Thread: Med school instead of nanoscience?

Hello!

At the moment I am starting studies at a university in the field of physics, nanoscience as my program. There's one "but" though; the employment and paycheck of a researcher. They aren't very good in the beginning and might never be really good. I am thinking of going to med school instead, since that way it would be easy and secure to get a well-paid job in the future.

The funding isn't a problem, education is near-free in Finland, where I live. I've got the brain and patience to pass the exams to get to the med school, most likely next year when it's possible to apply again.

My question is, is it worth the extra effort? I sort of "lose" a year this way, but then it would be much more secure future, without the need to work abroad (it'd be more like an option than a must). I've got firy passion for both physics and medicine ever since 7th grade, I just happened to choose physics in the first place.

I'd also appreciate general thoughts and experiences of the doctors career, as well as researchers.

Thank you.

The funding isn't a problem, education is near-free in Finland, where I live.

Glad you mentioned this, was beginning to wonder why two young folks from Finland ask basically the same questions in two days.

I've followed Nanotechnology, for about 7 years, from the investment side and feel it holds a great future and not exactly had a bad past, but...

I'd also appreciate general thoughts and experiences of the doctors career, as well as researchers.

I have NO experience, in either actually, but I can't imagine a more productive life than Medicine and working with people on a daily basis on their major needs in life, their health. If as you say, passing exams etc., is no problem you are also displaying confidence in your own abilities and much needed in any successful career. I hate seeing science being deprived of your talents, but then people take priority over science in my mind any day of the week....Oh, and that near free education, in the US could cost you 200,000 US$, that's worth considering.
Then where you practice, the US, Europe or anyplace is for the most part up to you, unless that "near free" as an obligation.

"Near-free" doesn't mean any obligation. Education in Finland is more like 100€ a year, and that's to cover the student priviledges (such as cheap public transportation). Education itself is free.

I would most likely enjoy either career, but at the moment I feel like I'd be getting a more secure future if I chose medicine instead of physics. I've never even considered any other career than these two, so I have put a lot of thought into these. In nanoscience it will easily take 8-10 years to get a "real" job, but it would be at the university with a poor salary, atleast until the Ph.D. As a doctor you get your license after 6 years and then you can work on a lot better paying job while you specialize in a field of medicine at the same time.

I've always been interested in neurology and neurochirurgie. Any experiences on this field specially?

It seems the US and Finland, have different infrastructures for both obtaining and training/education. Specialized fields related to Science are often subsidized by business, of which Nanotech, probably is to the highest percentage. 3M, Microsoft, IBM and many major Corporations (Worldwide) will offer scholarships, often with paid internships on premise (generally after two years) during summer vacations and a Job Offer on completion of the Schooling/Education. These same Corporation or related organizations (Trust Funds) will also sponsor/build special Research Labs (Nanotech) on various campus. While Medical Training has their own potential for scholarships, the vast majority of training lie in Pre-Med Courses in College, often Four Years of Medical Training, up to 2-3 years of Specialized Training (Heart/Neurology/Cancer) and different States have different time lines for "In Hospital" internships, for gaining the original State Medical License, to practice Medicine. In other words, you can earn your first dollar, in the third year of College in the Sciences, while many in the Medical Field, go years before that first dollar is earned.

"Near-free" doesn't mean any obligation. Education in Finland is more like 100€ a year, and that's to cover the student privileges (such as cheap public transportation). Education itself is free.

My purpose in responding to your questions, is not to run down Finland's policies or your beliefs in the system, BUT Education anyplace on this planet is not FREE and the higher level of that Education, the higher the cost. Somebody is paying the cost, to build, staff and maintain the operation and from the cost in the US, I'd suggest that cost is very high. If their is no obligation involved, as normally with Corporation/Scholarships, Finland better have the resources to maintain an incentive to keep those trained, or they WILL go elsewhere. I realize Finland is a smaller Country (6M people) and has had great success with 'Free Market Capitalism', however mixing socialism and capitalism, has a peculiar tipping point for continued success...my opinion.

Point of interest; In NJ and Washington DC, FREE Public Education for K-12 cost somebody over 10,000US$ per year and on average in the US it's over 7,000US$ per year....

Originally Posted by jackson33

My purpose in responding to your questions, is not to run down Finland's policies or your beliefs in the system, BUT Education anyplace on this planet is not FREE and the higher level of that Education, the higher the cost. Somebody is paying the cost, to build, staff and maintain the operation and from the cost in the US, I'd suggest that cost is very high. If their is no obligation involved, as normally with Corporation/Scholarships, Finland better have the resources to maintain an incentive to keep those trained, or they WILL go elsewhere. I realize Finland is a smaller Country (6M people) and has had great success with 'Free Market Capitalism', however mixing socialism and capitalism, has a peculiar tipping point for continued success...my opinion.

lol americans

Don't group us all together, please.

It seems strange that most people will insure their car and house but few will insure their most valuable asset – themselves, their life. Most people think they don't need, or can't afford, life insurance. Unfortunately, that line of thought won't help you provide for your family in the event of your death, illness or accident resulting in disability.