<p>any suggestions on who should do MD, who should do MD/PhD, and who should do PhD? i really like the research and clinical sides of medicine, but i don't know which would be more enjoyable...</p>
<p>do you guys know what the typical day/week is like for each of the 3 types of professionals?</p>
<p>my suggestion is that before you set yourself on one of the paths do some clinical shadowing and some lab research. You might also want to try getting involved in some clinical research. This will give you a taste of the different fields. Some MDs do clinical research, so if you find yourself interested in that, you wouldn't need an MD/PhD. </p>
<p>But you definitely need to gain some first hand exposure before making any decisions. Neither clinical work nor lab bench work is what it may seem like in theory. You really need to get your hands dirty. </p>
<p>I'm not entirely sure I can generalize about the time committments of all 3 types because there are a lot of variables. I think it's fair to say that they're all busy though.</p>
<p>Yeah, there's a lot of variation (in work and in personalities) within each profession. Try to ask around (here's a good start if someone who has one of those degrees can respond to you), read about them, and get a few tastes of each... as for "who" should do each one... probably don't have to worry about it too much. I think it's easier to find a personality niche when you're satisfied with the actual work you're doing every day, rather than try to enjoy doing work you hate, even when you fit the "typical profile" of the profession.</p>
<p>thanks for the great advice! i've actually shadowed a few MD's and am still continuing to do so and i work in a research lab...i'm just not sure which i'm interested in :confused:</p>
<p>as far as the "typical profile," sar, i was referring more to the type of work...i've heard before that people interested only in clinical work should stick to just MD while ppl who are only interested in research should just stick to PhD, but i'm confused about what the double degree would entail...any suggestions?</p>
<p>a double degree is for those who are interested in both, basically. However, you might not end up doing much of the actual benchwork if you are an MD/PhD. The MD/PhD who is the P.I. of the lab I currently work with NEVER does any of the actual experiemnts, he simply takes care of administrational stuff and discusses problems/ideas with his henchmen. All of his time during the week is spent on clinical work. I'm not sure that this is the way it always works, but this is my personal experience. But if you are equally interested in both, then I would still think an MD/PhD is worth looking into.</p>
<p>MD/PhD will put you at some advantage in grant-writing while you are a young researcher. (Eventually, the degree matters less because people assess you based on your actual accomplishments.)</p>
<p>The education itself is very useful. You can imagine that studying medical research would be easier if you've actually been trained as a physician. This advantage is not worth the extra three-ish years, but it is somewhat of an advantage.</p>
<p>It gives you the flexibility to see patients if you like. A slight majority of the MD/PhD's I've seen do not -- but some do and in any case they all could.</p>
<p>It might help in the pursuit of an academic position eventually.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It might help in the pursuit of an academic position eventually.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>true, but from what I've heard, if you want to be a lecturer or something in a med school, an MD degree will suffice. In other words, don't get an MD/PhD just because it may help you gain an academic position--that's almost a non-issue.</p>
<p>I agree. None of those reasons on their own justify the extra time. The desire for the education combined with the flexibility to see patients are the two key factors.</p>
<p>In other words, if you want a reseach-dominated career with time set aside to see patients, an MD/PhD is the way to go. Otherwise, just pick one or the other.</p>