<p>I was lookin at some salaries (Don't worry, its not my primary concern, theres enough threads on the ethics of entering medicine for money..) </p>
<p>and it seemed that the salary for a Nephrologist was the same as the salary for a regular MD, but you have to go to school for 5 more years. AM i on the wrong site, or is that just funky? </p>
<p>155 thousand it says typical salary for a physician, and a nephrologist makes around the same, maybe 165 thousand if im correct. that seems a little weird if you ask me.</p>
<p>A general internist (think a pediatrician but for adults) has a residency of 3 years. A nephrologist would require that same three year residency, followed by 2 more years of fellowship training specifically in nephrology. so it's only two more years. I don't know what to tell you about the salaries except that it is typically a highly variable situation with a lot of factors that play into what actual salaries are and how they're reported...</p>
<p>The thing is that after medical school EVERYONE (with a few, numerically insignificant exceptions) will undergo residency training in order to be brought up to speed on how to be that type of doctor - even if they are quote " a regular MD". </p>
<p>Basically the medical school curriculum teaches you the very basics of being a doctor - the first two years teaching you the science behind medicine (year one - normal processes and structure, year two - diagnosis, disease processes, pharmacology) along with some of the very basic clinical skills (how to interview a patient, how to do a physical exam, how to write out a history and physical, how to write a SOAP note). Year three is the application portion where you are taking that knowledge, filtering out the extra crap and putting it to actual use in the clinic. It a very synergistic process in the third year. The fourth year is pretty much aimed at finding a residency, taking some unique courses and basically counting down the days until graduation. The point though is that you aren't ready to be a doctor on your own. You don't have enough knowledge or skill to see patients without someone checking your work. So you have residency which develops the knowledge base, skill set and so on so that you can practice. If you want to delve more specifically into a field like nephrology, then you need even more training.</p>
<p>thanks alot. I have some other questions that i was hoping you would answer. Its off topic, i know. Its about majoring in philosophy. I don't quite know how the system works. i know the few prerequs i need.
1 year of Biology with lab
1 year of Inorganic Chemistry with lab
1 year of Organic Chemistry with lab
1 year of English
1 year of calculus </p>
<p>but just taking those is the bear minimum right, I would need to take more do you think? Also. About that, in order to get into med school do you need to volunteer alot and do extra curricular activiites and what not? or grades and MCATS good enough.</p>
<p>1.) Taking those is indeed the bare (notice spelling) minimum, but... well, the minimum is defined as the time when you don't "need" to take more. (But I recommend some extra bio, as has been covered in other threads.)</p>
<p>yes, bare minimum is acceptable. Consider a science minor if you are really worried. Being a humanities or other non-science major gives you a greater latitude in picking the extra science courses you choose to pursue. You can find the classes with the great profs or the intriguing subject matter without taking a lot of courses you don't find interesting. </p>
<p>I was a bio minor which did require a couple classes I didn't want to take, but I was excited for the genetics and ecology/evolution courses, so taking an extra class I had no interest wasnt' bad. Not having any chem requirements beyond inorganic, organic and biochem meant that I could take a 1 hour honors chem seminar in cosmic chemistry no problem and just let that be my only extra chem. But again, the point is that you get to pick what the extras are and they can be things you're excited to take.</p>