continued from above...

I mean, they will have me doing statistics, econ, and all of that, probably the major courses a structured program requires...the lack of structure just scares me...during my previous 2 degree they essentially "held my hand". Told me what to take and when.

Now, I am insanely motivated, and I want to do cutting edge research, soI know a PhD is 100% what I want. The supervisors also know that my MS was not thesis oriented...

I did my BSc. in biotech/economics, but on the econ side, I never did econometrics....

Did my MS in biotech, very technical degree,

PhD would be in pharmaceutical econ, which is pure econ related, but no theory..its all applied econ relating to the healthcare and pharma industries.

Now, I read tons of econ papers, and I love pharmacoecon, and the work that health economists do is very stimulating. I guess I am just used to being told what classes to take to gain proficiency in a subject. But, I guess you are right...the classes I do don't really teach me, they give me some of the skills to conduct my research.

Worried that I will encounter something in my research that I do not know how to do, that I could have learnt in a class. I guess, worst case scenario, is after realizing that, just take the class :)

Is this normal...to only take around 5 classes, and then start research...how can one become a expert this way?

Did my BSc. in economics and biotech. Then, did an MS in biotech. I wanted to start a PhD right after, but was not 100% sure about it, and needed money.

So, I got a job with the largest healthcare company in the world. Now, my day-to-day job is not very challenging, stimulating, or rewarding. I am not doing anything econ related, and I really enjoyed econ in school.

I now have the opportunity to start my PhD - if I was asked now, my eventual goal would be to become a health economist in the biotech/pharma industry, or go into consulting.



From working in the industry for the last year, I see that many of the senior managers and directors, who are close to retiring, have barely any education...whereas everyone coming in (20-30 yr olds) have at least an MS, and some PhD's.

majority of health economist jobs want PhD's, and if I want to climb the corporate ladder, it seems like a great investment.

So, if I am almost positive I don't wanna teach, is a PhD a mistake?

Are you married..have children? Did you need to relocate for your PhD?

I am married, no children, and yes, I will be relocating. Family just keeps saying "Do what makes you happy." Problem is that I have been in school doing my BSc, and then MSc. for the last 6 years. All I know is coursework, and laboratory work...no clue what will make me happy.

Best case would be to work for a year, then perhaps do a PhD. but, I don't like the program in Canada, and relocating again may cause my wife to beat me :)

Yes,

The PhD is 4-5 years here. They told me that if you fail your qualifying exam twice, you get a masters and leave the program...No option for Mphil.

But, you nailed my exact dilemma. Part of me says, just do it...you may hate it, but you are a motivated guy...you will get through it...another part of me says, take the job, work, make $$, get an MBA in a few years, you'll makethe same if not more money....but in 5 years it seems 50% of the world will have an MBA :)

Job offer is regulatory aggairs and clinical trials...PhD is for pharmaceutical economics.

Here's the dilemma. Job offer is in canada, PhD in Maryland. I am married, and originally from Canada. I cannot take my wife back to canada, only to pick up and leave 2 years into it, and go to Maryland. We are recently married, and we already moved countries for me to do my masters.

I mean, people are saying the PhD will give me advanced skills, and that besides pharmaceutical economics, I will be trained in epidemiology, and health outcomes research...my project will be focused on 1 area. So, the advice I am getting is that the skills I will get from a doctorate are phenomenal, and even if I don't like my project in the end, all of my skills and knowledge from the other areas I was trained in...will pay off.

What was your masters in,and what is your phD in..?
What company did you work for, and if you don't mind me asking, do you know what the salary increase will be, once you have a PhD.

Hey 'H'.

May I ask you though..is your PhD the same specialization as your job ? See, mine will not be.

I am trained in economics and the life sciences. However, the only research I have in scientific lab research...never actually did any economics research.

Now, I hate lab work...and regarding econ, I love econ, but the only experience I have is paper reading. Hence, I don't know if pharmacoeconomics will be right for me. I cannot test the waters...

Yes, I should have done my masters in that field, but hindsight is 20/20. So, I need to take a leap of faith, and am looking for some alternative perspectives from forum members.

Industry sources have also told me that to get to the high ranks of a company, you need an MD or PhD. In fact, 2 managers I know from Schering Plough, and doing a p/t PhD program to advance their careers.

I dont think a PhD can hurt, I just question where I will be happy...since I lack industry experience, and research experience in my PhD area, the happiness question cannot be answered.

I was told a PhD is definitely more lucrative in industry down the road.
However, if I work for the next 5 years, no one knows where I will be.

I am not doing a PhD to become an academic. Rather, I want to do it to gain valuable skills that I can use in industry.

Perhaps when I graduate, there will be too many PhD's. Perhaps the company would prefer a masters student with years of experience.

Main issue for me, is I dont know if I will like it.

I noticed a few posts on the board, of people pursuing a PhD in a field they are not 100% familiar with. How the heck did you rationalize dedicating 5 yrs of your life to something you werent 100% on ?

Options:
1.PhD at U Maryland (top program for pharmaceutical economics)
2. Job at Johnson and Johnson

Dilemma: I have a science background, only experience in pharmacoeconomics are through literature (which is fascinating!) Worried I may hate the field, or not have it in me for another 5 years.

Doing another masters is not an option (have an MS in biotech). Did you all have a passion for your field before you began? Did you worry you'd hate it in a few years, or even doubt your ability?

I have 3 weeks to decide...Help..Please.

Finishing a masters (science related), accepted for a PhD in pharmaceutical economics (non-science related)at U Maryland, full funding+stipend.

Received a job offer.


No, a PhD has not been a life dream, actually it became an option after starting my masters. I have spoken to people in industry that tell me a PhD is exceptionally beneficial, and that I will only go so far with a masters. Obviously there are exceptions, but what do you guys think ?

I am newly married, and geographic location does not matter. So, obviously taking a job now would be great financially.

I dislike scientific research (LAB) but have never performed health outcomes research (regressions, etc), so I have no clue if I will like it. Is the obvious answer not to accept the PhD?

I am worried I may not like this aspect of the Pharma industry, or perhaps I will love it, and have a great career because of this decision...looking for some perspectives please.

Oh, FYI, I have never worked, been in academia pursuing my masters and bachelors for the last 6 years. So, while the job is in the field Im interested in, I do not have experience.