and I have no doubt you'll eventually make the right choice you'll be happy with!), but I just wanted to throw out some ideas supporting the other side for your consideration.

I've spoken to over a dozen people who have gone through the MD/PhD program, and the majority told me to go to industry and forget the whole physician-scientist thing.

Make sure you differentiate between what's best for yourself and your career, and the people who advice you to go straight to industry because they deem your perceived obsession with money to be unfit for medicine. Also, like others have mentioned, you have to consider how far you can go in industry with a bachelor's alone and at what point you'd start to need a graduate degree.

I'm thinking that by working for a year, I'll be able to have a better idea of what my ceiling will be if I stay on that career track and decide then if I would even want to go to medical school. Although this probably isn't an option, have you given doing something like this any consideration?

That would be a smart thing to do, except the option is no longer available to the OP because he already applied and was accepted to one program. Once you turn down a medical school acceptance, from what I understand it's very difficult to be admitted again at least in the immediate following years. Although of course, OP may be able to apply again in his/her thirties after many more years of working, but then s/he has to go back to accruing medically related experiences and he would be at an age where other things like family and retirement are starting to catch up to him.

 

[Dormouse]

For me, the total length if I'd stayed for the clinical years would have been 10/11 years. It's a lot of time for an MD/PhD that will result in either working as an MD or as a software engineer/mathematician/other area unrelated to biology.

I agree, MD/PhD is already a long path but 10/11 years sounds kind of ridiculous in your case. The advantage of having the MD with the PhD is that you can relate your work back to medicine.

 

[partyseeker1989]

Edited: quotes were messed up. Misquote fixed.

the best part of that vid was how human radiologist were 93% accurate when they cleared someone. This tech like other tech will complement the physician. People will still expect a physician to evaluate test results, which is what this basically is, a diagnostic test. you sound like you surely don't belong in medicine by the way.

The question is, when a healthcare system is overburdened by cost and old timers, will it become unacceptable for a nurse practitioner to run the test and look at the results and follow a treatment protocol, cutting out the expensive radiologists altogether? If there is one thing true about technology, it's that it has time and time again replaced people who never saw it coming. I'm not saying I want to see radiologists out of work. I'm saying that if I were to become a radiologist by training, I would then have to be concerned about this technology making my job redundant. All it takes is an algorithm with 100% accuracy and a few publications proving its efficacy, and bam. Look at what has happened to cardiac surgeons with ACE inhibitors since the 80s.

You've also compared the salaries of "rock star" engineers to MDs. What about the salaries for NON-rock stars? And do you know exactly what the differences are between the rock stars and the rank and file worker bees? It's not ALL brains - there's a lot of politics involved. Sales skills, schmoozing, flat-out BSing, killer hours, organizational skills, leadership, and hubris. Will you excel there?

I'll throw modesty out of the window for a second. I probably will be a rockstar engineer, and if my academics don't prove it, my industry offers reflect it. As an engineer out of grad school, I'll be a top 1% earner my first year out. I think you're referring to the more traditional engineering disciplines, non-computer. The sales/schmoozing/BSing/leadership/hubris all go completely out the window. You're thinking traditional engineering firms, i.e. construction, product development, consulting. The sort of stuff you get your Prof.Eng. designation for. People in the valley didn't even know what I was talking about when I mentioned that qualification.

Consider also if you will BE and FEEL qualified without either that MD or PhD. Will you have the paper qualifications to do what you want to do? To attract investors? Having that MD/PhD with the PhD part in BioTech can add a lot of credibility to a project/company and move your name up the organizational hierarchy.

No, I will not feel qualified without the MD/PhD. That's the problem I was bringing up earlier, and it part of the tradeoff. If I want to do biotech, not having the MD/PhD is an automatic killer. In other words, biotechnology (specifically: biopharmaceuticals , for those who don't know that biotech == biopharmaceuticals + regen medicine) is completely ruled out if I do this, or else is going to be extremely hard. I confirmed that not having the MD or PhD (but mostly the PhD) is a career killer with a scientist at Genentech. What you are stating, that it adds credibility to move up the hierarchy, is 100% correct according to industry insiders I have spoken with. However, biomedical devices and biomedical technology exclusive of biotech appears to be an entirely different story. Have to be careful with the word choice. An example is the video I posted above. It's really tough to make it in biotech, so I'm not sure I feel bad about ruling it out anyway. You literally get all the first year pre-meds who decided not to go into medicine or couldn't get in as your competition. That's why the wages are so depressed and terrible in biotech.

