Pathology Ph.D

[Katatonic]

Tried this in the Path forum, thought I'd try my luck here!

I'm forced this year to really decide which path I want to pursue: medical school or graduate school. Pathology is the only discipline that made me consider medicine because of the heavy science and lab time (among other things). I found out recently that you can also get a Ph.D in pathology and go into research. My question is this; the graduate school program throws you into a lot of pathology courses the first year. Is pathology understandable without the usual first year classes medical students take? I'm only asking because it seemed odd for me to start taking pathology classes fresh out of my Bachelor's degree. If it helps, I will have taken classes such as Micro, Immunology, Virology, and Histology during my BS. Any advice is appreciated!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TMP-SMX]

Do you want to be a physician or a researcher? Even if you want to be a pathologist you still have to go to year 3 and 4 in medical school. If you just want to do research/teach, you'll save a lot of money (and suffering) doing the PhD.

 

[Katatonic]

Yeah, I'm trying to decide whether I want to practice as a physician plus do some research, or do research full-time. I was wondering though whether pathology would be harder to understand without the first year classes of medical school?

 

[BigRedBeta]

Regardless of how hard path grad classes might be, what's the point of doing medical school if you don't want to be a physician (and do the things that doctors do, even if it's only for the third year of medical school).

Put it this way. One of my classmates is going into path (we're M4's), and last month we were in a lecture and small group heavy rotation. What sort of things did we cover? Lots of EKG's, lots of acid/base status, unusual presentations of common diseases, antibiotics and fluid status - kind of the nitty gritty stuff that causes problems for first year house officers. Do any of these things sound remotely interesting to you? Because if they don't, and there's seriously no way in which you'd become anything other than a pathologist, then med school will be a waste of time spent learning about things that aren't going to be of any use (there's something seriously wrong if your patient gets to the path lab with an EKG that needs to be read). If you truly, honestly think that maybe some other form of medicine might grab your interest, then you need to consider med school.

 

[thesauce]

Regardless of how hard path grad classes might be, what's the point of doing medical school if you don't want to be a physician (and do the things that doctors do, even if it's only for the third year of medical school).

Put it this way. One of my classmates is going into path (we're M4's), and last month we were in a lecture and small group heavy rotation. What sort of things did we cover? Lots of EKG's, lots of acid/base status, unusual presentations of common diseases, antibiotics and fluid status - kind of the nitty gritty stuff that causes problems for first year house officers. Do any of these things sound remotely interesting to you? Because if they don't, and there's seriously no way in which you'd become anything other than a pathologist, then med school will be a waste of time spent learning about things that aren't going to be of any use (there's something seriously wrong if your patient gets to the path lab with an EKG that needs to be read). If you truly, honestly think that maybe some other form of medicine might grab your interest, then you need to consider med school.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, at least in part. Having spent some time in research at the NIH, I can say that the training that MDs receive allow them to approach biomedical research from a unique perspective. I think the 3rd and 4th years of medical school, as well as pathology residency would be invaluable to the OP even if he/she chooses to be a full time researcher. This path is not often traveled, possibly for the reason that many believe as you do, that you have to be seeing patients to be a true MD.

OP: I would really suggest that you look into an MD/PhD program. First, you'll get the research training that you clearly want, but you also get some practical application of medicine that's going to carry over to make your research that much stronger. You'll be out of school debt free and command a higher salary that your Ph.D. counterparts (even in research). And you'll have an easier time getting funding (The 2% of MDs that are MD/Ph.Ds have 30+% of the NIH funding). You'll be able to handle the classes either way, especially with the background you described.

 

[LadyWolverine]

I am a 3rd year medical student who is considering path. MD path is likely to be considerably different from PhD path. First of all, it depends on what you want to do - do you want to work at a hospital, looking at surgical/biopsy/histopath/cytology specimens and helping to make diagnoses? If so, how about certain subspecialties, like Gyn, dermpath, hematopath? Are you more interested in gross path/autopsy, like working at the ME's office on forensic cases? How about transfusion medicine, clinical chem or micro, etc? Are you more interested in bench research, like in immunology, genetics, or transplant? How about developing new diagnostic technologies?

