<p>So I actually have a JD and have worked in the legal field for a while, but I'm ready to do a bit of 360. I have a strong passion for neuroscience and excel in science and mathematics, so I'm thinking about returning to school to pursue a second career in something relating to that field. Specifically, I want to do work that aids in the diagnosis, treatment, and understanding of neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's and MS. My main issue is this: I know that the average graduate student ends up doing mind numbing postdoc work, playing politics, and publishing papers about mice models for questions the general public is largely unaffected by. </p>
<p>I don't care about salary, I've got plenty of cash saved up -- my sole goal at this point is to be able to help move, however humbly, toward a better world for people with neuro diseases. What do you think the best degree option would be for me to attain that goal with the least amount of **<strong><em>/politicking/meaningless work? Would something like Biomedical Engineering with a specialty in Neural Engineering be preferable to a Ph.D in Neuroscience? Would I have more flexibility and power to say "no *</em></strong>*" if I had that practical and ever-in-demand engineering aspect to my education? Would a computer science/computational neuroscience route have a similar effect? Or would I be better served if I had an MD along with a Ph.D? Either path would be interesting to me. I have a strong interest in engineering and wouldn't be opposed to doing a little clinical work either. But my end goal is what truly drives me -- I want to make progress against neurological disease. I realize that all of these are severe time commitments, but I'm still relatively young and I'm not willing to let go of this dream. Give me your musings, brutal honesty, and criticisms, please.</p>
<p>Least amount of meaningless work? MD. Direct impact on patients and don’t forget, $$$$$$. You say you have enough saved up, but unless you’re 65 and it’s over $250k, you need to keep earning.</p>
<p>I realize that an MD would streamline my ability to care for patients, which is attractive, but I also have a strong interest in the research aspect of it. I want to contribute to the understanding and ability to fight the diseases more than anything else. I understand that it is possible to do research and get funded for it with an MD, but I know that is the exception and not the rule. If at all possible, I’d like a career path that would gear me more towards meaningful research. And I realize that eventually I’d have to be earning cash; I’m just saying I have enough saved up to put me through the training years, especially if I were in a Ph.D program that paid for my doctoral years and gave me a small stipend.</p>
<p>Could you stand doing the legal work for a biotech firm that works on these topics? Or do you really want to be in the lab or dealing directly with patients?</p>
<p>Assuming that you have the prerequisites for a neuroscience program (other than just being good at science), I recommend the PhD in neuroscience for what you want to do. If you specialize in clinical neuroscience, then you could go into research academia or work at NIH or a research/biotech company – provided they were doing neuroscience research, of course. The MD/PhD is an option, although it takes longer and has different admissions criteria than a straight PhD program.</p>
<p>Your interests are too varied right now; however, I expect that they will be more focused after you’ve studied neuroscience and gotten some research experience. Approaches to neuroscience are diverse, and you won’t get admitted to a program until you’ve already determined which niche you wish to explore. If you haven’t already, read the Graduate Admissions 101 thread, paying particular attention to Molliebatmit, who is a graduate student in neuroscience at Harvard.</p>
<p>Your statement “I know that the average graduate student ends up doing mind numbing postdoc work, playing politics, and publishing papers about mice models for questions the general public is largely unaffected by” demonstrates some naivet</p>
<p>* I understand that it is possible to do research and get funded for it with an MD, but I know that is the exception and not the rule*</p>
<p>Actually, that’s only because most MDs go to medical school with the intent of become practitioners, not researchers. It’s very very possible to become a researcher with an MD; it’s not that it’s hypercompetitive to break into research but more so that people’s interests generally lie elsewhere.</p>
<p>But I do advocate the neuroscience or neuropsychology PhD moreso than the MD. The PhD is the primary research degree.</p>
<p>I also agree with MWFN. NS graduate students work on real problems with real impact on people’s lives (even if it’s at a more basic level), and postdocs have even more of an involvement in that process.</p>
<p>*My main issue is this: I know that the average graduate student ends up doing mind numbing postdoc work, playing politics, and publishing papers about mice models for questions the general public is largely unaffected by. *</p>
<p>You do realize that animal models are the first step in any decent disease research? You can’t just do research willy-nilly with humans; you have to prove that you’ve tested the model in animal models before you can even begin with human subjects. The public isn’t “largely unaffected” by mice model research; it’s the basis for virtually every medical treatment we have out there (with the exception of some psychological ones).</p>
<p>Every job has it’s politics and no scientist does work that’s 100% applicable directly to the general public. You gotta pay your dues in any field.</p>
<p>It’s pretty difficult to be an entry level position in Neuroscience with out having a degree in Psychology or Neuroscience. I just read a lot of Psychological/Neuroscience books to help get into it. I’m majoring in both and I would suggest reading books and taking more classes.</p>