I'm thinking that by working for a year, I'll be able to have a better idea of what my ceiling will be if I stay on that career track and decide then if I would even want to go to medical school. Although this probably isn't an option, have you given doing something like this any consideration?

As I said, I have not ruled that out. But more specifically, amassing a small fortune by time I'm 40/45 in the valley (living frugally and investing), and then going over to Europe or Australia to do the MD out of pure interest or maybe more. I would never have to spend a day of my life seeing patients. This is what I am strongly considering.

Make sure you differentiate between what's best for yourself and your career, and the people who advice you to go straight to industry because they deem your perceived obsession with money to be unfit for medicine. Also, like others have mentioned, you have to consider how far you can go in industry with a bachelor's alone and at what point you'd start to need a graduate degree.

I have a master's but I can't say any more without revealing my identity.

 

[cyclopes93]

The power of technology is not even imaginable by most premeds and medical students. Every 2 years or so the labs change with new technology that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. It replaces a lot of repetitive work and things that can be identified by image technology. What it does is it makes the job of those analyzing boring and almost factory-like. While I am happy technology is here to save neck pain, it is disheartening to see how automated hospitals have become and are becoming and the way every profession is becoming in some way auxiliary. However, unlike most paranoid folks in every decade, I am sure that people will not be replaced by technology.

 

[partyseeker1989]

Cyclopes, my response is unrelated to the topic of this thread. But, I wanted to comment that structural unemployment due to technology is only a good thing. It hurts those who are displaced in the short term, but leads to better and less expensive services down the road for all of society to enjoy the fruits of. The best example is when traffic lights replaced traffic directors. Nobody had to pay the traffic directors anymore, leaving money for new things, and those unemployed would have to create value in other unforeseen ways. The pains of disruptive innovation hurt in the short term but make us all collectively better off. The same arguments can be made for immigration, energy sources, and outsourcing of labor.

Edit: I can see it being especially painful for specialists who may have trained for 20 years only to become redundant. That is again one of my arguments that helped me justify not to do the MD/PhD.

 

[cyclopes93]

Cyclopes, my response is unrelated to the topic of this thread. But, I wanted to comment that structural unemployment due to technology is only a good thing. It hurts those who are displaced in the short term, but leads to better and less expensive services down the road for all of society to enjoy the fruits of. The best example is when traffic lights replaced traffic directors. Nobody had to pay the traffic directors anymore, leaving money for new things, and those unemployed would have to create value in other unforeseen ways. The pains of disruptive innovation hurt in the short term but make us all collectively better off. The same arguments can be made for immigration, energy sources, and outsourcing of labor.

Edit: I can see it being especially painful for specialists who may have trained for 20 years only to become redundant. That is again one of my arguments that helped me justify not to do the MD/PhD.

I would say that definitely technology makes a job in the hospital (especially the hospital) much easier and SAFER. However, it takes away a lick of interest and knowledge out of folks that come in later generations because it seems superfluous to know particularly all of the principles behind what a machine does (which replaced the workings of a human at one time). You will come to see this at clinical settings when you actually get to this end. The low level employees will always adhere to "pushing the buttons" protocol...not what is of intellectual property exactly in my mind. Eventually, some of the more experienced employees will have trouble as well remembering intricacies.

 

[partyseeker1989]

The low level employees will always adhere to "pushing the buttons" protocol...not what is of intellectual property exactly in my mind. Eventually, some of the more experienced employees will have trouble as well remembering intricacies.

Sure. But I would argue that this is a tradeoff worth making for more effective healthcare and, most importantly, cheaper healthcare. Nurses need to be able to treat patients the way oncologists do today, since we will not have the resources to do things the old fashioned way with such an aging population. Only dumbed-down automation can fill the void.

 

[HopesandDreams]

It seems like you've already made up your mind? As far as "dumbed-down automation" filling the "void" that just seems like ridiculous trollbait. I don't know if you've ever seen the movie "idiocracy" (if not you should) but google "idiocracy doctor scene" and watch the first video, would post it here but the language isnt really appropriate. If you really think that that is the path to delivering more effective healthcare, I don't know what else to say.