<p>I would consider either a M.D. or Ph.D. only if you truly think you will enjoy it. Otherwise choose a different field for your vocation. Both have time consuming training, and require a lot of hard work and delayed of gratification. A M.D. degree gives more financial security at the end. On the other hand, everyone is wired differently. If you really like science and using your imagination and creativity is important to you, medicine could seem routine and boring. I happen to do both, and while I am very competent in my area of clinical expertise, I find the research to be incredibly fascinating. I stay up late reading literature and writing grants because I want to. When I am on call, I stay up late because I am required to do so. Obviously, I want to provide the best clinical service for my patients and it is personally satisfying to take care of them. I have advised both M.D.s and Ph.D.s. The life of a scientist is quite different from that of a clinician in terms of what you do, how much time flexibility you have (the scientist has more flexible schedule), and salary. I would say Ph.D.s can make a very good salary and do something enjoyable. I also would say that it does not offer the same type of job security. Those who are good at what they do, can secure good jobs in academia or industry. Those that are not, will have a difficult time staying in science, particularly in this tough grant funding era and potential competition from the influx of Ph.D.s from abroad. On the other hand, even a fairly weak physician, can probably still make a good salary unless he/she is incompetent and engages in malpractice or some other unethical behavior.</p>
<p>I really think you should do what turns you on though. I personally think this is a very exciting time to be doing biomedical research. Many questions, many tools, and hopefully many answers and cures.</p>
<p>I agree with pmyen.
A PhD is pretty gruelling in the US.
*To start off, you need a total of 50 credit hours of course work (most recent and not if it was done toward a Masters if more than 3 years ago).
*After you finish your core courses, you have to pass the oral and written comprehensive.
*It's only after you pass the comprehensive that they even consider you to be a PhD bound student
*This is followed by 3-4 yrs of research. And the research needs to be publishable.</p>
<p>One can not do this without thoroughly enjoying science.</p>
<p>However, I do hear that in all EU countries, students begin their PhDs right after BSc with research (no course requirements!) and complete their PhD in 3 years flat! (while we in US sweated to maintain >= Bs in 50 credit hours!)
More over they spend only 3 yrs to get a BSc. So, in total number of years, a research oriented MS in US is similar to EU's PhD. </p>
<p>And yet, Pharma employers consider them equal! Go figure!</p>
<p>"I do hear that in all EU countries, students begin their PhDs right after BSc with research (no course requirements!) and complete their PhD in 3 years flat!"
This is not really true... In france, 4 yrs undergrad, 1 yr Master (research oriented and REQUIRED), 3-4 yrs for the PhD. </p>
<p>"More over they spend only 3 yrs to get a BSc. So, in total number of years, a research oriented MS in US is similar to EU's PhD."
More time is NOT equivalent to more quality. It is shorter in Europe because students fullfill all their liberal requirements in High School. They take college courses in only their major. Furthermore, European High schools tend to have a higher level than American high schools. If you don't believe me compare the SAT essays/AP english essays to the philosophy dissertation at the baccalaureate in France. The difference is enormous. Having a headstart helps them to go faster.
By HS graduation, all students have completed an equivalent of Calc BC, Physics C/B (depending on your baccalaureate choice)</p>
<p>Oh, BTW, Calc BC (and most other AP subjects) is much easier than HS math at the Baccalaureate (the material covered is the same, but the problems are simply more challenging).
"Pharma employers consider them equal" They probably have good reasons to do so.</p>
<p>Actually most "pharma" employers recognize the difference between a brit (i.e. 3 year) PhD and a US 6 year. But that's not really the point. either the brit grad or the US grad will do a postdoc before a decent pharma job. So that's another sorting point. If the quicky brit PhD is really as good as the US PhD, that will be apparent in the post doc. If not, they'll spend more time "finishing" as a post-doc.</p>
<p>But even the 3 year brit PhD is not a direct comparison to a US PhD, as the brits start their PhD programs with more directly related coursework having been taken as an undergrad. </p>
<p>Frankly, it is tough to compare any country's postgrad education to any others, as the approaches and standards vary so much. That may be one reason why so many folks from Europe still come to the US for postdocs?</p>