I am a German just about to graduate with a BSc Psychology from a Scottish university. Based on my interest I have narrowed my future career down to a) medicine, or b) neuroscience research. I have been accepted into a 2-year MSc Neuroscience at NTNU and am currently doing an internship in a research institute. Alternatively I could start medical studies in Germany next year.

I have been wanting to do medicine for a long time but didn't get in immediately. Now have a place in German medical school pretty much guaranteed from next year, would take 6 years to complete. However, I would be 32 by the time I finished, work-life balance is not great, plus will have to rely on parents. So looked into neuroscience instead, which seemed interesting too.

That is until a couple of days ago. I did some research into career opportunities and it looks atrocious. Wherever you look, young scientists are struggling. PhDs take longer than I expected, then people get stuck for years in temporary postdoc contracts, all while working 50 to 60 h a week. Only a fraction manage to get tenure track positions and become lecturers, many just drop out of the system. 90% of the experiences of young neuroscientists I have come across on the internet painted a bleak picture.

So now I am reevaluating again. The reasons that made me drop my plan to do medicine seem to apply to neuroscience just as well. Doing a 2-year MSc, then 4-5 years PhD will take me just as long as doing medicine, I will start earning some sort of salary once I start a PhD, but it will be very low, I will have to work just as long hours in both professions, but at least medicine pays well and you essentially have a job guarantee.

My question is: how bad is it? In your experience, what are research conditions like (both in neuroscience and related fields)? Would you recommend research to a friend, or should I go with medicine instead?

Medicine for sure. Like you said, career opportunities post-PhD are bleak. (I'm a biology postdoc.)

Disadvantages to medicine that I perceive to be (and means I wouldn't want that option) are: shift work, moving around to get training and then permanent positions and ... the big one, dealing with human health issues. If these things are fine with you, then take the medicine route.

Definitely medicine. The conditions after a PhD are as bad as you read. These are no exaggerations. If you complete a degree in medicine you would still have the option to get into research by doing a "real" PhD (Dr. rer nat) in neuroscience afterwards instead of the common Dr. med, but with the huge advantage that you can always work as a normal doctor if things don't work out after the PhD. As you said, medicine is still a job guarantee in Germany. If you go for neurosciences and things are not working out you are pretty much screwed and left with little options.

Wow, that sounds pretty depressing. Wherever you look the neurosciences are described as an emerging field, and then researchers are treated like this ...

Post-graduation medical training in Germany can all be done in the same hospital, there's no need to move around (unless you want to). Shift work is not the greatest, but can be avoided in some specialties, plus one can always become a GP.



If I did medicine I would work as a physician instead of doing research. Adding a PhD to a BSc and medical degree would just be a bit much I think :D With the level of commitment that medicine requires it would hardly be possible to do a PhD alongside, and when I graduate aged 32 I need to start earning money rather than spending another 3-5 years in education.

Thanks you two for your honest assessment.

medicine - after 6 years of study and some years of struggle, by the time you are in your 40s you could be set for life. You could even look for work as a "real" doctor outside Germany etc. People will worship the ground you walk on!

If you did a phd, you might still be looking for a job in your 40s.

My advice would be to get a good honest trade and do medicine! Best of luck.

Are you being sarcastic? Because I honestly can't tell :D

You know you're right, it's probably the same in the UK actually. Sometimes I wish I knew more about medicine before rejecting it out of hand 15 years ago. One of the many drawbacks of being working class and only knowing working class people doing working class jobs I guess.

In the UK, you can do a MD and a PhD simultaneously.. I think it only adds an extra year. But I'm not 100% sure on this.

I'm pretty sure it's doing an MSc along side the MD that adds a year, PhD would be done after and take 3 years. (Source - I lived with a Med Student and did my PhD along side an MD who was doing a PhD)

In Germany it is common for students in medicine to do their PhD while still studying and it does not take long. Some do it in 6-12 months basically part-time BUT they get awarded the "Dr. med" afterwards, while researchers from neurosciences, organic chemistry, theoretical physics and so on get the "Dr. rer nat" after doing a 3-4 year PhD. Not everyone knows that there is a difference but it becomes more and more known in the general public (Every employee knows that it is not the same). It is a weird situation, as medical students basically don't need a PhD (just a proof of being capable to conduct research) and some of them probably don't even want to do one. The main reason that most students in medicine still do it is that a doctor without a PhD ("Dr. med") is often regarded as less competent by older generations who don't know that the title tells you absolutely nothing about the performance of a doctor outside of basic research. There are a lot of people suggesting that they should get the Dr. med automatically after they finished their degree without having to this pseudo-dissertation that, frankly said, does not deserve the name dissertation if compared with other dissertations.

It is. Like all fields of sciences. What they don't tell you is that this has nothing to do with the job market. The only permanent position at a University is basically the professorship and some few other positions (Akademische Räte etc.). The rest is done by temporary staff like PhDs and Post Docs. The chance of getting one of those positions is approximately around 5%. Outside of academia it does not look so much better. Big companies hire a few post docs but relative to the total amount of post docs out there this is not sufficient. Just check how many biology students are completing a degree at the average German university and then imagine that at least 80% of them complete a PhD afterwards. There is just a massive oversupply of highly educated scientists.

There is only a certain demand of scientists in our society even though especially media sometimes puts it as if there could not be enough of them.There is just no use for all these people unless we quadruple the amount of money we spent for science and create a huge amount of new positions (which would then probably just lead to even more people getting into sciences....vicious circle :D ).

Lectureships are basically permanent as well, which is the first step on the road to being a professor.

Generally, it goes lecturer to senior lecturer to reader to professor. Some teaching fellows are also permanent at some universities.

I think in the UK, only 3% of science PhDs get a permanent academic job and the chance of being a professor is 0.3%.

75% of UK science PhDs have a job outside of science or industry.

Even though I won't be able to work in science, I still feel that undertaking my PhD was useful for so many things and I'm glad I did it.

I was only referring to the German system. We have only a few permanent lectureships. Most of them are temporary.
I didn't want to say that you don't get anything useful out of it, it was more the bigger picture kind of question. As a society we should maybe think if it is really desired that 75% of scientists end up in jobs that have little to do with science or research. Especially in the light that science degrees are the most expensive. I think it is possible to not regret a PhD and appreciate what you learned and at the same time accept that this is an inefficient system with a lot of flaws.

I see what you're saying, but I think a good education benefits the recipient and society as a whole. My subject-specific knowledge may be pretty much irrelevant to most people but the personal qualities and professional skills I have acquired and developed such as objectivity, capability to make evidence-based decisions, computer literacy, writing abilities, problem-solving abilities, presentation skills, resilience etc are very useful. Of course, these skills can be attained without doing a PhD. I don't think people should be prevented from getting qualifications just because they won't be able to use them directly afterwards.

I think that actually what needs to happen is that students are told very clearly their chances of an academic career before applying for a PhD, so that only those that seek an academic career will do a PhD, or those that just want to do one for personal reasons. And/or the benefits/skills/personal attributes that a PhD holder offers need to clearly highlighted to employers, so that they are an advantage rather than a hindrance. And obviously science needs more money, because then it can afford to pay experienced scientists rather than taking on PhDs and postdocs as cheap labour and then there would be more permanent jobs available.

hi! no I'm not being sarcastic, I totally mean it. Do you know how doctors are treated in countries like India...they are almost "worshipped", hardly questioned .... Set for life means you don't have to worry about jobs like the rest of us

:-)