Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

medical school grads who do a masters after finishing


Recommended Posts

hi everyone

 

i am a final year undergrad student and i have noticed that a lot of med school students go into clinical research after they finish up medical school, and will do a masters for 2 years

 

i was wondering if someone could shed light on what benefits there are to doing this. of course, to be a clinician scientist you'd need a PhD or a post-doc after that masters - but what is it about having a masters after med school that draws in so many people?

 

better job prospects?

better chances at gaining entry into a competitive residency program?

 

or is it simply because they are interested in it and that's why they are doing it?

 

i'd appreciate any input, thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Financially, it's better to do it after med than during or before. You'll be paid a resident's salary, so you'll have a liveable income as opposed to some $20,000 stipend half of which will be going to cover tuition. I think they pay your tuition for you, as well (but I'm not 100% sure on that). I've heard some departments expect you to finish at least a master's to get a position. If you look through the job ads for university specialist positions in the CMAJ, most of them will strongly suggest or require an MSc in addition to an MD. That said, I think most people do it either because they have a genuine interest in research on a certain topic or because their program essentially makes them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it matters much. But I think many who do a masters during residency do something related to their speciality on some level. Before med school it is 150% impossible to deterine what you will end up doing. So don't even think about matching your post-grad degree with your future medical work on a 1:1 basis.

 

Also note that we are talking about more than just a MSc. Other common post-grad degrees matched with an MD are MBA's, MEd., and MPH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody needs to do a masters. Many do it out of interest. Commonly earned Masters degrees include MPH, MHSc, and MSc--these are the epi degrees and are geared toward those who want to do research. They're all pretty much the same. At UBC, for instance, most general surgery residents do an MHSc because their program is six years long (one year longer than most) and their program director strongly believes in the MHSc and being evidence-based. The basic courses in each degree are the same and there are electives in each degree tailored to your interest. The MHSc is for MDs, DVMs and DMD/DDS's only. For me, I am in the MPH program because it is more recognized than the MHSc, but they essentially are the same.

 

I always tell medical students that the most important courses they will learn in 1st and 2nd years are the epi courses. You will not remember the Krebs cycle as a family doc. You will not remember the mechanism of anti-hypertensives as a psychiatrist. You will not remember cardiovascular physiology if you are a dermatologist. But in every field of medicine, you will need to know what sensitivity and specificity mean. It will help if you have a good grasp of what positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and likelihood ratios are. Knowing how to apply tests to your patients is crucial to every field of medicine.

 

If you were like me and my classmates though, you will probably blow them off but these courses really are the underpinning of all of medicine. No matter what field you go into, if you have a good grasp of epi, you can not only do research, but appraise research in your field, learn to apply tests correctly, and generally help you with your medical decision making. It is shocking how many doctors out there have no grasp of epi, thereby ordering useless tests and often interpreting them incorrectly. Or they blindly believe any research that comes out. Or worse yet, they attempt to conduct research with poor methodologies and wrong interpretation of results. Just because it's published does not make it true. As a resident in family med, I had to run a review session with a family doc-geriatrician attending because she wanted to do research and wanted to understand what basic epi was.

 

These masters degrees are intended for those who want to make research a big part of their career. You don't need a PhD to do clinical research or even to get a position at an academic center. But you do need a good grasp of epi, beyond what is taught in med school, or what is taught in med school is reinforced 10 fold. Granted you can learn a lot of this on your own but not many do. Thus, many go for these course-based Masters degrees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong, many clinician scientists (doing both fundamental and clinical research) are md msc. It is true though that there are more clinician scientists with md PhD.

 

Very few MDs have PhDs as well. Getting a PhD when you have an MD is a waste of time if you ask me. It really doesn't add a whole lot to your tools at your disposal unless you want to do basic science research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody needs to do a masters. Many do it out of interest. Commonly earned Masters degrees include MPH, MHSc, and MSc--these are the epi degrees and are geared toward those who want to do research. They're all pretty much the same. At UBC, for instance, most general surgery residents do an MHSc because their program is six years long (one year longer than most) and their program director strongly believes in the MHSc and being evidence-based. The basic courses in each degree are the same and there are electives in each degree tailored to your interest. The MHSc is for MDs, DVMs and DMD/DDS's only. For me, I am in the MPH program because it is more recognized than the MHSc, but they essentially are the same.

 

I always tell medical students that the most important courses they will learn in 1st and 2nd years are the epi courses. You will not remember the Krebs cycle as a family doc. You will not remember the mechanism of anti-hypertensives as a psychiatrist. You will not remember cardiovascular physiology if you are a dermatologist. But in every field of medicine, you will need to know what sensitivity and specificity mean. It will help if you have a good grasp of what positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and likelihood ratios are. Knowing how to apply tests to your patients is crucial to every field of medicine.

 

If you were like me and my classmates though, you will probably blow them off but these courses really are the underpinning of all of medicine. No matter what field you go into, if you have a good grasp of epi, you can not only do research, but appraise research in your field, learn to apply tests correctly, and generally help you with your medical decision making. It is shocking how many doctors out there have no grasp of epi, thereby ordering useless tests and often interpreting them incorrectly. Or they blindly believe any research that comes out. Or worse yet, they attempt to conduct research with poor methodologies and wrong interpretation of results. Just because it's published does not make it true. As a resident in family med, I had to run a review session with a family doc-geriatrician attending because she wanted to do research and wanted to understand what basic epi was.

 

These masters degrees are intended for those who want to make research a big part of their career. You don't need a PhD to do clinical research or even to get a position at an academic center. But you do need a good grasp of epi, beyond what is taught in med school, or what is taught in med school is reinforced 10 fold. Granted you can learn a lot of this on your own but not many do. Thus, many go for these course-based Masters degrees.

