3% MD/PhD in MSTP Faculty

[IgnisDU]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Here is a question I've always wondered (background is i'm a Master's student with an eye towards MSTP)... I just looked at my local med school's MSTP page and there are 133 faculty members associated with it. Of there 133 professors, there are only 4 professors who hold both an MD and a PhD. There is also one with a DVM/Phd, so lets say 5 total or round to 4%.

This seems very counter intuitive to me. I would think that physician scientists should have a greater representation in the physician scientist training programs. I know at least one of the 5, says that it is not worth getting your Ph.D. and that you can get all the research training with an M.D. He supports this by stating how many MD are getting great research done and they had to be poor students for a shorter amount of time. I could see the possibility that because MD/PhD are not supporting the MSTP in very large numbers, that they agree that the program is not worth it.

Can anyone counter this argument?

Also, because there are so many pretty smilie faces to use, I will use one 😀

-Ignis

 

[fantasty]

Wow. I don't know what to say in response. Our numbers are a bit better though - we have 18/128 with both degree (14%). We have 21 straight MD (16%), and the rest are PhD's.

I think there are a lot of threads devoted to this, but yeah - you CAN be a good (or great) researcher with just an MD. There are plenty of opportunities to learn how to conduct research. The MSTP gives you protected time to mature into a future investigator and how to think as a scientist.

 

[gbwillner]

Here is a question I've always wondered (background is i'm a Master's student with an eye towards MSTP)... I just looked at my local med school's MSTP page and there are 133 faculty members associated with it. Of there 133 professors, there are only 4 professors who hold both an MD and a PhD. There is also one with a DVM/Phd, so lets say 5 total or round to 4%.
-Ignis

133 professors???? I don't understand what they do. Typically there are MSTP advisors, most of whom should be MD/PhDs. Then there are administrators. They will not have any such professional degree. Then there are professors associated with graduate research, who's labs the MSTPs can join. They have no obligation to the MD/PhD degree.
I'm not sure what being "associated" really means here.

Think about this: there are roughly 300 MSTPs that graduate every year. Not all of them will go into academic centers or do any research. There are only so many to go around. There are roughly 125 medical schools in this country. It would be a stretch to say that any school could get as many as 2 MD/PhDs any give year.

 

[solitude]

Think about this: there are roughly 300 MSTPs that graduate every year. Not all of them will go into academic centers or do any research. There are only so many to go around. There are roughly 125 medical schools in this country. It would be a stretch to say that any school could get as many as 2 MD/PhDs any give year.

You know I have never heard this argument before, but it makes sense. It makes me feel like such a hot commodity, and I haven't even started the degrees yet! 🙂

 

[mjs]

Here is a question I've always wondered (background is i'm a Master's student with an eye towards MSTP)... I just looked at my local med school's MSTP page and there are 133 faculty members associated with it. Of there 133 professors, there are only 4 professors who hold both an MD and a PhD. There is also one with a DVM/Phd, so lets say 5 total or round to 4%.
-Ignis

Associated faculty? In my experience, an MSTP is an independent office run by directors and administrators (typically clinicians and scientists).

These are probably faculty with which you can earn a doctoral degree. A quick look around would say 5% MD/PhDs would be a not unsurprising amount of faculty in any biomedical program that trains grad students.

 

[QofQuimica]

Coming from someone who will wind up taking fourteen years post-college to complete both degrees (I did my PhD and worked for a while first before starting med school), I sure would have liked to have done a combined program had I known about them in college. But I'm going to get there in the end, and the point is that one person's program that is "not worth it" is another person's key to achieving his or her dream. Ask as many people as you can for their opinions, but in the end, make the best decision for you based on your own priorities and the best information you have. To me, the time spent in school matters less than having the training and opportunity to do what I want to do. Hence, going back to school for my MD is "worth it" to me, even though my combined degree will ultimately take twice as long as your average MSTP. And when people would tell me that I was crazy (which they did on occasion), I would agree with them that they were probably right. But, you know, I am going to medical school anyway, because that's what I want to do, even if it *is* crazy. 🙂

 

[MeBeans]

You don't need an MD to teach research.
You don't need a PhD to teach clinical.
Since at no time during the program are the two components taught concurrently (2 yrs MD, 2-5 PhD, 2 more yrs MD), why then, should any teacher need both credentials?

 

[PHD_2007]

Q, you are my role model!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm in the process of finishing my PhD and applying to medical school (interviewing) now!!!! 😍

 

[Ecthgar]

Here is a question I've always wondered (background is i'm a Master's student with an eye towards MSTP)... I just looked at my local med school's MSTP page and there are 133 faculty members associated with it. Of there 133 professors, there are only 4 professors who hold both an MD and a PhD. There is also one with a DVM/Phd, so lets say 5 total or round to 4%.

This seems very counter intuitive to me. I would think that physician scientists should have a greater representation in the physician scientist training programs. I know at least one of the 5, says that it is not worth getting your Ph.D. and that you can get all the research training with an M.D. He supports this by stating how many MD are getting great research done and they had to be poor students for a shorter amount of time. I could see the possibility that because MD/PhD are not supporting the MSTP in very large numbers, that they agree that the program is not worth it.

Can anyone counter this argument?

Also, because there are so many pretty smilie faces to use, I will use one 😀

-Ignis

Here's my view of this dilema (if you want to call it that):

Yes, you don't need a PhD to be a sucessful scientist. I know a handful of MD's who produce REAL, quality basic science. However, of the ones I know, all of them did some sort of post or pre-doc research fellowship training. Basically, I think very very few MD's come out of med school knowing how to be a good scientist. And if they did, they probably did a crap-load of research before they went to med schoool. At some point, you have to have some sort of training in science.......med school does NOT give this too you. So, is the MD/PhD training worth it. I think so.... These MD's who have labs and do great science put their time in as well (2-3 years +/-) and just didn't jump through the additional BS-hoops to get the PhD.........but they did their work. The way I see it, why not make yourself a little more marketable on paper by taking a little longer (not significantly in my mind) and getting the degree.

 

[QofQuimica]

Q, you are my role model!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm in the process of finishing my PhD and applying to medical school (interviewing) now!!!! 😍

Good luck to you with both things. Last year was one of the most hectic of my life....I was writing my dissertation, flying here and there for interviews and second looks....it was just insane. 😛 But so far, I'm still very happy to be in medical school. 🙂