Today I met with a neuro fellow at my institution. It turned out that I had actually seen her before, and she remembered me from one my neuro rotations over the past few years.
She does health services research in neurology, specifically on dr-pt communication with patients and families with neurodegenerative illnesses. Her experience with her department was consistent with my impression -- that most of the faculty here do basic science, or maaaayyyybe translational research. A lot of them didn't really understand health services research. That being said, they seemed to be at least somewhat supportive of her career path. She also said that her area of research was growing, even if most neurologists here didn't "get it" and that sooner or later they probably would.
I guess we'll wait and see. She enters the job market this year. I'm not sure she's going to end up pursuing a research career, or even a career in academic medicine. A lot is up in the air for her, and I got the sense that she isn't exactly sure which way to take things. I wonder how things will go for her given that she's a little different than your typical neurologist.
She also recommended specific people to talk with in her department who shared her interests.
In any event, she was completely awesome to talk with (as have been almost all neurologists I've met here at [my institution]) and made me miss neurology. It was also really interesting to hear her perspective on the field she researches, on the hospital hierarchy, and on different pathways that people take in neurology. She also made me think that neuro- critical- care might really be a viable option for me. At very least, these patients don't die *quite* as often as they do in the MICU.
I'm really curious to see where her career takes her, especially considering how unique her interests are in her specialty.
3 Pearls of Wisdom:
I like the field. After 12 years, I still enjoy what I do. Some areas interest me more than others, but I like them all.
Intellectually challenging enough to keep it interesting.
Enough variety to keep it from getting tedious.
Enough treatment options to make it fulfilling (the old BS that we can diagnose, but not help people, is a crock. There are incurable disease in any field).
Enough procedures to make it interesting.
I'm happy here. It fits me.
Question for you, OMDG: As I've told you before, I'm looking at doing a dual degree program in med school, probably a Master's in Bioethics with the MD since I already have a law degree and am very interested in Bioethics research. However, I'm also looking into MPH programs (which, let's face it, are way more common than the Master's in Bioethics programs--although the schools that do have the Bioethics Master's are really excellent). It seems like MPH programs are way heavy in biostats and epidemiology. So, a personal question for you: why did you decide to do the much-longer MSTP program and not an MD/MPH? Obviously there are the financial incentives to MSTP, which are obvious. And the prestige. But is the kind of research you'll be doing with an epi PhD very different from that of the MPH students? Just curious.
Snakes -- MPH *can* have some biostats and epi in it, but it can also be a completely bullshit degree.
Also, MPH I would have to pay for. Why would I do an MPH when 2 more years buys me a PhD, vastly more credible training, and free tuition plus stipend?
I'm tired of having to explain how a masters degree is not the same thing as a doctorate. If you really think they are comparable, then I really don't know what to say to you. The fellowship students who get masters degrees in my department have to undertake additional training when they get their K awards to make them even passably competent researchers. Sure, some people don't. I would argue that their research suffers for it.
Post a Comment