Obviously, you can't do a lot of the above as part of your job description without a medical license. However, 4 years of medical school (most of which is not very path-intensive) may not be necessary or even a wise financial investment if your ultimate goal is to do research that you could otherwise do with a PhD.

 

[grandslam521]

I don't think anyone is really answering the OP's question, so I will give it a try. Most individuals who will go to graduate school for pathology will be coming straight from undergrad. While it is important to have a strong background in basic science from undergrad course work, the grad school will not expect you to understand pathology on your first day as a student. In path grad school, you're going to get a mix of basic sciences just like in medical school to prepare you for upper level courses in pathology. Some schools may even start you out in a lower level pathology course. Do not think that you need to go to medical school as the only means to acquire basic science knowledge for a PhD in pathology. This would be highly discouraged. In other words, the PhD program will teach you what you need to know.

 

[Katatonic]

I don't think anyone is really answering the OP's question, so I will give it a try. Most individuals who will go to graduate school for pathology will be coming straight from undergrad. While it is important to have a strong background in basic science from undergrad course work, the grad school will not expect you to understand pathology on your first day as a student. In path grad school, you're going to get a mix of basic sciences just like in medical school to prepare you for upper level courses in pathology. Some schools may even start you out in a lower level pathology course. Do not think that you need to go to medical school as the only means to acquire basic science knowledge for a PhD in pathology. This would be highly discouraged. In other words, the PhD program will teach you what you need to know.

Thank you, that's what I was wondering. I'm well aware of the difference between practicing as a pathologist, and doing research as a pathologist PhD. That's what's making it such a hard decision! Both paths, although different, appeal to me so much that it's difficult to think of which I will be happier with. Trying to find a pathologist to shadow to help me understand what a normal day would entail, which should help.

 

[bipolardoc]

Thank you, that's what I was wondering. I'm well aware of the difference between practicing as a pathologist, and doing research as a pathologist PhD. That's what's making it such a hard decision! Both paths, although different, appeal to me so much that it's difficult to think of which I will be happier with. Trying to find a pathologist to shadow to help me understand what a normal day would entail, which should help.

Or you can always do both with an MD/PhD😉

 

[Katatonic]

Or you can always do both with an MD/PhD😉

I'm not sure I want to be in school that long...but you never know. Plus I probably don't have the stats for it haha.

 

[LadyWolverine]

I don't really understand what the issue is. If you are interested in a career that you can enter with either an MD or PhD (assuming that, for entry level post-doc in whatever it is that YOU want to do, the two degrees are equivalent), why on earth would you choose to spend 4 years and well over $100K on medical school? Why put yourself through hell, and pay for it, when you could earn a stipend, start working in your chosen field from day one, and not have to spend the majority of time on rotations that have little, if any, relevance to your chosen field?

If I knew that research was where I wanted to spend my career exclusively (i.e. with no patient care responsibilities), I would not be in medical school right now. I'd be in a PhD program somewhere, with 0 debt and some semblance of a life.

 

[Katatonic]

I don't really understand what the issue is. If you are interested in a career that you can enter with either an MD or PhD (assuming that, for entry level post-doc in whatever it is that YOU want to do, the two degrees are equivalent), why on earth would you choose to spend 4 years and well over $100K on medical school? Why put yourself through hell, and pay for it, when you could earn a stipend, start working in your chosen field from day one, and not have to spend the majority of time on rotations that have little, if any, relevance to your chosen field?

If I knew that research was where I wanted to spend my career exclusively (i.e. with no patient care responsibilities), I would not be in medical school right now. I'd be in a PhD program somewhere, with 0 debt and some semblance of a life.

I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm not sure research is what I want to do EXCLUSIVELY yet. I'm still trying to decide whether I would like to practice as a physician as a pathologist with MD/DO, or do only research. I agree though, if I decide research is what I want to do exclusively, I'll only do a Ph.D and not waste my time/money.

 

[howelljolly]

And if you did want to work in pathology on actual patients, rather than strictly in research, you could as a PhD. PhDs do work in academic medical centers, though their job is probably a bit different from MD pathologists. PhDs probably can't sign off on a diagnosis.