 

That bolded part is big, great point and great overall post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm.... i do know if u go into gen surg and most other surg specialties u need a masters to get a job in an academic centre... at least thats what they said at a surg talk yesterday... a lot of research extensive specialties (neuro, psych, immunology etc don't need masters)... beyond that i couldn't tell u much more

 

hi everyone

 

i am a final year undergrad student and i have noticed that a lot of med school students go into clinical research after they finish up medical school, and will do a masters for 2 years

 

i was wondering if someone could shed light on what benefits there are to doing this. of course, to be a clinician scientist you'd need a PhD or a post-doc after that masters - but what is it about having a masters after med school that draws in so many people?

 

better job prospects?

better chances at gaining entry into a competitive residency program?

 

or is it simply because they are interested in it and that's why they are doing it?

 

i'd appreciate any input, thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thats what i heard yesterday, if u do ur MSc u get paid a residents salary, so by the time youre a pgy5 u get paid a 7th yr salary, at least in surg

 

Financially, it's better to do it after med than during or before. You'll be paid a resident's salary, so you'll have a liveable income as opposed to some $20,000 stipend half of which will be going to cover tuition. I think they pay your tuition for you, as well (but I'm not 100% sure on that). I've heard some departments expect you to finish at least a master's to get a position. If you look through the job ads for university specialist positions in the CMAJ, most of them will strongly suggest or require an MSc in addition to an MD. That said, I think most people do it either because they have a genuine interest in research on a certain topic or because their program essentially makes them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear a masters in Med Education is pretty hot... MBA's are supposed to be fine too... I think anything that makes you stand out to an academic centre really

 

 

Does it need to be related to your chosen specialty or would it still help if you had a masters in a different field prior to med school??
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're so right, my degree was social science/sciences based and I did lots of advanced stats and research methodology courses and I'm surprised at how naive some clinicians are of basic research methodology.

 

 

Nobody needs to do a masters. Many do it out of interest. Commonly earned Masters degrees include MPH, MHSc, and MSc--these are the epi degrees and are geared toward those who want to do research. They're all pretty much the same. At UBC, for instance, most general surgery residents do an MHSc because their program is six years long (one year longer than most) and their program director strongly believes in the MHSc and being evidence-based. The basic courses in each degree are the same and there are electives in each degree tailored to your interest. The MHSc is for MDs, DVMs and DMD/DDS's only. For me, I am in the MPH program because it is more recognized than the MHSc, but they essentially are the same.

 

I always tell medical students that the most important courses they will learn in 1st and 2nd years are the epi courses. You will not remember the Krebs cycle as a family doc. You will not remember the mechanism of anti-hypertensives as a psychiatrist. You will not remember cardiovascular physiology if you are a dermatologist. But in every field of medicine, you will need to know what sensitivity and specificity mean. It will help if you have a good grasp of what positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and likelihood ratios are. Knowing how to apply tests to your patients is crucial to every field of medicine.

 

If you were like me and my classmates though, you will probably blow them off but these courses really are the underpinning of all of medicine. No matter what field you go into, if you have a good grasp of epi, you can not only do research, but appraise research in your field, learn to apply tests correctly, and generally help you with your medical decision making. It is shocking how many doctors out there have no grasp of epi, thereby ordering useless tests and often interpreting them incorrectly. Or they blindly believe any research that comes out. Or worse yet, they attempt to conduct research with poor methodologies and wrong interpretation of results. Just because it's published does not make it true. As a resident in family med, I had to run a review session with a family doc-geriatrician attending because she wanted to do research and wanted to understand what basic epi was.

 

These masters degrees are intended for those who want to make research a big part of their career. You don't need a PhD to do clinical research or even to get a position at an academic center. But you do need a good grasp of epi, beyond what is taught in med school, or what is taught in med school is reinforced 10 fold. Granted you can learn a lot of this on your own but not many do. Thus, many go for these course-based Masters degrees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

These masters degrees are intended for those who want to make research a big part of their career. You don't need a PhD to do clinical research or even to get a position at an academic center. But you do need a good grasp of epi, beyond what is taught in med school, or what is taught in med school is reinforced 10 fold. Granted you can learn a lot of this on your own but not many do. Thus, many go for these course-based Masters degrees.

 

Excellent post moo, thanks for the info! Now I have a question for you ;)

 

I'm the kind of person who always needs to be learning something. In a few weeks I will be hearing back from the medical schools and if I'm successful (I'm optimistic about this) I would like to start doing some light prep work to give me a head start. I have had a few current medical student recommend that I do not try to refresh on medicine & basic sciences the summer before 1st year (I have been graduated for 2 years now so I imagine a lot of this is already rusty). I am wondering if you feel it would be very advantagous to study foundations of epidemiology before starting 1st year medical school or if this would be a waste of time right now.

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent post moo, thanks for the info! Now I have a question for you ;)

 

I'm the kind of person who always needs to be learning something. In a few weeks I will be hearing back from the medical schools and if I'm successful (I'm optimistic about this) I would like to start doing some light prep work to give me a head start. I have had a few current medical student recommend that I do not try to refresh on medicine & basic sciences the summer before 1st year (I have been graduated for 2 years now so I imagine a lot of this is already rusty). I am wondering if you feel it would be very advantagous to study foundations of epidemiology before starting 1st year medical school or if this would be a waste of time right now.

 

Thanks!

 

I'm not master moo but since you're writing a public forum I'll give you my opinion: it's a waste of time. Also, most schools cover epidemiology in 2nd year.

 

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if you need a Bachelor's degree to get a Master's, or is finishing Medical School considered an equivalent to an Undergraduate degree?

 

Medical school is considered an undergraduate degree even though you get a doctorate. So, yes, completing medical school would make you eligible for a masters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...