<p>So right now I'm planning on majoring in Neuroscience in the fall (as a freshman). I'm not exactly sure where I want to go with it. I'm very interested in doing research but I'm worried or rather confused on what I type of job I would have with a PhD in science. I am also considering MD and have been for a while, but I don't know yet if medicine is for me. I will be doing some clinical volunteer work soon so that might help.</p>
<p>So it would be really helpful if someone could please explain to me what I would be doing with a PhD in Neuroscience if I'm interested in research. I'm not too particularly interested in becoming a professor.</p>
<p>If you're on the fence about it, the choice is easy, go with the MD. MDs make in 1 year what PhDs make in 5. I have a feeling, though, that the money is why you're on the fence about it and in that case, I would recommend you go with the PhD. Unless you have a passion for both of them equally, or close enough that the extra money can make up for it, you are better off just doing what you enjoy. Forget the money for now and just think about it like this:</p>
<p>Would you rather...</p>
<ol>
<li>help a person using well known techniques?</li>
</ol>
<p>or</p>
<ol>
<li>come up with an original idea that helps entire demographics of people?</li>
</ol>
<p>Whether a PhD makes nearly equivalent salary or not really depends on several factors; their place of work (academia vs Industry), years of experience beyond their degree, specialization, the grade/level within each institution they are at (which corresponds to the level of responsibility they have within that organization). Of course a VP and a Global Head of Neuroscience (whether he is MD or a PhD or an MD/PhD) would make much more money than anyone else in the lower rungs of the ladder.</p>
<p>A PhD with several years of experience placed in R&D can make salaries comparable to say a neurologist, if they are at the IPTL (International Project Team Leader) level. However a neurosurgeon perhaps makes much more money than any PhD researcher at Industry or academia.</p>
<p>I think the key question should be - where do your passions lie? If it is in clinical work, then pursue an MD. </p>
<p>If you are interested in clinical research and are particularly squeemish about the sight of blood and long hours, then PhD neuroscience would be a great option.</p>
<p>Another question should be would you rather:
1. Have a very difficult but known path ahead of you.
or
2. Have no set path in front of you, instead having to find your own way with no guarantees you will.</p>
<p>I just looked it up and, you're right, it's not true. The truth is, on average, a PhD in neurology makes $102k and an MD in neurology makes $167k. The third option is to get your PhD/MD and the average salary here is $164k. I'm very surpried that the MD only makes $65k more than the PhD.</p>
<p>Well I'm not squeemish about the sight of blood and I really do enjoy helping people. However, the reason I was leaning more towards PhD is because I feel like I would be wasting my passion for neuroscience with medicine. I'm not saying helping one person is a waste, but I would much rather help discover something that could help millions of people; thus this is why I am interested in research. The only thing about research that scares me however, is that I really don't know what I do after I graduate. I mean like uvajack mentioned, medicine has a pretty set path. I'm the type that prefers to know where I'm going before I get there...</p>
<p>How's funding for PhD research? I've been reading that it is very tough to get funding for the field of your interest with a PhD than someone with an MD.</p>
<p>On another discussion topic, someone stated salary.com's data was actually accurate. But now I am once more confused why rkbgt's data does not match at all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, the reason I was leaning more towards PhD is because I feel like I would be wasting my passion for neuroscience with medicine. I'm not saying helping one person is a waste, but I would much rather help discover something that could help millions of people; thus this is why I am interested in research. The only thing about research that scares me however, is that I really don't know what I do after I graduate. I mean like uvajack mentioned, medicine has a pretty set path. I'm the type that prefers to know where I'm going before I get there...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You can still do research as an MD. Many medical schools are heavily research-oriented. If you think it's too risky to go to grad school, I think this would be a good option.</p>
<p>rkbgt's statistics are different than salary.com's statistics on neurologists' base salary (salary without bonuses, stipends, profit dividends, etc):
Salary.com’s Salary Wizard™- Do you know what you're worth?</p>
<p>And for neurosurgeons it is even more (a lot more, to be exact): Salary.com’s Salary Wizard™- Do you know what you're worth?</p>
<p>On another discussion topic, someone stated salary.com's data was actually accurate. But now I am once more confused why rkbgt's data does not match at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Its hard to look as salaries and figure out what you will make. There are many variables that will factor into that number. Are you working in private practice vs. academic medicine? Location? Are you working in the more desirable locations (Boston, San Francisco, NYC, Chicago, etc) or the middle of no where? The middle of no where jobs tend to pay more because no one wants to work there. How many patients do you see? That will effect the about of reimbursement you get. How many hours do you work? As for the website you posted brainmetrix, its based on living in NYC and we all now that NYC has a high cost of living so physicians might get paid a little more to compensate for that.</p>
<p>I just chose NYC because that is where I live. But still, your point that the pay for NYC docs is higher due to higher costs of living falls flat on its face since doctors in the middle of nowhere, where the living costs are comparatively lower, still get paid very highly since as you pointed nobody wants to work there. Therefore, I believe we can ignore location as a variable for now.</p>
<p>I agree with you on all other matters; but still, the numbers from rkbgt's source and my source, which take the demographic of docs as a whole, are still very much different. Such is what I don't quite understand.</p>
<p>Two items of good news. 1. You have plenty of time. 2. You will spend most of your college career doing the same things whether you want to do medicine or research.</p>
<p>Make sure you structure your program so that you take all the MD prerequisites. This should be easy since so many neuroscience majors are premed, but the requirements for your major will not necessarily fulfill the letter of the law for medicine. </p>
<p>Then dive into your studies, try out research, and see where your interests lie. In a few years you should have a much better idea of where you want to go.</p>
Haha, Pharmagal, I'm a PhD student in neuroscience and I still have to cut off mouse heads! I don't get to avoid blood just because I'm not an MD. :)</p>
<p>
Funding for the actual course of the PhD is more or less assured -- all programs fund tuition and a living stipend, mostly from NIH money, for their students. I'm making enough to live on as a neuroscience graduate student.</p>
<p>Funding for independent labs (once you've completed your PhD and most likely a postdoctoral fellowship) is definitely difficult to find, but that's true whether you have an MD, a PhD, or an MD/PhD.</p>
<p>Have you ever had to research something you did not want or find interest in or are you able to do research in what you actually want? I hear this is sometimes a problem.</p>
<p>i'd have to say that until you're out of your postdoc, you probably won't get to research exactly what you want. of course when you're a professor you can do whatever you want to, provided you have the grant money.</p>
<p>Some like working in industry and some have had absolutely horrible experiences. It's hard to have autonomy in industry and most of the work you're doing will be strictly dictated by the CSO and your managers...or for that matter, everyone above you. Private companies are profit-driven and results oriented and that doesn't always gel with research. Research obviously takes time and money and results are never guaranteed. I know that this situation is exacerbated at small start-up biotechs but I have also heard of people at well-established companies that truly succeed and make their six-figures without much stress.</p>
<p>A worthy alternative to all of this is a government research institution. My uncle works for the FDA after having worked for literally half a dozen biotech companies and is now loving his job. Comparable salaries, less stress in terms of work hours, and relative autonomy are some of the benefits. Not to mention job security...</p>