rads vs derm

[drmoriarty]

All right, here I am, a fourth year med student, deciding which specialty to go into. Its going to be rads or derm--admittedly a win-win situation--but I am quite torn!

Here are my personal pros and cons. Yes, I know some of these would be different for other people.

Pros of radiology: lots of high-tech (math & physics & computer science), lots of interesting & potentially high-impact research opportunities, good lifestyle & salary. Summary of pros: mentally challenging & great income.

Cons of radiology: cold dark gray-scale rooms, isolation, no patient contact. Summary of cons: I don't want to spend my life sitting alone in a cold room looking at b&w images.

Pros of dermatology: good patient population, bright & colorful, many interesting disease processes, good lifestyle & salary. Summary of pros: lots of fun in general.

Cons of dermatology: fewer high-tech opportunities, fewer "big-impact" research problems to solve, lower salary than radiology (though still plenty good). Summary of cons: I don't want to end up healing the already healthy.

So: anyone have suggestions to help me make the choice between the two?? No flame wars please!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Primate]

Hi,

Just wanted to throw two things into the mix.

1) If you're considering derm, there is another good forum to check out also. It's more active than the derm board here (this one is still new) and has a few posts on the subject about which you asked. Try http://pub50.ezboard.com/bdermatology
(he posted, with apologies to SDN).

2) In the hopes that this board becomes a bit more active - here's my take (for what it's worth). I also thought about rads (I like anatomy ALOT, you can pick your organ system, you have to know a ton, decent lifestyle). What pushed me away from it were the following: one of your pros (math & physics & computer science), all of your cons (most notably the lack of patient contact), inability/difficulty to do the kinds of research that I like (as in NOT math & physics & computer science), hours (reading films at 0300 when a LOL breaks a hip), some concern about the future (telemedicine to rads centers overseas, and such - a very non-specific and maybe spurious concern). Not a complete list, but an honest accounting of the biggies for me.

Derm, on the other hand, has many pros. There are definitely still "big-impact" research questions in derm - think wound healing, skin cancer, autoimmune. Certainly, skin cancer alone is a field in which the research questions abound and will have huge impacts both on the understanding of disease and the treatment of MANY patients. As far as high-tech goes, it's what you make of it (true of the patient population you'll see, also). If you want a low-tech practice dispensing steroid cream and acne meds, you can do that. If you want something more challenging - it's there (complex flap-surgery, medical management of sick patients, etc), you just have to choose it.

One down side to derm in comparison to rads is that you don't get to move between organ systems as freely. In practice, I'm not sure that this makes much difference and it's true of almost any specialty compared to rads, but it is a consideration.

As far as salary, that's also gonna be what you make of it. You can push the numbers up in either field by choosing what type of practice you have. Chances are, you'll be happy with the $$ in derm or rads (if not, you're in for some dissapointment!).

In the end, try to think which one will make you get out of bed in the morning looking forward to work. I know, easier said ....

Bon chance (sp?)

 

[banner]

Listen, either Rads or Derm are great choices and you really can't go wrong with either.

By the way, your "cons" for both fields are really exagerated platitudes used by GP and surgical types in order for them to justify pissing their lives away working in their specialties because they need the ego gratification that they know will never come from their personal lives.

For example, you say that a rads con is "sitting alone in a cold, dark room."

While its true that the reading rooms are dark or dimly lit to facilitate reading, there is no reason to believe that they are cold (reading rooms do have climate controls !). And when was the last time anyone got a tan from the nasty flourescent lights that all over the rest of the hospital? It's not like GPs and surgeons practice medicine on the beach. Additionally, radiologists spend much time consulting with other physicians, so I don't know why one would think that one would be alone all day. Radiology is not solitary confinement

And your "con" with derm: "not really curing people". That's nonsense. Most patients will be 100x more happy if you cure their acne than their diabetes. And I think, fortunately or unfortunately, that the average patient would rather be blemish free than normotensive. And who ever really cured diabetes or hypertension anyway? And who ever really cashed in treating hypertension? Sorry, but that being a patients' martyr stuff is not for me.

If desire to do either specialty is equal. Simply flip a coin, because with the rate that fields in medicine change, it's impossible to predict where it will be in 20 years. Really, the outcome of your decision is as much chance as educated guess.

 

[NDBeast]

You could also be an interventional radiologist, which is basically a non-invasive surgeon. No dark rooms, and you have patient contact. Salary is great, too.