I'm friends with a married couple... Hes an MD pathologist, and shes a PhD pathologist, theyre both in an academic medical center.

 

[sirus_virus]

Tried this in the Path forum, thought I'd try my luck here!

I'm forced this year to really decide which path I want to pursue: medical school or graduate school. Pathology is the only discipline that made me consider medicine because of the heavy science and lab time (among other things). I found out recently that you can also get a Ph.D in pathology and go into research. My question is this; the graduate school program throws you into a lot of pathology courses the first year. Is pathology understandable without the usual first year classes medical students take? I'm only asking because it seemed odd for me to start taking pathology classes fresh out of my Bachelor's degree. If it helps, I will have taken classes such as Micro, Immunology, Virology, and Histology during my BS. Any advice is appreciated!

Medical school is not for you. Dont waste your time.

 

[Katatonic]

Medical school is not for you. Dont waste your time.

How encouraging. 🙄

Luckily, I'm not so easily dissuaded

 

[sirus_virus]

How encouraging. 🙄

Luckily, I'm not so easily dissuaded

Not trying to disuade you, just stating my opinion. ~99% of physicians are clinicians or surgeons, so if you dont want to be a clinician, don't become a physician. Also keep in mind that your choice of specialty is not always a choice. Grades, board scores, evaluations, etc will determine where you land. So its not like you can just walk into pahology if you choose. Now, if you dont get into pathology, you might just end up doing the same thing you were running from because you owe money and have to pay somehow. Lots of people have rolled the dice like you are about to, and ended up as disgruntled clinicians, some post on SDN frequently.

 

[Katatonic]

Now, if you dont get into pathology, you might just end up doing the same thing you were running from because you owe money and have to pay somehow.

I'm not running from anything, the only question I asked in this thread was whether pathology classes would be more difficult without the classes first year medical students take.

 

[Xerxes1729]

I'm not running from anything, the only question I asked in this thread was whether pathology classes would be more difficult without the classes first year medical students take.

Second year medical school pathology would be a terrible class to come into right out of undergrad. There's an enormous vocabulary that you wouldn't have, and the volume of material would be unlike anything you've ever dealt with.

But if you go into a pathology PhD program, you are not going to start by taking a second-year MD pathology course. Graduate school curricula are much more flexible; different grad students take different classes based on their own strengths and weaknesses, while every med student takes the same stuff. If you've never taken immunology, you'd take an introductory course, while someone coming in with a masters in immunology might skip right into a seminar or test out of those specific requirements entirely.




I'd also say that I think it's a little dangerous to got to medical school thinking that there's only one possible specialty you could do, particularly when it's pathology, which is significantly different from pretty much everything else. If it turns out that you don't like pathology, and don't have an interest in any other specialty, you're in a massive amount of debt and the only job you're qualified for that would let you earn enough to pay it back is one that you don't want. That's a sh*tty place to be.

 

[Katatonic]

Second year medical school pathology would be a terrible class to come into right out of undergrad. There's an enormous vocabulary that you wouldn't have, and the volume of material would be unlike anything you've ever dealt with.

But if you go into a pathology PhD program, you are not going to start by taking a second-year MD pathology course. Graduate school curricula are much more flexible; different grad students take different classes based on their own strengths and weaknesses, while every med student takes the same stuff. If you've never taken immunology, you'd take an introductory course, while someone coming in with a masters in immunology might skip right into a seminar or test out of those specific requirements entirely.




I'd also say that I think it's a little dangerous to got to medical school thinking that there's only one possible specialty you could do, particularly when it's pathology, which is significantly different from pretty much everything else. If it turns out that you don't like pathology, and don't have an interest in any other specialty, you're in a massive amount of debt and the only job you're qualified for that would let you earn enough to pay it back is one that you don't want. That's a sh*tty place to be.

Thanks for the advice. I definitely know it's different to be applying to medical school with only one specialty in mind. This is one of several reasons I have been considering MD/PhD, since there are a multitude of things I could do with it that can either incorporate pathology, or at least stay away from patient-contact oriented specialties. Note that I said one of several reasons, it's by no means the only reason I'm considering that route, since it's a considerable undertaking (as if one or the other wasn't already...).