3 answers
1
Question
Updated
267 views
I am a freshman in University pursuing a Neuroscience degree. My question is for those with master degrees, medical doctor degrees, or Phd's. What is the best way to decide which post graduate path to take How do you decide between Phd, Masters, or MD? What are the differences and important things to know about each path? #Spring26?
I am super interested in research but I also want to help people directly or indirectly in the future. #Spring26
Login to comment
3 answers
Updated
Elizabeth’s Answer
Hi Mia I had to make the same decision in college. I had a couple of mentors who were PhD’s who encouraged me to get an MD because it offers more flexibility. With an MD you can be a full time researcher or a full time doctor or a mix of both. With a PhD you can’t switch and work as a doctor if things don’t work out with your research. That’s basically what they told me and I think it was good advice.
Updated
Yolanda’s Answer
I decided to obtain my PhD after graduating with my PharmD. I did this because of my love for research. You need to decide what your passion is and fellow that. Make a pros and cons list for each different role. Speak to people in those different roles and ask them why they chose that profession. I didn't choose the medical field because my father is a doctor and I saw the lack of work-life balance. But that could be different now depending on what type of doctor you want to become. In my situation I received a stipend while in grad school and my program was free. So for me it was an easy decision. So I hope this helps and gives you some guidance on how to decide your future career.
Updated
Joseph’s Answer
I work in a different area of science, and thus can't comment on neuroscience or MD degrees specifically - however I can give my thoughts and experience on the question of postgrad pathways more generally.
There's an old adage that goes something like "A Bachelor's degree teaches you what is known; a Master's degree teaches you how to actually practice in the field; and a PhD teaches you how to find out" - it's a gross simplification, but I think there's a lot of truth to it. There's of course a whole load of other questions - education vs worked experience; direct entry PhD from undergrad vs Masters into PhD; taught Masters vs Masters by Research; PhD as a qualification vs as a route to academia, teaching, and professorship; etc etc, but it's a good starting point to guide your thoughts.
Although I've said I can't really speak to the medical side of things myself, my feeling is that an equivalent adage would go something like ""A BSc teaches you how the body works; an MSc teaches you how the body breaks; a PhD teaches you how to discover for yourself or maybe to teach; while an MD teaches you how to keep the body alive."
From my personal experience, I wanted to get out into industry and actually "do", so I originally thought stopping at Masters was the right thing for me. That worked well for the first 10 years of my career; but I've since moved in a more research direction within a national lab environment, and found that for the research side of things, although I've got a good practical knowledge and experience, I'm still considered underqualified in some situations - so I've recently gone back to academia, starting a part-time PhD. Although it's great to be employer supported in a part-time PhD route, it's pretty uncommon, and had I known my career trajectory back then, I'd have aimed to stay on for full-time PhD instead before moving into industry.
Given your stated interest in research; I would have thought PhD would likely be your primary route to consider, whether by direct entry or Masters into PhD. However, I see other answers that suggest MD into research is also potentially a good route too, so one to have a think about too.
There's an old adage that goes something like "A Bachelor's degree teaches you what is known; a Master's degree teaches you how to actually practice in the field; and a PhD teaches you how to find out" - it's a gross simplification, but I think there's a lot of truth to it. There's of course a whole load of other questions - education vs worked experience; direct entry PhD from undergrad vs Masters into PhD; taught Masters vs Masters by Research; PhD as a qualification vs as a route to academia, teaching, and professorship; etc etc, but it's a good starting point to guide your thoughts.
Although I've said I can't really speak to the medical side of things myself, my feeling is that an equivalent adage would go something like ""A BSc teaches you how the body works; an MSc teaches you how the body breaks; a PhD teaches you how to discover for yourself or maybe to teach; while an MD teaches you how to keep the body alive."
From my personal experience, I wanted to get out into industry and actually "do", so I originally thought stopping at Masters was the right thing for me. That worked well for the first 10 years of my career; but I've since moved in a more research direction within a national lab environment, and found that for the research side of things, although I've got a good practical knowledge and experience, I'm still considered underqualified in some situations - so I've recently gone back to academia, starting a part-time PhD. Although it's great to be employer supported in a part-time PhD route, it's pretty uncommon, and had I known my career trajectory back then, I'd have aimed to stay on for full-time PhD instead before moving into industry.
Given your stated interest in research; I would have thought PhD would likely be your primary route to consider, whether by direct entry or Masters into PhD. However, I see other answers that suggest MD into research is also potentially a good route too, so one to have a think about too.