Well, it's actually not such a bad career choice but I think you need to be honest about your long term career goals and the types of patients you want to see and thus be careful about your fellowship selection and what type of job you take out of training.
For instance, Sleep medicine makes for an excellent fellowship choice and career, I think.
In large private practice groups of neurologists, and in academics, you may sub-sub-specialize and see only general neurology patients that you want to see (say...epilepsy, headache, and stroke) and refer others out (say pain, MS, and movement disorders) to respective sub-specialists in those areas. You also have greater depth of ancillary services in psychiatry and pain medicine to refer people out.
Here's the thing. In that whole thread I didn't see much of any reasons why people went into neurology. It was mostly just complaints. Is that because most of the reasons end up being rubbish once you start working?
And these are things not found out during rotations, right?
I went into neurology because of my research, but I'm clinically happy as well. No specialty is perfect, and you can find griping threads on every discussion board on SDN. Neurologists sometimes have to deal with a specific kind of crazy, but because of the myriad subspecialty opportunities, there are steps you can take to either fully embrace or somewhat insulate yourself from this clientele.
I don't think you can fully grok any field from a month long rotation in medical school, and due to the variable neurology coverage in 3rd and 4th year, neuro is particularly hard to get a feel for. Additionally, the neurology you will see is often heavily inpatient biased, whereas the field as a whole is not.
See as much as you can, both inpatient and out, and try to sample a few different subspecialties. An MS clinic is very different from an EMG lab, and they're both very different from a NeuroICU.
You really should read "A Stranger in a Strange Land" by Robert A. Heinlein.
Grok should be a standardized word, but this book clearly isn't as culturally relevant as it once was.
See as much as you can, both inpatient and out, and try to sample a few different subspecialties. An MS clinic is very different from an EMG lab, and they're both very different from a NeuroICU.
So very true. My 3rd year I split 2 wks inpatient and 2 wks outpatient, and I maintain that if I had done 4 weeks inpatient I'd be in anesthesia or psych right now. My inpatient was a sampling of specialty clinics and it was really cool, and as a 4th year I did an elective that had a month that was even more variety including doing some strictly cognitive work type clinic, some emergent stroke evals, some inpatient primary/consult split service, and some procedure based clinic like electrodiagnosis and botox with neuromuscular/movement/rehab people.
I think if I were ever in a career where I looked at it in the future and it was "well I just do clinic for 43250295022 days and then I retire" I would burn out in 5-10 years. There are some neurology positions like that, and there are enough neurology positions not like that that I feel comfortable that I can have one and be happy. As a resident I know some things have been closed off to me but I still have a lot of flexibility and options. The subject material is pretty cool as well. The things that people see as big negatives in the field aren't that big for me. Something about it clicked when on my own free time I got really excited to watch a documentary about how the brain perceives and processes music, and I knew I could talk about it with some people I work with and not get "the nucleus WHAT??" as a conversation (nerds love nerds)
Why is there so many differences in what people say about neuro?
If there are shortages in neurology, wouldn't that be favorable to those who are neurologists?
What about "IF" there are advances in the treatment, the field could blow up. Is there any truth to this?
Haha I liked that last part. What did you mean by the first couple sentences of that last paragraph?